Armstrong 7 appeal
From: Gerry Armstrong <email@example.com>
Subject: My position on activism at oral argument, Scientology v. Armstrong, CA CoA, Cases A107100 and A107095
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:12:05 GMT
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1111529525 18.104.22.168 (Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:12:05 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:12:05 MST
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: pd7hu0no alt.religion.scientology:144951 de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology:30105595
X-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:12:05 MST (pd7tw2no)
Someone e-mailed me asking me to post to a.r.s. when and where oral
argument in Scientology’s appeal will be, once the Court of Appeal
sets it. The person plans to attend and said: “Maybe I’ll ask someone
to post “What happened to Moxon’s Daughter?” flyers in the courthouse
notice bulletin boards too.”
I do not know the name of the person I believe e-mailed me, although
the person I believe e-mailed me knows me and has met me. There is no
need to further identify the person at this time.
I answered the person’s e-mail agreeing to post the time for oral
argument once known. The place will be the California Court of
Appeal, First Appellate District, 350 McAllister Street, San
Francisco, CA 94102. Here are the Court of Appeal’s directions:
The Court will itself post the date and time to its online register of
In response to the person’s idea about Moxon flyers I said: “I
wouldn’t appreciate that.” To make a record I’ll also make my
position clear with this public statement.
Obviously there is the possibility of this kind of activity being
engaged in by Scientology or its agents, to gain some advantage in the
case, or for black PR or intel.
Remember Scientology’s effort to disqualify US District Court Judge
Ideman, mentioned here in 1992 in American Lawyer:
Still, Cooley has remained the church’s trial lawyer of choice, and
his tactics haven’t changed much. Just last fall Cooley was brought
in to argue the church’s motion to recuse Los Angeles federal judge
James Ideman, who was sitting on three cases involving Scientology,
based on the judge’s supposed bias towards the church. The primary
evidence? A framed cover of Behar’s expose on Scientology in Time
that allegedly hung in the judge’s chambers. (For the purposes of the
hearing, Judge J. Spencer Letts, who ruled on the motion, assumed the
cover did hang there. Judge Ideman declines to comment on the
The Scientology v. Armstrong case is, also obviously, very important
to me, and I believe others. I am ceaselessly serious about this
litigation, have a holy regard for justice and law and the judges and
justices into whose hands these God-given blessings and powers have
been given, and would always want to conduct myself in courts and in
courthouses in a way that reflects my regard.
The case is clearly very important to Scientology head David
Miscavige, and is therefore very important to every Scientologist
under his control, and the lawyers and other wog professionals in his
As is well known Kendrick Moxon is counsel of record for Scientology
in this appeal. Presumably he will be the attorney making the oral
I have no first hand evidence regarding the death of Kendrick Moxon’s
daughter, and the credible evidence I’ve seen is given in the few
official reports I’ve read. I have seen no credible evidence that
would lead me to conclude that her death was anything but a terrible
accident in the Sea Org milieu.
Her tragic death is unrelated to the Armstrong case, and I am not
participating in and do not support the generating or forwarding of
the idea of using her tragedy in relation to my case and specifically
in connection with oral argument in the Court of Appeal. The idea of
trying to affect Mr. Moxon, or affect the tribunal who will hear the
argument and rule in the case, or the media or the public or anyone,
with this tragedy, is repugnant to me.
I am not attempting here to limit anyone’s human or civil rights, or
their expressions of those rights, but I am making it clear that they
are not my expressions.
I am the founder and a member of the Church of Wogs (CoW) TM. I am a
founder and member of the Suppressive Person Defense League (SPDL). I
am a member of the European-American Citizens Committee for Human
Rights and Religious Freedom in the USA (EACCHRRFUSA). I am the
founder and a member or pledger of the Organization of United
Renunciants (OUR). I am a member of the Christian religion. And I am
a member of the wog race. I am a member of no other group that I’ve
been able to think of. I’m the president of Xenuware TM, Inc.
I was a member of the Advisory Board of the Lisa McPherson Trust, but
the LMT has not functioned for some years. I am not in any way
adverse to an organization or group forming to oppose Scientology’s
condemnable policies and practices, nor am I adverse to my own
participation in such a group or organization. There simply is no
such organization or group at this time.
Neither OUR, CoW, SPDL, EACCHRRFUSA or Xenuware intends to engage in
any form of activism at the Court of Appeal in connection with oral
argument in my case, including pamphleting or picketing. I intend, of
course, to be available for any media that might want to talk to me
afterwards. Within time and security constraints I’ll try to talk with
anyone else who wants to, and I can speak for OUR, CoW, SPDL,
EACCHRRFUSA and Xenuware if anyone is interested.
I am not a member of any group that in relation to Scientology is
called by people within that group and/or by Scientology’s heads and
their agents “the critics.” If it can be said that such a group
exists, in a context as can reasonably be deduced from an examination
of the use of the term “critics,” e.g., here on a.r.s., such group, in
my observation, contains within it individuals acting in support of
the “Suppressive Person” doctrine. Since I speak and fight for
justice for SPs, it is simply wrong to be a part of what is used
This is not to say that I do not have actual friends within the group
known as the “critics.” The “critics,” whether wogs or
Scientologists, are exactly like everyone else so of course I’m
friendly to them.
Scientology has forever sought to black PR its SP targets into some
group, including groups the cult was operating in or even operating.
See, e.g., this “group” of “anti-religious extremists:”
I’m about as much a member of such a group as Gandhi’d be.
This is also not to say that I do not criticize Scientology’s
condemnable policies and practices, nor to say that I do not criticize
the condemnable policies and practices of members of the “critics.” I
am simply not a member of any group known as “critics.”
None of what I’m saying here should be construed as discouraging
communication between members of the “critics” and others; in fact I
welcome communication with the “critics.”
For anyone involved in activism against Scientology’s condemnable
policies and practices, this appeal and case concern and thoroughly
document perhaps the most glaring example. In my opinion, however,
the Court of Appeal, in this instance certainly, is not a good or even
sane venue for a protest or other activism.
I do want anyone to attend who wants to, Scientologists, “critics” and
other wogs alike. The whole oral argument will be over in an hour.
But it will be a little piece of this history that anyone reading this
post is in, and could be a time and a place to meet if you’re in the
© Gerry Armstrong
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
Defendant and Respondent.
Marin County No. CV021632
This case is now fully briefed. Counsel are directed to advise the Court immediately if settlement is being pursued or if there is any other basis for an early dismissal of the appeal.
Many cases are submitted for decision without oral argument on the basis of the written briefs which have been thoroughly reviewed by the Court. Such submissions are entirely appropriate and the court does not assign any significance to such a waiver. In the rare event the Court determines that oral
argument would be helpful in a case where argument has been waived, counsel will be notified when to appear.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if either party feels that oral argument is necessary, a written request with a proof of service upon all parties must be filed in this Court within ten calendar days of the date of this notice. If the oral argument request is not received in the Clerk’s Office before the close of
business at 5:00 p.m., Monday, March 7, 2005, oral argument will be deemed waived.
If oral argument is requested by any party or deemed warranted by the Court, counsel will be notified subsequently of the date and time for oral argument (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 23 (b) & 23 (c)(2)). A continuance of argument will be granted only upon a showing of good cause; counsel may not stipulate
to a continuance.
|February 25, 2005||Laurence D. Kay