From: Gerry Armstrong <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Gerry Armstrong and his Affirmations – An analysis
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:15:37 -0800
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: 31 Jan 2009 11:15:40 -0500, 184.108.40.206
X-Original-Trace: 31 Jan 2009 11:15:40 -0500, 220.127.116.11
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:2290756
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:54:46 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>On Jan 27, 3:12 pm, roadrunner.eni…@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 27 Jan, 16:55,Gerry Armstrong<ge…@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>> > Hubbard’s admissions have been read by many people. Many indeed have
>> > read the handwritten originals or their photocopies.
>> Who?? There is NO record for that claim!!!!!!!!!!!
>Is that true, Gerry, or is there any kind of record?
Yes there is. Here’s a good place to start:
And I’d say that within that case and index start with the trial
transcripts, which run from April 19, 1984 to June 6, 1984.
> Can you be more
>specific and name the people who read them?
I’ll name a few who I knew read them; i.e., Hubbard’s handwritten
admission; or who stated to me that they read them. L. Ron Hubbard,
Mary Sue Hubbard, Vaughn Young, Stacy Young, Michael Douglas, Kima
Douglas, Michael Flynn, Julia Dragojevic, Bruce Bunch, Barry Litt,
John Peterson, Robert Harris, Jocelyn Armstrong, Ken Long, Omar
Garrison, Alannah Garrison. Maybe the Dincalcis; I don’t recall right
now. And inside the cult, undoubtedly Miscavige, and, reasonably,
several other cultists and a few more cult attorneys.
>If there are no records,
>can they at least come forward and vouch for this?
There are records. And these people’s coming forward, those who are
still alive, is up to them.
>It is predictable that anyone challenging this would be shouted down
>by true believers — par for the course on ars — but I think some
>legitimate questions are being raised here.
Anyone challenging what?
And who are the true believers you’re referring to?
>If Gerry can answer them
>then maybe this whole matter can be put to rest. I really hope so.
No, it cannot. The matter is an op, and RR’s pursuit does not depend
on facts or documents or truth, or any answer from me.
Will you engage him on the legitimate questions I’ve raised; e.g., his
factual assertion that I faked Hubbard’s admissions?
>reason I wonder about this is that I was doing exit counseling in the
>late 80s/early 90s even though I had other dox that came from court
>cases and raids that were part of public record, I didn’t have
>anything in Hubbard’s handwriting for these affirmations to show
Have you since studied them?
Analyzed them, or their relation to Hubbard’s personality and his
creation and control of Scientology?
>Some people here are trying to reverse the burden of proof,
What burden of what proof? And what people exactly, so I can see what
you’re referring to?
>but the fact is that if these were never documented as being Hubbard’s
>and if documents were never produced in Hubbard’s own handwriting as
>claimed, then the burden of proof was never met and rests with the
>claimant, Gerry Armstrong.
Okay, I think you’ll have to read the trial transcripts to satisfy
yourself. So that you have the whole context, you could start here:
The claimant here is actually Roadrumprumpus, who stated that I faked
Hubbard’s admissions. Will you now pursue the burden of proof that,
certainly here on a.r.s., rests with him?
> That is the bottom line.
>Were these documents in Hubbard’s writing ever produce in court or did
>they only have your testimony that they were in Hubbard’s writing?
>Those would be very different levels of evidence. So do we have the
>dox or Gerry’s word that they existed?
You have both, and more.
These posts to a.r.s. also may be helpful in your process:
>> Your OWN documented words from November 1984:
>> “We don’t have to prove a goddam thing. We don’t have to prove sh-t.
>> We just have to allege it.”
>How was it documented? Did you say this, Gerry? Do you believe that
>this is the case?
That what is the case? That in the drafting of complaints what is
stated are allegations and not proof?
> I don’t know if you did or if you believe that,
Do you believe that legal complaints have to contain proof?
>it is certainly the attitude I have encountered here with some people
>who make other unsupported allegations.
Who are these people?
Do they only make unsupported allegations? I’d like to check them out.
And see if I can agree with your statement regarding their attitude.
Are these people making unsupported allegations in their legal
complaints? Or are their lawyers’ making these unsupported
allegations? Or do they even have legal complaints?
I’d love to see their complaints so I can observe their attitude.
Would you put proof in your complaints, or only permit your lawyers to
put proof in your complaints, even if the legal system required that
you make allegations?
>That, in and of itself, would
>not be proof that Gerry is lying about this particular thing but I
>still have to wonder if this is what he believes.
I still have to wonder what bullshit you believe. Can you please
identify it. Or the bullshit you pretend to believe, or wonder about
believing. It’s not really necessary actually to separate the bullshit
you believe from what you pretend to believe. They’re very closely
These two declarations could help you with the Scientology cultists’
© Gerry Armstrong