From Order of Contempt of 02-20-1998:
(e) On or about October 20, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which violated the terms of the above referenced Judgment. See Wilson declaration. Exhibit I.
From Wilson Declaration of 12-01-1997:
19. On or about October 20, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which discussed CSI and other beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. A true and correct copy of said documentary work is attached hereto as Exhibit [I].
From: armstr…@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Scientology Threatens Channel 4 TV in UK
Organization: Rapidnet Technologies Internet
As is probably well known 3BM Television has produced for Channel 4 a
documentary biography of Hubbard.
As I understand it, Scientology representatives have been threatening
Channel 4 to prevent the airing of the program. The threat, as it
relates to me and that I know about, is of obtaining an injunction
based on the charge that 3BM induced me to breach the 1986 settlement
“agreement” and the Marin County Califiornia judgment which prohibit
me from speaking about Scientology, Hubbard and so forth.
3BM did not induce me to breach any agreement or judgment. The fact is
I am willing to communicate to anyone about Scientology or Hubbard and
my experiences therewith at any time (you can’t hold down a good grade
zero release) and require no inducement. I was more than willing to be
interviewed by 3BM in order to have the opportunity to make known
Scientology’s obtaining its tax exemption in the US by the submission
of false statements to the IRS.
But even if I had been induced, the “agreement” was obtained
illegally; and even if it had not been obtained illegally it is
illegal on its face. The judgment is equally illegal.
What Scientology is seeking to do is prevent someone from talking
about a dead founder of a “religion.” If it is for any reason legal in
the UK to prevent someone from talking about the dead founder of
Scientology, it is equally legal to prevent someone for any reason
from talking about the dead founder (even if that founder, as opposed
to Hubbard, had been resurrected from the dead) of any religion. Since
it is not legal for any reason to prevent someone from talking about
Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Abraham, Lao-tzu, Xenu or Jesus of
Nazareth, it is not legal to prevent anyone from talking about
Hubbard. If it is conceivably legal to prevent anyone for any reason
from talking about any of these religious founders there is no freedom
of religion. Who but Scientology would want no one to be permitted
legally to talk about these religious founders? Who but Scientology is
seeking to destroy freedom of religion in the UK?
Anyone who has an interest, check out this story. Post Channel 4’s
e-mail and street addresses and other data and contact them. Write
them and tell them for the sake of religious freedom to not be
shuddered into silence by the anti-religion Scientology. Roland can
organize a picket. Someone else can present it to Parliament.
Let the media in the UK know. Drum up interest. And drum the cult out
of the anti-religion business.