On Ex-Scientologist Message Board, Michael Hobson posted:
Gerry Armstrong *lied* to a Judge, in Court (about agreeing to settle the a case with the Co$). Then he fled the country to avoid facing the Judge to whom he lied. In so doing, he exposed himself to righteous wrath of U.S. Courts. Not because he spoke against Ron Hubbard and Scientology, but because he lied to a Judge.
Obviously Hobson is claiming to possess high-level, high-quality knowledge of certain facts that can be verified in court records. He does not say that he heard these facts from other persons. He does not say that he is just inventing this claimed knowledge, or is posting someone else’s invented knowledge.
For him to know, as he states, that I lied to a judge in court about agreeing to settle a case with the Miscavige Scientology sect, Hobson would have to know:
- What judge?
- What court case?
- When did I utter the subject statement?
- What exactly did I say?
For him to know that I then fled the US to avoid facing the judge to whom, Hobson says, I lied, Hobson would also have to know:
- When I fled the US?
- What was going through my mind before such flight?
For Hobson to know that the lies he says I told to a judge in court about agreeing to settle a case with the Miscavige Scientology sect and my flight from the US Hobson says was to avoid facing the judge to whom Hobson said I lied exposed myself to righteous wrath of U.S. Courts, he would also have to know:
- What US Courts?
- What exactly did these US Courts state as expressions of their righteous wrath?
- In what legal cases did these US Courts express their righteous wrath?
- When exactly in these cases these US Courts expressed their righteous wrath?
For Hobson to know that US Courts were righteously wrathful toward me not because I spoke against L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology but because I lied to a judge, Hobson would also have to know:
- What knowledge each of these US Courts possessed that I lied to the subject judge?
- In what cases did these US Courts rule or state that they were righteously wrathful toward me not because I spoke against Hubbard and Scientology but because I lied to a judge?
- When exactly did these US Courts rule or state that they were righteously wrathful toward me not because I spoke against Hubbard and Scientology but because I lied to a judge?
- What exactly did these US Courts rule or state that show they were righteously wrathful toward me not because I spoke against Hubbard and Scientology but because I lied to a judge?
For Hobson to know that there are but the two possible reasons he presents for what he says is my exposing myself to the righteous wrath of US Courts, to wit, either speaking against Hubbard/Scientology or lying to the subject judge, Hobson would also have to know, inter alia:
- What exactly I communicated, or anyone else communicated for that matter, which conceivably gave him that ridiculous idea?
Telling the truth to the best of my ability about Hubbard/Scientology is what I did, and it is what I am prohibited by unlawful court orders from doing. I am not prohibited from speaking against Hubbard or Scientology. I am prohibited from speaking about them.
The Miscavigeite sectists did not get their court orders against me because I spoke against Hubbard or Scientology, nor because I lied to some judge, but because I told the truth about Hubbard and Scientology, the truth about my experiences, knowledge and beliefs. That is what I am prohibited from doing, and that prohibition is unlawful. The Scientology v. Armstrong cases demonstrate this.
Hobson has cyber-stalked me for years. See, e.g.:
Hobson has lied about me repeatedly, and falsely accused me of criminal behavior repeatedly. He has never repented of his lies about me, but has chosen to keep on lying. Here on ESMB he is falsely accusing me of perjury so monstrous that multiple US Courts were incited to righteous wrath. He has provided zero evidence to support his charge.
It is clear to me that Hobson stalking me, his shameless lying for years, his seemingly monomaniacal black PRing of me, all serves the Miscavigeite Scientologists’ antisocial purposes toward me.
Hobson calling Miscavige “Darth Midget” or “the evil little fuckwit,” or similar epithets, reminds me of Mike Rinder and his fellow “Loyalists’” who claimed that DM was a criminal, whom Rinder and his honest, non-criminal and courageous Loyalist partisans wanted jailed. The Loyalists were actually working for Miscavige. He ordered them to revile himself, and they complied with his order. Hobson and Rinder, by publicly epitheting Miscavige – dear leader, der Führer, der Zwergenführer – help support an acceptable “beingness” for attacking Miscavige’s inarguable enemies.
I have not seen that anyone participating on ESMB has challenged Hobson on his false fact claims about me and the Scientology v. Armstrong legal saga. I have not seen where anyone even asked him where he got his facts from. Obviously, by keeping Hobson’s false facts unchallenged and leaving them on ESMB as if his libel is in compliance with forum rules, ESMB’s members and operators are serving the Miscavigeite Scientologists’ antisocial purposes in this matter.
So my challenge to Hobson extends to all ESMB operators and participants: deal responsibly with the fact statements I quoted above, which your member Michael Hobson made about me and my character. Please answer the fifteen easy questions above, and if you can’t answer say so.