No, I settled my lawsuit against $cientology. I received no money to be gagged.
On 29 Dec 2000 17:17:51 -0600, Jim Derby (email@example.com)
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:48:08 -0800, Gerry Armstrong
>>Judge Smith has set a hearing on $cientology's motion to have me held
>>in contempt of court for January 17. 0930 in Department F.
>>I believe I have therefore until January 7 to file my response to
>>whatever $cientology serves on me, which it should already have filed.
>>Regarding whatever $cientology files I will be taking the position,
>>which I believe I've been quite clear about throughout this extensive
>>litigation, that the injunction, for violations of which $cientology
>>is attempting to have me jailed and fined, and additionally prosecuted
>>criminally by the District Attorney, is unlawful. It condones and
>>orders an abuse of process, an obstruction of justice, and an
>>impermissible stripping of civil and human rights, and leads in its
>>enforcement to a gargantuan stupidity.
>I have a few questions. Does the following sum up the facts properly?
>It is true that you apparently agreed to a gag agreement in exchange
>for $800,000 in cash.
No, I settled my lawsuit against $cientology. I received no money to
It's a long story, which maybe there's a chance you don't know. Have
you read everything on this subject at http://holysmoke.org/ga/ga.htm
>You got the money which has now been dissipated.
What happened to my money is irrelevant, even though the crime cult
has tried to make it relevant.
The crime cult didn't know how much I was being paid to settle my
Are you suggesting that paying someone a dollar to gag them wouldn't
be fair, but paying someone 800,000 dollars to gag them is fair? If
that's true, then doesn't the trier of fact get to decide what's fair?
Not the judge by summary judgment?
>Are you arguing that you didn't understand the nature of the gag
>agreement or that you had ineffective assistance of counsel?
Not quite. Read my opening brief at http://holysmoke.org/ga/ga03.htm
But yes, if I knew that some judge would interpret the underlying
"settlement" "agreement" to mean that the $cientology crime cultists
can say whatever they want about me in court or the media or anywhere
else in the world and I cannot respond, or be jailed and fined if I do
respond, I would never have signed the document. My lawyer, upon my
questioning, stated very clearly that it is not worth the paper it's
printed on. There was, yes, fraud and duress involved in getting me to
sign. And yes, the crime cult illegally contracted with my lawyer to
not help me when $cientology attacked me after the "settlement."
>Or do you assert that the agreement, even if freely entered into, is
>inherently illegal because, for example, it is unconstitutional or
>contrary to the charter of freedoms?
Yes, even if not obtained by fraud and duress, and even if the crime
cult had not continued to attack me after the "settlement," the
conditions of the "agreement" which the crime cult is trying to have
me punished for violating are unconstitutional, against public policy,
>Do you also assert that Judge Thomas was crooked, confused,
>or lied to and that his contempt orders are unlawful?
He was lied to, certainly. He may have been crooked. He had to twist
common sense and law beyond believe to wring his summary adjudication
rulings out of the evidence before him. The injunction is unlawful.
The contempt orders which result from my violations of the unlawful
injunction are therefore themselves unlawful.
> Do you assert that you have a unilateral right to flout his orders
>without requesting judicial review because you believe them illegal?
I have a right to not obey unlawful orders. The court has no right to
enforce unlawful orders. That is the law whether or not I request
judicial review. I have, however, requested judicial review (see,
And I continue to seek judicial review of the unlawful injunction to
have it ruled unlawful. And since the unlawful injunction is also
impossible, I do indeed violate it even while waiting for it to be
declared judicially unlawful.
>Do you assert that because scientology is a fraud or is
>corrupt, sinister and evil that you and it do not have a binding
We have an agreement by which I dismissed my lawsuit against the, as
you say, corrupt, sinister, evil fraud that is $cientology, and
released the cult from any claims arising from their actions to the
date of signing. There is no agreement whereby I am the crime cult's
punching bag for the rest of my life. In fact I cannot release
$cientology for future torts or crimes.That part of the "agreement"
can be stricken without changing the agreement to settle my lawsuit.
And it is that part of the "agreement" which has been made into an
injunction by Judge Thomas which is unlawful.
But you're a $cientologist, right? Do you have any problem with your
organization trying to silence me in clear, willful violation of your
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Copyright © Gerry Armstrong - All Rights Reserved.