Some thoughts I've had:
I feel foolish saying it, but there's this haunting thought that if I
don't someone might sometime later say they thought I was one so I get
to go to jail, thus IANAL.
Some thoughts I've had:
File a cross-application for dismissal, or in the alternative
staying, of any further litigation action until the issue of
Scientology's unclean hands has been adjudicated.
A finding of unclean hands means that they are barred immediately from
use of the Court (and how could that be read but _any_ Court) to
prosecute its claims.
Unclean hands must be within or related to the transactions before the
Court.
Lawyers will have a better way of saying all this.
Since unclean hands closes the door in limine, then anything done
after the point of a finding becomes not only barred, but a
furtherance of the uncleanliness which brought about the ruling.
Therefore unclean hands must be first litigated.
I can't prove this because I haven't done it and can't very soon do
it, but I believe a search will find that, using the cases in which
unclean hands has been adjudged, what the plaintiffs in those cases
did to merit the severe remedies of an unclean hands judgment is but
a fraction of the Scientology plaintiffs' unclean hands actions.
I think there is far beyond sufficient evidence of unclean hands to
merit an immediate stay to permit a noticed motion, Scientology's
response and a ruling on the unclean hands issue.
There are several areas to show scope:
Internet raids
PI harassment
the known cult writings
bankruptcy itself (use cult quotes re unclean-hands-obtained
bankruptcies of Vien, Atack, Armstrong, Youngs
actual picture of magnitude of global confrontation
net phenomenon
litigation history
expert opinions
illegal unclean hands use of the US Courts to silence witnesses to the
unclean hands
illegal unclean hands use of the US Courts to prevent witnesses to the
unclean hands from communicating with and assisting targets and
victims of those unclean hands.
That's where the matter of Scientology attempting to prevent my
responding to Ward's subpoena for production of documents relating to
UNCLEAN HANDS
in RTC v. Ward, even going so far as to not cc Grady with their
(again, Andrew Wilson) 1/24/97 letter, is relevant.
So as an immediate action, along with everything else, ask the court
to stay any further action until all witnesses with any knowledge of
unclean hands are released by Scientology from any "contract," "threat
of enforcement of any contract" or any other threat which prevents
them from voluntarily testifying or assisting in the demonstration of
by Scientology's unclean hands.
In that there is not much time, an offer to Scientology's attorneys,
and I would hope posted, asking them to release to communicate and
assist in any lawful way in demonstrating the Scientology
organization's unclean hands in the matter any person who Scientology
contends is not free to communicate and assist in this matter.
I am an expert in Scientology's unclean hands and I believe could
greatly benefit this case, so my case is particularly revealing of
unclean hands. My CV is out there somewhere. I am a percipient and
expert witness .
There is no time to serve the silenced people and take their
depositions as to unclean hands because unclean hands is the first
thing to be decided, since it is so immediately terminal to the case.
Keeping people with knowledge of unclean hands bound or threatened
to silence about unclean hands is not only unclean hands but criminal
activity. Not all unclean hands is criminal activity, and not all
criminal activity is unclean hands.
Only a demonstration and furtherance of their unclean hands will be
the result unless they immediately agree to such a release.
Scientology needs to stop all litigation actions on its own as the
immediate and first action to the elimination of its condition.
Isn't that one of the great Picket Signs?
"Scientology Has Unclean Hands"
Oh, there's another one:
Scientology
Vexatious
Litigant
Gerry
Copyright © Gerry Armstrong - All Rights Reserved.