Here's my 1994 letter to crime cult lawyer Jonathan Lubell regarding
Phil's death by auditing, and other matters.
P & M
The name Phil Vilinski (sp?) can be added to $cientology's death list.
Here's my 1994 letter to crime cult lawyer Jonathan Lubell regarding
Phil's death by auditing, and other matters.
[Quote]
May 14, 1994
Jonathan W. Lubell, Esquire
Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein
750 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Dear Mr. Lubell:
I apologize for not writing earlier in response to your letter
of January 27, 1994 regarding F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fact). Sometimes
it's hard to compose many thoughts in the moments available for such
things.
As it turns out, however, I'm grateful for the delay because
it afforded David Miscavige the opportunity, to which he rose, to
craft and distribute his reaction to Fact. A copy of his reactive
statement, in case you have not seen it, accompanies this letter.
More about this later.
Until January 21, 1994 I was F.A.C.T.Net, Inc's president so
you were correct in addressing your letter to me. I received it at
the address below.
You are, I'm sure, aware of the fact that in the week or so
before your January 27 letter the Scientology organization threatened
a number of individuals and groups it claimed to consider were somehow
connected to Fact with contempt of court charges for "acting in
concert" with me in actions the organization also claimed were
violations of a partial injunction entered May 28, 1992 by Judge
Ronald Sohigian in the CSI v. Armstrong case known as Armstrong II.
My being president of Fact was not a violation of the injunction, nor
has been anything else I've done; nevertheless, to remove any
conceivable threat of Sohigian-based litigation to these individuals
or groups I resigned on January 21 as a director of Fact and as its
president.
Since I have never been involved in Fact's day-to-day
electronic, fact-finding, educational or other activities, my
resignation did not make much of a blip in the company, which has
thankfully continued to operate without disturbance. I will,
therefore, respond to your letter, not as Fact's president, but as an
individual deeply concerned about the matters concerning which you
express concern.
You have asked for two things: the halting of the
dissemination of the publication; and the retraction of all falsehoods
in the publication. I am not in a position to halt the dissemination
of this publication, and although I would undoubtedly have said it
differently if I had myself said it, I am grateful that it was said
because it is a significant public service. Certainly if I know of
any Fact falsehoods I will point them out to Fact; as you can see I'm
pointing out at least some of yours to you.
What you have asserted is that Fact's questionnaire entitled
"Death, Psychosis, and Scientology," the document you have called "Are
There Undisclosed Dangers in Scientology's Techniques?" (which is
actually the section title at page five of the questionnaire),
contains false and defamatory statements. Were it not for the truth
this might be so.
For the truth is that the organization has for decades denied
or covered up much of the human tragedy connected to it, manufactured
diversions to draw attention away from the tragedies, or attacked
those who did try to bring them to light so that the conditions which
brought about the tragedies could be improved. The truth is that the
organization is paranoid and schizophrenic, and this bizarre
combination seems to be reflected in the way it deals with its
tragedies, which are often its victims.
It is no secret to anyone that the organization is more than
occasionally labelled in the media "the secretive Church of
Scientology," and now no secret to you that it is known as something
sinister in my wide circle of professional contacts. It is a closed
system based on secrets and lies. It need not be; it could be as
easily an open system based on faith in courage and honesty.
It is closed, secretive and dishonest pursuant to its leader's
orders. That is how Hubbard was and how he set up his organization.
Now Miscavige enforces his own secret orders on secret communication
lines from secret places with secret threats of things to be done in
secret. The organization's leader could just as easily issue open
orders for things to be done in the open.
What these leaders try to hide are who they are and their
organization's tragedies; what was done to whom and who ordered it;
what was done in the name of Scientology or Hubbard or Miscavige which
resulted in a tragedy; what potential "PR flap" was covered up; who
got ripped off, who was hurt, who was abused. The coverups inevitably
result in more tragedies, and more attacks and abuse.
What if, for example, Phil Valinski (I'm unsure of spelling,
but will accept yours for now) didn't die in his sleep, as his family
was apparently told, and as you have apparently been told, but died
while being audited. Although I was not in the auditing session, and
am not the source of this information, this was the way it was
described to me while I was at Hubbard's La Quinta base, and seemed to
be widely known at the base. If Phil did indeed die while being
audited, shouldn't his family have been notified of that fact, rather
than that he died in his sleep. If he died while being audited, and
that fact was covered up, shouldn't his family now be told?
Shouldn't Scientologists be told that not only did Phil die
during auditing, but that Hubbard's processes, which he claimed
revived those who do die during auditing, didn't work? Shouldn't
these processes therefore be stripped from Scientology auditing
decrees as unworkable; and shouldn't auditors be trained rather in
CPR, or something workable? And shouldn't people thinking about
getting into Scientology be told up front of the actual numbers of
people who have died while undergoing auditing?
Miscavige's book What is Scientology? contains lots of pretty
polychrome pie graphs, but no stats on people who died or went crazy
during auditing, or even any numbers for those who feel they've been
religiously ripped off. Honestly, aren't these things more important
to people seeking to understand what is Scientology than the claims
that 2.2 percent of Scientologists golf and 16.1 percent walk? And
speaking of stats, isn't it true that the reason Hubbard and now
Miscavige inflate so flagrantly Scientology's membership (by the
Miscavige method of counting now approaching ten million) is to
falsely lower the organization's per capita tragedies?
Characteristically, what Hubbard's and Miscavige's Scientology
did with Phil was lie about the actual circumstances of his death,
even to you, their attorney. And now they use you, with all the
weight and threat of your stature and clout in the legal industry, to
forward the lie. Their other option was to tell the truth. That is
still Miscavige's option; but that has not been his way, nor the way
of Scientology under him. The fact that truth has not been his and
his organization's way is what has made the collection of information
about Scientology's untold tragedies by an outside agency such as Fact
necessary.
This is the information I have about Phil's death. He was
being audited by one Dan Koon one afternoon in 1977 at the Palms house
on the La Quinta base. Dan was running Phil on an upset he had had
with Kima Douglas, who had been busted from her MO and HU posts and
was then working in the base galley. At lunch that day Phil had
requested a piece of chicken, and Kima, not having any, had not given
it to him. Phil had a heart attack in session, and Dan kept right on
auditing him, reportedly for many minutes, not doing CPR and not going
for help. Dan apparently kept commanding him to think of his poor
auditor, which is a process Hubbard claimed worked to bring people
back to life if they died, or as Hubbard said, "did a bunk," while
being audited.
Following Phil's death, Kima was accused of killing him and
sec checked on her overts and withholds toward him. This is standard
Hubbardian practice within the organization, because it can never be
admitted that Hubbard's processes could have contributed to harming,
much less killing anyone. According to Hubbard there's always a "who"
in every flap, and Phil's death was certainly a flap. Kima was an
acceptable "who" because she was at that moment in Scientology time
Hubbard's latest scapegoat "SP."
To the world outside, including the local authorities and
Phil's family, however, the charge or admission could not logically be
made that Kima had killed Phil by refusing him a piece of chicken,
because that would lead to the fact that he had died while being
audited, and that would result in some "bad PR." Therefore a "shore
story" was concocted which had Phil, as you say, dying "in his sleep
of a heart attack." His family was then notified and given the shore
story. Some of the personnel were also moved off the property when
Phil's family visited to cover up even what the base's actual
activities were.
It is for reasons such as what happened with Phil that the
organization's stories and data are doubted. It is not as you would
like it to appear that those who question the circumstances of the
organization's tragedies are "trying to destroy the Church." Hubbard
was a judicially recognized pathological liar. His replacement acts
in every way as if he is cut from the same madly embroidered cloth.
Neither I nor anyone I know has any interest in destroying Scientology
or causing any trouble for Scientologists. It is its leaders' lies
and enforcement of those lies, including the enforcement by its big
time Philadelphia lawyers, which threaten to destroy what is good in
Scientology and cause trouble for its people of good will.
I have little doubt that Dan Koon has been ordered to lie
about his auditing of Phil and that the auditing reports have been
falsified. It would be stupid, or malicious, of you to automatically
doubt my data and automatically accept your client's. I have
confirmed what happened to Phil with four people who were in positions
to know. Miscavige's data cannot be trusted. He deals in lies; and
that, not the "protection" of a few "celebrities" and not for reasons
he pays you to give, is why he dismissed CSI v. Fishman.
I do not know anything about the other incidents you list and
will leave their investigation to others. I had heard the rumor about
Ed Brewer, who was a good friend, over ten years ago, but cannot even
recall who told me. You can see, however, in the Phil Valinski matter
it is you who did not investigate and you who chose to disregard the
facts in order to make your allegations. You will note, if you reread
Fact's questionnaire, that Fact welcomes, in fact requests any
information anyone, including organization personnel, has in clearing
up or getting to the truth in the many reports of Scientology's
tragedies. It would, however, given the overwhelming evidence of the
organization's coverups and its policies ordering coverups of its
tragedies, be irresponsible for anyone to simply accept your or your
client's assertions that all these reports are lies.
It seems, moreover, something less certain than doubtful that
Miscavige would allow his org personnel to communicate with Fact to
clear up any of the reported tragedies and rumors of tragedies. On
the other hand he will order his operatives to sow more disinformation
and lies; which is another reason why data coming from the
organization, until its personnel are free to communicate without
fear, will always be suspect. Communicating the truth about
Scientology's tragedies to those who should know is considered
"out-security." According to Hubbard's policies, orders and "logic,"
"out-security equals treason." Treason merits severe "ethics"
punishment, and is a breath away from "fair game." And fair game is
limited only by the threat of public exposure. Therefore we're
grateful whenever exposure occurs, and Scientologists should be
grateful as well.
Miscavige and his organization have, as Hubbard and his had,
in addition to their psychological proclivity or compulsion for
weaving tangled webs, a multimillion dollar motive, for lying about
Scientology's tragedies. The same motive drives them to hire
multimillion dollar lawyers to threaten those who seek to bring those
tragedies to light, and it drives the lawyers to do this dirty work.
It really is a cult of greed.
Even more urgent than the fact that families of the
organization's tragedies, Scientologists and potential customers,
should, for reasons of right to know and common decency, be informed
of what really happened to those tragedies, is the prevention of
future catastrophes. The organization's leaders enforce a belief in
and the dramatization of Hubbard's pronouncements about the human mind
and behavior. These leaders, from Miscavige on down, enforce the
belief that if the withholds of anyone are missed that person will
attack those who miss them. These leaders enforce the belief that the
attacks will end when the withholds have been pulled, or exposed.
Those of us who have been attacked by Miscavige's organization must,
for our very survival, deal with the organization's dramatization of
its missed withholds, and are in physical danger until those withholds
have been pulled. Thus Fact has done thousands of us a considerable
service with its destimulation of Scientology's group reactive mind
missed withholds.
Hubbard defined a "withhold" as an undisclosed transgression
or "overt" against the known mores of a group. The group can be as
large as humanity itself. In the Phil Valinski matter the lie that he
had died in his sleep would have been a withhold from his family, the
local authorities, Scientologists and the organization's future
potential customers. A "missed withhold" Hubbard defined as a
withhold which has been restimulated but not divulged or pulled. When
Miscavige gets this letter, for example, his withholds that he knows
the real circumstances of Phil's death, has lied about them, has had
you lie about them, and has attacked those who sought and told the
truth about them, and all the other tragedies he knows of and has had
his organization lie about, will be restimulated. Unless he divulges
those withholds, he will, pursuant to Hubbard's dictates, dramatize
them with natterings, upsets, critical tirades and attacks. To quote
Hubbard, "This is the WILD ANIMAL REACTION that makes Man a cousin to
the beasts." (HCOB 12/15/72R "Withholds, Missed and Partial")
Miscavige attacks me and has his organization attack me
because he must dramatize, as Hubbard ordered and he enforces, his
missed withholds concerning me. Every time he hears my name or thinks
of me he is reminded of his crimes against me: the lies, the assaults,
the black PR campaigns, the PI operations, the use of my pc folder
materials, the threats, the frivolous and malicious lawsuits, the
lies, the theft of my things. Thus he must hide, and thus I am at
continual risk.
To stifle your conscience you will consider that I, being
critical of Hubbard's and Miscavige's policies and practices, have my
own withholds which you and your organization are missing. But also
please consider that I have no intelligence bureau, no private
investigators, no propaganda machine, no weapons, no militant minions,
and no mad policies justifying the use of these things. I am also
visible, my communications are open and signed, and I am willing to
meet with Miscavige or anyone and communicate openly to resolve the
Scientology situation. Miscavige has so far refused to be open,
refused to meet, refused to sign his name to his black PR, and refused
to do what is rationally called for to resolve the situation.
It is a dangerous situation, and thus there is a need to pull
and expose Miscavige's and his organization's withholds to reduce the
threat. Hubbard's policies and their enforcement really do drive
people insane, and the organization's power and wealth in the hands of
these truly wonky folks with their clear determination to destroy the
innocent individuals they imagine may expose even more of their
withholds is the stuff of nightmares. You should be doing something
to lessen this threat, rather than making it worse by giving Miscavige
and his cohorts a false sense of security and legitimacy; but you
have, as they do, a magnificent monetary incentive to ignore the truth
and this situation's urgency.
In truth there is no need for anyone, Miscavige included, to
have their withholds pulled or confess their transgressions. In truth
these withholds and transgressions are so insignificant and their
effects so meaningless that it can be truthfully said that they don't
exist. That is why they can be resolved with forgiveness, for
forgiveness is the recognition that what needs forgiveness didn't
happen. Hubbard didn't understand about forgiveness, thus he defined
it as "censorious," (Certainty, Vol. 13, No. 3) which is the sort of
screwy twist he gave to lots of things. Forgiveness and
censoriousness are the two modes of human thought and action. They
are not the same.
Miscavige's Scientology, following Hubbard's example and
policies, is censorious in thought and action and does not recognize
nor practice forgiveness. Seeing value and reality only in
condemnation, it applies that value and reality, even if valueless and
unreal, to itself; and thus it considers that to be free of its
withholds and transgressions and their effects it must have these
withholds and transgressions pulled. In that Scientology is no better
than the worst in the worst of us. Not understanding and giving
forgiveness it cannot accept forgiveness for itself. It could, very
easily, for forgiveness is not hard, but the organization would not
then be Scientology. No matter what Miscavige and his organization do
they will be forgiven. Given that fact we simply ask that they don't
do those things.
I will take this opportunity to renew and repeat my demand for
Miscavige's return of everything he or any member of his organization
or any of his agents has ever stolen from me at any time, especially
my original Hubbard Letters art work. I am certain that you are in a
position to ensure that Miscavige does one more time get this demand.
Please return my things.
Now, to address the widely distributed Miscavige reaction.
Any denial by him that he did not order, edit and author this document
is just a denial. Since there's no denying his and his mentor's
mendacious pathology, such a denial would be received by all with
titters and hoots. It is his work, his style and his language, his
party line right down to the incorrect copulatives, and even if one of
his abject juniors comes forward to claim authorship, that would mean
nothing more than another lie, which, tragically, in that organization
at this time would not be all that hard to find.
Miscavige's reaction is a splendidly educational example of
what Hubbard termed "black propaganda" or "black PR." He defined it
as "spreading lies by hidden sources," or "a covert attack on the
reputation of a person, company or nation using slander and lies in
order to weaken or destroy." He gave its purpose as "a common tool
of agencies who are seeking to destroy real or fancied enemies or seek
dominance in some field," and said it was to be "used for the
destruction of ideals or institutions or repute of persons." In his
black PR manifesto Miscavige tries to remain the hidden source, and
his intention to destroy the reputations of his fancied enemies named
therein, I think even you will agree, is manifest.
You, being something of a libel lawyer, will recognize that
the charges and black PR in the Miscavige reaction are unrelated to
the subject matter in the Fact questionnaire. That fact is indicative
of the maliciousness of the defamatory reaction. That its source
attempts to remain hidden also goes to malice. So does the
premeditated, careful, and calculated, albeit mad, assembly of
charges, their printing and extremely wide distribution. Then there
are the lies therein themselves. His intention is clear: expose
named "enemies" to hatred and danger, cause them to be shunned and
injure them in their careers and life.
Take Gerry Armstrong, for example. I did not steal any
records in 1981, and the 1984 Breckenridge decision, upheld on
appeal, states what did happen with the Hubbard archives. This charge,
long ago judicially declared so much bushwa, stems right out of
Miscavige's missed withholds. Having stolen my documents, he accuses
me of theft. Libel per se. Being terrified of the truth he has never
allowed his organization spokesmen to say what I really am and what I
really do.
The pig dream is only significant because it is a document
which was stolen by Miscavige's organization, and then specifically
sealed by Judge Breckenridge in the Armstrong I case. Miscavige's use
of it now is in violation of that court order. The pig dream does not
more clearly demonstrate my state of mind than any of my other
writings. It captured a couple of seconds of dream thought in 1985,
and has no relation to my state of mind beyond that. Since I keep
hearing of the pig dream from Scientologists and Scientology lawyers
around the world, it should be clear that it actually has captured the
Scientological mind more precisely than any of my other writings.
This letter to you is a much better representation of my
writings, and for, inter alia, that reason I am copyrighting it, and
will include it in a book of related materials to be published in the
near future. Miscavige, like his erstwhile master, seeks to divert
attention from his organization's tragedies with imaginative tales of
his imagined enemies' sex lives. The only result of making sex so
relevant is that some day Miscavige will have to put his on the line.
The only thing significant about my sex life is its insignificance
since I have for some time been a yogi of the brahmacharya persuasion,
almost as long as I have been a shave away from full-blown
jutta-dharihood.
I have never used heavy drugs and never used any drugs
heavily, and was never paid to provide homosexual sex. But these
Miscavige libels point out two things which should be quite important
to Scientologists: 1. statements made in what is represented to be a
confidential setting in Scientology, even statements concerning
enforced "past lives" incidents, are not confidential and will be used
by the organization's leaders to vilify those who foolishly trust the
organization's representations of confidentiality; 2. Scientology
auditing doesn't work.
The abuse of Scientologists' supposedly confidential
statements by the organization's leaders for the purpose of attacking
those Scientologists has been demonstrated by these leaders so many
times right up to this instant that it need not be elucidated further.
What does require some light shone on it, however, is why all the
Scientologists of good will do nothing to rein in these leaders and
this ongoing tragedy. I believe it evidences the terrible menace of
those leaders. Who would dare to stand up to a Miscavige who blows
the heads off photos of his fancied enemies and lounges with the likes
of a Gene Ingram who threatens to blow off their actual heads? It is
Scientology's auditors who use the tech, and potentially use it to
free rather than enslave. It is not Miscavige who uses the tech, and
doesn't own it, even if he claims to by his RTC emperorship. It is
therefore the auditors who are in a position to do something about the
abuses, even if it means walking off the job.
If auditing works, why does Scientology's leader always use
the pre-Scientology past of former Scientologists to attack them?
Auditing, according to Scientology promises, erases the past and
eliminates any aberrative behavior stemming from that past. Yet the
organization always acts, by attacking its Ex-Scientology victims with
incidents from these victims' auditing sessions, as if auditing had
done nothing. And that is indeed what auditing does. The harm is in
all the lies, extortion and abuse the organization's leaders make part
of the auditing package. The inescapable reality of the Scientology
philosophy is that while promising to make people smarter, at the
Hubbardian rate of a point of IQ per hour of auditing, it makes them
stupider; and having made them stupider, charges them to do it. I
have never seen a person who did not get smarter when he or she got
out of Scientology. I understand philosophically and mathematically
why it makes people stupider, and I believe that for the future wisdom
of the world it's important that I recommend that people do get out.
Surely you wouldn't recommend that your children get into something
that will make them stupider, and my guess is you're still smart
enough yourself to not buy into it. You will agree, I'm sure, that if
I'm right what I'm saying makes good sense.
"Armstrong in the nude holding a globe," is close to true. I
have always been nude, and often I wear clothes as well. In the photo
which appeared in the November 11, 1992 Marin Independent Journal I am
also, in addition to being nude, wearing clothes. I assume you, as
you are reading this are also nude, and may or may not be wearing
clothes. Emperor Miscavige, as well, underneath those nifty suits,
is, as you and I and everyone can imagine, naked as a jay bird. Stark
raving nude.
You know about malice, and you know that a guy with a smile on
his face sitting in the lotus posture and holding the world in his
hands, all of which facts can be seen in the IJ's photo, is something
so different from "in the nude," which fact cannot be seen, although
it can certainly be seen that it very easily could not be true -
shorts being a modern day yogi's common, usual and expected garment of
choice - that Miscavige's malice is unmistakable. Add to this the
fact that hiss pet PItviper slithered into the IJ after the 11/11
article was printed to rattle the writer, and sure did know that I was
something different from nude. Then add the delivery to the
organization's UK legal personnel of the IJ photo, plus a big, bold
blowup thereof, and throw in the identical lie that I'm sitting there
all fully bare. I'm sure you know that the UK solicitor's clerk, one
Helen Margaret Barlow, through whom Miscavige slipped his "Armstrong
in the nude" taradiddle into the UK courts, claims that she was given
the information by the organization's US attorneys, which fact is
altogether unremarkable because that is exactly how the organization
uses its lawyers to spread and consecrate its dirt. You are one of
its US attorneys, right? Finally, consider the fact that in all the
depositions Miscavige has dragged me through since November, 1992 I
was never once asked if I had been indeed nude during the shooting of
the IJ photo. I was not asked because Miscavige, looking forward to
using his little bare-cheeked lie, didn't dare learn the unnaked
truth.
As to Gerald Armstrong's recognition of the valuelessness of
money, it is quite understandable that your cult of greed's leader,
having put so much time and effort into extorting all that stuff from
so many people, would be having nightmares contemplating the fact that
it was all for naught. It is also understandable that he might be
terrified that his underlings and other victims might wake up to the
same truth. But Miscavige really need not worry. What is valuable
will remain long after money is seen for what it is. Ironically,
renunciation is Miscavige's safest route out of his predicament. He
should tell the truth, turn Scientology over to its people of good
will and wisdom, and then he should go off and do something good and
wise himself; or, if he can't figure out something good and wise to
do, he should join a monastery and put himself in the hands of someone
good and wise to give him simple orders until he can figure things
out.
Do not think that because I have not committed suicide or
succumbed to Miscavige's savagery and forsaken my sense of humor I
have not been deeply wounded and threatened by his, his organization's
and his lawyers' personal attacks. The attacks must cease. You and
your client must do what you can to heal the wounds. And all of you
must stop threatening your way through life.
I am not unhappy that you have insisted that I rectify the
false charges that have made their way to Fact. Your fellow CSI
lawyers have until now refused to allow me to rectify any false
charges on penalty of $50,000 per rectification. I assume that you
are their senior, being so close to Miscavige himself and being near
the top of the pleadings hierarchy, and that your releasing me to
rectify falsehoods supersedes your associates' earlier refusals to so
release me. In that Miscavige's reaction has made its way to Fact,
and presumably by Fact's mandate become part of its library, I will
send this letter to Fact as well. I will also send a copy of this
letter to many people who should know, and many of these I've
indicated on the copy list which follows. I will also avail myself of
this window of opportunity you've opened to rectify any other
falsehoods concerning my experiences with the Scientology organization
which have made their way into Fact's library.
Your fellow CSI lawyers have claimed in the second amended
complaint in Armstrong II filed April 5, 1994 that I "provided an
entire assortment of documents to FACTI for its electronic library,
including a copy of the settlement agreement herein, scores of
declarations, and documents which Armstrong retained in violation of
paragraph 7(E) of the Agreement," and go on to claim that providing
such documents is a breach of the "agreement." As you can imagine
these claims are as nutty as the lawyers themselves, which nuttiness I
know you have to smooth over to continue to pull in those big fat
fees.
I retained no documents in violation of paragraph 7(E) of that
or any other agreement and I did not send any of these documents I
didn't retain to Fact. Miscavige made the same charge through Ken
Long in the CSC v. Russell Miller case in the UK in 1987, and it was,
despite his organization's threats that I would be sued if I corrected
the lie, disproved there as well. CSI's own lawyers filed the
settlement agreement in open court, probably some fifteen times in the
three lawsuits they have brought against me in Marin and Los Angeles
in the past couple of years, and it is entirely probable that they are
the source of whatever copy Fact acquired if it did indeed.
I have sent Fact very little, and it has wanted very little
from me, because my materials have been public documents available
almost anywhere. I will as soon as possible make an effort,
especially now with your release of me to do so and with the latest
Miscavige attack, to find out what Fact has relating to me and my
experiences with Scientology in its library, make certain the
information is complete and rectify any falsehoods therein. I will
also let Fact know that I will be available to answer the questions of
anyone who may have received false data concerning my Scientology
experiences, or the dangers of association with the organization. I
hope it puts your mind at ease to know that I will be helping in this
manner.
In addition to getting Miscavige to retract his latest
libelous publication, perhaps you can help in a related matter as
well. As you know, on February 8, 1994 Miscavige executed a
declaration which was filed in Fishman in an effort to prevent his
court ordered deposition from going forward. Miscavige included in
his declaration an attack on me filled with what even a fool can see
are lies. On February 22 I executed a declaration in response to
correct the lies. Then one of his litigation puppets, CSI, amended
the Armstrong II complaint to include a cause of action for my writing
my declaration, seeking another 50 K liquidated damages. These people
are dangerously crazy.
In December, 1992 I wrote to Miscavige in an effort to
initiate a peace process. He tried to have me jailed for writing the
letter. Then he had CSI sue me, claiming damages of $950,000.00 for
the letter. It is dangerous to attempt to make peace with mad men.
And that is why I'm appealing to you, the man's lawyer.
You know that the organization's leaders cannot prevail in our
courts. They have neither right nor decency on their side, and they
have long since lost the battle in the marketplace of ideas. The
opponents they made, for no other reason, by the way, than to satisfy
their need to look important by being opposed, are no longer merely
being pushed around and aren't going anywhere. The organization's
leaders are abusers, and the world has in recent years come to
recognize abuse and abusers and now acts to restrain them. Perhaps,
therefore, you can let the abusers you work for know that the game is
dangerously close to over, and perhaps you can suggest an orderly
withdrawal from their fortifications. Nobody is waiting out here to
pounce on them. All of us out here really do want peace. This time,
however, unlike in December 1986, let it not be peace with abuse.
Yours sincerely,
Gerald Armstrong
715 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415)456-8450
Hub Law Office
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415)258-0360
Fax (415)456-5318
:ga
Enclosure (1)
cc: (all without enclosure)
Ford Greene, Esquire
Graham E. Berry, Esquire
Daniel A. Leipold, Esquire
Floyd Abrams, Esquire
F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.
Cult Awareness Network
Lawrence Wollersheim
Bob Penny
Robert Vaughn Young
Steven Fishman
Jon Atack
Margaret Singer, Ph. D.
Kent Burtner
David Miscavige
[End Quote]
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Copyright © Gerry Armstrong - All Rights Reserved.