Someone e-mailed me asking me to post to a.r.s. when and where oral argument in Scientology's appeal will be, once the Court of Appeal sets it. The person plans to attend and said: "Maybe I'll ask someone to post "What happened to Moxon's Daughter?" flyers in the courthouse notice bulletin boards too."

I do not know the name of the person I believe e-mailed me, although the person I believe e-mailed me knows me and has met me. There is no need to further identify the person at this time.

I answered the person's e-mail agreeing to post the time for oral argument once known. The place will be the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. Here are the Court of Appeal's directions: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/1stDistrict/documents/directionmap.pdf

The Court will itself post the date and time to its online register of actions at: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=59038&div=4

In response to the person's idea about Moxon flyers I said: "I wouldn't appreciate that." To make a record I'll also make my position clear with this public statement.

Obviously there is the possibility of this kind of activity being engaged in by Scientology or its agents, to gain some advantage in the case, or for black PR or intel.

Remember Scientology's effort to disqualify US District Court Judge Ideman, mentioned here in 1992 in American Lawyer:

[Quote]

Still, Cooley has remained the church's trial lawyer of choice, and his tactics haven't changed much. Just last fall Cooley was brought in to argue the church's motion to recuse Los Angeles federal judge James Ideman, who was sitting on three cases involving Scientology, based on the judge's supposed bias towards the church. The primary evidence? A framed cover of Behar's expose on Scientology in Time that allegedly hung in the judge's chambers. (For the purposes of the hearing, Judge J. Spencer Letts, who ruled on the motion, assumed the cover did hang there. Judge Ideman declines to comment on the matter.)

[End Quote] http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mgarde/amlaw.txt
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/media/am-lawyer-1992-07-5.html

The Scientology v. Armstrong case is, also obviously, very important to me, and I believe others. I am ceaselessly serious about this litigation, have a holy regard for justice and law and the judges and justices into whose hands these God-given blessings and powers have been given, and would always want to conduct myself in courts and in courthouses in a way that reflects my regard.

The case is clearly very important to Scientology head David Miscavige, and is therefore very important to every Scientologist under his control, and the lawyers and other wog professionals in his pay.

As is well known Kendrick Moxon is counsel of record for Scientology in this appeal. Presumably he will be the attorney making the oral argument.

I have no first hand evidence regarding the death of Kendrick Moxon's daughter, and the credible evidence I've seen is given in the few official reports I've read. I have seen no credible evidence that would lead me to conclude that her death was anything but a terrible accident in the Sea Org milieu.

Her tragic death is unrelated to the Armstrong case, and I am not participating in and do not support the generating or forwarding of the idea of using her tragedy in relation to my case and specifically in connection with oral argument in the Court of Appeal. The idea of trying to affect Mr. Moxon, or affect the tribunal who will hear the argument and rule in the case, or the media or the public or anyone, with this tragedy, is repugnant to me.

I am not attempting here to limit anyone's human or civil rights, or their expressions of those rights, but I am making it clear that they are not my expressions.

I am the founder and a member of the Church of Wogs (CoW) TM. I am a founder and member of the Suppressive Person Defense League (SPDL). I am a member of the European-American Citizens Committee for Human Rights and Religious Freedom in the USA (EACCHRRFUSA). I am the founder and a member or pledger of the Organization of United Renunciants (OUR). I am a member of the Christian religion. And I am a member of the wog race. I am a member of no other group that I've been able to think of. I'm the president of Xenuware TM, Inc.

I was a member of the Advisory Board of the Lisa McPherson Trust, but the LMT has not functioned for some years. I am not in any way adverse to an organization or group forming to oppose Scientology's condemnable policies and practices, nor am I adverse to my own participation in such a group or organization. There simply is no such organization or group at this time.

Neither OUR, CoW, SPDL, EACCHRRFUSA or Xenuware intends to engage in any form of activism at the Court of Appeal in connection with oral argument in my case, including pamphleting or picketing. I intend, of course, to be available for any media that might want to talk to me afterwards. Within time and security constraints I'll try to talk with anyone else who wants to, and I can speak for OUR, CoW, SPDL, EACCHRRFUSA and Xenuware if anyone is interested.

I am not a member of any group that in relation to Scientology is called by people within that group and/or by Scientology's heads and their agents "the critics." If it can be said that such a group exists, in a context as can reasonably be deduced from an examination of the use of the term "critics," e.g., here on a.r.s., such group, in my observation, contains within it individuals acting in support of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine. Since I speak and fight for justice for SPs, it is simply wrong to be a part of what is used against them.

This is not to say that I do not have actual friends within the group known as the "critics." The "critics," whether wogs or Scientologists, are exactly like everyone else so of course I'm friendly to them.

Scientology has forever sought to black PR its SP targets into some group, including groups the cult was operating in or even operating. See, e.g., this "group" of "anti-religious extremists:" http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/index.html

I'm about as much a member of such a group as Gandhi'd be.

This is also not to say that I do not criticize Scientology's condemnable policies and practices, nor to say that I do not criticize the condemnable policies and practices of members of the "critics." I am simply not a member of any group known as "critics."

None of what I'm saying here should be construed as discouraging communication between members of the "critics" and others; in fact I welcome communication with the "critics."

For anyone involved in activism against Scientology's condemnable policies and practices, this appeal and case concern and thoroughly document perhaps the most glaring example. In my opinion, however, the Court of Appeal, in this instance certainly, is not a good or even sane venue for a protest or other activism.

I do want anyone to attend who wants to, Scientologists, "critics" and other wogs alike. The whole oral argument will be over in an hour. But it will be a little piece of this history that anyone reading this post is in, and could be a time and a place to meet if you're in the neighborhood.

Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Go Back