Webbed at: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/appeal/pet-review-2005-11-25.html

Case No. _____

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 
INTERNATIONAL, a California
nonprofit "religious" corporation,

Petitioner,

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 
COUNTY OF MARIN,	

Respondent.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

Real Party in Interest.	

Appellate Court No. A107095
Consolidated with Case No.
 A107100 

Trial Judge: Hon Lynn Duryee
Marin County Superior Court
Case No. 157680/152229, 
Consolidated with Case No. CV 021632.

Gerry Armstrong
#1-45950 Alexander Avenue
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5
Canada
(604) 703-1373
gerry@gerryarmstrong.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

							 Page  
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES		 		ii  

I. PETITION FOR REVIEW				1

II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW		2

III. SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR REVIEW	3

IV. HISTORY OF THE CASE				8

V. ARGUMENT					15

1. By their failure to address the profound "religious" freedom issue
and defense in this case, the California Courts since 1992 have
prostrated themselves to unlawfully abet "religious" persecution
							15

2. Because of the nature of "religious" liberty, it cannot but be an
exception to res judicata and collateral estoppel if raised as a
defense at any time, and res judicata and collateral estoppel cannot
be relied upon to prevent the raising of "religious" liberty as a
defense at any time.					19

3. The Court of Appeal did not deal with what Judge Duryee did, but
dealt with something she didn’t.			24

A. Judge Duryee correctly applied C.C.C. §1670.5 in the
consolidated cases and combined matters before her, specifically
acting to limit the application of the unconscionable clauses in
Scientology’s contract as to avoid any unconscionable result
							24

B. The correct remedy and procedure in this case is mandated by
C.C.C. 1670.5, specifically the reasonable opportunity to present
evidence as to the contract’s commercial setting, purpose, and 
effect to aid the court in making the unconscionability 
determination.						27

VI. CONCLUSION					27

APPENDIX: Order granting petition for writ of certiorari. Filed
October 19, 2005

i 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases 
							Page  

ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 307, 319
						     16,19,24

Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060 , 283 Cal.Rptr.
917						         4,9

Statutes

18 U.S.C. §241						5

18 U.S.C. §242						5

U.S.C. §§ 6401-6481 Formerly International "Religious" Freedom Act
("IRFA")					     5,6,23,24

C.C.C. §1670.5					2,6,7,24,25,26,27

Other Authorities

United States Constitution				4,16

California State Constitution				4

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms		6

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms. 						6

ii

I.

PETITION FOR REVIEW

	TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONORABLE
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA: 

	Gerry Armstrong, defendant and real party in interest,
respectfully petitions for review following the unpublished decision
of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, by Hon. Maria P.
Rivera, Associate Justice, filed on October 19, 2005. 

1

II.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

	1.  Whether any California courts have jurisdiction to enforce
a contract that prohibits and punishes an individual's "religious"
expressions about a "religion" because such prohibition and punishment
have gone on too long to be stopped, or for any other reason.

	2.  Whether California courts have jurisdiction to prohibit
and/or punish "religious" expressions of a foreign national expressed in
foreign nations, and which are not threats to public safety, order or
national security in California or anywhere.

	3.  Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to reinstate
punishment that the trial court had ruled an unconscionable result of
the application of certain unconscionable contractual clauses, without
affording the victim or intended victim of that unconscionable
punishment the reasonable opportunity mandated by C.C.C. §1670.5 to
present evidence as to that contract's commercial setting, purpose and
effect to aid the trial court in making or remaking that ruling.

	4.  Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to misstate
the language and meaning of a trial court's rulings in order to
facilitate the vacating of one of those rulings, particularly where
the result of such vacating is not justice, but what has already been
ruled unconscionable.

	5.  Whether any California court may punish an individual for
properly reporting a crime, even if such reporting violates the
language and/or meaning of a contract or court order.
	
	6.  Whether any California courts have jurisdiction to enforce
a contract and an injunction that are patently unlawful, and/or
impossible to perform.

	7.  Whether California courts have jurisdiction to end an
international idiocy that is the unconscionable result of thirteen
years of the California courts' abetment in the application of
unconscionable contractual clauses concocted and enforced by a
"religion".

2.

III

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR REVIEW

	This is an extraordinary moment in a more than 23-year
campaign by the Scientology "religion", using the California court
system, to deprive Gerry Armstrong, an individual, "religion"ist, and
persecuted "religious" class member, of his basic human rights,
particularly his "religious" freedom, and, here immediately, his
physical freedom and safety.

	This Court is where this case belongs, because it concerns the
whole State of California and what will be the whole State's highest
wisdom about "religious" freedom for all its citizens.  This Court has
the opportunity to decide something about the extent to which
California's courts may be used by California's "religious" corporations
to deprive individuals of that freedom or in other ways persecute them
pursuant to "religious" doctrine and "religious" hatreds.
This State is also where plaintiff and petitioner Scientology
organization is headquartered.  Scientology around the world is
controlled, operated and exported from California by David Miscavige,
a California resident.
	
	This Court can decide in this case if the California Wog
Justice System will confront the Scientology organization and curtail
its use of the State's courts to suppress and destroy basic human
rights and persecute the organization's victims, or if Scientology
will continue to have its way with California's courts.  "Wog" is the
term Scientologists use for people who are not Scientologists.
Society is called in Scientology the "wog world," and nations' legal
systems and procedures are called "wog justice."

	There are no similar cases in California or anywhere.  There
are other Scientology contracts that prohibit other people, many in
California, on threat of massive liquidated damages penalties and
jailing, from discussing their "religious" experiences in the
Scientology "religion".  None of those contracts, however, have been the
subject of the enormous volume of documentation and litigation

3

generated in Scientology v. Armstrong, or achieved such global
notoriety.  Scientology's Armstrong contract is Exhibit 1 to
Scientology's exhibits in support of its writ petition ("Exs."),  pp
1-16.

	This then is a representative and leading case in a completely
new area of life and law in California and around the world; namely,
"religious" corporations' suppression and deprivation of individual
"religious" freedom and other basic human rights by contract, and by
judicial enforcement of such contracts.  Such contracts are themselves
a very modern invention of the "religious" corporation's modern
corporate lawyers.  The deeply evil intent of such contracts makes
them particularly difficult to confront, and thus particularly suited
to the high confront of the highest court in the State in which these
contracts are concocted and their enforcement directed by resident
enforcers.

	This Court has the opportunity to correct the bizarre and
impossible situation, which the Court of Appeal ignored, of California
courts prohibiting and punishing "religious" expressions made by foreign
nationals in foreign nations.  The only jurisdiction California courts
could possibly have in this situation is the jurisdiction to deny
jurisdiction to prohibit and punish such "religious" expressions.

	The contractual clauses Scientology seeks to enforce against
Armstrong, and their judicial enforcement, including what Scientology
seeks by writ petition, are obviously barred within the U.S. by the
civil rights guarantees, including freedom of "religion", in the U.S.
and California Constitutions, and in the nation's other laws.
Reciprocally, whatever Armstrong has said, written or done within the
U.S, for which Scientology has ever sought or is seeking in this
immediate matter to have him punished, are his "religious" expressions
in exercise of his "religious" freedom, and are inalienably protected by
the same constitutions and the nation's and the state's other laws.
Court after court in California has refused to honestly confront this
reality, and acknowledge the indefeasible truth that what Scientology
seeks and has gotten away with judicially in its campaign against
Armstrong is 

4

unlawful.  Some court some time will have to confront this issue and
this Court at this moment in time has jurisdiction to do so.

	Armstrong obviously is not voluntarily giving up his basic
human rights to Scientology, including his rights to freedom of
speech, freedom of "religion", freedom of association, freedom of
movement, due process, self-defense, and freedom from slavery.
Armstrong is protesting every step of the way, declaring that he was
forced against his will to sign Scientology's contract, and vowing to
never give up those rights.  He believes that Scientology's contract
and what has been done to enforce the conditions against Armstrong
that deprive him of those basic human rights are the fruits of a
criminal conspiracy in violation of U.S. Civil Rights criminal
statutes, specifically 18 U.S.C. §241, conspiracy against rights, and
§242, deprivation of rights under color of law.  

	The Court of Appeal's decision ignores this issue and these
laws completely, although Armstrong put them squarely and properly
before the Court in his briefs.  This Court can now decide if a
participant corporation in an ongoing criminal conspiracy may by
contract lawfully prohibit the ongoing victim of that criminal
conspiracy from discussing that criminal conspiracy and the crimes
being perpetrated on him.  May the California courts lawfully be used
to enforce such a contract against such a victim of such a criminal
conspiracy, which is proven to be a criminal conspiracy by its own
contract and actions to enforce that contract in these courts?  Does
Armstrong actually have a duty to violate any orders of California's
courts that compel him to participate in and forward Scientology's
criminal conspiracy by playing its victim in that criminal conspiracy?

	The International "Religious" Freedom Act of 1998 ("IRFA") 22
U.S.C. §§ 6401-6481 is the guiding law and principle for the whole of
the U.S., not excluding California, in relation to freedom of
"religious" expressions such as Armstrong's expressed by foreign
nationals such as Armstrong in foreign countries such as Canada where
Armstrong lives.  The IRFA also provides an understanding of why even
in the U.S. people may not be deprived of their 

5

"religious" freedom by contract, and punished for their "religious"
expressions about "religion"s in the way Scientology wants Armstrong to
be punished.  The IRFA was enacted in fact specifically to protect
people in positions and classes just like Armstrong's who are targets
of "religious" persecution right now in present time just like
Armstrong.  The Court of Appeal's decision is completely alone in its
opposition to and disregard for the IRFA's letter and spirit.

	For Armstrong, as long as he is outside the U.S., his
"religious" expressions and his basic human rights are protected by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, (1982) and
by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (1998).  Similarly, Scientology is prohibited by
these same human rights charters from depriving Armstrong of his basic
human rights in non-U.S. nations, and prohibited from punishing
Armstrong for his "religious" expressions.  The European Convention and
other international human rights charters are identified in the IRFA
at 22 U.S.C. §6401(a)(2).  In this matter this Court can rationally
and decisively align California law and decisions with the 8-year old
IRFA, and with the international human rights charters of the world
the IRFA endorses.  Say what is true, fair and wise to guide any
California Court that in the future finds its power and authority
being used to punish other foreigners for their "religious" expressions
expressed in foreign countries.
	
	Although this case is all about the unlawful deprivation of
human rights, it is positioned at this time as a contract case, and
clearly the law that the trial court applied to the case and facts
before that court was C.C.C. §1670.5.  The trial court ruled that the
punishment Scientology sought to inflict on Armstrong, including
jailing and fining him, as the result of the application of the
subject contract's clauses, was unconscionable. 

	Armstrong has found no other cases where what was determined
to be an unconscionable result was the contractual wholesale
deprivation of an individual's freedom of "religion", and his other
basic rights and protections.  It is doubtful that 

6

such cases exist because these contracts are such new devices in the
programs and campaigns of new "religious" corporations to judicially
suppress and destroy basic human rights for individuals.  This Court
has the golden opportunity to stop these contracts and their judicial
enforcement from becoming de rigueur in California's courts.

	The Court of Appeal's decision fails to apply C.C.C. §1670.5,
in fact avoids addressing or even mentioning that governing statute,
the applicability of which Armstrong had addressed at considerable
length in his opposition to Scientology's petition for writ ("Opp."),
in his respondent's brief ("RB") in Scientology's appeal consolidated
in the Court of Appeal with its petition, and in his petition for
rehearing. ("Pet.Reh.")  The Appellate Court's failure to apply the
proper California statute, and that Court's failure to apply the
procedural remedy that statute mandates, has resulted in the
reinstatement of the punishment that the trial court, by proper
application of C.C.C. §1670.5, had already ruled unconscionable and
consequently remitted.

	The Court of Appeal's reinstatement of the unconscionable
result, which had already been ruled unconscionable, is particularly
unconscionable because to reach its decision the Court of Appeal has
had to misstate the language and meaning of the trial court's
unconscionability judgment.  The Court of Appeal also ignored the
effect of Scientology's voluntary dismissal of its appeal from the
trial court's judgment on the unconscionable punishment the Court was
reinstating. 

	The dismissal of the appeal, which Scientology had
successfully moved the Court of Appeal to consolidate with this writ
petition case, ended any possible nonacceptance by Scientology of the
unconscionability judgment.  That judgment then required acceptance of
the remission of the unconscionable punishment that Scientology sought
by its writ petition to have reinstated.  Obviously every California
court including this Court has a duty to prevent an unconscionable
result in any matter properly before it.

7

IV

HISTORY OF THE CASE

	Armstrong was a member of the Scientology "religion" from 1969
through 1981.  When he left, Scientology declared him a member of a
class of citizens called "Suppressive Persons" or "SPs," whom
Scientologists are directed by Scientology "religious" "scripture" to
persecute opportunistically, or "fair game."  Scientology teaches in
its "Suppressive Person" doctrine that SPs are evil, insane,
destructive, and irreversibly mentally handicapped, should be given no
civil rights, and are to be "hated," "shattered" and "obliterated."

	Over the next almost 24 years, and continuing to this day,
Scientology and its agents fair gamed Armstrong in accordance with the
organization's "Suppressive Person" doctrine.  These fair game attacks
include, inter alia, physically battering Armstrong on six occasions;
running into him bodily with a car; terrorizing him on a highway in
California and an autobahn in Germany; attempting multiple times to
have him charged criminally on false evidence, including with the Los
Angeles District Attorney, the FBI, and the prosecutor in
Ekaterinberg, Russia; suing him six times; driving him into
bankruptcy; running covert intelligence operations on him; attempting
to entrap him in sting operations; filing numerous false statements
about him in legal proceedings; breaking into his car and stealing
extremely valuable documents and artwork; terrifying his neighbors and
his family; threatening to assassinate him; forging hundreds of
Internet postings, including racist postings, over his name; and
creating and disseminating countless black propaganda attacks on him
around the world, including to government agencies, media and the
clergy.  Pet.Reh., Opp, 4,5; RB, 9-30; Respondent's Appendix
("R.App.") 261:25-262:14.  Black propaganda or black PR is
Scientology's fair game policy and practice of destroying SPs'
reputations, credibility, relationships, livelihoods and lives with
the relentless, widespread covert and overt dissemination of false and
defamatory materials about the SPs.

8

	Scientology filed its first suit against Armstrong in August
1982 in Los Angeles Superior Court for conversion, breach of fiduciary
duty and invasion of privacy, and Armstrong filed a cross-complaint
for, inter alia, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.  Scientology's suit went to trial in 1984 resulting in a
judgment in Armstrong's favor, which Scientology appealed.
Scientology v. Armstrong, (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal. Rptr.
917.
	
	Armstrong's cross-complaint was settled in December 1986 as
part of a global settlement involving some 20 clients of attorney
Michael J. Flynn, then of Boston, Massachusetts.  Mr. Flynn was also a
"Suppressive Person" and also the target of Scientology fair game
attacks, including, inter alia, infiltrating his office; paying known
criminals to testify falsely against him; suing him and his office
some fifteen times; framing him with the forgery of a $2,000,000
check; and black PRing him internationally.  Scientology got Mr.
Flynn, who was also Armstrong's employer and friend, and who settled
his own claims against Scientology in the global settlement, to act as
its agent to trick and force Armstrong to sign Scientology's
settlement "contract" in order to have the fair gaming of Mr. Flynn,
his family and clients end.

	Scientology did not leave Armstrong in peace following the
1986 global settlement but has continued to fair game him ever since.
The organization's attacks before he ever responded, or ever spoke out
publicly against these attacks, included generating and disseminating
black PR on him publicly and internationally; filing numerous sworn
statements about him in legal proceedings falsely accusing him of
crimes and perversions; distributing an unlawful secret video of him;
blackmailing him with threatened publication of his private writings;
filing a false declaration he had been forced to sign as part of the
"settlement;" and threatening him with prosecution if he honestly
testified pursuant to a deposition subpoena properly served on him in
late 1989 in a third party's California litigation. 

9

	From 1990 until now, Armstrong has spoken about his
Scientology-related experiences, knowledge and beliefs as called by
God, even though that would cause Scientology's leaders to escalate
their fair game campaign against him.  He never believed that the
contractual clauses that prohibited his discussing his
Scientology-related experiences, knowledge and beliefs were lawfully
judicially enforceable.  He has also, as was safe, courteous and wise,
assisted his fellow SPs, whom he knows to be a threatened "religious"
class, even though any such assistance is prohibited by Scientology's
contract.  He has found it impossible after a certain point to deal
insanely with Scientology and its attacks on peace, justice and
sanity, and he believes that no court can lawfully compel him to be or
act insane.

	In 1991, Scientology filed a motion in LA Superior Court to
enforce its contract against Armstrong, which was denied.  In 1992
Scientology filed a lawsuit to enforce its contract in Marin County,
where Armstrong was then living and working.  Scientology obtained a
series of summary adjudication rulings from Marin Superior Court Judge
Gary W. Thomas, eliminating all Armstrong's properly pled affirmative
defenses, and culminating in a judgment and injunction against him in
1995.  Exs. 85-93. 

	Judge Thomas ruled that the contract's liquidated damages
clause that required Armstrong to pay Scientology a penalty of $50,000
per utterance about his Scientology experiences or knowledge was
reasonable and enforceable.  He ordered Armstrong to pay $300,000 for
6 utterances and $334,671.75 in costs. Armstrong discharged this sum
in bankruptcy in 1996.

	Judge Thomas ruled that Scientology and all the beneficiaries
of its contract could say whatever they wanted about Armstrong, no
matter how false or abominable, and he could not respond.  See, the
contract, Ex. 1, para. 1, for the list of beneficiaries.  If Armstrong
responded to Scientology's attacks, to defend himself, his family,
friends or co-"religion"ists, or if he assisted any victim of

10

 Scientology in any way, he would have to pay Scientology $50,000 per
utterance or assistance. 

	Judge Thomas ruled that the $50,000 liquidated damages penalty
was per recipient, and that a single letter Armstrong copied to 18
people would cost him $900,000.  

	Judge Thomas stated in his injunction that all these penalties
and prohibitions applied not only Armstrong but also "his agents,
employees, and persons acting in concert or conspiracy with him."
Since then, Scientology has threatened several Suppressive Persons
with enforcement of the Thomas injunction against them for "acting in
concert" with Armstrong. 

	Judge Thomas completely avoided addressing the "religious"
freedom defense, which was squarely and properly before him, and
seriously misstated the law he found controlling to justify that
improper avoidance.

	Armstrong appealed.  See case No. A075027, which Armstrong
incorporated into his opposition to Scientology's writ petition and in
his respondent's brief in the consolidated cases in the Court of
Appeal. 

	At the beginning of 1997, because of threats from Scientology,
Armstrong left California and returned to British Columbia, Canada,
where he is a citizen.  A few days before he left California, he was
served with a subpoena duces tecum by the wog defendant in a
Scientology-related case in U.S. District Court in San Jose.  The
subpoena specifically commanded Armstrong to produce declarations he
had authored concerning unlawful acts by Scientology.  The next day a
Scientology attorney faxed Armstrong a letter threatening him with
prosecution if he produced the subpoenaed documents.  Armstrong wrote
a declaration concerning the threat and sent it to the judge presiding
in the U.S. District Court case in which Armstrong had been served and
threatened.

	While Armstrong was in B.C., and without service on him or
notice to him, Scientology got Marin Superior Court Judge Thomas to
sign an OSC re contempt and a contempt order against Armstrong for
sending the declaration to the U.S. 

11

District Court Judge.  The contempt order makes no mention of
Armstrong's being served to produce the documents he produced
including the subject declaration, and makes no mention of
Scientology's attorney threatening Armstrong and thus causing him to
create and transmit the declaration reporting that threat.  Judge
Thomas punished Armstrong with 2 days in jail and a $1000 fine.

	In August 1997, while in B.C., Armstrong timely filed his
appellant's opening brief in his appeal from the injunction and
judgment.  Scientology moved the Court of Appeal to dismiss his appeal
on the basis of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.  Mysteriously,
the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, mistook
a request from Armstrong for an extension of time to file an
opposition to Scientology's motion for an opposition, and in December
1997 dismissed the appeal.

	Also in December 1997, Scientology got Judge Thomas to sign
another OSC re contempt against Armstrong for 13 expressions of his
"religious" experiences with the Scientology "religion", which he
expressed on the Internet or in public conversations in Canada, the
U.K. and Germany.  In February 1998, Judge Thomas signed a contempt
order punishing Armstrong with 26 days in jail and a fine of $2,600.

	In November 2000, Scientology filed another application for an
OSC re contempt against Armstrong for 131 Internet expressions of his
"religious" experiences with the Scientology "religion" expressed in
Canada, for permitting himself to be subpoenaed to testify in a
Scientology-related case in Florida, and for expressions of his
"religious" experiences with the Scientology "religion" expressed in
Florida and Denmark.  Armstrong filed an opposition to Scientology's
OSC, acknowledging that he had expressed thousands of such
expressions, and defending his legal right and "religious" freedom to do
so.  In July 2001, Marin Superior Court Judge Vernon F. Smith, who had
inherited the Scientology v. Armstrong case after Judge Thomas
retired, signed an order finding Armstrong in contempt, but did not
impose any punishment.

12

	On April 2, 2002 Scientology filed another lawsuit in Marin
Superior Court, CV 021632, against Armstrong, Robert Minton and the
Lisa McPherson Trust, seeking $10,050,000 from Armstrong for 204
"breaches" of Scientology's "contract."  The 204 claimed "breaches"
included the 131 Internet postings identified in Scientology's
November 2000 application for OSC, plus 73 additional "breaches,"
including "religious" expressions expressed in Canada, France, Denmark,
Germany and Russia.  Armstrong, who was then living in Germany, timely
filed his answer in November 2002. Exs. 211-295

	Scientology filed a motion for summary judgment claiming there
was no triable issue of fact because Armstrong had admitted committing
the "breaches," and seeking $50,000 for each "breach."  Armstrong
opposed the summary judgment motion, and in March 2004 Marin Superior
Court Judge Lynn Duryee denied the motion.  Scientology moved to
strike Armstrong's evidence in support of his opposition, and Judge
Duryee denied that motion.

	On April 9, 2004 Judge Duryee conducted a trial of
Scientology's complaint, during which, with the agreement of
Scientology and Armstrong's attorney Ford Greene, she consolidated the
earlier cases, Marin Superior Court Nos. 152229 and 157680, with the
later CV 021632 case.  Judge Duryee also stated that she was
considering the trial a hearing as well on the contempt punishments in
the earlier cases.

	After opening statements from Scientology and Armstrong, Judge
Duryee ruled that the punishment Scientology sought to inflict on
Armstrong beyond the benefit that was conferred to him in the 1986
settlement was unconscionable.  She believed, albeit erroneously, that
the benefit conferred to Armstrong was $800,000.  She therefore stated
her judgment awarding Scientology $500,000 in liquidated damages,
since Scientology had already been awarded $300,000 in liquidated
damages by Judge Thomas, and she remitted, or discharged, the contempt
punishments jailing and fining Armstrong.

13

	Upon Judge Duryee rendering her judgment at trial, Scientology
entreated her to punish Armstrong for the approximately 135 violations
of Judge Thomas' injunction for which Judge Smith had found Armstrong
guilty in 2001, but had not specified a punishment.  Judge Duryee then
sentenced Armstrong to five days in jail and fined him $1000, but made
the fine concurrent with her judgment, and discharged that jail
sentence as well.

	Because for a period of some weeks after the trial
Scientology's attorney and Mr. Greene could not agree on the language
of proposed written orders to be submitted to Judge Duryee for signing
and filing, on May 20, 2004 she issued her own orders.  Exs. 17,18.
Scientology received the orders from the Marin Court, but Mr. Greene
did not receive them at that time, and did not know of their existence
until July 12, 2005.  

	On July 15, 2005 Scientology filed its petition for writ of
certiorari or writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeal seeking to have
the jail sentences and fines reinstated, and filed its notice of
appeal seeking to have reversed the judgment of unconscionability that
limited the liquidated damages penalties.  Simultaneously, Scientology
filed a motion to consolidate its appeal and writ petition on the
ground that the evidence and the legal questions presented by both
matters are so related as to make it advisable to consolidate them.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion.

	Armstrong timely filed his respondent's brief and his
opposition to Scientology's writ petition.  On September 2, 2005
Scientology requested the Court of Appeal to dismiss its appeal.  On
September 8, the Court of Appeal dismissed Scientology's appeal, but
kept the writ petition alive and scheduled for oral argument.
	
	On September 21, 2005 the Court of Appeal, First Appellate
District, Division Four, conducted oral argument.  On October 19, 2005
the Court of Appeal filed its decision, appended hereto, granting
Scientology's writ petition 

14

and reinstating the jail sentences and fines against Armstrong that
Judge Duryee had remitted. 

	On November 3, 2005 Armstrong timely filed his petition for
rehearing, and on November 14 the Court of Appeal denied his petition.

V

ARGUMENT

	1.	By their failure to address the profound "religious"
freedom issue and defense in this case, the California Courts since
1992 have prostrated themselves to unlawfully abet "religious"
persecution.

	The California courts that have dealt with Scientology's
contract cannot but know about the towering "religious" issue and
defense in this case, which have through time towered ever higher.
The filed documents before these courts are filled with the "religion"
issue and Armstrong's "religious" expressions about the "religion" issue
and freedom of "religion" defense and about "religion" itself.  See, e.g.
Pet.Reh. Opp., RB.

	In denying Scientology's motion to enforce its contract
against Armstrong in 1991, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bruce R.
Geernaert stated about the contract and Scientology's enforcement
intention: 

that is one … I'll say one of the most ambiguous, one-sided agreements
I have ever read. And I would not have ordered the enforcement of
hardly any of the terms if I had been asked to, even on the threat
that, okay the case is not settled. I know we like to settle cases.
But we don't like to settle cases and, in effect, prostrate the court
system into making an order which is not fair or in the public
interest. RB, 48; Clerk's Transcript, prior appeal No. A075027, 7700. 

An unavoidable and overwhelming real life reason that rendered the
order Scientology sought not fair and not in the public interest is
the eternal fact that it is a "religion" that seeks to prostrate the
secular wog court system for the unlawful purpose of suppressing the
"religious" expressions of a "religious" apostate and punishing and
crushing that "religious" apostate. 

	In 1992, Scientology filed the lawsuit to enforce its contract
that has resulted in the jail sentences and fines against Armstrong
that the Court of Appeal's October 19, 2005 order has now reinstated.
Between 1992 and now Scientology found a number of judges, notably
Judge Thomas in Marin County, who were willing, for unknown reasons,
to prostrate the California court system to permit and abet
Scientology's "religious" persecution campaign.

	Judge Thomas accomplished the abetment of Scientology's
"religious" persecution of Armstrong in 1995 in no small part by
avoiding the whole "religious" freedom issue and defense, even though it
was colossally and unmissably then before him.  As Armstrong protested
in his earlier appeal and elsewhere, Judge Thomas altered the language
and meaning of the case he cited to, ITT Telecom Products Corp. v.
Dooley (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 307, 319, to wipe out all Armstrong's
First Amendment defenses.  Pet.Reh. 9-13.

	As can be imagined by the plaintiff's name, that case was not
about a person's "religious" expressions about his "religious" experiences
in a "religion".  Dooley was about the disclosure of trade secrets to a
commercial telecommunications industry competitor.  Dooley states, "it
is possible to waive even First Amendment free speech rights by
contract." Judge Thomas stated: "First Amendment: First Amendment
rights may be waived
by contract." 
	
	Armstrong's position is that because of the nature of "religion"
and of First Amendment "religious" rights such rights may not be waived
by contract. He believes that the failure of all California Courts to
confront the "religious" freedom issue in this case over the past many
years validates that position, rather than invalidates it. 

	In 1997, the Court of Appeal abetted Scientology's "religious"
persecution campaign with its not fair and not in the public interest
dismissal of Armstrong's appeal of Judge Thomas' orders that abetted
that persecution campaign.  It should

16

be noted that this dismissal was engineered by Scientology on the
grounds that Armstrong had not served the very jail sentence that in
2004 Judge Duryee ruled unconscionable and remitted.  It is no human
wonder that the Court of Appeal division that dismissed Armstrong
appeal would have some interest in reinstating that unconscionable
punishment, and perhaps even could go to the lengths that division has
gone to accomplish that reinstatement.

	In 2004, Judge Duryee, while still not articulating the
reality of Scientology's "religious" war on Armstrong, and the reality
of his "religious" freedom right and that right's inalienability, at
least limited and slowed down the judicial "religious" persecution
campaign against Armstrong by declaring the punishment Scientology
sought to inflict on Armstrong an unconscionable result, and remitting
that unconscionable result.

	Now for some unholy reason a California Court of Appeal
tribunal is reprostrating the California court system, which Judge
Duryee had uplifted for the previous19 months, and is again back to
abetting Scientology's "religious" war on Armstrong by issuing another
order in that war that is not fair and not in the public interest.
The Court of Appeal's order is not fair and not in the public interest
for the very reason that it abets Scientology in its "religious" war on
Armstrong, which war the Court of Appeal ignores in order to author
its unfair order. 

	While mentioning that Armstrong claimed that the subject
expressions for which Scientology sought to have him jailed and fined
were expressions protected by the right to the free exercise of his
"religion", the Court of Appeal gave that fact no value or effect,
ruling that "Armstrong, however, is foreclosed from challenging the
merits of the contempt orders in this writ proceeding."  The Court of
Appeal even acknowledges, however, that "in unusual cases … either the
trial or appellate court may grant a remission of punishment."  A case
could not even be deemed unusual, and certainly remission could never
be reached in any kind of case, if the merits of the contempt order
could never be challenged.  Here there is also the overarching factor
of the adjudicated unconscionability of the contempt 

17

punishments, and no judge can be foreclosed by any length of time from
acting to limit, prevent or remit an unconscionable result. 

	Armstrong challenged the merits of the contempt orders in many
documents filed in the trial court, all properly before Judge Duryee.
These challenges to the merits all included Armstrong's proclamation
and evidence that the expressions for which Scientology wanted him
jailed and fined were his "religious" expressions in free exercise of
his right to freedom of "religion".  On the basis of Armstrong's
challenging of the merits of the contempt orders for all the reasons
he challenged them, Judge Duryee found the punishment they ordered
unconscionable and she remitted that punishment.

	The challenges to the merits of the contempt orders that Judge
Duryee had in the record before her, could not but be part of the
record before the Court of Appeal.  Consequently, Armstrong could not
be foreclosed from pointing the Court of Appeal to those challenges
and reasserting those challenges already in the record that Judge
Duryee obviously found to be good grounds for remission of the
unconscionable punishment the contempt orders inflicted. 

	To justify its "foreclosure" of Armstrong from "challenging
the merits of the contempt orders" in the Court of Appeal, that Court
had to find that "there were no circumstances in the record justifying
a remission of the sentences."  This is a gross error that demands
correction.  The trial court record is filled with circumstances
justifying the trial court's remission of the sentences, including the
facts that a "religion" had obtained those sentences as part of its
campaign of "religious" persecution against Armstrong, and that the
sentences punished him for his "religious" expressions in free exercise
of his right to freedom of "religion".  The Court of Appeal then did not
have authority to declare Armstrong "foreclosed" from demonstrating
what is in the record before that Court, and what was in the record
before the trial court when that court ruled the sentences
unconscionable and remitted them.

18

	2.	Because of the nature of "religious" liberty, it cannot
but be an exception to res judicata and collateral estoppel if raised
as a defense at any time, and res judicata and collateral estoppel
cannot be relied upon to prevent the raising of "religious" liberty as a
defense at any time.  

	There is no suggestion from Scientology that what Armstrong
expresses, for which Scientology wants him jailed and fined, are not
or cannot be his "religious" expressions of his "religious" beliefs about
a "religion".  They have also always been Armstrong's "religious"
expressions of his "religious" beliefs about a "religion", from the day
Scientology sought to suppress those "religious" expressions by
contract.  Scientology does not argue, of course, that it is not a
"religion".  

	Scientology's position is that Armstrong is prohibited from
expressing his "religious" expressions about the Scientology "religion" by
contract, and by Judge Thomas' injunction, and that it doesn't matter
if they are Armstrong's "religious" expressions.  Scientology's
position, since it got Armstrong's appeal of Judge Thomas's injunction
dismissed in 1997, is that Armstrong is barred by res judicata and
collateral estoppel from asserting his "religious" freedom defense to
which Judge Thomas did Dooley.  Armstrong's position, supported by law
and logic, is that an individual being deprived of his "religious"
liberty cannot lawfully continue to be deprived of that "religious"
liberty because the deprivation of his "religious" liberty has gone on
too long to be stopped, or for any length of time.

	In the Scientology v. Armstrong legal war, this position grows
in strength and authority because Armstrong's "religious" expressions
have increased, his world wide wog and Scientologist audience has
increased, and his "religious" persecution at the hands of the
Scientology legions has increased.  If such things can be added, his
human right of "religious" freedom to expose and oppose that "religious"
persecution has increased beyond his wildest imagination.

	Before Scientology brought him to America, and consequently
submitted him to U.S. laws, Armstrong never conceived that any U.S.
courts, especially California courts, would ever prostrate themselves
to abet the jailing, fining and 

19

financial ruin of a citizen for expressing his "religious" experiences
and thoughts and for protecting himself, his family and citizen class
from "religious" persecution.  He also never conceived of the "religion"
he joined and his co-"religion"ists being so diabolical that they would
create contracts to get wog courts to do exactly that and then force
their victims to sign these contracts.  Armstrong's position, however,
in alignment with law, logic and his own theology, is that the right
of "religious" freedom is always maximal, cannot lawfully be decreased
by contract, and therefore cannot be increased.

	Armstrong is not claiming that he has some inalienable right
to express his "religious" expressions everywhere and at all times, if a
stupid straw man interpretation is given to such a concept.  He is
claiming that he has a right that cannot lawfully be taken away by
contract, at least in any reasonably free and sane society, to express
his "religious" expressions somewhere and sometime, and certainly as
called by God.

	There is no question of anything Armstrong is saying or doing
depriving anyone else of any of their lawful rights, or being a threat
to anyone's safety, or to the public order.  In fact, he believes that
he is seeing to and increasing everyone's safety, and arguably even
good order, by expressing the expressions he has been called to
express.  He contends that the record in this case and available to
this Court shows that from the day he left Scientology, almost 24
years ago, Armstrong has not done anything that was a threat to
safety, order, morality or national security.  Although Armstrong's,
and everyone's, right to "religious" freedom is always maximal, because
no California court so far has been willing to address the "religious"
liberty issue and because Armstrong has continued to study and address
the issue, his certainty of the correctness of his position has
increased. 

	Armstrong is an average common wog.  He is not a lawyer, not
trained in law, and does not study law.  He is a Christian, studies
"religion" and is a "religion"ist, as "religious" as the next wog, or
Scientologist, and he has his own thoughts, beliefs, and "religious"
activities.

20

	Armstrong founded his own "church" in 1986 and renamed and
restructured it as the "Church" of Wogs ("CoW") in Canada and around the
world. CoW is to wogs as Scientology is to Scientologists.  CoW
promotes what is good, true and holy in wogs and in the wog world and
defends wogs against invalidation, suppression, attack and
extermination.  The only "religion" and organization that invalidates,
suppresses and attacks wogs as wogs and seeks their extermination is
Scientology.  Armstrong's words about the wog world, wogs, Scientology
and Scientologists constitute CoW's "religious" "scripture"s, just as L.
Ron Hubbard's words about the wog world, wogs, Scientology and
Scientologists constitute Scientology's "religious" "scripture"s.

	Along with his wife Caroline Letkeman Armstrong has also
founded the Suppressive Person Defense League ("SPDL"), dedicated to
defending SPs against "religious" persecution from Scientology and
Scientologists and to educating the wog world about the "Suppressive
Person" "religious" doctrine that underlies the persecution.  Ms.
Letkeman is also a declared SP, and also a target of Scientology
covert and overt intelligence operations, threats and black PR.

	Armstrong and Ms. Letkeman have built and maintain three
Internet sites that express their Scientology experiences and beliefs.
Much of their defense against "religious" persecution by the Scientology
"religion" and its agents is waged on the Internet by documenting that
persecution.  Armstrong and Ms. Letkeman have webbed a great number of
documents relating to Scientology's litigation campaign against
Armstrong's, including all the documents filed in this case in the
trial court, the Court of Appeal and now this Court.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/index.html

	Scientology is waging a "religious" war or jihad on SPs.  At its
core and in operation the Scientology "religion" is an intelligence
organization, thus many of its operations and channels of attack on
SPs in that war are secret or cloaked and deal in disinformation and
black PR.  Armstrong was a Scientology intelligence operative close to
Mr. Hubbard in the Scientology "religion". 

21

	Scientology's Armstrong contract is not at all a settlement
agreement between the parties to achieve the cessation of hostilities,
but a declaration of "religious" war by the "religion" on an apostate.
The contract's utterly one-sided clauses, which Judge Duryee focused
on very pointedly, and which the Court of Appeal ignored, are prima
facie evidence that the contract is Scientology's fatwa to all the
contract's beneficiaries to ruin and obliterate Armstrong. 

	Scientology and all the contract beneficiaries can attack
Armstrong in any way they want.  He must take their abuse and remain
silent.  He must pay Scientology $50,000 per utterance if he does
defend himself.  There is no such penalty for Scientology.  The
contract, in fact, is an invitation and powerful incentive to
Scientology and Scientologists to attack Armstrong, his family,
friends and fellow SPs just because he cannot defend himself or other
people in the same way that other citizens can defend themselves and
their loved ones.  The contract is an ungodly license for a "religion"
and its adherents to hunt a human being, a common average wog whom the
Scientology "religion"ists are commanded by "religious" "scripture" and by
other "religious" edicts or fatwas to hate and attack.

	After confirming the contract's one-sided conditions that
evidenced its unlawful "religious" jihad purpose, Judge Duryee then
limited or remitted the legally unconscionable results that
Scientology sought in its effort to enforce those one-sided
unconscionable contractual conditions.  By ignoring the one-sidedness
and the other clear indicia of the contract's unconscionability and
reinstating the remitted unconscionable result, the Court of Appeal
cannot but be abetting Scientology's jihad on SPs.

	Armstrong has found no case of "religious" persecution in the
United States in the modern or post modern ages as ridiculous, cruel
or grossly willfully violative of U.S. civil rights laws as this case.
This is a new phenomenon in the U.S., using commercial contract law to
bring back the medieval right and custom of "religion"s or "religious"
groups to persecute and destroy people whose "religious" expressions are
not what the "religion"'s leaders insist they be.  In Scientology, 

22

using the wog law system to harass and ruin the organization's SP
victims and targets is compelled by "religious" "scripture".

	Outside the U.S., where Armstrong lives of course, "religious"
persecution where people were jailed, or fined or ruined for
expressing their "religious" experiences or "religious" beliefs was more
common.  Consequently in January 1998 the Congress passed the
International "Religious" Freedom Act to compel the Government's
branches to take a principled stand on behalf of "religious" freedom and
against "religious" persecution in all foreign countries.

	The IRFA is particularly applicable in this case because
virtually all of Armstrong's "religious" expressions after January 1998
have been expressed in foreign countries.  The IRFA is also helpful in
understanding why contracts like Scientology's are an impermissible
deprivation of "religious" freedom within the U.S., and why "religious"
freedom must be an exception to res judicata and collateral estoppel.
The IRFA states:

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes
that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and
"religion". This right includes freedom to change his "religion" or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his "religion" or belief in teaching,
practice, worship, and observance." Article 18(1) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that "Everyone shall
have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and "religion". This
right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a "religion" or belief
of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his "religion" or belief in
worship, observance, practice, and teaching". Governments have the
responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens and
to pursue justice for all. "Religious" freedom is a fundamental right of
every individual, regardless of race, sex, country, creed, or
nationality, and should never be arbitrarily abridged by any
government. 22 U.S.C. §§ 6401(a)(3)

	Clearly, for a person to possess freedom of thought,
conscience, and "religion", he would have to possess the freedom to
change his "religion" or beliefs.  His "religion" or beliefs can only
manifest in expressions, which he must also

23

possess the right to change.  Armstrong and every person has the right
to change his "religion", beliefs and mind about all these things every
second of every day forever.  Res judicata and collateral estoppel
logically cannot be used to bind someone to a particular form of
"religious" conduct or prohibit a particular form of "religious" conduct,
because the person must be able and free to engage or not engage in
that conduct, or change his mind about that conduct or about the
"religious" contract that compels or prohibits that "religious" conduct.

	The IRFA condemns both government-sponsored and
government-tolerated violations of people's rights to "religious"
freedom.  Scientology is a government- tolerated violator of people's
rights to "religious" freedom in the U.S, as this case and the
California courts' toleration and abetment of Scientology's violations
of people's rights to "religious" freedom demonstrates. 

	There are no national or international Trade Secret Freedom
Charters or laws protecting the freedom of persons to express or
divulge trade secrets.  "Religious" freedom is a very different matter,
which, because of its nature, simply lawfully may not be abridged by
contract or by court orders.  If ITT had chosen to call itself a
"religion", declare that it is organized for solely "religious" purposes,
declare all its activities "religious" and its manuals "scripture", ITT
could not have silenced Mr. Dooley about his necessarily "religious"
experiences and "religious" knowledge in the ITT "religion".  Scientology
insists that it is a "religion", and therefore cannot silence Armstrong
about his "religious" experiences and beliefs as if they were commercial
trade secrets.

	3.	The Court of Appeal did not deal with what Judge
Duryee did, but dealt with something she didn't.
	
	A.  Judge Duryee correctly applied C.C.C. §1670.5 in the
consolidated cases and combined matters before her, specifically
acting to limit the application of the unconscionable clauses in
Scientology's contract as to avoid any unconscionable result.

24

	Armstrong has demonstrated at length in his appellate briefs
in this case that Judge Duryee could not but have been applying C.C.C.
§1670.5 in both limiting the liquidated damages to $500,000, where
Scientology sought $10,050,000, and in remitting or discharging the
contempt punishment. Armstrong's position is that the $500,000 is also
unconscionable, but that issue is not before this Court.

	Judge Duryee specifically identified the indicia of
unconscionability, one-sidedness, endlessness, trickiness.  She used
the unconscionable word in pronouncing her judgment at trial, and she
used the word in her judgment, which she linked to the order re
sentences.

	The Court of Appeal decision does not mention C.C.C. §1670.5,
although it could not be avoided in Armstrong's briefs, and
acknowledges no effect of the unconscionability ruling on the
punishments the Court reinstates. The Court of Appeal moreover
misstates the unconscionability judgment.  If the misstatement is not
made, the Court would have had to deal squarely with the
unconscionability of the punishment the Court was reinstating for
other nonexistent reasons.
	
	The Court of Appeal decision states: 

The court, however, found that it would be unconscionable to "punish"
Armstrong with liquidated damages in excess of the $800,000 he
received as a benefit under the settlement agreement.

	Judge Duryee's judgment states:

Mr. Armstrong received a benefit under the settlement agreement of
$800,000. It would be unconscionable to punish him beyond what the
benefit was that was conferred to him.

	It is clear that Judge Duryee was not, as the Court of Appeal
has characterized it, limiting the unconscionable punishment
Scientology sought to 

25

inflict on Armstrong to liquidated damages.  Her intention is made
unavoidable by her linking of the contempts punishments to the
judgment. 

The sentences imposed in the two prior contempt actions, in Marin
Superior Court Case No. 152229/157680, which is consolidated herewith,
are discharged upon entry of judgment against Armstrong herein.
On the order of contempt issued July 13, 2001, Armstrong is sentenced
to five days in jail and a fine of $1,000. The fine is concurrent with
the judgment

	The decision states that Judge Duryee didn't have jurisdiction
to alter the sentences imposed against Armstrong because the court's
orders in the contempt proceedings are final and conclusive and not
appealable orders.  There is, however, no such exception to C.C.C.
§1670.5.  There is no law stating that a court may not act to prevent
an unconscionable result if that unconscionable result is jailing and
fining someone for contempt of court.  The position that punishment
cannot be remitted if found to be unconscionable defies all logic.
	
	To say, which the Court of Appeal is saying in what it is and
isn't saying, that a set of jail sentences ruled unconscionable and
remitted, must be reinstated because it is too late for a California
Superior Court Judge to have her conscience shocked, and consequently
make such a ruling, also defies all logic.
	
	Unconscionability in a contract is a very serious matter with
very serious legal significance and consequences.  Scientology here is
seeking to avoid the consequences and they should not be permitted to
get away with it. They are getting away with it by enforcing the
unconscionable. The Court of Appeal is, with that Court's avoidance of
the profound issues including C.C.C. §1670.5 that Armstrong raises in
his briefs, to be abetting the unconscionable.

	The Court of Appeal also has avoided the effect of
Scientology's dismissal of its appeal from the judgment, which states
that the very punishment Scientology sought, and which the Court of
Appeal has granted, was unconscionable. The 

26

dismissal, in fact, should have immediately barred Scientology from
proceeding with its writ petition to have the unconscionable
punishment reinstated.

	B. 	The correct remedy and procedure in this case is
mandated by C.C.C. 1670.5, specifically the reasonable opportunity to
present evidence as to the contract's commercial setting, purpose, and
effect to aid the court in making the unconscionability determination.

	Scientology should have availed itself of that opportunity
afforded it by C.C.C. §1670.5(a).  Scientology erroneously jumped the
gun and filed its appeal and writ petition.  The Court of Appeal
should have sent the matter back to the trial court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing on the contract's commercial setting, purpose, and
effect. 

	Why Scientology is avoiding the statutorily mandated
evidentiary hearing on the contract's commercial setting, purpose, and
effect is clear.  Such an evidentiary hearing would show that
Scientology unlawfully coerced and deceived Armstrong into signing its
contract, that Scientology fair gamed and compromised his attorney,
that there were no negotiations whatsoever about the reasonableness of
the obscene liquidated damages penalty, and that there is no
relationship whatsoever between that penalty and the actual damage
Armstrong causes with each expression of his "religious" beliefs he
expresses.

	But Armstrong too is to be afforded an evidentiary hearing
pursuant to C.C.C. §1670.5(a), and he has made this claim and demand
throughout this consolidated appellate case.

VI.

CONCLUSION

	What is completely and glaringly missing in this case is a
fair hearing or trial on the merits, including the merits of
Armstrong's profound human rights defenses.  What should be
reinstated, and what this Court has jurisdiction to reinstate, is not
the unconscionable jail sentences and fines Scientology wants
inflicted on Armstrong, but his defenses against such unconscionable
punishment.

27

	For the reasons stated herein, Armstrong respectfully requests
this court grant review to determine the issues presented above. 

	Dated: November 25, 2005

[Signed]
Gerry Armstrong
#1-45950 Alexander Avenue
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5
Canada
604-703-1373
gerry@gerryarmstrong.org

CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH

	Pursuant to Rule 28.1(d)(1) of the California Rules of Court,
respondent Gerry Armstrong certifies that the number of words in this
brief, according to the word count of the computer program used to
prepare the brief, is 8,398 words.

[Signed]
Gerry Armstrong

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

          I am employed in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. I
am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the
above-entitled action. My business address is #1-45950 Alexander
Avenue, Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5.

          On November 25, 2005 I served the following documents:

PETITION FOR REVIEW 

on the following persons on the date set forth below, by placing true
copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the
service list, as follows:

XX By Overnight Courier 

California Court of Appeal
First Appellate District
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Clerk of the Superior Court
Marin County Superior Court
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94913
U.S.A.
(Hon. Lynn Duryee) 

Kendrick Moxon 
MOXON & KOBRIN
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010 

          I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Canada,
the United States, and the State of California that the above is true
and correct.

          Executed on November 25, 2005 at Chilliwack, B.C., Canada

Caroline Letkeman [Signature]

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Go Back