Scientology Versus Gerry Armstrong

Scientology® Versus
Gerry Armstrong

From: Gerry Armstrong <armstrong@dowco.com>
Subject: Garry Scarff: A Question in Logic
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 06:56:32 -0800
Message-ID: <rhtuds4l061gvf6k25vo2uce124huivkka@4ax.com>

Garry:

It's my understanding that you wrote the post that follows:

[Quote]

Message-ID: <38DCBD78.C795228B@pacbell.net>
From: Garry <garryls@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Real Considerations In Portion of Gerrys Post
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 05:22:00 -0800

Beverly Rice wrote:

> Gerry Armstrong says:

This is incredibly poor taste, Beverly. If Gerry wants to spit and froth behind the safety of an international border, than stand up like a real man and face his accusers, then let him take responsibility for his own actions, as the adult he is ~ he has been of adult age for quite some time, I believe ~ and stop posting this gobblygook for him.

Seems to me that Gerry has found another soul to manipulate to do his bidding for him ~ very kind of you, Gerry. Pathetic. You have nothing to lose as a Canadian citizen hiding in your homeland. Beverly has been through hell these last few years and has everything to lose in allowing you to use her to attain your own goals.

Your actions are pathetic, sick and misguided. Your willingness to destroy another individual to forward your own selfish delusions is equally as sick.

Please reconsider what you are doing and don't re-victimize someone who's already endured their share of pain. Beverly and I have not always seen eye to eye, but I have come to know her in ways that the majority of people on ARS ~ even you Gerry ~ know nothing about.

You want to taunt Scientology, Gerry. Feel free. But, do so at your own expense. Think about someone else for a change.

Beverly, you should know better.

[End Quote]

And it is my understanding that you wrote the following post that follows:

[Quote]

Message-ID: <38DD7FC1.2454FA56@pacbell.net>
From: Garry <garryls@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: FORGERIES: Real Considerations In Portion of Gerrys Post
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:10:57 -0800

I AM ONLY GOING TO RESPOND IN THIS MANNER:

1. THOUGHT NO LONGER A NEWBIE ON COMPUTERS, THERE IS STILL MUCH I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM, PARTICULARLY WHEN I AM SWAMPED WITH UNWANTED E-MAILS, PUT ON DEROGATORY AND RACIST MAILING LISTS, ETC. ETC. AND THEN AM TOLD BY THE ISP THAT I COMPLAIN TO THERE IS NOT A FUCKING THING I CAN DO ABOUT FORGERIES.....

2. IMPERVIOUS TO WHAT OTHERS MAY THINK AND FEEL ABOUT ME (AND WITH EXCEPTION OF VERY FEW PEOPLE, I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS, MY FORMER ASSOCIATES IN OSA NEED TO DO SOME SERIOUS INTROSPECTION ABOUT WHY I HAD SUCH A GREAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP FOR YEARS WITH SCIENTOLOGY EXECS & P.I'S.......

3. MAYBE, THEN YOU'LL GET A TRUE SENSE OF WHO YOU ARE FUCKING WITH HERE. KEEP IT US, MOXOM...KEEP IT UP RINDER....THE LAPD WON'T BE ABLE TO DO SHIT FOR YOU..........

YOURS TRULY

[End Quote]

These appear in a thread on a.r.s. which started:

[Quote]

From: Beverly Rice <dbj1120@ao.net>
Subject: Real Considerations In Portion of Gerrys Post
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:35:15 -0500
Message-ID: <38DC5013.14B0@ao.net>

Gerry Armstrong says:

So DM, and all you $cientologists, and all your lawyers, here's my legal question. How many contempts does this post from me that you're now reading rate?

For each of the thirteen contempts listed by $cientology attorney Andy Wilson, your jolly judge sentenced me to 2 days in jail for a total of 26 days. Here I've repeated all of the contempts in a single post.

Will you seek to have me jailed just 2 days for this single post? Or will you seek to have me jailed for another 26 days for repeating the 13 contempts for which you already had me ordered to jail?

Or will you seek additional jail time for my comments in this post over and above what I stated in the original contempts?

If you treat this as a single post, then it clearly behooves me to repost all my posts again in a single monstrous message. And it behooves me to assemble ever more monstrous messages, duplicating and reduplicating and re-reduplicating everything I've ever written, or anyone else has written for that matter. I have a duty, as you know, to mitigate damages.

If I'm going to get two days for saying nothing more than the spit word "$cientology," I might as well write a whole blessed book, because I'll still only get two days. I could publish a damn decology and still only get two days in the slammer.

If you treat this as a single post, for which I'd be jailed two days, surely then having me jailed 26 days for the identical content split into 13 contempts is a clear and terrible injustice.

If you treat this post as 13 or 14 or more contempts, will you treat my equally lengthy posts which do not quote my earlier contempts as 13 or 14 or more? If I mistakenly click twice on send, do I get another 26 or 28 days or more in the jug?

Obviously if your judge isn't clear, how can I be expected to know exactly what stupidity, illegality or insanity he intended.

If anyone quotes this post, or any of my posts, in response, do they get just as much jail time because they're acting in concert with me? Everyone is acting in concert with me, except those few $cientologists and your cult lawyers you have under your suppressive thumb. So do you really think any judge, even one you've bought or blackmailed, would dare to jail every wog Ž in the wog world Ž just to silence Gerry Armstrong?

You see, DM, the court orders that you paid all those lawyers all those poor $cientologists' millions for really are nuts. I don't understand them, and I'd bet you don't either. Whatever they say, it's obvious that they're intended to suppress me. And they don't even do that. You simply can't make things go right.

You really should just go back into the Marin court and confess that you were wrong to seek your ridiculous injunction to silence me. Confess that you were wrong to seek your insane contempt orders and warrants to punish me for not being silenced. And you should gracefully get these illegal, obscene, stupid, dangerous and suppressive orders cancelled.

I mock you and taunt you because you, through your suppressive intent, have put me in this position where mockery and taunting are appropriate. I mock you and taunt you because of the continuing threat you are to my life.

*********

[** a notation on just how low Co$ stoops]

You have, as everyone knows, lied about me, black PRed me, had me assaulted, and tried to have me jailed on false criminal charges. You stole my art work, my original manuscript and other writings. You've threatened me, my family and friends. You've tried to silence me by abuse of the law and by extra-judicial intimidation. You lied about me in order to get your billion dollar tax exemption. You've run dirty intel ops on me and you continue to run your dirty ops. It is a small step from what you've done to murder, and I know that you are fully capable of murder.

********

I mock and taunt $cientologists because they support you in your lies, your black PR, your assaults, your false criminal charges, your theft of my art and writings, your threatening me, my family and friends, your judicial efforts to silence and suppress me, your billiion dollar tax fraud, your dirty intel ops. $cientologists would also support you in murder. Just think of Lisa McPherson.

And while I mock and taunt you and your $cientologist supporters, I also ask you and them, politely and calmly, to rethink what you've done and continue to do to silence and harm me. I ask you and them to communicate with me politely and calmly to eliminate the threat you are to me and eliminate the need to mock and taunt you.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Beverly

[End Quote]

Beverly has written in response to your first communication the following:

[Quote]

From: Beverly Rice <dbj1120@ao.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Real Considerations In Portion of Gerrys Post
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:06:22 -0500

Garry Scarff wrote:

> This is incredibly poor taste, Beverly. If Gerry wants to spit and froth
> behind the safety of an international border, than stand up like a real
> man and face his accusers,

Gerry was standing right out in the streets of CW, in plain view, , ~as~ a real man, in front of several Co$ owned buildings, including OSA's building.

Not only was he not hiding, he was all over the place, as well as making a radio appearance, and speaking publicly in an open forum regarding the Co$.

It wasn't ~unknown~ by Co$ that he was there, everywhere he went he was followed by Co$ PI's, they were there first thing in the morning, last thing in the evening, even there at suppertime <g>.

The only ones that were in hiding, were the leadership of Co$.

> then let him take responsibility for his own
> actions, as the adult he is ~ he has been of adult age for quite some
> time, I believe ~ and stop posting this gobblygook for him.

You, above all people, should know that I post what ~I~ want, when I want, how I want, in whatever way I want.

As a matter of fact, being honest, you are the only person who has ever sent me anything and asked me to post it for you.

Gerry has never asked me to do anything for him, he is very unassuming, he allows me my free will to do as I please with no suggestion or critique, unlike you do to me.

He understands that I am my own person, and I'm going to do what I'm going to do. He grants me the "beingness" to be my own person, and accepts me unconditionally for that very purpose.

> Seems to me that Gerry has found another soul to manipulate to do his
> bidding for him ~ very kind of you, Gerry.

Garry, because I still love you as a friend, even after this BS you bring in to the NG yet another time, we won't even go there as far as talking about manipulation.

> Pathetic. You have nothing to
> lose as a Canadian citizen hiding in your homeland.

Good grief, Gerry is a Canadian, so the fact he is living in Canada is no big deal.

I'm an American . . . I live in America.

How odd to twist the fact that a Canuck <g> lives in Canada, and make it seem something else.

> Beverly has been
> through hell these last few years

Yes, I have, and I sure do wish you would not insist on adding to it, which is what you are doing now.

> and has everything to lose in allowing
> you to use her to attain your own goals.

Nobody is using me. Quite the contrary, Gerry has told me I should ~not~ get involved, specifically for the reason that he is a prime target.

But you, Garry, above all should know me and that I'm going to do what I want to do.

After all, how many times when I chose to make you my friend was I warned about you, and what my involvement with you would cost?

I was even ostrasized and condemned by other criitcs and took a ~LOT~ of crap for befriending you.

But do you remember my response then . . . "I don't care, I'm going to do what I want to do."

And then, when you betrayed me I got lots of "I told you so's", an e-mail box ~full~ of them.

But, I understand you, and that is why when you do things like this, as much as I would like to kick your butt, I can't, because despite it all, I am committed to being your friend, in spite of yourself.

I am led my my own heart, and get that way more and more every day.

> Your actions are pathetic, sick and misguided. Your willingness to
> destroy another individual to forward your own selfish delusions is
> equally as sick.

Again, you are wrong there.

I don't know why you are doing this, I have given up trying to figure you out, but it is not in the name of being my friend, this is not the way to be a persons friend.

> Please reconsider what you are doing and don't re-victimize
> someone who's already endured their share of pain.

Right now, the only one that is ~victimizing~ me here, is you.

> Beverly and I have not always seen
> eye to eye, but I have come to know her in ways that the majority of
> people on ARS ~ even you Gerry ~ know nothing about.

If that were so, and you were my true friend, you would not have pulled this stunt.

You are using ~me~ to spew ~your~ hatred for Gerry.

As you accuse ~Gerry~ of using me for an agenda, I accuse ~you~ of using me for an agenda.

If you want to hate Gerry, do it without including me, thank you very much.

However, I'm getting so used to this BS, it doesn't even really phase me anymore. It's like . . .

"Here we go again".

> You want to taunt Scientology, Gerry. Feel free. But, do so
> at your own expense. Think about someone else for a change.

He does.

But if you know me like you claim to know me, you will know that I choose to forward all the incidents surrounding what Gerry has had done to him because it is a perfect picture of the hatred, intimidation, harassment, abuse of law, relentless pursuit to drive an individual to the point of caving in, and then holding it over them the rest of their life, and then to again use the law to try to stop the flow of information that is ~vital~ in exposing a scam and flim-flam man for what they/he are/is.

~I~ think that everything that has been posted is of great importance, and that is why I have chosen to break down the issues brought out in that one ~ L O N G ~ post of his, into separate posts detailing each specific item.

Also, to emphasize that if ~those~ were posts that were made that were supposed to be worthy of sending a person to jail, then this ~Justice~ system we are under is indeed flawed.

As a matter of fact, as far as I'm concerned, Co$ isn't even the problem . . .

the disease runs much deeper than the Co$ . . .

the Co$ is merely the stinking, festering, pus-oozing open sore that lets you know there is a really nasty disease going on inside.

> Beverly, you should know better.

No Garry, ~you~ should know better.

Maybe you just don't know me as well as you think you do.

If so, you would stop doing this.

Beverly (who still loves you as a dear friend)

[End Quote]

I am writing this message with the present understanding that you are asserting that the message wherein you attack me is a forgery and you had nothing to do with its creation or posting. The attack in the post contains the indirect or direct assertions that:

1. I am spitting and frothing;

2. I am behind the safety of an international border, spitting and frothing;

3. I am not a real man;

4. I won't face my accusers;

5. I am not taking responsibility for my own actions;

6. What I wrote, which Beverly posted, was gobblygook.

7. I find souls to manipulate to do my bidding;

8. I am pathetic;

9. I am hiding in my homeland;

10. I am using Beverly to attain my own goals;

11. My actions are pathetic, sick and misguided;

12. I am willing to destroy another individual to forward my own selfish delusions;

13. My willingness to destroy another individual to forward my own selfish delusions is equally as sick as the patheticness, sickness and misguidedness of my actions;

14. I am re-victimizing someone who's already endured their share of pain;

15. I know nothing about the ways in which you've come to know Beverly;

16. I don't think about anyone else.

These statements, except for number 15, are false. Obviously I know nothing about the ways in which any person has come to know Beverly, so it would be true if you, Garry, wrote the letter, which, as I understand it, you deny, or if someone else wrote it . You claim that it's a forgery. As I understand it, in addition to posting the message in which you refer to "MY FORMER ASSOCIATES IN O[$]A," you told Beverly that this attack post was not by you but a forgery by O$A people different from you.

There are some other relevant facts in the determination of whether or not the post is yours. I understand that a short time before the message was posted you called Beverly and spoke with her for some period of time on the same subject, and conveyed to her the same sentiments about me and my relationship with her as are contained in the post. If this is inaccurate, and you claim that whoever spoke to Beverly was not you but another O$A agent, I'm sure you'll advise me.

I also understand that in the telephone call to Beverly you made after the attack post you stated that the reason you hate me and why you would have posted the message attacking me if you had done so, is that I'm saying that you're working for O$A. Actually I haven't been saying anything about you in quite some time, whether you work for O$A or not. I have no way of knowing if you haven't stopped working for O$A or not.

To be fair to you, I won't respond to the falsehoods contained in this post until I've attempted to determine if you actually had anything to do with it. As I know you're aware, I have for quite a while considered you an awful liar and a person pretending to dramatize a dangerous pathology with which you have attacked and continue to attack good people involved in opposing the $cientology cult's abuses and criminality. You are also aware, I know, that I have taken pains to not engage you on many occasions when you lied or attacked these good people, who also happen to be my friends.

It really doesn't matter if it was you or O$A or both of you together. You both and together do the same thing. You attack the good people involved in opposing the $cientology cult's abuses and criminality. What you wrote, if you wrote it, in your attack on Beverly and me, is consistent in content, language, cadence and tone with what you've written and acknowledged as your own in the past. However, I do acknowledge that this post attacking Beverly and me could be a forgery.

My ability to tell technically if your post is a forgery, and actually composed by O$A, perhaps by having Beverly's phone bugged when you called her, is very limited. So I'd like you to plead with Sten-Arne and Tilman and any other technically gifted a.r.s. participants who can help out to give their expert opinions as to whether the subject offensive post is a forgery or your very own work. I'll ask Sten-Arne and Tilman and anyone else myself to tell us if it's a forgery, but it would be good too if the plea came from you. I mean, you want to know for sure whether you posted the forgery or not, right?

As I've said, I've been led by you to believe that you're a frightful liar, so I'd bet that you're lying about the post being a forgery. But if it did turn out to be a forgery, done by someone else in O$A, and without your knowledge or input, I would sure cease thinking of you as the guilty party just out to attack more of O$A's designated opponents. So, Garry, let's you and me ask Sten-Arne and Tilman and every other wog Ž, or even $cientologist, techie to give us their opinion. Is it a forgery, or is it you?