|
post fairly regularly to alt.religion.scientology, and a friend
suggested that I post this to legal ngs. If by chance a lawyer or
anyone has a professional interest in my situation, please contact me
privately by e-mail. gerry@gerryarmstrong.org.
Webbed at: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/scn-v-armstrong-cases.html
I have been asked a number of times about the signing away of basic
human rights, and the subject just came up again on a.r.s. in specific
reference to the Scientology cult's "breach of contract" cases against
me. Because the rights that Scientology claims they contracted away
are so many and so basic, because the subject "contract" involves so
many individuals and entities, because it is possible to examine its
effects, including the cult's efforts to enforce it, over an almost
seventeen year period, and because there is such a wealth of
documentation of the related judicial and extra-judicial events, these
cases provide in fact a very useful paradigm for studying that
subject.
[Quote]
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:09:15 +0200, Tilman Hausherr
<tilman@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:35:37 -0500, "JB@nowhere"
<mblackjac1@donteventhinkaboutit,cox.net> wrote in
<hUkeb.8913$Rd4.7934@fed1read07>:
Yes. The Gerry Armstrong cases showed that you can.
[End Quote]
Not exactly. With or without the Gerry Armstrong cases, it is obvious
that anyone *can* "sign away basic human rights." The real question
is whether or not such a signing away of basic human rights is
lawfully *judicially* enforceable.
The fact that Scientology obtained a court order in California that
enforces its "contract" that strips me of my basic human rights does
not mean that such an order is lawful.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/injunction-csi-v-armstrong.html
Indeed, the U.S. Constitution, all the U.S. statutes and case law that
I have read, as well as all logic, dictate that it is not lawful for a
court in the U.S. to enforce a "contract' that strips a person of the
basic human rights that Scientology claims it has successfully
stripped from me. The final judicial outcome of the cases may very
well be a ruling that such a "contract" is not lawful, and that
judicial enforcement is therefore not permissible lawfully. I believe
that rather than permit such an outcome, the Miscavige regime would
opt for my assassination.
I have had legal opinions here in Germany stating that the basic human
rights that Scientology and Scientologists claim that they have
stripped from me in the U.S. may not be stripped from a person
lawfully using the German judicial system. That is certainly why the
cultists have not tried to use the courts here to silence me and to
have me jailed for my non-silence.
I have also had legal opinions stating that what the cult is doing in
the U.S. to strip me of my basic human rights is not lawful there as
well. I am proceeding in the latest Scientology lawsuit
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/complaint-cv021632.html
and continuing to refuse to be stripped of those rights because I
believe, and have solid legal grounds for that belief, that the orders
the cult obtained, that purport to strip me of those rights, are
unlawful.
The unlawful, human rights-destroying conditions of Scientology's
"contract" and the unlawful efforts to enforce them are increasingly
relevant internationally because of the cultists' big push during the
last few years to portray and position themselves as great "human
rights" defenders and champions. The Armstrong cases demonstrate
beyond any argument that in truth the cultists are all suppressors and
destroyers of human rights, and that their whole "human rights"
campaign is a fraud, so these cases have to be a major concern to
them. See, e.g., my response to the cult's recent opening of its new
"human rights office" in Brussels, and its new "Proclamation on
Religion, Human Rights and Society."
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/armstrong-ltr-2003-09-28-brussels.html
Scientology paid me to dismiss my lawsuit against the cult for fraud,
for years of abuse inside, and for years of fair game attacks after
leaving. The cult did not pay me, even though they later say they did,
to be their defenseless punching bag, and to forfeit my basic human
rights. Scientology obtained my signature on its "contract," which
they say strips me of my basic rights, by fraud and threat. My
position, supported by the facts, law and logic, is that the basic
human rights, which the cult says it stripped from me by contract,
cannot lawfully be contracted away; or again, rather, that a U.S.
court cannot lawfully enforce such contractual conditions. And
further, that what the cult did to get my signature on its unlawful
contract was unlawful.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986.html
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/c420153-mutual-release.pdf
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986-de.html
No one -- not the Marin County judges, not the cult's lawyers, not any
other lawyer, not a Scientologist, not a goon squadder, not any U.S.
federal official -- has ever presented a cogent argument based on U.S.
law, or international law, or logic, to convince me, or even try to
convince me, that what the cult has done, and the court in the cult's
service has done, to strip me of my basic human rights, is lawful.
The Marin County judge based his injunction that stripped me of my
Constitutional defenses, and consequently my human rights, on a single
California case, ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989) 214
Cal.App.3d 307, 262 Cal.Rptr. 773
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/262cal.rptr.773.html
The Marin judge stated in his grant of summary adjudication, by which
he eliminated all my Constitutional defenses:
[Quote]
First Amendment: First Amendment rights may be waived by contract.
(See ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 307,
319.)
[End Quote]
Dooley actually states, almost as an aside, since Dooley was
apparently not asserting freedom of speech as a defense, but the
litigant's privilege:
[Quote]
Moreover, it is possible to waive even First Amendment free speech
rights by contract.
[End Quote]
Note that Dooley says nothing about First Amendment *religious*
rights, and that the Marin judge dropped Dooley's "free speech"
qualifier in his order in order to dispose of my religious defenses.
See, e.g., for my "religious defenses" then before the Marin judge, my
separate statement of disputed and undisputed facts in opposition to
Scientology's motion for summary adjudication of the twentieth cause
of action of the se
|
| |
| |
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
I post fairly regularly to alt.religion.scientology, and a friend
suggested that I post this to legal ngs. If by chance a lawyer or
anyone has a professional interest in my situation, please contact me
privately by e-mail. gerry@gerryarmstrong.org.
Webbed at: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/scn-v-armstrong-cases.html
For what it's worth, IF the release at
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986.html
was properly executed by the parties, it seems valid in the absence of
fraud.
Now, I'm not a fan of the CoS, but if you signed it, and they
paid the agreement amount, a non-suit contract is enforceable --
otherwise, how could ANY out-of-court settlement
be valid.
I see nothing about basic human rights in that agreement.
Paragraph 7(H), to the extent that it requires you to try to avoid
a valid subpoena, is probably void as being contrary to
public policy.
Paragraph 7(L) may be impossible in fact after you die -- this
agreement probably does not bind your estate, so the referred
artwork would have to be disclosed at that time.
Paragraph 10, in regard police agencies, is probably void.
Still no basic human rights.
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F8AD017.4F3AC049@sprintmail.com>...
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
For what it's worth, IF the release at
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986.html
was properly executed by the parties, it seems valid in the absence of
fraud.
Or duress. Or if it violated public policy. If it obstructed justice.
Or if it stripped from me rights that cannot be lawfully taken from me
by "contract;" e.g., freedom of religion, due process.
Certainly the way the cult is interpreting the "contract" and
attempting to enforce it would have to be considered, since 17 years
of those interpretations and enforcement efforts are now available.
Now, I'm not a fan of the CoS, but if you signed it, and they
paid the agreement amount, a non-suit contract is enforceable --
otherwise, how could ANY out-of-court settlement
be valid.
Well, it could be fair, not have an unlawful purpose, not be obtained
by fraud or duress, and not unnecessarily violate civil/human rights.
I see nothing about basic human rights in that agreement.
Paragraph 7(H), to the extent that it requires you to try to avoid
a valid subpoena, is probably void as being contrary to
public policy.
Paragraph 7(L) may be impossible in fact after you die -- this
agreement probably does not bind your estate, so the referred
artwork would have to be disclosed at that time.
Paragraph 10, in regard police agencies, is probably void.
Still no basic human rights.
See these articles from the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 18.
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 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
And these I suppose.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent
national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted
him by the constitution or by law.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and
full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be
subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for
the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and
freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to
the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein.
Gerry Armstrong
c/o Dialog Zentrum Berlin
Heimat 27
D-14165 Berlin-Zehlendorf
Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 30-84723958
Fax: +49 (0) 1212-5-205-27-015
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
gerry@gerryarmstrong.org
|
| |
| |
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F8AD017.4F3AC049@sprintmail.com>...
Or duress. Or if it violated public policy. If it obstructed justice.
Or if it stripped from me rights that cannot be lawfully taken from me
by "contract;" e.g., freedom of religion, due process.
WHAT RIGHTS? I believe I asked you that already.
I see nothing about basic human rights in that agreement.
Paragraph 7(H), to the extent that it requires you to try to avoid
a valid subpoena, is probably void as being contrary to
public policy.
Paragraph 7(L) may be impossible in fact after you die -- this
agreement probably does not bind your estate, so the referred
artwork would have to be disclosed at that time.
Paragraph 10, in regard police agencies, is probably void.
Still no basic human rights.
See these articles from the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Not recognized by the US, but to continue....
Article 18.
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.
Not compromised, except as would be done in any
private settlement, particularly those related to trade
secrets.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.
Ditto.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Not compromised or abrogated.
|
| |
| |
|
