Gerry Armstrong's Legal Archive

Scientology v. Armstrong and related cases

  • Home
  • Scientology v. Armstrong
    • Armstrong Exhibits
      • Topics
    • Armstrong 1
      • Armstrong 1 Trial Transcripts (April 19 – June 8, 1984)
      • Armstrong 1 Trial Exhibits
      • Armstrong 1 Appeals
      • Correspondence in Armstrong 1 and Appeals
    • Armstrong 2
      • Armstrong 2 Appeals
      • Correspondence in Armstrong 2 and Appeals
    • Armstrong 3
    • Armstrong 4
      • Armstrong 4 Appeals
      • Armstrong 4: The Record On Appeal
        • Armstrong 4 Record on Appeal: Exhibits
      • Correspondence in Armstrong 4 and Appeals
    • Armstrong 5
      • Correspondence in Armstrong 5
    • Armstrong 6
      • Armstrong 6 Appeals
      • Correspondence in Armstrong 6 and Appeals
    • Armstrong 7
      • Armstrong 7 Appeals
      • Correspondence in Armstrong 7 and Appeals
    • Armstrong 8
  • Related Cases
  • Documents By Author

Letters between Gerry Armstrong and Kendrick Moxon (August 6-16, 2007)

August 16, 2007 by Clerk2

View/Download: Letters between Gerry Armstrong and Kendrick Moxon (August 6-16, 2007)

 

—–Original Message—–
From: Gerry Armstrong [mailto:gerry@gerryarmstrong.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:00 AM
To: ‘kmoxon@earthlink.net’
Subject: RE: Revised hearing date

August 16, 2007

Kendrick L. Moxon, Esquire
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010

By E-mail: kmoxon@earthlink.net

Re: Scientology v. Armstrong
Marin Superior Court Case No. CV021632

Dear Mr. Moxon:

You’re not clear what “no” means. It certainly wouldn’t be courteous if you were saying, no you weren’t going to ask your client. In the circumstances — not in the gloss of decency or courtesy you and your client affect in this matter and in your whole Scientology-wide war on me — my offer to your client is very reasonable and even generous.

As you know, I know I am dealing here with a sociopath with untold millions to spend on making his evil postulates come true, a violent, not quite bright bully, with dishonest lawyers like yourself to make those evil postulates “legal” and make you both look “courteous.” Pursuant to SPD 28, you can’t even *grant me credence* or the little ecclesiopath will turn his “Suppressive Person” doctrine on you, so it is reasonable to conclude, other than as a pretense in furtherance of Miscavige’s ev purps, you are not going to be courteous to me.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/spd-28-1982-08-13-txt.html

Your answer to my question as to what your client proposes as an agreement regarding e-mailing courtesy copies of court documents or other documents in this case, is also unclear, although your client’s intention is clear, and should be terminated. You haven’t been e-mailing papers to me as a courtesy.  You e-mailed me your motion after you lied about doing so on your Proof of Service. So, no, I don’t want what you’ve been doing, and I won’t reciprocate. As for one-sided unconditionality, tell your head Nuts!

If your client refuses to agree to mutual e-mailed courtesy copies of court documents in this case, then I suppose there is no choice but to rely completely on our national postal systems or couriers. But why not ask him one more time and see if he won’t, just for a moment, be reasonable.

Yours sincerely,

Gerry Armstrong
#2-46298 Yale Road
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2P6
Canada
604-703-1373

—–Original Message—–
From: kmoxon@earthlink.net [mailto:kmoxon@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:38 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: RE: Revised hearing date

No. I’ve been emailing papers to you as a courtesy. If you don’t want that and choose not to reciprocate unconditionally, I’ll send everything according to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Kendrick Moxon

—–Original Message—–
>From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
>Sent: Aug 15, 2007 11:09 AM
>To: kmoxon@earthlink.net
>Subject: RE: Revised hearing date
>
>August 15, 2007
>
>Kendrick L. Moxon, Esquire
>Moxon & Kobrin
>3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
>Los Angeles, CA 90010
>
>By E-mail: kmoxon@earthlink.net
>
> Re: Scientology v. Armstrong
> Marin Superior Court Case No. CV021632
>
>Dear Mr. Moxon:
>
>Please ask your client, how about if I e-mail you the request I sent to
>the Court on the condition that he grant the request for a continuance
>I’ve been asking both of you for?”
>
>We don’t have an agreement regarding e-mailing courtesy copies of court
>documents, or other documents in this case. What does your client propose?
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Gerry Armstrong
>#2-46298 Yale Road
>Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2P6
>Canada
>604-703-1373
>
>
>
>—–Original Message—–
>From: kmoxon@earthlink.net [mailto:kmoxon@earthlink.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:29 PM
>To: Gerry Armstrong
>Subject: RE: Revised hearing date
>
>Please email whatever request you made to the court.
>
>Kendrick Moxon
>
>—–Original Message—–
>>From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
>>Sent: Aug 14, 2007 5:34 PM
>>To: kmoxon@earthlink.net
>>Subject: RE: Revised hearing date
>>
>>August 14, 2007
>>
>>Kendrick L. Moxon, Esquire
>>Moxon & Kobrin
>>3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
>>Los Angeles, CA 90010
>>
>>By E-mail: kmoxon@earthlink.net
>>
>> Re: Scientology v. Armstrong
>> Marin Superior Court Case No. CV021632
>>
>>Dear Mr. Moxon:
>>
>>Thank you. Since it is impossible to comply with the injunction, I
>>cannot but refuse your offer. Since the injunction is unlawful and
>>moreover unconscionable, I consider your client’s offer extortive. I
>>have requested the continuance from the Court.
>>
>>Yours sincerely,
>>
>>Gerry Armstrong
>>#2-46298 Yale Road
>>Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2P6
>>Canada
>>604-703-1373
>>
>>—–Original Message—–
>>From: kmoxon@earthlink.net [mailto:kmoxon@earthlink.net]
>>Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:36 AM
>>To: Gerry Armstrong
>>Subject: RE: Revised hearing date
>>
>>Mr. Armstrong:
>>
>>To clarify my response to your request for a continuance:
>>
>>I represent the Church of Scientology International, which is the
>>plaintiff in the case in which we are engaged and is the party which
>>made the motion set for September 7th. My client has authorized me to
>>continue that motion on the condition that until the motion is
>>resolved, you FULLY comply with the terms of the injunction for which
>>you have repeatedly been held in contempt. Otherwise, make your
>>motion for
>a continuance.
>>
>>I chose not to respond to any other comment you have made.
>>
>>Kendrick Moxon
>>
>>—–Original Message—–
>>>From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
>>>Sent: Aug 9, 2007 10:15 AM
>>>To: kmoxon@earthlink.net
>>>Subject: RE: Revised hearing date
>>>
>>>August 9, 2007
>>>
>>>Kendrick L. Moxon, Esquire
>>>Moxon & Kobrin
>>>3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
>>>Los Angeles, CA 90010
>>>
>>>By E-mail: kmoxon@earthlink.net
>>>
>>> Re: Scientology v. Armstrong
>>> Marin Superior Court Case No. CV021632
>>>
>>>Dear Mr. Moxon:
>>>
>>>I am very interested in your offer. It’s clear I think we’re already
>>>half way toward a sane arrangement and the resolution of the
>>>Scientology
>v.
>>>Armstrong war.
>>>
>>>I do want to be sure that you have your client’s agreement to make
>>>this offer. As you know, you’re untrustworthy, as is your client, of
>>>course, so I have to go into this with my eyes open. Both of you
>>>could easily sucker me into agreeing to something, or otherwise
>>>easing up on my willingness to fight back, and then pull the old
>>>sorry-I-wasn’t-authorized-to-make-that-offer dodge, or your client
>>>could label you a rogue. So please confirm that your client
>>>authorizes your proposal. It goes without saying that your client,
>>>certainly in this case, although it’s captioned Scientology v.
>>>Armstrong, is, for decisional matters of this magnitude, David Miscavige.
>>>
>>>Please let me know as soon as possible if your client proposes this
>>>arrangement or agrees to the arrangement you propose. Also, please
>>>don’t ignore forever what you call my “scurrilous, untrue and
>>>unnecessary comments.” I am actually anxious to hear from you exactly
>>>what your client or you mean, and what are these comments of mine
>>>that your client or you find scurrilous, untrue and unnecessary. I
>>>think that if I could have the opportunity to prove to you both that
>>>my comments were not scurrilous, untrue or unnecessary, it would move
>>>us even closer to resolution of your war on me.
>>>
>>>I will only take up one of the adjectives you attach to my comments;
>>>that they were “unnecessary.” My comments, I’m sure you will agree,
>>>are all in support of my request for an extension of time to respond
>>>to your motion to reinstitute jail sentences and for arrest warrants
>>>against
>>me.
>>>
>>>I’m sure you’ll also agree that the extension of time is itself
>>>necessary, and clearly not unnecessary. I state, e.g., in my request
>>>for
>>an extension:
>>>”I require an extension of time of 60 days to oppose your motion or
>>>take whatever other action is warranted and to prepare for a hearing
>>>on your motion or other actions.” If the extension of time itself was
>>>unnecessary, I would not have stated that I required it, but would
>>>have written that I didn’t require it. That would have rendered the
>>>reasons I gave for the unnecessary extension unnecessary. But I
>>>didn’t write that; I wrote that the extension of time I was
>>>requesting of 60 days to oppose your motion or take whatever other
>>>action is warranted and to prepare for a hearing on your motion or
>>>other actions was not unnecessary
>>but necessary.
>>>
>>>If it had only been necessary that I requested the extension and your
>>>client and you would have granted the request without any question,
>>>then what I wrote to explain, in advance of your anticipated
>>>question, why the extension was necessary would have been,
>>>conceivably at least, unnecessary. The request itself, provided in
>>>the above quoted sentence (“I require an extension of time of 60 days
>>>to oppose your motion or take whatever other action is warranted and
>>>to prepare for a hearing on your motion or other
>>>actions.”) contains nothing scurrilous or untrue, I’m sure you also
>>>cannot but agree. As shown above, moreover, the request itself was
>>>necessary, and, it can be concluded, it was necessary that I make it.
>>>Whatever you are just alleging to be scurrilous, untrue and
>>>unnecessary comments, therefore, must be contained within whatever I
>>>wrote beyond that single sentence to, as I explained, explain why the
>>>extension was
>>necessary.
>>>
>>>You write that you will ignore what you say are my scurrilous, untrue
>>>and unnecessary comments for the moment. Clearly, if you can ignore
>>>what you say are my scurrilous, untrue and unnecessary comments for
>>>one moment, you can for every other moment. In that moment or all
>>>those moments, if in truth your client and you viewed everything else
>>>as unnecessary, you would have viewed my simple necessary request as
>>>necessary
>>and granted it.
>>>
>>>But you didn’t grant my simple and necessary request, which leads me
>>>to the conclusion that you’re not being truthful; which of course
>>>would fit with your well known untrustworthiness I commented on above.
>>>What I wrote, each and every comment, was necessary, and I believe
>>>you cannot but know it. The only reasonable interpretation is that I
>>>still haven’t said enough, made enough comments, to explain to you
>>>why your client and you should grant my request. I am ready, however,
>>>to be shown in this matter that I’m wrong, and that you really
>>>believe my comments were unnecessary, by your client and you granting
>>>my
request.
>>>Just set the hearing on your motion and the OEX for October 26.
>>>
>>>During this time, your client and you can pull back any PIs or
>>>process server thugs you’ve sicced on Caroline and me and we can all
>>>dialogue about the resolution of the whole Scientology v. Armstrong war.
>>>
>>>Yours sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>>Gerry Armstrong
>>>#2-46298 Yale Road
>>>Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2P6
>>>Canada
>>>604-703-1373
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>—–Original Message—–
>>>From: kmoxon@earthlink.net [mailto:kmoxon@earthlink.net]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 12:04 PM
>>>To: Gerry Armstrong
>>>Subject: RE: Revised hearing date
>>>
>>>Mr. Armstrong:
>>>
>>>I will ignore your scurrilous, untrue and unnecessary comments for
>>>the moment.
>>>
>>>However, I would be willing to provide an extension of the date set
>>>for the hearing only under the condition that until the matter is
>>>determined, you FULLY comply with the terms of the injunction for
>>>which you have repeatedly been held in contempt. If you agree to
>>>these terms, I will grant you all the time you desire.
>>>
>>>Kendrick Moxon
>>>
>>>—–Original Message—–
>>>>From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
>>>>Sent: Aug 6, 2007 7:55 PM
>>>>To: kmoxon@earthlink.net
>>>>Subject: RE: Revised hearing date
>>>>
>>>>August 6, 2007
>>>>
>>>>Kendrick L. Moxon, Esquire
>>>>Moxon & Kobrin
>>>>3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
>>>>Los Angeles, CA 90010
>>>>
>>>>By E-mail: kmoxon@earthlink.net
>>>>
>>>> Re: Scientology v. Armstrong
>>>> Marin Superior Court Case No. CV021632
>>>>
>>>>Dear Mr. Moxon:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, no, September 7 is not plenty of time to respond to your
>>>>motion to reinstate the sentences against me. I require an extension
>>>>of time of 60 days to oppose your motion or take whatever other
>>>>action is warranted and to prepare for a hearing on your motion or
>>>>other
>actions.
>>>>I suggest Friday October 26, 2007 as a reasonable date for
>>>>recalendaring
>>>your motion.
>>>>
>>>>Clearly, your client has done nothing for, as you state in your
>>>>motion, more than a year and a half, at least overtly or openly, to
>>>>get the Marin Court to reinstate your ill-gotten and already
>>>>adjudged unconscionable jail sentences. All that time you say your
>>>>client remained hopeful that I would come to my senses, so
>>>>consequently your client and you did nothing. Please be assured that
>>>>in relevant sense your doing nothing was fully rewarded, because I
>>>>did come to my senses, in fact I had largely come to my senses in
>>>>December 1981 when I decided to escape from the Scientology cult.
>>>>Since I’ve demonstrably come to my senses, your client will not in
>>>>any way be prejudiced if it, and all the Scientology parties and
>>>>beneficiaries in this matter, keep hoping
>>>another 60 days.
>>>>
>>>>Who on earth could have imagined that after all this time even David
>>>>Miscavige would seek to reinstate these sentences that Judge Duryee
>>>>already found to be unconscionable? Although I recognized and
>>>>accepted some time ago that Miscavige is a clear sociopath, as I
>>>>said, I never imagined he would be so pathologically vindictive as
>>>>to have you do what
>>>you’re doing for him.
>>>>Thus I am completely unprepared to defend myself in this surprising,
>>>>demented and of course threatening attack. I need the opportunity to
>>>>hire an attorney, and I need the opportunity for the attorney to
>>>>study the twenty-five years of cases and documents in Scientology’s
>>>>litigation campaign against me.
>>>>
>>>>As I’m certain you know, I don’t have the funds to fly to California
>>>>whenever Miscavige gets one of his little Barbarossan brainwaves. I
>>>>have been kept impoverished largely by the actions and threats of
>>>>your client, Miscavige and his henchmen. It will take some
>>>>significant time to raise the necessary travel money. Obviously
>>>>justice mandates that I be given a fair opportunity to travel to a
>>>>hearing like this, even if Scientology’s and Miscavige’s purpose for
>>>>seeking the reinstatement of the sentences against me is not only an
>>>>evil
>purpose but unlawful.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously too I’d rather not waste everyone’s time with having to
>>>>file an application with the Court for an extension of time to
>>>>respond when your client can simply agree to such an extension and
>>>>can reschedule the hearing from September 7 to October 26 as easily
>>>>as you rescheduled it from August
>>>>27 to September 7. I know it is one of Scientology’s ev purps to
>>>>waste everyone’s time, but perhaps Miscavige can get it under
>>>>control for a minute and agree to the 60 day extension I’m
>>>>requesting. I think that 60 days is the least he could do.
>>>>
>>>>Please let me know as soon as your client agrees or not because
>>>>clearly, although it wasn’t for your client for all those many
>>>>months, time is now of the essence.
>>>>
>>>>Yours sincerely,
>>>>
>>>>Gerry Armstrong
>>>>#2-46298 Yale Road
>>>>Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2P6
>>>>Canada
>>>>604-703-1373
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>—–Original Message—–
>>>>From: kmoxon@earthlink.net [mailto:kmoxon@earthlink.net]
>>>>Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 6:01 PM
>>>>To: gerry@gerryarmstrong.org
>>>>Subject: Revised hearing date
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To ensure you have pleanty of time to respond to my motion to
>>>>reinstate the sentences against you, I have moved the hearing to
>>>>September
>>7th.
>>>>A copy was served via federal express, but another copy is attached.
>>>>
>>>>Kendrick Moxon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Filed Under: Armstrong 7 Appeals Tagged With: Armstrong 7 Correspondence

Documents By Date

Documents By Type

Affidavit Affidavit: Settlement Agreement Amicus Curiae Brief Answer Appellant's Brief Appellant's Reply Brief Appendix Application For Extension Application For OSC Application To Intervene Association of Counsel Book Excerpt Change of Address Chart Complaint Counterclaim Cross-Complaint Decision Declaration Deposition Discovery Dismissal Docket Drawing Exhibit 500-CCCCC Exhibits Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application For Order FOIA Appeal FOIA Request Glossary In Bank Indemnity Agreement Interrogatories Inventory Joinder Judgment Letter Memorandum Of Law Minute Order Motion Motion In Limine Motion To Dismiss Motion To Enforce Settlement Agreement Motion To Inspect Sealed Documents Motion To Modify Preliminary Injunction Motion To Seal Record Motion to Suppress Testimony Motion To Unseal File Non-Disclosure and Release Bond Nondisclosure Agreement Nondisclosure And Release Bond Notice Notice of Appeal Notice Of Deposition Notice of Entry of Judgment Notice Of Filing Notice Of Ruling Notice Of Substitution Of Attorney Opinion Opposition Order Order/Ruling Order On Remand Petition Petition For Extension Petition For Hearing Petition For Rehearing Petition For Review Petition For Writ Petition to File Points and Authorities Promissory Notes Proof Of Service Proposed Order Protective Order(s) Public Announcement Recant Declaration Receipt Release Remittitur Reply Report Reporter's Transcript Of Proceedings Request For Judicial Notice Respondent's Brief Response Separate Statement Settlement Agreement Settlement Contract(s) Statement Stipulation Subpoena Summons Temporary Restraining Order Temporary Stay Order The Five Exhibits Transcript Waiver

Legal Topics

Abuse Of Process Affirmative Defenses Attorney's Fees Attorney-Client Privilege Award of Costs Bad Faith Bias Blackmail Breach Of Confidence Breach Of Contract Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Breach Of Fiduciary Relationship Breckenridge Decision Burglary Claim Of Prejudice (Waived) Collateral Estoppel Conspiracy Conspiracy To Obstruct Justice Contempt Contract(s) Contracts: Illegality Conversion Corporate Integrity Corporate Structure Crime Crime-Fraud Exception Damages Declaratory Relief Defamation Destruction Of Evidence Emotional Injury Entrapment Equitable Relief False Imprisonment First Amendment First Amendment Rights Forgery Fraud Fugitive From Justice Gag Order(s) Giving false evidence Global Settlement Harassment Human Rights Illegality Immunity Impression Of A Constructive Trust Indicia of Alter Ego Infiltration Infliction Of Emotional Distress Injunctive Relief Inurement Invasion Of Privacy Jurisdiction Kidnapping a witness Laches Libel Liquidated Damages Loss Of Consortium MCCS tapes Motion For Nonsuit Mutual Release And Settlement Agreement (Armstrong) Non-disclosure Provisions Obstruction of Justice Ownership Perjury Permanent Injunction Possession Possession Of Personal Property Preliminary Injunction Priest-Penitent Privilege Privacy Interest Privileged Communications Professional Conduct Public Figure Public Interest Public Policy Release(s) Religious Fraud Restatement Restatement Of Agency Restatement Of Contracts Sealing Order(s) Secret Agreement(s) Settlement Settlement Contract(s) Slander Slander Per Se Spoliation State Of Mind: Armstrong Sub Rosa Investigation Tax Exemption: Scientology Theft Trademarks Unclean Hands Unconscionability Undue Influence Violation of Public Policy Witness Interference Writ For Possession

L. Ron Hubbard: Biographical

**Hubbard Biography Project** Alaskan Radio Experimental Expedition Algol Allied Enterprises Biography Debug Project Black Magic Ring Blood Ritual Breckenridge Decision By: Ledora May Hubbard Dive Bomber Excalibur Hubbard: Arrest record Hubbard: Australia Hubbard: Bigamy Hubbard: Black magic Hubbard: China diary Hubbard: False claims Hubbard: Family Hubbard: Fingerprints Hubbard: Handwriting Hubbard: Medical Hubbard: US Navy records Hubbard: Veteran's Administration Hubbard: War medals Hubbard Archives Hubbard deposition Hubbard Explorational Company L. Ron Hubbard L Ron Hubbard: Messiah Or Madman? Oak Knoll Naval Hospital PC 815 Puero Rico Expedition Savannah The Admissions/Affirmations of L. Ron Hubbard The Admissions Of L. Ron Hubbard: The Book The Admissions Of L. Ron Hubbard: Your Soundscriber

Scientology Operations

1982 Mission Holders Conference Armstrong Operation Brainwashing Check Forgery Frame Christo Final Handling Eval Clearwater Project Code Name: Power Flag Landbase Setup Freeway Op George Edgerly Op Gerry Armstrong Project Goldmine Homer Schomer Salvage Mission Juggernaut List 1 Rock Slam Project London Op (June 1984) Los Angeles DA Frame/Investigation Loyalist Op LRH Safety Mayor Cazares Handling Project MCCS Mission MCCS Mission: II Mission All Clear Mitra Hall Frame Nobel Prize Project Operation Bulldozer Leak Operation Freakout Operation Off the Hook Operations Definitions Operation Snow White Operation Sore Throat Operation Weaver's Needle Project: Early Warning System Project Quaker Revolt In The Stars Scientology Victims Defense Fund Op Team Member System Theft of Briefcase Theft of IRS documents The Goodrich Suit Evaluation Thomas Janeway Op Tin Goose Unabomber Op Witness School
  • Scientology v. Armstrong
  • Index pages

Copyright © 2021 · Modern Portfolio Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in