|
SUPPRESSIVE PERSON DEFENSE LEAGUE STATEMENT THE SCIENTOLOGY V. ARMSTRONG CASE October 21 Press Release Contact: Caroline Letkeman The Suppressive Person Defense League (SPDL) is shocked by the California Court of Appeal’s grant on Wednesday of the Scientology organization’s petition to reinflict the punishment of jail sentences and fines against Gerry Armstrong that Marin County Judge Lynn Duryee had discharged in April 2004. Armstrong is a Founding Suppressive Person and Co-Creator of www.suppressiveperson.org which is dedicated to defending Scientology’s SP victims, and building public awareness of Scientology’s “Suppressive Person” doctrine by reasoned discussion. Scientology, and its head David Miscavige personally, have considered and attacked Armstrong as a major SP enemy for almost 24 years. Scientology’s appeals court success in its religious war against Armstrong begins with his punishment of twenty-eight days in jail and $4600 in fines, but the potential exists for Scientology to keep him jailed forever. What is Armstrong’s “crime?” Nothing more than discussing the Scientology religion. Not lying, not libeling Scientology, but telling the truth about this religion and organization as he believes the truth to be. For every mention Armstrong makes of his sincere beliefs about the Scientology religion, or even about his own religion and his own church (the Church of Wogs (CoW) Scientology wants him jailed, fined and forced to pay the organization $50,000 in “damages.” Unimaginable but true, and extensively documented on his Scientology v. Armstrong legal archive. Armstrong’s position is that it is no more lawful for the U.S. Courts to jail and financially crush him for discussing his beliefs about Scientology than it would be lawful to jail and ruin a person for discussing his beliefs about God and Jesus in the Christian religion. The fact that U.S. Courts bend over to Scientology’s desires to jail people for discussing their Scientology beliefs, but those Courts would never consider jailing people for discussing their Christian, or Jewish, or Islamic beliefs, makes Scientology a favored and constitutionally unlawful state religion. In a number of countries, Scientology is not considered a religion at all, but a commercial and totalitarian cult with a goal of world domination. The SP doctrine makes Scientology a hate group. The SP doctrine’s execution against SP targets, known in Scientology as “fair game,” makes the organization a criminal conspiracy. SPDL points to the irony of the U.S. using its International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to condemn those other countries for their unfavorable appraisal of the Scientology religion, when the U.S. is the only nation where, as this appellate ruling shows, a person can be jailed and ruined for his religious expressions of their religious beliefs about the Scientology religion. Although the Court of Appeal recognized that Armstrong had a “First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion” and that what Armstrong was communicating could be “expressions of his religious beliefs,” the Court made no mention of the whole religious class of Suppressive Persons that Armstrong represents. The Court also made no reference to the SP doctrine, which causes and justifies Scientology’s religious persecution of Armstrong, including the persecution using the secular courts, and governs every action Scientology takes against any SP. SPDL is very disappointed by the unthinking, uncaring and uncourageous way out that the California Court of Appeal has taken in the Scientology v. Armstrong war, when the Court had the opportunity to do something thoughtful, considerate and brave. One more injustice in this war, of course, is simply one more thing for Armstrong to continue to discuss, and one more motivator for SPDL to act in concert with him and with SPs everywhere to facilitate their discussions. SPDL’s analysis shows that judges, and other officials and even media, do not confront the SP doctrine and are silent about it because it is so evil. Armstrong says he cannot ever be silent about the doctrine because he has confronted it and it is so evil. Caroline Letkeman |
|
|
|
from Caroline Letkeman 09-28-2005 |
