Source: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a7/3874.php
Timestamp: 2018-06-18 00:08:17
Document Index: 360948093

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1670', '§ 1670', '§1670', '§1670', '§1670', '§1670', '§1670', '§1670']

Scientology v. Armstrong: Declaration Of Gerry Armstrong In Support Of Opposition To Plaintiff Scientologys Motion To Reinstate Jail Sentences Against Him And To Issue Warrants For His Arrest; And In Support Of Armstrongs Motion To Set An Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant To C.C.C. § 1670.5 On The Unconscionability Of Plaintiff Scientologys Motion To Reinstate Jail Sentences Against Armstrong And Issue Warrants For His Arrest: And To Stay All Other Actions Against Defendant Until After This Courts Determination Of Unconscionability Following Such Hearing
Declaration Of Gerry Armstrong In Support Of Opposition To Plaintiff Scientology's Motion To Reinstate Jail Sentences Against Him And To Issue Warrants For His Arrest; And In Support Of Armstrong's Motion To Set An Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant To C.C.C. &sect; 1670.5 On The Unconscionability Of Plaintiff Scientology's Motion To Reinstate Jail Sentences Against Armstrong And Issue Warrants For His Arrest: And To Stay All Other Actions Against Defendant Until After This Court's Determination Of Unconscionability Following Such Hearing
DECLARATION OF GERRY ARMSTRONG IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION TO REINSTATE JAIL SENTENCES AGAINST HIM AND TO ISSUE WARRANTS FOR HIS ARREST; AND IN SUPPORT OF ARMSTRONG’S MOTION TO SET AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO C.C.C. § 1670.5 ON THE UNCONSCIONABILITY OF PLAINTIFF SCIENTOLOGY’S CONTRACT; TO STAY SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION TO REINSTATE JAIL SENTENCES AGAINST ARMSTRONG AND ISSUE WARRANTS FOR HIS ARREST; AND TO STAY ALL OTHER ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT UNTIL AFTER THIS COURT’S DETERMINATION OF UNCONSCIONABILITY FOLLOWING SUCH HEARING
1. I am the defendant in this case. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and could competently testify concerning these facts if required to do so.
2. Scientology filed this case against Robert Minton the Lisa McPherson Trust (“LMT”) and me on April 2, 2002, seeking $10,050,000 in “liquidated damages” against me for 204 (sic) alleged violations of a “contract” I was coerced and tricked into signing in December 1986, supposedly to “settle” my cross-complaint in Scientology v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. C 420153. A true and correct copy of the contract is appended hereto as Exhibit A.
3. On June 6, 2003, Scientology dismissed its claims against Mr. Minton and the LMT.
4. On April 9, 2004, this Court conducted a trial on Scientology’s liquidated damages claim. I was represented at trial by attorney Ford Greene, and I have waived the attorney-client privilege with Mr. Greene as to the communications between us described herein and in my opposition that are necessary to support this opposition. At the end of the trial, this Court also remitted or otherwise discharged jail sentences and fines against me then instated for my alleged violations of an injunction signed by former Superior Court Judge Gary W. Thomas and filed October 17, 1995 in Scientology v. Armstrong, Marin Superior Court case no. 157680, consolidated with this case. A true and correct copy of pages from the trial transcript are appended hereto as Exhibit B.
5. Over the three months following the trial, Mr. Greene and Scientology’s attorney Andrew Wilson engaged in an exchange of communications in a supposed attempt to agree on the language of a judgment to be submitted to this Court for signing and filing. At one point, this Court apparently suggested or ordered that the attorneys physically meet to try to agree on the language of the judgment. On July 12, 2004, Mr. Greene advised me that he had that day learned from Mr. Wilson that on May 20, 2004 this Court had itself issued an order entitled “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment .” Mr. Greene advised me that he had not received this order from the Court or from
Scientology’s attorney and did not know of its existence until Mr. Wilson told him about it. Mr. Greene also advised me that on July 12 he went to the office of the Clerk of the Marin Superior Court and obtained a copy of this order. That date is shown by Mr. Greene’s “Received” stamp on the order. A true and correct copy of the judgment is appended hereto as Exhibit C.
6. On July 12, 2004, Mr. Greene also advised Armstrong that he had also learned that day from Mr. Wilson that on May 20, 2004 this Court had also issued an order entitled “Order Re Sentences for Contempt,” and on July 12 Mr. Greene obtained a copy of that order as well from the Clerk of the Court. A true and correct copy of this order is appended hereto as Exhibit D.
7. On July 15, 2004, Scientology filed its notice of appeal from this Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment, identifying the order as “the judgment in favor of Respondent GERALD ARMSTRONG.” A true and correct copy of this notice of appeal is appended hereto as Exhibit E.
8. Concurrent with filing its notice of appeal, Scientology filed a petition for a writ of certiorari or writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District case No. A107095, and filed a motion to consolidate the writ petition and the appeal.
9. On July 20, 2004, the Court of Appeal issued an Order to Show Cause, granting Scientology’s motion to consolidate the petition for writ of certiorari or mandate (A107095) with Scientology’s appeal (A107100) and ordering the Marin Superior Court as Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
10. On August 23, 2004, Scientology filed its appellant’s opening brief.
11. On December 6, 2004, I filed my respondent’s brief in which I argued that Scientology’s legal remedy was not to try to get the Court of Appeal to overturn the trial court’s unconscionability ruling, but to avail itself of its opportunity in the trial court as provided by C.C.C.�
§1670.5 and present evidence as to the contract’s commercial setting, purpose and effect to attempt to convince the trial court that the clause that was ruled unconscionable was actually conscionable. I also argued that I was also to be afforded such an opportunity as I was claiming to the Court that clauses in Scientology’s contract were unconscionable, and I renew that claim and that request for such opportunity now. A true and correct copy of my respondent’s brief is appended hereto as Exhibit F.
12. On December 7, 2004, I filed my brief in opposition to Scientology’s petition for a writ of certiorari or mandate.
13. On February 16, 2005, Scientology filed its reply brief in support of its petition for writ of certiorari or mandate.
14. On September 2, 2005, Scientology submitted to the Court of Appeal a request for dismissal of its appeal.
15. On September 8, 2005, the Court of Appeal issued an order dismissing the appeal but maintaining the writ petition and oral argument therein.
16. On September 16, 2005, I wrote to Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon, attorney of record herein and in Scientology’s appeal and writ petition, and requested his client’s agreement to the setting of a C.C.C. §1670.5 evidentiary hearing in this Court on the commercial setting, purpose and effect of Scientology’s contract. A true and correct copy of my letter is appended hereto as Exhibit G.
17. On October 19, 2005, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion granting Scientology’s writ petition and reinstating the jail sentences and fines against me. (Scientology’s motion, Ex. A)
18. Scientology’s attorneys have not responded to my letter requesting their client agree to the setting of a C.C.C. §1670.5 hearing.
19. On January 12, 2006, remittitur issued in both Scientology’s writ petition (Scientology’s motion, Ex. B) and in Scientology’s voluntarily dismissed appeal. A true and correct
copy of the remittitur in Scientology’s appeal from this Court’s judgment is appended hereto as Exhibit H .
20. On August 7, 2007, Scientology filed its motion to have this Court reinstate sentences and issue a warrant for my arrest.
21. Appended hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of my opposition, filed September 18, 1995, to Scientology’s motion for summary adjudication on its 20th cause of action then before Judge Thomas in case no. 157680. The 20th cause of action in Scientology’s complaint in Scientology v. Armstrong, Marin Superior Court case no. 152229, consolidated with 157680, was for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting violations of the subject contract. Judge Thomas’s grant of summary adjudication resulted in the order of permanent injunction filed October 17, 1995, alleged violations of which resulted in the sentences that this Court remitted or discharged at the April 9, 2004 trial as unconscionable.
22. Appended hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of my opposition, filed September 18, 1995, to Scientology’s motion for summary adjudication on its 13th, 16th, 17th and 19th causes of action then before Judge Thomas in case no. 157680. These causes of action in Scientology’s complaint in Scientology v. Armstrong, Marin Superior Court case no. 152229, consolidated with 157680, sought liquidated damages of $50,000 per utterance for utterances I made that discussed my religious experiences and beliefs in or in relation to the Scientology religion. Judge Thomas’s grant of summary adjudication resulted in the judgment filed May 2, 1996, a true and correct copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit K.
23. Scientology first attempted to enforce its contract against me by motion filed in October 1991 in its original case, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. C 420153. At a hearing on December 23, 1991 , Judge Bruce R. Geernaert, who had inherited the case from Judge Paul G.
Breckenridge, Jr., who had retired, denied Scientology’s motion. Appended hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of pages of the hearing transcript.
24. I am a Canadian citizen living in Canada, not an attorney, in propria persona, and in forma pauperis. I have never had the reasonable opportunity mandated by C.C.C. §1670.5. I believe that if this Court sets an evidentiary hearing in compliance with C.C.C. §1670.5 I will be able to retain an attorney to represent me at such a hearing. I request that I be able to attend the hearing, if any, on this motion to set a C.C.C. §1670.5 evidentiary hearing, by CourtCall. I will undertake to physically attend the evidentiary hearing once set.
Executed this 30 day of August 2007 at Chilliwack, B.C., Canada.