You can act in concert with Gerry by doing any of these very ordinary things that anyone can do:
1. Assisting people with claims against any Scientology or Scientology affiliated church, organization or entity and any of their officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel; Author Services, Inc., its officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel; the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, its executor, beneficiaries, heirs, representatives, and legal counsel; and/or Mary Sue Hubbard; (the “beneficiaries”);
2. Assisting people defending against any of the beneficiaries;
3. Assisting anyone litigating adversely to the beneficiaries;
4. Facilitating the creation of any work of any kind that discusses, refers to or mentions Scientology or any of the beneficiaries;
5. Discussing Scientology or any of the beneficiaries with anyone not a member of Gerry’s immediate family or his attorney.
Gerry is particularly good to act in concert with because his demands on anyone acting in concert with him are so negligible. If a person does any of the things the injunction prohibits persons acting in concert with Gerry from doing, then he considers that person acting in concert with him. In a 2002 letter to Professor Stephen Kent at the University of Alberta in Canada, the Scientology beneficiaries assert that by appearing together in public in Europe with Gerry, Dr. Kent was clearly acting in concert with him, and consequently in violation of the injunction. It is noteworthy that Dr. Kent had in fact never even been in Europe with Gerry.
The fact is that nobody anywhere in the world should be threatened for appearing anywhere in public with Gerry, and a California Court injunction that prohibits such co-appearance is just plain junk. The fact is also that pretty well anyone can appear pretty well somewhere at one time or another with Gerry without hardly going anywhere.
Scientology victimizes people. Gerry assists people victimized by Scientology. Scientology wants to prohibit people from discussing the victimization. Gerry discusses it and invites others to discuss it. With whom are you going to act in concert?
What the Scientology beneficiaries have done in seeking, obtaining and enforcing the injunction against the class of citizens who act in concert with Gerry is the clearest proof imaginable that the beneficiaries have formed a criminal conspiracy against the class’ rights. The injunction and its enforcement also demonstrate that Scientology actually generates within its members a drive to destroy basic human rights. This is shown by the almost universal fact that before people became Scientologists they had no desire to destroy people’s rights and made no effort to do so. Almost universally as well, when people leave Scientology their desire and effort to destroy rights, as the beneficiaries are doing here, cease immediately.
The Scientology beneficiaries’ actions to destroy the rights of the class of persons acting in concert with Gerry also destroy the beneficiaries’ rights, because they too will be denied the right to do whatever constitutes acting in concert with him. People acting in concert with him therefore are standing up for the basic human rights of the beneficiaries just as they stand for the rights of the beneficiaries’ victims.
Acting in concert with Gerry gives your acts a colossal monetary value that acts not in concert with him just do not possess. Without monetizing the value of your assistance if you assisted somebody against the Scientology beneficiaries, any mentions you make of Scientology or any of the beneficiaries for any reasons have an established monetary value of fifty thousand dollars per mention. Here’s the deal:
The same Marin County California Superior Court Judge Gary W. Thomas who signed the 1995 injunction that prohibits people from acting in concert with Gerry also signed orders finding that fifty thousand dollars per mention of Scientology or the beneficiaries was a reasonable figure. Judge Thomas even ruled that fifty thousand dollars per mention per recipient was reasonable.
Judge Thomas’ injunction enjoins Gerry Armstrong and persons acting in concert with him equally. There is no indication from the beneficiaries, or from any of the judges or justices viewing the injunction, that a violation by Gerry is different in any way from violations by persons acting in concert with him. Nor is there any evidence of any intention to treat or punish violations by Gerry or persons acting concert with him differently.
Clearly then, mentions of Scientology or the beneficiaries would have the same dollar value, whether they are Gerry’s mentions or the mentions of persons acting in concert with him – fifty thousand per mention per recipient. The beneficiaries themselves set the value, and have fought in court for years to have their valuation declared reasonable.
One of the beneficiaries, a Scientology agent named Lynn Farny, testified in deposition on behalf of the other beneficiaries about the fifty thousand dollar pricetag:
Q. [Attorney Michael L. Walton] The sending of this letter Scientology has alleged entitles it to $950,000 in liquidated damages. Can you explain that to me?
A. Yes, I can. The letter which is attached to the Complaint as an Exhibit E is nine pages long and provides an extensive amount of information. Now each of the individuals designated in paragraph 87 received a copy of this letter, so it’s the disclosure of information to those individuals at $50,000 a pop which totals 950,000.
(Transcript at p. 105)
Attorney Ford Greene continued Farny’s examination:
The figure of $50,000, that originated from your side of the table; right?
A. It was agreed upon by both sides of the table. I don’t remember which side originated the exact amount.
A. I think we originated the concept of liquidated damages.
Q. And the purpose of the concept was to make sure that the agreement had some teeth in it so that Armstrong would respect and keep the agreement; right?
A. The purpose of that clause was a recognition of how difficult it would be to prove individual items of damage on individual disclosures. And it was a formulation based upon an estimate of how much it would cost us to fix them. (Transcript at p. 495)
A. What I mean to say is that anything we would have to spend to fix it. You know, the concept of liquidated damages presupposes, at least, what the contract says is there’s a difficulty calculating the precise damages, attorneys’ fees — perhaps in terms of attorneys’ fees in consultation to fix the disclosure
(Transcript at p. 496)
A. It is a reasonable amount. It is an effort to quantify that which is difficult to quantify. It is certainly not punitive in nature. It is the classic liquidated damages.
(Transcript at p. 497)
Q. Mr. Farny, aside from what you have told us thus far with respect to how the $50,000 liquidated damages amount was arrived at, are there any other factors that went into that determination aside from the fact that in the agreement the reasonableness of that amount was acknowledged by plaintiff?
A. Well, as I said earlier, it was an effort to approximate what it would take to fix any, you know, any improper disclosure.
Obviously, some would take more than that amount, but it was an effort to calculate as best we could at that end of it what it would take to fix the results flowing from an improper disclosure —
Q. I understand that —
A. — that’s what I communicated as the base line.
Q. I understand that that was the intention. What I’m trying to find out from you is what is the $50,000 in proportion to?
A. It was in proportion to what it would take, what it would cost us to fix.
Q. And I’m asking you how did you determine the cost that would be incurred to do —
A. Well, it was —
Q. — such a fix?
A. It was an estimate of staff time, attorney time, any other actual expenses that might go into it. I mean, it was an effort to quantify what it would take.
Q. Staff time —
A. Recognizing that it would be difficult to do.
Q. Staff time to do what?
A. To fix whatever resulted from the improper disclosure, whatever that would have been.
I mean, I think you’re seeing the line of reasoning that both sides engaged upon, at least insofar as Gerry’s lawyer in arriving at an agreement that liquidated damages would be appropriate.
It was an effort to estimate what it would take to fix an improper disclosure in terms of correcting the information at the receipt point and the other factors I discussed.
(Transcript at pp. 506, 507)
Q. Aside from Armstrong’s agreement and staff time and attorney time required to correct, as you say, a 7-D violation, are there any other factors that went into your calculus in consequence of which you arrived at the $50,000 liquidated damages figure?
A. I believe I gave two other factors, which was any other expenses that we would have to pay in order to fix the result of that, and I believe you introduced the concept of whether that could include payments for advertisements to fix it. And I agreed that that could include that.
(Transcript at pp. 514, 515)
Q. And what would need to be fixed and corrected would be false information coming from Armstrong about Scientology; right?
A. Well, that provision of the agreement isn’t limited to an assessment of whether what he says is true or false, but that would be a factor.
(Transcript at pp. 515, 516)
The Scientology beneficiaries swear that any mention Gerry makes of them or their religion is worth fifty thousand dollars. To justify the injunction against persons acting in concert with Gerry, these same beneficiaries would have to swear that these persons’ mentions of the same things must have the same value. So make every mention really worth it, and do it in concert.
If you act in concert with Gerry, you can participate as a class member in this campaign to junk the injunction. The more people who act in concert with him, the bigger the class, the easier the class certification process, and the greater opportunity for success. If you haven’t yet acted in concert with him, but would like to do something effective to correct this injustice the Scientology beneficiaries have been perpetrating and to remove this threat to all persons, start acting now.