Co$ Public RElations says:

(e) On or about October 20, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which violated the terms of the above referenced Judgment. See Wilson declaration, Exhibit I.

-=-

Gerry says:

Well here you go:

[Quote]

From: armstrong@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Scientology Threatens Channel 4 TV in UK
Date: 20 Oct 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <344aa9e7.3449839@news.rapidnet.net
Organization: Rapidnet Technologies Internet
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

As is probably well known 3BM Television has produced for Channel 4 a documentary biography of Hubbard.

As I understand it, Scientology representatives have been threatening Channel 4 to prevent the airing of the program. The threat, as it relates to me and that I know about, is of obtaining an injunction based on the charge that 3BM induced me to breach the 1986 settlement "agreement" and the Marin County Califiornia judgment which prohibit me from speaking about Scientology, Hubbard and so forth.

3BM did not induce me to breach any agreement or judgment. The fact is I am willing to communicate to anyone about Scientology or Hubbard and my experiences therewith at any time (you can't hold down a good grade zero release) and require no inducement. I was more than willing to be interviewed by 3BM in order to have the opportunity to make known Scientology's obtaining its tax exemption in the US by the submission of false statements to the IRS.

But even if I had been induced, the "agreement" was obtained illegally; and even if it had not been obtained illegally it is illegal on its face. The judgment is equally illegal.

What Scientology is seeking to do is prevent someone from talking about a dead founder of a "religion." If it is for any reason legal in the UK to prevent someone from talking about the dead founder of Scientology, it is equally legal to prevent someone for any reason from talking about the dead founder (even if that founder, as opposed to Hubbard, had been resurrected from the dead) of any religion. Since it is not legal for any reason to prevent someone from talking about Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Abraham, Lao-tzu, Xenu or Jesus of Nazareth, it is not legal to prevent anyone from talking about Hubbard. If it is conceivably legal to prevent anyone for any reason from talking about any of these religious founders there is no freedom of religion. Who but Scientology would want no one to be permitted legally to talk about these religious founders? Who but Scientology is seeking to destroy freedom of religion in the UK?

Anyone who has an interest, check out this story. Post Channel 4's e-mail and street addresses and other data and contact them. Write them and tell them for the sake of religious freedom to not be shuddered into silence by the anti-religion Scientology. Roland can organize a picket. Someone else can present it to Parliament.

Let the media in the UK know. Drum up interest. And drum the cult out of the anti-religion business.

Gerry