$cientology v. Armstrong Marin SC 152229/157680; Opposition to Order to Show Cause re Contempt
09 Jan 2001
(P & M)
46109 Princess Avenue
V2P 2A6 Canada
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California [and Florida based
organized crime syndicate that kills people - flr], Plaintiff,
GERALD ARMSTRONG, Defendant.
CASE NO. 152229
OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT;
DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG
Date: January 17, 2001
Defendant Gerald Armstrong answers this Court's order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt as supplicated by plaintiff "Church of Scientology International," ("Scientology"), and opposes the grant of an order of contempt on the grounds that the Injunction Scientology is trying to enforce by way of jailing and fining him is unlawful, specifically, obstructive of justice, against public policy, unnecessarily and impermissibly violative of his rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and due process, and freedom from slavery, and impossible to enforce, as demonstrated by everything which has transpired since the injunction was crafted by Scientology and signed by former Superior Court Judge Gary W. Thomas in October, 1995.
Armstrong requests that this Court deny Scientology's motion, declare the Injunction unlawful, cancel the two earlier contempt orders, and withdraw the warrants issued for his arrest in California.
This opposition is based on the declaration of Gerald Armstrong which follows, the exhibits thereto, and the complete record in this case.
DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
SCIENTOLOGY'S MOTION TO HAVE HIM HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
Date: January 17, 2001 Time: 0930 Department: F
DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG
I, Gerald Armstrong declare:
1. I am the defendant in this case.
2. Scientology and Mr.Wilson state in their ex parte application for an order to show cause re contempt ("App."): "There was no appeal from the Injunction." (App., Memo, 4:3) They repeat this assertion in their supplemental memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion for order of contempt ("Supp. Memo.") at 4:24. These statements are untrue. Appended hereto as Exhibit A, is a true and correct copy of my appellant's opening brief timely filed in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four in Appeal No. A075027. This is "an appeal from the Injunction."
3. This opening brief was served on Mr. Wilson and on the Clerk of the Marin Superior Court, and must now be in the Court's file in this case. The Clerk's Transcript on Appeal was prepared by the Clerk of the Marin Superior Court and the original of the Clerk's Transcript, which consists of 35 volumes of filed documents comprising 9826 pages must also be in the Court's file in this case. I incorporate this brief herein, reaffirm and renew all the arguments made in the brief, and reaffirm and reswear to the truth and correctness of all the statements made in the brief and in all evidence supporting and cited to in the brief.
4. Appended hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a declaration executed by Mr. Wilson on June 3, 1997 and filed in Appeal No. A075027, my appeal from the injunction, opposing my request for an extension of time to file my opening brief. It is clear that there was an appeal from the Injunction, that Mr. Wilson participated for Scientology in the appeal, and that he is lying and Scientology is lying when they state there was no appeal from the Injunction.
5. Mr. Wilson and Scientology state: "During the period February 20, 1998 to July 10, 2000, Armstrong made a total of 131 postings on the Internet, each of which violated one or more provisions of the Injunction." (App., 2:1-3) Mr. Wilson and Scientology state: "since the February 20, 1998 contempt order, Armstrong has made a total of 131 postings on the Internet, each of which violated one or more provisions of the Injunction." (App., Memo, 2:23-25)
In his declaration in support of Scientology's application ("Wilson Dec.") Mr. Wilson states: "From February 20, 1998 through the present, Armstrong has made a total of 131 postings to the Internet, each of which violates one or more provisions of the Injunction." (Wilson Dec. 10:8,9) In their supplemental memo, Scientology and Mr. Wilson state: "During the period February 20, 1998 to July 10, 2000, Armstrong made a total of 131 postings on the Internet, each of which violated one or more provisions of the Injunction." (Supp.Memo, 2:2-4) Scientology and Mr. Wilson also state: "since the February 20, 1998 contempt order, Armstrong has made a total of 131 postings on the Internet, each of which violated one or more provisions of the Injunction."
In his (second) supplemental declaration in support of Scientology's application ("Wilson 2D Supp. Dec.") Mr. Wilson states: "Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of an internet posting made by Mr. Armstrong on December 21, 2000 in which he states that he has violated the "insane injunction on 2289 occasions." All of these averments by Scientology and Mr. Wilson are false.
6. I state in my posting to the internet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology ("a.r.s."): "I made at least 2289 postings to the Internet, all of which violate $cientology's insane Injunction, during the period of February 20, 1998 through November 13, 2000 the date Wilson signed his perjurious declaration." (Wilson 2D Supp.Dec. Ex. A) I did not say that I have violated the insane injunction 2289 times, but that I had made 2289 postings to the internet, all of which violate $cientology's insane injunction, during the period Mr. Wilson identified in his declaration; i.e., 2/20/98 to 11/13/00. If Mr. Wilson's and Scientology's other identified dates are used; i.e., 2/20/98 to 7/10/00, my postings to a.r.s would be fewer than 2289.
From February 20, 1998 to this date, my postings to a.r.s., all of which violate the Injunction, total approximately 2525. But these are nowhere near all my violations. I have violated Scientology's Injunction thousands of times in my communications since February, 1998, and tens of thousands of times since former Marin Superior Court Judge Gary W. Thomas signed it in October, 1995.
7. Scientology and Mr. Wilson state: "Armstrong traveled to Clearwater, Florida and on December 5, 1999 spoke before a public gathering sponsored by the Lisa McPherson Trust, a for-profit corporation, the purpose of which is to bring about the destruction of the Scientology religion." (App., 2:3-6; Supp.Memo, 2:4-7) Scientology and Mr. Wilson state: "Armstrong [ ] gave a speech at a fund-raiser for an anti-Scientology group in Clearwater." (App.Memo, 2:27,28; Supp.Memo, 3:13,14)
Scientology and Mr. Wilson call my talk a "speech to the Lisa McPherson Trust." (App.Memo, 4:18; Supp.Memo, 5:14; 6:11) Mr. Wilson also avers regarding this talk: "In early December, 1999, Armstrong again traveled to Florida for the purpose of aiding Liebreich, giving a speech at a fund-raiser for the Lisa McPherson Trust." All of these statements by Scientology and Mr. Wilson are lies.
8. The "gathering" in Clearwater was not sponsored by, and was not a fund-raiser for, the Lisa McPherson Trust. Nor was my talk a speech to the Lisa McPherson Trust. The purpose of the Lisa McPherson Trust is not to bring about the destruction of the Scientology religion, but to work to reform the Scientology organization's abuses and dangers. Appended hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy, downloaded from a.r.s., of the mission statement and philosophy of the Lisa McPherson Trust and the reforms it seeks in Scientology. I am a member of the Trust's Advisory Board. I know that the following statement, and not Scientology's and Mr. Wilson's scandalous assertion about the Trust's purpose, is true:
"The mission of The Lisa McPherson Trust is to expose the abusive and deceptive practices of the Church of Scientology and to help those who have been victimized by it.
To accomplish our mission, we will demystify and thereby make transparent the coercive processes and practices of the Church of Scientology. In this way, informed consumers can make an educated decision about whether Scientology can meet their psychological or spiritual needs.
We will expose the Church of Scientology's abuse of the human, civil and privacy rights of its members and critics. We will reveal its deceptive advertising practices that border on consumer fraud. We will bring to light those "religious practices" that violate civil or criminal law. At the same time, we will respect the right of all Scientologists to embrace any religious belief they may choose.
We will assist Scientologists in recovering from their unique personal experience with the abusive and deceptive practices of the Church of Scientology. We will offer counsel to Scientologists who choose to hear the truth about how the Church of Scientology uses deceptive mind control techniques. Our dedicated staff will provide the information, love and support to Scientologists that will enable them to release the bonds of cult mind control.
Finally, all of the people involved in the Lisa McPherson Trust will respect the dignity and innate human goodness of all current, former and recovering Scientologists." (Ex. C at 1).
9. That Scientology and Mr. Wilson knew that the "gathering" in Clearwater was not put on by the Lisa McPherson Trust is shown by their own evidence. In a posting to a.r.s. of 9 December, 1999, my response to an attack by Scientologist agent "Mark Regent," Exhibit 104 to Mr. Wilson's (first) supplemental declaration in support of Scientology's application, I state: "The Lisa McPherson Trust [ ] did not put on the conference, although a number of people connected with the Trust were speakers and participants." (Wilson Supp.Dec, Ex. 104)
10. In his posting to which I respond, Mr. "Regent" calls the "gathering" an "anti-religious seminar put on by the "Trust" at the Holiday Inn." (Wilson Supp.Dec, Ex. 104) A review of the transcript of my talk at the "seminar," which is provided by Scientology (Ex. I to Wilson Dec.), makes it very clear, however, that there is nothing whatsoever "anti-religious" in my talk. Nor was there anything anti-religious said by any other participant in the "seminar."
Mr. "Regent" is following Scientology's practice and policy, which the organization calls "black propaganda," or "black PR," by which it vilifies, defames and attempts to ruin its designated targets. Classic Scientology black PR is carried out by hidden or anonymous organization sources. In all probability, "Mark Regent" is not the real name of the Scientology agent who posted this attack on the "seminar" participants and the Lisa McPherson Trust, but a name used to be a source for Scientology's black PR. Mr. Wilson is forwarding Scientology's black PR with his gratuitous and false statements in the various papers he has filed with this Court.
11. Scientology and Mr. Wilson state: "December of 1986, Armstrong freely and voluntarily entered into a Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement (the Agreement)." (App. Memo, 1:25-27, Supp. Memo, 2:16-18) This false. For years prior to the 1986 "settlement" of my lawsuit against Scientology I was the target of Scientology's basic, repugnant and judicially condemned philosophy, policy and practice of "fair game," which calls for attacks on people labeled "enemies," also called "suppressive persons" or "SPs." In a widely cited rendition of fair game, appended hereto as Exhibit D, Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard states:
"ENEMY - SP Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline to the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed." (Ex..D, Hubbard Policy Letter of 18 October, 1967, "Penalties for Lower Conditions.")
Michael Flynn, the lawyer who represented me and several other victims of fair game against Scientology, was himself a target of fair game for over seven years. Scientology threatened through Mr. Flynn that if I didn't sign the "agreement," he and his family, and his other "settling" clients and I would continue to be fair game. I will not recite all the instances of fair game prior to the "settlement," but I refer the Court to the section of my appellant's opening brief entitled "Pre-Settlement" for an accurate recitation of what I knew of Scientology's fair game during this period directed at myself and Mr. Flynn. (Ex.. A, 4-7)
I also refer the Court to the section of my brief entitled "The Settlement," for a recitation of the duress applied to me at the time of the "settlement" to get me to sign the "settlement agreement." (Ex. A, 7-10.) In my opinion, I made a more than adequate showing to Judge Thomas that duress was present and a significant factor in my signing Scientology's "settlement agreement." I refer the Court for my reasoning and argument to the section in my brief entitled "There is a Triable Issue as to Duress." (Ex. A, 29-32).
In my opinion, Judge Thomas very wrongly discounted the tremendous and criminal duress applied by Scientology, and if this duress is not wrongly discounted but understood it will become clear that the organization had unclean hands at the time of the "settlement" and has had unclean hands in this matter ever since.
12. There was also a flagrant element of fraud in Scientology's actions in getting me to sign their "settlement agreement," which renders my "agreement" legally neither free nor voluntary. I refer the Court again to the section "The Settlement" in my opening brief (Ex. A, 7-10) for what representations were made to me at the time of signing. I refer the Court for my argument to the section in my brief entitled "There is a Triable Issue as to Fraud." (Ex. A, 32-34). In my opinion, Judge Thomas very wrongly ignored an abundance of evidence of fraud by Scientology regarding the mutuality of the "agreement" and the organization's promise to end fair game, and that if this evidence is not ignored the fraud will be crystal clear.
13. Appended hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a motion by a Scientology party in the case of Bent Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, LA Superior Court Case No. C694401, to delay or prevent the taking of certain third party depositions, along with the declaration in support. Both the motion and declaration are signed by Scientology attorney Lawrence Heller, who stated that he was personally involved in the "settlements," one of which was mine. I had been served by Mr. Corydon with a deposition subpoena and Mr. Heller tried with his motion to use the "mutuality" of the "settlement agreement" to prevent my deposition. He stated in the motion:
"One of the key ingredients to completing these settlements, insisted upon by all parties involved, was strict confidentiality respecting: (1) the Scientology parishioner or staff member's experiences with the Church of Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by the Scientology entities concerning those staff members or parishioners." (Ex. E, Motion, 4:9-14). Mr. Heller stated in his declaration:
"The non-disclosure obligations were a key part of the settlement agreements insisted upon by all parties involved."
"The contractual non-disclosure provisions were the one issue which was not debated by any of the parties or attorneys involved." (Ex. E, Declaration, 9:5-10).
In my opinion, Judge Thomas went out of his way to ignore Scientology's clear statement of mutuality, in order to arrive at signing the organization's Injunction which is utterly non-mutual. According to Judge Thomas and Scientology, the organization, every Scientologist in the world, and all their lawyers, like Mr. Wilson, could say whatever they want about me, no matter how false, defamatory or perverse, and I could not respond. If I responded in any way, Scientology was due $50,000 per utterance in liquidated damages, which Judge Thomas did indeed award to Scientology for multiple utterances, driving me into bankruptcy. Now Scientology wants me hunted down by law enforcement, jailed and fined for responding to more of its endless false, defamatory and perverse statements.
14. In my experience, the lack of mutuality in the Injunction, interpreting and enforcing the "settlement agreement," makes performance impossible. It is a form of fair game which permits, indeed calls out for, a response. If the "agreement" is mutual, as Heller states, and as I believe it can only be, then I am justified, and have a perfect right, to say and write whatever I have, because Scientology black PRed me immediately following the "settlement" and has continued to black PR me to this day. I refer the Court to the section of my opening brief entitled "From Settlement to First Response" for a recitation of fair game actions by Scientology targeting me during this period. (Ex. A, 10-14)
Since, however, Judge Thomas interpreted the "agreement" as allowing Scientology, et al. to say whatever they wanted about me, no matter how false, defamatory or perverse, and not allowing me to respond, and since Scientology interprets the Injunction precisely that way, and wants this Court to punish me pursuant to this interpretation, I am convinced that the Injunction is unlawful. And because it is unlawful, again I have a perfect right to speak.
15. Scientology fraudulently claimed, as an inducement to get me to sign their "agreement" that they wanted peace. They and their lawyers still fraudulently claim that with the "settlement agreement" they sought peace. And that I broke the peace they paid for. But all that is a lie. Scientology has never sought peace. The organization got its lawyers to concoct a document by which they thought they might be able to continue to war on a defenseless victim. The "settlement agreement," as interpreted by Judge Thomas in the Injunction which Scientology wants the Court to punish me for violating, is a license to hunt a human being, and I am certain it is unlawful.
16. Scientology and Mr. Wilson state: "December of 1986, Armstrong freely and voluntarily entered into a Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement) pursuant to which CSI paid Armstrong $800,000.00. [ ] In exchange, Armstrong promised, in essence, to cease disseminating information concerning CSI and to cease assisting others litigating or defending claims against CSI and Scientology-related entities." (App.Memo, 1:25-2:2; Supp.Memo, 2:16-21) Scientology and Mr. Wilson also state: "The restrictions on Armstrong's behavior in the Order stems from an agreement which Armstrong made freely and voluntarily and for which he was paid $800,000.00." (App,Memo, 5:4-6; Supp.Memo, 6:2-4)
Mr. Wilson states in his declaration: "In December of 1986, Armstrong entered into a Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) pursuant to which CSI paid Armstrong $800,000.00. In exchange for his receipt of such funds, Armstrong promised, inter alia, to cease disseminating information concerning CSI and to cease assisting others pressing claims against CSI and related entities. These statements are untrue. Scientology paid a lump sum to attorney Flynn, and had no knowledge of what part of that sum Flynn would pay me.
I was paid to dismiss my lawsuit against Scientology, then poised for immediate trial, for 12 ½ years of fraud and abuse inside the organization and 5 years of fair game after leaving. Scientology did not pay me to be silent, to not assist people being fair gamed, and to be the organization's defenseless punching bag. Those things were not for sale, and Scientology could not lawfully buy them. Scientology's "settlement agreement" and the Injunction must be unlawful, regardless of what the organization claims it paid for them. If Scientology can make one person a judicially ordered fair game punching bag for $800,000.00, it can do so to its own members for $1.00 or less.
The true significance of the $800,000.00 is its correspondence to the intensity and length of the years of abuse and fair game and the resulting damage to their target. This conferred on Scientology a responsibility to cease fair gaming its target, not a right to continue fair game, and now with impunity.
17. Scientology and Mr. Wilson state: "Beginning in approximately 1990, Armstrong fraudulently transferred substantially all of his assets to his attorney and close friends, and then began repeatedly breaching almost every covenant he made in the Agreement." (App.Memo, 2:2-4; Supp.Memo, 2:21-23) Mr. Wilson states: "I am informed and believe that, beginning in approximately 1990, Armstrong fraudulently transferred substantially all of his assets and began repeatedly breaching almost every covenant he made in the Agreement." (Wilson Dec.7:13-15) These statements are lies. Mr. Wilson and Scientology have repeated these lies publicly, in black PR disseminations, and in other litigations around the world.
I challenge Mr. Wilson and Scientology to prove these lies. I believe I have a right which cannot lawfully be taken away, to publicly and to every person who will listen continue to call these lies lies and the liars liars until they tell the truth. I made no fraudulent transfers whatsoever, and have filed a small mountain of evidence in this case demonstrating that the transactions Scientology and Mr. Wilson label fraudulent were legitimate and unrelated to Scientology, its "agreement"and any alleged violations of that "agreement." In my opinion, Mr. Wilson and Scientology have woven themselves into a web of lies that they must continue to weave, because to not continue to weave this web of lies is an acknowledgment that the lies are indeed lies and the liars are liars.
18. Scientology and Mr. Wilson state: "Armstrong, by his serial contempts and contumacious behavior, has amply demonstrated that he will continue to defy this Court's authority unless adequate criminal sanctions are ordered." (App.Memo,1:6-8) This is false. This Court has no authority to make unlawful orders; which would include orders against public policy, orders in flagrant unnecessary violation of Constitutional guarantees, orders which are impossible to perform, and orders which generate a great stupidity. In my opinion, I presented, with competent legal representation and assistance throughout much of this litigation by attorney Ford Greene, a more than adequate argument to Judge Thomas, supported by a more than adequate evidentiary record, that the "agreement's" conditions which Scientology was trying to enforce by liquidated damages and injunction were unlawful; specifically, obstructive of justice, against public policy, flagrantly and unnecessarily violative of Constitutional guarantees, impossible, and generative of a great stupidity.
In my opinion, Judge Thomas wrongly disposed of my more than adequate defenses to Scientology's claims by flawed reasoning on summary adjudication, in order prevent a trial, which, I believe, the record shows I was due. I refer the Court to the section of my brief entitled "The Settlement Agreement Obstructs Justice," for a discussion of the unlawful purpose of the "agreement."(Ex. A, 36-41.)
19. There are no "adequate criminal sanctions" which can be ordered to make me comply with the Injunction, because it is not lawful. What Judge Thomas did and said, since he would not logically address the defenses and issues I raised, has served only to strengthen my conviction that the Injunction he signed is unlawful, and therefore need not be complied with and cannot legally be enforced. Likewise, what Scientology has done and said since Judge Thomas signed the Injunction has only strengthened my conviction that it is unlawful.
The obvious need of Mr. Wilson and Scientology to lie to this Court in order to get me punished for violating the Injunction also only convinces me that it is unlawful, and moreover that Mr. Wilson and Scientology know it is unlawful. Not one person, no judge or lawyer or Scientology black PR agent, has said one logical word to change my conviction that the Injunction is unlawful, and the conditions of the "settlement agreement" which it enforces are unlawful. Unless I can be convinced that the Injunction is lawful, it is impossible for me to consider it lawful, and therefore comply with it.
20. Scientology and Mr. Wilson state: "Unfortunately, though bench warrants have been issued, Armstrong has fled the jurisdiction to avoid the consequences of his acts, all the while piously complaining that the Injunction is illegal." (App.,Memo, 1:10-12; Supp.Memo, 2:11-13) Scientology and Mr. Wilson also state: "Bench warrants issued in both instances, but Armstrong fled California in response to the first contempt judgment and moved out of California to avoid arrest and to persist in his defiance of the Court." (App.Memo, 2:18-20)
This is a lie which Scientology, its agents and its lawyers like Mr. Wilson have repeated thousands of times. I left California in January, 1997, Scientology applied for its first order to show cause re contempt to Judge Thomas in February, 1997, and he signed Scientology's first order of contempt in June, 1997. Scientology never served me with this application, nor the order to show cause.
My leaving California in January, 1997 was inspired not by Scientology's orders to show cause, the applications for which had not even been filed, but by my discovery of a massive fraud perpetrated by Scientology on the IRS, and the whole of the United States, and for that matter, the world, involving a black PR attack on me.
21. I obtained my first internet connection in early January, 1997, while living in San Anselmo, and within a few days discovered that someone had put on their internet web site the submission Scientology had made to the IRS in response to the IRS's Form 1023 request. The organization, up until that time, had lost all significant legal cases with the IRS, was held to be non-tax exempt, and was facing a huge tax liability. Scientology's 1023 submission contained sections of black PR on me, a true and correct copy of which, downloaded from the internet, is appended hereto as Exhibit F. This 1023 response was the basis of the organization's obtaining tax exemption for all its associated corporate entities in 1993.
I believe that Scientology's 1023 response was submitted to the IRS in 1991 or 1992. On information and belief, Scientology supreme dictator, or leader, David Miscavige announced in 1993 that when Scientology triumphed in its war on the IRS the organization was facing a billion dollar tax liability. The importance of my earlier litigation and testimony to the IRS in its denial of Scientology's tax exemption is shown by Scientology's own statements in the 1023 response:
"the Service has continuously thrust the Armstrong case at us, demanding an explanation." (Ex.F, 1)
"The IRS CID, however, absorbed Breckenridge's findings as the definitive statement of what Scientology is, and used this decision and the Flynn witnesses who testified at the trial as the nucleus of their investigation." (Ex. F, 4)
Scientology's statements about me and my earlier litigation, Scientology v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C 420153, are in fact and conclusion false. The depth of Scientology's black PRing of me in its submission to the IRS is shown by its statement:
"As we shall demonstrate below, all this decision ever involved was Armstrong's state of mind, which subsequently obtained evidence proved conclusively to be one sordid, sado-masochistic nightmare. Furthermore, Armstrong's state of mind horror stories have fallen on deaf ears in recent litigation. Relying on Armstrong or the Armstrong decision is wholly unjustified." (Ex.F, 1)
The decision rendered by Judge Breckenridge in that case, along with the California Court of Appeal opinion affirming that decision (Scientology v. Armstrong,(1991), 232 Cal.App.3rd 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917) are appended hereto as Exhibit G. I believe that to counter the IRS's use of the decision, Scientology concocted this scheme to black PR me to the IRS, and anyone else the organization could get to listen.
Scientology submitted these false statements to the IRS during a time the organization was attempting to judicially silence me with its "settlement agreement,"and thus prevent me from responding to its falsehoods. It was also significant to me when I discovered this black PR that Scientology had not produced these statements about me in discovery in this case (Marin SC 152229/157680) when it was before Judge Thomas, even though the IRS 1023 document was relevant and of a type and nature of documents which were ordered produced to me. When I
-- End of part 1 --
Any text written by other authors which may be quoted in part or in full within this exposure of the Scientology cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html If you're an author of an article and do not wish to allow it to be mirrored or otherwise provided on The Skeptic Tank web site, let us know and it will be removed fairly promptly.E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank