Arrest Warrant Issued Against Scn Critic

Not exactly. It states the reason for denial is the court does not find any exigency - no reasonable threat of physical harm, etc.

Exigency (legal definition):

Exigent circumstances - "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."


So COS can't just refile it, they have to show reasonable evidence of intent to physically harm or similar, such as a plot to destroy COS documents. A rumor that a person might possibly visit the US to speak just doesn't cut it.
Respectfully, you are wrong.

Yes, the "COS can't just refile it" if by "it" you mean another ex parte application (which would be stupid).

However, the COS can file a properly noticed motion, and that motion can be granted, without a showing exigent circumstances

The court expressly states, "DENIED. THE COURT DOES NOT FIND ANY EXIGENCY. PLAINTIFF MAY BRING A PROPERLY FILED NOTICED MOTION."

An ex parte application -- which is done on minimal (if any) notice, a greatly shortened timeline, and minimal (and often unilateral) briefing -- requires exigent circumstances to be granted. It is the exigent circumstances that excuse the minimal notice, greatly shortened timeline, and minimal briefing.

In this case, the lack of exigency was the reason that the ex parte was denied as an ex parte. It had nothing to do with the underlying merits. The Court didn't get to the underlying merits.

A properly filed noticed motion -- which is done on regular notice, a multi-week timeline, and full briefing (Motion, Opposition, Reply Brief) -- most certainly does not require exigent circumstances to be granted.

The above is basic California procedure.

Finally, the request has nothing to do, and need have nothing to do, with preventing future personal injury, destruction of property, destruction of evidence, etc. It is based on Gerry's alleged past violations of an injunction and the fact that an arrest warrant was issued in 2007 as a result.
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, you are wrong.

Yes, the "COS can't just refile it" if by "it" you mean another ex parte application (which would be stupid).

However, the COS can file a properly noticed motion, and that motion can be granted, without a showing exigent circumstances

The court expressly states, "DENIED. THE COURT DOES NOT FIND ANY EXIGENCY. PLAINTIFF MAY BRING A PROPERLY FILED NOTICED MOTION."

An ex parte application -- which is done on minimal (if any) notice, a greatly shortened timeline, and minimal (and often unilateral) briefing -- requires exigent circumstances to be granted. It is the exigent circumstances that excuse the minimal notice, greatly shortened timeline, and minimal briefing.

In this case, the lack of exigency was the reason that the ex parte was denied as an ex parte. It had nothing to do with the underlying merits. The Court didn't get to the underlying merits.

A properly filed noticed motion -- which is done on regular notice, a multi-week timeline, and full briefing (Motion, Opposition, Reply Brief) -- most certainly does not require exigent circumstances to be granted.

The above is basic California procedure.

Finally, the request has nothing to do, and need have nothing to do, with preventing future personal injury, destruction of property, destruction of evidence, etc. It is based on Gerry's alleged past violations of an injunction and the fact that an arrest warrant was issued in 2007 as a result.

Well, with that logic, it's not impossible, but I still see it as highly unlikely. I also provided you with the legal definition. If you say the legal definition doesn't apply, well, that's your opinion. I'd like to hear from a lawyer on that point.

Anything brought before a judge is up to the judge to decide within the legal framework. If COS wants to start all over again with a motion, then the whole thing starts up again and of course, Gerry can oppose it and the judge can decide either way, but it's a civil matter and rocking up to the court demanding there is an urgent need for someone to be picked up on a warrant that's what - 20 years old? just because you heard a rumor he might come into the area is just ridiculous. It's basically a business agreement between COS and Gerry that was broken ages ago. Any other company would have swept it under the rug by now and moved on. COS must look ridiculous to the Calif courts with all this petty nonsense. I'm sure the judges and courts have more important things to do.
 
Well, that's great for Mr. Armstrong, seriously.

I certainly hope this means he can repatriate from Canada without fear of arrest and the California courts are no longer going to serve as David "Darth Midget" Miscavige's barbed whip against him.

Gerry can't repatriate to the USA - he's a Canadian citizen.
 
I also provided you with the legal definition. If you say the legal definition doesn't apply, well, that's your opinion.
The requirement of exigent circumstances for an ex parte application are set forth in California Rule of Court 3.1202(c) as follows:






* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

(c) Affirmative factual showing required

An applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * *

The factual showing of "irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis" is expressly "for granting relief ex parte." It applies only to ex parte applications. It does not apply to a regularly noticed motion.
 
@ISNOINews
Okay good got it thanks alright! :coolwink:

Only applies to ex parte. Makes sense, thanks.

(Hobs gave you away, heh. :D But even if he hadn't, your legal jargon and automatically referencing Calif law certainly did, lol. :rubeyes: )
 
As I noted in an earlier post above, the Court's Minute Order states in relevant part:

"IT IS ORDERED: THE EX PARTE APPLICATION IS DENIED. THE COURT DOES NOT FIND ANY EXIGENCY.

PLAINTIFF MAY BRING A PROPERLY FILED NOTICED MOTION."
 
As I noted in an earlier post above, the Court's Minute Order states in relevant part:

"IT IS ORDERED: THE EX PARTE APPLICATION IS DENIED. THE COURT DOES NOT FIND ANY EXIGENCY.

PLAINTIFF MAY BRING A PROPERLY FILED NOTICED MOTION."

Right. It has been twenty-five days, and no noticed motion.
 
Right. It has been twenty-five days, and no noticed motion.
My guess is that there has been no noticed motion for two reasons.

First, they have no admissible evidence that Gerry plans to travel to California anytime soon. (They orginally overreacted to two anonymous WWP posts.)

Second, they believe they have made it clear to Gerry that they will seek a renewed arrest warrant if they obtain such evidence. They let Gerry know that they aren't going to let this go, if there were any doubt.
 
Second, they believe they have made it clear to Gerry that they will seek a renewed arrest warrant if they obtain such evidence. They let Gerry know that they aren't going to let this go, if there were any doubt.


Of course, I'm not privy to actual OSA INT communications or orders or suchlike. I can only make reasoned speculations here, like the rest of us. But, I certainly agree with this analysis.

It long been my opinion that Gerry Armstrong needs be a man and approach the court he offended and make things right with them. Maybe he gets some short jail time for contempt and maybe the current judge respects him for manning up and lets him off with a warning or a short probation.

If he does this, then David "Darth Midget" Miscavige no longer has a figurative gun to hold to his head and he can travel freely in the U.S., once more.
 
My guess is that there has been no noticed motion for two reasons.

First, they have no admissible evidence that Gerry plans to travel to California anytime soon. (They orginally overreacted to two anonymous WWP posts.)

The noticed motion could be unrelated to Gerry traveling to California. See the address Kendrick Moxon put on the body attachment and arrest warrant. During the hearing Mr. Moxon also mentioned "extradition."

Prior to the hearing, Gerry wrote to Mr. Moxon about the travel issue and about the WWP posts:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 6:41 AM
To: ‘Kendrick Moxon’
Subject: RE: Exparte application for warrant
Dear Mr. Moxon:
I am requesting of you a one-month extension (1) to have time to attempt to retain an attorney in this matter; (2) to be able to fully respond to your serious and in some cases false charges and fact statements; and (3) to fully deal with the vital issues involved, notably freedom of religion, both in the US and internationally.
Alternatively, I am requesting that you withdraw your ex parte application and file and serve me with a proper noticed motion.
You have provided no reason, except with false facts, why there is any urgency whatsoever, requiring what you seek to be done by ex parte application. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that I am the poster “JA2600” on Why We Protest, who posted:
I am told that Gerry Armstrong is going to be in San Francisco, Cali, I believe for a anti-$cientology lecture/conference within the next couple of weeks (late October 2020). I am a fervent admirer and I can’t wait to get the exact date/time so I can go listen to him, mask and all!
Nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever that I am the poster “NotGA” on Why We Protest, who posted:
I heard similarly, Gerry Armstrong will be physically present in San Francisco by the end of this month – oct 2020 – to speak against the cult of money grabbing wanna be a religion, aka scientology. As far as I know the talk will be available virtually, but he will be present, live, in San Francisco. If/When I get exact details I will post it. Feel free to post too if you find out first.
If anyone can be there IRL don’t be stupid, wear a mask.
Yet you state in your application:
This application for renewal of the warrant is being brought ex parte in light of new information that Mr. Armstrong intends to return to California before the end of the month at which time a warrant can be served upon this contumacious man before he again flees the jurisdiction and the country. (Bold mine)
And you state in your application:
Thus, while his travels over the past several years are not known, now, at least, he has revealed that he will be in the area and within the jurisdiction of the California Courts for further violations of the Court’s injunction before fleeing again to the apparent safety of Canada. (Bold mine)
You have provided no evidence that there even is a lecture/conference against your “money grabbing wanna be a religion” cult planned in San Francisco this month or at any other time.
You have provided no evidence that you made any attempt to identify who the posters “JA2600” and “Not GA” are, nor any evidence that you made any attempt to identify who “they” got their “facts” about my “being physically present in San Francisco” from, nor what exactly these “sources” of “JA2600” and “NotGA’s” “facts” communicated.
“JA2600” and “NotGA’s” posting histories on Why We Protest show that the subject one post each are “their” only posts. This fact supports the conclusion that they are serving your cult’s corrupt purposes.
Given your lies here, and over the years, your satanic hatred for me, your leader David Miscavige’s satanic hatred for me, the satanic hatred for me he has incited in all Scientologists in your cult, and the extreme, criminal and satanic nature of your cult’s judicial and extra-judicial actions against me, it is altogether likely that one or two of your cult’s covert operatives, assets or collaborators posted as “JA2600” and “Not GA” for the corrupt purpose of providing you with the fake urgent basis you are using to justify your ex parte application, instead of a properly noticed, albeit equally ridiculous, motion.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, all land travel (car, bus, train) to the US from Canada is prohibited unless essential. Any lecture/conference against your money grabbing wanna be a religion cult, even not invented, does not pass as essential. Air travel from Canada to the US is permitted. As is well known, however, your cult’s operatives and collaborators have for many years been able to obtain airline passenger lists and to track the air travel of your victims or targets like me. If I had booked a flight to San Francisco or anywhere, your cult’s operatives or collaborators would have the details of such a booking. You have provided no evidence of any planned flight by me to San Francisco or anywhere else in California this month or any time in the future.

[Rest of Gerry's e-mail to Mr. Moxon, Exhibit A to his Declaration of October 26, 2020.]

Second, they believe they have made it clear to Gerry that they will seek a renewed arrest warrant if they obtain such evidence. They let Gerry know that they aren't going to let this go, if there were any doubt.

They have not made it clear.
 
Of course, I'm not privy to actual OSA INT communications or orders or suchlike. I can only make reasoned speculations here, like the rest of us. But, I certainly agree with this analysis.

It long been my opinion that Gerry Armstrong needs be a man and approach the court he offended and make things right with them. Maybe he gets some short jail time for contempt and maybe the current judge respects him for manning up and lets him off with a warning or a short probation.

If he does this, then David "Darth Midget" Miscavige no longer has a figurative gun to hold to his head and he can travel freely in the U.S., once more.
I don't think that is a viable option for two related reasons.

First, probation is really not an option for violation of a court order or injunction. At this point, the court either puts Gerry in jail or it lets the matter go, admitting that the court cannot enforce its orders. I can't see a court accepting the latter option.

Second, this proceeding would not be the end of it. My understanding is that it is Gerry's position that he is *never* going to abide by the injunction. Thus, any time Gerry says something disparaging about Scientology (or maybe just continues to maintain his website), there would be an alleged violation of the injunction and a new request that he be held in contempt of court.

The second observation is relevant to the first. That is, if a party violates a court order or injunction, the court may be inclined to be lenient if the party is remorseful and convinces the court that they won't do it again. My understanding is that Gerry simply will not do that.

I am not being judgmental against Gerry in saying the above. I am just trying to lay out the facts and law as I understand them. Gerry is engaging in civil disobedience. The court may respect that. But no court that I know of can accept that its orders can be disobeyed with impunity.
 
The noticed motion could be unrelated to Gerry traveling to California. See the address Kendrick Moxon put on the body attachment and arrest warrant. During the hearing Mr. Moxon also mentioned "extradition."

Prior to the hearing, Gerry wrote to Mr. Moxon about the travel issue and about the WWP posts:

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 6:41 AM
To: ‘Kendrick Moxon’
Subject: RE: Exparte application for warrant
Dear Mr. Moxon:
I am requesting of you a one-month extension (1) to have time to attempt to retain an attorney in this matter; (2) to be able to fully respond to your serious and in some cases false charges and fact statements; and (3) to fully deal with the vital issues involved, notably freedom of religion, both in the US and internationally.
Alternatively, I am requesting that you withdraw your ex parte application and file and serve me with a proper noticed motion.
You have provided no reason, except with false facts, why there is any urgency whatsoever, requiring what you seek to be done by ex parte application. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that I am the poster “JA2600” on Why We Protest, who posted:
Nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever that I am the poster “NotGA” on Why We Protest, who posted:
Yet you state in your application:
This application for renewal of the warrant is being brought ex parte in light of new information that Mr. Armstrong intends to return to California before the end of the month at which time a warrant can be served upon this contumacious man before he again flees the jurisdiction and the country. (Bold mine)
And you state in your application:
You have provided no evidence that there even is a lecture/conference against your “money grabbing wanna be a religion” cult planned in San Francisco this month or at any other time.
You have provided no evidence that you made any attempt to identify who the posters “JA2600” and “Not GA” are, nor any evidence that you made any attempt to identify who “they” got their “facts” about my “being physically present in San Francisco” from, nor what exactly these “sources” of “JA2600” and “NotGA’s” “facts” communicated.
“JA2600” and “NotGA’s” posting histories on Why We Protest show that the subject one post each are “their” only posts. This fact supports the conclusion that they are serving your cult’s corrupt purposes.
Given your lies here, and over the years, your satanic hatred for me, your leader David Miscavige’s satanic hatred for me, the satanic hatred for me he has incited in all Scientologists in your cult, and the extreme, criminal and satanic nature of your cult’s judicial and extra-judicial actions against me, it is altogether likely that one or two of your cult’s covert operatives, assets or collaborators posted as “JA2600” and “Not GA” for the corrupt purpose of providing you with the fake urgent basis you are using to justify your ex parte application, instead of a properly noticed, albeit equally ridiculous, motion.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, all land travel (car, bus, train) to the US from Canada is prohibited unless essential. Any lecture/conference against your money grabbing wanna be a religion cult, even not invented, does not pass as essential. Air travel from Canada to the US is permitted. As is well known, however, your cult’s operatives and collaborators have for many years been able to obtain airline passenger lists and to track the air travel of your victims or targets like me. If I had booked a flight to San Francisco or anywhere, your cult’s operatives or collaborators would have the details of such a booking. You have provided no evidence of any planned flight by me to San Francisco or anywhere else in California this month or any time in the future.

[Rest of Gerry's e-mail to Mr. Moxon, Exhibit A to his Declaration of October 26, 2020.]



They have not made it clear.
The address for Gerry listed on the proposed Body Attachment and Warrant for Arrest is probably alone not significant. The form asks for Gerry's last known address, and the COS simply provided that information.

This is the first that I have heard that Moxon mentioned "extradition" during the hearing. That is clearly a concern. One obvious issue is whether the extradition treaty between the US and Canada covers contempt orders in civil cases. Gerry may want to seek legal advice on that issue.

I am drawing an inference, but I believe that by filing the ex parte application based on two anonymous WWP posts, the COS made it clear to Gerry that they will seek a renewed arrest warrant if they obtain evidence that he will return to California anytime soon, and that they aren't going to let the matter go. It had been years since there had been any activity in the case, yet the COS sought a renewed warrant as soon as it saw a hint that Gerry might return to California.

ETA: If the COS was going to try to extradict Gerry, the question is why they didn't make the attempt previously? Maybe they will make the attempt now because Gerry did something else to piss them off or David Miscavige has lost patience. As I said above, Gerry might want to seek legal advice on extradition.
 
Last edited:
The address for Gerry listed on the proposed Body Attachment and Warrant for Arrest is probably alone not significant. The form asks for Gerry's last known address, and the COS simply provided that information.

This is the first that I have heard that Moxon mentioned "extradition" during the hearing. That is clearly a concern. One obvious issue is whether the extradition treaty between the US and Canada covers contempt orders in civil cases. Gerry may want to seek legal advice on that issue.

I am drawing an inference, but I believe that by filing the ex parte application based on two anonymous WWP posts, the COS made it clear to Gerry that they will seek a renewed arrest warrant if they obtain evidence that he will return to California anytime soon, and that they aren't going to let the matter go. It had been years since there had been any activity in the case, yet the COS sought a renewed warrant as soon as it saw a hint that Gerry might return to California.

ETA: If the COS was going to try to extradict Gerry, the question is why they didn't make the attempt previously? Maybe they will make the attempt now because Gerry did something else to piss them off or David Miscavige has lost patience. As I said above, Gerry might want to seek legal advice on extradition.

Several considerations and issues came up in the course of Scientology's Ex Parte application, the hearing and the aftermath, which warrant additional legal research and advice. Thank you, ISNOINews.

Gerry wrote a response to Michael Hobson's post earlier in this thread.
 
Back
Top