Fair Game: Michael 'Mike' Gormez comments on GO/OSA Fair Game racketeering

Michael 'Mike' Gormez <mike@psychassualt.org>
OSA UK's recent black PR
21 Dec 2002

gerry@gerryarmstrong.org wrote:

> Attached to Wilson's letter is an OSA attack
> on the 1984 Latey decision in the High Court
> in London, with a section of Scientology's
> standard lies and black propaganda about me:

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/latey-decision-black-pr.html

OSA

This was recognized by the Court of Appeal which reviewed the Latey decision. That Court found that"it was unnecessary for the judge to have gone into the detail which he did . . ."

Full context

"It seems to me, with respect, that it as unnecessary for the judge to have gone into the detail which he did, but when one is considering a set of beliefs, it is, I should have thought, relevant to know the sort of person who is the original proponent of those beliefs."

OSA

Lord Justice Purchas commented, "It may not have been strictly necessary for Latey to have made definitive findings on collateral matters in the way that he did and in the terms that he did. . . ."

Full context

"It may not have been strictly necessary for him to have made definitive findings on collateral matters in the way that he did and in the terms that he did, but this does not, in my judgment, vitiate of itself the subsequent findings and decisions which he made in relation to the dangers to the children of being brought up under the aegis of scientology."

This OSA comment is interresting.

Finally, the unfairness of relying on Justice Latey's bigoted statements is emphasized by the fact that the ruling is not consistent with the current views about Scientology by the English High Court. In September 1998 a judgment was issued in another British custody case involving a Scientologist (S.M.) and his two children, in which the judge came to the opposite conclusion concerning Scientology. Here, the court made it clear that the beliefs of the Scientologist had nothing to do with the case and that the Scientologist was entitled to have his own religious belief and that this had no bearing on the matter of custody.

In February 1999 Prof. Kent entered his expert statement in a British child visitation case. I don't know if they are related

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/britishchildvisitation.htm

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/british_cases.html

Mike Gormez

- Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- The hearing transcripts http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/