No do it Mike Rinder. Tell the truth. (December 10, 2016)

10th December 2016, 05:20 AM #41

CommunicatorIC

Re: Mike Rinder posted something important today

Originally Posted by programmer_guy

Mike made a general apology.
Gerry wants Mike (and others) to admit to specific details that can stand up in a court of law.

Which Mike cannot do without potentially exposing himself to civil and criminal liability — and thus threatening his family.

As I noted above, Mike cannot rely on any statute of limitations defense because of legal doctrines that suspend the running of the statute of limitations such as fraudulent concealment, equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, minority, incapacity, or simply being physically outside a particular jurisdiction.

My advice to Mike would be not to do it. If, hypothetically, I had a wife and child I would not endanger their futures and our family to do it.

If Gerry didn’t like that, I would completely understand. I would not, however, engage in an action that could threaten my family just because he is not satisfied with a “general” apology and wants “specific details that can stand up in a court of law.”

Honestly, I think that if Mike didn’t have a wife and child, then there *might* be some chance that Gerry would get what he wants. Given that Mike does have a wife and a small child, I think the probability of Gerry getting what he wants is precisely zero.

I understand that there are many people who, like Communicator IC, do not want Rinder to do what I have asked him to do, and even, like this poster, advise him not to do.

What I have consistently asked Rinder for is to tell the truth. What I have consistently, in many public communications, said I wanted from Rinder is the truth.  I simply want him to tell the truth.

In psychopathic logic, I am supposed to stop wanting him to tell the truth because he won’t, or hasn’t, or refuses. That isn’t the way such wanting works. One doesn’t want peace in the world, and then stop wanting it because there isn’t peace. In the choice between war and peace, I choose peace. In the choice between Rinder telling the truth or not telling the truth, I want the truth.

Wanting him to tell the truth, as I do, can exist as a life choice and nothing is done about it. Like a million other choices perhaps we all have made over our lives. My wanting him to tell the truth only arose when he claimed to be doing so, and because I had real and legitimate reasons to want him to tell the truth. The Scientologists and their collaborators, clearly, do not want him to tell the truth.

I did act on what I wanted, of course, and he knew right after he started presenting as telling the truth that that was exactly how he could help me and so many other people. It was exactly what I was wanting from him. I did have a brief email exchange with him, which, because of recent events, I’ve assembled here: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/1919 I have not bothered him at all with correspondence.

I have communicated things that have helped keep alive the issue of Rinder not telling the truth, which at this time is serious.This obviously has upset the people who want him to not tell the truth yet be seen as telling the truth. But it’s fake upset, and the efforts to keep Rinder from telling the truth, and bestow celebrity status on him for telling the truth are perverse and logically puerile.

Although I want Rinder to tell the truth, and have made this known to him, I have also accepted that he probably won’t. I have long ago accepted his decisions to hate me, make me his enemy, black PR me, and side with the people who want me dead. I’ve accepted that all the Scientologists and their collaborators in the world hate me, consider me an enemy, and would welcome my death.

Despite accepting that Rinder, unless he has a Damascus Road moment, is not going to tell the truth, there is still a need to get the fact known that he is not telling the truth. The same was true with Hubbard: he didn’t tell the truth but claimed to be telling the truth; he was not going to start telling the truth, but there was still a need to get the fact known that he is not telling the truth. Fraud should be exposed, and Rinder’s pretense of telling the truth should be exposed just as Hubbard’s should be.

The truth has to be told in a way that means or does something toward reconciliation and justice, so his telling the truth to his priest or psychiatrist or his pillow or his personal demon wouldn’t suffice. The truth to be told is his experiences with and knowledge of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology corporations, organizations, and affiliated entities, and their officers, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, directors, successors, assigns and legal counsel. (This is the language of what Rinder, et al. sought to silence me about by their contract1

Rinder knows exactly who and what needs to have the truth told about them. It is very simple. Nobody wants Rinder to tell the truth about what he said in his auditing sessions, or about his dreams, or about his wins. The truth he must tell, if truth be told, is his experiences and knowledge of fair game, what was done to wogs in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy against persons and rights in which he was a key member for many years.

That criminal conspiracy still exists. Rinder still serves its criminal purposes. He can only stop serving its purposes by telling the truth about it. Otherwise, he will, until his death, serve that diabolical criminal conspiracy. Scientolomerta. And that will be his legacy. Except for his desire to keep serving this conspiracy and keep the conspiracy working, the choice, I would think would be obvious.

It is this conspiracy against persons and rights that needs to be taken down, not Scientology or the Church of Scientology or some named corporation.

Rinder admittedly has his reason or reasons for not telling the truth. He had ample reasons for more than twenty years, he says, as Miscavige’s Fair Game IC. As I said, he knows what the truth is that he has reasons to not tell. This could be described as criminal and depraved actions planned or taken against members of the SP class, black propaganda, which is also depraved, and ongoing injustices and fraud. That is a huge and understandable, but completely unacceptable, reason not to tell the truth about it.

That is also the reason Communicator IC gives for advising Rinder to not tell the truth. What he should tell the truth about is so criminal, so depraved, so unjust and involves so much criminal fraud, in Communicator IC’s reasoning, he shouldn’t tell the truth about it. The details of Rinder’s fair gaming good people for Scientology — for pay, for prestige, which still serves him, and for fun and for joy, because he had to have been uptone about it all those years — are so criminal, so depraved, and so unjust and the fraud he promoted and defended with fair game so noxious, that telling truth about them would threaten his family, so Communicator IC says.

Obviously, what it will take for Rinder to tell the truth — even if the contemplation of the shame of it all is crushing, even if it might open him up to liability for his actions to someone, even if he is honoring a contract to not tell the truth and his coconspirators might murder him, even if he’s still on Miscavige’s payroll, and even if he hates me beyond human endurance — is courage. He should be encouraged to tell the truth and advised to be courageous, rather than encouraged to be cowardly, and provided spurious justifications for his continued cowardice. I think he should opt for courage. He certainly learned cowardice in Scientology in spades. His bluster, I think, is rooted actually in the Scientology cowardice condition, which makes it misplaced bluster. But perhaps all bluster is.

Now is the time for Rinder to get courageous, to do the right thing, and tell the truth that can free people – the truth about his experiences and knowledge of actions by the Scientologists and their collaborators against members of the SP class.

Communicator IC’s assertion that Rinder cannot tell the truth without potentially exposing himself to civil and criminal liability, which is provided as a lead-pipe justifier for advising him not to do so, is clarifying on three issues. 1. It acknowledges, finally, that Rinder has not told the truth. 2. It acknowledges that the truth to be told is relevant and important, and concerns criminal and tortious actions against victims; in this case me personally. 3. It acknowledges that Rinder could not have told the truth to the FBI.

I have seen it claimed that, since apparently leaving the Sea Org and presenting himself as telling the truth about his Scientology-related experiences and knowledge, Rinder, along with Mark Rathbun, has been to the FBI, talked to the FBI, been interviewed by the FBI. I have no actual knowledge of their “going to the FBI,” but there are multiple reports of them doing so. If Rinder had told the truth to the FBI; if the FBI had been the Constitution-obeying federal law enforcement entity it publicly purports to be, operating by its motto Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity, and not cowardly collaborating with the Miscavige-Rathbun-Rinder, et al. conspiracy against persons and rights; and if the FBI has not prosecuted him, which they have not, then there is zero risk that Rinder would face criminal liability if he told that truth to me or my lawyer.

Rinder and Rathbun do not merit the defense or excuse that telling the truth will expose them to criminal liability, when they are claiming they’re telling the truth to the FBI — of all law enforcement entities — without the slightest hint of criminal liability.

When the FBI got the truth of the Scientologists’ fair game actions against Paulette Cooper during the GO period, the FBI contacted Cooper. Since Rathbun and Rinder, after supposedly leaving the Miscavigeite sect, went to the FBI, and supposedly told all, which had to include their years of fair game actions against me, the FBI has not contacted me. I have reason to believe, in fact, that Rathbun and Rinder continued their adherence to the conspiracy line in their communications with the FBI, which included the continued black PRing and criminal framing of me.

I wrote last year about Rathbun and Rinder’s visits to the FBI since claiming to have left the Miscavigeite sect, and explained that it is a virtual certainty they did not tell the truth:

This scenario of Rathbun and Rinder talking to the FBI or going to the Feds has been brought up several times over the past few years. It is used as evidence of them doing the right thing, or how effective they are as critics, as it has been assumed that whatever they told the Feds helped the Scientologists’ victims.

In view of the known facts, however, this assumption is illogical. It is illogical to think that Rathbun and Rinder would lie about me in Memoirs, continue the criminal framing of me and Mike Flynn, black PR me and other persons he victimized, and yet tell the truth about what they did to fair game us to the Feds.

Rathbun went to the Feds all sorts of times while working inside the cult and in charge of fair game under Miscavige. Rathbun went to the Feds, and had others go to the Feds, about Flynn and me. Rathbun lied to the Feds then, and there is no reason to believe he is not lying to them now. Until he tells the truth to his victims about his victimizing them, his talking to the FBI is just like Kendrick Moxon talking to the FBI.

All the “Indies” talking to all the FBI had the effect of ending any investigation into the cult. All Rathbun’s followers would have black PRed me and others similarly positioned SPs to the Feds.

It must be understood, of course, that the Feds conspired with the Scientologists against the Scientologists’ victims.2 When Scientologist conspirators like Rathbun and Rinder talk to the Feds, they are talking to their coconspirators. The cure is the public exposure of the conspirators and breaking of the conspiracy, not the conspirators talking in secret. That keeps the conspiracy working, which appears to be Rathbun and Rinder’s purpose.2

If civil or criminal liability would exist should Rinder tell the truth, then it must exist now, without his telling the truth. Arrangements are very often made that provide immunities of various kinds if witnesses, or even participants in crimes, tell the truth about their experiences and knowledge, or allocate. Consequently, his telling the truth could actually reduce his criminal and civil liability. Therefore criminal and civil liability for telling the truth is not really a good excuse for Rinder not doing so, certainly regarding the Scientology v. Armstrong evils. In my case, the principal crime or offense against me is continuing, rendering statutes of limitation inapplicable, so Rinder’s liability increases every day he keeps serving his conspiracy’s purposes.

From the very earliest efforts I made to get Rathbun and Rinder to communicate to me, I have provided them with the best opportunity to tell the truth, to have it be meaningful, to put it to tremendous and dramatic use. It is disgraceful that people, presenting themselves as opposing the Scientologists’ malign purposes, advise Rathbun and Rinder to not take this golden opportunity, and smear the very person with whom the opportunity exists. Advising Rinder to not tell the truth but keep serving the Scientologists’ malign purposes serves the same people’s same purposes.

Communicator IC forks up a strawman that it’s my satisfaction that weighs or argues against endangering Rinder’s wife and child and family. I had never used, relied on or referred to my satisfaction in any of my requests to Rinder or arguments to anyone that he tell the truth. My satisfaction is unrelated to Rinder telling the truth. Reconciliation, justice, peace, honor, in fact the elimination of an endangerment to his child, wife and family — those are on the other side of Rinder growing a spine and telling the simple truth, not my satisfaction.

Legal and social issues relating directly to the truth of Rinder’s experiences and knowledge also exceed and transcend my satisfaction, including, e.g., human rights; religious freedom; contracted religious silence; a light on black propaganda; the IRS crimes;  those who would act in concert with me. It is completely understandable that the Scientologists and their collaborators do not want Rinder to tell the truth, because it would affect, and could correct these issues. They do not want the Scientologists’ criminally obtained and legally undeserved IRS tax exemption to be lost or challenged.

If child, wife or family endangerment is a factor, then it should be observed that Rinder endangered, and continues to endanger his children, wives and family by being Hubbard or Miscavige’s Fair Game IC for twenty years, committing acts that even Communicator IC says subject him to criminal liability. Now Rinder keeps adding his refusal to help his victims, as does Rathbun, when he could have done so much with nothing more than the simple truth, all of which will be the legacy he leaves his children.

What a burden on them also to discover that their father used them as his excuse not to help his victims, not to end injustices. Rathbun also has been using his wife and child as human shields for much the same purpose and his supporters too validate that use.

The Scientologists and their collaborators seek to present my relationship with Mike Rinder and Rathbun as one of equal opponents equally empowered, equally right, and equally deserving of public scrutiny and criticism. If this can be accepted, of course, my few requests of both of them to communicate to me and tell the truth can be made to sound unfair. After all, they are not requesting that I  speak up and tell the truth about their and their fellow Scientologists’ fair gaming of SP class members.

Even though I see the equality, and also the unity, of all Homo sapiens, however, the clear relationship this past thirty-five years is of victimizer and victim. It is our essential equality that makes this unholy relationship of victimizer and victim what it is.

As can be seen, I did not know that Rinder was targeting me until 1985 when the Scientologists proclaimed the shocking truth that he was conning me about being my friend, about understanding where I was coming from, and about coming to me for my assistance, because he and his “Loyalists” sought fairness, truth and justice.

Rinder knew that he was targeting me from the first minute he knew I had left, which was thirty-five years ago today. Through every minute of his OSA career he targeted me. I had no idea. I did nothing about him.

I naturally testified as necessary thereafter about what had been revealed in 1985 of what he had done, but that was only because he had done it and it was relevant in various legal proceedings

Rinder had the whole OSA apparatus and used it to sue me, black PR me around the world, frame me, bankrupt me, stalk me, op me, threaten me, betray me, destroy my relationships, get me enjoined and sentenced to jail, and drive me to the edge of death, all in execution of his conspiracy’s criminal purposes and programs. I had no such apparatus, and did none of those things to Rinder.

Rinder and his fellow Scientologists and their collaborators have sought for thirty-five years, and paid millions of dollars, and corrupted courts, to silence me. I never tried to silence him or them. In fact it is quite clear that I urge them to communicate.

Rinder, et al. seek to have me jailed and fined for truthfully expressing my sincere religious experiences and knowledge. I don’t seek to have them jailed, but seek to have them truthfully express their sincere religious experiences and knowledge.

In last week’s Scientology and the Aftermath program, Rinder said:

Part of my job was to discredit and destroy critics who spoke out against the Church. If the Church believed that someone was an enemy and needed to be silenced or destroyed, it was my job and I did it.

[…]

I was the guy.

I feel bad about the people who got hurt as a result of my actions. But I feel it’s important to tell the truth of what really goes on behind the scenes. What really is happening in Scientology.

I had no such job to destroy Rinder.

Rinder’s conjunction “but” is confusing here, but his implication is clear that because he says telling the truth of what really goes on behind the scenes in Scientology is important, he must be telling such truth. Obviously he is not telling such truth; or there would be no need to advise him to not tell the truth or supply him with justifications to keep him from telling the truth. What really goes on behind the scenes is the criminal conspiracy against persons and rights in which Rinder has been such a key conspirator.

Notes

Public Policy (January 25, 2015)

by Gerry Armstrong 1

Caroline on ESMB: Gerry concluded some time ago that the key to the IRS decision and its cancellation is the “public policy” issue, or actually public policy violations issue. This explains why neither Rathbun nor Rinder have told the truth about their fair gaming of Gerry, Mike Flynn, etc., and have not told the truth about false statements to and dealings with the IRS. From the Introduction to the Armstrong Operation: […]

Wildcat on ESMB: This is good information, thank you! Can you provide a link or clarification about the “public policy” issue? I’m not sure what that is, but am very interested to know more.

Public policy. That principle of the law which holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community. The term “policy,” as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object, considered with reference to the social or political well-being of the state. Thus, certain classes of acts are said to be “against public policy,” when the law refuses to enforce or recognize them, on the ground that they have a mischievous tendency, so as to be injurious to the interests of the state, apart from illegality or immorality. — Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

To see how “public policy” fits into the Scientologists’ IRS scheme, start with the September 1984 judgment in Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of IRS.2

The US was very aware of the Scientologists’ public policy violations against government, organizations and individuals because of the documents seized in the 1977 FBI raids, and because of testimony of Exscientologists. A broad statement reflecting the US’s knowledge of such public policy violations is provided in the December 1980 Sentencing Memorandum in the US v. Jane Kember & Mo Budlong case.

Thus, as the evidence shows, these defendants orchestrated an elaborate cover-up, beginning in June 1976 and continuing through   June 1977 and, no doubt, thereafter.  In fact, a significant part of the defense they presented at trial — their attack on the integrity and reliability of Michael Meisner — was foreshadowed in the “obstruction documents.”  They presented this Court with a shabby attempt at impeaching Meisner’s credibility by claiming that he stole money from the Church — the same false claim they made against another former Scientologist who had the courage to expose their crimes and thus fell victim to their fair game doctrine. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert. denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977).

[…]

Other Crimes Committed by These Defendants

The defendants’ contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in order to protect their Church from Government harassment collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants.  If anything, these documents establish beyond doubt that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law.  They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. [ ] The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment. Their targets included, among others, The American Medical Association (AMA) which had branded Scientology’s practice of “dianetics” as “quackery”; the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which sought to respond to private citizens’ inquiries about the courses offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to report the news and inform the public, law firms which represented individuals and organizations against whom Scientology initiated law suits (often for the sole purpose of harassment); private citizens who attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize an organization whose tactics they condemned; and public officials who sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected or appointed in a fair and even-handed manner. To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. [cite]  That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person”  “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist.  [He m]ay be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed.” [cite] This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.

[…]

Conclusion

The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years.  It also puts to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harassment campaign against them.

The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the defendants’ wanton assault upon the laws of this country.  The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury investigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in response to a Grand Jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story, and assisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of this country.  Their total disregard for the laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of vilification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private and public individuals    and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail.  One can   only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their “Red Box” data.  That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law.  Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims.

The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard.  No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying.  No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes.  It is interesting to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled “Modern Management Technology Defined” that “truth is what is true for you,” and “illegal” is that which is “contrary to statistics or policy” and not pursuant to Scientology’s “approved program.”  Thus, with the Founder-Commodore’s blessings they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.

These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed.  The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system.  In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.”  That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society.

These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.3

In July 1987, the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s 1984 judgment in CSC v. Commissioner. Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground of inurement to L. Ron Hubbard, it did not address the public policy issue.

We conclude that the Church failed to establish that “no part of the net earnings … inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual….” 26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(3). Because we may affirm the Tax Court on this ground, we do not reach the questions of whether the Church operated for a substantial commercial purpose or whether it violated public policy. 4

Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court judgment only on the ground of inurement, it did not mean that the IRS could ignore the other grounds for denial of tax exemption if the Scientologists cured their inurement problem. Hubbard’s death solved inurement. The Scientologists solved their public policy problem by committing more public policy violations against the people who were already victims of the Scientologists’ public policy violations. For corrupt reasons, the US abetted the Scientologists, indeed required such public policy violations.

The Scientologists’ strategy, as has long been known, became to blame their Guardian’s Office for everything off-public policy the Scientologists had been caught doing, disband the GO as a rogue operation, and swear that public policy violations were no longer committed or permitted. The Scientologists, of course, first under Hubbard and then under Miscavige, continued violating public policy unabated, and probably even escalated public policy violating by having the GO to scapegoat.

The blaming of the GO, and the smearing of the Scientologists’ public policy violation victims by association with the GO, is a key theme in the Scientologists’ negotiated submissions to the IRS upon which tax exemption was granted in 1993. The Scientologists, and the IRS, had to deal with the public policy issue that is so prominent in the 1984 Tax Court judgment. These submissions, negotiated to demonstrate that public policy violations had ended with the GO, are actually irrefutable, and astonishing, proof that Scientologists continued violating public policy, directed by the very top leadership of Scientology. 5

There are, naturally, many years of evidence of the Scientologists’ public policy-violating activities since their exemption-reaping submissions. Their actions against me in violation of public policy started during the Hubbard regime and have not stopped throughout the Miscavige regime. In significant part, the Scientologists’ actions targeting me as an SP or enemy comprise a conspiracy against rights (18 USC 241), which clearly is against public policy. The Scientologists’ public policy violations in targeting me in their submissions to the IRS are stunning. In negotiating with the Scientologists to file this material targeting me, by requiring or permitting this material to be filed, and by interference of any kind against me on behalf of the Scientologists ever since, the US has been participating in their criminal conspiracy, and vice versa.

Although in his 2013 book Memoirs Mark Rathbun did not confront his participation in the Scientology-IRS conspiracy, which defrauded Americans and criminally prejudiced the SP class, he did disclose a number of things that are useful in examining certain of the Scientologists’ fact statements in their IRS submissions. Comparing the public policy sections of these submissions with the US’s knowledge of public policy violations as shown in the 1980 US v. Kember sentencing memorandum, and analyzing both fact sets with what Rathbun has disclosed or what is known from other sources, would be a logical next step.

 Notes

Skirmish over YT video of Mike Rinder black PRing Gerry Armstrong and Graham Berry (June 16, 2012)

ESMB thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?27408-Skirmish-over-YT-video-of-Mike-Rinder-black-PRing-Gerry-Armstrong-and-Graham-Berry