Gerry Armstrong--Declaration of Laurie Bartilson 12-31-1992

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §

1611

Andrew H. Wilson
WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO
235 Montgomery Street
Suite 450
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 391-3900

Laurie J. Bartilson
BOWLES & MOXON
6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 2000
Hollywood, CA 90028
(213) 661-4030

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a California not-
for-profit religious corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG; DOES 1 through
25, inclusive,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. BC 052395
DECLARATION OF LAURIE J.
BARTILSON IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY GERALD
ARMSTRONG SHOULD NOT BE
HELD IN CONTEMPT

DATE: December 31, 1992
TIME: 1:30 p.m.
DEPT: 88
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: None
MOTION CUT-OFF: None
TRIAL DATE: May 3, 1992

I, LAURIE J. BARTILSON, hereby declare:

1. I am a member of the law firm of Bowles & Moxon and am

an attorney admitted to practice in the State of California. My

firm represents plaintiff Church of Scientology International

("Church") in the instant case. I am submitting this declaration

in support of the Church's Motion for Order to Show Cause Why

Gerald Armstrong Should Not Be Held in Contempt ("Motion") and

1612

said Motion's accompanying memorandum of points and authorities

("Memorandum"). I have personal knowledge of the matters

specified in this declaration and, if called upon to testify on

such matters, would and could do so competently.

2. On May 28, 1992, this Court issued a preliminary

injunction order ("May 28 Order") in this case which stated, in

relevant part:

     Defendant Gerald Armstrong, his agents, and
persons acting in concert or conspiracy with him
(excluding attorneys at law who are not said
defendant's agents or retained by him) are
restrained and enjoined during the pendency of
this suit pending further order of this court from
doing directly or indirectly any of the following:

     Voluntarily assisting any person (not a
governmental organ or entity) intending to make,
intending to press, intending to arbitrate, or
intending to litigate a claim against the persons
referred to in sec. 1. of the "Mutual Release of
All Claims and Settlement Agreement" of December
1986 regarding such claim or regarding pressing,
arbitrating or litigating it.

     Voluntarily assisting any person (not a
governmental organ or entity) arbitrating or
litigating a claim against the persons referred to
in sec. 1 of the "Mutual Release of All Claims and
Settlement Agreement" of December, 1986.

A true and correct copy of the May 28 Order which I received from

the Court is attached as Exhibit A in support of the Motion.

3. On June 5, 1992, I gave notice to Armstrong's lawyers,

Ford Greene and Paul Morantz, of the May 28 Order. A true and

correct copy of the Notice with exhibits and proofs of service is

attached as Exhibit S in support of the Motion.

4. At a deposition of Gerald Armstrong ("Armstrong") in

this case on June 24, 1992, he and my co-counsel, Andrew Wilson,

had the following exchange regarding the December 1986 "Mutual

1613

Release and Settlement Agreement" between the Church and

Armstrong ("Settlement Agreement") and the May 28 Order:

     A. ... I have absolutely no intention of
honoring that settlement agreement. I cannot. I
cannot logically. I cannot ethically. I cannot
morally. I cannot psychically. I cannot philo-
sophically. I cannot spiritually. I cannot in
any way. And it is firmly my intention to not
honor it.

     Q. No matter what a court says?

     A. No court can order it. They're going to have
to kill me.

A true and correct copy of the relevant page of the transcript of

that deposition, p. 124, accurately reflecting the statements of

Armstrong and myself, is attached as Exhibit F to the Motion.

5. At a continuation of Armstrong's deposition in this

case on October 7, 1992, Armstrong and I had the following

exchange regarding the May 28 Order:

     Q. When was the next time you spoke to Mr.
Welkos or Mr. Sappell?

     A. Around the time of the Sohigian ruling.

     Q. This is another telephone conversation?

     A. In that I only met Mr. Welkos on that one
occasion, yes.

     Q. I apologize. You said that, and I
forgot. And this was a conversation with Mr.
Welkos?

     A. Yes

     Q. Did you call him, or did he call you?

     A. I believe I originated the conversation.

     Q. What did he say to you, and what did you
say to him, during that conversation?

     A. I believe I advised him of the Sohigian
ruling.

1614

     Q. Did you discuss anything else with him?

     A. I think it was -- That's all that I
recall being the subject of the discussion at that
time.

     Q. Did you tell him that as a result of the
Sohigian ruling, you now felt that you were more
free to do things that you had been constrained
about doing before?

     A. No, I never said that. Because I did not
feel I was constrained before. But rather that by
specifically denying the injunction as to all of
those things which the organization sought in the
preliminary injunction, that I was free from the
potential of an injunction.

A true and correct copy of the relevant pages of the transcript

of that deposition, pp. 378-379, accurately reflecting the

statements of Armstrong and myself, is attached as part of

Exhibit D to the Motion. On behalf of my client the Church, I

allege that the statements made by Armstrong under oath as quoted

in this paragraph and the paragraph immediately preceding in this

declaration are acknowledgements by Armstrong of his awareness of

the May 28 Order, his ability to act in compliance of such order

and his intention to wilfully disobey its terms.

6. At a continuation of Armstrong's deposition in this

case on July 22, 1992, he acknowledged to me under oath that he

continued to be employed by Ford Greene as a paralegal. A true

and correct copy of the relevant pages of the transcript of that

deposition, pp. 186-189, accurately reflecting the statements of

Armstrong and myself, is attached as Exhibit H to the Motion.

7. On July 7, 1992, I received in the mail a notice of

association from Ford Greene announcing that he again represented

Vicki and Richard Aznaran in the matter of Vicki Aznaran and

Richard Aznaran v. Church of Scientology International, et al.

1615

U.S. District Court, Central District of California No.

CV-88-1786-JMI(Ex) ("Aznaran v. Church"). On that day, I sent

Mr. Greene a letter by telecopier and first class mail. A true

and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit I to the

Motion. In that letter, I requested that Mr. Greene inform me of the

steps that had been and that would be taken to ensure that

Armstrong did not violate the terms of the May 28 Order, in

particular the prohibition that prevented Armstrong from

assisting the Aznarans in their case.

8. On or about July 12, 1992, I received a letter from Mr.

Greene, dated July 11, 1992, which responded to the above

referenced letter of July 7, 1992. A true and correct copy of

that letter is attached as Exhibit J to the Motion. In that

letter, Mr. Greene pointedly declined to provide any specific

assurances that Armstrong would not assist the Aznarans or any

other anti-Church litigant or claimant in violation of the

above-cited terms of the May 28 Order. Instead, he characterized

the May 28 Order as "somewhat cryptic and difficult to enforce"

and that as to Armstrong's compliance with said order, I "would

simply have to take [Mr. Greene's] word for it."

9. In July, 1992, following my receipt of a copy of a

ruling of Judge Ideman in Aznaran v. Church transferring that

case from the Central District of California to the U.S. District

Court in Dallas, Texas, I received a telephone call from

Armstrong in which he stated that he was calling from Mr.

Greene's office and that he needed to receive immediately by fax

such transfer ruling of Judge Ideman. I told Armstrong that the

May 28 Order prohibited him from assisting the Aznarans or any

1616

other litigants against the Church. He replied that he was

trying to help the Aznarans. On behalf of my client the Church,

I allege that the statements made by Armstrong as relayed in this

paragraph are acknowledgements by Armstrong of his awareness of

the May 28 Order, his ability to act in compliance of such order

and his intention to wilfully disobey its terms.

10. On July 18, 1992, I sent another letter to Mr. Greene

by telecopier and first class mail, responding to his July 11,

1992 letter, accurately describing my above referenced July, 1992

conversation with Armstrong and reiterating that Armstrong was

required to immediately cease all work for the Aznarans and to

cease all actions in violation of the May 28 Order. A true and

correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit K to the

Motion.

11. I received no response to my July 18, 1992 letter from

Mr. Greene. However, on or about August 1, 1992, I received two

proofs of service for Mr. Greene's pleadings in the Aznaran v.

Church case, each of which was executed by Armstrong. True and

correct copies of those proofs of service are attached as Exhibit

L to the Motion. On behalf of my client the Church, I allege

that the actions taken by Armstrong as relayed in this paragraph

are acknowledgements by Armstrong of his ability to act in

compliance of the May 28 Order and his intention to wilfully

disobey its terms.

12. In the continuation of Armstrong's deposition in this

case on October 7 and 8, 1992, during which I further examined

Armstrong, he made several additional admissions that I allege

indicate his awareness of the May 28 Order, his ability to act in

1617

compliance of such order and his intention to wilfully disobey

its terms. These admissions include Armstrong's statements that

he broadly discussed with the Aznarans matters relating to their

case against the Church, that he assisted in the relay of

communications between the Aznarans and Mr. Greene and that he

was assisting three other persons, Tillie Good, Denise Cantin and

Ed Roberts, each of whom is making claims, through Mr. Greene's

office, against Churches of Scientology protected by the May 28

Order. A true and correct copy of the relevant pages of the

transcript of this deposition, pp. 448-458, accurately reflecting

the statements of Armstrong, Mr. Greene and myself, is attached

as part of Exhibit D to the Motion. True and correct copies of

Mr. Greene's demand letters against various Churches of

Scientology on behalf of Ms. Good, Ms. Cantin and Mr. Roberts

received by me and/or my firm are attached as Exhibits M, N and O

respectively to the Motion.

13. On December 26, 1992, I received by U.S. mail a letter

signed by Gerald Armstrong, dated December 22, 1992, and

addressed to "David Miscavige and all other individuals who

participate in the control of Scientology, C/O Laurie J.

Bartilson, Esquire" ("December 22 Letter"). A true and correct

copy of the December 22 Letter is attached to the moving papers

as Exhibit G.

14. In what can only be described as deliberate harassment,

Armstrong also sent copies of the letter to 35 individuals and

groups, including anti-Church litigants, such as Vicki and

Richard Aznaran, Larry Wollersheim and Joseph Yanny, and lawyers

who represent clients in actions brought against one of more

1618

churches, including Toby Plevin, John Elstead, and Dan Leipold.

15. Armstrong spends the bulk of the December 22 Letter

vilifying the Church and its members, and threatening further

breaches of the settlement agreement, and violations of the

preliminary injunction, if his demands are not met. Although

Armstrong has publicly disavowed any interest in money, he

insists that the Church pay him $500,000 for his "legal fees and

costs," "cancel" the settlement agreement, and pay unspecified

amounts of money to other anti-Church litigants if the Church

wishes to avoid Armstrong's threatened violations.

16. Specifically, Armstrong threatens that, if his demands

are not met, that he will travel voluntarily to South Africa to

testify against a church of Scientology, give interviews to the

media, and voluntarily assist anyone and everyone opposing

Churches that he can locate. [Id. pp. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8] Expressing

the viewpoint that the May 28 Order places no restrictions

whatsoever on his conduct, Armstrong states,

I consider myself free to do anything anyone can,
except testify absent a subpoena. Much of what I am
permitted to do I am going to do. . . .

I will continue to associate with and befriend all
those people I consider you attack unjustly and
senselessly. I will make my knowledge and support
available to the Cult Awareness Network, a group of
people of good will you vilify, in all the litigation
you have fomented against them. . . . I will even make
my knowledge and support available to entities like
Time and people like Rich Behar in their defenses from
your attacks.

[Exhibit G, p. 3].

17. The Cult Awareness Network is an anti-religious group

that advocates the kidnapping and forcible "deprogramming" of

individuals belonging to religions which they have identified as

1619

"cults." While the Church is not presently suing the Cult

Awareness Network in any litigation, the president of the Cult

Awareness Network, Cynthia Kisser, has initiated an action

against the Church and its president, Heber Jentzsch.

18. Richard Behar is the author of a Time cover story

concerning the Church which ran in May, 1991. The Church is

presently engaged in a lawsuit against Time and Behar for

defamation.

19. In the December 22 Letter, Armstrong also makes plain

the personal contempt which he has for a Court which would rule

against him:

There is also, as mentioned above, the fact that
in order to defend myself from your attacks and to fund
the defense of the litigation you have fomented I must
speak and must publish. I'm sure you understand that I
remain completely confident that no court, other than
the odd one your mercenaries are able to compromise
with bucks, babes or bull, will order me not to defend
myself.

[Id. p. 5].

20. These recent pronouncements by Armstrong make plain

that nothing short of a criminal contempt order is likely to end

Armstrong's misconduct.

21. On December 30, 1992, I received a videotape identified

by the initial speaker as a November 6, 1992 interview of

Armstrong. Jerry Whitfield and others participated in such

interview which, on information and belief, took place at the Los

Angeles convention in early November, 1992 of the so-called "Cult

Awareness Network" ("CAN"). A true and accurate copy of the

video tape is attached and lodged as Exhibit Q to the Motion. A

true and accurate transcript of the conversation between

1620

Armstrong, Mr. Whitfield and others as reflected on said

videotape is attached as Exhibit P to the Motion. During this

recorded interview, Armstrong makes the following statement:

. . . I cannot, except pursuant to a subpoena, assist
someone intending to file a claim or pressing a claim
against the organization. Now then we are appealing
even that narrow ruling, because that's unenforceable
because if you construe that my ... that this video
could possibly indirectly help someone in the future, I
can't do this. And not only that but if you consider
that my existence indirectly or directly helps someone,
then I'll oblige to take my own life. In other words,
I must stop breathing. It's unenforceable. I feel I
am completely at liberty to associate with whomever I
want, to talk to whomever I want, and I act and live
that way. And that is in part why I am here at this
event now, why I came to the CAN conference.

Exhibit P, p. 34.

On behalf of my client the Church, I allege that the

statements made by Armstrong as relayed in this paragraph are

further acknowledgements by Armstrong of his awareness of the May

28 Order, his ability to act in compliance of such order and his

intention to wilfully disobey its terms.

22. Mr. Whitfield is a defendant in the matter of Casillas

v. Jerry Whitfield, et al., Los Angeles County Municipal Court

No. 91K49349. My office represents Mr. Casillas in that action.

Mr. Casillas is a staff member of the Church and is suing Mr.

Whitfield and others for false imprisonment and false arrest.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 31st day of December, 1992 at Los Angeles,

California.

H:\ARMSTRON\BART.DEC

[signed]
Laurie J. Bartilson

Image of signature page

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §