Gerry Armstrong--DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. HELLER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

Note: Compare what Heller states in paragraph 6 of this declaration with his statements in Author Service's motion to prevent depositions and his own sworn declaration filed in the Bent Corydon v. Scientology litigation.

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 within the Church of Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by the Scientology entities concerning those staff members or parishioners; and (3) the terms and conditions of the settlements themselves. Peace has reigned since the time the interested parties entered into the settlements, all parties having exercised good faith in carrying out the terms of the settlement, including the obligations of confidentiality."
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/corydon-v-csi/notice-of-motion-1989-11-01-heller.html#ct5998

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. In the last two and one half (2-1/2) years the settlements have been carried out in good faith by all parties."

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/corydon-v-csi/notice-of-motion-1989-11-01-heller.html#ct6003

Heller filed the motion and declaration after Corydon had served me with a deposition subpoena in his case. See my declarations of March 15, 1990 and December 25, 1990 detailing threats from Heller after my being served with Corydon's subpoena.

Heller, of course, is a Scientologist, as well as a Scientology lawyer, and for both hats lying is a sacrament.

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, California 90028
(213) 661-4030

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

RECEIVED
FEB 3 1992
HUB LAW OFFICES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

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

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG; DOES 1
through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

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

Case No.

DECLARATION OF
LAWRENCE E. HELLER
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. HELLER

I, Lawrence E. Heller, hereby declare:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before

the courts of the State of California. I am a principal in the

law firm of Turner, Gerstenfeld, Wilk, Tigerman & Heller. All of

the following facts are within my personal knowledge and I am

available and competent to personally testify thereto if called

upon to do so.

2. I was personally involved in the December 1986

settlements which are referred to in the papers filed in

connection with the motion to enforce settlement agreement in the

case of Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, Case No. C 420 153,

L.A.S.C. The settlements concerned well over a dozen plaintiffs

and several Church of Scientology entities, as well as other

third parties sued as defendants. The settlement negotiations

involved in settling those cases took place over several months,

culminating in a multi-week session in a hotel in the city of Los

Angeles where most of the lawyers (and some of the parties)

involved in the litigation met extensively.

3. One of the individuals whose cross-complaint was settled

during these negotiations was Gerald Armstrong. He had

originally been sued by Church of Scientology of California

("CSC"), and that suit was on appeal and was not being settled.

Only Armstrong's cross-complaint was involved in the settlement.

4. On December 6, 1986, I met with Armstrong and his

attorney, Michael Flynn, to obtain signatures on the settlement

agreement and related documents. At this meeting, as in any

prior negotiations, Armstrong was represented by Mr. Flynn and

was not counseled regarding the settlement by cross-defendants or

their attorneys.

5. At the signing of the agreement, I had a videotape done

to memorialize what was occurring. I also asked Armstrong

specific questions regarding his understanding of the settlement

and of the conditions under which he was signing the agreement.

The videotape, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is a true

depiction of what occurred. Armstrong was relaxed and happy and

joked about his unusual signature. He manifested no reservations

about the signing whatsoever. He also acknowledged that: 1) his

attorney had explained the legal and factual ramifications of the

documents to him: 2) he understood what he was signing and had no

questions about it; 3) he knew it was a settlement of litigation

with all of his attorney's clients involved in similar litigation

at the same time; 4) he had read and comprehensively reviewed the

documents; and 5) he was not suffering any duress or coercion in

connection with signing them.

6. During the negotiations there was discussion of non-

disclosure provisions on the part of both sides. It was

explained to Armstrong's counsel that the terms could not include

a non-disclosure provision by the Church parties as to Armstrong.

The reason for this provision not being possible was that

Armstrong would walk away from the settlement with the money he

received and not have any future problems, but the Church parties

would still be left with the prior declarations and other

statements provided by Armstrong to parties hostile to the

Church. There was no way to know when and where his prior

statements might surface in the future. The Church parties

therefore needed to be able to use the information they had

regarding Armstrong, to be able to rebut Armstrong's earlier

statements. For that reason, no non-disclosure obligation of the

Church parties with respect to Armstrong was included in the

agreement.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is

true and correct.

Executed at Beverly Hills, California this ___day of

January, 1992.

Signature Lawrence E. Heller Declaration of 01-1992

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