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

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff, Church of Scientology International (hereinafter, "Church" or "Plaintiff"), has

moved for Summary Judgment of its First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract.  That cause of

action is based upon the Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "the

Agreement") entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant, Gerald Armstrong (hereinafter

"Defendant" or "Armstrong"), on December 6, 1986. Paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement prohibited

Defendant from publishing or creating or assisting others to publish or create, any writing or

broadcast concerning the Church of Scientolofy and to maintain strict confidentiality with regard

to his experiences in the Church of Scientology.

The evidence the Church submitted in support of its motion demonstrates, without controversy,

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that Armstrong committed 201 breaches of that contractual obligation. The evidence in support of

this motion also establishes that this is the second time Armstrong has engaged in such wholesale,

deliberate breaches of that Agreement and that this court, per the Hon. Gary W. Thomas, adjudged

him liable for 131 earlier breaches in the action which the Church filed to enforce the Agreement.

In that action, Judge Thomas found that Aremstrong signed the Agreement free from the influence

of fraud, duress, conspiracy, and the other purported affirmative defenses he reiterates in

opposition to this motion.  The final judgment in that action also established that the contract was

binding, valid, and enforceable, issues Armstrong tries to relitigate here.  Judge Thomas awarded

liquidated damages for each breach, having specifically upheld the validity of that provision of the

Agreement, and permanently enjoined Armstrong from further breaches of the Agreement, such as

the 201 such breaches that are the subject of this summary judgment motion.

Armstrong appealed from the judgment in that action; the appeal was dismissed.  Armstrong is

thus collaterally estopped to relitigate any of those issues in this motion, and as to the sole

remaining element of the Church's breach of contract claims, Armstrong admitted — indeed,

boasted of — committing the 201 breaches at issue in his Answer, as well as taking credit for

hundreds more.

In response, Armstrong fails altogether to meet his burden of coming forward with admissible

evidence to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact.  C.C.P. § 437c(j).  Indeed, he fails to

produce admissible evidence of anything.  Apart from asserting that his execution of the

Agreement was by reason of fraud and duress (Undisputed Fact No. 1), which issues have already

been adjudicated against him, and purporting to dispute Undisputed Fact No. 9 while admitting its

substance — i.e., that he had the opportunity to, and did, oppose the ex parte application that led his

earlier criminal contempt conviction — Armstrong does not challenge the factual or legal basis for

this summary judgment motion.

Instead, he devotes his oversizedc, rambling "opposition"  to an angry polemic against his former

religion, and a vituperative, thoroughly unsubstantiated attack on Judge Thomas' integrity and

character.  Armstrong's "opposition" is a diatribe, not a brief; his "supporting" documents are

embittered, undocumented allegations, not evidence.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Church sustained its burden to show its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through

defendant's  admissions and the preclusive effects of the prior judgment. Armstrong has come

forward with vitriolic bombast, but not with evidence or law to oppose.  Accordingly, this motion

should be granted, and judgment should be entered as prayed.

ARGUMENT

A. There are No Undisputed Facts; Plaintiff is Entitled to Judgment on The First

Cause of Action as a Matter of Law

This Motion is predicated upon 11 Undisputed Facts, the following 9 of which Armstrong has

admitted:

Fact No. 2:  That the Church filed breach of contract actions based upon

Armstrong's breach of the Agreement which were consolidated in Church of

Scientology International v. Armstrong Case Nos. 152229 and 157680

("Consolidated Action");

Fact No. 3:  That in the Consolidated Action Plaintiff sought liquidated damages

as well as injunctive relief regarding future breaches of ¶7(D) of the Agreement;

Fact No. 4:  That Armstrong cross-complained against Plaintiff in the

Consolidated Action, challenging the validity of the Agreement on a number of

grounds;

Fact No. 5:  That following a motion for summary adjudication of issues, the

Court ordered and found that Armstrong freely and voluntarily entered into the

Agreement; that the Church performed  all of its obligations under the Agreement;

that Armstrong received substantial consideration for the promises he made in the

Agreement; that Armstrong repeatedly breached the Agreement; that Armstrong

reiterated that he intended to continue breaching the Agreement;

Fact No. 6:  That the Order of Permanent Injunction was incorporated into a

judgment against Defendant Armstrontg;

Fact No. 7: That Plaintiff thereafter applied for an order holding Defendant in

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contempt for violating the Order of Permanent Injunction;

Fact No. 8:  That the 131 postings in which this application was based were

publications in which Armstrong discussed his and others experience in the Church

of Scientology and discussed his and others experience in the Church  of

Scientology and discussing information he had concerning the Church of

Scientology;

Fact No. 10: That the Court issued a decision in an Order of Contempt finding

that Armstrong had violated the injunction by engaging in those breaches, which

constitute 131 of the 201 breaches of the Agreement which are at issue here;

Fact No. 11:  That Armstrong admitted committing the 201 breaches of the

Agreement alleged in the First Cause of Action.

There are simply no material facts in dispute. Absent valid defenses, Plaintiff is entitled to

Judgment as a matter of law.

B. Armstrong's Affirmative Defenses are barred by the Doctrine of Collateral

Estoppel.

"The doctrine of collateral estoppel can be simply stated: any issue necessarily decided in the

litigation of a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction

is conclusively determined as to the parties or their privies if it is involved in a subsequent lawsuit

on a different cause of action." First N.B.S. Corp. v. Gabrielsen, 179 Cal. App. 3d1189, 225 Cal.

Rptr. 254 (1986), citing Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd., 58 Cal. 2d 601, 604

(1962); Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal. 2d 807, 810-811 (1942); City of Los Angeles v. City

of San Fernando, 14 Cal. 3d 199, 227 (1975); Henn v. Henn, 26 Cal. 3d 323, 329-330 (1980).)

Here, as in Gabrielson, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies (1) if the issues decided in the

Consolidated Action are identical with the ones presented in this action; (2) if there was a final

judgment on the merits in the Consolidated Action; and (3) if Armstrong, the party against whom

the doctine is asserted, was a party to that action. Gabrieson, supra, citing Teitelbaum Furs, Inc.

v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd., supra, 58 Cal. 2d at p. 604.  If each of these three questions can be

answered affirmatively, collateral estoppel bars relitigation of these issues. See Teitelbaum Furs,

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd., supra, 58 Cal. 2d at p. 604.  Judgment in the Consolidated Action

is final and Armstrong was a party to both actions.  As such, the only question to be resolved is

whether the issues in the two actions are identical.  That question is easily answered.  Both actions

were for breach of paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement.  In the Consolidated Action, Armstrong

argued, as he does now, that the Agreement was the result of fraud, duress and criminal conspiracy

by the Church.  Compare, Declaration of Andrew H. Wilson in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for

Summary Judgment, Exhibit E, Verified Cross-Complaint for Abuse of Process, with Declaration

of Defendant Gerry Armstrong in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

("Armstrong Decl"), 8-16 and Exhibit A thereto.  He reiterated these arguments in opposition to

the Church's motion to have him held in contempt of Court.  See, Armstrong Decl., Exhibit K.

To the voluminous, repetitious charges of harassment, intimidation and conspiracy which he

made in defending the Consolidated Action, Armstrong now adds a gratuitous charge

of conspiracy and violation of Federal law against the judge who found his defenses inadequate in the

Consolidated Action.  He asserts that Judge Thomas must have been intimidated by the Church into

ruling against him.  Opposition of Defendant Gerry Armstrong for Motion for Summary judgment,

pg. 8, ln. 12-21.  These defamatory allegations, patently ridiculous though they are, cannot form

the basis for an affirmative defense.  Armstrong has offered no authority, or even a coherent

argument, for the proposition that he is entitled to relitigate the issues raised by his affirmative

defenses.  There is no authority, nor is there any good argument to be made.  Armstrong offers no

evidence either, only unsupported, rambling allegations.  As the Court Stated in Gabrielson, supra,

"[T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel is based on the sound public policy of limiting litigation by

preventing a party who has had one fair trial on an issue from again drawing it into controversy."

179 CalApp3d at 1197.  That is exactly what the Church asks the Court to do here.

CONCLUSION

There is no dispute that Armstrong committed the acts alleged in the Complaint.  He boasts of

it. There is no denying that these acts are breaches of the Agreement, which provides for

liquidated damages for each breach.  Armstrong does not dispute this.  Armstrong's only defense is

to repeat his mantra of fraud, duress, persecution and harassment, affirmative defenses which he is

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

collaterally estopped from relitigating.  His addition of salacious charges against a respected and

admired jurist changes nothing.  It only emphasizes Armstrong's contempt for any agreement

which he finds inconvenient, for the judicial process in general and for any judge who disagrees

with him.  The motion should be granted.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, declare:

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party

to the within action; my business address is 475 Gate 5 Road, Suite 212, Sausalito, California 94965.

On March 15, 2004, I served the foregoing document(s) described as follows:

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION
OF GERALD ARMSTRONG TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed
as stated on the attached service list, as follows:

XX BY U.S. MAIL:

XX BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OR OVERNIGHT COURIER

      BY HAND DELIVERY

Gerald Armstrong
1UP-45950 Alexander Avenue
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5
Canada

Executed on March 15, 2004, at Sausalito, California

XX (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.

      (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose
direction the service was made.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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