Gerry Armstrong--Transcript of Proceedings 04-11-1985

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

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

JULIE CHRISTOFFERSON TITCHBOURNE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, MISSION
OF DAVIS, a non-profit California
corporation, doing business in
Oregon; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
OF CALIFORNIA, a California
corporation, doing business in
Oregon; and L. RON HUBBARD,

Defendants.

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

No. A7704-05184

EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Volume IX Pages
4640 to 4835
Testimony of Gerald D. Armstrong

April 11, 1985

BILL ELLIS & ASSOCIATES
Court Reporters
1001 S. W. Fifth Ave.
Portland, Oregon

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4686

THE COURT: Well, I said yesterday afternoon

and I am going to watch this fairly closely the rest

of this day, we are not here to build a case for

whatever cases are going on around the country.

I'll address this to the gentlemen in the audience.

I'm trying the Christofferson case.

MR. COOLEY: Two days we gave him discovery

in the California case.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know where the

lawyers present are from or what cases and I don't

really care. That's their job. It's that we are

trying the issues in this case, as I see them, and

I'm going to try to limit it to that.

MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: We'll take a few minutes.

(Court recessed at 10:57 a.m. and

reconvened at 11:17 a.m.)

MR. COOLEY: Before we bring in the jury,

Your Honor, you remember, I told the Court I would

continue my examination. I told the Court I was

continuing to check on whether there were additional

tapes, and I am now informed there are tapes of

meetings with Mike Rinder on November 19 and

November 30, 1984. I have no intention of using

them, but I want to inform the Court that they do

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4687

exist.

MR. McMURRY: We would like them produced

forthwith.

MR. COOLEY: I object to that.

THE COURT: Well, I asked the other day for

all tapes, videotapes, and so forth, to be produced

regarding the Armstrong Operation.

MR. COOLEY: I understood the tapes were for

the Court, not counsel. I was not required to

produce, in the midst of my cross-examination, the

tapes of the --

THE COURT: Now, how did we find this

information?

MR. COOLEY: I have had Mr. Peterson check on

the situation with the lawyer in Toronto.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, where are the

tapes?

MR. PETERSON: They are in Toronto.

MR. COOLEY: I'll have them sent here.

THE COURT: Okay. Get them here.

MR. COOLEY: I'll be happy to present them to

the Court. But the point is, the other tapes did

not get turned over to Counsel until the Court

determined they were going into evidence.

THE COURT: And these are tapes of what?

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4688

MR.COOLEY: The Rinder meetings of November.

THE COURT: We are not going to have any

testimony about this meeting until

I hear those tapes.

MR. COOLEY: I don't understand that ruling

at all.

THE COURT: Well, just take it as a ruling.

I was told that there were nonexistent tapes. Now

we are getting --

MR. COOLEY: No. I didn't say that about the

Rinder meeting. I said there were no tapes --

THE COURT: No, wait a minute, Mr. Cooley.

Just a second. Let me talk now. I asked about

tapes regarding anything to do with the Armstrong

Operation.

MR. COOLEY: I told the Court I was still

checking the Toronto situation.

THE COURT: I'm not blaming you, Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I had determined there was no

tape of the hotel meeting, there was no tape of the

lawyer's meeting; that I had not completed my

investigation of the existence of tapes, any other

tapes with respect to Toronto. And I have now

determined that there are tapes of the meeting with

Rinder on November 19 and 30, and I'm telling the

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4689

Court that. I'm not concealing anything.

MR. McMURRY: May I be heard, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. MCMURRY: This Court on Monday --

THE COURT: And don't get angry.

MR. MCMURRY: I'm not. I certainly wouldn't

want to do that.

This Court, on Friday and again on Monday,

ordered all writings, all reports, all wires, all

recordings of any kind from any source, including

the Toronto lawyer, Ingram, and anybody else, were

to be furnished to this Court by Monday morning.

And there was colloquy: "That's a big order, but

we'll do it."

Now here we are on Thursday and low and

behold Peterson finds -- not Mr. Gutfeld, but

Peterson -- finds, yes, there's a Toronto tape.

Now, he didn't find it on Friday, Saturday, Sunday,

Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. He finds it on

Thursday. Now, I also suggest that the

cross-examination that pinpoints the 19th and 30th

of November must be in the form of some report, must

be in the form of some memorandum.

THE COURT: Is this the meetings of --

MR. MCMURRY: -- of good old Rinder meetings --

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4690

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MCMURRY: -- which have been referred to

by Mr. Cooley as occurring on the 19th and 30th.

There must be some evidence, unless the Toronto

lawyer is in court and can shed some light on this

sudden information, as to date, time and place.

There must be some evidence that, low and behold,

Mr. Peterson might be able to enlighten us on. The

contents and the times are clearly within the

knowledge now of Mr. Cooley, and we can only suppose

that source of information is Mr. Peterson,

specially admitted as an officer of this court.

We would suggest, Your Honor, that the

cross-examination on this setup be terminated. It's

obvious that the Court's orders are not being

complied with until it suits the purpose of the

defendant, Church of Scientology of California, and

that obviously evidence is being used from this

setup to harass and intimidate this witness, and

it's an ongoing operation to this very day, to this

very last hour.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, you may recall in

Mr. Gutfeld's testimony he said, "That is not within

my ability," at which time I announced to the Court

--

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4691

THE COURT: I'm not blaming Mr. Gutfeld.

MR. COOLEY: Let me please finish. I stood

up and I said, "I'm handling that aspect. I am

continuing the investigation; I have not completed

it yet. I will report to the Court when I do."

I have now reported to the Court. There is

no concealment of any tapes here. Now, with respect

to --

THE COURT: Do you want to know what bothers

me?

MR. COOLEY: What, sir?

THE COURT: When I had Mr. Peterson stand up,

and I said, "Are there any more tapes or documents

or anything with reference" --

Don't shake your head at me, Mr. Peterson.

Just get up here because you and I are going to have

a little talk.

MR. PETERSON: Good.

THE COURT: And you said you didn't have any.

MR. PETERSON: That's correct.

THE COURT: You didn't tell me they were in

existence somewhere else.

MR. PETERSON: At that time, when I said it,

I did not know. We have been trying to track down

the tapes. We have been trying to track down, you

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4692

know, the Toronto attorney and his investigator.

The investigator has been out of the state on some

sort of investigation. When we get out of court

here, it's 5:00, 5:30 by the time we get back to the

apartment, and it's late at night in Toronto. We

have been unable to locate Mr. Ruby.

At the time I represented to the Court that I

had nothing, I had nothing. And I still don't have

tapes. And I have no documentation regarding the

Toronto tapes. As I had said, it was done by the

Toronto attorney and a private investigator, not me,

not the Church. Mr. Gutfeld was telling the truth

when he didn't even know of the existence of this

taping, because it was not done through the Church

and no one was told about it. That's why we don't

have it.

THE COURT: Mr. Cooley somehow has information

about it.

MR. COOLEY: I had information about the

meetings that took place and I have access to

Michael Rinder, Your Honor.

MR. PETERSON: Right.

MR. COOLEY: I assume the Court will give me

some credit for doing some attorney work product

here.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4693

THE COURT: No question about that.

MR. PETERSON: I believe the Court ordered we

get the five boxes, and they are sitting over there.

We have always endeavored to comply with the Court's

orders.

THE COURT: I sometimes feel that I am being

used in this case, that I have been tolerant, I have

listened to representations by all Counsel, I have

accepted those. And then something comes along

different. It never is anyone's fault, and it's

never anyone's responsibility. But somebody has to

be responsible. Somebody has to be responsible for

seeing that when a Court orders something, it's

done.

MR. PETERSON: When we started preparing the

case, we had no idea of the scope of the testimony;

for example, Mr. Armstrong, or any other witnesses.

That's why we didn't have tapes down here, we didn't

have all the stuff here and available. Discovery

has been ongoing since the beginning of trial, as

evidenced by those boxes. Those are our entire

files for the cross-examination of this witness

sitting over there. I mean, it hasn't helped us,

these discovery orders, and we are doing our best to

comply with the orders. As Mr. Cooley said, we had

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4694

no plans of playing the tape. We had enough trouble

with this tape. Two more tapes would be -- it just

wasn't in the plans. That's why the stuff isn't

here, because we had no idea it would be needed.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, I share the Court's

concern and I realize Mr. McMurry and I are getting

a little indignant. I mean, Mr. Peterson stood here

the other day, and certainly maybe he didn't say,

"The tapes don't exist anywhere and I don't know

about them," but he certainly inferred there were no

tapes. None whatsoever. And that's all we have

heard is those tapes were not in existence.

Mr. Gutfeld testified from the stand: nobody

knows about those tapes. Mr. Armstrong testified

about it, about people saying the tapes didn't

exist. That's what they said; they said the tapes didn't

exist. I remember that statement: "They

don't exist." And now they do exist. Now they want

to cross-examine on the subject when they have

tapes.

The first thing, they can't cross-examine in

that area until we get the tapes. The Court ordered

the tapes be produced; they should be produced. And

it is incredible to say, as Mr. Peterson has just

said, "We didn't think we needed those. We didn't

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4695

think we needed to use those. You used the two

tapes. You saw the problems we had with the two

tapes. We didn't think we would need these other

tapes."

Somebody in the Church certainly knew those

tapes existed. And just because they didn't want to

use them or they didn't want the testimony from

those tapes, that's why they weren't here. That's

why they weren't produced. It just doesn't make any

sense. This cat-and-mouse game doesn't make any

sense at all. An attorney or witness stands up and

says things don't exist, the tapes don't exist, the

program orders don't exist, nothing exists, and then

later on we find out they do exist. And I don't

think it's anything less than misrepresentation.

MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, I stepped forward

at the last hearing. I wasn't on the stand. I

volunteered that Mr. Wade or Mr. McMurry or the

Court could ask me any questions regarding any

documents or any tapes or anything. These two

gentlemen had no questions, and I said, "Your Honor,

I personally have no documents." They were talking

about documents at the time. I had no knowledge

regarding those tapes until Mr. Cooley asked me,

because he couldn't get in touch with the Toronto

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4696

lawyer, if I would help him get in touch with the

Toronto lawyer because he was in trial all day. And

there's been --

MR. COOLEY: Nonexistence, Your Honor. You

may recall you asked me about whether there were

tapes of the hotel meeting. I said there were no

tapes that I knew about.

THE COURT: I tried to be as thorough in

asking that question as I possibly could, because I

don't know of all the meetings. That's why I made

it as broad as I did.

MR. COOLEY: I specifically told the Court

that I was still investigating the Toronto aspect of

it to see whether there were any further

conversations, tapes. I had satisfied myself that

nowhere was there a tape of the meeting in the hotel

room or a meeting in the lawyer's office. I then

said that I knew that Mr. Rinder had met on two

occasions with the witness.

As a matter of fact, the first time I had met

Rinder in any detail was when the witness spoke

about it. I wasn't familiar with the fact that they

also had met at Griffith Park. I learned that; I

spoke with Rinder; I had Mr. Peterson chase it down,

and I now know there are two tapes. I don't intend

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4697

to play them. Although from what I understand from

Mr. Rinder, there is plenty of good stuff on there

for me. The reason I don't want to play it is that

it has taken us a week to deal with the first two

tapes, and that is enough time. Now I will present

them to the Court and let the Court view them, and I

will --

The COURT: Are these videotapes again?

MR. COOLEY: Yes.

THE COURT: Done under the same circumstances

as the last?

MR. COOLEY: As I understand, under the same

circumstances and the same investigator.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, it's very strange to

me that Mr. Cooley is able to obtain information

that he says will show there are no tapes for the

meeting in the hotel.

Now, if this was the lawyer in Toronto, why

didn't he find out during that same conversation of

the other tapes?

MR. COOLEY: The reason: I did not talk to

the lawyer in Toronto. The thing was dealt with

piecemeal. When the Court asked me -- not the

Court, but when I was asked by Mr. Armstrong, he

said, "Well, you undoubtedly" -- or he said to the

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4698

jury, "You undoubtedly have tapes. I went to the

hotel room, I went to the lawyer, and you

undoubtedly have tapes."

Well, I didn't know at that time I had tapes.

THE COURT: Your argument even going into

this cross-examination regarding these meetings was

you, just got through telling me, on the basis of

bias. Now we are back to the original point we were

with the other tapes.

MR. COOLEY: That was bias.

THE COURT: And I said at that time they have

got to be coughed up so they can be at least heard

by me first and then by Counsel to see whether or

not, number one, they are, they do show bias; and

secondly, whether they were in their proper context.

MR. COOLEY: That came in the context of me

offering the tapes. I'm not offering them now.

THE COURT: But they are here and we know

they exist. And I see no reason why Counsel on the

other side shouldn't know what's on those tapes.

MR. COOLEY: That's the first time the Court

has made that ruling.

THE COURT: Because I think in this context I

have been misled.

MR. COOLEY: I am very sorry, Your Honor,

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4699

because I did not deliberately mislead the Court.

I'm sorry I pursued the matter, frankly.

THE COURT: Did you hear me say

"deliberately"? I didn't say deliberately, Mr.

Cooley. I didn't say deliberately. If I would have

said deliberately, I also would have been calling

for a sheriff.

MR. COOLEY: Well, then, I don't know how I

misled the Court.

THE COURT: Because you and Mr. Peterson have

said, "That it," at least led me to believe there

are no -- I asked, "Are there any more audio tapes?"

I remember my conversation. "Are there any other

video tapes? Are there any audio tapes of this

Armstrong Project that we are dealing with here?"

And I was led to believe by all the answers that

there were none.

MR. COOLEY: I think if Your Honor reviews

the transcript, you will see that is not the way it

happened. I specifically left open the Toronto

situation on anything dealing with --

THE COURT: When can they get here?

MR. COOLEY: When I go back for lunch, I'll

check on their location. I understand I could have

them here no later than tomorrow morning.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4700

MR. McMURRY: Mr. Peterson is apparently the

person that made the contact with Mr. Ruby in

Toronto; certainly he should be able to give us the

answer to that question, whether they are here or in

Portland.

MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, it is just a

matter of flight schedules. They can be put on a

plane. I'm confident there are enough flights

coming into Portland that they can be here by

tomorrow. If not 9:30, by at least noon.

THE COURT: Well, they are going to have to

get here.

MR. COOLEY: They will get here, Your Honor,

and I will give them to the Court tomorrow.

THE COURT: They are going to be here immediately

as soon as you can get them on the

airplane and get them down here.

MR. COOLEY: We will deal with that when Mr.

Peterson and I go back for lunch.

MR. McMURRY: The Court also ordered every

other writing. The Court said, "This is

inconceivable to me that there isn't a paper trail."

THE COURT: That's what I said.

MR. McMURRY: Precisely. And the only thing

that was excepted from your order was the writings,

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4701

the handwritings of Gerald Armstrong. Now, --

THE COURT: That was my order, Mr. McMurry.

MR. COOLEY: This is what I have been dealing

with for two days.

MR. McMURRY: I submit that just from the

beginning of this second attack through the Rinder

meeting, and the specific language that is being

used, that there is writings, and that they do

exist, and that they are here in Portland and that

they should be produced.

MR. COOLEY: That is not so. My information

has come directly from Rinder and there are not

writings to be produced and I'm not going to give

him my work product under any circumstances.

THE COURT: Do I have to go through the

litany again of what should be produced? I thought

everybody by now should certainly understand it.

MR. COOLEY: There is no problem, Your Honor.

These tapes, as I understand it, the last of the

material to be produced.

THE COURT: I meant writings, documents,

notes.

MR. COOLEY: I understand that.

THE COURT: Chalkboard material. Anything.

MR. COOLEY: I can tell you at this time I'm

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4702

not going to have transcripts made of those tapes.

I'm deliberately going to avoid that. There would

be no documents.

THE COURT: Anything at all regarding the

Armstrong Project, as it's been called here, has got

to be coughed up.

MR. COOLEY: Everything is on that table or

on the way from Toronto, I understand it, and that's

it.

MR. PETERSON: Is that supposed to be stuff

that dealt with the Armstrong taping incidents?

None of that stuff has anything to do with --

THE COURT: No. I understand Mr. Gutfeld

saying that doesn't have anything to do with the

taping incident. Three boxes are claimed

attorney/client privelege, two boxes may be

discoverable matters or may or may not be. I

haven't the looked at them.

Now, --

MR. McMURRY: Would you please put the

question to Mr. Peterson item by item, writings,

handwritings, notes, reports, debriefing, project

orders. Just item by item to Mr. Peterson, please.

THE COURT: Would you give me a -- I don't

know that terminology you are talking about.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4703

MR. PETERSON: I don't either.

MR. McMURRY: I hand the Court what I just

dashed off. I hope it will be clear enough for Mr.

Peterson.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Peterson. We are

referring now to all documents, writings,

memorandums, briefings, debriefings, evaluations,

program orders, reports, all tape recordings, or

electronic recordings, mechanical recordings, wire

taps. Well, the third one I'm a little bit bothered

by Mr. McMurry. I think that's not a matter for

this Court. I think it is a matter for a court.

MR. McMURRY: What other Court can make

inquiry at this stage, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I think a California court is

going to have to make an inquiry on this because I

have no way of determining the authentication of

police documents. We are back to that illegally

seized evidence problem again.

MR. McMURRY: As the Court remembers, the

Ingram exhibit, which is 876, had a date between

November 7 and 14. The Rinder meetings, as we

understand it now, occurred on the 19 and 30, if my

notes are correct. So there must have been yet

another authorization from Mr. Rodriguez or someone

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4704

like him.

THE COURT: Because I didn't put much

credence in that, if you remember correctly.

MR. McMURRY: That's correct, Your Honor.

But if there is the tape, as they now admit, the

videotape, then --

THE COURT: Then Mr. Cooley would argue they

had authority.

MR. McMURRY: That's right. And --

THE COURT: Okay. Give me --

MR. PETERSON: If the Court didn't put any

credence in it, whether the --

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, did I ask for

argument?

MR. PETERSON: Well, usually the procedure

has been each side got to answer a question.

THE COURT: I didn't ask you a question. I'm

only telling you what to come up with.

MR. PETERSON: What to look for.

THE COURT: And come up with.

MR. PETERSON: If it exists.

Your Honor, I have not seen any of this stuff

and I don't want the Court to take the opinion that

because Mr. McMurry writes it down, that it exists

somewhere.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4705

THE COURT: I now know there our videotapes,

I just found out a few moments ago of another

meeting in Griffith park. Now, if there is such a

meeting and if it was videotaped, in order for it to

have any smattering of legality, there had to be

some authorization by some governmental agency to

issue it, as I read the California Penal Code and

Mr. Cooley explained it to me.

MR. PETERSON: That's part of it. There are

two grounds that you can have a legally recorded

conversation in California. One is police

authorization, and there is another exception, too.

But again, -- there probably is a letter in

existence.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PETERSON: We have one, I'm sure there

were two obtained. I don't know.

THE COURT: Let's have that.

MR. PETERSON: I will make inquiry.

THE COURT: Now, here you say -- and I'm sure

what you are referring to, Mr. McMurry, orders,

Executive Directives, and amended orders or

directives. What are we referring to? I want to

make this very specific so there is no further

misunderstanding as to discovery matters.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4706

MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. I make it

generic because I don't know what org it might be

issued from. So I don't refer to just RPF, RRF,

ASI, Sea Org, OSA, all of these little acronyms for

their various intelligence operations. I want all

orders, all program orders, directing the

undertaking of anything.

THE COURT: Relating to Mr. Armstrong?

MR. PETERSON: That's a little broad.

MR. McMURRY: Relating to Mr. Armstrong and

it goes on. It goes on.

THE COURT: Relating to Mr. Armstrong, his

wife Joycelyn.

MR. McMURRY: Correct.

THE COURT: Mike Flynn.

MR. McMURRY: You recall in Exhibit 876, the

Rodreguez also included Mike Flynn and others. I

want to have all orders, all programs, all reports,

whether they relate to Michael Flynn, Joycelyn, A

Armstrong, myself, plaintiff, anybody involved in

this litigation as a witness or as a party or as a

lawyer.

MR. COOLEY: I object to anything going

beyond Armstrong and his wife. I have no problem

with Armstrong and his wife. We are not going to

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4707

get involved in a wide sweeping discovery rematch

now involving Michael Flynn.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. Mr. Cooley, as I

understood the thrust of a lof of your questions of

Mr. Armstrong, they dealt with Mike Flynn.

MR. COOLEY: That's right. Your Honor, if we

get into a discovery match now on the issue of

Michael Flynn, this case is never going to get

started again. It's one thing to have it with

respect to the witness, it's quite another with

respect to Michael Flynn.

THE COURT: I can settle that. Then we don't

ask any questions about Michael Flynn.

MR. COOLEY: I cannot believe what is

happening here. I cannot believe it.

THE COURT: You want it all on your side.

MR. COOLEY: That isn't so at all, Your

Honor. That is simply not so. I have never been

confronted with more stringent restrictions placed

on cross-examination.

THE COURT: And I have never been confronted

with evidence turning up on a daily basis that has

been ordered by the Court on many occasions.

MR. COOLEY: Well, I am prepared to rest on

the record as it stands and I have daily copy.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4708

THE COURT: You are not the only one that

that has daily copy, Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I will show you the daily copy.

Your Honor is really accusing me of something that

is really unjust.

THE COURT: I told you when start accusing

you, Mr. Cooley, that I will have a sheriff down

here to accompany --

MR. COOLEY: That will be fine. Then I would

defend myself in an appropriate form. I have been

threatened in this case with all manner of things.

I have had restrictions placed on cross-examination,

Mr. McMurry is allowed to attack opposing Counsel at

will. The Court allows these witnesses who are

attacking the Church to absolutely say anything they

want on the witness stand. And then discovery gets

conducted in the middle of my cross-examination, and

now Mr. McMurry has the nerve to ask, in the middle

of this cross-examination, that everything in the

Church's files with respect to Michael Flynn be

produced, and the Court says if I don't do it, I'm

not going to be allowed to ask questions on it.

That, Your Honor, is absolutely improper in my

opinion, requesting things like that.

THE COURT: One more time you raise your

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4709

voice to me, Mr. Cooley -- Let this record indicate

right now, this is the second warning I have given

Mr. Cooley in two days regarding his attitude toward

this Court. I am now prepared to take under

advisement a matter of sanctions against Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I object to the attitude that

the Court manifests toward me. I think it's unfair,

I think it manifests bias, and I think it manifests

prejudice.

THE COURT: Fine. You may think whatever you

will. I'm stating that for the record right now,

Mr. Cooley. You'd better -- number one, you take

things the Court says out of context, you twist

them around and state them in a manner which is not

what the Court says. Nobody has yet ordered Michael

Flynn documents to be produced. Nobody has ordered

you to do anything, yet. Instead of that, you

conduct this harangue against the Court, which is

highly inappropriate, which is not done by any

lawyer that I'm aware of in the state of Oregon nor

do I know any Court which will accept it.

Now, I don't understand the breath of Mike

Flynn or Mr. McMurry documents.

MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. If the Court

would look at Exhibit 876, a so-called authorization

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4710

issued by Philip Rodriguez unto Mr. Eugene Ingram,

the Court will note that the authorization allowing

illegal wire taping and eavesdropping included --

THE COURT: Incidentally, I might say

something else. And I don't -- I don't know whether

it's going on or not, but everybody should be aware

that there is to be no recording done in the

courtroom with the exception of Court recordings. I

failed to make that announcement earlier and I hope

everybody understands that.

I don't know whether it is, I'm just making

announcement that says under our court rules, it is

not done. Okay.

MR. McMURRY: The Court will note on Exhibit

876 that the so-called authorization included the

wiretapping or eavesdropping of Mr. Gerald Armstrong

and attorney Michael J. Flynn and others for

possible violation or attempts to violate certain

laws and any other law. Now, I think with the

revelations that keep coming out, that we should

determine -- Mr. Flynn's name has been utilized time

and again by defense counsel as if -- and he has

stated in open court, a criminal conspiracy exists

somehow, and I have challenged him to exculpate that

off the record as to whether he would include myself

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4711

or my law firm. I want to know what additional

wiretapping, eavesdropping or recording occurred

with Michael Flynn, and I would like to know what

recording has occurred, if any, with me. And I

would like it put to Mr. Peterson, who professes to

be Counsel for the Church of Scientology, who

apparently has more access to documents than Mr.

Gutfeld or Mr. Cooley. I would like those questions

put.

THE COURT: The proposition as to Michael

Flynn I could almost answer myself. The problem

with that is, they could be so voluminous as far as

orders and directives and so forth that -- and I'm

only guessing --

MR. McMURRY: I'm speaking of the wiretaps,

Your Honor, and transcripts.

THE COURT: Strictly wire taps?

MR. McMURRY: That's right. Because that's

how his name comes up in the context of Exhibit 876.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, do you understand

his question?

MR. PETERSON: Yes. Is this started? I

thought we were talking with reference to the

Rodriguez letter and the Toronto -- you know, taping

project, whatever it was, of Mr. Armstrong. That's

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4712

the context that I viewing this in.

THE COURT: Yes, that's where we are. That's

where we started. We started with that. He points

out that this authorization, by officer Rodriguez,

which I have noted before is not even on official

stationary, says that this authorization shall

specifically pertain to the investigation of Gerry

Armstrong, Michael J. Flynn and others not known at

this time.

And I guess your question, Mr. McMurry, is

you want to know what else came within the purview

of this alleged authorization.

MR. McMURRY: Precisely. Now, that's on

point three, the on that I referred to. With

respect to Armstrong and his wife, we want every

report.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson understands that.

MR. McMURRY: With respect to the

eavesdropping and transcripts of any form, I don't

care whether it's mechanical, electronic, video,

wire, whatever method this guy Ingram uses, we want

it.

MR. PETERSON: On who?

MR. McMURRY: On me, on Mr. Wade, on Julie

Christofferson Titchbourne, on Mike Flynn, and on

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4713

Gerry Armstrong and his wife Joscelyn.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, can you shed any

information for me on this?

MR. PETERSON: You mean whether they exist?

Well, like I have -- on several occasions stated,

this so-called Armstrong project was not commenced

the by the Church, but --

THE COURT: I understand by Toronto.

MR. PETERSON: -- and a private investigator,

Mr. Ingram.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. PETERSON: I will make inquiries to see

if any of these things exist as to the people Mr.

McMurry has enumerated or listed out for me.

Frankly, I don't think so, but I will make the

proper --

THE COURT: Will you report back to me on

that as quickly as possible.

MR. PETERSON: I can check on that when we

make the arrangements to get the two tapT: That

would be satisfactory. And give me the information.

I'm not ruling on any of that. I have only ruled so

far on Armstrong and his wife, Joscelyn. Do you

understand that?

MR. PETERSON: Oh, yeah.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4714

THE COURT: That, you understand?

MR. PETERSON: Clearly.

THE COURT: I'm withholding Flynn, McMurry,

and et al, yet until you give me some information.

MR. PETERSON: That's fine.

THE COURT: Do you understand that? I hate

to keep saying, "Do you understand that," with every

every question, but I think I'm getting into that

area where I've get to on the record "do you

understand what I'm saying."

MR. PETERSON: And I want the Court and

everyone that I understand and I'm going to do my

best to comply, as I have always done.

Now the other stuff, Your Honor, I think we

have complied with all that in the previous

discovery and this ongoing discovery. As I listen

to the things, I would like a copy of that list that

-- you know, I think we have complied, but again --

THE COURT: You mean Mr. McMurry's list?

MR. PETERSON: All these EDs and aprogram

orders and all that other stuff. And that I'm not

so sure I understand. Maybe if I could --

THE COURT: Well, let's get an understanding

before we recess.

MR. PETERSON: His last paragraph relating to

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4715

Gerry Armstrong, that's fine, his wife, Joscelyn,

although her name hasn't been mentioned in this

case, I don't think. But Mike Flynn, all these

other people, all these policies and orders? It

would be probably another hundred thousand --

THE COURT: No, no, no. I think I can

clarify that. I thought you understood that. That

only refers to this authorization for video taping

and taping. Those other items do not refer to all

those people.

MR. PETERSON: Executive directives, amended

orders, directives --

THE COURT: Those are for Mr. Armstrong.

MR. PETERSON: I see.

THE COURT: Now, do you understand?

MR. PETERSON: Now, it appears to be clear.

THE COURT: Okay. We will recess for lunch

until 1:30.

Mr. Runstein, I think I have to talk to you.

(Court recessed at 11:58 a.m., and

reconvened at 1:33 p.m.)

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MR. COOLEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson was going to give me

a quick rundown, I think.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4716

MR. COOLEY: I know Mr. Peterson made the

call and the man was in court. The secretary said

he had left for court.

THE COURT: Maybe he is still working on that

problem.

Now, before we hear from Mr. Peterson -- and

I'm hesitant about the cross-examination regarding

the park incident -- do you have another area you

can proceed to until Mr. Peterson reports back?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, I can.

THE COURT: Very good.

Mr. Armstrong, would you come up to the

stand, please.

(Witness resumed the witness stand.)

THE COURT: I have taken under consideration

those matters I have discussed this morning. I'm

not going to take any sanctions against Mr. Cooley.

Mr. Cooley, are you paying attention?

At this time I'm not taking any sanctions

against Mr. Cooley. Mr. Cooley's actions were not

deliberate, I am convinced. And whatever comments

he made toward the Court, I feel, were in the heat

of his representation of his client.

MR. COOLEY: It's a long, tough case, Your

Honor.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4717

THE COURT: Do I take that to mean you agree?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's get the jury.

Wait. Here's Mr: Peterson.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, any news for me?

MR. PETERSON: I put a call in to Toronto.

The attorney was not in his office. He was expected

back at the end of the day. And I said I would call

back, and left my name and number. But I'm still

confident that I can get in touch with him either

later this afternoon or this evening and the tapes

will be here. I don't foresee a problem.

THE COURT: Okay. And you are working on the

other aspects?

MR. PETERSON: As soon as I can get through

to him, I can ask about the other items.

THE COURT: Including all the questions we

had. Some were relative to Mr. Armstrong; some were

relative to other videotapes which may or may not be

in existence.

MR. PETERSON: Right.

THE COURT: Communication, okay? We

understand each other?

MR. PETERSON: We understand each other.

THE COURT: Okay.

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