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

   

    

DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG

 

I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

1. 1 am the defendant in the case of Church of Scientology of

California v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court No C 420153.

Attached hereto as Exhibit [A] is a copy of the Armstrong decision rendered

by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge Jr. on June 20, 1984. A cross-complaint I filed

against plaintiff Scientology organization and other Scientology organizations,

hereinafter referred to as "the organization," was bifurcated from the

underlying case on motion of the organization and did not go to trial as it

settled on December 11, 1986. The settlement agreement included delivery

of certain documents from the underlying case to the organization and

allowed the organization to maintain its appeal from the Armstrong decision

then pending in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate Division as

No. B005912. On December 18, 1986 the Court of Appeal, whose decision is

attached hereto as Exhibit [B], dismissed the organization's appeal, reasoning

that there would be no appealable final judgment until after trial of the

cross-complaint.

2. On October 11, 1989 I was served at my home with a subpoena

duces tecum, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [C], in the case of

Bent Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles Superior

Court No. C 694401. The subpoena, issued by Toby Plevin, attorney for Mr.

Corydon, orders my appearance to testify at a deposition and to produce the

agreements, releases and any other documents relating to the settlement I

had entered into with the organization.

3. Within a few days of service Ms. Plevin telephoned to confirm that the

deposition venue was acceptable to me, to advise me that the

1

 

October 20 deposition date would probably be changed, and to ask me for

alternative dates which would be convenient for me. We spoke two or three

times by telephone over the next week or so to set or cancel dates. During

one of our conversations she informed me that she had received "a

threatening letter" concerning my deposition from attorney Larry Heller,

who I knew to be an attorney of record for various Scientology-related

organizations and individuals, and to have a supervisory role in virtually all

the organization's legal matters. Ms. Plevin read me parts of Mr. Heller's

letter in which he stated that it was inconceivable that I had any information

relevant to Mr. Corydon's lawsuit, that Ms. Plevin was seeking to breach the

settlement agreement by proceeding with my deposition, and that should my

deposition ever go forward he would apply to the court for sanctions. It

became apparent to me during this conversation with Ms. Plevin that I was

very important to both sides in the Corydon litigation and that I was again

intensely involved with the organization and could not avoid involvement.

4. On October 23 I received a telephone call from Mr. Heller. He

stated that his client would seek a protective order to prevent the deposition

from going forward but that it probably would anyway. He asked if I would

have an attorney at the deposition, and I said that Michael Flynn (who had

represented me in Armstrong) did not wish to be involved, that so far I did

not have another attorney for the deposition, and that it was likely I would

not. Mr. Heller then offered to have his client pay for an attorney for me to

be present at the deposition. I asked if it could be an attorney of my choice,

and he said that he didn't see any problem but would need to ensure that

the attorney would do what his client wanted. He said that to maintain the

settlement agreement I could only answer questions by court order, that I

should refuse to answer the deposition questions and force Mr. Corydon to

2

 

get an order from the court compelling me to answer. I said I would have to

think about the problem and get some advice. Mr. Heller gave me his phone

numbers and asked me to call him back within two days.

5. Following my conversation with Mr. Heller I called my attorney

Michael Flynn who had negotiated the settlement of my lawsuit and similar

settlements on the same date for several other individuals. I informed him

of Mr. Heller's offer and he said that Mr. Heller had called him earlier and

offered to pay him to attend my deposition to prevent my testifying. Mr.

Flynn said that he had refused the offer and reiterated that he did not wish

to be involved in any way in Scientology-related litigation. I confirmed with

him that nothing in the settlement agreement proscribed my obtaining

assistance or advice from anyone currently involved in litigation against the

organization.

6. I then called Ms. Plevin, told her of the organization's offer to

pay for an attorney for me at the deposition, and asked her if she and Mr.

Corydon could match the offer. She said that she is a sole practitioner, that

she and Mr. Corydon are keeping the lawsuit going on a shoestring, and that

they could not pay for my attorney. She said, moreover, that even if she and

Mr. Corydon could afford it they would not pay for an attorney for me

because it would be unethical.

7. On October 25 I called Mr. Heller to tell him I considered it

inappropriate for the organization to pay for an attorney for me. He said he

had a problem with me responding to deposition questions concerning such

things as L. Ron Hubbard's misrepresentations or my period as Mr.

Hubbard's archivist in the organization. He said he wanted to have an

attorney present to instruct me not to answer such questions so that Mr.

Corydon would have to move to compel an answer. He said that if the court

3

 

ordered sanctions for my refusal to answer his client would indemnify me.

He said I had a contractual obligation to the organization, which it had paid a

lot of money for, not to divulge confidential information, and that if I

answered I would have breached the settlement agreement and may get

sued. He said he recognized that I was in the middle and that my safest

position was to refuse to answer, make Mr. Corydon bring a motion to

compel and let the court be the final arbiter.

8. This and other threats, other events and circumstances

following the settlement, and my present level of importance to and

involvement with the organization have impelled me to write this

declaration. It is my opinion that some of the settlement conditions are

unenforceable, that the organization is attempting to enforce them in a

manner which is inconsistent with the spirit of settlement, and that these

conditions and their attempted enforcement constitute an on-going

obstruction of justice and violation of my and others' First Amendment

rights. The purpose of this declaration is to make known this situation, to

demonstrate certain conditions' unenforceability, and to support an action to

have them so adjudged by the court with jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the settlement agreement. I am also providing this declaration to parties

and lawyers involved in the correction of legal abuses.

9. On November 1, 1989 Mr. Heller, on behalf of Author

Services, Inc. (ASI), a defendant in Corydon, filed a motion "to Delay or

Prevent the Taking of Certain Third Party Depositions," a copy of which is

attached hereto as Exhibit [D]. At page 4 Mr. Heller states:

"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

4

 

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."

10. The complete text of the settlement ingredient Mr. Heller has

capsulized, paragraph 7D, reads:

"Plaintiff agrees never to create or publish or attempt to publish,

and/or assist another to create for publication by means of magazine, article,

book or other similar form, any writing or to broadcast or to assist another to

create, write, film or video tape or audio tape any show, program or movie,

or to grant interviews or discuss with others, concerning their experiences

with the Church of Scientology, or concerning their personal or indirectly

acquired knowledge or information concerning the Church of Scientology, L.

Ron Hubbard or any of the organizations, individuals and entities listed in

Paragraph 1 above. Plaintiff further agrees that he will maintain strict

confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with the Church of

Scientology and any knowledge or information he may have concerning the

Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any of the organizations,

individuals and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. Plaintiff expressly

understands that the non-disclosure provisions of this subparagraph shall

apply inter alia, but not be limited, to the contents or substance of his

complaint on file in the action referred to in Paragraph 1 hereinabove or any

documents as defined in Appendix "A" to this Agreement, including but not

limited to any tapes, films, photographs, recastings, variations or copies of

any such materials which concern or relate to the religion of Scientology, L.

Ron Hubbard, or any of the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in

Paragraph 1 above. The attorneys for Plaintiff, subject to the ethical

limitations restraining them as promulgated by the state or federal

5

 

regulatory associations or agencies, agree not to disclose any of the terms

and conditions of the settlement negotiations, amount of the settlement, or

statements made by either party during settlement conferences. Plaintiff

agrees that if the terms of this paragraph are breached by him, that CSI and

the other Releasees would be entitled to $50,000 for each such breach. All

monies received to induce or in payment for a breach of this Agreement, or

any part thereof, shall be held in a constructive trust pending the outcome of

any litigation over said breach. The amount of liquidated damages herein is

an estimate of the damages that each party would suffer in the event this

Agreement is breached. The reasonableness of the amount of such damages

are hereto acknowledged by Plaintiff."

11. It is my opinion that the conditions of this paragraph are

unenforceable for two reasons: a. the organization's actions since the

settlement have rendered them invalid; b. they are so broad and at the same

time so restrictive that, even if the organization had not acted to invalidate

them, they deny me, on their face, several inalienable rights and are

therefore against public policy.

12. Paragraph 7B of the December 1986 settlement agreement

reads in part:

"Plaintiff understands that by the execution of this release no

further claims arising out of his experience with, or actions by, the Releasees,

from the beginning of time to and including the date hereof, which may now

exist or which may exist in the future may ever be asserted by him or on his

behalf, against the Releasees."

13. Paragraph 8 of the December 1986 settlement agreement reads:

6

 

"Plaintiff further agrees that he waives and relinquishes any right

or claim arising out of the conduct of any defendant in this case to date,

including any of the organizations, individuals or entities as set forth in

Paragraph 1 above, and the named defendants waive and relinquish any

right or claim arising out of the conduct of Plaintiff to date."

14. I am including these two paragraphs because they contain

what to me is essential in the settlement agreement, and they show that my

rights arising out of the conduct of the organization following the settlement

are not waived or relinquished.

15. Sometime in the fall of 1987 I received a copy of a document,

pages 11, 12, 18 and 29 from which are attached hereto as Exhibit [E], created

and circulated by the organization to discredit Bent Corydon who had written

a book entitled L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? which had been

published in August that year. Mr. Corydon had interviewed me several

months before the settlement and had used some of my statements from the

interview, my trial testimony in Armstrong, and from declarations I had

written during the pre-settlement litigation in his book.

16. At page 29 of their retort the organization states:

"Corydon has used a description of the RPF provided by Gerry

Armstrong, among others. Armstrong's description in this book, however, is

completely contrary to his own previous sworn affidavit about the RPF.

"Gerry Armstrong's description of the RPF in Corydon's book can

also be viewed in light of Armstrong's numerous false claims and lies on

other subject matters. See chapter on Corydon as an "author" for further

information on Gerry Armstrong's incompetence as a researcher."

17. The chapter on Mr. Corydon as author contains the statement

at page 12:

7

 

"Gerry Armstrong, another one of Corydon's main sources in the

book, claims that L. Ron Hubbard " ... did not spend several years throughout

Asia," and that Mr. Hubbard's total time in Asia was "a few weeks."

L. Ron Hubbard, in fact, was in Asia and the Orient several times

during a three-year period, during which his travels were quite extensive."

These paragraphs concern my experiences in the organization as

Mr. Hubbard's archivist and biographical researcher and my knowledge of

Mr. Hubbard's history, and I consider that I have a right to reply.

18. The organization states at page 18 of its retort:

"Homer [Schomer] had testified in 1984 in a court case brought by

the Church of Scientology against Gerald Armstrong (a former staff member

who had stolen valuable documents from Church archives).

In the Christofferson case, Schomer admitted to having committed

perjury in the previous Armstrong case."

I believe the organization is in violation of the settlement

agreement by discussing the Armstrong case.

19. The organization states at page 11 of its retort:

"Corydon goes on to say that tens of millions of dollars paid for

services delivered to Church members at the Flag organization were

channeled into Hubbard's personal accounts.

There is no documentation to support this statement by Corydon.

In fact, his claims are based on nothing more than hearsay, rumor and lies

gathered from a small cabal of thieves, perjurers and disreputable sources."

While working on a project for Mr. Hubbard I acquired the

knowledge that millions of dollars of organization money had been

channeled into his accounts, I wrote a number of declarations containing this

information after leaving the organization, and I know the other individuals

8

 

who had this and similar knowledge and who were Mr. Corydon's sources for

his statement. To denominate us "a small cabal of thieves, perjurers and

disreputable sources" I believe is scandalous.

20. On October 7, 1987 I received a call from Michael Flynn who

relayed to me a message from Earle C. Cooley, one of the organization's

principal attorneys, concerning the then proceeding trial in London, England

of a lawsuit the organization had brought against a writer, Russell Miller.

Mr. Miller had interviewed me in Boston, Massachusetts in 1986, some

months before the December settlement, for a biography of L. Ron Hubbard.

According to Mr. Flynn, Mr. Cooley stated that it had been disclosed during

the trial that Mr. Miller possessed documents in violation of sealing orders in

Armstrong and he threatened that if I talked to any of the attorneys or

parties involved in the trial the organization would view it as a breach of the

settlement agreement.

21. In early 1988 I received copies of various documents,

attached hereto as Exhibits [F] to [K], from the case of Church of Scientology of

California v. Russell Miller & Penguin Books Limited in the High Court of

Justice, Case No. 6140. The organization had unsuccessfully sought pre-

publication suppression of Mr. Miller's book, which he titled Bare-Faced

Messiah, and it was published and distributed immediately following the

October 1987 trial.

22. Attached hereto as Exhibit [F] is a copy of an affidavit of

Kenneth David Long dated October 5, 1987, and the exhibits or partial

exhibits thereto that so far I have in my possession. The purpose of

Mr. Long's affidavit, as it relates to me, was to try to convince the English Court

that I had provided documents to Mr. Miller in violation of various California

Courts' sealing orders.

9

 

23. In pages 3 through 8 Mr. Long gives the organization's

version of my job description and actions as Mr. Hubbard's biography

researcher and archivist, the contracting of Omar V. Garrison to write the

biography, and the procedural history in Armstrong from the filing of the

complaint up to the settlement. At page 9 Mr. Long states that " following the

trial the Church sought and obtained a series of sealing orders which

effectively maintained the sealing of the trial exhibits right up to and

including December 1986." He then identifies a number of documents Mr.

Miller had quoted from in Bare-Faced Messiah: Mr. Hubbard's Boy Scout

Diary, a letter to Mr. Hubbard from his mother, a letter from Mr. Hubbard to

his first wife, Polly, a letter to the Cape Cod Instrument Company, a journal

Mr. Hubbard kept while in the navy, three diaries from 1927 to 1929, and

Mr. Hubbard's "Tentative Constitution for Rhodesia." Mr. Long also states

that each of these documents "has never been unsealed or made available to

the general public."

24. At page 13 of his affidavit Mr. Long, without providing any

further elucidation, states, "I also know that Mr. Armstrong refused to obey

an order of the court, and retained possession of documents which he had

been ordered to surrender to the court for safekeeping under seal." He then

concludes that "it is my belief that the documents quoted and paraphrased in

Mr. Miller's manuscript were furnished to Mr. Miller by Mr. Armstrong, and

that they could not have been furnished to Mr. Miller by anyone else as no

one else other than Mr. Armstrong had access to these documents."

25. The exhibits Mr. Long identified and appended to his

affidavit included the following:

a. A copy of my W-2 Wage and Tax Statements for 1977 and

1978. This document, which I have attached to Mr. Long's affidavit, shows

10

 

the court's exhibit sticker indicating it was admitted into evidence in

Armstrong.

b. A copy of an affidavit I executed on April 12, 1980 while in

the organization. This document, the first page of which I have attached to

Mr. Long's affidavit, was also admitted into evidence in Armstrong .

c. A copy of my petition to Mr. Hubbard to assemble his archives

for a biography. This document, which is presently unavailable to me, was

admitted into evidence in Armstrong.

d. A non-disclosure and release bond executed by me on March

18, 1977. This document, the first page of which I have attached to Mr.

Long's affidavit, shows the court's exhibit sticker indicating it was admitted

into evidence in Armstrong.

e. A copy of my dispatch of February 22, 1980. This document,

which is presently unavailable to me was admitted into evidence in

Armstrong.

f. A copy of my dispatch of May 14, 1980. This document, which

is presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong .

g. A copy of the agreement dated October 30, 1980 between Omar

Garrison and AOSH DK Publications. This document, which is presently

unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.

h. A copy of a letter of November 14, 1980 from AOSH DK

Publications regarding the Hubbard biography project. This document,

which is presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in

Armstrong.

i. A copy of a resolution adopted by the organization's board of

directors providing an assistant to Mr. Garrison. This document, which is

presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.

11

 

j. A copy of my letter of December 12, 1981 resigning from my

position as Mr. Hubbard's researcher. This document, which is presently

unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.

k. A copy of pages 313 to 323 of my deposition testimony of

August 1, 1986 in the case of Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology

International in the US District Court Central District of California, Case No.

CV8504853R. I have attached these pages as an exhibit to Mr. Long's

affidavit herewith.

26. Attached hereto as Exhibit [G] is a copy of a second affidavit of

Mr. Long dated October 5, 1987 which was filed in the Miller case. In pages 2

through 16 of this affidavit Mr. Long again reviews the Armstrong litigation,

expands his analysis of the case's various sealing orders, and again

designates several documents he claims I gave Mr. Miller in contravention of

those orders.

27. At page 9 of his affidavit Mr. Long identifies three diaries

written by Mr. Hubbard between 1927 and 1929 and charges that Mr. Miller

or Jonathan Caven-Atack, who had assisted Miller with his research,

possessed them in violation of a sealing order in Armstrong. Mr. Long goes

on to state at page 10: "I am certain that the only possible source for the

diaries attached by Mr. Caven-Atack as Exhibit JC-A4 is Mr. Armstrong

and/or his counsel."

28. In pages 11 to 15 of his affidavit Mr. Long describes a letter

to Mr. Hubbard from his mother, Mr. Hubbard's Boy Scout diary, and a letter

from Mr. Hubbard to his first wife, Polly, and alleges that Mr. Miller or Mr.

Caven-Atack obtained these documents from me in violation of the Court's

sealing orders.

12

 

29. At page 16 Mr. Long describes three letters from Mr.

Hubbard to Helen O'Brien and goes on to state: "All three of these letters

were surrendered to the Clerk of the Court by Mr. Armstrong and his counsel

in September 1982, and all remained under seal until they were returned to

the Church in December 1986. Mr. Miller's inclusion of the information cited

herein clearly shows additional breaches of confidence and violation of the

orders issued by the California courts."

30. I consider that Mr. Long's assertions of what documents

were sealed, when they were sealed and where they originated are

erroneous, and his conclusion that I had violated the Los Angeles Superior

Court's sealing orders fallacious.

31. Attached hereto as Exhibit [H] is a copy of a third affidavit of

Mr. Long dated October 5, 1987 and filed in the Miller case. At page 4 Mr.

Long repeats his accusation that "the evidence is irrefutable that the great

majority of these biographical documents were obtained by Mr. Caven-Atack

and Mr. Miller in violation of court sealing orders." And he states: "Gerald

Armstrong has been an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal

Government who planned to plant forged documents in Church files which

would then be "found" by Federal officials in subsequent investigation as

evidence of criminal activity."

32. Attached hereto as Exhibit [I] is a copy of pages 1 and 4 of an

affidavit of Sheila MacDonald Chaleff dated October 5, 1987 which was filed

in Miller. I do not at present have pages 2 and 3. Ms. Chaleff, whom I do not

know, states at page 4: "Mr. Armstrong is known to me to be a US

government informant who has admitted on video tape that he intended to

plant forged documents within the Church of Scientology and then using the

13

 

contents to get the Church raided where these forged documents would be

found and used against the Church."

33. Attached hereto as Exhibit [J] is a copy of an affidavit of Mr.

Long dated October 7, 1987 and filed in Miller. The copy I have is missing a

page at paragraphs 4 to 7. At paragraph 2 Mr. Long describes his

responsibilities:

"I have been deeply involved in the litigation of (Armstrong )

since the inception of that litigation on August 2, 1982. During the course of

my participation in that litigation, I personally inventoried the materials

surrendered pursuant to court order to the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior

Court in September 1982 by Gerald Armstrong and his counsel. I also

attended almost every deposition and/or pre-trial proceeding held in that

case, and was present as an assistent to counsel throughout each day of the

trials proceedings in May and June, 1984." At paragraph 7 Mr. Long

concludes: "There is no legal way that Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Miller and/or Mr.

Newman could have possession of these materials."

34. At paragraph 9 Mr. Long identifies a document he has written

entitled "A Chronological History of Major Armstrong Case Orders, " and at

paragraph 10 he describes the security operation he and a staff maintained /font>

throughout the life of the Armstrong documents as their fate was decided by

various courts:

"...I maintained, along with my staff, a daily check with each court

in which a temporary stay order was pending in order to ensure that I

learned the minute a ruling was issued. So before the trial court received

any order vacating a sealing order, the Church obtained another order

sealing them up again. In actuality, it took 3-5 days for the trial court to

receive a vacating order from the Higher Court and before rescript I would

14

 

personally hand deliver a new stay order. In addition, I also had my staff

maintain a watch over the area of the court where these documents were

kept during each so called "window" period and no one viewed and/or

copied the materials." Mr. Long concludes that "(t)here can be no doubt that

the documents in issue herein, no matter through whom they were funneled

to Mr. Miller, originated from Mr. Armstrong, in violation of court orders."

35. At paragraph 15 Mr. Long argues the matter of the Helen O'Brien letters:

"Gerald Armstrong was the only person that had these letters and

he knowingly violated several court orders -- the August 24, 1982 court

order to turn in all materials to the court and the June 20, 1984 court order

sealing the documents. He obviously didn't keep them sealed since Mr.

Newman and Mr. Miller have copies and he didn't turn in all copies of the

letters when ordered, since as a condition of settlement Mr. Armstrong

turned in any materials he had concerning LRH or the Church. I personally

inspected the documents he turned in in January 1987 and among them

were the three Helen O'Brien letters, letters that he was ordered to turn into

the court."

36. The text of the settlement agreement relating to documents,

Paragraphs 7E and 7L, reads:

"E. With exception to the items specified in Paragraph 7L,

Plaintiff agrees to return to the Church of Scientology International at the

time of the consummation of this Agreement, all materials in his possession,

custody or control for within the possession, custody or control of his

attorney, as well as third parties who are in possession of the described

documents), of any nature, including originals and all copies or summaries

of documents defined in Appendix "A" to this Agreement, including but not

15

 

limited to any tapes, computer disks, films, photographs, recastings,

variations or copies of any such materials which concern or relate to the

religion of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard or any of the organizations,

individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, all evidence of any

nature, including evidence obtained from the named defendants through

discovery, acquired for the purposes of this lawsuit or any lawsuit, or

acquired for any other purpose concerning any Church of Scientology, any

financial or administrative materials concerning any Church of Scientology,

and any materials relating personally to L. Ron Hubbard, his family or his

estate. In addition to the documents and other items to be returned to the

Church of Scientology International listed above and in Appendix " A",

Plaintiff agrees to return the following:

(a) All originals and copies of the manuscript for the work

"Excalibur" written by L. Ron Hubbard;

(b) All originals and copies of documents commonly known as

the "Affirmations" written by L. Ron Hubbard; and

(c) All documents and other items surrendered to the Court by

Plaintiff and his attorneys pursuant to Judge Cole's orders of August 24,

1982 and September 4, 1982 and all documents and other items taken by

the Plaintiff from either the Church of Scientology or Omar Garrison. This

includes all documents and other items entered into evidence or marked for

identification in Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong , Case

No. C 420 153. Plaintiff and his attorney will execute a joint Stipulation or

such other documents as are necessary to obtain these documents from the

Court. In the event any documents or other items are no longer in the

custody or control of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Plaintiff and his counsel

will assist the Church in recovering these documents as quickly as possible,

16

 

including but not limited to those tapes and other documents now in the

possession of the United States District Court in the case of United States v.

Zolin, Case No. CV 85-0440-HLH(Tx), presently in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. In the event any of these documents are currently lodged with the

Court of Appeal, Plaintiff and his attorneys will cooperate in recovering those

documents as soon as the Court of Appeal issues a decision on the pending

appeal."

L. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 7(E) above,

Plaintiff shall be entitled to retain any artwork created by him which

concerns or relates to the religion of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard or any of

the organizations, individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above

provided that such artwork never be disclosed either directly or indirectly,

to anyone. In the event of a disclosure in breach of this Paragraph 7(L),

Plaintiff shall be subject to the liquidated damages and constructive trust

provisions of Paragraph 7(D) for each such breach."

37. I believe the provisions of Paragraphs 7E and 7L are

unenforceable because the organization has itself violated the intent of the

settlement agreement by acting improperly with the documents entrusted to

it, by its own violations of sealing orders, and by its failure to deliver to me

38. Attached hereto as Exhibit [K] is a copy of an affidavit of Mr.

Long dated October 8, 1987 and filed in Miller. Mr. Long responds to

explanations in additional affidavits of Mr. Miller and Mr. Caven-Atack

concerning sources and routes for their Hubbard documents. Mr. Long

concludes again that "there is no doubt that the documents in question in the

suit were improperly obtained in violation of Court Orders and in Breach of

Confidence." He also quotes in his affidavit from the transcript of a hearing

17

 

 

of April 23, 1984 in Armstrong, declaration of Michael Flynn from "another

church case," and a comment of my lawyer Julia Dragojevic at a deposition of

Homer Schomer.

39. Mr. Long also identifies, produces and quotes from an

affidavit of mine dated March 7, 1986, a copy of which I have attached

hereto as Exhibit [L]. This affidavit was filed in Tonja Burden v. Church of

Scientology of California, et al. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida,

Tampa Division, Case No. 80-501-Civ-T-17. The organization settled this case

in 1986 and had the case file sealed.

40. On December 21, 1988 I received a call from Michael Flynn

who relayed a message from Michael Lee Hertzberg, one of the organization's

leading lawyers. Paul Morantz, Bent Corydon's attorney in one or another

case, filed a motion to unseal the Armstrong court file. Judge Geernaert, who

had inherited the Armstrong file after Judge Breckenridge retired, allowed

the unsealing. The organization had 30 days to appeal. They wanted me to

file a pleading to keep the court file sealed. They said that otherwise the

"pig document" would come out. (This document, which was specifically

sealed by Judge Breckenridge, was a recitation of a dream I had in 1985.)

They also stated that if I didn't file something it would unsettle the

settlement. They said they have a case on point. They said it would be bad

for me. I could have to give the (settlement) money back. Mr. Flynn

translated the facts to me: "It's a veiled threat." I said my decision at that

time was to do nothing.

41. On December 22, 1988 Mr. Flynn

called to tell me he had

received the organization's petition for a writ of supersedeas. He said the

case Mr. Hertzberg had been citing regarding unsettling the settlement

involved a doctor who molested a minor patient. As part of the settlement

18

 

the file was sealed. Mr. Flynn said he was unsure how the case applies to

what the organization wanted me to do. He said the court didn't get to

the point of dealing with unsettling the settlement. I said I would still do nothing.

42. On December 27, 1988 I again spoke by telephone with Mr.

Flynn who had himself spoken to lawyers on both sides of Mr. Corydon's

litigation. This is what I considered relevant at the time: Following Judge

Geernaert's unsealing of the Armstrong court file, the organization filed a

petition for a writ of supersedeas claiming the sealing of the file was

consideration for settlement. In his response Paul Morantz filed some

settlement documents, a notary seal from the State of Pennsylvania on which

identified Bill Franks, like me a former organization executive and witness in

various organization-related cases, as their source. Mr. Franks had sent the

documents to a lawyer to look at and the lawyer gave them to another

lawyer who gave them to Mr. Morantz. The organization reacted. They

claimed to have "the smoking gun," the proof of settlement violations. They

charged that there are numerous breaches: they knew last summer that Mr.

Franks had spent time with the Aznarans (who I understood to be

organization executives who had recently defected and had sued the

organization); and they had some instance of Homer Schomer doing

something three weeks before. Mr. Flynn advised me he was going to file a

pleading to say that the settlement documents should remain sealed. I said I

felt the court file should be unsealed and almost certainly would be at some

point, but that I wouldn't do anything at that time. Around November 15,

1989 I received from Ms. Plevin a copy of a document entitled " Response of

Gerald Armstrong to Opposition Filed By Real Party in Interest, Bent

Corydon" which is attached hereto as Exhibit [M].

19

 

43. On November 18, 1989 I received a copy of a videotape of

me edited from illegal videotapes made in 1984 by organization operatives

and used thereafter against me. This copy had been given to the London

Sunday Times, along with a package of documents concerning me which I do

not yet have, in late 1987 or early 1988. Taped to the cassette is the

business card of Eugene M. Ingram, the organization's private detective who

set up the illegal videotaping. A copy of one side of the video cassette

showing Mr. Ingram's card is attached hereto as Exhibit [N].

44. On November 20, 1989 I received a call from Mr. Heller who

said he wanted to talk me into giving the organization a declaration. He said

Homer Schomer, who had also been subpoenaed to testify at a deposition in

Corydon had given them a declaration. Mr. Heller said it was very simple

and straightforward, just two things: that I'd had either no or minimal

contact with Mr. Corydon in the organization; and that subsequent to leaving

I had received no information regarding him. Mr. Heller said that my

signing a declaration to help ensure the deposition doesn't go forward would

be of assistance to the organization and me. He said we would both have

hassles if my deposition goes forward. I told Mr. Heller that it would be

inappropriate and I couldn't give him the declaration. I said that I know Mr.

Corydon quite well. Mr. Heller said that the organization and he did not see

me as a relevant witness but a way for Corydon's attorneys to leverage a

settlement. I said I saw myself as a relevant witness. I said,

"From everything I've seen that's going on and everything I've heard that's going

on and knowing my history and the issues I cannot see ducking (the

deposition) at all: The truthful declaration would be that I would see that

my experiences and my knowledge of Bent would be relevant to his case."

Mr. Heller said that if I thought I would be helping Bent Corydon by

20

 

appearing, I might, but that for sure he would never help me. He said only

the organization would ever help me. He stated that I should assist the

organization because it had honored its agreement. He said that the

organization had signed a non-disclosure agreement as well and as far as he

knew had lived up to its agreement. When I paused in answering he said

that if there had been any violations he wanted to know and he would

rectify the problem. I said,

"I think you could check with Ken Long on what

has been done regarding Gerald Armstrong subsequent to the settlement.

Just get from him everything that's been filed regarding Armstrong, all his

declarations regarding me, all the so-called false report corrections that have been

put out subsequent to the settlement, any time the so-called

"Armstrong Operation" videotape has been used subsequent to the

settlement."

Mr. Heller reiterated at the end of our conversation that if I

start to testify, for example about the Hubbard biography project, or things

he and the organization consider irrelevant, they will carefully examine their

rights as to what action they will take. He said he strongly suggested that I

refuse to answer subject to attorney instruction. He said I had a contractual

obligation as far as he could tell.

45. The provisions of the settlement agreement relating to

testifying, Paragraphs 7G and 7H, read:

G. Plaintiff agrees that he will not voluntarily assist or cooperate

with any person adverse to Scientology in any proceeding against any of the

Scientology organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above.

Plaintiff also agrees that he will not cooperate in any manner with any

organization aligned against Scientology.

H. Plaintiff agrees not to testify or otherwise participate in any

other judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding adverse to Scientology

21

 

or any of the Scientology Churches, individuals or entities listed in Paragraph

1 above unless compelled to do so by lawful subpoena or other lawful

process. Plaintiff shall not make himself amenable to service of any such

subpoena in an manner which invalidates the intent of this provision. Unless

required to do so by such subpoena, Plaintiff agrees not to discuss this

litigation or his experiences with anyone other than members of his

immediate family. As provided hereinafter in Paragraph 18(d), the contents

of this Agreement may not be disclosed."

46. It is my opinion that these provisions are unenforceable

because the organization is using them in a coercive and obstructive manner,

because on their face they deny equal justice to anyone who would engage

the organization legally, and because they are suppressive of several basic

rights: speech, assembly, safety, happiness.

47. On November 30, 1989 I attended a hearing in Corydon of

the organization's motion to prevent my deposition from going forward

before Judge Norman Epstein in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Judge

Epstein ruled that the deposition would go forward and it is now set for

April 12 and 13, 1990.

48. While at the hearing I was served with a subpoena duces

tecum, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [O], ordering me to appear

as a witness in the trial of Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Joseph

Yanney, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C690211. The subpoena

also orders the production of the settlement agreement. The Yanney trial

is at this date proceeding before Judge Raymond Cardenas in department 41.

49. On January 18, 1990 I received from Flynn, Sheridan and

Tabb, the law firm which had represented me in Armstrong, a copy of a new

appeal, No. B025920, which the organization had filed on December 21, 1989

22

 

in Division Three of the Second Appellate District in the California Court of

Appeal. In this appeal the organization seeks a reversal of the Breckenridge

decision (Exhibit [A]).

50. On January 30, 1990 I received from Flynn, Sheridan & Tabb

the "Reply Brief of Appellants and Response to Cross-Appeal" filed in

Division Four of the Second Appellate District in the Court of Appeal in a case

entitled Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard,

Appellants, against Gerald Armstrong, Defendant; Bent Corydon, Appellee,

Civ. No. B038975. In this appeal the organization is seeking a reversal of

Judge Geernaert's decision unsealing the Armstrong case file.

51. On February 15, 1990 I received a telephone call from

attorney Michael Tabb, a partner of Michael Flynn, who said that he had

been called by Larry Heller who told him that the organization considered I

had violated the settlement agreement by being in the courthouse to be

served in Yanney, that they intended to prove it, and that I would be sued.

52. On February 20, 1990 I executed a document I titled

"Respondent's Petition for Permission to File Response and for an Extension

of Time to File Response," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [P], and

had it mailed to the Court of Appeal. The document was filed in the

Armstrong appeal, No. B025920, in Division Three on February 28.

53. On February 21, 1990 I executed a document I titled

"Defendant's Petition for Permission to File Response and for Time to File," a

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [Q], and had it mailed to the Court

of Appeal. This document was filed in the Corydon appeal, No. B038975, in

Division Four on March 1.

23

 

54. At some point the Court of Appeal unsealed the settlement

agreement, which I had attached as a sealed exhibit to my two petitions, and

which I have attached hereto as Exhibit [R].

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this fifteenth day of March, 1990 at Oakland, California.

[Signed]G. Armstrong
Gerald Armstrong

24

 


Exhibit [A]
Breckenridge Decision 06-20-1984 [.pdf]

Exhibit [B]
Court of Appeal's dismissal of the organization's appeal 12-18-1986

Exhibit [C]
Subpoena duces tecum, served 10-11-1989

Exhibit [D]
Motion to Delay or Prevent the Taking of Certain Third Party Depositions

Exhibit [E]
Pages 11, 12, 18 and 29 from Bent Corydon's book entitled L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?
View book on amazon.com

Exhibit [F]
Affidavit of Kenneth David Long 10-05- 1987

Exhibit [G]
Second affidavit of Kenneth David Long 10-05-1987 (Filed in Miller)

Exhibit [H]
Third affidavit of Kenneth David Long 10-05-1987

Exhibit [I]
Affidavit of Sheila MacDonald Chaleff 10-05-1987 [.pdf] (Filed in Miller)

Exhibit [J]
Fourth Affidavit of Kenneth David Long 10-07-1987 (Filed in Miller)

Exhibit [K]
Fifth Affidavit of Kenneth David Long 10-08-1987 (Filed in Miller)

Exhibit [L]
Armstrong Affidavit 03-07-1986 (Filed in Burden)

See also: Armstrong Affidavit 3-19-1986

Exhibit [M]
Response of Gerald Armstrong to Opposition Filed By Real Party in Interest, Bent Corydon
Rec'd ca. 11-15-1989

See also: Order Denying Request to Seal 01-04-1989

Exhibit [N]
Copy of illegal video cassette showing Mr. Ingram's business card

Exhibit [O]
Subpoena duces tecum, served 11-30-1989

Exhibit [P]
Respondent's Petition for Permission to File Response
and for an Extension of Time to File Response
02-20-1990
(Case No. No. B025920)

Exhibit [Q]
Defendant's Petition for Permission to File Response and for Time to File 02-21-1990
(Case No. B038975)

Exhibit [R]
Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement 12-06-1986

   

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