Ford Greene, Esquire
California State Bar No. 107601
HUB LAW OFFICES
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

Attorney for Defendant
GERALD ARMSTRONG

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California not-for-profit religious corporation; Plaintiffs, vs. GERALD ARMSTRONG; MICHAEL WALTON; et al, Defendants. GERALD ARMSTRONG, Cross-Complainant, -vs- CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California Corporation.; DAVID MISCAVIGE; DOES 1 to 100; Cross-Defendant.

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

No. 157 680 VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS

Cross-Complainant GERALD ARMSTRONG alleges as follows:

1

PARTIES

1. Cross-Complainant GERALD ARMSTRONG, hereinafter, "ARMSTRONG," is a resident of Marin County, California.

2. Cross-Defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, hereinafter "CSI" is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having principal offices and places of business in California and doing business within the State of California within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Cross-Defendant DAVID MISCAVIGE, hereinafter "MISCAVIGE," is an individual domiciled in the State of California.

4. At all times herein mentioned, each Cross-Defendant was the agent, employee or coconspirator of each of the remaining Cross-Defendants, and in doing the things herein mentioned, each Cross-Defendant was acting within the course and scope of its employment and authority as such agent and/or representative and/or employee and/or coconspirator, and with the consent of the remaining Cross-Defendants.

5. CSI is subject to a unity of control, and the separate alleged corporate structures were created as an attempt to avoid payment of taxes and civil judgments and to confuse courts and those seeking redress for these Cross-Defendants' acts. Due to the unity of personnel, commingling of assets, and commonality of business objectives, these Cross-Defendants' attempts at separation of these corporations should be disregarded.

6. The designation of CSI as a "church" or religious

2

entity is a sham contrived to exploit the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and to justify their criminal, and tortious acts against ARMSTRONG and others. Cross-Defendant corporation is part of an international, money-making, politically motivated enterprise which subjugates and exploits its employees and customers with coercive psychological techniques, threat of violence and blackmail. CSI and other Scientology corporate entities act as one organization.

7. David Miscavige controls and operates Scientology and uses it to enforce his orders and carry out his attacks on groups, agencies or individuals, including the acts against ARMSTRONG alleged herein to the extent there is no separate identity between Miscavige and CSI and any claim of such separate identity should be disregarded.

8. Cross-Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are sued herein under such fictitious names for the reason that the true names and capacities of said Cross-Defendants are unknown to ARMSTRONG at this time; that when the true names and capacities of said Cross-Defendants are ascertained ARMSTRONG will ask leave of Court to amend this Cross-Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named Cross-Defendants, together with any additional allegations that may be necessary in regard thereto; that each of said fictitiously named Cross-Defendants claim that ARMSTRONG has a legal obligation to Cross-Defendants by virtue of the facts set forth below; that each of said fictitiously named Cross-Defendants is in some manner legally responsible for the acts and occurrences hereinafter alleged.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3

9. From 1969 through 1981 ARMSTRONG was a Scientologist who devoted his life to Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard, the ideals he proclaimed and the Scientology organization he claimed to have built to promulgate those ideals. After leaving Hubbard's and the organization's employ and control in December 1981, ARMSTRONG was declared by Scientology to be "Suppressive Person," or "SP," which designated him an "enemy," and became the target of Hubbard's policy of "Fair Game," which states:

"ENEMY - SP Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

Scientology using its corporate component, Church of Scientology of California ("CSC") as Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit, No. C 420153, in the Los Angeles Superior Court against ARMSTRONG on August 2, 1982. ARMSTRONG filed a Cross-Complaint against CSC and L. RON HUBBARD September 17, 1982. The Complaint and the Cross-Complaint thereto, hereinafter referred to together as Armstrong I, were bifurcated and the underlying Complaint was tried without a jury in 1984. A Memorandum of Intended Decision was rendered by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. June 20, 1984 and entered as a Judgment August 10, 1984. Scientology appealed.

10. During the Armstrong I litigation Scientology carried out a massive and international campaign of Fair Game against ARMSTRONG and his lawyer, Michael J. Flynn of Boston, Massachusetts, hereinafter "Flynn," who had been the prime mover

4

in much of the anti-Scientology-related litigation throughout the United States. Acts against ARMSTRONG pursuant to Fair Game included assault, an attempted staged highway accident, attempted entrapment, theft of private papers and original artwork, dissemination of information from his confidential "counseling" records, filing false criminal charges on at least five occasions, global defamation, threat of murder, and illegal electronic surveillance. ARMSTRONG learned during the period he was represented in the litigation by Flynn that Fair Game acts against Flynn included attempted murder, theft of private papers, threats against his family, defamation, thirteen frivolous lawsuits, spurious bar complaints, and framing with the forgery of a $2,000,000 check on a bank account of L. Ron Hubbard.

11. In the fall of 1986, while working as a paralegal in the Flynn firm, ARMSTRONG was aware that settlement talks involving all the Scientology-related cases in which Flynn was either counsel or party were occurring in Los Angeles, California between Flynn and Scientology. Such talks had occurred a number of times over the prior four years. On December 5, 1986 ARMSTRONG was flown to Los Angeles, as were several other of Flynn's clients with claims against the organization, to participate in a "global settlement." Prior to flying to Los Angeles, ARMSTRONG had reached an agreement with Flynn on a monetary figure to settle Armstrong I, but did not know any of the other conditions of settlement.

12. After ARMSTRONG's arrival in Los Angeles, Flynn showed him a copy of a document entitled "Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement, " hereinafter "the settlement

5

agreement," and some other documents including affidavits, and was advised by Flynn that he was expected to sign them all. Upon reading the settlement agreement ARMSTRONG was shocked and heartsick. ARMSTRONG told Flynn that the condition of "strict confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with" Scientology, since it involved over seventeen years of his life was impossible to perform. ARMSTRONG told Flynn that the liquidated damages clause was outrageous: that pursuant to the agreement ARMSTRONG would have to pay $50,000.00 if he told a medical doctor or psychologist about his experiences from those years, or if he put on a job resume what positions he had held during his organization years. He told Flynn that the requirements of non-amenability to service of process and non-cooperation with persons or organizations adverse to Scientology were obstructive of justice. He told Flynn that agreeing to leave Scientology's appeal of the Breckenridge decision and not respond to any subsequent appeals was unfair to the courts and all the people who had been helped by the decision. ARMSTRONG told Flynn that an affidavit Scientology was demanding that he sign was false, that there had been no management change, that his private preclear folders were still being culled, and that he had the same disagreements with Scientology's Fair Game policies and actions, which had continued without change up to that date. ARMSTRONG told Flynn that he was being asked to betray everything and everyone he had fought for against organization injustice.

13. In answer to ARMSTRONG's objections to the settlement agreement Flynn said that the silence and liquidated damages clauses, and anything which called for obstruction of

6

justice were "not worth the paper they [were] printed on." Flynn stated that representation a number of times and in a number of ways; e.g., that ARMSTRONG could. not contract away his Constitutional rights; that the conditions were unenforceable. Flynn stated that he had advised Scientology's lawyers that those conditions in the settlement agreement were not worth the paper they were printed on, but that Scientology, nevertheless, insisted on their inclusion and would not agree to any changes. Flynn pointed out to ARMSTRONG the clauses in the settlement agreement concerning his release of his claims against Scientology and Scientology's release of its claims against ARMSTRONG and stated that they were the essential elements of the settlement and what the organization was paying for.

14. Flynn stated to ARMSTRONG at that time that he was sick of the litigation and the threats to him and his family, and that he wanted to get out. Flynn stated that all the people involved in his side of the Scientology-related litigation were sick of it and wanted to get on with their lives. He said that as a condition of settlement he and his co-counsels in the Scientology-related litigation had agreed to not become involved in that litigation in the future. Flynn conveyed to ARMSTRONG a hopelessness concerning the inability of the courts of this country to deal with Scientology, its lawyers and their contemptuous abuse of the justice system. Flynn told ARMSTRONG that if he didn't sign the documents all he had to look forward to was more years of harassment and misery. When ARMSTRONG expressed his continuing objections to the settlement agreement, Edward Walters, whom Flynn had kept present in the room during this

7

discussion with ARMSTRONG, and who was another of Flynn's clients and a participant in the settling of Flynn's Scientology-related litigation, yelled at ARMSTRONG accusing him.of killing the settlement for everyone, that everyone else had signed or would sign, and that everyone else wanted the settlement. Flynn told ARMSTRONG that Scientology would only settle with everyone together; otherwise there would be no settlement. Flynn did agree to ask Scientology to include a clause in ARMSTRONG's settlement agreement allowing him to keep his creative works relating to L. Ron Hubbard or the organization.

15. Flynn stated to ARMSTRONG that a major reason for the settlement's "global" form was to give Scientology the opportunity to change its combative attitude and behavior by removing the threat he and his clients represented to it. He said that Scientology wanted peace and unless ARMSTRONG signed Scientology's documents there would be no peace. Flynn stated that Scientology's attorneys had promised that the affidavit ARMSTRONG considered false would only be used by Scientology if ARMSTRONG began attacking it after the settlement. Since ARMSTRONG had no intention of attacking Scientology, he understood that the offensive affidavit would never see the light of day.

16. During ARMSTRONG's meeting with Flynn he found himself facing a dilemma. If he refused to sign the settlement agreement and affidavit all the other settling litigants, many of whom had already been flown to Los Angeles in anticipation of a settlement, would be disappointed and would continue to be subjected to organization harassment for an unknown period of time. ARMSTRONG had been positioned as a deal-breaker and led to

8

believe he would lose the support of some, if not all, of the settling claimants, several of whom were key witnesses in his case against Scientology. ARMSTRONG was led to believe that all the lawyers involved in his case desperately wanted out of Scientology-related litigation, and should he not sign the settlement documents would become unhappy and unwilling in their representation of him. ARMSTRONG reasoned that, on the other hand, if he did sign the settlement documents all his co-litigants, some of whom he knew to be in financial trouble, would be happy, the stress they felt would be reduced and they could get on with their lives. ARMSTRONG believed that Flynn and his other lawyers would be happy and the threat to them and their families removed. ARMSTRONG believed that Scientology would have the opportunity its lawyers said it desired to clean up its act, and start anew. Armed with Flynn's assurance that the conditions he found so offensive in the settlement agreement were not worth the paper they were printed on, and the knowledge that Scientology's attorneys were also aware of that fact, ARMSTRONG put on a happy face and on the following day went through the charade of a videotaped signing.

17. On December 11, 1986, pursuant to stipulation, Judge Breckenridge issued orders dismissing the Armstrong I Cross-Complaint, directing that the settlement agreement be filed and retained by the clerk under seal, releasing to Scientology all trial exhibits and other documents which had been held by the clerk of the Court, and sealing the entire Court file. Despite the Court's specific order Scientology never filed the Settlement Agreement.

9

18. On December 18, 1986 the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Scientology's appeal from the Breckenridge decision on the ground that there would be no appealable final judgment until after trial of the Armstrong I Cross-Complaint.

19. Scientology filed a Petition for Rehearing of its appeal in the Court of Appeal, which was denied January 15, 1987; then a Petition for Review by the California Supreme Court which was denied March 11, 1987. On January 30, 1987 Scientology filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court an "Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Memorandum of Intended Decision," which Judge Breckenridge denied February 2, 1987. On February 9, 1987 Scientology filed a Notice of Appeal from the orders issued pursuant to stipulation by Judge Breckenridge on December 11, 1986.

20. Scientology did not desire peace from the December 1986 settlement with ARMSTRONG but an advantage wherein they could continue to attack him without his being able to respond. They removed his lawyers from defending him, and used his lead lawyer, Flynn, as their agent to relay to ARMSTRONG threats of litigation and to keep him from responding to their attacks. Immediately following the settlement Scientology operatives contacted Beverly Rutherford, one of ARMSTRONG's friends from his pre-Scientology past, to try to get information from her concerning ARMSTRONG of a personal and embarrassing nature to be used against him. Also immediately following the settlement Scientology delivered a pack of documents concerning and attacking ARMSTRONG to reporters Robert Welkos and Joel Sappell of the Los Angeles Times.

10

Scientology has continued from the date of the settlement to collect intelligence information on ARMSTRONG, to consider him an enemy and to treat him as Fair Game. The settlement itself in intention, form, and effect was an act of Fair Game.

21. Although contacted a number of times by the media for statements concerning Scientology or Hubbard in the three years following the settlement, ARMSTRONG did not make any public statements during that period.

22. In the fall of 1987 ARMSTRONG received a document, which had been created and circulated by Scientology to discredit ARMSTRONG and writer Bent Corydon. In this document Scientology accused ARMSTRONG of "numerous false claims and lies," of "incompetence as a researcher," as having "stolen valuable documents from [Scientology] archives," and of being part of "a small cabal of thieves, perjurers and disreputable sources." Such statements were themselves lies, known to Scientology to be lies, malicious, and intended to destroy ARMSTRONG's reputation and credibility. In this document as well Scientology describes ARMSTRONG's experiences in the organization as Hubbard's archivist and biographical researcher, and discusses aspects of the Armstrong I litigation, all in violation of the letter and spirit of the settlement.

23. In early 1988 ARMSTRONG received a number of affidavits Scientology had filed in Scientology v. Miller in London, England, which accuse ARMSTRONG of, inter alia, retaining documents in violation of a Los Angeles Superior Court order, providing documents to Russell Miller in violation of a court order, and violating court sealing orders. The affidavits accuse

11

ARMSTRONG of being "an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in [Scientology] files which would then be "found" by Federal officials in subsequent investigations as evidence of criminal activity," and of intending to "plant forged documents within the [Scientology] and then using the contents to get [Scientology] raided. All of Scientology's accusations regarding ARMSTRONG in the affidavits filed in Miller are false, known by Scientology to be false, malicious and intended to destroy ARMSTRONG's credibility. ARMSTRONG has proven repeatedly to Scientology that its accusations are false, but Scientology has not corrected the falsehoods wherever they have been uttered or written but has continued to spread its lies about ARMSTRONG.

24. Scientology's affidavits filed in Miller also contain descriptions of ARMSTRONG's experiences in the organization and conditions of the settlement agreement. At the same time Scientology demanded that ARMSTRONG not discuss his own experiences or conditions of settlement on penalty of $50,000.00 an utterance. Scientology itself filed documents in the case straight out of the sealed Armstrong I file. Such acts are intended to bring about ARMSTRONG's mental disintegration and total destruction, are conscious and premeditated acts by Scientology of Fair Game, and have caused ARMSTRONG great anguish.

25. Also in October 1987 ARMSTRONG was contacted by a reporter from the London Sunday Times who advised him that Scientology had given the newspaper a pack of documents concerning him. The reporter said that Scientology representatives were claiming that ARMSTRONG was an agent provocateur who tried to

12

plant forged documents in the organization and wanted to destroy the scientology religion. The reporter also said that Scientology representatives had given the newspaper a videotape of ARMSTRONG they claimed showed him conspiring to overthrow Scientology management. ARMSTRONG told the reporter that although he considered Scientology's attacks violated the settlement agreement he would not respond to them.

26. On December 21, 1988 ARMSTRONG received a call from Flynn who relayed a message from Michael Lee Hertzberg, one of the organization's leading lawyers stating that he wanted ARMSTRONG to file a pleading to keep the court file sealed in the face of efforts by the plaintiff in Corydon v. CSI, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. C 694401, who had filed a motion to unseal the Armstrong I court file. Flynn stated that Hertzberg had threatened that if ARMSTRONG failed to cooperate Hertzberg would release a private and personal document belonging to ARMSTRONG regarding one of his dreams specifically sealed by Judge Breckenridge in Armstrong I.

27. On December 27, 1988 ARMSTRONG spoke again by phone with Flynn, who advised ARMSTRONG that due to a court order unsealing the file in Armstrong I, he was going to file a pleading to say that the settlement documents should remain sealed. ARMSTRONG disagreed and advised Flynn he did not want such a paper filed, but on November 15, 1989 ARMSTRONG received notice that Flynn had filed such a paper against his wishes.

28. On October 11, 1989 ARMSTRONG was served with a deposition subpoena duces tecum which had been issued by Toby Plevin, an attorney representing Corydon in his litigation against

13

Scientology.

29. On October 23, 1989 ARMSTRONG received a call from Heller who stated that Scientology would seek a protective order to prevent Armstrong's deposition in Corydon from going forward, that Armstrong should be represented by a Scientology lawyer, that to maintain the settlement agreement ARMSTRONG could only answer questions by court order, that ARMSTRONG should refuse to answer the deposition questions and force Corydon to get an order from the court compelling ARMSTRONG to answer.

30. On October 25, 1989 Heller told ARMSTRONG that he had a problem with ARMSTRONG responding to deposition questions concerning such things as L. Ron Hubbard's misrepresentations or ARMSTRONG's period as Hubbard's archivist in the organization, that he wanted to have an attorney present to instruct ARMSTRONG not to answer such questions so that Corydon would have to move to compel an answer, and that if the court ordered sanctions for ARMSTRONG'S refusal to answer, Scientology would indemnify him. Heller further stated that ARMSTRONG had a contractual. obligation to Scientology and that if ARMSTRONG did answer deposition questions he would have breached the settlement agreement and may be sued.

31. Based on Heller's threats, the earlier threats and Scientology's post-settlement attacks described above, ARMSTRONG'S understanding of his importance to and involvement with Scientology, and his knowledge of Scientology, its fraud and Fair Game, moved him at that time to protect himself by beginning to assemble documentation and prepare a declaration to oppose these Scientology abuses.

14

32. On November 1, 1989 Heller, on behalf of Scientology entity Author Services Inc., a defendant in Corydon, filed a motion "to Delay or Prevent the Taking of Certain Third Party Depositions, " relating to the deposition of ARMSTRONG. Heller stated in the motion:

"One of the key ingredients to completing these settlement, insisted upon by all parties involved, was strict confidentiality respecting: (1) the Scientology parishioner or staff member's experiences within the Church of Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by the Scientology entities concerning those staff members or parishioners; and (3) the terms and conditions of the settlements themselves."

33. On November 18, 1989 ARMSTRONG received a copy of a videotape edited from videotapes of him made in 1984 by Scientology intelligence operatives and used thereafter against him. This copy had been given to the London Sunday Times, along with a package of documents concerning ARMSTRONG by Scientology operatives. Taped to the video cassette was the business card of Eugene M. Ingram, the Scientology's private detective who had set up the videotaping.

34. On November 20, 1989 Heller contacted ARMSTRONG and advised him that he wanted ARMSTRONG to execute Scientology a declaration that ARMSTRONG had either no or minimal contact with Corydon in the organization, and that subsequent to leaving he had received no information about Corydon. ARMSTRONG told Heller that he knew Corydon quite well and that he saw himself as a relevant witness, and would go forward with the deposition.

15

Heller said to do so would be a mistake because only Scientology would ever help him, that ARMSTRONG should assist Scientology because it had honored its agreement, that Scientology had signed a non-disclosure agreement as well and as far as he knew had lived up to its agreement. When ARMSTRONG disagreed, Heller reiterated at the end of the conversation that if ARMSTRONG started to testify, for example about the Hubbard biography project, or things he and Scientology considered irrelevant, he would be sued for breach of contract.

35. On November 30, 1989 ARMSTRONG attended a hearing in Corydon of Scientology's motion to prevent his deposition from going forward where he was served with a subpoena duces tecum ordering him to appear as a witness in the trial of Religious Technology Center v. Joseph A. Yanny, Los Angeles Superior Court Case no. C 690211.

36. On February 15, 1990 ARMSTRONG received a call from one of Michael Flynn' partners, attorney Michael A. Tabb, who said he had been called by Heller who told him that Scientology considered ARMSTRONG had violated the settlement agreement by being in the courthouse when he was served in Yanny, that they intended to prove it, and that he would be sued.

37. On January 18, 1990 ARMSTRONG received a copy of Appellants' Opening Brief which Scientology had filed December 21, 1989 in appeal No. B025920 in Division Three of the Second Appellate District in the California Court of Appeal wherein Scientology sought a reversal of the 1984 Breckenridge decision. On January 30, 1990 ARMSTRONG received the Reply Brief of Appellants and Response to Cross-Appeal filed in Division Four in

16

the Second Appellate District in an appeal entitled Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard, Appellants, against Gerald Armstrong, Defendant; Bent Corydon, Appellee, No. B038975 in which Scientology sought a reversal of Judge Geernaert's ruling unsealing the Armstrong I court file.

38. Because the settlement agreement prohibited ARMSTRONG from opposing any of the appeals Scientology might take, he filed a Petition for Permission to Respond in the B025920 Division Three appeal February 28, 1990, and in the B038975 Division Four appeal March 1, 1990. When his petitions were granted, ARMSTRONG filed a Respondent's Briefs opposing Scientology appeals.

39. ARMSTRONG's March 15, 1990 declaration that he had filed in the Court of Appeal was used by Corydon as an exhibit supporting a motion for an order directing non-interference with witnesses. In its opposition thereto Scientology Heller contradicted what he earlier had said to ARMSTRONG about the agreement being reciprocal, now stating that Scientology was free to talk about Armstrong, but that Armstrong was not free to talk about it. Heller's lies to ARMSTRONG, his lies in sworn declarations about the reciprocality of the settlement agreement, the trap ARMSTRONG had been placed in by Scientology and his own attorney, who, because of Scientology Fair Game tactics, had deserted him, caused ARMSTRONG great distress and grief.

40. In his March 27 1990, declaration and in the opposition to plaintiff's motion for non-interference with witnesses in Corydon, Heller denied that the three telephone calls with ARMSTRONG occurred, denied offering to have Scientology pay

17

for an attorney at ARMSTRONG's deposition in Corydon, denied offering to indemnify ARMSTRONG for sanctions which might be imposed by the court, and denied threatening ARMSTRONG with litigation. These denials are lies.

41. In his March 26, 1990 declaration, Kenneth Long, Scientology staff member who had executed a number of the affidavits concerning ARMSTRONG which were filed in the Miller case, stated:

"In January, 1987, following settlement of Scientology (sic) of California ("CSC"), Armstrong turned over to CSC all [Scientology]-related documents in his possession. I personally inspected the documents turned over by Armstrong, and found a number of copies of the documents which Armstrong had previously sworn that he had surrendered to the Clerk of the Court. [  ] Based on my discovery of these documents, I concluded that Armstrong had intentionally perjured himself on numerous occasions, and had as well knowingly violated orders issued by judges at all levels ranging from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the Supreme Court of the United States."

Long's statement is false, reckless and malicious. Long stated as well that his affidavits attacking ARMSTRONG in Miller were necessary "to detail the elements of the breach of confidence against Miller and Penguin, and the claim could not have been brought without explaining the underlying actions taken by Armstrong."

42. On March 21, 1990 ARMSTRONG spoke by phone with

18

Michael Flynn, who said that he had been called by Lawrence Heller two or three weeks before. Flynn said that Heller told him that ARMSTRONG was right then sitting in the courtroom at the Yanny trial and he asked Flynn to call ARMSTRONG and tell him that if he testified in Yanny he would be in violation of the settlement agreement and would be sued. ARMSTRONG had been present at the Yanny trial March 5, 1990.

43. In early April, 1990 ARMSTRONG received a call from Scientology lawyer Eric Lieberman who threatened dire consequences if ARMSTRONG continued to speak out against Scientology in violation of the settlement agreement. ARMSTRONG related to Lieberman a list of Scientology's post-settlement attacks on ARMSTRONG in violation itself of the agreement. Lieberman dismissed ARMSTRONG's grievances as insignificant.

44. On July 8, 1988 the Internal Revenue Service issued a document entitled "final adverse ruling" to a Scientology corporate entity named Church of Spiritual Technology ("CST") denying its application for tax exempt status. In that ruling the IRS stated:

"In support of the protest (protest conference was held in January 1987) to our initial adverse ruling, we were supplied with copies of affidavits dated December 4, 1986, from Gerald Armstrong and Laurel Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan was the person in charge of the MCCS project (Scientology's "Mission Corporate Category Sort-out," the purpose of which was to devise a new organizational structure to conceal L. Ron Hubbard's continued control). The affidavits state that the new church

19

management 'seems to have returned to the basic and lawful policies and procedures as laid out by the founder of the religion, L. Ron Hubbard.' The affidavits conclude as follows: 'Because of the foregoing, I no longer have any conflict with the Church of Scientology or individual members affiliated with the Church. Accordingly I have executed a mutual release agreement with the Church of Scientology and sign this affidavit in order to signify that I have no quarrel with the Church of Scientology or any of its members.'" Scientology filed the ARMSTRONG affidavit in the COST case for the purpose of destroying his credibility and in violation of the representation Scientology had Flynn make to ARMSTRONG during settlement that such affidavit would never be used unless ARMSTRONG attacked Scientology after settlement. Scientology's filing of the affidavit, its use of the courts, and the campaign to destroy ARMSTRONG's reputation have caused ARMSTRONG great emotional distress.

45. In August 1991 while in South Africa ARMSTRONG was informed by Stuart Cutler, a lawyer for Malcolm Nothling, litigant against Scientology, that Scientology had provided ARMSTRONG's personal papers regarding the 1985 dream which had been sealed in Armstrong I, to Scientology's South African legal representatives for use against ARMSTRONG in the Nothling litigation in which ARMSTRONG was expected to testify. The dissemination of this document in South Africa caused ARMSTRONG great embarrassment and emotional distress.

46. On August 12, 1991 Scientology filed a lawsuit

20

against 17 agents of the IRS, case no. 91-4301-SVW in United States District Court, Central District of California for more than $120,000,000.00. Scientology used therein a false rendition of the 1984 illegal videotaping of ARMSTRONG, which videotape had been sealed in the Armstrong I court file. Scientology stated in its complaint:

"The infiltration of the [Scientology] was planned by the LA CID along with former [Scientology] member Gerald Armstrong, who planned to seed [Scientology] files with forged documents which the IRS could then seize in a raid. The CID actually planned to assist Armstrong in taking over the [Scientology] hierarchy which would then turn over all [Scientology] documents to the IRS for their investigation."

Scientology knew that these accusations were false and knew that ARMSTRONG knew they were false.

47. Upon his return to the United States from South Africa, Armstrong visited the law office of Ford Greene who asked for his help. Armstrong, who is a trained paralegal, and lived in the same Marin County town as Greene, agreed to help him, and has been working with him from that time until the present. The moment he began working in Greene's office Scientology began to terrorize him with constant surveillance by Scientology intelligence operatives, videotaped him, embarrassed him, caused disturbances in the neighborhood of Greene's law firm, and caused him great fear. Scientology has a reputation of using its intelligence operatives or private investigators to assault its perceived enemies, frame them, entrap them, terrorize them, lie about them,

21

and steal from them. Judge Breckenridge in Armstrong I, had found that:

"Defendant Armstrong was the subject of harassment, including being followed and surveilled by individuals who admitted employment by [Scientology]; being assaulted by one of these individuals; being struck bodily by a car driven by one of these individuals; having two attempts made by said individuals apparently to involve Defendant Armstrong in a freeway automobile accident; having said individuals come onto Defendant Armstrong's property, spy in his windows, create disturbances, and upset his neighbors."

The August 1991 surveillance of ARMSTRONG by Scientology operatives was intended to and caused ARMSTRONG severe shock and emotional distress.

48. ARMSTRONG called and wrote to Scientology lawyer Eric Lieberman on August 21 and 22, 1991 protesting the surveillance, videotaping and Scientology terror tactics. Lieberman never responded, but Scientology responded with renewed attacks on ARMSTRONG, filing perjurious declarations about him in Aznaran v. Scientology, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV-88-1786-JMI(Ex) accusing him of, inter alia, being in Greene's office (during the period when he had been in South Africa), of being employed by Joseph Yanny while working for Greene, and of being Yanny's extension in the Aznaran case. Scientology used these lies in a series of attempts to have the Aznaran case dismissed, and in further attempts to destroy ARMSTRONG's credibility and his capacity to defend himself from

22

Scientology's attacks. Scientology also filed perjurious declarations in Aznaran concerning the illegal 1984 Armstrong operation, claiming, inter alia, that the operation was a police-sanctioned investigation, that ARMSTRONG was plotting against Scientology and seeking out staff members who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing its leadership, and that ARMSTRONG's theory of litigation against Scientology was to fabricate the facts. These lies were used in a series of attempts to deny the Aznarans justice and to attack ARMSTRONG's credibility and leave him defenseless before Scientology's assault. Scientology moreover used in these attempts transcripts of the illegal 1984 videotaping of ARMSTRONG which had been sealed in the Armstrong I court file. Scientology knew its lies filed in the Aznaran case regarding ARMSTRONG were lies, knew it was using sealed documents to attack ARMSTRONG, knew that such caused ARMSTRONG great emotional distress, and knew that its acts in Armstrong I had caused him emotional distress for which it had paid ARMSTRONG a significant sum of money. Scientology's statements filed in Aznaran regarding ARMSTRONG were malicious and an abuse process. ARMSTRONG filed a declaration in Aznaran dated September 3, 1991 detailing the lies Scientology had up to that time filed about him in that case and stating the truth of the matters. On June 23, 1992, Judge Ideman, presiding in the Aznaran case denied all Scientology's motions in which it had filed its attacks on ARMSTRONG.

49. On October 3, 1991 Scientology, using CSC, CSI and RTC as Plaintiffs, filed a motion in Los Angeles Superior Court in the Armstrong I case to enforce the settlement agreement in which

23

it charged that ARMSTRONG's declaration in Aznaran which rebutted Scientology's lies filed about him in that case was a violation of the settlement agreement. That motion, in which Scientology sought from ARMSTRONG $100,000.00 in damages for his responses to Scientology attacks, was denied on December 23, 1991 by Judge Geernaert, who stated during the hearing of that date:

" So my belief is Judge Breckenridge, being a very careful judge, follows about the same practice and if he had been presented that whole agreement and if he had been asked to order its performance, he would have dug his feet in because that is one of the [  ] most ambiguous, one-sided agreements I have ever read. And I would not have ordered the enforcement of hardly any of the terms had I been asked to, even on the threat that, okay the case is not settled. I know we like to settle cases. But we don't want to settle cases and, in effect, prostrate the court system into making an order which is not fair or in the public interest."

50. Heedless of Judge Geernaert's comments Scientology on February 4, 1992 filed the underlying lawsuit, hereinafter Armstrong II, this time seeking $1,700, 000.00 in damages. On March 26, 1992 Scientology sought to have ARMSTRONG held in contempt of court for communicating to the media about the litigation after Scientology had itself given an interview to the media and in response to Scientology's public comments about him. Judge Dufficy of the Marin Superior Court, then presiding over the Armstrong II litigation, refused to hear Scientology's effort to

24

have ARMSTRONG found in contempt. The effort, however, demonstrates Scientology's intention: create a scenario in which ARMSTRONG responds to Scientology attacks and then have him jailed for his response. Then, pursuant to Scientology policy, neutralize him.

51. On February 19, 1992 Ford Greene, ARMSTRONG's attorney in Armstrong II, wrote Scientology attorney Laurie Bartilson requesting that ARMSTRONG's former attorneys in Armstrong I, Michael Flynn, Julia Dragojevic and Bruce Bunch, each of whom were specifically prohibited by contract with Scientology from giving ARMSTRONG a declaration to assist him in his defense of Scientology's lawsuit to enforce the settlement agreement, be released from that prohibition so they could provide him with needed declarations. Scientology refused. On February 24, 1992 Greene wrote Bartilson requesting that the other individuals who had entered into settlement agreements with Scientology, negotiated by Scientology with Flynn in 1986, and who were specifically prohibited from providing ARMSTRONG with a declaration to assist him in his defense of Scientology's lawsuit to enforce the settlement agreement, be released from that prohibition so they could provide him with needed declarations. Even though Scientology had used the fact of the other individuals' settlement agreements being substantially similar to the ARMSTRONG agreement, and cited to and relied on cases involving those individuals' settlements in its lawsuit against ARMSTRONG, Scientology refused to release them from their contract not to assist ARMSTRONG.

52. On May 27, 1992 at a hearing on a motion

25

Scientology brought to obtain a preliminary injunction in this case, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sohigian stated:

"The information that's being suppressed in this case, however, is information about extremely blameworthy behavior of the [Scientology] which nobody owns; it is information having to do with the behavior of a high degree of offensiveness and behavior which is tortious in the extreme. It involved abusing people who are weak. It involves taking advantage of people who for one reason or another get themselves enmeshed in this extremist view in a way that makes them unable to resist it apparently. There appears to be in the history of [Scientology's] behavior a very, very substantial deviation between [Scientology's] conduct and standards of ordinary, courteous conduct and standards of ordinary honest behavior. They're just way off in a different firmament. [Scientology's] is the kind of behavior which makes you sort of be sure you cut the deck and be sure you've counted all the cards. If you're having a friendly poker game you'd make sure to count all the chips before you dealt any cards."

Despite these statements concerning Scientology and its practices, and despite Scientology's knowledge of similar rulings and judgments in Armstrong I, the case of Wollersheim v. Scientology, the case of Allard v. Scientology, the case in England Re B & G Wards, the cases of US v. Hubbard and US v. Kember, and of articles in the Los Angeles Times in 1990 and Time magazine in 1991, Scientology continues to attack ARMSTRONG and its other

26

perceived enemies pursuant to its basic doctrine of Fair Game. Scientology's refusal to change its posture toward ARMSTRONG in the face of evidence of its nature causes ARMSTRONG severe emotional distress. Judge Sohigian denied Scientology's motion to enforce the settlement agreement in every aspect except for his right to provide testimony in anti-Scientology litigation without being first subpoenaed to provide such testimony. The Sohigian ruling left ARMSTRONG free to speak and write about Scientology, to provide information to government agencies without the need for a subpoena and to continue to work as a paralegal.

53. ARMSTRONG has learned that MISCAVIGE possessed ARMSTRONG's original artwork and manuscript after they were stolen from ARMSTRONG's car in 1984. MISCAVIGE told Vicki Aznaran that he had ARMSTRONG's artwork and manuscript, and he described ARMSTRONG's works as weird poetry and letters to Hubbard. Scientology lawyer John Peterson in 1984, in response to ARMSTRONG's demand at that time for return of his works denied that Scientology possessed them. Now ARMSTRONG has the proof and he demands these works' return.

54. On July 8, 1993, Scientology filed another lawsuit against ARMSTRONG styled Church of Scientology International v.Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 084 642 (hereinafter "Armstrong III") in retaliation for ARMSTRONG's continuing to publicly speak out in the news media on the subject of Scientology and its practices and for filing a declaration on behalf of a defendant, Lawrence Wollersheim, whom Scientology had sued.

55. On July 23, 1993, Scientology filed the instant

27

lawsuit against ARMSTRONG (hereinafter Armstrong IV"). Said lawsuit is without merit and is yet another part of the on-going Fair Game activity that Scientology has historically directed against ARMSTRONG which uses the legal system as an engine to harass and to attempt to destroy and ruin ARMSTRONG.

56. Scientology has, for over a decade, waged a campaign of hatred and psychological violence against ARMSTRONG . This campaign has been observed and condemned by courts and the media. In 1986 as an act of calculating Fair Game it used ARMSTRONG's lawyer, himself a long time target of Fair Game, to manipulate him into a settlement of his claims against Scientology which was intended to leave him lawyer-less and defenseless so that Scientology's Fair Game efforts against him could continue unopposed. In consummate cynicism Scientology claims its purpose in the settlement was to make peace. Scientology's acts against ARMSTRONG have affected every aspect of his life, taken from him the peace and seclusion he sought and threatened his health, livelihood, friendships and his very existence. These acts must stop.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Abuse Of Process Against All Defendants)

57. Cross-complainant ARMSTRONG realleges paragraphs 1 through 56, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein as though fully set forth.

58. Defendants, and each of them, have abused the process of this court in a wrongful manner, not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings in Armstrong I, Armstrong II, Armstrong III, Armstrong IV and in other litigation, to accomplish a purpose for

28

which said proceedings were not designed, specifically, the suppression of evidence, the obstruction of justice, the assassination of cross-complainant's reputation, and retaliation against said cross-complainant for prevailing at trial in Armstrong I, and for continuing to publicly speak out on the subject of Scientology, all so as to be able to attack cross-complainant and prevent cross-complainant from being able to take any effective action to protect himself.

59. Defendants, and each of them, acted with an ulterior motive to suppress evidence, obstruct justice, assassinate cross-complainant's reputation, suppress ARMSTRONG's First Amendment rights, and to retaliate against cross-complainant in said litigations.

60. That defendants, and each of them, have committed willful acts of intimidation, threats, and submission of false and confidential documents not authorized by the process of litigation, and not proper in the regular conduct of litigation.

61. Cross-complainant has suffered damage, loss and harm, including but not limited to his reputation, his emotional tranquillity, and privacy.

62. That said damage, loss and harm was the proximate and legal result of the use of such legal process.

///

///

///

///

///

///

29

WHEREFORE, cross-complainant seeks relief as is hereinafter pleaded.

ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1. For general and compensatory damages according to proof.

2. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof.

3. For attorney's fees and costs of suit.

4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: November 30, 1993

HUB LAW OFFICES By: [signed] Ford Greene FORD GREENE Attorney for Defendant

VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned, am the cross-complainant in the above entitled action. I know the contents of the foregoing Amended Cross-Complaint I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct according to the laws of the State of California and that this declaration was executed on the November 30, 1993 at San Anselmo, California.

By: [signed] G. Armstrong GERALD ARMSTRONG

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above entitled action. My business address is 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California. I served the following documents: VERIFIED AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS on the following person(s) on the date set forth below, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Anselmo, California:

Andrew Wilson, Esquire WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 450 San Francisco, California 94104	LAURIE J. BARTILSON, ESQ. Bowles & Moxon 6255 Sunset Boulevard Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90028
MICHAEL WALTON P.O. Box 751 San Anselmo, California 94960

[x] (By Mail)	I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Anselmo, California.
[x] (State)	I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

DATED: November 30, 1993

[signed] Ford Greene