Ala Fadili Al Tamimi

Ala Fadili Al Tamimi

Ala Fadili Al Tamimi

Mark Rathbun: The Juggernaut (May 28, 2013)

 

Chapter Twenty-One

THE JUGGERNAUT  1 2

Juggernaut:   in colloquial English usage is a literal or metaphorical force regarded as mercilessly destructive and unstoppable.   – Wikipedia

For all of his alleged faults, L. Ron Hubbard was a keen observer and writer on the human condition. He once noted that “the bank follows the line of attack.”   “Bank” is Scientologese for the reactive mind, the stimulus-response portion of the mind that seeks destruction of others for survival of self.   With the devastating strike upon Ron and Scientology delivered in Los Angeles, all roads to L. Ron Hubbard’s bunker led through Flynn and Armstrong. It seemed that anyone with a score to settle was drawn like a magnet to the duo. Those combined forces took on the appearance of an overwhelming juggernaut.

The DOJ duplicated Flynn’s latest legal tactic: ask courts in Scientology litigation to order the church to produce L. Ron Hubbard as the “managing agent” of the mother church. Flynn assisted the DOJ to procure sworn declarations from his growing stable of former high-level official witnesses in support of the move.

David Mayo, the expelled former auditor to L. Ron Hubbard and erstwhile top technical authority in Scientology, had created a thriving Scientology splinter operation in Santa Barbara, California. Former high-level messengers – including two former Commanding Officers of CMO Int (Commodore’s Messenger Organization International) served as executives of his operation.   Until the Armstrong affair, they had steered clear of the L. Ron Hubbard-bashing Flynn/ FAMCO circles. But by 1984 they were supplying declarations to the DOJ and Flynn in support of their motions to compel Hubbard into depositions in lawsuits across the country.

Breckenridge’s Armstrong case decision, bolstered by a dozen declarations by former Hubbard messengers and aides, made the allegation of Hubbard’s “managing agent” status virtually uncontestable. Miscavige and Broeker were clearly established as the last links to Hubbard, but they could not provide countering declarations because it would subject them to depositions – which would lead Hubbard’s enemies directly to him.

Worse, the Breckenridge decision destroyed any chance of winning, in courts across the U.S., our vast array of pending motions to dismiss Flynn’s lawsuits on the basis of First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. The twenty-one-page Breckenridge indictment was devastating to our three years of expensive efforts at positioning much of the Flynn litigation for pre-trial dismissal.

Worse still, the decision pumped new life into what we thought by then to be criminal investigations losing steam. The Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID) had been actively investigating the church, as well as LRH, Pat and Ann Broeker, David Miscavige and other church officials as named targets for criminal charges. Until the Breckenridge decision we had kept the CID somewhat at bay through litigation combatting their summons power, and a team of lawyers attempting to negotiate with IRS counsel and DOJ officials. But our intelligence lines were reporting that the LA-based CID group was once again gearing up to indict Hubbard and his aides.

The Ontario Provincial Police had, after their March, 1983 raid, steered clear of targeting Hubbard. Now they were reconsidering, in light of the outcome of the Armstrong case.

Our intelligence network reported that Gerry Armstrong was feeling drunk with power, given the sudden attention he’d received and his new importance in the anti-Scientology community. It seemed Armstrong and Flynn had worked their way up to being the axle to which all anti-Scientology spokes were linked. Per reports, Armstrong was talking of bringing all Scientology’s enemies together in a concerted effort to take over the church. The man who had prevailed in his case because of his alleged “fear for his life” was beating his chest and promising to take the very life of our church, and convert all its assets to outside control.

Our only shot at staving off indictments against LRH across North America, and of keeping him out of the couple of dozen pending lawsuits was to take out the axle and so depower its spokes. It was this desperate state of affairs that drew me directly into the shadowy world of intelligence. Throughout his litigation Armstrong had remained in periodic communication with a Scientologist who knew a thing or two about intelligence. Dan Sherman had published a number of spy novels, and had struck up an acquaintance with Armstrong. Armstrong looked up to Sherman and envied his literary success and intelligence acumen. Armstrong believed that Sherman – like so many other Scientologists during the tumultuous early eighties – was disaffected with the church and no longer considered himself a member. In fact, Sherman was cultivating a friendship with Armstrong in order to glean intelligence from him about the enemy camp. Up through the trial their communications were infrequent and mundane.   All that changed when Armstrong became an overnight anti-Scientology sensation. Because of Armstrong’s newly won stardom, Sherman began giving him more face time. Armstrong began sharing some of the details of his activities as a coordination point for all camps inimical to the church, from the Ontario Provincial Police, to the IRS CID, to the DOJ, to the Mayo splinter movement. Armstrong asked Sherman to see whether he could locate some church insiders who might aid in a take-over coup inside the church.

Gene Ingram and I concocted a rather elaborate game plan.   Gene would tap one of his old LAPD comrades to obtain written permission to covertly video record conversations with Gerry Armstrong. Technically, it was a lawfully given permission since we had a witness attesting that Armstrong was suggesting taking over and destroying the church by questionable means.

Gene obtained a recreational vehicle which had a wide rear window with reflective coating, making it one-way vision. A high-powered camera could record what was going on outside without being seen. We planned to record meetings with Armstrong to obtain evidence showing that not only was he not afraid for his life, he in fact was a well-backed aggressor and an operative of government agencies out to get Scientology. After taking circuitous routes to lose any possible tails, Sherman and I met Ingram in the RV in Long Beach. We worked out every detail of Sherman’s cover. We would bring in a former GO operative and have Sherman introduce him to Armstrong as a church insider, plotting the overthrow of the Miscavige regime and willing to play ball with Armstrong, Flynn and their government allies. That would hopefully prompt Armstrong to repeat and elaborate on some of the provocative takeover and take-down ideas he had alluded to in earlier conversations.

The chosen venue for the meetings was Griffith Park, inside LAPD jurisdiction and with plenty of opportunities for positioning the RV to capture the action. Sherman met with Armstrong and whetted his appetite. He told him he had made contact with an ally who had a number of well-placed contacts, currently on staff in the church. He told Armstrong he could only be identified by his first name, Joey, for security purposes. Joey was formerly of the Guardian’s Office and was connected to a number of former GO people who were bitter about being ousted by Miscavige, and sympathetic to Armstrong and the Mayo splinter movement.   Armstrong was visibly overjoyed at this opportunity gratuitously falling into his lap.

Sherman arranged a meeting between Armstrong and Joey to take place on a park bench in Griffith Park. Joey wore an audio wire which transmitted the conversation back to the RV, parked a hundred yards away and video recording the event. Armstrong and Joey both wore sunglasses; both attempted to look as nonchalant as could be, as they introduced themselves.

Joey explained that there was serious disaffection within the church, and a forming cabal of veteran staff ready to take out Miscavige and the current management. He called this cell the Loyalists. Armstrong was clearly excited, and believed Joey’s cover – no doubt because of Sherman’s story-telling skills and credibility with Armstrong.

Armstrong shared with Joey the master plan, which he represented as his brainchild, along with Michael Flynn. He explained that the plan was backed by the Ontario Provincial Police, the DOJ and the IRS. Flynn would prepare a lawsuit on behalf of the Loyalists, asking the Attorney General of California to take the church into receivership on their behalf. The DOJ, FBI, and IRS would conduct a raid on church premises to get fresh evidence of illegalities, in support of the Loyalist action. The raid would be coordinated to coincide with the filing of the receivership action.   The public relations fallout and the possible arrests of leaders would all but cripple the church.

Joey played his role well, feigning fear and nervousness that Armstrong could make good on the government back-up. In order to prove his representations, Armstrong opened a notebook and started naming his government contacts, representing that each was briefed, coordinated and ready to roll with the plan. He cited the following agents as close personal friends and in constant contact and coordination with him and with Flynn:

Al Ristuccia – Los Angeles office of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division

Al Lipkin –  Los Angeles office of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division

Richard Greenberg – U.S. Department of Justice, lead counsel in defending civil litigation brought by the church against DOJ, FBI and IRS

Tom Doughty – DOJ associate of Greenberg

Al Ciampini – Ontario Provincial Police

Armstrong provided Joey with phone numbers for each, including home numbers for some – and urged Joey to get in touch with his team members from these agencies.

Over time, Armstrong told Joey that the IRS CID was the most active government participant, and served as the main coordination point between agencies. He told Joey the CID agents had been briefed about Joey and the Loyalists, and were excited and supportive. The CID would grant them informant status, offer immunity for any crimes they might commit in assisting the government, and had even talked of providing safe houses for insiders. Armstrong then asked   Joey to get his contacts to go into church files and find evidence of illegalities, so that the IRS and DOJ would know where to search. Joey then brought into the mix someone whom Gerry had known from his Sea Org days.   Mike Rinder was a Commodore’s Messenger who had once worked directly with Ron.   He was then heading up the U.S. branch of the Office of Special Affairs.   Joey introduced Mike to Gerry.   Mike reported to Gerry that the files were relatively clean – there were no big smoking-gun documents being created after the 1977 FBI raids. At this point Armstrong’s macho bravado provided what would be our greatest defense against the indictments being issued against Hubbard, Miscavige, et al.   Armstrong suggested that the Loyalists create evidence of illegalities and plant them in church files for the IRS and DOJ to find in a raid, and use against church officials.

All of Armstrong’s representations about government conspiracies to take down church leadership and close down the operation were duly recorded.

David Miscavige was ecstatic with the results. He had me make a presentation of the evidence to a team of criminal lawyers, assembled to represent L. Ron Hubbard, Miscavige, Pat Broker and Lyman Spurlock (Hubbard’s accountant at ASI) to prevent IRS CID indictments and convictions – the potential charges we took most seriously. These attorneys – most from white-shoe Washington, D.C. law firms – were scaring the hell out of Miscavige. They were suggesting the IRS CID case was so serious that they recommended working a deal with the IRS for Miscavige and Spurlock to do time in halfway houses, so as to prevent indictment of Hubbard.   At the root of the IRS CID case was the evidence of millions of dollars of church monies being funneled to Hubbard through fraudulent means. And at the heart of the case would be the infamous MCCS taped conference in which church attorneys and staff acknowledged the fraudulent nature of the transfers.

My presentation horrified the team of criminal attorneys. They were hired because of their conservative, Reagan administration contacts. They did not want anything to do with such an aggressive investigative move.   They were concerned about the propriety of the means Ingram and I had utilized to obtain the evidence, and thought it would reflect badly on their own reputations. One attorney who represented Miscavige personally took me aside, though. He said he did not know how to use it at the moment, but that the evidence I had obtained would ultimately save the day for Hubbard, Miscavige and the church.   Gerald Feffer was the former Assistant Deputy Attorney General for taxation during the Carter administration. He was becoming a dean of white-collar criminal case dismissal prior to indictment. He would become a senior partner in the venerable D.C. law firm Williams & Connally.   Gerry told me to work with some of our more aggressive civil counsel to figure out a way to make the information public, and he would use it to make the IRS criminal case go away.

Another disclosure from the Griffith Park meetings cut to the quick with both Miscavige and me. Armstrong had told Joey that another Department of Justice player was in on the grand plan to close down Scientology: Bracket Deniston III. Armstrong said that Deniston was not investigating to find out who attempted to pass Hubbard’s check, and he was not investigating the evidence we had provided to him.   Instead Deniston was out to nail our investigator, Gene Ingram. Deniston had represented to Armstrong that he was setting traps to nail Ingram and the church for attempting to frame Flynn with purchased evidence.

This was particularly disconcerting, given events in the check investigation while all this Armstrong business was going down.   After I had been ordered out of Boston by Deniston, I had been lured back in by a man being prosecuted by his office. Larry Reservitz had been charged in a case very similar to the one involving LRH’s check. One of Reservitz’s connections who had access to Bank of New England records had used his access to fraudulently transfer money from random accounts to Reservitz. While under indictment, Reservitz reached out to me for the $ 10,000 reward we had previously advertised in the New York Times, claiming he had inside information on the Hubbard case and could identify the inside man at BNE. We had a number of phone calls and several meetings attempting to negotiate the deal. The jockeying was due to my suspicion that Reservitz was shaking us down, and I was searching for facts that would indicate he knew what he was talking about. Reservitz was continually attempting to characterize my questioning as an attempt to make the deal an exchange of cash for handing us Flynn.

In the meantime, Robert Mueller, Denniston’s superior and head of the Boston U.S. DOJ office fraud division, had flown to Italy to visit Ala Tamimi. He bought Tamimi’s retraction of his original statement in exchange for dropping a number of outstanding indictments the DOJ had pending against Tamimi for a variety of fraudulent schemes he had previously executed. I attempted to confront Mueller with what we had learned, but he refused to meet with me. Deniston outright denied that any visit or deal had been carried out by Mueller. In either event, Tamimi’s retraction caused Miscavige to turn up the heat to get me to turn up fresh evidence of Flynn’s involvement in the crime.

I was caught between a rock and a hard spot. Miscavige wanted Flynn at any cost.   Yet I felt that Reservitz might be attempting to frame me for attempting to frame Flynn.   I walked a tight rope between pursuing the investigation to Miscavige’s required degree of aggressiveness, and not stepping over the line with Reservitz. I even visited the Boston FBI agent in charge of the Hubbard check investigation, Jim Burleigh.   I pointedly accused Burleigh of having covertly made a deal with Reservitz to attempt to sting me.   Burleigh brought in another FBI agent to witness his categorical denial that the FBI or DOJ had made a deal with Reservitz: “We would never cooperate with the likes of Larry Reservitz.” Deniston likewise denied that Reservitz was working for the DOJ.   Still, I had my suspicions, particularly when we learned Deniston had become pals with Armstrong and Flynn.

With the sharks circling in and our waning confidence in our civil lawyers (having their heads handed to them in the Armstrong case) and criminal lawyers (advising Miscavige that he resign himself to doing time, at least in a halfway house), Miscavige ordered I find a new breed of lawyer. He wanted someone tough as nails, not some nervous Nellie.   He wanted someone who could figuratively kick Flynn’s butt in court, and scare the hell out of his DOJ and IRS backers. After an exhaustive nationwide search and many candidates eliminated, I thought we had finally found our man – in, of all places, Boston.

Earle Cooley was bigger than life.   He was a big, red-haired knock-off of L. Ron Hubbard himself. His gravelly voice was commanding. His wit was sharp. He was perennially listed in The Best Trial Lawyers in America.   He could spin a yarn that charmed judges and juries and took easy, great pleasure in viciously destroying witnesses on cross examination.   After I had interviewed Earle and reported to Miscavige, I arranged for us to watch Earle in action.   Miscavige and I flew out to Boston to see Earle perform in a high-profile art theft trial. We saw him decimate a seasoned criminal government informant so thoroughly on cross examination that the fellow, in a trademark Cooley expression, “didn’t know whether to shit or wind his watch.” Earle’s client – whom the government had dead to rights, and who was as unsympathetic a defendant as could be – was acquitted by the jury.   We had found the horse for the course.

Earle was like a breath of fresh air to Miscavige.   He took a similar black-and-white view of matters – we are right and good, the enemy is wrong and bad. Miscavige had long since lost his patience and his tolerance for our teams of civil lawyers and the civil-rights-experienced civil-rights-experienced opinion leaders among them. He referred to them as the “pointy heads,” short for “pointy-headed intellectuals.”   To him, our only problem was our counsels’ timid, second-guessing, defensive frames of mind.   And Earle reinforced that view.   Cooley attended a few civil litigation conferences with our other counsel. He ruffled their feathers by readily agreeing with Miscavige’s simplistic sum-up of what was wrong and the solution to it, aggression. The existing lawyers’ nervous objections and eye-rolling reactions to Earle’s sermons only reinforced Miscavige’s view.   “They are nothing but a pack of pussies,” he regularly groused to me; “what we need is for Earle to sink his teeth into those Flynn witnesses and that’ll be the end of this nonsense.”

Miscavige was nothing if not resilient. While never giving a hint that the overridingly important goal was the attainment of All Clear, by late 1984 it was quite evident to all involved that we were fighting an entirely different battle now. It was a fight for survival. We were desperately staving off the barbarians storming the walls of whatever compound L. Ron Hubbard might reside behind. It was evident too that Hubbard himself might have quit fighting – we no longer received any dispatches from him about the legal front. He was only sporadically sending ASI advices concerning his personal business, and to the church about Scientology matters. Miscavige had a team feverishly marketing Hubbard’s new science fiction books, the Mission Earth series. He was putting just as much pressure on church marketing folks to market Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, the broad public re-release of the 1950 book that had launched the entire movement.   All titles were making it back onto the New York Times bestseller lists.   So the incongruity created another level of cognitive dissonance. How could government officials across the continent be so feverishly pursuing a man who was so wildly popular with the public at large?   It would be years before I would find out that the sales were given a mighty boost by teams of Scientologists sent out to bookstores to buy them in bulk.   In the meantime, Miscavige was adept at keeping me and the troops motivated, inferring that we were buying Ron time to bail out the church’s disastrous public image and to complete his final researches at the highest levels of Scientology.

With Miscavige’s solving of the “why” behind our failures to attain an All Clear – i.e., the outside lawyers’ blatant counter-intention to Hubbard’s advices on using the enemies’ tactics against them, only more cleverly and more aggressively – our defeat-battered hopes were rehabilitated. Earle Cooley, the great Scientology hope, would soon be unleashed.

Notes

  1. Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (pp. 255-64).
  2. GA: I mentioned Rathbun’s Chapter 21, which he titles “The Juggernaut,” in a recent letter to Dan Sherman. http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/1082 The whole chapter is Rathbun’s spin on the Armstrong Op, or more specifically the 1984 Griffith Park videotaping part of the op. The operation, which was clearly concocted to use or misuse the videos for nefarious purposes after the videotaping, still continues. Rathbun’s book shows the op continues by continuing it. Even though he calls it a memoir, and recounts different events or incidents in his Scientology career that appear unrelated to the op, the whole book is his spin on it. The book is also a fantastic late act, one more contemptuous fair game nastiness in the same old sick op.

    Most importantly at this time, Rathbun’s spin, and his facts propelling it, are virtually identical to the spin and facts the Miscavige Scientologists give to their description of these events in their black propaganda publications, in their filings in their legal proceedings, in their submissions to the IRS, or to governments and people around the world. The difference is that Rathbun says Miscavige ran and runs it all, and Miscavige and his corporate underlings either do not say or say the same thing.

Mark Rathbun: on mounting the offensive against Flynn and FAMCO (May 28, 2013)

In early May, 1982 I was busily mounting the offensive against Flynn and his FAMCO scheme to bankrupt and destroy Scientology. Up to that point in time, several people had served as buffers between me and David Miscavige. All that changed one morning when Miscavige called me over to his offices at Hubbard’s newly-formed personal services corporation, Author Services Incorporated (ASI). Miscavige was the chairman of its board. As such he was recognized as the most senior and powerful person in the Scientology hierarchy. It was understood by then that all communication to or from L. Ron Hubbard went through Miscavige’s hands. I hopped into the small Japanese car that came with the job of Special Unit Litigation Director and sped over to see Miscavige. I brought Geoff Shervell with me. Geoff was my opposite number for the intelligence/ investigation function of the church. He was a short, portly fellow from New Zealand. He was handsome and friendly in looks and manner. Geoff had worked at the Guardian’s Office Worldwide in England for years. The Special Project had investigated him thoroughly and concluded that he had not engaged in any illegal acts while in the Guardian’s Office. His amiable demeanor and his training and understanding of intelligence had resulted in Miscavige tapping him to run all intelligence for the church. Up to that day Shervell had been reporting directly to Miscavige.

[…]

Miscavige seemed somberly unnerved, an attitude he rarely showed to anyone. He wore a dirty blonde mustache and glasses then. He stood about five feet, five inches, solidly built. He looked at me with piercing, intense blue eyes. “Marty, Geoff’s a nice guy, but he doesn’t have the confront for this job.” With that succinct statement, Miscavige put the intelligence function, and Geoff, under my supervision. “Does the GO have any PIs you can trust?” “I haven’t worked with any, sir.” “Well, you need to find a PI that has a pair of balls and won’t be compromised.” “Ok, I’ll get right on it.” “Look, somebody tried to pass a forged check on LRH’s account at Bank of New England. Some Arab guy named Aquil Abdul Amiar shows up at Middle East Bank in New York City with an LRH check with a forged signature. The check is from LRH’s account at BNE. BNE calls us and we tell them LRH never signed any check made out to any Arab, and no check for two million dollars to anybody . They stopped payment. We keep LRH’s check registers. There are no checks missing. We write all of LRH’s checks and submit them to him for signature. He signs them. We mail them and every one of them is accounted for. Norman can show you all that.” I looked at Norman. Norman gave a serious nod back. Miscavige continued, “We asked BNE for more particulars. BNE won’t give any. We have Sherman Lenske (LRH’s corporate and finance attorney ) call MEB and BNE and nobody will cooperate with him. BNE says they want to hear from LRH directly. We have all the proper powers of attorney on his accounts, but they won’t recognize them. They tell us the FBI is investigating. And the FBI won’t tell Sherman anything either. This whole thing smells . These fucking bankers are supposed to be working for LRH, and it looks like they are doing the work of Flynn and the FBI. You need to get a PI onto this and get to the bottom of it.” “Yes, sir.” “Okay, Norman , show him the documents we have, like the POA (power of attorney) and all. Marty, you report direct to me on this . Tell the finance people this is top priority if they give you any flack on the PIs.” “Yes, sir.” “Nobody in the GO or Special Unit or anywhere else needs to know about this, get it?” “Yes, sir.”  1

Notes

  1. Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (p. 216-218). Amazon Books. Kindle Edition.

Lowell Sun: Charges of scheme to bilk church of $2M take new twist (August 22, 1986)

Charges of scheme to bilk church of $2M take new twist1
by Raymond Howell

BOSTON — An international con artist has been charged in a scheme to bilk the controversial Church of Scientology out of $2 million, adding a new layer of intrigue to a Byzantine case that already involves a reputed organized crime figure, a disbarred lawyer and a financial swindler-turned-FBI-Informant.

Ala Fadili Al Tamimi, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), was arraigned Tuesday in U.S. District Court in connection with the scam against L. Ron Hubbard, the late and reclusive Scientology founder. He pleaded innocent and was detained without bail.

Last May, reputed organized crime figure George T. Kattar of Methuen and disbarred attorney Harvey Brower of Swampscott were indicted on charges of offering the church false information about the scam in exchange for a $100,000 fee. Both are free on bail.

Kattar and Brower were implicated by Larry Reservitz, a disbarred Brockton lawyer, high-rolling gambler and convicted financial swindler who participated in the second alleged fraud as an informant for the FBI. He is in the federal witness protection program.

Extradited from Germany

Tamimi, 34, was indicted in the $2 million scheme last November. But at the time, he was serving a prison sentence in Germany for a fraud in that country. He was extradited last Friday.

Also indicted in the case was Tamimi’s brother, Akil Abdul Amir Al Fadili Al Tamimi. But Akil Tamimi is believed to be in the UAE, which does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S., according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary Crossen.

A federal grand jury continues to investigate the $2 million scam. “Our belief is there are other conspirators and there is therefore an ongoing grand jury investigation,” Crossen said yesterday.

Harry L. Manion III, a church attorney and spokesman, said: “Church officials wonder why at this point Ala Tamimi’s co-conspirators have not also been indicted.

“The church will press on to expose this conspiracy wherever the web of the conspiracy may lead and to expose whoever may be caught up in it,” he said.

Ala Tamimi also faces trial on fraud charges stemming from his dealings as president of a company called First Boston Arabian Corporation in 1981.

Promised lavish loans

The company purported to find Arab shieks willing to make lavish loans at low interest rates to real estate developers and other businessmen in the U.S.

Tamimi required borrowers to pay him advance finder’s fees, but he had neither loan commitments nor funds, the government charges.

His clients included a German national named Wolfgang Jurgens, for whom Tamlmi purportedly arranged a $75 million loan.

Tamimi’s fee was $2.5 million and he allegedly demanded $870,000 in advance of the closing. Jurgens paid it in the form of 1.7 million German Deutschmarks, two Mercedes-Benzes, two BMWs, $12,000 in U.S. currency and an $8,000 Rolex watch.

Tamimi was indicted in the First Boston Arabian case in March 1983. But in June of that year, he jumped bail.

Shortly afterward, he was arrested for fraud in Sicily, according to an FBI affidavit and Tamimi’s attorney, John C. McBride of Boston.

Tamimi spent two and a half years in an Italian jail. Upon his release, he was transferred to Germany, where he was wanted for fraud and where he ended up serving nine months in jail, according to McBride.

In March 1984, while he was incarcerated abroad, Tamimi was secretly indicted for perjury in connection with statements he made in court before he jumped bail in the first Boston Arabian case.

Court documents indicate that during bail hearings in that case, Tamimi claimed to have two passports — one from Jordan and another from the U.S. Both were eventually turned over to authorities.

But it was later learned that he possessed two other U.S. passports and used one of them in Italy, according to an FBI affidavit.

Tamimi cannot be tried on the perjury indictment, however, because the extradition agreement with Germany does not include that charge, said Crossen.

The German government was “disinclined to extradite hint based on the perjury indictment,” the prosecutor said.

It was also during his incarceration abroad that Tamimi was secretly indicted in the Scientology scheme.

The two-count indictment, returned Nov. 22, 1985, accuses Tamimi and his brother of conspiracy and interstate transportation of conterfeit checks.

It alleges that in May 1982, they obtained a $2 million forged check drawn on an account of Hubbard and a $500,000 counterfeit check drawn on an account of a company called Indian River Foods Inc. Both accounts were at the Bank of New England in Boston.

The indictment further alleges that in June 1982, they transported the checks from Massachusetts to New York and attempted to deposit them in the Middle East Bank Ltd., where Akil Tamimi had opened an account under the alias of Aquii Abdulamiar.

Suspecting that something was wrong, bank officials raised questions about the check and did not cash it.

Attorney McBride said yesterday: “We’re going the whole route. The government can’t prove its case.”

Referring to the fact that the check was never cashed, he said: “The church was never defrauded out of any money. Mr. Hubbard never lost any money.”

Although Tamimi had not been formally charged in the Hubbard check case until Tuesday, he has been linked to it as far back as 1984.

At that time, a private investigator hired by the church, Eugene Ingram, visited Tamimi in jail in Italy and brought back an affidavit in which Tamimi implicated himself and Boxford attorney Michael Flynn. The affidavit was turned over to the FBI and has been cited in civil litigation involving the church.

Flynn, who has been battling the church for years in numerous civil suits, has vigorously denied any involvement in the scam, denied knowing Tamimi and accused Scientology officials or trying to smear him.

Flynn was out of town and unavailable for comment yesterday, but an associate, Mike Tabb, said Tamimi has since sent telegrams to Flynn stating that the portion of the affidavit about Flynn is untrue.

Tabb also claimed that Ingram has been investigated by a grand jury for possibly having “procurred perjury” from Tamimi.

“From our investigation, it appears that Mr. Tamimi was involved in the Hubbard check, but Mike Flynn had no involvement in that,” Tabb added. “…The government has never indicated that Michael Flynn is a target of a grand jury investigation or that he is seriously considered a suspect.”

McBride, when asked about his client’s affidavit, said Tamimi has since disavowed it. He also claimed that the Justice Department has “publicly” rejected the “credibility” of the affidavit.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Crossen said the government has not made any public declarations about the credibility of the affidavit. But he refused to comment further on it.

The names of Flynn and Tamimi have begun to surface in court documents filed in the case of Kattar and Brower, who allegedly schemed to bilk the church in 1984.

In two handwriting exemplars filed by Kattar’s attorney, Michael Avery, during discovery proceedings, Kattar mentions Flynn and Tamimi as having been involved in the original check scheme.

The handwriting exemplars were requested by a grand jury in January 1988, along with photographs and fingerprints of Kattar, Avery said in an affidavit. Presumably, they were requested so they could be compared to identically worded notes already in the grand jury’s possession.

Noting that Kattar and Brower have been accused of fabricating a story about the $2 million scam, Tabb claimed the notes represented “the false story that Kattar told.”

Tabb also pointed to an FBI affidavit which quotes certain conversations involving Kattar and Brower. In the narrative, the affidavit says: “In essence, they decided to falsely accuse several persons of complicity in the check offense, including a Boston lawyer (Michael Flynn).”

Neither Assistant U.S. Attorney Crossen nor Avery, Kattar’s attorney, would comment on the handwriting exemplars.

Notes

The Boston Phoenix: What’s the scam? (June 3, 1986)

What’s the scam?1

by Jim Schuh

This article originally appeared in the June 3, 1986 issue of the Boston Phoenix

Back on the morning of June 7, 1982, a man walked into the New York branch of the Middle East Bank on the 25th floor of a Madison Avenue office building and tried to deposit a $2 million check. The man, a native of the United Arab Emirates, left without completing the transaction.

The check, written on an E.F. Hutton money-market account handled by the Bank of New England, was a forgery. Although attempted bank fraud of that ilk is not particularly unusual, this particular incident triggered a complex, bizarre and, at times, vicious battle that shows no sign of abating nearly four years later.

The forged check had been written on the account of L. Ron Hubbard, reclusive founder of the Church of Scientology, who died last January. No one has ever been charged publicly with that attempted fraud, which Scientologists have come to regard as the most brazen of assaults on their religion and church. Some Scientologists believe that Boston lawyer Michael J. Flynn — who has made something of a career out of suing the Church of Scientology — was behind the scam.

Flynn vehemently denies any involvement with the bogus Hubbard check. And indeed, the accusation has always seemed preposterous. For even if the Hubbard check had been successfully deposited, it is far more likely that the Bank of New England (or, to be more precise, the bank’s insurance company), and not L. Ron Hubbard, would have lost the money.

To gather evidence in the case, Scientologists offered a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the conviction of those who had tried to pass the bogus Hubbard check. And that reward offer produced results, though not necessarily what the Scientologists wanted. Among those who got portions of the reward were a con artist known as the Prince of Fraud, another man reputed to be an organized-crime figure, and a third character, who has since admitted involvement in the check scam — Larry Joseph Reservitz.

Larry Reservitz is a former lawyer who was disbarred for bilking insurance companies on bogus car accidents and for cheating a client out of a fee. He then moved on to other vocations: forger, cardshark, Las Vegas gambler, friend to politicians and professional athletes, black-marketer, international fugitive, and, in his latest incarnation, a protected government witness.

Reservitz is at the fulcrum of a complex tale of intrigue that has only begun to unfold in federal court. Much remains unknown, though it is clear that Scientologists, the FBI, reputed organized-crime figures, and private investigators have all engaged in some labyrinthine scheming. But in many ways it is unclear who is the victim and who is the culprit; who is the con man and who is the conned; who is investigating whom, for what crimes, and — finally — why.

The Scientologists have claimed in court documents that one man involved in the scheme was Ala Fadili Al Tamimi, a native of the United Arab Emirates, who blazed an unparalleled trail of fraud across Massachusetts before jumping bail, according to charges still pending against him. Scientologists say that they gave him $25,000 for writing an affidavit — a move which is technically legal, if risky — in which he claimed he had helped mastermind the bogus check scheme along with Flynn. When the Boston Globe, in July 1984, wrote about those allegations, Larry Reservitz got a laugh at the Scientologists’ pursuit of Flynn, who, Reservitz said, had nothing to do with the check. Michael Flynn didn’t laugh. He sued the Globe for libel, a case that is still pending.

(A federal grand jury, however, does not doubt that Tamimi had some involvement with the bogus Hubbard check. Indeed, court records in Germany, where he is being held, indicate that Tamimi was secretly indicted in Boston last November for attempting, along with his brother, to pass two bogus checks at the Madison Avenue Middle East Bank between April and June of 1982. The indictment remains sealed, apparently pending Tamimi’s extradition to this country on old fraud charges unrelated to this case. Tamimi recently was extradited from a prison in Italy to a prison in Germany, as he makes the rounds of atonement for a career of fraud.)

The latest chapter in the bogus-check case was made public last week: reputed organized-crime figure George T. Kattar, 67, of Methuen, and defrocked lawyer Harvey Brower, 49, of Swampscott, were indicted last week on fraud and extortion charges. The grand jury claims that Brower and Kattar offered to provide information to Scientologists about the bogus Hubbard check for $100,000. Brower and Kattar allegedly bilked the Scientologists out of an initial down payment of $33,333, using “threatened force, violence and fear.” The indictment says Brower and Kattar gave Scientologists inaccurate information about the check, but the indictment doesn’t detail the nature of that information.

Scientologists say that they were threatened in their dealings with Kattar and Brower. And Earle C. Cooley, a lawyer for the Scientologists, says that they were bilked in that they did not receive the documentation and witnesses they had been promised. But Cooley says he remains unconvinced that the information Scientologists did receive — which implicated Flynn — was inaccurate. “The church is satisfied that there is a complex breadth of obstruction and conspiracy involved in this entire affair,” says Boston lawyer Harry L. Manion III, who, along with Cooley, represents the church. “This indictment represents the outer skin if a very strong-smelling onion. The church will continue to peel the onion until its core is fully exposed.”

The Scientologists have become increasingly bitter over what they perceive as the federal government’s failure to aggressively investigate the bogus Hubbard check and the Kattar-Brower matter. They have taken out advertisements in newspapers offering a $75,000 reward for information about “complicity and/or obstruction of justice” by four federal prosecutors, three FBI agents, and two private lawyers. The indictment against Kattar and Brower was brought in part because a Scientologist, Geoffrey Shervell, secretly tape-recorded – at the behest of the FBI – his negotiations for their information, according to those familiar with the case. But part of the government’s case will be to prove that the information that Brower and Kattar allegedly supplied was phony. And given that Larry Reservitz claims, on tapes he made for the government, that he was involved in the check scheme, it seems likely he will take the witness stand for the prosecution to repeat that assertion, thereby undermining any contention Kattar and Brower might make that Flynn did indeed mastermind the Hubbard check.

Reservitz secretly tape-recorded his conversations with Kattar, a federal prosecutor has said in court during another case in which Reservitz is a government witness. It is unclear whether those conversations pertain to the Hubbard-check case or to yet another matter, for which the prosecutor said Kattar was under investigation — allegedly plotting to cash another bogus Bank of England check, this one from a Florida millionaire, for $12 million.

(Where the Kattar case may lead boggles the mind. The Wall Street Journal reported last Tuesday that ultra-conservative politician Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. approved a $100,000 payoff to Kattar in 1980 to get LaRouche votes in the 1980 Democratic presidential primary. Kattar has reportedly confirmed helping LaRouche but has denied receiving the money. Brower, Kattar’s purported accomplice, was once a talented defense lawyer. He was disbarred for counseling a client to jump bail. Later, Brower, a drummer, formed a musical group called Harvey and the Bail Jumpers.)

Indeed, there are many Reservitz tapes. He spent nearly five months in late 1984 gathering evidence for the government, as part of his plea bargain, tape recording his telephone calls and sticking a tape recorder down his boot for documenting face-to-face meetings, according to court testimony. Reservitz and an odd assortment of characters star in more than 100 separate tapes, according to an FBI agent.

Many of those tapes have yet to become public, and some perhaps never will. Among them, according to those familiar with the case, is a tape Reservitz made for the FBI when he met in a law office with two Scientologists investigating the phony check written on the Hubbard account. During the session Reservitz reportedly received $12,500 in reward money from the Scientologists for information he provided them. Some people familiar with the case believe that Reservitz was sent into that meeting to gather evidence against Scientologists for obstruction-of-justice charges in their attempt to implicate Flynn in the bogus Hubbard check.

A witting attempt to provide fraudulent evidence to convince federal prosecutors to indict an innocent man – if that’s what occurred – would clearly be an obstruction of justice. “I do not believe anybody from the church will be indicted because that would be an obscenity,” says Cooley. “The church has pursued this investigation in good faith.”

International intrigue presumably is foreign to the Scientologists. But for Larry Reservitz, it is the habit of a lifetime.

The son of a lawyer, Reservitz grew up in Brockton and went to a private school in New Hampshire, graduating in 1959. He was an honor-roll student; he worked on the school newspaper and his class yearbook. Reservitz was athletic; he was a member of the varsity football and track teams and the junior-varsity basketball team. He was a proctor and a member of the dramatics club. His quote in the year book was an enigmatic “Eeee-yes.”
Reservitz went on to Tufts, where he majored in economics. During a recent appearance as a prosecution witness in a federal fraud case, Reservitz said he had departed Tufts because of “very poor grades.”

According to his own testimony, Reservitz switched to Suffolk University. For the six summers of his college career, he worked in his father’s law practice. Reservitz recently explained the work that he had done for his father: “Basically carry a briefcase, follow him around, and try to learn some things.”

While in college, Reservitz was heavily involved in high-stakes card games, according to a former classmate. Reservitz also boasted about his friendships with professional athletes, including players on the Red Sox and the Celtics. In 1967, Reservitz passed the bar and joined his father’s law firm, pursuing his career with, as one acquaintance recalls, “vim and vigor.”

But within a year Reservitz’s father died of a heart attack. And Larry – with vim and vigor, if not judiciousness – embarked on a career in crime. He started concocting phony car crashes and bilking insurance companies for damages, according to his own testimony. The motivation, Reservitz acknowledges, was “probably greed.”

“It was part of a large deal,” Reservitz testified. “They were set up accidents. It wasn’t that there was a legitimate client. The majority of these accidents were phony accidents, they were staged …Where there was a legitimate accident, if there were two people in the car, for example, by the time the case got ready for settlement it would have been four people in the car.”

Among Reservitz’s partners in crime was a man named Elias Kenaan of Braintree. Kenaan’s wife, Eileen, is the daughter of Ilario “Larry Baione” Zannino, now the reputed head of the Boston Mafia. Reservitz testified that he had probably filed more than 20 phony insurance claims during an 18-month period. The scheme had come to an abrupt halt when Reservitz read in a newspaper that a grand jury in Plymouth had been convened to indict an unnamed lawyer for filing false claims.

In early 1970, Reservitz, his wife, and their baby fled to Europe. Shortly before he left, he received a $650 fee to represent a Stoughton man charged with selling LSD to a state policeman. Reservitz never represented the man but did not return the fee. Reservitz said he’d hoped the move to Europe would bolster his faltering marriage. After landing in Geneva, Reservitz and his family moved to the Spanish island of Palma de Mallorca, about 120 miles off Barcelona. He invested in a nightclub and ran a small clothing store. Reservitz and his wife had another child. But one day Reservitz returned home to find his family had vanished.

A few months later, more trouble struck. A member of the Spanish secret police, whom Reservitz had befriended, told him that he was about to be arrested and extradited. While he was in Spain, Reservitz had been indicted in Plymouth County on more than a dozen charges of bilking from insurance companies, in bogus claims that exceeded $50,000.

Reservitz quickly sold off his interests in the clothing store and the nightclub at a loss and flew to Marseilles and then to Genoa. From there, he took a boat to Israel –  “because I’d never been there before and I wanted to see it.” He settled in a suburb of Haifa for several months, living off his savings and selling money on the black market.

During his travels, Reservitz met his future second wife, a Scottish woman named Antoinette. When they tired of life in Israel – hampered by their inability to speak Hebrew and Reservitz’s failure to find work – they moved briefly to Edinburgh, where Antoinette’s parents lived. Reservitz also spent time in London, frequently gambling in high stakes games at a club called the White House, a college classmate told the Phoenix. Scotland Yard became interested in him in part because his passport showed him frequently traveling between Rome and Britain. British police checked with investigators in Italy, who informed them that Reservitz was traveling with Antoinette, and that he was expected to visit her family in Edinburgh for the holidays.

Meanwhile, Scotland Yard learned that Reservitz was wanted back in the States for the insurance fraud. On New Year’s Eve, 1971, Reservitz was arrested at the home of Antoinette’s family. He was transferred to Pentonville prison in North London, a grim, forbidding structure built in the 1700’s. Reservitz was to stay there for the next four months.

He was held in solitary confinement in an eight-foot-by-five-foot cell, with one small overhead light, a window about one square foot, and a solid-steel door with a peephole for guards to observe prisoners. There was no sink or toilet, just a plastic pail that was emptied once a day. He was released from the cell for a half-hour every day. Showers were allowed on Sundays. The mattress was straw, and Reservitz had one worn blanket. He had no radio. A two-month-long power outage meant that Reservitz sat in darkness for half his stay. “That is a very, very old prison,” Reservitz testified. “It’s exceptionally unpleasant.” While he was incarcerated, he was notified that his first wife had filed for divorce.

A Massachusetts assistant attorney general eventually went to London and obtained Reservitz’s extradition. Reservitz was released on bail after arriving in Brockton. While awaiting trial, Reservitz and Antoinette moved to an apartment in Brookline and started a women’s-clothing business – with Reservitz’s mother providing some of the seed capital. After a year out on bail, Reservitz pleaded guilty to two larceny charges and was sentenced to 18 months in the Plymouth County jail.

Despite his legal problems, Reservitz apparently remained quite solvent. He and Antoinette bought a large brick house in Brookline for $72,000, where he installed a pool. While Reservitz was in jail, Antoinette ran the clothing business. When he was released in 1974, he appears to have gone straight – for awhile. He merged the dress business into a retail clothing firm, which operated a store called Feathers, on Boylston Street in Back Bay. Reservitz opened branches in Quincy, Brookline, Newton, and in several Gilchrist department stores. But the Gilchrist chain went into bankruptcy, taking the Feathers chain with it, Reservitz testified. “They forced me into bankruptcy because I had so many goods left over that weren’t sold. There was nothing I could do. I owed money to so many people. And actually before we went into bankruptcy the business was insolvent.” When Feathers folded in November 1976, it went down hard – owing taxes to the federal government and money to 99 creditors and 10 employees.

Without Feathers, Reservitz returned to an old skill to pay the bills: he gambled, playing cards and placing bets on sports events. In the late 1970s federal investigators charged Reservitz with possession of counterfeit money, but a magistrate dropped the charges because federal agents were unable to prove Reservitz knew the money was bogus.

Around 1980 Reservitz appears to have developed a source of information inside the Bank of New England. Reservitz says he then became involved in six or seven major frauds using bogus checks, some of which were, at least initially, quite successful. But two of those schemes eventually went sour and contributed mightily to the downfall of Larry Reservitz.

Reservitz testified he had worked with a man named Irwin Swartz to carry out those scams. Using fraudulent paperwork, they had arranged for a financial investment concern to transmit $2 million to the account of a Chicago jeweler in 1980. After the money transfer had occurred, Swartz, purporting to represent the financial concern, picked up $2 million worth of jewels for the jeweler. It was a scheme that netted Reservitz more than $100,000. But three weeks later, Swartz was arrested in Montreal while making a pick-up at a coin shop in a similar scam. Swartz was convicted of fraud and sentenced to a decade in prison. Despite pressure from investigators, Swartz initially refused to name Reservitz as the mastermind of the scams, because Reservitz was paying him to remain silent. But Swartz eventually cut a deal, and Reservitz was indicted on a variety of charges, including wire fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.

At about the same time, Reservitz erred again. He attempted to buy a truckload of marijuana form undercover agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration. That cost him a three-year sentence.

Swartz was partly through his testimony in the fraud case when Reservitz cut his own deal. He pleaded guilty on July 13, 1984, to five charges and secretly agreed to cooperate in criminal investigations for the federal government. Reservitz immediately informed investigators of another scheme that he was already helping orchestrate: an attempt to pass a bogus $12 million check from an account at the Bank of New England. The participants, Reservitz said, were Jack W. McNatt, 39, of Boxford, a departmental-systems manager in the corporate-agency department at the bank, and Arcangelo “Bochie” DiFronzo, 49, a Somerville man who was then co-owner of New England Mail Services Group. They were convicted this April following a trial at which Reservitz and his tapes were the star witnesses.

While Reservitz was gathering evidence for his new friends at the FBI, he had supported himself by gambling, he testified. He bet on sporting events, and he played gin with the fellows over at the swank Cavendish Club, in Brookline, where his gregarious personality made him a favorite.

It was while Reservitz was wearing a hidden tape recorder for the McNatt-DiFronzo investigation that he revealed his involvement in the Hubbard-check scheme. According to transcripts, Reservitz, sipping black Sanka in a Cambridge restaurant, chuckled as he told DiFronzo that Scientologists thought Flynn was behind the check scam. “They think that I’m part of a conspiracy to defraud the church, that I’m tied up with Michael Flynn [and other Flynn associates] . . . I’ve never heard of these people. I wouldn’t know these people if they stood up in front of me.”

And in another meeting that he tape-recorded with DiFronzo, Reservitz explained that the Hubbard-check scheme had failed because Hubbard himself had written a check to pay taxes at about the same time, thus drawing down his balance. Recalled Reservitz, “Do you understand that L. Ron Hubbard wrote out a tax check, the guy whose check it was happened to write out a tax check at the same time and take money out of the fuckin’ account?” Scientologists say that though Hubbard had recently paid his taxes when the bogus check was presented in New York, there was enough money in the account to cover the check.

It was within hours of completing his street work for the McNatt-DiFronzo case that FBI agents whisked Reservitz off to prison on December 6, 1984. The two-year sentence he eventually received on the check frauds was eventually consolidated with that from the marijuana case, and both were cut to 18 months. Reservitz served 13 months in prison and then returned to the streets.

Reservitz, his wife, and two children were relocated at government expense and given a new identity through the witness-protection program. There is an unconfirmed report that he was in a crowd at a recent Las Vegas fight featuring another Brockton man and Reservitz acquaintance, middle-weight champion Marvelous Marvin Hagler.

As FBI agent Dennis Carney testified at the recent McNatt-DiFronzo trial, the saga of 44-year-old Larry Reservitz may be far from over. “He’s free to engage in other scams right now,” Carney said.

Notes

  1. Retrieved on September 24, 2014 from http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/90451-Whats-the-scam/?page=1#TOPCONTENT. This document in PDF format.

Declaration of Gerald Armstrong (April 9, 1986)

I, GERALD ARMSTRONG, hereby declare as follows:

1. I have reviewed the document copies produced by plaintiff and cross-defendant Church of Scientology of California, hereinafter referred to as the “organization,” pursuant to this Court’s orders of July 2, 1985, September 9, 1985 and December 9, 1985. The documents were not designated as to which discovery requests they were being produced under. They were received in a stack of 139 pages which I have numbered in the same order as received. They consist of 57 pages of documents from my Guardian’s Office Intelligence or B-1 files and 82 pages of “success” stories taken from my preclear (or auditing or processing) files.

2. I have personal knowledge that the organization has in its possession or control the following documents which it has not produced in the instant case but did produce for my viewing, but not for release to me, in March 1985, in the case of Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, Mission of Davis, et al, Case No. A 7704-05184, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, for the County of Multnomah:

1. 14 page “time track”

2. O/W write up 4/4/72

3. $3.00 fine from Boats I/C 10/20/72

4. $250.00 promissory note 11/2/72

-1-

5. 4 page personnel survey 1/5/73

6. Orders of the Day (OOD’s) – re Non-Existence assignment 8/21/73

7. Flag Conditions Order (FCO) 2513 Committee of Evidence re visas 8/21/73

8. OOD’s re missed muster 8/25/73

9. Knowledge report from Deck Engineer 9/16/73

10. Doubt formula 10/10/73

11. Findings – Court of Ethics – FCO 2639-1 11/14/73

12. Treason Formula 11/20/73

13. Liability Formula 6/12/74

14. Flag Personnel Order (FPO) 515 Temporary Port Captain 7/7/74

15. Enemy Formula 7/13/74

16. Liability Formula 7/15/74

17. FCO 2507 Delayed Mission 8/14/73

18. FCO 2782 LRH Cramming Order 1/4/74

19. FCO 2848 Shore Ethics 1/30/74

20. FCO 2892 LRH Order 2/12/74

21. FPO 950 Warrant Officer 2/23/74

22. FPO 969 Port Captain In-Training 2/25/74

23. FPO 2926 Port Ethics 3/4/74

24. OOD’s absent study – 3/24/74

25. FCO 2972 PR Study 3/31/74

26. FCO 2972 cancelled 4/1/74

27. FCO 3024 Port Captain’s Office 5/18/74

28. Confusion Formula 7/13/74

29. Treason Formula 7/13/74

-2-

30. Liability Formula 7/15/74

31. No report report 9/26/74

32. FCO 3562 Exec Study 2/3/75

33. Liability assignment (vital info) 3/26/75

34. FCO 3793 Org Program No. 1 4/21/75

35. FCO 3813 Stale Justice 5/2/75

36. FCO 3939 Clearing stations 6/7/75

37. Note from Mary Sue Hubbard re parents 7/11/75

38. Note Ron Anderson to Mary Sue Hubbard 7/13/75

39. 11 pages of data for CSW to join Guardian’s Office (GO) 9/12/75

40. Dispatch to GO BRII Dir. re Mother 9/16/75

41. Non-disclosure bond 9/22/75

42. Letter to Fosdick from Andrew Armstrong 10/6/75

43. Letter to Fosdick from P.J. Armstrong 10/75

44. 12 page Compliance report re Mother 11/19/75

45. Bond re UCE 12-75

46. FCO 4517 RPF Assignment 7/1/76

47. 12 page Basic auditing checksheet 7/28/76

48. 15 page metering course checksheet 7/30/76

49. Declaration re RPF 7/28/76

50. $750.00 promissory note 7/28/76

51. 3 page Rudiments Course checksheet 8/20/76

52. Executive Directive 81 Area Estates (ED AE) RPF Bosun 10/10/76

53. Ethics Order (EO) 24 AE Additional RPF duty 10/17/76

54. PRF Personnel Order – supply officer 8/28/76

-3-

55. Undated RPF Treason formula

56. 3 page First Dynamic Danger Formula 12/7/76

57. Dispatch re Curacao Consulate 2/2/77

58. 3 page Liability Formula 2/12/77

59. Dispatch re Moosejaw, Saskatchewan arrest 3/8/77

60. Dispatch re Chilliwock, B.C. arrest 3/8/77

61. Security

62. FCO 4901 Comm Ev. 8/22/77

63. FCO 4906 Findings and Recommendations 8/30/77

64. Note – Parents caused trouble

65. PTS check 9/2/77

66. Larry Price recommendation 11/30/77

67. Attestation stats in normal in PRF 11/30/77

68. David Mayo Commendation 11/30/77

69. Senior C/S report 11/30/77

70. 3 page Letter Tonja Burden to L. Ron Hubbard 12/77

71. 2 page report from Tonja Burden on her father 12/77

72. 5 page report from Terri Armstrong re Tonja Burden 12/15/77

73. Order from Assistant Guardian SU re G. Armstrong 12/20/77

74. Answer from Hubbard re petition from G. Armstrong 3/28/78

75. Report from Clarisse Barnett re G. Armstong 3/28/78

76. 5 page summary of Jamaica debrief 4/13/78

77. Treason Formula 9/27/78

78. Enemy Formula 9/27/78

79. Liability Formula 9/27/78

-4-

80. RPF Hat checksheet 9/29/78

81. RPF Basic Hat checksheet 10/1/78

82. Solo Auditor checksheets 10/1/78

83. Conditions Order 384 WHQ RPF 12/19/78

84. Doubt Formula 12/22/78

85. Conditions Order 288-3 re Posting 4/3/79

86. R Renovations statistics 12/8/79

87. Request chit withdrawal 12/9/79

88. Refusal to withdraw chit 12/9/79

89. Petition to Hubbard 1/8/80

90. CSW from Laurel Sullivan re G. Armstrong 1/18/80

91. Non-existence (NE) formula 2/3/80

92. NE Formula to Mary Sue Hubbard 2/5/80

93. Hubbard’s answer to NE 2/8/80

94. 7 pages of OCA, Leadership, IQ, aptitude test results 2/9/80

95. Mary Sue Hubbard answer to NE 2/11/80

96. 5 page GO interview re Tonja Burden 3/25/80

97. 2 pages re biography project 5/80

98. Dispatch to Leo Johnson re Martin Leslie 9/2/80

99. 2 page report re off-policy actions in the RPF 10/16/80

100. 6 page CSC “covenant” 1/20/81

101. GO interview re UCE 6/2/81

102. 11 page report to Sue re biographical sketches 6/18/81

103. 2 page letter from Jocelyn Armstrong to Holli Carlson re parents 7/6/81

-5-

104. 5 page report from Jocelyn re parents 7/6/81

105. Report from Gary Reisdorf re G. Armstrong 8/14/81

106. Report from HCO Chief Product Development Org International (PDOI) re G. Armstrong 8/17/81

107. 16 page critique of Research & Discovery biography 9/1/81

108. 4 page report to Sue Anderson re pack 10/18/81

109. 4 page biography debug project 10/30/81

110. 2 page report re Nibs 11/9/81

111. Dispatch from Lois to Donna re biography 11/9/81

112. 4 page report to Donna re biography 11/10/81

113. 17 page report Donna to Lois including G. Armstrong’s report 11/14/81

114. Report from Don Johnson re G. Armstrong 12/13/81

115. Report Don Jonson to Terri Gamboa re G. Armstrong 12/14/81

116. Report from Vaughan Young re G. & J. Armstrong 12/15/81

117. 6 page report from V. Young re G. & J. Armstrong 12/15/81

118. Report from Marcus Swanson re G. & J. Armstrong 12/21/81

119. Dispatch to Don Johnson re G. Armsrtrong 12/30/81

120. Dispatch Don Johnson to Barbara DeCelle 1/2/82

121. Report Don Johnson to Ciruss Slevin 1/2/82

122. Report Barbara DeCelle to Don Johnson 1/2/82

123. Report V. Young to B. DeCelle

124. Report from Jeannine Boyd re G. Armstrong 1/12/82

-6-

125. 4 page report from V. Young on meeting with G. Armstrong 1/17/82

126. Same 4 page report to the case supervisor (C/S) 1/17/82

127. Report from Brad Ballentine re Brown family 1/20/82

128. 4 page report to Roberto of interviews re D. Brown 1/20/82

129. 3 page letter from D. Brown to H. Carlson 1/20/82

130. 2 page report from Peeter Alvet of interview of Marilyn Brewer 1/21/82

131. 2 page report from Brad Ballentine of interview of Laurel Sillivan 2/12/82

132. Report from V. Young on what G. Armstrong knows 2/12/82

133. Report from DGIUS (Donna) to DG US re G. Armstrong 2/12/82

134. “Summary” re G. Armstrong

135. Part of “analysis” (of 1982)

136. “Gerry Armstrong Project” 2/17/82

137. Report from H. Carlson to Senior C/S 2/20/82

138. Dispatch from Snr. C/S to H. Carlson 2/21/82

139. Report from B. Ballentine to Roberto re G. Armstrong’s files 2/22/82

140. Telex to SU from AGI GLA 2/23/82

141. B. Ballentine daily report (DR) re G. Armstrong 2/24/82

142. 4 page report from Branch I Director Flag GO Intelligence re H. Carlson and G. Armstrong 2/25/82

-7-

143. 9 page delcaration of Terri Gamboa re Tonja Burden 2/25/82

144. AGI GLA DR re G. Armstrong 2/26/82

145. B. Ballentine interview of B. DeCelle 3/1/82

146. DR re G. Armstrong

147. DR re G. Armstrong (folders) 3/4/82

148. DR re G. Armstrong 3/5/82

149. DR re G. Armstrong 3/8/82

150. Physical description of G. Armstrong

151. DR re G. Armstrong 3/10/82

152. DR re G. Armstrong surveillance

153. DR re G. Armstrong stakeout 3/11/82

154. DR re G. Armstrong stakeout 3/12/82

155. DR re G. Armstrong stakeout 3/15/82

156. DR Guardian Activities Scientologist (GAS) called B. Ballentine 3/16/82

157. DR re G. Armstrong 3/17/82

158. DR re G. Armstrong and Alan Walter 3/18/82

159. DR re G. Armstrong to Dick Sullivan 4/1/82

160. Letter from Dick Sullivan to G. Armstrong 4/12/82

161. 4 pages re Burden deposition in Paulette Cooper case 4/82

162. HCO Policy Letter “Field Auditor Fees” 4/29/82

163. 4 page declaration by T. Gamboa 5/21/82

164. 3 page report re meeting with Kohlweck 5/26/82

165. 2 page “confidential” report re Nibs 6/1/82

166. Note G. Armstrong C/O John Compton

167. Report from AGI GLA re “Flynn Forum” 5/31/82

-8-

168. Report from DGI US re G. Armstrong being served 6/2/82

169. Description of G. Armstrong and address

170. 2 page report from B. Ballentine re “disaffecteds” 6/12/82

171. 3 page comparison of G. Armstrong Burden affidavits

172. 3 page analysis of G. Armstrong Burden affidavit of 6/25/82

173. 12 pages copy of article from “Look” Dec. 1950

174. 2 pages re G. Armstrong’s accusations against “Church”

175. Subpoena for Omar Garrison 8/31/82

176. 13 page affidavit from Ford Schwartz

177. 3 page J. Armstrong time track 8/16/82

178. 8 pages notes from G. Armstrong deposition

179. 4 page GO report re Walt Logan, etc. 8/29/82

180. Page 2 of report from Kathy, DG PR US

181. “Clearwater Sun” article re Nibs Hubbard 11/14/82

182. CIC X-file list re M. Parsons

183. 11 page report from Theresa Parsons 12/27/82

184. 2 page report from V. Young re “Time” and G. Armstrong 1/14/83

185. 12 pages G. Armstrong deposition excerpts

186. 3 pages “New York Times” article 1/6/83

187. “Time” article 1/31/83

188. 5 page “debrief” of T. Gamboa re G. Armstrong 3/12/84

189. 10 page G. Armstrong declaration for FBI 9/6/84

-9-

190. “St Petersburg Times” article 4/20/84

3. What the organization produced as my B-1 file in the Christofferson case was in fact only a portion of the actual file. On April 4, 1985, I testified about what items I could determine with certainty were missing from what was produced. My testimony and statements of counsel on that date are attached hereto as Exhibit A.1 At page 4069, defense attorney, Harry Manion, described the compilation of the B-1 time track:

“MR. MANION: All the documents referenced in the time track: They are collected throughout the organization in Ethics files, in Knowledge Reports, in Flag Orders. The man was in the organization, according to his own testimony, for eleven years. Hundreds and hundreds of documents and other sources, talking to people, were used to compile the time track.

At page 4070, the Court ordered the production of all documents omitted from my B-1 files, including all documents up to date; i.e., April 4, 1985, and attorneys for defendant organization (the same organization as plaintiff and cross-defendant in the instant case) agreed to produce all such documents.

These documents, however, were never produced. They include up to April 1985 at least the following:

1. The documents from which the entries on the 14 page “time track” were excerpted or on which the entries were based.

-10-

2. The documents from my “ethics” and “personnel” files.

3. The records and documents concerning my incarceration in the US GO Intelligence Bureau in Fifield Manor in June 1976.

4. The interview of me done by GO Intelligence official, Brian Roubinek, in July/August 1976 in Clearwater, Florida.

5. The Compliance reports or progress reports to each of the targets of the “Gerry Armstrong Project” of February 17, 1982, attached hereto as Exhibit B.2

6. The statements, notes, names, dates, incidents, connections, data or other information culled from my pc (or preclear, or auditing, or processing) files.

7. The documents, materials or information on which the report of September 30, 1982 re Dead Agenting Gerry Armstrong is based.

8. The orders or correspondence to the private investigators who surveilled my wife, Jocelyn, and me beginning in May 1982, and who assaulted me, ran into me, attempted to involve Jocelyn and me in freeway accidents, and who followed and harassed us through September 1982. Also the daily PI reports from each day of this period.

9. The orders, reports, materials, briefings, and documents concerning a visit and subsequent telephone calls to me by Mark Rathbun in February through April 1984. Rathbun stated to me that the organization had done an “eval” regarding me, so this would include the eval, all accompanying “data,” documents and the

-11-

resultant “program.” An “eval,” or evaluation, is a mimeographed issue type, only approved with supporting documentation.

10. The mission, project or program orders pursuant to which Terri Gamboa met with me on March 8, 1984, and subsequently wrote her “debrief” of March 12, 1984 attached hereto as Exhibit C.3  There could not be “debrief” without there being a “briefing” on orders.

11. The orders, reports, correspondence and documents concerning surveillance and harassment by organization agents in London in June 1984. A copy of a declaration I wrote on July 1, 1984 concerning the surveillance and harassment is attached hereto as Exhibit D.4

12. The orders, reports, correspondence and documents relating to the operation in June 1984 to use my pc folders to lure me into a trap. This operation was acknowledged by the two organization agents, Mike Rinder and “Joey” in the videotapes illegally taken of me in November 1984.

13. The orders, reports, correspondence, and documents relating to OSA INT Executive Directive 19, of September 20, 1984, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E.5 OSA or Office of Special Affairs is the new name given to the Guardian’s Office. Its functions are the same.

14. The orders, reports and documents concerning the photographing of me by organization members on November 8, 1984 in Los Angeles, including the

-12-

photographs taken.

15. The orders, reports, correspondence, materials and documents concerning the burglarizing of the trunk of my car on November 8, 1984, and the theft therefrom of a manuscript and artwork of approximately 350 pages, and various documents relating to this litigation. This includes the stolen materials themselves.

16. The copies made by organization agents known to me as “Joey” and “Rena” of my writings and drawings which she requested as a potential publisher, and which I loaned to her on November 9, 1984. These consisted of approximately 250 pages of personal creative works which were copied without my knowledge, and the copies of which were kept by the organization.

17. The records, reports, orders, correspondence, documents and audio and video recordings of a meeting, arranged by organization agents posing as “reformers,” between an attorney Thomas Janeway and me in November 1984 in Encino, California. Janeway pretended to be working for these “reformers” and attempted to entrap and compromise me.

18. The records, reports, correspondence, orders, documents or materials relating to the obtaining of false authorizations “directing” the videotaping and wiretapping of my attorney, Michael Flynn and me, in November and December 1984. Three of these phony authorizations are attached hereto as Exhibit F6

19. The records, reports, correspondence, orders, audio

-13-

and video recording, documents or materials relating to an attempt by organization agents to get me to fly to Las Vegas, Nevada in the fall of 1984 to meet with a proposed “backer” of their intended litigation to “reform” the organization.

20. The correspondence, reports, statements, documents or materials supplied to or received from the Los Angeles Police Department, or any officer thereof, in 1982 through 1984 in various attempts to have criminal charges brought against me in connection with the Hubbard archives (or “Armstrong documents.”) It is known that the organization corresponded at least with one officer, S.J. Capuano in the N.E. Detective Division in this effort to have me arrested.

21. The orders, reports, projects, programs, briefings and debriefings, audio and video recordings, and all related documents and materials concerning what the organization calls the “Armstrong operation.” This operation, which in fact began right after I left the organization, involved the use of a friend, Dan Sherman, to get close to me, feed me false information, compromise me and frame me, with the goals of destroying my reputation, my ability to testify in Scientology litigation, my emotional and physical well-being, my economic base, my marriage and my life. On page 2 of the February 17, 1982 “Gerry Armstrong Project,” Exhibit B, is the statement:

“Step 15) Persue (sic) the potential existing line

-14-

that might be available to us via a trusted GAS who is a writer and who is respected by Gerry. This would require some reach from Gerry, though, as he might be suspicious if this GAS made a big reach for him.”Dan Sherman is the “trusted GAS.” GAS stands for Guardian Activities Scientologist, a covert operative of the GO not formally posted on staff. The “Armstrong Operation” became known to me in April 1985, when the organization attorneys announced that meetings I had had with two individuals, “Joey,” and Mike Rinder, as arranged by Sherman, had been secretly videotaped. Sherman, Joey and Rinder represented themselves as part of a group seeking to reform the organization and have it cease its tortious and criminal activities, such as the actions taken against me. Attorneys John G. Peterson and Earle C. Cooley stated in Christofferson that there were no written documents of any kind regarding this operation. Their statements to the Court in that regard on April 11, 1985 are attached hereto as Exhibit G.7 Their statements must, however, be regarded, given the magnitude of the operation, the expense, the number of people involved, and the modus operandi and policies of the organization regarding working only off of written programs and orders and complying in writing to all orders, as perjurious. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of pages of documents not produced: daily reports, weekly reports, battle plans, statistic reports, PI reports, CSW’s, projects, programs, evals, targets,

-15-

compliance reports, orders, nudges, debugs, requests for funds, budgets (FP’s), accounting reports, cross file sheets, exception sheets, computer data and files, briefings, debriefings, drillings, video recordings, audio recordings, wiretap recordings, etc. These orders, reports, documents and recordings involved at least:

Gerald Armstrong

Jocelyn Armstrong

Michael Flynn

Dan Sherman

Mike Rinder

Joey

Rena

John Peterson

Clayton Ruby

Eugene M. Ingram

Philip Rodriquez

Terri Gamboa

Thomas Janeway

Peterson’s statement on April 11, 1985, at page 4692 of Exhibit that the videotaping of me “was done by the Toronto attorney (Clayton Ruby) and a private investigator (Eugene M. Ingram), not me, not the Church,” is also perjurious. Dan Sherman was an organization GAS member, and Rinder and Joey, the two individuals who were bodywired, who set me up, and who appeared in the video, were organization members. Peterson’s duplicity is also

-16-

shown in his declaration dated April 17, 1985, filed in this case and several other cases around the country and attached hereto as Exhibit H.8 Although on April 11, before the Oregon Court Peterson professed no knowledge of the “Armstrong Operation” and no “Church” involvement, in his declaration he claimed to have “personal knowledge” and stated that (at Par. 5) “Joey and the Loyalists ( the group claiming to be reformers) were created only after the Church learned of Armstrong and Flynn’s desire to get an inside source within the Church.” (Emphasis added)

22. The orders, reports, compliances, briefings, documents, audio and video recordings, photographs and the materials relating to the forgery and attempted cashing of a $2,000,000 check on the Bank of New England account of L. Ron Hubbard in 1982, and the operation to frame Michael Flynn and me with the crime. Sherman and the “Loyalists” stated to me, in order to draw me into the “Armstrong Operation,” that it was their intention to, and they stated they could, prove that Flynn was innocent and the organization was knowingly framing him. They went so far, in order to demonstrate to me their intent to help prove Flynn’s innocence, as to provide me with a document, a handwritten copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I9, to be passed to the authorities investigating the check scam. In his “Declaration in Opposition to Motion for Attorneys’ Fees” dated July 30, 1984 and filed in this case, John Peterson claimed that

-17-

Michael Flynn was guilty of the forgery and the attempt to cash the forged check, and he attached an affidavit by one Ala Fadili Al Tamimi in support of his claim.10 Later evidence revealed that the organization paid Tamimi $25,000 for the affidavit. And further evidence has revealed that the organization knew in early 1984 that Flynn had nothing to do with the check scam that the Tamimi affidavit was false, yet it continued, through its attorneys, the operation to frame him. The PI behind the frame-up is Eugene M. Ingram11, the same person who illegally videotaped me. In his “testimony” before the Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights, regarding Philip Rodriquez’ unlawful and false authorization of the videotaping and wiretapping of Michael Flynn and myself, Earle C. Cooley also accused me of involvement in the Hubbard check forgery. Cooley’s testimony is attached hereto as Exhibit J12. At pp. 177, 178, Cooley states:

“I think the proof of this pudding is in the eating, on the tapes and on the transcripts. The crimes were as represented. If you look at the letter of authorization signed by officer Rodriguez, it seems to me that every one of those crimes was uncovered, and that its investigation, if you will allow me, ought to be focused on the criminals, who are the ones who have brought about this hearing through a complaint on the part of Michael Flynn who himself is being investigated by a grand jury, the federal grand jury in the city of Boston right now, as well as Mr. Armstrong and others

-18-

that were involved in the two million dollar check forgery which is talked about on those tapes and is part of the coverup that is attempted by phony documents being planted in the files of the Church.”(Emphasis added)

There are thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of documents relating to the Hubbard check forgery, the purchased perjured testimony and the attempts to frame my attorney Michael Flynn and me with the “crime.” These include at least: daily reports, weekly reports, battle plans, battle plan reports, statistic reports, PI reports on a daily basis from at least 1982 to the present, CSW’s, mission orders, projects, programs, evals, targets, estimates, compliance reports, progress reports, orders, nudges, debugs, requests for funds, budgets (FP’s), accounting reports, cross file sheets, excerption sheets, computer data and files, briefings, drillings, debriefings, audio and video recordings, wiretape recording, etc. These orders, reports, correspondence, documents and recordings involve at least:

Gerald Armstrong

Jocelyn Armstrong

Michael Flynn

Joey

Mike Rinder

Eugene M. Ingram

John Peterson

-19-

Earle C. Cooley

Ala Fadili Al Tamimi

Wayne Hollingsworth

Stacy Young

Heber Jentzsch

Gary Pappas

Daniel Lenzo

Donald Randolph

L. Ron Hubbard

Akil Abdul Amiar Al Fadili Al Tamimi

Andrew Lenarcic

Jeff Chevelle

Mark Rathbun

Larry Reservitz

George Kattar

All the documents could be cross-filed under various headings or names or code names.

23. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents photographs, or materials relating to the “Freedom” tabloid issue 61, published in August 1984, a reduced copy of which is attached as Exhibit K.13

24. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents photographs or materials relating to the article entitled “Ex-U.S. Attorney’s Role in Check Forgery Surfacas in Boston Court” in the “Freedom” tabloid issue 62, published in October 1984, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit L.14

-20-

4. Following my testifying in Christofferson, the organization continued its attack on me with numerous other operations to discredit, harass and intimidate me, and destroy my life. There are thousands of pages of documents as yet not produced, concerning the incidents and acts as follows:

1. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, photographs, documents or materials relating to the “Freedom” tabloid published in April/May 1985, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit M.15

2. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, photographs, documents or materials relating to the “Freedom” tabloid published in May 1985, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit N16.

3. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials relating to the “advertisement” attached hereto as Exhibit O 17 which appeared in “The Oregonian” newspaper of May 30, 1985, in Portland, Oregon, particularly with regard to the statement:

“Another one of Christofferson’s key witnesses, Gerry Armstrong, a government informant, was indisputably shown to have engaged in an operation to infiltrate the Church of Scientology. Armstrong’s plot, based on evidence submitted in court, appears to have been conceived with the advice and consent of Flynn and members of the IRS Intelligence Branch. It indicated the planting of forged documents in the church which could then be “discovered” by government agents in planned raids on church premises. The forged documents

-21-

would incriminate the church in nonexistent illegal activities and would serve as a basis for the indictment of current church management.”

4. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials relating to the organization’s radio show “Freedom Magazine” on station WTTP in Boston on June 11, 1985, a transcript of which is attached hereto as Exhibit P.18

5. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents, payments, receipts or materials delivered to or received from L. Fletcher Prouty relating to G. Armstrong. Prouty has signed a number of false declarations concerning me in relation to the videotapes since April 1985.

6. All edited versions of the videotapes which had originally been made of me in November 1984. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a flyer distributed to Scientologists in April and May 1985 directing them to a showing of an edited version of the tapes.19 Also, Earle Cooley, during his testimony before the LAPD Board of Rights showed an edited version of the videotapes. (See Exhibit J, pp. 156-174.) Also, edited versions were shown to various members of the media, including at least the CBC, CBS, the “Sacramento Bee.” An edited version was also used by organization personnel as a promotional device, showing members the version, misinterpreting its content and significance and requesting from these members $2,000.00 each. The projected target was 25,000

-22-

people “regged” for $2,000.00, or a total of $50,000,000.00 on the basis of these illegal videotapes of me.

7. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials, relating to the editing of the videotapes, including the editing which occurred prior to the Christofferson trial, plus the audio section edited out of the videotapes.

8. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials relating to the delivering of edited versions of the videotapes to any members of the media.

9. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements documents or materials relating to me sent to any media including newspapers, television and radio.

10. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials, relating to the showing of the videotapes or edited versions thereof to staff or public Scientologists, including any briefings given, requests for “donations” or funds, any projects, programs or evals related to this operation and any financial records of said operation.

11. The correspondence, statements, documents or materials supplied to or received from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office in 1985 or 1986 in an attempt to have criminal charges brought against me in connection with the videotaping of me by the organization. At page 167 of Earle Cooley’s testimony at the Board of Rights on

-23-

October 4, 1985, (Exhibit J), he states: “charges have been filed with the District Attorney of this County” and at page 168 that “there were two submissions to him (the DA), an initial submisssion and he called for additional materials, and additional materials went to him last week.”

12. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials relating to the photographing of my residence in Boston, Massachusetts on October 7, 1985, including all photographs created.

13. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials relating to the mugging and robbery of me outside my residence in Boston on October 25, 1985.

14. The correspondence, reports, statements, documents or materials supplied to or received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1985 or 1986 in an attempt by the organization to have criminal charges brought against me in connection with an incident allegedly occurring on October 13, 1985, in Boston, Massachusetts. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a declaration I wrote immediately following being interviewed by an FBI agent regarding this attempt to frame me.20

15. The correspondence, reports, statements, documents or materials concerning the operation to bring false criminal charges against me via the FBI as described in 13 above.

16. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements,

-24-

documents or materials relating to the “Freedom” tabloid published in February 1986, a reduced copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit S.21

17. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials relating to the operation to have several hundred copies of the “Freedom” tabloid (Exhibit S) planted in the building where I work on February 11, 1986 during my deposition in the case of Burden v. Church of Scientology.

18. The correspondence, orders, mission orders, reports, telexes, statements, documents or materials relating to an operation or mission in February and March 1986 involving organziation agent, Meryl Dubay, the purpose of which was to “Black PR” me among plaintiffs and witnesses in various cases against the organization.

19. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials, relating to the photographing of my residence on March 21, 1986.

20. The correspondence, orders, reports, statements, documents or materials regarding me delivered to the Internal Revenue Service in 1985 or 1986.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 9th day of April, 1986 at Boston, Massachusetts.

-25-

______________________
GERALD ARMSTRONG

-26-

Notes

Declaration of Michael J. Flynn (July, 1985)

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. FLYNN1

I, Michael J. Flynn, hereby depose and state under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personal knowledge or information and belief as to the following:

1. The purpose of this affidavit is to respond to charges made by the Church of Scientology and its counsel against me and my colleagues in connection with our activities and conduct in Scientology-related litigation. An additional purpose of the affidavit is to place in perspective our role in the commencement, prosecution and defense of Scientology cases, particularly in the context of (1) alleged personal harassment of ourselves and our clients, (2) the alleged tactics of the Church of Scientology to inundate various courts with massive docket filings, (3) the filing of allegedly frivolous and malicious lawsuits, bar complaints, and distribution of defamatory publications on the streets and in the media, (4) allegedly engaging in a systematic pattern to infiltrate our law offices, steal documents therefrom, disrupt our law practice, and (5) generally engaging in an assortment of abusive and unlawful conduct to deprive our clients of their legal rights and access to the courts. The affidavit will demonstrate to the court that in light of the facts, we have acted with professional restraint, diligence and within the bounds of the canons of ethics in seeking to prosecute the claims of our clients in the face of extensive, malicious, personal harassment as well as legal harassment through the filing of frivolous lawsuits, bar complaints, etc. Although Scientology and its counsel have, to some degree, succeeded in creating the impression in various courts throughout the United States that Scientology litigation in general is the product of a personal campaign between the lawyers on both sides to use the judicial system to vindicate personal animosities, it has always been our intention to obtain legal redress for our clients. We submit that the Church of Scientology is engaged in an elaborate and concerted plan to
create that impression by besieging each of the courts with such a massive amount of paperwork together with incessant charges against me that a true and just adjudication of the rights of the victims have become secondary. An examination of the dockets in virtually every case will reveal that we have been required to continually respond to personal attacks which have cluttered the docket entries. These continued personal attacks, such as motions for disqualification, depositions of counsel, lawsuits against counsel, contempt proceedings against counsel, bar complaints against counsel, and personal harassment of counsel, have resulted in a cluttering of the court dockets and the misdirection of the subject cases. The foregoing approach adopted by the Church pursuant to its written policies has been designed to confuse and obfuscate the legitimate factual and legal issues in the subject litigation. The attack by the Church of Scientology has been uncalled for, distorted, and unlawful.

2. In late June or early July, 1979, La Venda Van Schaick engaged me to obtain a refund of funds paid by her to the Church of Scientology in the amount of approximately $12,800.00. At that time, I knew nothing about the Church of Scientology, and was reluctant to undertake Van Schaick’s request because she informed me about the operating practices of the Church towards its so called “enemies”. However, at the request of several individuals and after preliminary investigation, I sent a letter to the Church dated July 17, 1979 requesting a refund of all funds paid by Van Schaick. (Exhibit 1 attached.) After sending Exhibit 1, I received a letter from the Church stating that no refund would be paid. (Exhibit 2 attached.) During the pendency of the aforestated correspondence, an individual holding himself out to be one “Chuck North” contacted me and asked to be engaged as a private investigator/
consultant in connection with “researching and investigating cults.” North specifically asked and requested to have access to any “cult files” in my office for the purpose of assisting
his research and investigation. I became suspicious about the coincidental mailing of the Van Schaick correspondence and the solicitations of North. As it later turned out, North was in
fact an agent of the Church seeking to infiltrate our offices. (Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Warren Friske, attached.)

3. During the period between July to September, 1979 when the correspondence concerning Van Schaick refund was being exchanged, I began to receive telephone calls from clients,
relatives, and friends stating that they had received strange telephone calls from various individuals requesting information about me. During the same period of time, in connection with numerous telephone calls and correspondence involving non-Scientology related clients and cases, many strange and suspicious incidents occurred which suggested that my telephone calls and office affairs were either being monitored, intercepted, or knowledge about them otherwise obtained. For example, an individual called one of my clients and told her that I should be reported to the bar because I had not turned over all of the funds I had received in the trial of a case. In fact, the client was present at the trial, received a trial judgment upon a jury verdict, and was paid in full. During the same period of time, namely between July and September, 1979, Van Schaick alleges that she began to be followed, her apartment kept under surveillance, her employment activities monitored, and numerous strange and suspicious circumstances occurred in connection with her daily life, too numerous for purposes of this affidavit. The only activity of mine involving the Church at that point in time had been to send one letter requesting a refund!

4. After receiving the letter denying the request for a refund, I received a letter dated September 11, 1979 from the “Church of Scientology of Boston”. (Exhibit 4 attached) This letter, together with the other prior strange occurrences, together with the allegations made to me by Van Schaick as to the nature and operating practices of the Church, resulted in the decision by me to initiate an investigation into the entire matter. The September 11 letter stated that the Church would be willing to pay approximately 50% of the funds paid to the  Church by Van Schaick and at the same time suggested that Van Schaick should not sue the Church for the balance of the funds because she had an extensive drug history, had “three abortions”, had “attempted suicide”, had severe marital problems, and had signed an agreement never to sue the Church or the Hubbards. I had been informed by Van Schaick that all of the foregoing information came from her confidential, “auditing” or “confessional files” and that it was a regular practice of the Church to send such a letter to any person claiming refunds or to their counsel. Van Schaick stated that the auditing information had been given in strict confidence but that the Church, pursuant to written policy, regularly utilized such information to block legal recourse and for other purposes including blackmail and extortion even though it also had a written policy covering refunds.

5. Shortly after the receipt of the foregoing letter, I received several anonymous telephone calls suggesting that representation of Van Schaick was a dangerous matter, that no one “messes with the Church”, that if I had any doubts about this issue, to contact other people who had sought to “interfere” with the Church. During September and early October, 1979, I, as a result of all of the foregoing, was involved in an active and extensive investigation of the allegations made by Van Schaick in order to determine the propriety of a lawsuit against the Church. Because of the many strange events that occurred during this period of time in connection with this investigation, I concluded that the Church or its agents were monitoring my activities, telephone calls, and my investigation. Among the numerous incidents that confirmed this were several occasions when I observed individuals following me, defamatory calls were made to various clients shortly after I had called these clients on the phone, and an employee at the small airport where I maintained any airplane observed unidentified individuals viewing the airplane and seeking information about it.

6. Between that date and the ensuing several months, Van Schaick, was allegedly subjected to numerous incidents of personal harassment involving the surveillance of her home and her child, being run off the road in her car, numerous telephone calls to her neighbors suggesting that she was an unfit mother, calls to her employer resulting in the loss of her job as a
waitress, attempts to convince her that I was engaging in harassive conduct against her, attempts to separate her from her husband, and other forms of harassment. In one instance, she
states that the Church sent an agent from Los Angeles to convince Van Schaick that the “harassive things” being done to her were initiated by me! (A copy of that agent’s note is  attached as Exhibit 5.)

7. In November 1979, nine of the highest officers of the Church of Scientology were convicted of a variety of crimes, and approximately 30,000 documents seized by the F.B.I. from the
Church were released to the general public. I sent an employee to the Federal Court in Washington to copy thousands of these documents. These documents in large part verified the
allegations of Van Schaick and validated my belief that the Church was responsible for the numerous inexplicable and harassive incidents that had occurred in the prior several months.
The documents revealed a 15-year pattern of infiltration, burglary, bugging, harassment, and elaborate policies and operations to commit the foregoing pursuant to specific and detailed training manuals. The documents also contained hundreds of documents pertaining to the use of auditing information by the Church against individuals such as Van Schaick for the purpose of blocking and frustrating their legal rights, even specifying the use of extortion and blackmail. In fact, the specific written operations authorized by Mary Sue Hubbard to conduct this type of operation were among these documents.

8. During the same period of time, I conducted an extensive legal analysis and case research involving the Church of Scientology and learned that the publications of the Church of Scientology had been declared fraudulent in the case of United States v. Article or Device, 333 F.Supp. 357 (D.D.C., 1971) and that the Church had never complied with the decree in said case. Further, I learned that the Church had brought in excess of 100 cases against a variety of individuals and entities for the purposes of frustrating the legal rights of those parties and for the purpose of harassing them pursuant to a specific written policy of the Church which calls for the use of the judicial system to harass and destroy critics.

9. Finally, after approximately six months of research and investigation at a cost in excess of $20,000.00, we decided to bring a class action suit against the Church of Scientology to recover not only for the damages inflicted on Van Schaick, but also to seek relief for the class as a whole, for the failure of the Church to comply with the Article or Device decree. That suit was initiated on December 13, 1979, resulting in unsolicited contact by the news media to Van Schaick and me. After the news relative to the class action suit was disseminated in the press, the floodgates unexpectedly and surprisingly opened. My office was literally swamped in a period of weeks with hundreds of telephone calls by a variety of individuals and organizations including parents whose children had committed suicide while in the Church, individuals who had been hospitalized as a result of Church involvement, authors, reporters, individuals who had been allegedly defrauded by the Church, various law enforcement agencies, and other assorted contacts.

10. After the commencement of the Van Schaick action, the Church immediately attempted to infiltrate the class with an agent posing as a prospective client (see affidavit of Garrity attached as Exhibit 6), intensified its harassment of individuals associated with me, attempted to disrupt non-Scientology cases I was involved in, and generally initiated a campaign of
unrelenting personal and legal harassment. This campaign included the following:

a) Approximately three weeks after the commencement of the Van Schaick case, without filing a counter-claim in that action, and without filing a Motion to Dismiss within the time allowed by the rules, the Church initiated a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in Nevada against Van Schaick, Kevin Flynn, (my brother and an employee of my office), Thomas Hoffman, Esq., (a colleague), and Edward Walters, (a client). That suit alleged a conspiracy by these individuals to deprive the Church of its First Amendment rights. The suit was
dismissed by the Federal Court within 120 days.

b) At the same time as the filing of this action, the Church filed in succession four separate bar complaints against me alleging a variety of things including conspiracy to violate the Church’s First Amendment rights, the unlicensed practice of law by Kevin Flynn, and a variety of other charges. The first three complaints were filed on January 15, 1980, February 7, 1980 and April 3, 1980, all of which were dismissed on April 10, 1980 by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. (See Exhibit 7 attached.) On November 19, 1980, the Church filed yet another complaint which was dismissed on May 4, 1981. (See Exhibit 8 attached.)

c) After the dismissal of the Federal Nevada action, the Church then commenced an action against Van Schaick, Kevin Flynn, Edward Walters, and other clients of mine in the state court in Nevada, which was nearly identical to the federal action. As to Van Schaick and Kevin Flynn, this suit was also dismissed.

d) The Church also filed an action against me and four of my clients in the Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court alleging that the clients had stolen materials from the Church of Scientology of Boston and turned them over to me. These materials primarily included the auditing files of the four clients who had left the Boston Church and taken their auditing files with them because they were aware the Church used them for purposes of blackmail. Also allegedly taken were some financial graphs and some Sea Org organizations. I  stipulated in open court to filing the voluminous auditing files under seal with the court, returning the financial graphs, and maintaining possession of the Sea Org communications. The court adopted this offer and issued an injunction based upon it. In subsequent litigation around the United States, particularly in the recent case of the Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, California Superior Court, Los Angeles, C420153, the Church has attempted to use this litigation and the stipulated injunction to misinform and mislead the court into the belief that I had behaved unethically as reflected by the injunction, when in fact, I stipulated to the injunction, and the suit was prosecuted for the purpose of harassing me pursuant to the written policy of the Church.

e) Subsequently, the Church filed an additional action against me in the Las Vegas state court alleging essentially that I was engaged in a conspiracy against the Church and abusing judicial process. Church counsel attempted to procure a false affidavit from an ex-member to support the case. (See Exhibit 6 at page 8.) The court granted my Motion Judgment in that action.

f) Between January and May, 1980, for Summary I was subjected to hundreds of instances of personal harassment, which I believe, based upon the Friske and Garrity affidavits and other information, to have been conducted by the Church. These included inter alia, contacting my insurance agent and informing the agent that I had murdered the husband of one of my clients, making a bomb threat to my building resulting in its evacuation, throwing rocks at my building, sending a post card threatening to poison me, harassive telephone calls at and night to me, my wife, and my children, phone calls to neighbors and suggesting in all hours of the day making obscene telephone calls to neighbours and suggesting in these calls that I was making them, and process servers arriving at my home at all hours disturbing my wife and children. (See generally, Exhibit 9.)

g) Between approximately November, 1979 and up to and including at least May, 1982, the Church allegedly stole approximately 20,000 documents either directly from my office or from a trash dumpster in my private office condominium compound. This theft is established by the following evidence. Kevin Tighe formerly of the Guardian’s Office has testified under oath that he stole documents from my law office garbage. (Exhibit 10.) Warren Friske, former head of B-2 in Boston, admits he sorted the stolen documents and sent the materials to the U.S.G.O. and to CSC’s attorneys. (Exhibit 11.) Joe Lisa, former head of the U.S.G.O., has admitted in a sworn deposition that he ordered the document theft operation. (Exhibit 12.)

11. Between January and May, 1980, hundreds of former Church members contacted my office seeking legal recourse against the Church. One of these individuals, Tonja Burden, had
worked directly for L. Ron Hubbard, who had ultimate and absolute control over all Church activities. Burden, between the ages of 13 and 17, worked for the Church without receiving any education, essentially served for a long period as Hubbard’s personal slave, dressing and undressing him, and was involved in coding and de-coding telexes in double and triple codes regarding operations against the United States government, state agencies, and numerous individuals. She was defrauded of approximately five years of labor, a high school education, was made to sign promissory notes in the thousands cf dollars, she was tendered a bill in the amount of approximately $61,000.00, was subsequently kidnapped, harassed and taken over state lines when she left the Church, and was generally tortiously injured by the Church without receiving the benefits promised to her and based upon false  representations made to her. With co-counsel in Tampa, Florida, we commenced an action in the Federal District Court on or about April 25, 1980 on behalf of Ms. Burden. This was only the second suit initiated by my office in connection with Scientology litigation. Yet, most of the items referred to in paragraph 10 against my office were either in process, completed, or being planned. The Church proceeded to literally swamp the court docket with motions, pleadings, and discovery, the great bulk of which motions have been denied,
resulting in a massive amount of paper that stands approximately two feet high to date. Although ex-Scientologists have come forward and acknowledged a consistent pattern of abuses against individuals such as Van Schaick and Burden with regard to the wrongful dissemination of auditing information, fraudulent and deceptive recruitment and sales practices, campaigns of harassment pursuant to the “Fair Game Doctrine” and other such operations, and thousands of documents exist to support such allegations, the Church and its counsel have engaged in a pattern of litigation designed to wear down the plaintiffs, their counsel, and the court system rather than attempt to resolve the injury claims in a judicious and good faith approach based upon specific and extensive evidence. The latter strategy is reflected by the activities of the Church and its correspondence to me prior to the commencement of the Van Schaick action as well as the aforesaid dismissed lawsuits, bar complaints, and harassment techniques.

12. Between May, 1980 and December, 1980, my office continued to be besieged with contacts from former members, parents, state and federal law enforcement agencies, the news media, etc. with regard to the activities of the Church. During that period of time, my office brought several additional actions in the Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of former
members who sought to obtain legal redress against the Church. During the same period of time, the continuous theft of documents from my office and compound took place and the general campaign of harassment continued. The hundreds of instances involved in this harassment are too extensive to set forth in this affidavit but they consisted of a general pattern of what has been previously described including contacts with non-Scientology clients. (See several statements of clients attached hereto as Exhibit 9.) Throughout this period of time
the Church continually attempted to take my deposition and depositions of my employees and colleagues on numerous occasions in different cases.

13. In January, 1981, after living through a year and a half of the activities and conduct previously described, I flew to Los Angeles, California, together with my colleagues, for the purpose of discussing settlement of the Scientology litigation with Church counsel. During these settlement discussions, the Church agreed to repay all of the monies paid by two claimants, Donald and Peggy Bear, in the amount of approximately $107,000.00. Although releases were signed and the Church represented to numerous courts that it had a policy to
refund monies paid to it, the Church failed to deliver a check for the proceeds, the settlement negotiations fell through, and a suit was later commenced on behalf of the Bears. (See Exhibit 14 attached.) At the time of the preparation for these settlement negotiations, my office prepared an extensive analysis of approximately 50 cases that it was considering filing on behalf of former members, which analysis related to the costs of such litigation for both sides, the factual issues involved in the various cases, peripheral issues such as probate matters, media problems, etc., That analysis was prepared specifically for these settlement negotiations. The analysis was subsequently stolen from our offices and later became the subject of an additional bar complaint and a suit brought by the Church against my colleagues and I in the Los Angeles District Court, discussed infra.

14. After the settlement negotiations failed, and after spending several weeks in Los Angeles, we returned to Boston and prepared to conduct a conference in May 1981, for the purpose of meeting with several lawyers in connection with the proposed commencement of some of the 50 cases included in the settlement analysis. Portions of the settlement analysis were included in a packet of information given to the lawyers who attended the May conference. Those documents were also subsequently stolen by the Church of Scientology from our offices or our trash dumpster. At the conference, attended by approximately eight attorneys, the nature of Scientology litigation was explained, fee relationships were discussed involving the traditional contingent fee type relationship and a sharing of the fees between the attorneys based upon the amount of work done on each case. Other peripheral issues set forth above in the settlement analysis were discussed. This meeting was infiltrated by an agent of the Church posing as a client, Ford Schwartz, on behalf of the Church. (See attached Exhibit 15.) The Church, therefore, was aware of the nature of the meeting, what was discussed, and the fee relationships that existed between the clients and the attorneys.

15. Between May, 1981 and July, 1981, Kevin Flynn, who had ceased being an employee of mine in mid-1980 and who had commenced working as an independent contractor, submitted a proposal to me and my colleagues whereby Kevin Flynn’s corporation, Flynn Associates Management Corporation, would perform services on behalf of the various attorneys as a researcher and investigator in consideration of receiving a percentage of the funds recovered in the cases. After research by me and my colleagues, the proposal was rejected, although ethical opinions of several states indicated that such a proposal was not improper. This proposal was also stolen from the offices of mine and/or the trash dumpster in the private office compound.

16. During the summer of 1981, as a result of the ongoing theft of documents from my office and compound, most of which constituted attorney-client communication and/or work-
product, the Church knew that I and counsel from various other states were considering the commencement of various actions in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles. It also knew that Flynn Associates Management Corporation played no role in connection with these suits, that the May meeting among counsel was ethically proper, and that I was still seeking to resolve the cases without litigation.

17. In June, 1981, Church counsel again initiated settlement discussions, this time with my co-counsel in the Burden case in Tampa, which resulted in a series of correspondence between me and Church counsel. (See attached Exhibit 16.) In fact, the Church offered 1.6 million dollars to resolve all existing and impending litigation, and I accepted their
offer on behalf of the various clients involved, in a good faith effort to resolve the entire matter. My motivation in accepting this settlement offer of the Church on behalf of my clients
involved numerous considerations including: a) the desire of clients and counsel to end the torrent of legal and personal harassment; b) the expense and time consumption inherent in the litigation for all parties; c) the promised efforts of the Church to reform and discontinue many of its unlawful practices; and, d) the financial remuneration of clients and counsel.
18. Between approximately April and June, 1981, I was contacted by the City of Clearwater to prepare a report relative to the Church of Scientology and the tax-exempt aspects of organizations such as the Church. Because of the continued theft of materials from my office, the Church was fully aware of the fact that various City officials had contacted me during that period of time. The Church therefore knew, through the acquisition of illegally obtained information, when it made its 1.6 million dollar offer to settle all Scientology-related litigation matters, that hundreds of individuals had contacted our office, that several counsel in various areas of the U.S. had agreed to undertake litigation on behalf of injured clients, that the City of Clearwater was commencing an investigation into the Church, that it had been engaged in a two-year campaign of legal and personal harassment against me and my office, that it had been engaged in at least a ten-year pattern of burglary, larceny, obstruction of justice, etc., of which its highest leaders had been convicted, and that there were thousands of people across the United States who were seeking refunds from the Church. Because of the close monitoring and surveillance of my office, the Church also knew that my colleagues and I were willing to resolve the litigation primarily because of our desire to terminate the persistent harassment of us and our clients. At this point in connection with the litigation, I had personally expended in excess of $200,000.00.

19. Upon information and belief provided by recently defected members of the Church, in the summer of 1981, when all of these matters were occurring, an internal power struggle took
place within the Church resulting in the purge of several highly-placed members and the resulting take-over of the Church by several young members of the “Commodore’s Messenger Org,” who had served personally for L. Ron Hubbard throughout their teen-age years, who were then approximately 21 or 22 years of age, and who were fanatical adherents of Hubbard. These individuals who took over the Church adopted a plan in the summer of 1981 to conduct an all-out campaign against me and my clients pursuant to the “technology” of the Church doctrine, to wit, the Fair Game Doctrine, to destroy me and all opposition to the Church. Upon information and belief, the foregoing involved a highly secretive written plan adopted by the highest members of the Church to revoke the offer of settlement, revert to “Hubbard technology,” and to attack and destroy me pursuant to the following Hubbard policies:

Don’t ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat against them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person’s repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized. Be very alert to sue for slander at the slightest chance so as to discourage the public presses from mentioning Scientology. The purpose of this suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

(Level 0 Checksheet attached as Exhibit 17.)

Pursuant to this plan, the Church then embarked on a campaign beginning in August, 1981, and continuing up to the present date, to “attack”, “sue”, and “destroy” me. This campaign has included the following:

a. In August, 1981, the Church, through its counsel, Harvey Silverglate, filed a bar complaint against me and my colleagues attaching numerous documents that had been stolen from my office and compound. The thrust of this complaint was that I was unlawfully selling shares of Flynn Associates Management Corporation to finance prospective lawsuits against the Church. Although the Church knew that this allegation was false, the Church and its counsel wove together the settlement analysis prepared in January, 1931, the materials assembled for the May conference, and the proposal of Kevin Flynn, then attempted to create a false and deceptive impression with the Board of Bar Overseers and subsequently in the courts. The Church knew at the time of this bar complaint that the allegations of its counsel, Silverglate, were false, because it had agents who had attended the May conference, it had stolen the settlement analysis at the time it was prepared in January, 1981, and the Church had stolen the Kevin Flynn proposal when it had been prepared
and rejected in June, 1981.

b. In addition to this bar complaint, the Church and its counsel then proceeded to file an additional three bar complaints against myself and my colleagues, including, inter alia, the allegation that I improperly attempted to avoid service of process by one of the many process servers in connection with suits and depositions that the Church was attempting to initiate against our office. These bar complaints were filed through-out the period from August to December, 1981. Notwithstanding the foregoing complaints, I have received a letter from the Board stating that it does not consider that I have any “Complaints” presently against me. (See Exhibit 18.)

c. At the same time that the bar complaints were being filed, the Church was engaged in operations to steal documents from the trash of at least one of the members of the Board of Bar Overseers. (See affidavit of Warren Friske attached as Exhibit 3.)

d. In August, 1981, the Church commenced an action in the Los Angeles Federal District Court through one of its members, Steven Miller, against me, my brother, Kevin, a medical doctor, and several others, on the theory that the defendants had “deprogrammed” Miller and violated his civil rights. At the time of the filing of the suit, I had never heard of Steven Miller and had never had any contact with him before. The attorneys’ fees in connection with the defense of that case, upon information and belief, are currently in excess of $200,000.00, which have been paid by the parents of Steven Miller, I have also sustained attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with the defense of that case and other litigation initiated by the Church of Scientology.

e. In August, 1981, the Church commenced an action in the Boston Federal District Court through its members, Ellen and Chris Garrison, on the same theory of deprogramming. This suit was brought against Kevin Flynn and Paulette Cooper after specific planning and meetings were held by the Church to bring this suit against these individuals for the purpose of harassing them and my office. (See Affidavit of Warren Friske attached as Exhibit 3.)

f. During the same period of time, and in the ensuing months, the Church filed motions to disqualify me in the cases of Garrity, et al. v. The Church of Scientology, Los Angeles Federal District Court, Burden v. Church of Scientology, District Court in Tampa, and in the Van Schaick case. These Motions for Disqualification were all part of the plan to personally and legally harass me and my colleagues.

g. Between August, 1981 and December, 1981, the Church literally swamped the court dockets in every case that it was involved in, including both those it had initiated and those that had been brought by claimants, with hundreds of pleadings, motions, discovery requests, etc. An examination of the dockets in almost any of the pending cases will illustrate the intense campaign of legal harassment specifically adopted by the Church during this period of time to destroy me, my office, and my clients.

h. My office utilized a long distance telephone code which unauthorized individuals, allegedly the Church, intercepted and thereafter used to charge in excess of $1,000.00 in telephone calls to our code. In a similar “operation,” it has been alleged that the Church intercepted the code of a third party in California and made telephone calls to our clients charging the calls to the third party’s code. All of these matters and many others have been turned over to the F.B.I.

i. After we spent in excess of one hundred hours  defending the Motions to Disqualify filed in the Garrity, Van Schaick, and Burden cases, the Church dropped these Motions and instead undertook a new round of lawsuits against my office. The Church commenced an abuse of process action in the Los Angeles Federal District Court in connection with the Garrity, et al. case and also brought another civil rights action against me and the City of Clearwater in the Tampa Federal District Court.

20. The Church timed commencement of the abuse of process action in the Los Angeles Federal District Court to coincide with certain hearings being conducted by the City of Clearwater involving the Church of Scientology in which our office was involved. In connection with these hearings, the Church adopted a specific operation to harass me as follows:

In the second week in March, 1982, the Clearwater hearings were scheduled to begin on April 21, 1982. On March 25, Church counsel in the case of Cazares v. Church of
Scientology, Circuit Court in Daytona, sent a letter to me scheduling my deposition for April 23, 1982 in Tampa during the middle of the hearings. Although the hearings were
subsequently continued until May 5, 1982, on April 19, 1982, while appearing in the Burden case in Tampa, I was served with a deposition subpoena. I filed a Verified Motion to Quash the Subpoena stating that the demands of my law practice prevented me from remaining in Florida throughout the “time” required for the deposition, 2:00 p.m. on Friday, April 23, to continue from day-to-day over the week-end and the following Monday, as required by the deposition subpoena. I sent a letter on two occasions to Church counsel indicating that I could not appear for the deposition, that I had no personal knowledge of the subject matter of the case in which the deposition was to be taken, but that I would be willing to schedule another date when I would voluntarily appear. Subsequently, after the Church learned that the hearings would be continued to May 5, 1982, it issued a second subpoena, from the Los Angeles Federal Court in the case of Church of Scientology v. F.B.I. I had no personal knowledge relevant to this case but the Church sought to take my deposition, again during the middle of the hearings. I communicated to counsel in that case that I would be unable to appear on that date. Subsequently, during the middle of the Clearwater hearings, the Church filed motions to hold me in contempt in the Los Angeles Federal District Court and in the Daytona Circuit Court because of my failure to appear at the depositions. In connection with the Daytona contempt proceeding, I informed the Court of the foregoing, informed the Court that under Florida law I was immune from service in Florida, under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure my deposition had to be taken in Massachusetts, but that I was still willing to appear without need of going forward with the contempt matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and after the Church counsel specifically misrepresented the facts, without a trial, without any witnesses being called at the contempt matter, and without complying with Florida rules with regard to “indirect criminal contempts,” Church counsel procured a contempt finding against me from the Court. The matter was appealed and the appellate court reversed and vacated the finding of contempt by the trial court. The trial court judge has since left the bench after being implicated in an unrelated bribery scheme.

21. In the face of this harassment and abuse, the intention of our office throughout the subject litigation has been to obtain redress on behalf of our clients for alleged fraud in the taking of their money and labor and for outrageous conduct in blocking their access to judicial relief. We submit that the Church of Scientology operates based on policies such as “Fair Game” and “Attack the Attacker” because it must use such means to perpetuate its fraudulent sales and recruitment practices. These operating policies of the Church carry over to its activities and conduct in dealing with the judicial system and attorneys, such as ourselves who represent clients against the Church. We are among many attorneys and judges who have been attacked by the Church through motions for disqualification, lawsuits, bar complaints, and personal harassment. The Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Washington criminal cases, several federal judges, and the attorney for the F.D.A. are such examples. (See attached Exhibit 19.) While utilizing the operational policies such as Fair Game, the Church presents a religious front to the Court in order to frustrate legitimate claims for tortious injury and to create the appearance of a personal conflict amongst the lawyers in the swamping of the dockets with every conceivable filing. Abuse of the legal system is reflected by the massive litigation instituted by Scientology in courts throughout the United States. (See Lexis scan attached as Exhibit 20.)

22. My colleagues and I have never before been subjected to the legal harassment which has occurred in the subject litigation. Our background is not one of using the judicial system abusively or without just cause. I was ranked first in my class in law school, served as Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, served as a law clerk to a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, have been married for 16 years with 3 children, and I have always endeavored to practice law with discretion, professional restraint and within the bounds of the canons of ethics. In contrast, the highest officials of the Church have served time in Federal Prison, there are literally thousands of individuals and families seeking legal redress, and the fraudulent, tortious, and often times criminal activities and policies of the Church are becoming increasingly evident. These victims have come to us in the hundreds, often with substantial financial claims and evidence of overt physical and mental abuse. As a result of my assistance to these people, I have been “declared” an “enemy” by the Church and appear on its enemies list.” (See Exhibit 21 attached.)

23. It has always been the policy of my office to resolve claims against the Church of Scientology without litigation. The efforts at settlement between January and July, 1981 were such an example. The Church is now using those confidential settlement negotiations to further attack me, although the Church insisted in writing on their confidentiality, and
accepted, but later reneged upon, the settlement.

24. It is the intent of my office and clients to obtain legal redress for legitimate claims in the context of substantial supporting evidence. It is not my intent to use the judicial process to harass the Church. The fact that the Church has a written policy mandating such judicial abuse, together with a 20-year history of employing it, is evidence of the fact that the Church, not myself or my clients, is intent upon creating a distorted and false perception of the nature and purposes of each of the Scientology related cases.

25. I am not collaborating with forces who are trying to destroy freedom of religion and churches in America.

26. I am not collaborating with anyone using brutal “deprogramming” and “depersonalizing” techniques. I have never deprogrammed or depersonalized anyone.

27. I have exercised my First Amendment rights to speak out and oppose an organization whose top leaders have gone to prison. However, I have never sought to manipulate the media or use libel, forgery, or other improper means in connection with any of the litigation.

28. I have made no fraudulent representations of any nature or description but have merely sought to expose the misrepresentations made by the Church of Scientology.

29. Dr. John Clark has never been part of any operations of FAMCO of any nature or description, nor has Kevin Flynn through FAMCO or otherwise, attempted to involuntarily kidnap or brutalize anyone.

30. The charge that I have solicited an individual named “Jim Gray” to enlist him to sell shares in FAMCO is totally false. Gray was never offered any position, no shares were ever offered to him, and I have no idea why he would make such allegations in a so-called “sworn affidavit.”

31. The charge that I have solicited clients in connection with the Church of Scientology is absurd. Indeed, the reverse is true. There are thousands of Scientologists throughout the United States seeking to obtain legal counsel to obtain redress against the Church. The problem is that it is very difficult to get lawyers to take on such cases. I have been unfortunately refusing clients, not soliciting them. Although my law firm has endeavored to help all of these people, and has never solicited any of them, we are, in fact, incapable of representing the thousands of people who desperately need representation.

32. The Church of Scientology claims that I “resorted to the use of force and coercion in the form of psychiatric…not unlike the insidious, painful brainwashing techniques on American servicemen by Chinese Communists during the Korean War.” First of all, I have never advocated nor would I ever participate in any such activity. Second, “brainwashing” is a technique used and taught by the Church in its G.O. intelligence courses. (Exhibit 22.) Third, as explained above, I never met nor even heard of Steven Miller prior to his filing a Church sponsored lawsuit against me which has since been dismissed.

33. The probate case relating to Ronald DeWolf and the “missing person status” of L. Ron Hubbard was brought for the simple reason that L. Ron Hubbard’s own attorney, Alan Goldfarb, stated that L. Ron Hubbard was missing, and that he could not appear in one of the many suits that had been brought against him because no one knew where he was and no one from the Church of Scientology had communicated with him since February 1980. It was the conduct of Hubbard’s own lawyers and the group that now run the RTC (Religious Technology Center) and the failure of Hubbard to appear and defend himself in Court or even to appear and defend or assist his wife for that matter, which resulted in the
Hubbard filed a to be appointed Ron Hubbard was probate case being brought. It was only after legal declaration, the day before a trustee was in the probate case, that the Court held that L. Ron Hubbard was not a missing person.

34. The finding of contempt against me was one of the numerous legal proceedings brought against me at the same time. The Church of Scientology fails to state that I did not even appear and defend the contempt proceeding because of the onslaught of other harassment brought against me by the Church, and, later when I moved to vacate the order, the judge stated that no bad faith or misconduct was involved, but merely a technical violation of one of the court orders regarding disclosure of information about Hubbard.

35. The allegations contained in Paulette Cooper’s affidavit are perhaps the most absurd portion of the Church of Scientology’s charges. Since I was Ms. Cooper’s attorney, I feel ethically bound to hold inviolate the communications we had regarding L. Ron Hubbard, other than to say that Ms. Cooper’s declaration is totally false. The accompanying declaration of Joseph Flanagan2 explains how Ms. Cooper came to testify for CSC.

36. The idea that Kevin Flynn, Thomas Hoffman, or I, or anyone associated with us, had anything to do with the forgery of one of L. Ron Hubbard’s checks, is simply too fanciful to warrant extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that I brought to the attention of the public and the courts the fact that one of L. Ron Hubbard’s checks, in the possession of individuals controlling the RTC, was forged and an attempt to pass it was made at the time in May-June, 1982 when Hubbard wrote a will and in the will turned over control of Scientology to the RTC. It was at the same time that the RTC began to assert total dictatorial control throughout the Church of Scientology. Any intelligent observer can put two and two together to conclude that I would not participate in the forgery of a two-million dollar check and then do everything in my power to investigate it.

37. Recently, I received a letter and telegram from Mr. Tamimi, whose sworn declaration was procured by Eugene Ingram, an investigator employed by Church of Scientology, who has been removed from the L. A. Police Force for his purported involvement in assisting narcotic dealers, pimping, and other criminal activities. In the note and telegram Tamini states that the declaration procured by Ingram is false and that he is now prepared to tell the truth. Tamini’s declaration, attached to Peterson’s declaration, should be viewed with great scepticism in light of Tamini’s letter and telegram. (A copy of this letter and telegram is attached as Exhibit 23.) This letter has been turned over to law enforcement authorities to permit further investigation. This letter was the first communication of any type which I have ever had with Mr. Tamini.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury  this ____ day of July, 1985 in Boston, Massachusetts.

______________
Michael J. Flynn

Notes

  1. Declaration of Michael J. Flynn in PDF format.
  2. Declaration of Joseph Flanagan (March 9, 1985)

Christofferson: Excerpt of Proceedings (April 10, 1985)

http://gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/related/5196.php

Christofferson: Excerpt of Proceedings (April 4, 1985)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH1

JULIE CHRISTOFFERSON TITCHBOURNE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

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

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. A7704-051842

EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Volume VII
Pages 4059 to 4163
Testimony of Gerald D. Armstrong

April 4, 1985

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

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4059

(Court reconvened on Thursday, April 4, 1985, beginning at the hour of 9:40 a.m. Following proceedings held out of the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Ready to go?

MR. WADE: Your Honor, we have brought copies of the time track of Mr. Armstrong and his B1 file. The first thing we would be discussing this morning is the B1 file materials.

THE COURT: Mr. Armstrong was going to testify about those specific items missing from his B1 file.

(Mr. Armstrong resumed the witness stand.)

THE COURT: You are still under oath.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, we have marked — had marked as Court Exhibit 253, the time track and also an additional typewritten listing Mr. Armstrong prepared, showing other documents which are missing besides those circled in the time track. We would offer that as Court Exhibit 253 at this time.

THE COURT: Just one second. Somebody gave me a copy of a transcript of the deposition of Mr. Armstrong — I think you did, Mr. Runstein.

Number 253, is a Court Exhibit received for that

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4060

purpose. Okay.

(Court Exhibit No. 253 received.)

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

BY MR. WADE:

Q. Mr. Armstrong, I’m going to hand you what has been produced as your B1 file. Before we go into the additional items which are on the first page of Court Exhibit 253, would you please go to your time track and tell the Judge what you have done to show which documents are missing from the time track from the B1 file and then explain how you know those documents are missing.

A. What I did, Your Honor, was circle on the left-hand side, all of the items which are missing. These items were used in the preparation of this time track and they should form part of this B1 file. All these things should have been filed in here, the various FCOs, Conditions Order, and the various reports, some of which are quoted from, but the report which has been quoted from is not in the file. Everything that I have circled here should be here and is missing from the file. This is several pages.

THE COURT: There is a great deal of material, if I’m looking at this correctly, that we are talking about.

THE WITNESS: That’s correct, Your Honor.

MR. MANION: Your Honor, I have an

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4061

explanation for it.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MANION: Last night I spoke with our client and they told us about how B1 file was compiled. Again, they gave us their absolute assurance that the entirety of Mr. Armstrong’s file was produced.

A time track is compiled from a variety of sources and documents. They talk to people, they review Ethics files, they review Flag Orders, they review hundreds and hundreds of documents. Somebody sits down and makes a chronological summary of Mr. Armstrong’s activities while a member of the Church of Scientology. Those documents never become part of the B1 file. Flag Orders, Ethics Orders, Knowledge Reports, internal communications, they never find their way into the file, Your Honor.

The B1 file is just what we have produced. Those documents that we turned over to Mr. Wade. Now, for Mr. Armstrong, who has been out of the Church since 1982 and whose involvement with the Guardian’s Office and B1 is at best tangential and remote, to say that as a matter of practice, custom and business the B1 files contain such documents is incompetent and unsubstantiated.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4062

Under the order that this Court issued, Your Honor, Mr. Armstrong said as a part of his claim the B1 file was missing documents, that documents even up to today were not included in it. Your order, Your Honor, only required the production of documents through April 11, 1983. Our clients assure us, and I believe it’s the requirement and the obligation of a party responding to a request to produce, that everything contained in Mr. Armstrong’s B1 file was produced to him. That the documents and the categories of documents found in Mr. Armstrong’s B1 files are the kind of documents that you would find in anyone’s B1 file. For Mr. Armstrong to say because sources, Ethics Orders, Flag Condition Orders, bulletins, all kinds of documents were referred to or utilized in the preparation of a time track, doesn’t automatically put those documents in the B1 file. They may have been consulted, they might have been utilized. There is documents all over a world-wide organization. But they were never in the B1 file.

We give you our representation of counsel that the question was asked specifically to the client. The client was instructed as to the Court’s order. I went over in detail the Court’s order,

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4063

what it encompassed with the client, and I assure the Court that every document contained in the B1 file was produced to Mr. Armstrong.

Now, if Your Honor wants me to go through the eight item that Mr. Armstrong has identified on page one of Exhibit 253, and say were these reports ever contained in the B1 file? Did you have any knowledge they were pulled out of the B1 file? I would be happy to do that. But I’m telling you, Your Honor, these are the B1 files, notwithstanding this witness’ assertion that other things should have been in it.

THE COURT: Let me understand this. This addendum, additional documents, of eight items, is that in addition to the circled numbers that are contained —

MR. WADE: Yes, Your Honor. We would request that we be provided the name with the person Mr. Manion spoke to who gave him that information.

MR. MANION: I have no problem with that. It was Mr. Gutfeld. And he’s here.

MR. WADE: I would like to ask Mr. Armstrong some more questions, if Mr. Manion is finished.

MR. MANION: Sure.

THE COURT: I’m in a difficult position

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4064

because I am in a position of not knowing what goes in a B1 file.

MR. MANION: Your Honor, their request to produce, we understand our obligation to press on the client and explain to him, in very understandable language, what they are required to produce, and we did that. They have said this is what is the B1 file. We are in the same position you are, other than we give you our assurance that we as counsel have discharged our obligation and are satisfied with it.

BY MR. WADE: (Continuing)

Q. Mr. Armstrong, with respect to the listing from the time track, how did you become familiar with the kinds of documents that are in the B1 files?

A. Well, I have seen other B1 files in the organization. I saw a B1 file which was Nibs Hubbard’s B1 file. It was over a whole file cabinet in size. And for every entry on the time track, there was a document in the file.

Q. With respect to the listing and — which is the first page of Exhibit 253, would you explain to the Court what items are missing and what leads you to believe that such items would have been in the B1 file.

A. We are talking about the cover note on the front?

Q. Yes.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4065

A. First of all, there is a note here saying: “No. 4. I note the organization has B1 one files for this” — should be “the rest of my family members.” That’s not really an item which is omitted from my file. However, the rest of them, there are various references in here from which I can determine that these reports were consulted or that they should have been there. The first one is a major event. I was locked up in B1 by the Deputy Guardian for Intelligence, in June of 1976, in the Fiefield Manor. And there would be a mass of reports from that period, all of which would have gone into my B1 file. It’s ludicrous to say they were when it was such a major event for B1 itself.

There’s a document in here called the Jerry Armstrong Project, which involves a number of targets to be done regarding me. There should have been all the reports which arose from that. All the, actions which were taken by B1, because it was a B1 operation. There are a number of references in the B1 time track of material which was taken from my PC files. All of the cullings which were done of my PC files should have been in there.

There’s a document which begins, number three, that — this is number five on my list here, “Data on how” — it continues on for half a page, at least page one of that document is missing.

There is a page of Intelligence Report regarding the

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4066

Curacao Consulate, United States Consulate in Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles. There are no other Intelligence Reports for operations I was involved in in the Guardian’s Office, on the ship or later.

There’s a document there having to do with a dead agenting of Jerry Armstrong’s, dated September 30, 1982. It references a number of things about me, known out securities, some phone calls I allegedly made, a mission which I was supposed to have done to Charleston, communications to and from George Kelly. It references a Madrid incident, an incident when I was detained at the Madrid airport for a number of hours. This also — this is in itself, the DA of Jerry Armstrong, is a Black Propaganda Campaign orchestrated by the organization and there should be a mass of documents to do with that.

There’s a reference regarding an order from the Special Unit, PAC, Pacific area, stating I was not to be harassed. This is referenced, but it is not in the file.

Those are what I was able to, at a glance, see last night.

Q. So what you find are actually parts of documents or incomplete documents, and in addition to that, you find documents which reference other documents which are not in the file?

A. That’s correct. Every time my name would be

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4067

mentioned, that document would go into my file. There is massive cross filing within the Guardian’s Office in B1.

Q. Mr. Armstrong, are there any other documents which are not contained in your B1 file besides those you have already mentioned?

A. If we are only taking a cutoff date of April 1983, then all the documents concerning the month and a half of harassment by private investigators hired by the organization should all be in there.

Q. Would there be anything else in there?

A. I don’t know. Thereafter, there’s a mass of documentation which ought to be there.

Q. What would that mass of documentation concern?

A. It would concern all operations by the organization against me, operations in which people from the organization were sent out to contact me for various things, Terri Gamboa, Mark Rathbun. There was an operation in which I was harassed in London, England; that also would be in the B1 file or be in the Intelligence files in the organization, whatever those Intelligence files currently are. They renamed the Intelligence — the Guardian’s Office, the Office of Special Affairs at some point.

There would be information regarding photographs that were taken of me by the organization in November 1984. There would be references to and hopefully all the documents which

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4068

were stolen from the trunk of my car, in November 1984.

There’s a mass of documentation which the organization has assembled on me which they have in their possession, and they may have renamed the files from B1 to some other name, but they’ve got this information.

Q. Are you then aware of operations against you in the last year or two?

A. Yes.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, I think it’s clear from Mr. Armstrong’s testimony, if the Court would like to review, we’ve brought this B1 file. I think of particular interest is the fact that certain of these documents mention other documents of the same sort, yet those documents are not in the file.

The B1 file of Nibs Hubbard, which Mr. Armstrong has testified about, was produced for us. I can provide to the Court the copies we have from that file which show that when these excerpts are taken, the other documents are contained in the same — it was then the B1 file. The difference may be that in Nib’s file, it was things that — the documents which they produced were unfavorable to L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., whereas in this case, the documents not being produced would be favorable to Mr. Armstrong.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4069

We request that there be sanctions against the defendants if they do not forthwith produce the entire B1 file of Mr. Armstrong, and those documents which would be contained in that file. What has happened is, they have produced documents which are incomplete in many instances, documents which have been removed in many instances, and the entire file should be produced.

MR. MANION: Your Honor, Mr. Armstrong has no familiarity with what his file contained before he left the organization, so he can’t tell us what has been taken out of the file. He says a lot should have been, should have been, ought have been. He’s been out of the organization since December of ’81.

THE COURT: Mr. Manion, where are all these documents ?

MR. MANION: All the documents referenced in the time track? They are collected throughout the organization in Ethics files, in Knowledge Reports, in Flag Orders. The man was in the organization, according to his own testimony, for eleven years. Hundreds and hundreds of documents and other sources, talking to people, were used to compile the time track. For him to say that L. Ron Hubbard’s son’s time track is different to him —

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4070

THE COURT: I don’t care about that. I want to know where these documents are in the organization.

MR. MANION: They are in the organization.

THE COURT: Let’s have them.

MR. MANION: All right. We’ll get on it.

THE COURT: In view of what we decided last night of what cross-examination is going to consist of, I want all documents with reference to Mr. Armstrong, everything listed here, everything circled, everything on this addendum list, produced.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, we would request documents to date since the allegations concern things which would have taken place after May of 1983.

THE COURT: I was expecting that question. Are we going to get into an area after the date he left?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Then we need those documents as well.

MR. COOLEY: All right, Your Honor.

MR. WADE: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now the question is, when?

MR. COOLEY: We will put our people to work

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4071

on it as soon as business concludes today.

THE COURT: Mr. Gutfeld is sitting there.

MR. COOLEY: May I consult with him, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

(Mr. Cooley and Mr. Manion consulted off the record with Mr. Gutfeld.)

MR. COOLEY: We believe we can do it by Monday, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That will work; in view of what our timetable is, I think that will work.

MR. COOLEY: I think it will, too, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, that satisfies that requirement, Mr. Wade.

MR. WADE: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We have this document; I’ll hold on to it and let’s work again.

Bring the jury back.

(Following proceedings held in the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4072

BY MR. COOLEY:

Q. On or about November 7, 1984, did you meet in Griffith Park in Los Angeles with a person known to you by the name of Joey?

A. I can’t tell you the date, but I have met someone known to me as Joey.

Q. And did you meet him in Griffith Park in November?

A. It’s very likely. Again, I met him a number of times, and November comes to mind.

Q. And did you understand at that time that Joey was a representative of a group within Scientology known as the Loyalists?

A. That’s basically how he called himself.

Q. And did you understand at that time or believe at that time that Joey was a staff Scientologist?

A. I asked Joey at the outset whether or not he was working for Scientology, and he said he was not. I never determined what post he was on or where or what organization he was in, if he was. In fact, I attempted to find out exactly where he and where the others in the organization, that he said he was a part of, where they were, who they were, and I could not and did not. But he assured me that he was not working for the organization; that is, he was not working for RTC ASI Scientology, whatever that corporate thing is.

Q. On the occasion that I refer to, did Joey furnish you

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4073

with some internal documents?

A. The one time — I believe there was one time Joey furnished me with some documents, they were public documents — that is, they were published by the organization — and I took them and gave them to the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS.

Q. On the occasion of your meeting with Joey, to which I have been referring, did you review the documents, saying that you would study them later and that you and Mike would have a lot of questions based on the documents?

A. Boy, I may have said something like that, but it really doesn’t come to mind. What I did was provide the documents to the IRS. The documents all concerned some organization called, my recollection is, the International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors. And Joey had described this organization to me as something that the organization — that is, Scientology or whoever — corporately had set up in order to cover up the decimation of what was called the Mission Network. And I didn’t know, prior to Joey’s telling me, of the existence of this group. But he said that that was the key to unraveling the corporate octopus, and I provided them to the IRS.

Q. Did you inform Joey, as you reviewed the documents, that you felt like a kid in a candy store and asked him whether the written issues that passed through the

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4074

organization were run off in the Church and whether the type face used on those issues was similar to the type face that appeared on the documents that he showed to you?

A. Run that by me again.

Q. Did you say to Joey in substance, when he handed you these documents and as you reviewed them, that you felt like a kid in a candy store and then asked him whether the type face on issues that went through the Church was the same as the type face that appeared on the documents that he was giving to you?

A. First of all, the kid in the candy store would not be my phrase at all. I don’t believe I have ever said that. He may have said it. But I would not have been concerned about the type face of these documents; it wouldn’t have concerned me at all. These documents were, I recall, mimeographed issues and were regular standard mimeo issues. We may have talked about type faces at some other time, but I don’t recall at that time. Perhaps Joey could correct me, but it doesn’t make any sense that I would have brought up type faces in regards to organization documents which I was getting.

Q. Did you on that occasion tell Joey that you could create documents with relative ease because you had done it for a living?

A. Not — Mr. Cooley, that’s — No.

Q. Did you on that occasion tell Joey that it was

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4075

necessary for you to talk about the kind of documents that should be created and who was going to get them?

A. I don’t quite understand your question. That I should talk — Run that by me.

Q. Did you tell Joey that it was necessary for the two of you to discuss the kinds of documents that should be created and placed in the files of Scientology and to whom they would be disseminated?

A. Joey had, perhaps on this occasion, and definitely on earlier occasion, brought up to me the possibility of placing documents in the organization. It was one of the plans of the group he belonged to. Obviously, it was an operation from the outset, but what he told me was, one of their plans was, in order to get rid of the little clique at the top of the organization, they wanted to plant — create documents and plant it — plant them in the organization. He brought this up on at least a couple of occasions. I said, “It makes no sense.” I said, “That will ultimately only get you more trouble and it really isn’t needed.” And I never agreed to such a thing, and I never suggested it.

Q. Had you, prior to the meeting to which I refer, furnished Joey or any other alleged Loyalist, with a copy of a complaint to be filed against the Church and individuals in the Church, including L. Ron Hubbard?

A. What happened was — I’ll give you that, because we

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4076

are talking about two documents here. So I will go back, now that the whole situation is out, and again, it’s obvious that this is an operation, was from the start, and that I was sucked in by this organization one more time.

I was called just after the Armstrong trial, which ended in early June, 1984. I was called by someone, and this person said, did I want my PC files. I had wanted my PC files for a long time, and it was obvious that, sure, I wanted my PC files, I didn’t want the organization to have them, and I wanted them for my own peace of mind and any number of reasons.

The person — it was a male voice — said that they were being transferred that night. And later I got that they were being transferred from ASI. They were being transferred that night, and did I want them. I said, “Are you going to deliver them to me?” I still don’t know who made the call, but I thought at the time it might be Mark Rathbun, who I saw in the court this morning, but it probably wasn’t, it was probably someone else working for the organization.

So I then asked — or it came out that I would have to go somewhere and pick them up, and I said you, “Could that be construed as accepting stolen property?”

And the person said, “I don’t know what the legal definition of it would be.”

So I said, “Well, in that case, as much as I want

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4077

them, I’ll pass.” That was my first direct contact, and here it was just a voice on the end of the phone.

Within a day or two — I was at that time — The trial had just completed, my trial, and I had already made arrangements prior to the trial to testify in a case in London, England, a custody case. And I was called again and — same voice — and I was told that “While you are in England, you are going to be served with a lawsuit by the organization. And the reason this is to take place in England is because over there, you are going to have to get an attorney and you are going to have to come back here, and you are going to have to go back there, and they are going to break you financially by your having to defend yourself.”

So in any case, I still decided to go to England. While in England — I arrived on a Friday in England, and by Tuesday, I had picked up surveillance.

I was with my wife over there, and we were staying in a little hotel, and we knew we were being surveilled on Tuesday. I had testified on a Monday and we left on a Friday, and we picked up surveillance in London on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. And it made it an extremely unpleasant stay in London when it could have been something half decent.

On the way, flying out of Heathrow Airport in London, three people who identified themselves as private

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4078

investigators — we only had about — The plane was boarding when this thing happened and we were in a panic to get through lines and to get there, and we were followed from the hotel out to the airport. And then two more PI’s picked us up in the airport, and I was indeed served with a paper.

The paper was not a lawsuit. It had — It was an emergency stay in my case from the Appellate Court, sealing the documents which had been admitted into evidence. This was served on me; it made no sense whatsoever, because what had been custom up to that point, simply to give my attorney a copy of whatever paper I was being noticed with.

During this period, which lasted about ten minutes with the private investigators, this guy kept repeating that — first of all, he said, “What were you doing in the Old Cock Tavern on Tuesday night?” And I said, “You are nuts.” The Old Cock Tavern happens to be on Fleet Street right — a little down the road from the Court, High Court in which I was testifying in the custody case. And I — in fact, my wife and I had had lunch at the Old Cock Tavern on the Monday preceding this alleged incident on the Tuesday. I said, “You are nuts.” He said, “You were observed by two private investigators in the Old Cock Tavern on Tuesday.” I said, “You are nuts. I was in the Old Cock Tavern on Monday.” He said, “Who was the Arab you were talking to in the Old Cock Tavern?” Again I said, “You are nuts. I never talked to an Arab.”

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4079

And he kept pushing this and finally he ended up saying, “You were observed by two private investigators passing sealed documents to a bearded Arab in the Old Cock Tavern on Tuesday evening” — an incident which never took place. My wife and I had, in fact, gone to the Old Cock Tavern on Tuesday because the luncheon Monday had been okay, and the place was sealed off. That is, the dining room part was sealed off. So after the Monday, I was never in the Old Cock Tavern; I never spoke to any Arabs there. The only person I did speak to there was the waitress and my wife.

In any case, I knew at this point there was some operation going down regarding me, and I was extremely freaked out and upset. Then I got back to the U.S. And the day after my arrival I prepared an affidavit, which was filed in my case, laying out all of these — the incidents from London.

Then there was another series of events which happened. I was in court in my own case — there was a hearing — and I had won my case and there was a decision which had come from the judge; it was a very strong decision, it was completely in my favor. And the attorney for the organization, a guy by the name of John Peterson, went into an absolute tirade in the court, again going through the same party line of the organization: that I was a thief, that I had stolen these documents, and I was guilty — when those private investigators who harassed me and my wife for a month

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4080

and a half, I was guilty because I had taken their photographs.

And I knew then that there simply is no way that courts can restrain these people; that it is a terrorist organization. I had beat them in court and yet it was meaningless. And I knew this whole thing came from Hubbard. And I knew that I had no future whatsoever, and the only thing to do was to confront what was this thing which was masquerading as a religion and was, in fact, a terrorist organization.

So during that period of time, I was again contacted by — by whoever. It probably ended up being this person Joey; I never got his real name; I don’t know it to date. There was a meeting that took place. And I don’t recall if — during the meeting or before, but any case, at one of these events, and they took place over at least a couple of months and possibly several months. I had a complaint which had been prepared a couple of years before by my then attorney Michael Flynn, and the complaint was essentially to have a receiver — I don’t know the legalese on this, but to have a receiver appointed, to put the organization in the hands of a receiver so that the money which was being paid to private investigators to attack people like myself, that that sort of activity could be curtailed.

Around the same time, I learned of — in the press,

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4081

the organization made an accusation against my attorney, Michael Flynn, for — the claim was that he had attempted to cash a forged check of $2 million on LRH’s account. I know Michael Flynn, and Michael Flynn has saved my life in this whole thing. And I knew that that was again nothing more than an organization operation.

I knew that they were trying to tie me in, because the person that they — that the organization claimed linked Michael Flynn in was an Arab by the name of Tamimi. And the organization came with this idea, or they claimed that they had obtained the proof of Michael Flynn’s forging the check, by — from a private investigator by the name of Eugene M. Ingram. I had known that Ingram was working for the organization sometime prior to that. I had been shown press on Eugene M. Ingram during the Armstrong trial. I knew this was a guy who had been dismissed from the Los Angeles Police Department, that he had been indicted on charges of pimping, pandering, involvement in drugs, and that this was the guy that the organization was using to set up Michael Flynn. And this was the guy that Hubbard, ASI, that group within the organization was paying him and his ilk to destroy me. And I knew that I’ll do whatever I can. I never did anything illegal, in any case.

I knew then that they had this alleged incident with me passing alleged documents to this bearded Arab — Tamimi’s

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4082

an Arab. Somehow they are trying to hook me into it. I went to the FBI, and I continued to provide whatever information I could to the FBI as this whole thing developed. I think it’s very serious. And they are talking about the absolute destruction of a decent man’s reputation, and they bought the testimony of Tamimi, a known perjurer who was then, awaiting extradition to the United States, in an Italian jail. And they used this as the facts on which to smear Michael Flynn’s name. I was obviously involved because of the Arab connection. I didn’t know how, but I knew it was an operation.

In any case, sometime along, I was recontacted by Joey. And the main thrust of the communications from Joey was that this group — he never identified them — they were apparently within and without the organization. I don’t know who they are. He said that they want to reform the organization. He said that they believed that the smear of Michael Flynn was a setup by the organization. They said that they had more information regarding this.

And at some point, either prior to or right following the first incident, they gave me a document — you know, who they are, I don’t know — it was the second page of what in Scientology is called a Cramming Order. Someone — and she was identified as Ann Rackerman or Rackeman, was crammed within the organization — crammed means that you are sent to

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4083

be straightened out, to be corrected, because you erred in something. She was somehow involved in the Tamimi-Ingram setup: Michael Flynn. Within that document was a name “Rezervitz”; it was partially blacked out, but I was able to make that out of it.

I knew, via Michael Flynn, the name of the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston who was involved in the investigation of this matter. And I called him up and I read to him what this thing which had been provided to me said, and he said send it to him. All I had was a handwritten — it was handwritten off the document, off the second page. I had handwritten it. And I did call up Brackett Deniston, gave him the information and sent him that document.

Subsequently as the — this mythical group, whoever they were in the organization, provided me more information. I don’t know — again, it is probably an operation by Hubbard-Ingram, right from the start; it probably was, and probably I was duped.

In any case, I trusted these people, and they provided me more information. It was information which linked in a company by the name of Intercap in Arizona, and Intercap led to a company called Intertel — Intertel is an international intelligence — private intelligence organization. And the organization had given money to Intercap and Intertel. The information however, which she

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4084

said should have been in the files, had been removed from the files in an attempt to cover up the Ingram-Intercap-Intertel connection. That’s all I know of that, but I provided that information again to the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston.

I met with Joey — the first time I met him was — and each time I met him — it was on his instructions on where to go, and I followed whatever security precautions he deemed were advisable to take. I was fairly high profile by choice. That’s the way I felt that it was my best protection in this whole thing. He chose a different route. And when I met with him, I accepted whatever directions he gave. I always asked him if he was taping the conversation, he said no. I asked him if he was working for the organization, he said no.

In all conversations, I stressed that I have no interest in Scientology. To me, it is a perfidious organization. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I don’t care if other people continue to be Scientologistists, that’s up to them. But the reign of terror of the organization, I considered, had to stop. And I was out there. How it happened to — you know, how I got put in the position, I will never know. By misfortune, probably.

Joey’s and this group’s, so he said, their main interest was in proving that the Tamimi-Ingram story was false. I think that current events, as have been up folding, have been showing that to be true. I was recently sent a copy

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4085

of a post card which had been received in the U.S., from Tamimi, in which he stated that he now knew what Ingram was up to and that people were being hurt, and that he wanted to talk to somebody. He said he had sent the same thing to the press and that he had sent it to the U.S. Consulate. I think he said the consulate or embassy. I have a copy of that post card. And that was within the last month.

So I said to Joey, and I said it on the first occasion, and I said it a number of occasions, that “If they want to take over this organization, fine with me. If they say they want to end the reign of terror, fine with me. If they want to reform the organization, fine with me.”

They said that they contacted me because I had a track record. They said that I had the only — I was the only one with known statistics, that I had taken on the organization and beat them; that is, in my own case. And that I had been the only one to do that and that’s why they were contacting me. I don’t know. You know, they know my buttons, and they know on what subjects I’m sensitive and they probably played them to the hilt. They know how chose I was to Mike Flynn. They knew I wanted to protect Mike Flynn.

Anyway, I met with him a number of times. There was probably two main meetings. Throughout this, as well, I was writing a book, which I continue to writeworking title of that book was, from the outset, On The Trail of Eugene M. Ingram.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4086

It probably is on the trail of L. Ron Hubbard, ultimately, but it’s a book and it involves this massive intelligence operation by the organization. And it involves my own part in it. It involves communications which I gave to these people, different kinds. Some were quips, because underneath this all, I do have a sense of humor. Some were — you know, statements which they requested. Various, various things. I don’t even recall what they all are right now.

I’m sure Mr. Cooley is going to bring them all out here and parade them in front of everyone.

I was asked about various possibilities. They said that they had a concern and I had a concern, that what happened, when this thing finally resolves, is not a Jonestown. And the various things which I suggested and which Joey suggested, I thought were in alignment with that need to make — they wanted a transition of power within the organization. They wanted to get rid of the clique at the top. They were very concerned about Ingram. They were very concerned — they laid out to me how — when I say “they”, I spoke to two people. Joey was, I suppose, a messenger for the organization. So often I say “they”, because he spoke as if he were speaking for this group.

They wanted to get rid of the private investigators. They were very afraid of the private investigators. They were afraid for their lives. So they said.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4087

I told them that they should know from the outset that the organization knows who I am, they know where I live, they have taken my deposition many days so far, they are going to take it again. I’m going to be asked questions. I said that I would try to protect identities. And I still would do that today if the Judge ordered me to name names, I would have to give it a lot of thought. I suppose it’s moot at this point, because it was an organization operation from the start. But I told them that.

We discussed a number of things. Some of the things were light. Some of the things were heavy. I can’t recall everything that we did discuss. There was a very intense time. I met him — I only recall two locations. One was in the cemetery and one was in Griffith Park. And it may be as Mr. Cooley, says November 7.

On November 8, I was photographed by people from the organization about two miles away from the organization, from the Cedars Complex in Los Angeles. And at that time, I was going to the IRS and I parked in an underground parking. And I was up talking to the IRS for approximately 45 minutes, during which time a briefcase containing a manuscript, the original handwritten pages of a manuscript, and about 50 pages of artwork, so there was about 350 pages in all, was stolen from my trunk. It was locked. They went through with a little tool.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4088

In my opinion, although the evidence is only circumstantial, the organization got that manuscript and the various documents which went along with it.

I had my attorney at the time, Julia Dragojevic, write a letter demanding the photographs that were taken of me. She also mentioned in her letter that the manuscript that had been stolen, and in you got that, give it up.

I got back a rather disgusting letter from John Peterson, in which he said — didn’t even mention the photographs. He didn’t mention the organization having them. And he went on a tirade again about me. Some of those documents from the manuscript or from whatever was in my briefcase, probably you will see them here today.

Sometime later, I met with another person. I don’t know if he’s been identified by the organization yet or not. If it’s an operation, it’s obvious. If they got him through one of their sec checks, his fate is also obvious. In any case, I won’t give you his name, but he was supposedly above Joey within this group. This group of reformers. And I met with him —

Oh, now, we come to the subject of the complaints, which Mike Flynn had prepared this one approximately two years before. There were, at that time, a number of people who had left the organization who also wanted to reform it, perhaps they considered themselves Scientologists, certainly they had

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4089

given their lives to Scientology, and they wanted to do something. They never did. But he prepared a complaint and the object of it was to put the organization, Scientology, in the hands of a receiver. Which, in my opinion, still exists as a possibility for resolution of the Scientology problem and still is the sanest solution, because it should be with the courts. It just, in my opinion, it should not happen that this organization can continue hiding behind the cloak of religiosity.

So I gave a copy of this first complaint to these people. They wanted to do something. Later they said — and I can’t recall exactly who said what, whether or not it was in a telephone call or whether or not the intermediary told me or whether it was Joey or the other guy. But one of them told me that the complaint was for — that it wasn’t current enough. And that they even had some people who were in the organization, who they said would be parties. So I asked Mike Flynn — and this is Mike’s sole involvement with this — Mr. Cooley asked me about something about Michael Flynn being involved in covert activities. And the fact is no, he never has been. Mike — At my request, he gave me this thing. And his idea has always been from the outset, get it out in the open. Get the truth known. That’s the way he’s approached it. He’s been completely open with me and he has given me free reign to say whatever I know. He has never tried to

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4090

suppress the truth and he has never engaged in covert activity.

So I asked Mike, and he drafted this document and I gave it to these people. When I met this person, he asked me a question — I think this was the first meeting, because I met him twice. He asked me something about Mike Flynn being behind this. I had not mentioned Mike Flynn or that this document had come from him, and I thought it strange at the time. And I should have twigged, as we say, that there was something going on because the question in retrospect was possibly a setup. And I said, “I won’t tell you who is behind it. And if I’m asked under oath, I’ll tell you the same thing. I’m behind it. Mike did it for me. I relayed it to them at their request. They are be behind it.”

In any case, I had these two meetings. We exchanged information. They said that they were using me because — as I say, I had a track record, I had known statistics, I was in connection with people on the outside.

Oh, also, at the first meeting, they wanted to know of the possibility, what would the federal agencies do? Could they cut a deal, was their word. Excuse me. Could they cut a deal with the federal agencies. I had given testimony at that time to the — Ontario Provincial Police, the state attorneys office in Florida, the FBI — that was in a separate case — and the criminal division of the IRS. They said that they

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4091

were concerned because there had been this IRS ruling which had come down denying their tax-exempt status. And they thought that if they were going to take over this organization, or do whatever they had to do to get rid of the little cabal at the top, that they would want to reinstate their tax-exempt status or get it back or get it. And they asked me about cutting a deal with any of these agencies.

I said, “In my opinion, that all of these agencies would probably be pleased to know that the organization was becoming honest and that they would probably work with these people, but that they could do nothing.”

During this period of time when I was talking to these people, I brought up the subject with the criminal investigation division of the IRS. I said that I had been contacted by these people who say that they want to reform the organization, they want to know what you will do. Their answer was, “Have these people come forward and testify. If they are afraid for their life, we will meet them anywhere under any conditions. We want to protect them the best way that we can protect them as if they are witnesses.”

I, myself, was a witness and to some degree, I feel protected because I am a federal witness. I doubt that the organization is going to bump me off, because I’m a known federal witness.

And the IRS also said that — that if there was a

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4092

transition in power within the organization, that it would probably be business as usual. They, their attorneys, would simply then be in communication with this new — new management’s new attorneys, and that that’s how it would be. They would not be involved. They did say that if there is going to be anything going down, they also don’t want a Jonestown, and that if something like that happens, that these people should get in touch with them. And this is basically what I relayed back. I gave them the people inside, because I felt that, you know, if these people are sincere and if they are nailed by the organization, they are in some trouble so they should at least have phone numbers to contact. And I gave these to Joey with a couple of names. FBI and CID of the IRS.

I then — I also relayed to them that — and I said this many times in many contexts, there’s nothing that I can do, there’s nothing that the IRS can do, there is nothing that the FBI can do. If you guys want to do something, you do it. You cannot tag onto the coattail of indictments which may come down at some point. Because we all knew that there was a criminal investigation going on by the IRS and there was — the investigation and pending case by the Ontario Pronvincial Police, and I think there’s even a mention of that in the second complaint, which was just — it was a draft. It was not to be used because, you know, Mike was writing this at my

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4093

request on the information which I relayed from these people, and it could simply not be accurate.

I was asked at one point about an attorney. They said they were considering Mike Flynn or Contos and Bunch. Both of whom were my attorneys in the Armstrong case. I said that, in my opinion, because you people, in bringing this action, are in essence Scientology, that it would be a — what’s the legal term? —

THE COURT: Try conflict of interest.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

There would be a conflict of interest. And I checked this out with the attorneys involved. Mike and Contos and Bunch — they said, yes, but that’s how they would perceive it as well.

So the organization — this group, said they wanted to get an attorney, they wanted me to find them an attorney. So I did what I could. I got ahold of a couple of possible names. Then they said that they had already contacted an attorney. And through a series of communications and ultimately being directed to a particular secret location, I met with an attorney. And I don’t know if his name is out or not or if he was working for the organization. My guess is he was, but if — I would just as soon not say whose name it is.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4094

Now, not being very gifted in the legal business, I asked him at the outset — I was driven there and just dropped off. So I met with this guy alone. I said at the outset, “I don’t know what’s going to happen in all this. I would — I would only talk to you if it would be considered that our communication is confidential.” He said, “Yes, but in any case I’m here now and I will waive it.”

He had the complaint and he said that he was working on it. I still didn’t know his client. And the main — the substance of my communication to this man was, because he wanted me to substantiate some of the allegations in this complaint. I said, “These are things which your client, whoever that is, has been saying, they were saying to me. They have the information. I can’t do a thing. I can’t tell you when indictments are going to happen. All of the federal agencies or law enforcements of any kind is extremely closed mouthed. They don’t tell me anything. Occasionally they will call up and ask for a specific esoteric piece of information and I’ll try to provide it. But I don’t get anything from them.” I said that, “This all depends on your client. If your client is legitimate, if your client legitimately wants to do something about

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4095

this, then perhaps there’s a vehicle that they can use, they can go through the court and they can do that thing. In my opinion, a receivorship makes sense. The terrorism should end.” It was a fairly brief communication with this attorney.

I haven’t communicated to him since. I left him with the recommendation that, “I am not an attorney, I can’t — certainly cannot recommend anything to you. Talk to Michael Flynn. He can explain this better than I am. He has been involved with the organization since 1979, at least. It’s been a long-term thing. He understands it. He understands the issues. He knows about Ingram. He knows about John Peterson. He knows about the control of the ASI, Author Services. He knows about the funneling of money to Hubbard. He could better than I.” I said, “It all depends on your client. If your client has the courage, great. If it’s all a sham, if it’s all bogus, too bad.” That’s really how we left it. If they taped the conversation, maybe we will hear it later today.

My final meeting with one of those people — actually there was a subsequent one which was just going out to dinner. It was with Joey, having a few beers, eating a meal, and mainly discussing his

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4096

conflict about staying in the organization or getting out of it. That was — I don’t know, maybe it was two — maybe two months ago. It is probably another part of whole operation to keep Armstrong on the hook.

But this last time I met with this — the second guy, it was sort of a heated conversation. And I felt like he was trying to get me to say things say. He was trying to make me responsible for this whole — whole thing. I was responsible, I was wrong because the Canadians hadn’t come through. That kind of thing. And we discussed Scientology a little bit. I gave him my viewpoint, which I would give to anyone. And we left.

Sometime after, maybe a couple days later, I got a phone call from Joey and he read me a short message which apparently had come from these people, and it was — it was sort of a kick in the teeth. And I felt, you know, it a bit heavy. And I wrote them a letter which I sent in via this intermediary. I don’t know where the stuff goes. You know, obviously it went into the — you know, their B1 files.

And, you know, a letter like a lot of my stuff kind of flips between absolute morbidity and

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4097

absolute mirth. And that was the last real communication. Anything I got from them, and there was only those two instances, I provided to the appropriate law enforcement agency; anything I gave to them, I don’t know what there is.

I do know that at one point I wrote — this is my recollection of what I have written — they wanted to get rid of the PIs, the private investigators. They wanted to get rid of Ingram. They were scared of Ingram. I noted that the use of private investigators is by Scientology’s own policy, off-policy. Hubbard states that they are not to use outside agencies. Use our own professionals. That’s a quote. Citing this, I wrote up, and I can’t even tell you what I said, it was probably funny, probably — I can’t tell you. We are probably going to see it here today. And just an idea for these guys to do whatever they were going to do to get rid of the — get rid of the PIs, due to the fact it was off-policy, due to the fact that the private investigators had, in fact, got them in more trouble than they got them out of. And I wrote in a few notes. And I really can’t tell you what they are.

In all communications to these people, I

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4098

tried to impress on them that I had survived this far because I had not done anything illegal. The organization had. That was their downfall. They at least twice, possibly more times, suggested — they had this idea of creating documents and then having a raid, having the organization raided. I thought it was a stupid idea.

In these conversations, I may have said at the outset, even this I doubt, when asked — I may have mulled it over, like it is a possibility. But I never left anyone with that impression that that was ever my idea or that I ever condoned it.

So I think I have covered more or less the whole sordid story. I should say, as well, that right after the story of Michael Flynn came out by the organization in the national press, I called and Eugene Ingram at that point was involved, and I was told by the people, these people, Joey and his friend, that Hebert Jench, who is the figurehead president of the Scientology International Corporation, had given a speech or a number of speeches in which he had laid out that Ingram was responsible for the investigation. They also provided me with the names of other private investigators. I don’t recall who their names are

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4099

at this time, but I passed those on. They said that Hebert was going around making a speech, that Ingram was there, and that Ingram was making this claim about Michael Flynn.

When I heard this, I called up Eugene Ingram, I first called his office, I talked to a secretary in the office, couldn’t get ahold of him. He called back fairly shortly thereafter. It was a very intense communication from Mr. Ingram. He stated that he was going to — pardon me here — he was going to fuck with me. He was going to get me. He was going to see me in jail. And he ended it by saying he was going to put a bullet between my eyes. And this was the guy who was employed by L. Ron Hubbard as his hired muscle. That occurred shortly after the materials surfaced in the newspaper, after I was back from London. That was the last communication I had with Eugene M. Ingram.

I think that’s about it.

COOLEY: (Continuing)

Did you, on or about November 7 —

MR. WADE: Your Honor, could we have a recess at this time. It’s about time for the morning recess. Mr. Armstrong’s been talking —

THE COURT: We will take a very brief recess.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4100

Please remember my cautionary instructions.

(Jury was excused.)

MR. McMURRY: We have a brief matter.

(Following proceedings held out of the presence of the jury.)

MR. McMURRY: We have a matter for the Court, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. McMURRY: When this line of questioning was suggested yesterday afternoon, we objected strenuously under the evidence code of the State of Oregon. We also objected on the grounds — excuse my voice. I have a bad cold.

THE COURT: It’s okay.

MR. McMURRY: We also objected on the ground that it is incumbent upon the Court to protect the witness from harassment and embarrassment and undue delay or opening issues that will unduly confuse and prolong a proceeding. The Court, based upon Mr. Cooley’s statement that he would connect up criminal activity and a conspiracy — criminal conspiracy, allowed for this limited question.

I thank the Court for allowing the testimony to be fully stated. Obviously very, very sensitive to the witness. I now move that the matter be

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4101

stricken and that the Court give the jury the limiting instructions that the matter was inquired into for the limited purpose of credibility. That’s the only purpose for which it could be inquired into. And that as a matter of law, the matter has been explained, and unless and until Mr. Cooley at this time can, in-camera, bring clear and convincing evidence, the matter is stricken from the Court and then we would ask the Court for additional sanctions to be imposed, depending upon what the in-camera showing of this great evidence that he promised as an officer — special officer of this Court.

MR. COOLEY: I haven’t finished laying the groundwork yet. I would then, after doing so, be pleased to have the Court view, in camera, the evidence that I have of this witness’ criminal conduct.

MR. McMURRY: Further cross-examination on this subject without an in-camera showing by sworn testimony would be improper, and highly prejudicial, Your Honor. The full discussion of the incident was allowed by the Court, and I think properly, to give the context. And I don’t think that further cross-examination on this subject will do anything but prejudice, harass, attack, confuse and prolong

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4102

this proceedings. Without such an in camera, under oath, by witnesses, not by protestation of counsel, but by witnesses, a full hearing on this extraneous matter of criminal conspiracy.

MR. COOLEY: I simply wish to ask the witness additional statements and give him an opportunity to either admitt them or deny them in connection with his conversationss with Pal Joey. And once he’s done so, I would be happy to submit to the Court, in camera, the evidence that I have.

THE COURT: All right. I think you have the right to ask questions regarding conversations he’s been allowed to testify to. And then I’m going to grant your motion, Mr. McMurry, to hear in camera what this evidence will be.

MR. McMURRY: Sworn testimony, Your Honor.

MR. COOLEY: I will inform the Court as to what my evidence is at the appropriate time. May I make a representation to the Court that I have it.

THE COURT: That’s the representation that I was relying on yesterday afternoon that allowed us to go forward in this matter.

MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir.

MR. McMURRY: Your Honor, we object to that proceeding. The procedure within discretion of this

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4103

Court and the federal procedure, as a matter of practice, it is when this type of extraneous evidence on this serious a matter for a witness, before proceeding further, then the evidence must be adduced upon which further examination shall take place, because the prejudice cannot be offset by a limiting instruction.

THE COURT: To my way of thinking, the only person that has been prejudiced so far is Mr. Cooley’s clients.

MR. COOLEY: I have allowed the full explanation to be made by this witness because I felt it was consistent with Rule 609 (1), that he be permitted to make that explanation.

THE COURT: And he did.

MR. COOLEY: Now he has made it. I wish to finish making my record and then we will let the Court and jury decide whether the impeaching testimony —

THE COURT: No, first I’ll hear what that’s going to be.

MR. COOLEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And then we will decide.

MR. COOLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4104

(Court recessed at 11:12 a.m. Reconvened at 11:28 a.m.)

THE COURT: Get the jury.

(Following proceedings were held in the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. COOLEY: (Continuing)

Q. The meeting on November 7th with Joey, did you say to him that the best way to handle the creation of documentation was through the preparation of CSW or completed staff work in connection with an issue on which the person creating the issue would keep copies of the CSW that would be in the files in the event of discovery in a civil case brought against the Church or in the event of a raid?

A. No. We did discuss creation of the writing of a CSW, and the main area of interest was private investigators. And the object was — again, this was — you know, they asked me and I gave them whatever ideas I could. The object was to get the private investigators removed. The object was — These people considered themselves, at least to some degree the way they presented themselves, were the old-time GO personnel. Joey considered himself an intelligence specialist. The object was to reestablish intelligence in the hands of the organization, show that it had worked in the past and

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4105

therefore they could get rid of these thugs, private investigators. It was necessary to write a CSW and get the various people’s signatures on the way up, even if it was a turndown, because the organization was, in fact, involved further on in an off-policy action by the use of private investigators. So how exactly they were going to do this? I don’t know. In fact, they asked me and I even just scribbled one out for them, something about the private investigators. Mr. Cooley undoubtedly has it.

They would have to retain a copy, not in the event of a raid, but simply as proof that it did occur. There could not be a denial by the top of the organization if a copy was retained.

Q. Did you tell Joey you could write the CSW and that you could duplicate the print and the ink?

A. Well, the two questions are actually different questions. I said I could not write the CSW because I don’t have the information. They had the information. They have the specifics. I did, in fact, write — I don’t think I completed it, and I think that it was just some notes, and whatever it is, is what it is. That has nothing to do with the use of inks. What was planned, and this centered around the fear that the transition, whatever these guys had planned, would be a blood bath.

So there were a number of possibilities discussed.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4106

One of them was, they had contacts on the outside, they had contacts on the inside, so they said. This is based on their representation to me, because I don’t know who these people are.

And we discussed ways in which people within the organization could be contacted in advance of whatever these people did. They knew; I didn’t. I even asked them, “Where are your people placed so that I can assess who the heck I’m dealing with?” I didn’t get that information.

I suggested sort of a buddy system, so that in the event one of them got nabbed, they would know what to do; that the other guy would take care of them.

I suggested, and — I don’t know who actually suggested it, but we did talk about the necessity of in advance of whatever these guys do, writing some issues which would pave the way so that there was not a blood bath. And that’s the only idea that the use of inks, that is nothing whatsoever to do with the CSW; that is, the creation of mimeographed issues similar to whatever the organization uses so that there could be something written by the organization, by them, whoever they are, so that it just was not miniature holocaust. That’s what was discussed.

Q. Did you review papers with Joey and tell him that you had ideas on how to change them, and that since you could not go within a mile of the organization and you could not be

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4107

stuffing things into their communications baskets, that you would need helpers?

A. It wasn’t — He apparently was in touch with people who was inside the organization. It would be ludicrous for me to say that I was going to do this. It’s just ludicrous. He had these things. He came to me and said he — his group — I don’t even know if he knew who they all they were. He said they were placed in various places within the organization. He said that they had been in the organization for two years prior to ever contacting me; that they had been operating as this group, the Loyalists, for two years.

So I did ask him about people in various places. Did he have someone in mimeo? He told me they had as they placed people, he said, within the organization. He told me about it. He told me about they now had two members on the Board of Scientology of California. He said that they had people in PR; that they had recently placed someone in PR. He said that they had placed someone at Gilman Hot Springs. All of these were his resources. I had no way of contacting them.

Q. Did you meet with Joey again in Los Angeles on November 9, 1984?

A. I can’t tell you, again, if that’s the date or not. It may have been. In Los Angeles?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Okay. This is another meeting that I had not brought

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4108

up earlier.

I was taken by Joey — I don’t think we had initially met in Los Angeles; we usually went through a series of stops, drops, whatever they are called, and he took me to a hotel in Los Angeles — I think it’s the Sheridan Grand. And there I was to meet someone that he said was the group’s backer or potential backer.

Q. Financial backer?

A. That’s correct. As I’ve said, they were considering the filing of a lawsuit. He took me — And the way he introduced me was as he had talked to me before, as the person with known statistics, the person who knew what was going on on the outside of the organization, the person who had taken on the organization in the Armstrong trial and won.

Q. Excuse me Mr. Armstrong, just so you will know what I am talking about. I’m not talking about that meeting. I’m talking about another outdoor meeting.

A. That’s the only one in Los Angeles. The other ones were in Griffith Park, to my recollection.

Q. All right, Griffith Park. I’m talking about another meeting in Griffith Park.

A. Again, I don’t have records of dates, but I can tell you that I did meet him, probably two times in Griffith Park, this one time in Los Angeles, one time he took me to the attorney. One time he took me to this other guy, the second

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4109

person. A couple of times I met him and there was no meeting. I was supposed to meet the other guy; it couldn’t be established. Those are the times that I recall. There may be more, but those are definitely the times when I did meet him.

Q. On the second occasion of the second meeting in Griffith Park, did you tell him that you had reviewed the documents he had given you two days previously, and checked out the type styles and were then asked by him what your ideas were with respect to creating documents? And did you, before you would discuss your ideas with him, go over with him what the agreed story would be if he or you were deposed on the subject matter of your meetings?

MR. WADE: Your Honor, at this time we would object on the grounds that it appears that Mr. Cooley is reading from a transcript. If he is, we would request a copy of that transcript be given to the witness so he can determine whether or not it’s been read out of context.

THE COURT: Do you have a transcript of some sort?

MR. COOLEY: I have notes here. There will be the full text after I finish questioning the witness for the —

THE COURT: If it’s not an official transcript, overruled. Go ahead.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4110

BY MR. Q. Can you answer that question, sir?

A. We may have discussed that sort of thing. Generally, what I have — what I have said is, I will try and protect names, but I can’t tell you anything else. They are going to depose me, and if this comes up, it comes up. I don’t think there’s a Court, knowing this organization, that’s going to compel me to divulge the names of these people because it would put them at risk. As I say, obviously that’s moot because it was a setup from the start.

Q. Did you on that occasion, that second occasion, pose a situation to him whereby he is served with a paper saying you are deposed and not only that you are out of the organization, and put the question, what do we say in the deposition? And did you ask him whether or not he was going to say that Armstrong and he talked about this and had a whole bunch of ideas about how to infiltrate the communication lines and spread turmoil and disaster? What are we doing here, did you say to him? That is the question before I tell you my ideas on documents. Did you have that conversation with him?

A. Well, I do not recall those statements.

Q. Did you then say for an agreed story, of your meetings, that you and he got together had a goal of global settlement of the cases; that he had felt that the turmoil and abuses that had gone on so long were too long, and hence you and he got together and discussed things, and have not

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4111

discussed anything about destruction of the tech or that Scientology is bad or anything like that? And did you ask him whether he would agree to give such testimony if asked?

A. Something like that definitely may have occurred, because that has been my statement from the outset. It is that I sought a resolution of all the battles which were going on. I was enmeshed in this thing and, in fact, I had said to him from the outset that I want — what I’m seeking is down weapons and the madness. If I asked him would he agree to that? That’s why I’m here. If you are here for something else, maybe that’s the way it was.

Q. After he agreed to that scenario, did you then say to him, “Did it seem to you that the use of the communications lines were what he should do?” And did you say to him, “I’m saying that I can do it; I can type those goddamned things in duplicate and make them look exactly the same. You can’t. And you would not be able to tell the difference”?

A. That’s probably the case. Again, this had to do with the necessity of: if they were going to do anything — in advance of that, having something to explain what was going on, they had asked me a number of times to — on the outside, they wanted me to contact the press; they wanted me to contact — to set it up with a reporter in Clearwater, so that a story — so that their story could be in the press. So there was a number of things like that in which they elicited my help, and

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4112

I agreed.

Q. Did you not ask Joey to get you the information data, that you needed so you could prepare the documents to be planted in the form of CSW in the files of Scientology for the purpose of framing David Miscavage, Gene Ingram, John Peterson and others?

A. No.

MR. COOLEY: At this time, Your Honor, I am prepared to the submit to the Court two videotapes of the meetings of the seventh and ninth of November 1984.

THE COURT: I’m going to send you to lunch before we get into that — 1:30. You all know my cautionary instructions. Be sure you leave your notes locked in the jury room.

(Jury was excused. Following proceedings held out of presence of jury.)

MR. COOLEY: Get the equipment set up.

THE COURT: I assume you are going to want to say what these things are.

MR. WADE: Certainly, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you want to review those before I see them, so you can make any objections?

MR. COOLEY: An in camera inspection — I

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4113

have no objection to Mr. McMurry being here while you view it and seeing it right along as we view it together.

THE COURT: I don’t want to go through the lunch hour watching tapes.

MR. COOLEY: I couldn’t blame you for that, Your Honor.

MR. MCMURRY: Your Honor, we want to do two things. Number one, we will want to have the tapes examined by an audo-visual expert for determination of the amounts that have been edited and what editing has occurred, if any. And then we will need an opportunity to review them. Now, I don’t know whether the person that we have in mind would be available at noon today or not.

THE COURT: I suggest we better start making some phone calls.

MR. COOLEY: That’s what I recommend, Your Honor. That we get things set up, that the Court view them in camera commencing at 1:30. I can represent to the Court that the two full tapes run 1 hour and 48 minutes. And so perhaps 1:30 — it might be appropriate to give the jury their vacation early, because I’m sure we will have some skirmishing thereafter, after the Court has looked

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4114

at them.

MR. McMURRY: Well, in the first place we want to take the tapes and — what size tape is it?

MR. COOLEY: It’s a VHS.

MR. McMURRY: We would like to play it on our VHS system, Your Honor, in our office. Perhaps I can get the man to come to our office. I’m not sure whether I can or not. We will be back at 1:30 with the tapes and with such objections as we may have.

MR. COOLEY: I stenuously object to furnishing the tapes before the judge has seen them in camera.

THE COURT: We will get to the objection they made previously about releasing of their tapes.

MR. COOLEY: The last time we were only going to use excerpts, and Mr. McMurry said he was entitled to see them all. We are now going to screen them in their entirety, not just excerpts.

MR. MCMURRY: There are two tapes.

THE COURT: There are?

MR. MCMURRY: Certainly it would be a while to view them in our office and —

THE COURT: I don’t think he wants to give them to you. Then, somebody from their — if they resist giving them to you, then somebody can go over

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4115

there with you, if they want.

MR. McMURRY: Fine.

THE COURT: And sit there with you when you watch them.

MR. COOLEY: I think it’s inappropriate, Your Honor, for Mr. McMurry to be screening these tapes before the Court sees them and while the witness is still on the witness stand. After the Court has seen them, and the tapes are played for the Court, then Mr. McMurry —

THE COURT: But the problem — it would save an hour and 48 minutes.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor is going to have to view them in any event.

THE COURT: You may not have any objections.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, I guarantee he will have objections.

THE COURT: It looks like we are going to spend all afternoon watching tapes.

MR.COOLEY: I think it’s very important Your Honor.

MR. MCMURRY: That’s just delays. It’s absolutely some more delays. There’s no reason in the world. I have never been in a court yet where my reputation has not been sufficient that a

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4116

document going to be offered or an exhibit that’s going to be offered cannot be removed for examination.

THE COURT: Most times they wouldn’t object to it.

MR. McMURRY: Right. This is absolutely absurd. Now to waste the afternoon going through the same kind of procedure that can be done over of the noon hour is just absurd.

THE COURT: I agree, I don’t see any reason why you can’t look at them at noon.

MR. MCMURRY: Then the Court can order it.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, I think it’s terribly important, particularly under Rule 609 that contains no provision that the impeaching material or biased material has to be presented to opposing counsel before it’s used; that the Court — particularly under the superintendent’s power, that I referred to yesterday, screen these tapes on a in camera or voire dire basis; that the objections if any that Mr. McMurry has made at the time. And I will then allow Mr. McMurry’s expert to examine the tapes to satisfy himself that there has been no tampering with them.

MR. MCMURRY: Whatever Mr. Cooley thinks is

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4117

appropriate, Your Honor. Apparently he’s going to establish the rules, so —

THE COURT: Wait a minute, Mr. McMurry. That is not accurate. Let’s not get into that, as to what Mr. Cooley wants or what you want. I’m going to make the rules. And the rules are simple. They are not that complicated. If there is an objection to them giving them to you and request that the Court hear them in camera, that is the procedure that must be taken. Most times counsel will not make that objection. That’s why we don’t have this problem. He has made one. That requires the Court to look at them. That’s what we will do. We will look at them. I’m not crazy about the idea of wasting an hour and forty-eight minutes either. But if that’s what we have to do, so be it.

MR. COOLEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Court recessed at 11:55 a.m. Court reconvened at 1:36 p.m.)

THE COURT: The program will be, gentlemen, we will bring the jury back and I’m going to excuse them for the afternoon and they get their holiday tomorrow. We will take this afternoon on these tapes and legal arguments, which you indicated to me should take about two and half hours.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4118

(Following proceedings held in the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Well, I’ve got some good news for you. It is qualified. It’s going to take two and half hours and that may be three before we are through, to rule on some things that have to be ruled on before we can go forward with the case. I see no sense in having you sit in the jury room and just utilizing you for, at the most, an hour later today. So I’m going to let you start your vacation. You are going to get tomorrow off, as I indicated to you. I think it’s appropriate in view of the length of the case, the fact you have all been here promptly all the time and you have been paying close attention. I have been watching you and I know that you have. So I think at this time, it’s time you took a break from it for a day. That, plus the fact it’s Easter Sunday, Passover starts tomorrow night. Everybody should get their respective houses in order.

I’m going to go through the litany of my instructions. Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves. Do not discuss the case with your family or friends or anyone at all you may see over this long weekend. Do not allow anyone to

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4119

communicate with you or discuss with you any of the parties or this case at all. Do not go to work tomorrow. Consider yourselves sequestered for the purposes of this trial. I don’t want you to go to your respective places of employment. My fear there is people will ask you questions and I don’t want to put in a compromising situation of having to discuss anything about the matter. So the day off means what it says: a day off. Both work and here. Please leave your notes locked in the jury room when you leave.

Avoid the media regarding this case or any parties thereto. I think you all understand what I mean by that. I’m talking about stories, I’m talking about advertisements, I’m talking about radio coverage, TV coverage; whatever it might be. If you hear about any parties in this case, immediately tune yourself out.

Okay? Any questions before I let you go until Monday morning?

All right. You are excused until Monday morning at 9:30.

(Jury was excused. Following proceedings held out of the presence of the jury.)

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4120

THE COURT: This Court feels after five weeks they have earned it.

MR. COOLEY: I agree.

MR. McMURRY: Your Honor, if I may, if the Court would indulge me, I would like to ask you to take out the first volume of ORS, please, so that I can be reading from the statutes as you read with me. I would like the Court to turn to Chapter 133, please.

THE COURT: Criminal Procedure Generally?

MR. McMURRY: Yes, 133.731, which is the heading of that section entitled Interception of Communications. I would like the Court to be aware, as I’m sure you are, that —

THE COURT: You may rest assured I am.

MR. McMURRY: — that section 133.724 provides that: “Any Circuit Judge may, upon exparte motion of a person who is the District Attorney for the county, may authorize an interception or wire tap of an oral communication upon showing of certain factors contained in subsection (1) A through K.”

THE COURT: I know them very well. I just tried a case of the State v. Hinson, a murder in the first degree case and I had the problem.

MR. McMURRY: Very good, Your Honor.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4121

THE COURT: That was some weeks ago.

MR. McMURRY: There’s been no such showing in this proceedings. In addition, the statute, in its first section, provides: “That the interception or — describes an oral communication as “any oral communication, other than a wire communication, uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such exception.”

It goes on to define an agrieved person as “a person who was a party to any wire or oral communication intercepted under ORS 133. 724 or person against whom an interception was directed.”

The application for such an exparte order is —

THE COURT: You sound terrible.

MR. McMURRY: I am terrible, Your Honor. I am looking forward to —

THE COURT: I’m glad we have tomorrow off.

MR. McMURRY: I have a bad cold, but I’m not going to let that stand in the way of this matter.

Now, the Court knows the confidentiality of not only the application but the order, itself.

Going on, 133.733 provides: “The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted under ORS

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4122

133. 724 or evidence derived there from, shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in any court of this state unless each party, not less than ten days before the trial, hearing or proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the court order, accompanying application under which the interception was authorized or approved.”

That has not been done, of course.

Now, in such a situation, 133.735 applies and it provides: “Any agrieved person,” as I have previously defined, “in any trial, hearing or proceeding, in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the state or of a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted under ORS 133.724.”

It was not taken under that statute, as there has been no showing that such a motion was made by the District Attorney of this county. Nor has there been a motion to provide us with that application and the requisite showing.

Going on, 133.736 provides: “Any agrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency,

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4123

regulatory body or other authority of the state, or political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress under ORS 41.910, recordings of such conversation. Such motion shall be made before trial, unless the party did not have an opportunity, was not advised of the intent to use this tactic.”

Now, the statute goes on to provide in Oregon: “That any person whose wire or oral communication was intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of 133.724, or 133.737, shall have a civil cause of action against any person who wilfully intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use such communication and shall be entitled from such persons actual damages, but not less than damages conputed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of the violation or one thousand dollars, whichever is greater, punitive damages and attorneys fees.”

Going on, ORS Section 165.535, “Crimes and Punishments, and Section 165.540, part thereof, makes it a crime in this state for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if all participants

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4124

in the conversation are not specifically informed that the conversations is being obtained.”

So not only has a criin our state, but the effort to introduce evidence of this type violates our procedures in this state, entitling Mr. Gerry Armstrong to damages against the participants and the person who made use before this jury without prior authorization from this Court we will off videotapes of entire discussions before this jury. Lest there be some mistake that this is conduct condoned in the great State of California —

THE COURT: That was my next question.

MR. McMURRY: — County of Orange or any other county, I would call the Court’s attention to Section 631 and 632 of the California Annotated Code. That section, interestingly enough, Your Honor — interestingly enough, is entitled, and most appropriate for this case, Invasion of Privacy.

It provides, among other things: “Any person who by means of any machine, instrument or contrivance, electrically, acousticaly, inductively or any other way, engages in attempted surveillance of an oral communication without the consent of all parties, is civilly liable, criminally liable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or by

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4125

imprisonment in the county jail.”

The exceptions are to a public utility. There’s one other exception, which I think is very, very important, 63 — I’m sorry, 633.5. “Recording, communications relating to commissions of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, felony involving violence against the person.”

I would like to read that in its entirety, if I may, Your Honor.

“Nothing in Section 631 or 632 shall be construed as prohibiting one party to a confidential communication from recording such communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence, reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to such communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person. And nothing in Sections 631 and 632 shall be construed as rendering inadmissible in a prosecution for extortion, kidnapping, bribery, or felony violence against a person.”

The statute goes on to say that there’s a civil penalty, the statute goes on to provide that such evidence is not admissible in any court or tribunal in the state.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4126

So, we then looked, in the brief available time to us, at Section 632 to determine whether it followed and was as strict in its admonitions and prohibitions as the State statute of Oregon, and we found it to be so.

And I’ll hand to the Court a Xerox copy, together with the full volume of the California Penal Statute. The Xerox copy is of Section 632 of the California Annotated Penal Code. And I’ll hand to the Court the entire volume covering Section 447 to Section 680.

Number one, no predicate was placed before this Court as required by our statute. And no predicate can be placed before this Court, because this is not an action for bribery, kidnap, or extortion. This is a case involving Julie Christofferson Titchbourne. The only purpose for this type of tactic, and the marginal relevance that the Court allowed it in for, was to question bias. And that’s the only ground upon which it could be even marginally relevant.

It is a crime. It exposes these defendants and counsel to civil and criminal liability, and it has been brought before the jury through the extravagant outburst of Mr. Cooley, before the jury

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4127

retired, in a grand gesture, that he was going to produce these tapes.

I submit, Your Honor, that no reference to these tapes can be made. I submit that the counsel that made the outbust is in violation of proper procedures and standards within this court. I submit that counsel is subject to civil and criminal liability for his participation in these activities. And after the Court has ruled, I will have a further motion to address to the discretion of this Court.

MR. COOLEY: At the outset, I entertain no doubt whatsoever that the Oregon statutes with respect to electronic interceptions would apply if this electronic interception had occurred within the state of Oregon. It obviously didn’t. This interception — these two exceptions occurred at Griffith Park in California. There was no — at any time there was no electronic surveillance in this state that would occasion coming before any Justice of this Court, or any other court in the state of Oregon in that regard.

Consequently the issue is whether or not this electronic surveillance was appropriate under the laws of the state of California.

THE COURT: Well, the question is one past

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4128

that. We can argue that. The statutes in Oregon don’t make a distinction whether it’s illegally done in California or illegally done in Oregon. It says if it’s illegally done, it can’t be used in any court in the state of Oregon.

MR. COOLEY: Yes, but I think the determination whether it was legal when it was done has to be governed by the law of the state where it was done. If it was lawful where done, I do not believe that the Court would find that the law —

THE COURT: It has to meet the requirements before it’s admissible in this state.

MR. COOLEY: It has to meet the requirements of being lawful where done; I certainly agree with that. I don’t believe that the criminal laws of the State of Oregon reach beyond the borders of the state of Oregon.

THE COURT: No, they don’t.

MR. COOLEY: So if the law of California authorizes this, then I respectfully submit to the Court that the laws of the State of Oregon do not reach an electronic interception which occurred in the state of California. And I have a case, Your Honor, from Lexis, which we have a printout from Lexis, a California case, and before I read it to

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4129

you I think it’s important to analyze the California statute.

Section 632, in substance, prohibits electronic interceptions as a general rule without two-party consent. But it talks about confidential communication. It is confidential communication which may not be intercepted.

The word “confidential” is defined in the statute as follows: “the term ‘confidential communication’ includes any communication carried on in such circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to such communication desires it to be confidential to such parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceedings open to the public, or in any other circumstancess in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”

Now, that language has been construed by the State of California — and I’m about to hand to the Court the decision of the Court in the case of People vs. Chaim, Henry Chaim Brent. And I read this language to the Court.

It says — first of all, in a synopsis, it’s

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4130

very interesting to note the context in which that Court was dealing — it says: “The primary issue raised in this appeal is the propriety of allowing the prosecution to introduce in rebuttal the contents of a secretly tape-recorded conversation allegedly made in violation of Penal Code 632. The trial Court allowed the evidence to be introduced in rebuttal because it felt certain” — “it felt certain defense witnesses had lied about the contents of the conversation during their testimony. In order to resolve the issue, we must examine what qualifies as a confidential communication within the meaning of Penal Code Section 632, Subdivision 3.”

The Court went on as follows: “The Constitutional right of privacy and the State and Federal regulations prohibiting the recording of conversations are all designed to protect confidential communications. Therefore, the test as to whether these salutory laws have been violated depends upon the person whose conversation was recorded had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the recording. In the instant case, none of the parties present during the meeting had a reasonable justifiable expectation that the contents of their conversation would be kept confidential.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4131

There was never any agreement or understanding among the parties that the conversation would be kept to themselves. In fact, it was understood that at the very least, if any agreement were reached at the meeting, Levi’s brother would be contacted in Israel concerning the transfer of funds. And even if no agreement were reached, Dadon would discuss the meeting with Charon. The only persons not to be informed about the meeting were the police. An understanding by the parties present, that persons not present at a conversation will be told what was discussed, removes any such conversation from a protection of Penal Code Section 632, Subdivision C.”

Now, Mr. Armstrong, when we allowed him this morning to give his one-hour dissertation — and Mr. Manion is handing a copy of that decision to the Court — made it very clear that he understood fully that this fellow Joey would go back and report to his people what Mr. Armstrong and Joey were discussing, that those people, whom he did not even know by identity or by name or by position in the Church, were people to whom the contents of this discussion would be communicated in full. He therefore had no right, expectations of right of

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4132

privacy, or that the subject matter of the conversation would not be disclosed.

And the case we have just handed to the Court is dispositive of the issue on the subject matter of the confidential nature of the communication as a condition prededent under Section 632 of the California Code.

More over, that does not end the inquiry, because there are additional matters which have to be dealt with as to the 634 of the statute. Mr. McMurry, it seems to me, rather summarily passes over a situation to which the statute does not apply. And namely, it does not apply for an interception that deals with the issue of extortion. I’m sorry — I have the wrong section; it’s 633.5 of the California Code.

It says, in substance — or it says verbatim: “Nothing in Section 631 or 632 shall be construed as prohibiting one party to a confidential communication from recording such communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission, by another party to such communication, of the crime of extortion.” It goes on also to include kidnapping, bribery, the like.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4133

And so, Your Honor, not only does the interception — is the interception justified under the definition of confidential communication, but what we were dealing here is gathering evidence of the crime of extortion. Because, as these tapes will clearly show, the game plan was to plant documents in the files of Scientology, through the use of the completed staff work, that would implicate Scientology in unlawfull activity, for the purpose of bringing down the present management, putting in place the loyalists which would result in the settlement of all of Michael Flynn’s cases. And that, Your Honor, is extortion, pure and simple.

There’s a third exception for authorizations and the like, but I respectfully submit to the Court at this point that it is sufficient that the communication was not confidential within the meaning of the statute. The evidence was gathered in an effort to gain evidence of extortion. And I’m informed, also, that it was authorized by a police officer in the state of California and that that is permitted under the following Sections of Code: 635 — 633, I’m sorry.

Section 633, which provides: “Nothing in Section 631 or 632 shall be construed as probiting

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4134

the attorney general, any district attorney; or any district, assistant, deputy, or any investigator of the attorney general or any district attorney; or any officer of the California Highway Patrol or any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or policeman of a city or city and county; or any sheriff, under-sheriff, or deputy sheriff regularly employed and paid as such of a county or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of the above above-named law enforcement officers, acting within the scope of his authority, from overhearing or recording any communication which they could lawfully here record prior to the effective date of this statute.”

Your Honor, on all points, the California law has not been violated. I think that the confidential aspect of it is dispositive under the case I have given you. I believe the investigation of the crime of extortion also is justification, even if it weren’t confidential — if it weren’t a communication in which there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Mr. McMurry’s suggestion that I have committed a crime — I’m sure he would like to see me take a long vacation at the courtesy of the State

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4135

of Oregon. But I respectfully submit that the Oregon law does not apply to the interception; that if lawful under California law, that it was lawfully intercepted, and I respectfully submit that it was.

MR. McMURRY: Let me go to the last reference made to the California Code. That’s why I brought it down. Section 633.5 provides that: “Nothing in the Invasion of Privacy section of the California Code shall make illegal prior sheriffs’ and police officers’ invasion of privacy that was theretofor legal, prior” — I think to 1976. If you read the statute and the effective date of it it says: “Prior to the enactment of this Section — or Code.” And the effective date is 1976.

Going to the second point, he takes out a case which has a date — let me see here — May 4, 1984, in which, at the time of the person who was charged with illegally receiving stolen property — and they were discussing how to fence it, apparently; the language is not to clear — the following people were present: Dadon, the defendant; Levi; Bentoff; Levi’s wife; and Dadon’s girl friend. And there was discussion about having to also discuss this with Levi’s brother in Israel. And Dadon would discuss the meeting further with Mr.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4136

Charon. We don’t know who they are, because the language of the case doesn’t allow us to make that interpretation. I cite to the Court an interpretation of Section 632, found in the case of Warden — this is a civil case, it looks to me, not a criminal case; this looks to be a civil case — Warden vs. Kahn.

K-a-h-n. 1979. 160 California Report 471, 99 CA 3rd, 471. In which interpretation of Section 632 calls for: “A determination as to whether circumstances reasonably indicate that any party to such communication desires it to be confined to such parties, or whether circumstances are such that parties to communications may reasonably expect the communication to be recorded.” Direct language that exactly follows the definition in our statute and the California statute.

Now, as to the first point, that this is — or some point, I don’t know which one it came in — that this was some method of extortion, under no circumstances is that the purpose for which this evidence is attempted to be brought into this case. Under no circumstances has any crime of extortion been alleged as a defense, nor has the rudiments —

THE COURT: Well, I would not have let it

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4137

come in at all, if we were talking about another crime. We clearly talked about that yesterday. I said it was coming in under bias.

MR. McMURRY: Correct.

THE COURT: Not to show any other crime, because it was inadmissible for that reason.

MR. McMURRY: Correct. Finally, Mr. Cooley misconstrues the Oregon statute. It does not provide that recordings taken under some other circumstances, in some other state or country, may be — just because they are legal there — even if they are — our statute says it may not be intercepted, used, or disclosed.

Now the word “use” obviously implies that what may be legal in Russia cannot be used in the United States of America, in Oregon. What may be legal in California cannot be used to attack a witness in Oregon. And that’s the only reason the word “use” or “disclose” would be present in our statute. Therefore, submission of this scandalous piece of evidence must be supressed, and we would submit — Well, we will wait for further order of the Court.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, in Mr. Armstrong’s testimony this morning, he, himself, went to the CID

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4138

of the Internal Revenue. He said he went to the FBI. He was, himself, disclosing contents of what occurred in that conversation. He may have felt that that was all right, but he also knew that Mr. Joey was going back to his people.

In addition, Your Honor, to suggest that the Oregon statute, which I heard read here today by Mr. McMurry, which says that if it’s done in violation of the Oregon statute, that it shall not be received, it is not done in violation of the Oregon statute since it’s not done here. If lawful were done, I respectfully submit it’s admissible here.

And finally, I invite once again the Court’s attention to the Court’s vested interest in superintending the proceedings that take place before it. If perjury has been committed from that witness stand, this Court has a vested interest in finding out about it. So I respectfully ask that we get on with the screening of this tape by the Court, in-camera.

THE COURT: I have some serious questions about the legality of even this tap — I shouldn’t call it a tap — this interception under California law, although I’m only saying that off the top of my head without researching California law. I know it

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4139

would not be permissible under Oregon law. And I have very serious considerations as to the admissibility of this evidence under Oregon law. I have no control over what out-of-state counsel is doing.

Mr. Runstein, I would be very careful, very careful, of knowingly at least, trying to use evidence that was illegal under the State of Oregon. I’m not saying you have, I am just saying, be careful.

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Runstein has had absolutely nothing to with the presentation of this evidence. I take full responsibility.

THE COURT: His unfortunate position is that he’s Counsel of Record in Oregon Court as the Oregon counsel.

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Runstein hasn’t even seen these things. I’m handling this and I take full responsibility for it.

THE COURT: You can’t take full responsibility, unfortunately. Mr. Runstein has to take the responsibility.

MR. McMURRY: Your Honor, Mr. Wade has kindly brought to the Court a case that I did cite to the Court: WARDEN vs. KAHN, a civil case, which of

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4140

course has even more impact because this is a civil trial, and not one which we are talking about stolen goods. And with the Court’s permission I would like to hand up the decision and allow the Court some time to read it. It seems to me that it’s compelling.

Finally, this Court, prior to the commencement of the jury trial, was repeatedly asked by Mr. Wade and myself —

THE COURT: I know what you are going to say.

MR. McMURRY: — to be produced documents that were relevant, that were clearly within the ambient of the Court’s ruling. This Court said, to its credit on at least three occasions that I can recall —

THE COURT: And probably more.

MR. McMURRY: — that you had an abiding interest in the rights of privacy. The rights of privacy that you were protecting were the incumbent common law law right of privacy not known in statutory form. We are relying upon the statutes of the State of Oregon and the statutes of the State of California. We are also relying upon the inherent power of this Court and the inherent duties of this Court to protect witnesses from harassment, abuse

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4141

and intimidation.

Just by measuring the marginal relevance of this biased testimony against its illegal form, against its illegal method of production, and against the violation, even if it were legal in California, procedurally, it couldn’t be offered in this state.

THE COURT: I can’t believe the laws of California — I haven’t looked at this — that they can go around intercepting communcations without some form of order from a district attorney, police agency or court. I just can’t believe that could be the law in California.

MR. McMURRY: It can’t, Your Honor. I haven’t cited the procedure —

THE COURT: There’s a procedure to do that just as there’s in Oregon. There has to be. I don’t know what it is, but there just simply has to be one.

MR. McMURRY: There’s even a first amendment right in California, at last look.

THE COURT: I know that we are more progressive than they were, but certainly they have to know about that.

MR. McMURRY: They have the first, the fourth

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4142

and the fourteenth amendment in California, even. So the argument that you can walk up to the cop on the beat and say, “Hey, we are going to take —

THE COURT: Am I just out in left field somewhere? Doesn’t there have to be some authorization to do —

MR. COOLEY: No, sir. Not if under the California law it is not a confidential communication. And not if it deals with gathering evidence for the crime of extortion.

THE COURT: Forget that argument about crime. I told you none of this is coming in under that theory.

MR. COOLEY: I’m not putting it in here under that, but that is the justification for taping it originally. I’m not going to put it in as —

THE COURT: You can call a posy a rose if you want to, but it’s not going to come in under that basis at all.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, you are now dealing with a whole different issue. You are not dealing with what it’s coming in for. It’s coming in for bias under Rule 609.1. That’s a different matter. We are now dealing with the issue of not what it’s coming in for, but what was the legal justification

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4143

for it being made in the first place. That’s a different —

THE COURT: Anybody ever heard of Professor Younger?

MR. COOLEY: Sure.

MR. McMURRY: Yes.

THE COURT: He has a really good rule about this sort of thing for judges: If it smells bad, his nose, use your nose, he always told the judge. If it smells bad, it doesn’t come in. And this smells bad.

MR. COOLEY: I think you ought to see it, Your Honor, I really do.

THE COURT: I have nothing to do all afternoon.

MR. COOLEY: I will pass the California statute to you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I’ve got to see the law in California that says anybody can go around willy nilly making —

MR. McMURRY: I beg of you, just take a look at the statute he is relying upon, 633.5. It states, if you take it for the purpose of extortion, kidnap and violence to a person, it is admissible in prosecution of those crimes.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4144

THE COURT: I understand that, Mr. McMurry.

MR. McMURRY: So it’s bogus to say —

THE COURT: And I understand that Mr. McMurry.

MR. COOLEY: I also ask you to look at the definition of confidentiality and compare it with the case that I have given you and with the testimony of Mr. Armstrong.

THE COURT: They are contemplating prosecutions in those cases and prosecution for those crimes. I know what those cases are. I’m interested now for you gentlemen to tell me under what authority in the state of California, who issues an order allowing wire taps, body taps, communication taps. Where does the authority come from?

MR. McMURRY: Superior Court, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That’s our Circuit Court.

MR. McMURRY: That’s right. It tracks very closely to our court procedure. As the very constitutions of both states require, with the one exception —

MR. COOLEY: I have handed the Court a letter from Police Officer Philip Rodriguez, Serial No. 16924, Los Angeles Police Department, authorizing

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4145

this electronic interception.

THE COURT: To a private investigator?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir.

MR. McMURRY: Here is Ingram.

THE COURT: Please.

MR. COOLEY: May it be marked for identification, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. COOLEY: I invite your attention to Section 633. I passed up the California code, I believe.

THE COURT: Yes. 633 is the one you are inviting my attention to?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That’s a different date setting.

MR. COOLEY: It’s a different what?

THE COURT: This talks about what they could do prior to the effective date of this chapter.

MR. COOLEY: It says, “…or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of the above named law enforcement officers acting within the scope of this is authority from overhearing a recording, any communication which they could lawfully overhear or record prior the effective date.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4146

THE COURT: Yes. They could do that before they passed the law saying they couldn’t.

MR. COOLEY: And this statute doesn’t prevent them from continuing to do it. That’s what it says. In other words, I think what the section says is, to the extent that this —

THE COURT: Let me understand this correctly. You are saying that this direction by a police officer —

MR. COOLEY: And the statute says police officer.

THE COURT: — directed toward a private investigator gives him the authority to do it.

MR. COOLEY: That’s what Section 633 says, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Who is Officer Philip Rodriguez?

MR. COOLEY: He’s a police officer of the —

THE COURT: Is he here? I would like to talk to him. I’m not going to accept just his writing that Officer Rodriguez without some other authority —

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, it really is not required.

THE COURT: I’m going to make a ruling on that. It’s not in accordance with Oregon law; it’s

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4147

subject to a motion to suppress. If there’s a motion to suppress, I will hear it.

MR. McMURRY: Your Honor, pursuant to ORS 41.490, we move to suppress the tapes that have been offered into evidence. It’s not in accordance with Oregon procedures, practice and is in violation of our statutes.

THE COURT: I make no ruling on the legality of the interception. I’m not making a ruling on that. Nor am I making any ruling regarding any ethical considerations. I am simply saying that pursuant to Oregon statute, evidence derived from this interception of communications, in this Court’s opinion, whether under this Oregon statute or whether under the Federal Constitution or whether under the common-law right of privacy which I have used for Mr. Hubbard, under any three, would not be admissible. If it’s good enough for Mr. Hubbard, it’s good enough for Mr. Armstrong.

MR. COOLEY: Mr. Armstrong’s taken the witness stand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Come on, Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: All I can say is this. What the Court has available to it here are tapes that I respectfully submit to you will show the Court that

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4148

Mr. Armstrong has committed perjury in this court.

THE COURT: If he has, then there’s a form to determine it.

MR. COOLEY: Is the Court going to view these tapes in-camera or not? I don’t know what Court’s decision is.

THE COURT: Well, now that the jury is gone, I’m not going to receive them.

MR. McMURRY: It would be prejudicial to Mr. Armstrong. They are inadmissible for any purpose. The statutes don’t say, the rights of privacy don’t say, “Well, we just don’t want the jury to see it. It’s inadmissible for all purposes.” The rights of privacy mean privacy.

THE COURT: Mr. McMurry, really, before I should make that determination — I read Mr. Hubbard’s documents. Now, if I’m going to apply the same rules to everybody, it would seem the same rule that I’m applying for one should apply to the other.

MR. McMURRY: Much difference in kind, Your Honor, for two reasons: The Court has ruled that this is inadmissible, and properly so. Had the Court ruled that the subject matter of which we were inquiring of Mr. Hubbard was not discoverable, that ends the matter.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4149

THE COURT: But Mr. McMurry, I don’t want some Appellate Court To say this Judge did not even see the tapes upon which he could at least change his opinion.

MR. McMURRY: The only basis upon which you could change your opinion would be one. They were offered for the purpose of bias, to show bias.

THE COURT: Why don’t we wait for that argument until I see them.

MR. McMURRY: Because the only possible legal basis that you would have to make inquiry of the tapes would be based upon, once again, Mr. Cooley’s assertion that there’s been perjury committed in this court.

THE COURT: What if he says somewhere along in these tapes, “I hate those guys. I would go out of my way to do anything to those guys”? That’s bias.

MR. McMURRY: Right.

THE COURT: If that’s there, I want to see it.

MR. McMURRY: But it won’t make it admissible.

THE COURT: I didn’t say that. I want to at least have an informed judgment upon which an

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4150

Appellate Court can onder looked at, made an informed judgment, made a judgment on the law initially, looked at the tapes, reaffirmed his decision, period.

MR. COOLEY: I think that’s fair for Your Honor to do that. I would ask your —

THE COURT: Simply because I think it’s a matter of my responsibility. It’s not a question of even whether or not it’s — I think I owe that to the system. I owe it to see what — It’s nothing but a search for truth, anyway, Mr. McMurry. At least that’s what I’m hopeful it is.

MR. McMURRY: I quite agree with that philosophically, Your Honor. I think —

THE COURT: Both of you tell me you agree philosophically, but I can’t get you guys to agree on much of what’s coming into this case.

MR. McMURRY: That isn’t our role. May I suggest to the Court — and I’m speaking now for Mr. Armstrong, not for Ms. Christofferson — it’s offensive. It’s offensive the way this material was obtained by entrapment and deceit. It’s offensive the way it was sprung in this case in violation of our standards and in violation of sense of decency. Then to say, “Well, that being true, all of that

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4151

being correct, we still should determine whether there’s something that might be” —

THE COURT: No. I should determine whether there is some overriding consideration that makes it so probative that it would override anything else that I have ruled on already. For that purpose I’m going to see them. I’m not going to view them out here because I think it’s a matter for a right of privacy. I don’t think every spectator should see them. In-camera means in chambers; that’s where I will see them.

MR. McMURRY: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, I do not intend to participate in that. I think, as is appropriate, we were not allowed to see the private documents of Mr. Hubbard. I know Mr. Cooley and Mr. Manion have availed themselves of this opportunity, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for other counsel to do so.

THE COURT: Nobody was there when I read the other documents.

MR. McMURRY: Correct.

THE COURT: I read those all by myself. I’ve got a slight problem in that I don’t know how to work it.

MR. COOLEY: We have a technician here. If

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4152

there’s no objection, we will send him in with you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He can get me started and let me turn it on and so forth.

We are recessed, now, for an hour and forty-eight minutes.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, as an aid, we have made up a transcript that Your Honor can follow as the tape is played.

(Court recessed at 2:30 p.m and reconvened at 4:30 p.m.)

THE COURT: I have reviewed them. I have some observations. I’m not going to change my decision. I think they are devastating. I think they are devastating against the Church. We certainly view them in different a way, Mr. Cooley, you and I. I’m not going to let them come in under any circumstances.

For the record, let me straighten out some things. With reference to California law, once again, I’m not making a determination at this time. It’s not my forum, it’s not my job. But I have carefully studied this California law. Even under California law, without some authority, and even if you view it in the most liberal terms possible, the

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4153

only authority for Mr. Ingram to do this would be under Penal Code 633. There is not even a showing, even on the face of the document, of any authority. It’s on private paper. There’s no letterhead on it. Very questionable to me, and I think it would be to any judge. How Mr. Ingram obtained it, I don’t know. That’s not for me to decide. It could very well be a violation of California Penal Code.

Under Oregon law, the correct interpretation is not so much under the criminal statutes where we were looking, which is under 133, but 165 and the statutes contained thereunder. And that is the — 165.400 and all the contents that follow that, et cetera.

The problems we were looking at are the authorization needed under 133 all involved criminal prosecutions. This is not a criminal prosecution that these tapes were made for. So 133 really is not the applicable statute, in my opinion.

If they were done in Oregon, if they had been done in Oregon, it would have been a violation of 165.540.

Now, I’m not going to disclose a great deal of what was on there. I really don’t think I want to get into it. I can say this much, if it were a

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4154

criminal prosecution, it would be it suppressed — it borders more on entrapment than it does on anything else. How a sophisticated person, which Mr. Armstrong purports to be, could go for such an amateurish performance as I heard on those tapes is beyond me. The questions were being fed to him obviously; anytime he wanted to make an explanation, it was properly cut off. There was no evidence of any attempt to commit a crime that I saw. If it were, it would probably not be admissible, as I have just indicated.

He did ask the other person if he was wired, the person said no. There’s some reference on the tapes that are very disturbing to me that I intend to take up with counsel privately. Because there’s some reference made to the judiciary. And now that’s serious.

The letters from Officer Ortega will be marked as an exhibit, 876, and will be a Court Exhibit only, for the Appellate Court to review. The two tapes should marked 877 and 878 and kept by this Court for the Appellate Court to review. I don’t think we have heard the end of those tapes.

Be sure those are marked “Court only”.

THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4155

THE COURT: Okay. I think I have straightened out everything I had to straighten out regarding my questions, including the distinction in the statute as I saw it from the Oregon statutes and my reading of the California statutes, which I have done and I reviewed the tapes.

MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. At this time I do not wish to propose a motion for sansctions, but I am going to submit to the Court and counsel a memorandum — it’s been a long week, and I would like to submit to the Court a memorandum for its consideration over the weekend, with the advice to the Court that I will be moving for sanctions and instructions to the jury arising out of these matters on Monday.

THE COURT: I’ll read it.

MR. McMURRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I intend to be working in my office tomorrow.

MR. McMURRY: So do we.

THE COURT: I will read it then. There is no reason for you gentlemen to be here unless you want to see me for anything special.

MR. McMURRY: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. COOLEY: We might want to furnish the

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4156

Court with a copy of this morning’s transcript. The court did not have an opportunity to compare statements that the Court heard with this morning’s transcript. It might be appropriate for the Court to examine that over the weekend.

THE COURT: Okay. Furnish me a transcript and I’ll read whatever is furnished to me.

MR. McMURRY: Will they furnish us with whatever they furnish the Court.

THE COURT: Okay. We will be in recess, for purposes of this trial, until Monday morning at 9:30 with the exception I will see counsel, and no other matters will be taken up until Monday morning.

(Court recessed at 4:40 p.m.)

(Following proceedings held in chambers.)

THE COURT: I don’t think this is a public concern as much as it is a private concern. Matters that I don’t understand. It mentioned setting up poor old Judge Brisbee. I don’t know what that’s about.

MR. COOLEY: Who said that? Armstrong said it.

THE COURT: Yeah. He said they furnished the boat, they didn’t furnish the drugs and the broads, but he furnished the boat. I don’t know what that’s

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4157

all about. I’m disturbed by it, obviously.

On the second tape, there is a mention about FBI agents and judge tampering. And I don’t know what that’s about. They don’t name the judge. These things disturb me.

I’m going to ask one more time, I have asked Mr. Peterson, Mr. Merten, Mr. Runstein, Mr. Manion and Mr. Cooley: is there any such shenanigans going on now with Ingram? Everybody has said no. Every lawyer has represented to me no. I’m taking that at face value.

MR. COOLEY: It is true. There’s nothing. That stuff is old GO operations.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m asking the question. I expect answers from you as officers of the Court and as gentlemen. I’m talking about as it pertains to this case, Portland, Oregon, my staff, me, family, McMurry, Wade. I don’t care who it is.

MR. COOLEY: The answer is no.

MR. MANION: The judge asked me this before and I told him this. And I share it with my co-counsel. If we found out that was going on, I assure you that myself and Mr. Cooley would be on the next plane out of here.

THE COURT: Fair enough.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4159

I would be very shocked and dismayed if they knew anything. My concern is what they don’t know.

MR. COOLEY: I am with these people most of the time.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. McMURRY: They have to know —

THE COURT: I don’t want any accusations in here. I’m just spelling out my concern out of the presence of — I the privacy of a closed chamber.

MR. COOLEY: I gave you the tapes, warts and all.

THE COURT: You did. The bad part with the good parts.

MR. COOLEY: I gave it to you just the way it went down. You got a whole picture.

THE COURT: Obviously, Mr. Cooley, it was a difficult decision to give me that, because those were not the greatest tapes in the world for your client, I’ll tell you that.

MR. COOLEY: The portions of them, Your Honor, that I wanted you to have.

THE COURT: I heard it.

MR. COOLEY: I think that we have got a real, real problem with what you have heard on the tapes and what you have heard on the witness stand. I

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4160

don’t know how you handle it. But the conflicts that exist between the testimony that’s given here and some of the questions were asked with great specificity, because of the tape, and were answered contrary to what was said on the tape. Now, that seems to me presents a very serious problem with this man’s continued testimony.

THE COURT: Let me address that. I did review them with that thought in mind. And I frankly, Earl, disagree with you. I didn’t see that much inconsistency in what he was saying there and what he was saying on the tapes. That’s consequently why I’m sticking by my ruling.

Aside from that, that’s a ruling; it’s done. I’m talking about now these other things. One other thing Charlie Merten said at that time, “Don, as long as I’m here, nothing will ever be done with reference to you.” He also said, “Watch your ass if I’m not here.”

MR. COOLEY: Well, number one, I subscribe to that philosophy on the first point. But I do not subscribe to it on the second point. I don’t think you have to worry about your ass whether anybody is here or aren’t.

THE COURT: Fine. That’s what I like to

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4161

hear.

MR. COOLEY: All right.

THE COURT: Because I have not done any phone checks, I have not done any of that stuff. Frankly, I didn’t think it was necessary.

MR. COOLEY: It is not.

THE COURT: I have expressed my concerns.

MR. COOLEY: What I plan to do, Your Honor, is to have this morning’s testimony highlighted and set against that testimony, things that you have seen on the tape and submit it to you as an additional Court’s Exhibit. But we have all weekend to do that.

THE COURT: All right. Off the record.

(Discussion had off the record.)

MR. McMURRY: I am aware that I have been followed to and from my home. I am not aware, but three of the people that have been staying with me, when they drove in at one time, an object was thrown from an overpass and struck the windshield of the car they werew, that has nothing to do, that we can prove, with anything that — These people are very fragile and they are very damned worried as to their safety. That’s obvious. That is the paramount reason that I have had them live in my home. But if

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4162

— I’m sure Mr. Cooley or Mr. Manion or Mr. Runstein have not been aware of me being followed. But I think it’s imperative — I know this of my own knowledge, it has happened, and I would urge them to discontinue —

MR. MANION: I don’t believe it.

THE COURT: Let me say this. I think it would be — on the other hand, I think of these people’s position and I can’t envision them being that incredibly stupid at this point.

MR. COOLEY: It’s the same thing that happened in the last case. People started calling up jurors. Do you think my people are stupid?

THE COURT: I can’t think of anything worse than to try to tail a lawyer, a judge or tap — you know, I would go on the other side of that coin and I can’t think why anybody would be that incredibly stupid.

MR. McMURRY: Whether you believe it or not is not why I said it. It has happened and I am just stating that for the record.

MR. RUNSTEIN: What happens in these cases is — fortunately or unfortunately they haven’t used the incident, and I assume the plaintiff will not. But she acknowledged there had been a car watching

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4163

her house and had taken a license number. When we investigated that, because we were afraid we were going to hear it at trial. We located it as the car of her next door neighbor’s boy friend. And we are prepared to establish the chain of title and also she indicated they had had phone calls that people you know, didn’t hang up.

Well, while we were out investigating the car, finding out that it was her neighbor’s boy friend, you know, I noticed not only does she have a listed telephone, but she has a huge sign on her house “For Sale By Owner” with the telephone number there. People can get carried away with these things —

THE COURT: I don’t want to get into that with paranoia problem. That’s not my style, guys.

MR. COOLEY: My credit card case was stolen. I’m not paranoid, I’m just careless, I guess.

THE COURT: I have expressed my concerns. If there are any further concerns by anybody, let me know.

I expect counsel, to the best of their ability, will keep control over everybody.

(Court recessed at 5:05 p.m.)

  1. This document in PDF format.
  2. More Christofferson trial transcripts.

Letter from Robert Potters to Al Tamimi (March 6, 1985)

March 6, 1985
Mitt Ala Fadili AI Tamimi
Via Nvova Poggioreali No. 177
Napoli 80143
Italy

Dear Mr. Al Tamimi:1

This firm represents Attorney Michael Flynn to whom you recently sent a note regarding Eugene Ingram and his “associates”. This note represents the first and only contact Attorney Flynn has had with you and was received by him on March 2, 1985.

This office received a copy of the note. I understand from reading it that you desire to tell the truth about the matters set forth in your affidavit which was given to Mr. Ingram. I further understand that you desire to tell Attorney Flynn’s representative that the statements in your affidavit are false and that your affidavit was part of a scheme to frame Attorney Flynn.

I have enclosed a declaration. If you sign it and return to me, I will make arrangements to meet with you and your attorney in Italy to discuss in detail your retraction of the statements previously made by you.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Very truly yours,

Robert S. Potters

RSP/bam

Enclosure

cc:
Mr. Vittori Girardi
Via Dei Mille 16
Napoli 80121
Italy

DECLARATION OF ALA FADILI AL TAMIMI

This declaration is made under the pains and penalties of perjury by ALA FADILI AL TAMIMI, now resident in Italy. The declaration is executed under the laws of Massachusetts, Florida, Nevada and California. The undersigned hereby avers that the following is true:

1) On May 5, 1984, I executed a declaration at Naples, Italy which was prepared and procured by Eugene Ingram. This declaration is false. I have never had any communications, meetings or contacts of any nature or description with Attorney Michael J. Flynn, until I sent him the note that is attached hereto as Exhibit I on or about February 18, 1985.2

2) All of the events, communications, contacts and meetings with Michael Flynn relative to the forgery of a two-million dollar check on the account of L. Ron Hubbard, which are set forth in the May 4, 1984 declaration are completely false. Mr. Flynn had no involvement with the attempted forgery of a check on the account of L. Ron Hubbard of any nature or description. I executed the May 4, 1984 declaration after receiving the sum of $____ from Eugene Ingram. The declaration as concocted by Mr. Ingram who told me that I would be paid the additional sum of $____ at a later date after the declaration was used by him. I am prepared to give an oral deposition under oath and state the truth about all of my dealings and meetings with Eugene Ingram relative to the preparation of the false declaration which I signed.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and the states of Massachusetts, New York, California, Florida, Oregon and Nevada.

DATE:

________________________
ALA FADILI AL TAMIMI

________________________
WITNESS

Notes