In Armstrong I, Judge Breckenridge found that the Church had made out a prima facie case of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence against Armstrong, and that Mary Sue Hubbard had made out a prima facie case of conversion and invasion of privacy. However, the Court went on to find that Armstrong was “justified” in his misconduct, because of an alleged “fear” of the Church on Armstrong’s part. Armstrong was permitted to introduce testimony by himself and a handful of other clients of Armstrong’s counsel on the purported “bad acts” of the Church. The Church, however, was not permitted to introduce any rebuttal evidence, because Judge Breckenridge held that the evidence was only admitted to show Armstrong’s alleged “state of mind.” (Id., para. 12) It is this one-sided and incomplete showing which led to the Memorandum Decision2 quoted by Armstrong on pp. 7-9 of his Opposition. As demonstrated by plaintiff in its moving papers, Armstrong’s purported “fear” was in reality a sham, and a fraud upon that court. Motion for Preliminary Injunction3 at 10-12.15
15Plaintiff introduced a videotape and transcript which show Armstrong’s covert efforts to attack plaintiff, with Armstrong boasting of his fearlessness just after his trial before Judge Breckenridge. Armstrong’s response to this showing is extraordinary. He never once denies that he said and did what plaintiff asserted, nor does he claim that any portion of the evidence so submitted is inaccurate. Instead, Armstrong rails an ad hominem attack on a private investigator purportedly involved in the taping. By his silence, Armstrong has yet again admitted the truth of plaintiff’s allegations.
Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 1
The Church had good reason for negotiating these particular clauses with Armstrong. In addition to his own litigation, Armstrong fomented significant additional litigation against the Church and other Churches of Scientology, stirring up enmities with other former members. Moreover, Armstrong became involved in plot after clandestine plot to take over or even destroy his former religion.
In November, 1984, for example, Armstrong was plotting against the Scientology Churches and seeking out staff members in the Church who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing Church leadership. The Church obtained information about Armstrong’s plans and, through a police-sanctioned investigation, provided Armstrong with the “defectors” he sought. On four separate occasions in November, 1984, Armstrong met with two individuals that he considered to be defectors, whom he knew as “Joey” and “Mike.” In reality, both “Joey” and “Mike” were loyal Church members who, with permission from the Los Angeles police, agreed to have their conversations with Armstrong surreptitiously videotaped. During the course of these conversations, Armstrong:
a. Demanded that “Joey” provide him with copies of documents published by the Church so that he could forge documents in the same style. Armstrong wanted “Joey” to then plant these Armstrong creations in the Church’s files so that Armstrong could tip off the Criminal Investigations Division of the Internal Revenue Service (“CID”), and the incriminating documents would be found in a resulting raid;
b. Sought to “set up” the defection of a senior Scientologist by finding a woman to seduce him;
c. Told “Joey” all about his conversations with Al Lipkin, an investigator for the CID, and attempted to get “Joey” to call Lipkin and give him false information that would implicate the Church’s leaders in the misuse of donations; and
d. Instructed “Mike” on the methods of creating a lawsuit against the Church leadership based on nothing at all:
ARMSTRONG: They can allege it. They can allege it. They don’t even have — they can allege it.
RINDER: So they don’t even have to have the document sitting in front of them and then —
ARMSTRONG: F ing say the organization destroys the documents.
* * *
Where are the — we don’t have to prove a goddamn thing. We don’t have to prove s__t; we just have to allege it.
(Exhibit 3, Farny Decl., ¶¶14 and 5.)
[…]On October 3, 1991, the Church filed a motion in Los Angeles Superior Court for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and for liquidated damages due to Armstrong’s breaches of the Agreement. In Armstrong’s papers and at the hearing of the matter, Armstrong did not deny that he has committed the multiple breaches which provoked the filing of the motion, and he did not deny that his activities violated the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement cited in the moving papers.10Instead, Armstrong raised with the Court the tired refrain that he had been under “duress” when he executed the Agreement. Armstrong repeatedly raised this pretense and his alleged “fear” of the Church before Judge Breckenridge, the trial judge in the earlier, settled matter. It is, however, thoroughly belied by the approval of the Agreement by both the Court and Armstrong’s attorney. Moreover, the credibility of this refrain is shattered by Armstrong’s own words, uttered months after obtaining a defense judgment in the original Armstrong action based on his spurious claim of being under “duress” due to his “fear” of the Church. In the November, 1984 videotaped conversations with Joey referred to above, the following exchange took place while Armstrong was discussing hisplans for destroying the Church:JOEY: Well, you’re not hiding!ARMSTRONG: Huh?JOEY: You’re not hiding.ARMSTRONG: F— no! And.JOEY: You’re not afraid, are you?ARMSTRONG: No! And that’s why I’m in a f–king stronger position than they are!JOEY: How’s that?ARMSTRONG: Why, I’ll bring them to their knees!Exhibit 3, Farny Decl., para. 6. If anything, Armstrong has become bolder as time has passed.