Further Response To Order Of July 2, 1985; Request For Stay; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof; Declaration Of John G. Peterson (January 22, 1986)

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/5182.php

Exhibits

Exhibit A: Scientology’s transcript of video recording, November 7, 1984

Exhibit B: Scientology’s transcript of video recording, November 9, 1984

Exhibit C: Scientology’s transcript of video recording, November 17, 1984

Exhibit D: Scientology’s transcript of video recording, November 30, 1984

Exhibit E: Handwritten notes

Exhibit F: Deposition of Gerald David Armstrong (excerpt) 08-18-1982

Exhibit G: Phoenix Meeting – 25 June 1983 Los Angeles, California

Declaration of Michael Flynn (September 24, 1985)

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. FLYNN1

I, MICHAEL J. FLYNN, swear under the pains and penalties of perjury that the following is true and correct.

1) I am the attorney for Gerald Armstrong. In April-June 1984, I appeared for Mr. Armstrong as trial counsel in the case of Church of Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court.

2) During the Armstrong trial, extensive evidence was introduced, both documentary and testimonial, relating to the fraudulent and criminal conduct of L. Ron Hubbard in connection with his relationship with the Church of Scientology. This conduct began in the 1950’s and continued at least up until November 1982 as established by the evidence in the trial.

3) There was also extensive evidence in the Armstrong trial relating to L. Ron Hubbard’s background, which for the most part, had been completely falsified by the Church and by L. Ron Hubbard with respect to Hubbard’s professional, educational, health, military career and marital background qualifications and credentials. Literally thousands of documents in the form of hundreds of exhibits supported an overwhelming testimonial record that Hubbard was in fact, a “pathological liar” as eventually ruled by the Trial Court, and that he had in fact, manipulated and absconded with Church funds.

4) During the trial, specific issues arose relating to the “MCCS Mission” which was a Scientology/Hubbard program to conceal Hubbard’s control of Scientology, shield him from liability, shield him from the fact that millions of dollars of Church funds had been funnelled to him, and to perpetuate this fraud in the future without Hubbard incurring liability for it. Although the Court actually sealed the “MCCS” tapes containing such evidence, there was evidence relating to Hubbard’s control of Church funds in the trial itself and in an affidavit of Gerald Armstrong that had previously been filed in the case of Burden v. Church of Scientology. This affidavit specifically relates to the MCCS Mission. The affidavit is not under seal and has never been under seal. This affidavit specifically quotes from the MCCS tapes which are under seal. In one of the tapes as set forth in the Armstrong affidavit, the highest legal official of the Church of Scientology is quoted as saying that Hubbard’s taking 2.1 million dollars of Church funds “was a classic case of inurement, if not fraud.” The tapes also reveal, as set forth in the Armstrong affidavit, that throughout the history of the Church, while it was holding itself out as an entirely legitimate, separate and distinct religious corporate entity,

-2-

5) As a result of the foregoing evidence and an abundance of additional extremely detailed evidence, for the most part supported by documents including cancelled checks, Swiss bank account numbers, correspondence and miscellaneous other documents, it became obvious that Hubbard had in fact, engaged in criminal and fraudulent conduct with respect to his control of the Church of Scientology. Much of this evidence and the conclusions about Hubbard’s conduct were reported extensively in the media in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Petersburg Times, the Clearwater Sun and additional publications. It is my assumption that as a result of this extensive media coverage, at some time after the Armstrong trial, and after the Court had issued its findings of fact, the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS began an investigation. After the Armstrong trial, I was contacted by several investigators from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Los Angeles office of the Internal Revenue Service.
6) I was first contacted by Mr. Al Lipkin, Mr.Daniel Rocha, and Mr. Al Restuccia of the C.I.D. These gentlemen informed me that they were conducting an
-2-

investigation in connection with the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard and they sought my cooperation. I told them that I would give them my full cooperation and provide copies of any documents, affidavits, exhibits, etc. which were not under seal and which related to the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. I also told them that my clients, which included numerous former high level Scientologists, including Gerald Armstrong, William Franks, Laurel Sullivan, Howard Schomer, and others would give their full cooperation in connection with the investigation of the C.I.D. Mr. Lipkin and either Mr. Ristuccia or Mr. Rocha came to my office and spent several days examining documents relative to this subject. They thereafter contacted many of my clients.

-3-

 

7) At no time did Mr. Restuccia, Mr. Lipkin, Mr. Rocha or any other member of the C.I.D., or for that matter any other state or federal agency ever provide any information to me as to the course of their investigation, the evidence that they had collected, their conclusions, or anything else. In fact, Mr. Restuccia, Mr. Rocha and Mr. Lipkin conducted themselves with the utmost professional courtesy and discretion, and never disclosed any information to me of any nature or description during the course of their investigation.

8) Subsequently, pursuant to its written policies,

-4-

including the “Fair Game Doctrine,” “Attack the Attacker” and its “Black Propaganda” policies, the Church of Scientology engaged in a world-wide smear campaign, through press conferences, news releases, and publication of its Freedom magazine claiming that myself and several of my clients including Gerald Armstrong were in a massive conspiracy with the IRS, the FBI, the United States Government, the Canadian Government, the United States Attorney’s Office, and sundry others to destroy freedom of religion in America. These claims are absurd on their face. Among the more specific and ridiculous allegations of Hubbard and Scientology are that C.I.D. agents offered or promised various benefits to myself and my clients in exchange for manufacturing evidence and in effect framing L. Ron Hubbard and his Church. Suffice it to say that these allegations are completely unfounded, totally false and have no basis in fact or reality. Indeed, the allegations themselves reflect the paranoid condition of both Hubbard and the Church which was noted by the trial judge in the Armstrong. The judge specifically ruled that the  Church and Hubbard were “paranoid and schizophrenic,” were actually utilizing the “Fair Game Doctrine” right up to the time of the trial to “destroy” Hubbard’s perceived enemies, and that it had engaged in forms of blackmail and extortion.

9) Upon information and belief, the present campaign of the Church of Scientology alleging the conspiracy between

-5-

myself and various governmental agencies, is simply an effort to divert the ever-increasing compendium of legal decisions which have reached the same conclusions as the court in the Armstrong case with regard to the background and activities of Hubbard and his Church. In order to avoid civil and criminal sanctions for their past conduct, Hubbard is now engaging in his classic Black propaganda campaign to attack and discredit those who are engaged in litigation against him. In fact, there is no truth in the absurd claims of him and his agents.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 24th day of September, 1985 under the laws of California, Massachusetts, and Florida.

[signed Michael J. Flynn]

-6-

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

Declaration of Ken Hoden (July 29, 1985)

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/998.php

Declaration of Ronald L. Wade (April 18, 1985)

DECLARATION OF RONALD L. WADE1

I, RONALD L. WADE, hereby state under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personal knowledge of the following:

1. I am one of the attorneys for plaintiff in the action currently being tried before the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon entitled Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne v. Church of Scientology, Mission of Davis, Church of Scientology of California and L. Ron Hubbard, case number A7704-05184.

2. On April 18, 1985, I received a copy of the Declaration of Howard A. Gutfeld, dated April 14, 1985, wherein Mr. Gutfeld described the testimony of Mr. William Franks, who had been called as a witness by plaintiff in Christofferson action.

3. Mr. Gutfeld’s Declaration is misleading, contains testimony taken out of context and does not accurately portray the testimony of Mr. Franks.

4. At trial, Mr. Franks testified he was appointed to his former positions as Executive Director, International and Senior Management Executive International by L. Ron Hubbard.

5. On cross examination, defendants asked Mr. Franks if he had denied he was appointed by Mr. Hubbard to a group of mission holders in December of 1981. Mr. Franks candidly stated that he had and explained that the statement was made pursuant to the policy of L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology that no public or written admissions be made that L. Ron Hubbard was or is in control of the Church of Scientology.

6. Other evidence at trial has established that Mr. Hubbard has caused the Church of Scientology to destroy documents evidencing Mr. Hubbard’s control of the organization. Actual documents with portions cut out concerning Mr. Hubbard are in evidence in the Christofferson action. Mr. Franks, as the Executive Director, International, was under orders to protect Mr. Hubbard and conceal his control of the organization and he did so by telling the mission holders that he was not appointed by Mr. Hubbard.

7. Other parts of Mr. Gutfeld’s Declaration are equally misleading. Mr. Franks testified he did not receive communications from L. Ron Hubbard after August of 1981, but did testify that a communication line existed between the organization and Mr. Hubbard. My recollection is that Mr. Franks testified that he saw documents and listened to tapes prepared by and for Mr. Hubbard after the above date.

8. With respect to paragraph 8 of Mr. Gutfeld’s Declaration, Mr. Franks was told that he would be replacing Mr. Hubbard as Executive Director International. He soon found out that Mr. Hubbard was continuing to control the organization through his Commodore’s Messenger Organization. Mr. Franks testified, and documentary evidenced established, that Mr. Franks was the highest “public” official of the organization under only Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Hubbard’s agents.

9. The contention that L. Ron Hubbard’s policy was to obey the law has been completely shattered in testimony by Mr. Franks and others in the Christofferson case. Mr. Hubbard’s confidential policies setting up intelligence units and urging the commission of despicable acts are part of the record in the case.

10. It is true that Mr. Franks stated that he told many lies while he was a member of the Church of Scientology. This is not, however, surprising. Testimony in the Christofferson trial has evidenced that the Church of Scientology is based upon falsehoods that are perpetuated until this very day. As stated by a current Scientologist in an illegally obtained videotape used against one of plaintiff’s witnesses in trial, Scientologists “lie for the cause” on a daily basis.

11. I would also like to respond to the Declaration of Earle C. Cooley regarding the cross-examination of Gerald Armstrong and the claims of Mr. Cooley that the illegally acquired videotapes reveal a plan by Mr. Armstrong and Michael Flynn to take over the Church of Scientology. In fact, the Court ruled initially that the first two videotapes disclosed entrapment of Mr. Armstrong, were illegally acquired, inadmissible into evidence and that they were “devastating to the church.”

12. After an order by the court, the church produced two additional videotapes which, taken together with the previous two, reveal that it was the church which was using means to entrap Mr. Armstrong, that Mr. Armstrong did not any time seek to plant false or forged documents or do any of the things alleged by Mr. Cooley. In fact, the videotapes, as stated by the court, were a devastating example of the church’s illegal means to cover up its own misconduct. We believe that the verdict in the Christofferson trial will reflect the credibility of Mr. Armstrong and other witnesses.

13. With regard to the allegedly “police-authorized investigation,” Mr. Cooley produced a document, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” authorizing Eugene M. Ingram, a private investigator in the employ of the church, to tap the telephones of Michael Flynn, Gerald Armstrong and others. Serious questions have been raised as to how a Los Angeles Police officer can authorize a wire-tap without approval of a state or federal magistrate or judge, particularly where the wiretap without approval has been allegedly obtained by a former Los Angeles Police Officer from a present officer. Upon information and belief, this entire illegal wiretap and videotaping of Gerald Armstrong is under investigation by the Internal Affairs Section of the Los Angeles Police Department, the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office in Boston, Massachusetts.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the State of Massachusetts this 18th day of April, 1985 in Portland, Oregon.

[signed]

RONALD L. WADE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN
to before me this 18th day of April, 1985.

Cynthia [ .] Chandler
Notary Pubic
for Oregon
My Commission Expires: 5/11/87

Notes

 

  1. This declaration in PDF format.

Scientology v. Armstrong: Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (August 2, 1984)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GERALD ARMSTRONG,
Defendant.


MARY SUE HUBBARD,
Intervenor.


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. C 420153

REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
August 2, 19841

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff and Intervenor: LITT & STORMER
By: MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON
3550 Wilshire Blvd. , Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90010
For Plaintiff Only: PETERSON & BRYNAN
By: JOHN G. PETERSON
8530 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 407
Beverly Hills, California 90211
For the Defendant: CONTOS & BUNCH
By: JULIA DRAGOJEVIC
5855 Topanga Canyon Blvd.
Suite 400
Woodland Hills, California 91367
NANCY L. HARRIS, C.S.R.
Official Reporter
Certificate No. 644

–o0o–

[THE COURT:] Again, I can’t say the action was brought in bad faith or for any kind of improper purpose as such. It is a mixed bag. Some of the things they did were wrong. Some of the things they did they had a right to do, and I cannot under those circumstances find that the defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees on that theory.

So, the nuts and bolts of this is that I have to deny this motion. I do it with a certain amount of reluctance because I feel that the defendant’s counsel have served long and hard and put a lot of time in here and effort to be of assistance to their client. They have served their client well. There is no immediate reward for them in this case in the sense of even compensating them for their time.

They have labored against tremendous odds, against tremendous financial resources. The financial resources on the other side are overwhelming, but I don’t feel I can in any legal basis grant the motion.

There is one last thing I want to mention, and that has to do with the declaration of John G. Peterson on this opposition to motion for attorneys’ fees.2

As Mr. Peterson has indicated, he has become emotionally involved in this case, and it is rather abundantly clear. So some of his comments which have been reported in the newspapers — he can make whatever comments he wants to about the case or the court or anybody else. It doesn’t bother me, but when he puts in a declaration what really is just an argument as to why the motion should not be granted, it seems to me that it is totally unprofessional.

I have to contrast it with the response from Mary Sue Hubbard which I thought was a very professional response, obviously by people who are disappointed in the outcome of the litigation, but at the same time they proceed in a lawyer-like fashion.

This attaching of these exhibits relating to Mr. Flynn, to me, is the worst kind of tactic. It is an effort to smear Mr. Flynn. For what purpose I don’t really know, gratuitous insults to inject into the file of this case some dirt, I suppose, for the obvious purpose of prejudicing Mr. Flynn or any court or any person who might review the record.

Now, obviously if there is any substance to these allegations, they should have been presented to law enforcement authorities.

MR. PETERSON: They have been.

THE COURT: If they conduct investigation and find any merit, I am sure they will do whatever they feel is appropriate.

At the same time, I have been around criminal defendants, both as a defense lawyer and a judge, for many, many years, and I tend to be very skeptical about what any person in prison is likely to say, either about his former lawyer or associate of a former lawyer or upon anything which might provide him with some secondary gain. I can’t help but approach this with a great of skepticism and cynicism.

I read some of the exhibits dealing with Black Propaganda.

I got a letter from some woman about dead agenting. Said I was probably the subject of now being a dead agent myself, and I really couldn’t care less. But I think it is unfortunate that the flle has to be cluttered up with, I am going to say it right here, garbage of this type. I don’t think this should be a part of the public record.

I am going to order that the documents which purport to be exhibit B through F be separated from this declaration, be enclosed in a sealed envelope, and be ordered sealed and not to be opened except upon further order of any court that wants to review this matter. Nothing to do with this lawsuit. Nothing to do with these motions, and I think it is offensive and I am quite surprised.

End of that.

[…]

Notes

  1. Retrieved from gerryarmstrong.org. Armstrong 1.
  2. See Declaration of John G. Peterson (July 30, 1984).

Declaration of John G. Peterson In Opposition To Motion For Attorney’s Fees (July 30, 1984)

PETERSON & BRYNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
8530 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 407
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211
(813)659-9965

ATTORNEYS FOR: Plaintiff ,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,
Defendant.

MARY SUE HUBBARD,
Intervenor.

CASE NO. C 420153

DECLARATION OF JOHN G. PETERSON IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

DATE: August 2, 19841; 2

TIME: 8:00 a.m. Defendant.

DEPT: 57

 

I, JOHN G. PETERSON, declare:

1. This declaration is submitted in opposition to defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. Plaintiff, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, joins in and adopts by reference the Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Attorney’s Fees filed herein by intervenor, MARY SUE HUBBARD.

2. Defendant’s motion can best be described as a poor attempt to add insult to injury. The defendant’s moving papers are an affront to the intelligence and integrity of this Court and the legal profession. This fee request is an insult to good intentioned legislators who enacted Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, and is ironic since this case was pursued by GERALD ARMSTRONG’S attorneys primarily to use this Court as a discovery tool for other litigation and as an avenue for media coverage to extort settlement of other litigation against Mr. Hubbard and the CHURCH.

3. GERALD ARMSTRONG’S moving papers transparently and despicably use a quote from the Bible and a reference to Jonestown all on the front page. The papers go on to paint GERALD ARMSTRONG as a great protector of truth who risked life and limb to expose the “illegal and unconstitutional actions” of the plaintiffs all to a “significant public benefit and will further constitutional freedoms.” However, nowhere does GERALD ARMSTRONG ever state exactly what these public benefits are and how the fact that he stole documents and invaded a person’s privacy can further constitutional freedoms.

4. GERALD ARMSTRONG’S unsupported claims of public benefit should not come as a surprise since all of his trial allegations were never supported by evidence. GERALD ARMSTRONG’S attorney, on page 9, lines 20 through 28, and page 10, lines 1 and 2, attempt to explain the claim for public benefit and constitutional significance. After reading these lines several times, anyone with any first year of law school education would be compelled to conclude: (I) It is incoherent; (2) the person writing the lines does not understand constitutional law; (3) the person writing these lines is audacious in seeking fees for “legal” work; and (4) any response is impossible and would only dignify the lines by educating the person who wrote them.

5. The Court should examine what the attorneys for GERALD ARMSTRONG really sought in this case. They argued that there was a novel and heretofore unheard of in law defense called “justification”. This is, GERALD ARMSTRONG because he believed his life was in danger and that “harassing lawsuits” were forthcoming he could steal evidence and send it to his lawyer for use in this “potential” litigation. Defendant’s attorneys also asserted that if a person feels he may be physically harmed, he can steal materials and threaten to or even publicize these private materials as a deterrent.

6. While these purported “defenses” advocate the worst kind of lawlessness and vigilantism, defense counsel totally failed at trial to produce any evidence to support these novel defenses. First, GERALD ARMSTRONG had no reasonable belief he was going to be sued. ARMSTRONG himself testified that he knew of no one who had ever left the CHURCH and been sued. It is unreasonable to conclude and foolish to believe that the incident where his ex-wife told him to “get a lawyer” could mean anything other than advice that if ARMSTRONG wanted the photos returned, ARMSTRONG would have to sue the CHURCH. How strange that this is the person found to be fearful of his life and terrified of this organization, yet he was marching up to the CHURCH’S main offices shouting and demanding “his pictures”. Did defendant produce witnesses who said they had left the CHURCH, been critical and then been sued? No evidence was produced at trial, simply because none exists. The only thing the Court heard was the ravings of Flynn.

7. The only reasonable way to view the evidence clearly shows that GERALD ARMSTRONG stole the documents for use in his case against the CHURCH. He left the CHURCH, was unskilled, had no job and he visited Flynn, a notorious anti-Scientology plaintiff’s lawyer, who obviously conspired with ARMSTRONG to steal the documents for use in their cases. It is naive to think that ARMSTRONG’S massive theft of marginally relevant documents is simply overkill. That is also why Flynn argued so strenuously that the Court do his discovery for him and hold the documents for use in the Cross-Complaint and other litigation Flynn is involved in.

8. Defense counsel claim they have exposed the CHURCH’S policy of blackmailing former members by use of PC material (page 4, lines 9 through 10). Flynn argued that the CHURCH blackmailed people. However, no witness was ever produced who testified that they had been either threatened with or blackmailed by the CHURCH. Defense counsel, without legal support or evidence, asked this Court to find that the CHURCH practices this policy. Also, how could ARMSTRONG reasonably fear blackmail when he had no knowledge of any instances of it prior to his theft of the documents?

9. Defense counsel should not be compensated for conducting a heresy trial. This Court took judicial notice of the fact that Scientology is a religion and has rights under the First Amendment. This Court correctly ruled that it could not inquire into or evaluate the merits, accuracy or truthfulness of Scientology. Yet defense counsel sought to try the religion, its Founder and its policies. An example of the dishonesty of defense counsel is when they submitted to this Court Exhibit 500-HHHHH. This 1970, French Government investigation report was authoed by an ex-Nazi, who admitted doing no first hand investigation but relied on other sources. Also, defense
counsel failed to inform the Court that the French court had reversed its findings that Scientology was a fraud.

10. Julia Dragojevic’s dishonesty with this Court is shown by her Declaration. At the beginning of the trial, she said that GERALD ARMSTRONG needed Flynn because Flynn knew the case better, was more experienced and knowledgeable; and we were told she had never tried a jury case. Now she is the “Scientology expert” who is deserving of $150.00 per hour. She is even claiming $150.00 per hour for the time she just sat in the Courtroom during Flynn’s trial. Julia Dragojevic’s hours are inflated, refex time spent on other matters and not relevant to this case (see attached Exhibit “A”).

11. Attorney fees could not be properly claimed because GERALD ARMSTRONG thinks he exposed Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard as frauds. This Court clearly ruled in the beginning of the trial that Scientology was not on trial and that the Court would not consider the truth or falsity of the contents of the documents but only how they were relevant to ARMSTRONG’S “state of mind.” If the Court correctly followed this stated ruling, it could not properly reach any conclusions regarding Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard, and defense counsel could not receive fees for this improper presentation.

12. At the beginning of the trial, plaintiff’s counsel warned the Court about allowing Michael Flynn to conduct the trial. Plaintiff made a motion to disqualify Flynn. Plaintiff warned this Court that Flynn would conduct a heresy trial against the CHURCH and a personal attack against L. Ron Hubbard. Flynn did this under the pretext that he was going to show this person and organization had unclean hands and was not entitled to equitable relief.  Defense counsel argued that an old order by MARY SUE HUBBARD (GO-121669) gave her unclean hands that should deny her relief in this case. This ridiculous legal position is so contrary to black letter law that it does not deserve further comment. What is incredulous is that defense counsel seeks fees for presenting and arguing such a patently unsupported legal position.

13. Defense counsel point repeatedly to what they call the unclean hands of plaintiffs. This Court should be aware of the true character and motives of Michael J. Flynn.3

14. Plaintiff can not ignore Flynn’s efforts to prejudice this Court. Plaintiff also asks the Court to admonish counsel for defendant and their client to immediately cease these improper tactics, such as filing this fees motion, in their effort to prejudice this Court. Plaintiff also requests the Court to impose sanctions in the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred by plaintiff in replying to this frivolous motion for fees.

15. According to sworn declarations filed by attorney Michael J. Flynn of Boston, Massachusetts, he is an attorney of fourteen years experience in the State of Massachusetts who has tried 40 to 50 jury trials since 1972. Approximately one-third of Mr. Flynn’s career, since mid-1979, has involved litigating against the Church of Scientology and/or its Founder, L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Flynn has been counsel of record, or counsel but not of record, in cases being litigated in at least the states of Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Nevada, Oregon and California involving the Church. He has made appearances as counsel pro hac vice in California three times in the past two years in suits involving either Mr. Hubbard or the CHURCH.

16. Due to Mr. Flynn’s legal attacks upon the Church of Scientology, its members, practices and Founder, investigative actions were undertaken by professional investigators. These investigations revealed the following facts:

17. In early 1981 a document that laid out a scheme to sell shares in litigation against the Church of Scientology was drawn up in the law offices of Michael Flynn in Boston.

18. This document referred to Flynn Associates Management Corporation, a for-profit Massachusetts corporation incorporated on August 28,1980 by Kevin Flynn, Michael Flynn and Cheryl Flynn. (See attached Exhibit “B”). Kevin Flynn is the brother of Michael Flynn and, at that time, worked as an investigator or researcher for Michael. Cheryl Flynn is Kevin Flynn’s wife.

19. The document stated: “Description: Flynn Associates Management Corp. is a management consultant company. It was organized to manage and oversee the operations and strategy of all Scientology litigation of Michael Flynn Associates.” (See attached Exhibit “C”). Other documents discarded at about the same time from Mr. Flynn’s office revealed that investors were to be promised “a $2.00 return for each $1.00 invested.”

20. Despite claims to the contrary by Michael Flynn, attempts were made to sell shares. In an affidavit executed on October 13,1981, Jim Grey of Clearwater, Florida, stated that on October 2, 1981, Michael Flynn “offered me the position of Trustee of Flynn Associate Management Corporation (FAMCO) in the Clearwater area and told me that as a trustee, I would receive, raise and disburse monies which would be used to file suits against the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY around the country and therefor breack the CHURCH financially. ” (See attached Exhibit “D”).

21. A FAMCO document obtained around the same time, entitled “Scientology – Review and Planning”, demonstrated that the above was an “All Out” strategy which included: “a) closing orgs (orgs -Scientology organizations) b) adverse media c) adverse public d) Fed & State attacks”. Following this “all out” strategy, Michael Flynn and FAMCO engaged in the “adverse media” actions. From the deposition testimony of both Kevin Flynn and deprogrammer Joseph Flanagan in Garrison v. Kevin Flynn, et al. and Miller v. Kevin Flynn, et al. the initiation of the “adverse public” strategy was also implemented with the creation of new potential litigants. Kevin Flynn operating out of the 12 Union Wharf offices of FAMCO and Michael Flynn, solicited, organized and carried out several “deprogrammings” of Scientology parishioners. Following each successful deprogramming, Kevin Flynn had the victim transported to the Boston offices of Michael Flynn where the person was solicited to join the suits filed against the CHURCH they had just departed.

22. This all out effort continued on into early 1982. Affidavits show that through co-conspirators, Michael Flynn obtained access to the Bank of New England where Church of Scientology Founder L. R. Hubbard maintained a Cash Reserve Management account. The conspirators obtained copies of several of Mr. Hubbard’s checks, as well as several checks from an unrelated Florida company, and hired Ala Fadili Al Tamimi to counterfeit and forge these checks in the amount of $2 million.4

23. In a sworn statement, Ala Tamini has detailed how Mr. Flynn promised him $400,000 to pass the forged checks and pass the monies received to an overseas account established by Mr. Flynn in the Cayman Islands. Mr. Tamimi also related, in this same statement, the treatening remarks made by Mr. Flynn regarding the safety of Mr. Tamini’s family. (See attached Exhibit “E”).5

24. Following the failure of the attempt to forge and pass Mr. Hubbard’s checks, Mr. Flynn then filed suit on behalf of Ronald DeWolf, the estranged son of Mr. Hubbard, in Riverside, California. The suit claimed that Mr. Hubbard was a missing person under California probate codes and included charges that Hubbard’s business affairs were being mismanaged as evidenced by the failed attempt to forge one of his checks. Flynn accused Church officials of forging the check.

25. The investigation also discovered evidence that such behavior by Mr. Flynn was not limited solely to litigation against the CHURCH.

26. According to the Declaration of George Edgerly, executed on March 5, 1984, in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, Mr. Flynn both offered to pay Edgerly for his silence during two 1976 trials and made intimidating statements regarding the safety of Mr. Edgerly’s children.6

27. Mr. Edgerly was the defendant in a criminal case for fraud in Lowell, Massachusetts, in February and March, 1976. In approximately March, 1976, Mr. Flynn approached Mr. Edgerly and suggested that Edgerly not testify in his own defense, offering to pay Edgerly’s wife $500.00 a week for every week that Edgerly spent in prison. Edgerly accepted this proposal, was paid $1,000.00 by Mr. Flynn about two weeks later, and was sentenced to three to five years in prison.

28. Between October and December, 1976, Mr. Edgerly was again on trial, this time as a defendant to a charge of conspiracy. One of his co-defendants was represented by Mr. Flynn, both in this criminal suit and in a civil suit against General Motors Corporation.

29. Again, during this trial, Mr. Flynn proposed to Edgerly that he not testify and Edgerly agreed. Mr. Flynn promised Edgerly a share of the recovery from General Motors in exchange for his silence.

30. Later, during the trial, subsequent to Mr. Edgerly’s attorney being removed for a conflict of interest and Edgerly beginning to represent himself, Edgerly decided that he was being set up as the “fall guy” by Mr. Flynn and his co-defendants. He began aggressively cross-examining his co-defendants. They, and Mr. Flynn, became upset by this, resulting in Mr. Flynn’s offering to pay Edgerly $18,000.00 immediately. The money was not immediately forthcoming; Edgerly continued his aggressive cross-examination; and Mr. Flynn then mentioned that he knew of Edgerly’s concern for his family, that he knew Edgerly had a lot of children who were little and that “one of
them could be hit by a car.” Mr. Flynn made similar threatening remarks to Edgerly’s wife. (See attached Exhibit “F”).

31. A fee request by defense counsel is not supported by law as more fully discussed in the Opposition filed by intervenor. A request for fees is inappropriate in this case because of counsel’s conduct of this litigation and other attacks on Scientology. It is plain to see that this litigation was not brought and pursued for any public interest, but was part of a general plan of attack on Scientology and an attempt by Flynn to get documents for use in his
other litigation.

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

Executed on July 30, 1984, at Beverly Hills, California.

[signed]
JOHN G. PETERSON

Notes

  1. Judge Breckenridge discussed this declaration at an August 2, 1985 hearing in Scientology v. Armstrong: Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings (August 2, 1984)
  2. This document in PDF format.
  3. See Operator: John G. Peterson.
  4. See Scientology’s Check Forgery Frame.
  5. See Declaration of Ala Fadili Al Tamimi (May 5, 1984).
  6. See Operator: George Edgerly

OSA Press Release (June 25, 1984)

Source  “PR Newswire”
Author  Heber Jentzsch
Date  June 25th, 19841

LOS  ANGELES,  June  25/PRN  –  Church  of  Scientology  attorney  John  Peterson
announced  Friday  that  he  had  filed  a  notice  of  appeal  with  the  Superior  Court  of
California and an emergency application for stay pending the appeal of a decision issued
June 21 by Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge.

Breckenridge issued a memorandum of intended decision in a suit brought by the church
and  Mrs.  L.  Ron  Hubbard  against  a  former  church  employee,  Gerald  Armstrong,  for
unlawfully  taking  thousands  of  pages  of  valuable  documents  and  personal  papers
belonging to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard and Mrs. Hubbard.

The decision, according to Peterson, “was completely ludicrous. On the one hand, it is
clear that the trial court found there was an invasion of privacy and conversion of the
documents and papers by Armstrong for purposes other than those for which they were
entrusted to him. Yet, the trial court ordered that the personal and private documents be
unsealed and made available for public access.

“Under this decision,” Peterson said, “any person or institution – religious or otherwise –
is no longer safe from anyone just coming along and stealing their personal effects and
then exposing them to public view.”

According  to  the  emergency  application  to  the  California  Appeals  Court,  Peterson  is
asking the court to maintain an earlier injunction against the public use or inspection of
the documents taken by Armstrong.

Peterson  went  on  to  say  that  “since  the  Superior  Court’s  unsealing  order  materially
dissolved  the  prior  injunction  and  changed  the  status  quo,  a  stay  by  the  appeals  court
seems mandatory.

Contact – John Peterson at 213-386-4303, 213-661-2747 or 213-654-8064 for the Church
of Scientology, or after hours Rev. Heber Jentzsch of the Church of Scientology at 213-
666-5570.

Notes

Reporter’s Daily Transcript: Scientology v. Armstrong (excerpt) (May 21, 1984)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MAY 21, 1984; 1:33 P.M.1

-o0o-

THE COURT: All right. We are back in session.

Mr. Armstrong, would you retake the stand.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Just state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: You may continue, Counsel.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)

[…]

Q Mr. Armstrong, at the time that you left the organization did you have in mind that you were not going to be declared a suppressive person? Yes or no.

A Did I have in mind that I was not going to be?

Q That is correct.

A I think I have explained that I —

Q Yes or no, Mr. Armstrong?

A I hoped that I would not be.

Q You hoped that you would not be, but you didn’t know?

A I still don’t know what the organization will do.

Q And your photo incident is what convinced you that this secret definition of enemy was being applied to you; is that correct?

A That was a big piece of it.

Q It wasn’t the declare alone that caused you to believe this; correct?

A I knew that I was under investigation by a B-1 operative by the name of Brad Ballentine [Balentine].

I knew that the organization had, first of all, declared me; that the declare itself was Black Propaganda.

2578

Once the photos were taken, I made a demand for their return. They refused.

At that point I felt indebted to the people whose photos had been stolen.

I was scared for my life. I was scared for my wife’s life. I knew what the organization was capable of.

I saw that they viewed me as an enemy and that the weight of the intelligence machinery of the organization would be brought against my wife and myself.

Notes