Exhibit E: Handwritten notes
Exhibit F: Deposition of Gerald David Armstrong (excerpt) 08-18-1982
Exhibit E: Handwritten notes
Exhibit F: Deposition of Gerald David Armstrong (excerpt) 08-18-1982
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,
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
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]
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.
RONALD L. WADE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN
to before me this 18th day of April, 1985.
Cynthia [ .] Chandler
My Commission Expires: 5/11/87
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,
MARY SUE HUBBARD,
NO. C 420153
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
August 2, 19841
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.
Woodland Hills, California 91367
NANCY L. HARRIS, C.S.R.
Certificate No. 644
[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.