Clayton C. Ruby

Clayton C. Ruby

Clayton C. Ruby

GA Letter to Clayton C. Ruby (2) (February 17, 2004)

February 17, 2014

Clayton C. Ruby, Esquire
Ruby Shiller Chan Hasan

11 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M5R 1B2
By: Canada Post

Fax 416-964-8305

Dear Mr. Ruby:

In April 1985, during the trial of Julie Christofferson v. Scientology in Portland, Oregon, cult attorney John Peterson stated to the court that you, Mr. Ruby, were responsible for the unlawful video recording you dishonestly call “a police authorized video” in your 1992 letter to Ms. Yingling.1

If a corrupt police officer signed an unlawful note authorizing you to murder someone you hated – like me for example – would you call that a police authorized murder?

Peterson said that you hired Eugene Ingram, the Scientologists’ most notorious private investigator, and you ordered the unlawful video recording, not Peterson and not the Scientology cultists. Your PI Ingram threatened to assassinate me, threatened to put a bullet between my eyes, as I’m sure you know.

At first I thought Peterson was lying in the Portland court, hiding his own and the Scientologists’ complicity in the unlawful Armstrong operation, and using the fact that you were in Canada and outside subpoena range for the Christofferson trial. Because of my discovery yesterday of your letter to Ms. Yingling, however, I have had to reconsider your involvement. I now believe that you conspired with Peterson and the Scientologists.

If attorney Peterson is to be believed at all, then you paid the corrupt LAPD officer for the unlawful “authorizations” to eaves drop on, wiretap and record my attorney Michael Flynn and me.2

Peterson also stated that you alone as of April 1985 possessed the unlawful video recordings. So I have to conclude that you are responsible for the dishonest editing of the videos, for the dishonest transcripts, and for the black propaganda the videos have been used for all these years.

I do not believe that your one letter to Ms. Yingling is your only communication about your video recordings, or your only communication lying about and black PRing me or Flynn. I think your one letter that surfaced is but the tip of a monstrous criminal black propaganda berg.

I believe that as willing as you have been to do what you have done in service of the Scientology cult, there is almost no limit to what you would do to a person you want to victimize like me. You are a criminal defense attorney with many connections into the criminal underworld, and into criminals like Ingram to do your dirty work. The Scientology cult has long had associations with dangerous criminals, and has a practice of hiring psychopaths. I believe I am in more danger from you and your clients and cohorts than ever.

Your Scientologist clients have physically assaulted me on multiple occasions, terrorized me on the freeway, broken into my car and stolen valuable property, framed me and tried to have me prosecuted on false criminal charges, obtained unlawful jail sentences against me, forced me into bankruptcy, black PRed me around the world up to the top of governments, run covert ops on me, forged my signature over racist Internet postings, and even hired prominent people like you to destroy me. You are the enemy of good people, and the world should know it for everyone’s safety.

I understand that even the most criminal even murderous people deserve legal representation. I have no problem with that concept. I have a serious problem, however, with the lawyers who lie for their criminal clients.

You also can correct all this. But you can’t correct it with more lies, or hiring more thugs. You have to tell the truth and remedy the lies and black PR you’ve spread about me, Flynn and your Scientologist clients’ other enemies or victims.

Yours genuinely,

Gerry Armstrong


  1. For videos, transcripts and related documents:
  2. See Peterson’s trial testimony in Christofferson.

GA Letter to Clayton Ruby: Defamation claim and demand for remedy (February 16, 2014)

Mark Rathbun: on Clayton Ruby and Marlys Edwardh (May 28, 2013)

I retained two of Toronto’s most highly regarded and aggressive criminal civil rights lawyers, Clayton Ruby and Marlys Edwardh1 They immediately began what would turn into years of litigation over the legality of the search and seizure. I formed up a team of a half dozen staff as the legal unit, to service the attorneys and work to prevent charges from being laid. Early intelligence indicated that the aim of the raid was to go after high-level GO executives as well as the top of Scientology management, including David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard as individual defendants. The raid had been supervised by a long-time Scientology antagonist within the OPP, Al Ciampini, and was sanctioned and directed by a Scientology hater in the Crown Law Office, Casey Hill.

Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior (p. 209-10).


CSI 1023 Submission: Exhibit III-10-U [Legal Memorandum Re: Scientology criminal proceedings in Toronto, Canada] (November 23, 1992)

Ruby & Edwardh1, 2
11 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 1B2
Telephone (416)964-9664

November 6, 1992

Monique Yingling
888 17th Street N.W.
7th Floor
Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms Yingling:

I have been asked to assist in answering a question posed by the American authorities.



Between 1974 and 1978, a tiny handful of members of the Church of Scientology Guardian’s Office acted in violation of Church policy and doctrine by committing crimes in Canada. These crimes were designed to be kept secret from parishioners and Church staff for fear of exposure by the Church.

Upon discovery of these crimes, the Church began to investigate and disband the Guardian’s Office (“GO”). This included sending missions from CMO INT to Guardian Offices around the United States and in other countries to investigate involvement by GO staff in illegal activities and, based on the findings, to remove guilty staff from Church employ.

Thus the Guardian’s Office Canada and Guardian’s Office Toronto were investigated and there the CMO mission found that some of the GO staff had been involved in illegal activities. Actions were therefore instituted which ultimately led to their removal from staff.

While the Church was investigating and cleaning out the GO in Toronto, the Ontario


Provincial Police (OPP) and the Crown Law Office of the Attorney General of Ontario surreptitiously placed one undercover operative in the Church of Scientology of Toronto and one in the Guardian’s Office Canada. This undercover operation included an action taken by one of the undercover officers that was later described in police testimony as an attempt to “provoke a possibility of criminal conduct response on the part of Church of Scientology”. It was unsuccessful.

One of the police operatives, Constable John Cunha, who had posed as a Church staff member, made it known to Church staff that he had left the Church, that he had removed Church financial documents and that he was going to write a critical book on Scientology. When this produced no response, despite the fact that the Guardian’s Office was aware of this threat, Cunha made further contacts. He had provided a phone number and address of where he could be reached. In his further contact, Cunha gave more detail of the documents he had taken and threatened that he would release these documents to the police, and as a result, he having spoken already with the police, Church executives were likely to go to jail.

The police then staked out a hotel, where Cunha had made known he would be, to await an expected response from the Guardian’s Office. No response ever came, despite the police’s best efforts to precipitate criminal conduct on the part of the Guardian’s Office or Church staff.

“Q. it is your expectation, was it not, that there would be some response from the Church of Scientology?

A. Yes.

Q. Was your response the kind of criminal conduct that you were concerned about that you had explained, about break, enter and theft removal of documents, the basis of Count 3 (in the search warrant), that something of that nature would occur?

A. Yes.

Q. Nothing of that occurred, did it?

A. No.”

Cross Examination of Ciampini October 16, 1991, p.43

The most important of the police operatives, Constable Barbara Taylor, worked in an undercover capacity in the Guardian’s Office Toronto. Over the course of her tenure as an undercover officer, she regularly reported the ongoing removal of GO staff as, one by one, they were held responsible for their illegal conduct. She also reported that the policy of the Church would not countenance criminal activities and that no criminal acts must take place.

David Miscavige and other senior Scientologists voluntarily came to Canada to testify


during the trial even though neither they nor the organizations they worked for were parties to the case. They described in detail the ways in which the Guardian’s Office had grown separate and autonomous from the Sea  Organization. They described the dramatic events when they as Sea Organization executives found out that the GO was involved in illegal activities, and how they immediately acted to reform and ultimately disband the GO.

Despite this, preparations began to obtain the search warrant which was based upon allegations of current illegalities. This search warrant ultimately authorized the largest search and seizure in the history of Canada.

The Canada Raid

In March 1983, one hundred police officers, some armed with axes and sledge hammers, entered the premises of Church of Scientology of Toronto, the Guardian’s Office Canada and the Guardian’s Office Toronto. They seized thousands of documents – including Scientology religious books and the confidential priest-penitent confessional files of hundreds of innocent parishioners. The largest raid in the history of Canada resulted in the seizure of 2 million pieces of paper filling 950 banker’s boxes.

The Church continued its own measures to disband the GO entirely and to discover the true facts of what had occurred. In an effort to cooperate with the OPP, in March 1984, Church representatives went to the Crown Law Office and offered to help prosecute the expelled individuals who had planned and ordered the crimes. Crown Attorney Casey Hill refused the Church’s offer, as OPP Inspector Germaine’s notes reveal, saying “You’ve got no cards to play with.”

OPP Officer Ciampini solicited the help of David Mayo and Mayo’s attorney, Gary Bright to approach two of the individuals expelled by the Toronto Church, one of whom was a former GO official, and convince her to talk to Ciampini. Ciampini then used this individual to get others of the former GO officials involved in crime to also agree to join the government’s case.

Solicitor/client privileged documents taken in the raid were read by the police and used to convince these former GO officials that the “train was coming both ways“ as they showed that the Church was planning to prosecute certain of these individuals. As noted by Justice Southey in his ruling of March 26, 1992:

“Both these documents were obviously covered by solicitor and client privilege but it is apparent that they were used by the police, despite the privilege.”

With Mayo’s help, these individuals were made aware of the Church’s plan to prosecute.


States and his own expulsions from the Church. The OPP investigation included interviews with other potential witnesses in the United States. In a June 1983 interview with Boston attorney Michael Flynn, Ciampini proposed a criminal indictment of Religious Technology Center Trustee David Miscavige in order to obtain the cooperation of a potential witness. Mr. Miscavige was the driving force behind the disbandment of the GO. At the time of this suggestion, Ciampini was fully aware that this potential witness was trying to overthrow Mr. Miscavige who had kicked the GO criminals out of the Church.

The actual criminals were embraced by the Crown while the Church and those who were involved in the GO reform and disbandment became the target of the Crown’s case.

Involvement by the IRS and Michael Flynn

The hard-line attitude by the Crown and OPP was encouraged in no small measure by the Internal Revenue Service and by Boston Attorney, Michael Flynn.

The OPP and IRS exchanged information. During 1984, OPP officers went to Los

Angeles where they copied documents from the IRS which were brought back to Toronto. IRS CID agents Al Lipkin and John Petersell went to Toronto hoping to review the documents which had been seized in the Canada raid. At this time there existed an undertaking between Crown counsel and counsel for the Church that seized documents would not be disclosed to agencies outside those prosecuting in Canada itself.

The Crown Law Office, the OPP and the IRS circumvented this agreement by giving the IRS access to a 2 volume report developed from a review of the seized documents which itself contained extracts from the documents subject to the undertaking. The forensic accountant retained by the Crown to assist in the prosecution aided the IRS in their review of this information. He later testified that he could not remember if the IRS agents also looked at the extracts of the documents.

“A. There are a number of things included in the report. There is a synopsis, summary of our finding. There are a number of sections in which detailed discussions of our findings are elaborated upon. Those sections contain essentially two things – one being an overview of that specific area, and secondly extracts from Scientology documents in support of that overview. Those overviews were combined and formed the basis for our summary conclusions.

Q. When you met with these gentlemen, did they actually see this document, or did you just read it to them, or portions of it, I take it?

A. We were in the same room. They would have seen it in front of me.

Q. Did they read from it, or did you refer to it in answering questions?

A. I definitely referred to it. I don’t remember if they read it. Certainly, if I was requested to turn it over to them, you know, I would have…


Q. There was nothing wrong, so far as you were aware, in them seeing the actual documents during this meeting?

A. No. I really had no involvement with whether or not documents could or could not be disclosed to them. I was there to answer questions.

Q. And I take it from time to time in answering the questions you would turn to a page in the brief and read from it?

A. That’s correct.”

Cross Examination of Joe Zier January 16, 1992, pp.56-58

According to a diary kept by Ciampini, Lipkin and Petersell briefed the OPP on the IRS CID investigation and offered to assist the OPP in locating L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige when the OPP brought charges against them.

Another entry to Ciampini’s diary, in October 1984, when the Crown was preparing its formal charges against the Church of Scientology of Toronto and Church members, stated that Michael Flynn had called to say that he wanted to know when the OPP charges were to be laid “because he has 30 – 35 people inside [the Church] who are immediately going to take physical control of the Church of Scientology California and then ASI [Author Services. Inc.] – then file suit in court – turn over all documents to IRS CID for their investigation.” He further stated his hope that the OPP would move soon and that the “momentum of [the OPP’s] charges will cause Scientology to collapse.”

Sergeant Ciampini was questioned at trial about his connection to those seeking to take over the Church.

“Q. And did you know his clients were trying to take physical control, to take over the Church of Scientology in the United States and around the world?

A. I heard, as you can see from my notes here, that it was people within the organization that felt that they wanted to take over the organization. Certainly I had no control over that.

Q. But you knew that they were doing that?

A. I knew it as of October 9, 1984, yes.”

Cross Examination of Ciampini January 10, 1992. p.111

“Q. If I read this note correctly that you made, the takeover of the Church of Scientology of California and ASI is going to follow immediately upon your arrest, your laying of charges. Isn’t that so?

A. That’s what he is saying, yes.

Q. Well, surely you said to him, “Listen, you can’t tie this takeover of these church institutions to my laying of charges in Canada. You must have nothing to do with this.”


A. I had nothing to do with this.

Q. You must have told him you must have nothing to do with this. Surely you said, ‘Don’t involve me in this.’

A. I gave him no instructions.

Q. Am I wrong in suggesting to you that the sense of this now is that you were quite content to let this all happen?

A. I had no control over it, Mr. Ruby.”

Cross Examination of Ciampini January 10, 1992, p.117

This testimony above corroborates the plan exposed in late 1984 in a police authorized video tape of IRS CID operative Gerry Armstrong in which Armstrong planned to plant phony documents in the Church that could be seized in an IRS CID raid designed to topple the Church hierarchy so that Armstrong and Flynn could seize control.

On December 12, 1984 (6 days before charges were laid), OPP Inspector Ormsby wrote in his diary that he returned a call from Lipkin, and that Lipkin was interested in doing a joint investigation with Revenue Canada. Lipkin wanted to be notified if charges were laid and if they could have access to the financial records.

There were three allegations made against the Church in the search warrant that authorized the Toronto raid: tax fraud, consumer fraud, and conspiracy to commit indictable offenses.

The Charges

Contrary to the assertions set out in the Information to the Search Warrant, no charges were ever laid in relation to tax fraud, consumer fraud or indeed conspiracy.

In December 1984, 18 months after the raid, charges were brought by the Ontario Provincial Police against the Church of Scientology of Toronto and 19 named individuals. The charges dealt with theft of confidential information and property, breach of trust, and possession of stolen information and property, alleging the removal of information and documents in government and private agency files by GO operatives for use by the Guardian’s Office. All of these incidents were alleged to have occurred between 1973 and 1983.

The Guardian’s Office executives who were in charge at the time of the alleged thefts and who actually directed the individuals involved were given Immunity by the government (Crown) so they could testify against their former subordinates. These government witnesses were all who had been removed from GO staff for their activities, and some had been excommunicated from Scientology – all well before the raid and before the Church had any knowledge of the OPP investigation or infiltrators.


The lower level individuals who had obeyed the orders of these government witnesses were charged along with the Toronto Church corporation. By this time, these individuals who were charged had already performed hundreds of hours of independent community service at the direction of the Church to make amends to society for their wrong-doing. This was the first time, anywhere in the free world, that a church was criminally prosecuted by the state for the wrongdoing of a tiny handful of its former members.

During the preliminary hearing, on June 15, 1988, a judge in the Ontario Provincial Court dismissed 4 counts of theft of information, thereby leaving only 15 outstanding charges. On September 21, 1990, this same judge dismissed all counts of possession of stolen property leaving 7 counts of theft and 5 counts of breach of trust, to proceed to trial.

Raid Declared Illegal

On December 2, 1991, Judge Southey of the Ontario Court of Justice, who presided over the trial, ruled that the Church’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had been violated. The judge further found that the OPP officers “conducting the search did not act in good faith”. To remedy these violations, he ordered all the documents seized by the OPP to be excluded from trial.

On January 27, 1992, the OPP returned the bulk of the 2 million seized documents to the Church, save those kept by the Crown for possible appeal purposes. On March 26, 1992, the judge ruled that the testimony of the ex-GO officials, who had been granted immunity, be excluded in relation to all counts of theft.

He noted,

“The breach (of the Charter) was a serious one. The loss of the documents in the illegal seizure caused substantial hardship to the Church.”

Ruling by Southey, J. March 26, 1992, p.20

The Trial

Almost a decade after the raid and more than 15 years after the alleged acts that were the subject of the case, a trial on 5 counts of breach of trust commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice on April 23, 1992, against the Church of Scientology of Toronto and 5 individuals.

On June 26, 1992, the Church and 2 individuals were acquitted on 3 counts of breach of trust. The Church and 3 individuals were convicted on 2 counts of breach of trust. In a


separate jury trial held on June, 25lune 25. 1992, the Church and 7 named individuals were acquitted on all 7 counts of theft of documents.

On September 10, 1992, the Church was sentenced to pay a fine of $250,000 Canadian total for the 2 counts on which it was convicted. The individuals were fined, but no jail terms or probation or community service was imposed: the court recognized that they had already done thousands of hours of community service to society.

Janice Wheeler was fined $2,000 for breach of trust in respect to the Attorney General’s Office of Ontario; Don Whitmore was fined $2,000 for a breach of trust in respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Jacqui Matz was fined a total of $5,000 for a breach of trust in respect to the Attorney General’s Office of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police.

The fact that Scientology is a religion was not questioned by the Crown during this trial. This was the first time in Canada that a recognized non-profit corporation was charged respecting the actions of individuals under what, in my opinion, was an unconstitutional application of the law. Thus the convictions of the Church of Scientology of Toronto are presently under appeal and the payment of the fine has been ordered stayed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Ontario Court of Justice did not dispute:

(1) that Church doctrines never condoned these criminal acts;
(2) that all criminal activity within the Guardian’s Office ceased in 1978, years prior to the raid, and that all those responsible were removed from positions of
(3) that none of the present directors of the Church were directors at the time of the offenses; and
(4) that vast numbers of the Church’s present parishioners were not even parishioners then.

The Court acknowledged that the Guardian’s Office itself was disbanded in 1983 by senior Church management who had discovered what these wrongdoers had done as described by David Miscavige and other senior Scientologists. And indeed, in dealing with sentence, Justice Southey concluded that specific deterrence respecting the Church was not needed.

In his Charge to the Jury, Justice Southey said:

“There is no evidence that the Church of Scientology authorized the Guardian’s Office in Toronto, either expressly or by implication, to participate in the unlawful plant operations…”


He had earlier ruled on August 2, 1991:

“there is no suggestion that the stealing or documents or the breaches or trust by government employees, if they occurred, were acts condoned by the religious doctrines of the Church. Indeed, quite the reverse, the Church has vigorously repudiated the*conduct of persons who have engaged in such acts and has expelled such persons from its organization.”

The raid and the prosecution must have involved years of court time and tens of thousands of man-hours on the part of the Attorney General’s Office of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police and may have cost over 15 million dollars of taxpayer’s money. All of this time and expense was to prosecute a Church which had long since cleaned its own house.

The unprecedented conviction of the Church of Scientology of Toronto on theories of vicarious criminal liability is under appeal.

Yours very truly,

Clayton C. Ruby




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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,


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



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


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


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


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


Mike Rinder

Eugene M. Ingram

John Peterson


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


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


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


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


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,


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.





Christofferson: Excerpt of Proceedings (April 12,15, 1985)

Christofferson: Excerpt of Proceedings (April 11, 1985)



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,
No. A7704-05184


Volume IX
Pages 4640 to 4835
Testimony of Gerald D. Armstrong

April 11, 1985

Court Reporters
1001 S. W. Fifth Ave.
Portland, Oregon

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4686

THE COURT: Well, I said yesterday afternoon and I am going to watch this fairly closely the rest of this day, we are not here to build a case for whatever cases are going on around the country. I’ll address this to the gentlemen in the audience. I’m trying the Christofferson case.

MR. COOLEY: Two days we gave him discovery in the California case.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know where the lawyers present are from or what cases and I don’t really care. That’s their job. It’s that we are trying the issues in this case, as I see them, and I’m going to try to limit it to that.

MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: We’ll take a few minutes.

(Court recessed at 10:57 a.m. and reconvened at 11:17 a.m.)

MR. COOLEY: Before we bring in the jury, Your Honor, you remember, I told the Court I would continue my examination. I told the Court I was continuing to check on whether there were additional tapes, and I am now informed there are tapes of meetings with Mike Rinder on November 19 and November 30, 1984. I have no intention of using them, but I want to inform the Court that they do

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4687


MR. McMURRY: We would like them produced forthwith.

MR. COOLEY: I object to that.

THE COURT: Well, I asked the other day for all tapes, videotapes, and so forth, to be produced regarding the Armstrong Operation.

MR. COOLEY: I understood the tapes were for the Court, not counsel. I was not required to produce, in the midst of my cross-examination, the tapes of the –

THE COURT: Now, how did we find this information?

MR. COOLEY: I have had Mr. Peterson check on the situation with the lawyer in Toronto.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, where are the tapes?

MR. PETERSON: They are in Toronto.

MR. COOLEY: I’ll have them sent here.

THE COURT: Okay. Get them here.

MR. COOLEY: I’ll be happy to present them to the Court. But the point is, the other tapes did not get turned over to Counsel until the Court determined they were going into evidence.

THE COURT: And these are tapes of what?

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4688

MR.COOLEY: The Rinder meetings of November.

THE COURT: We are not going to have any testimony about this meeting until I hear those tapes.

MR. COOLEY: I don’t understand that ruling at all.

THE COURT: Well, just take it as a ruling. I was told that there were nonexistent tapes. Now we are getting –

MR. COOLEY: No. I didn’t say that about the Rinder meeting. I said there were no tapes –

THE COURT: No, wait a minute, Mr. Cooley. Just a second. Let me talk now. I asked about tapes regarding anything to do with the Armstrong Operation.

MR. COOLEY: I told the Court I was still checking the Toronto situation.

THE COURT: I’m not blaming you, Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I had determined there was no tape of the hotel meeting, there was no tape of the lawyer’s meeting; that I had not completed my investigation of the existence of tapes, any other tapes with respect to Toronto. And I have now determined that there are tapes of the meeting with Rinder on November 19 and 30, and I’m telling the

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4689

Court that. I’m not concealing anything.

MR. McMURRY: May I be heard, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. MCMURRY: This Court on Monday –

THE COURT: And don’t get angry.

MR. MCMURRY: I’m not. I certainly wouldn’t want to do that.

This Court, on Friday and again on Monday, ordered all writings, all reports, all wires, all recordings of any kind from any source, including the Toronto lawyer, Ingram, and anybody else, were to be furnished to this Court by Monday morning.

And there was colloquy: “That’s a big order, but we’ll do it.”

Now here we are on Thursday and low and behold Peterson finds — not Mr. Gutfeld, but Peterson — finds, yes, there’s a Toronto tape.

Now, he didn’t find it on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. He finds it on Thursday. Now, I also suggest that the cross-examination that pinpoints the 19th and 30th of November must be in the form of some report, must be in the form of some memorandum.

THE COURT: Is this the meetings of –

MR. MCMURRY: — of good old Rinder meetings –

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4690


MR. MCMURRY: — which have been referred to by Mr. Cooley as occurring on the 19th and 30th. There must be some evidence, unless the Toronto lawyer is in court and can shed some light on this sudden information, as to date, time and place.

There must be some evidence that, low and behold, Mr. Peterson might be able to enlighten us on. The contents and the times are clearly within the knowledge now of Mr. Cooley, and we can only suppose that source of information is Mr. Peterson, specially admitted as an officer of this court.

We would suggest, Your Honor, that the cross-examination on this setup be terminated. It’s obvious that the Court’s orders are not being complied with until it suits the purpose of the defendant, Church of Scientology of California, and that obviously evidence is being used from this setup to harass and intimidate this witness, and it’s an ongoing operation to this very day, to this very last hour.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, you may recall in Mr. Gutfeld’s testimony he said, “That is not within my ability,” at which time I announced to the Court –

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4691

THE COURT: I’m not blaming Mr. Gutfeld.

MR. COOLEY: Let me please finish. I stood up and I said, “I’m handling that aspect. I am continuing the investigation; I have not completed it yet. I will report to the Court when I do.” I have now reported to the Court. There is no concealment of any tapes here. Now, with respect to –

THE COURT: Do you want to know what bothers me?

MR. COOLEY: What, sir?

THE COURT: When I had Mr. Peterson stand up, and I said, “Are there any more tapes or documents or anything with reference” –

Don’t shake your head at me, Mr. Peterson.

Just get up here because you and I are going to have a little talk.


THE COURT: And you said you didn’t have any.

MR. PETERSON: That’s correct.

THE COURT: You didn’t tell me they were in existence somewhere else.

MR. PETERSON: At that time, when I said it, I did not know. We have been trying to track down the tapes. We have been trying to track down, you

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4692

know, the Toronto attorney and his investigator. The investigator has been out of the state on some sort of investigation. When we get out of court here, it’s 5:00, 5:30 by the time we get back to the apartment, and it’s late at night in Toronto. We have been unable to locate Mr. Ruby. At the time I represented to the Court that I had nothing, I had nothing. And I still don’t have tapes. And I have no documentation regarding the Toronto tapes. As I had said, it was done by the Toronto attorney and a private investigator, not me, not the Church.1 Mr. Gutfeld was telling the truth when he didn’t even know of the existence of this taping, because it was not done through the Church and no one was told about it. That’s why we don’t have it.

THE COURT: Mr. Cooley somehow has information about it.

MR. COOLEY: I had information about the meetings that took place and I have access to Michael Rinder, Your Honor.


MR. COOLEY: I assume the Court will give me some credit for doing some attorney work product here.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4693

THE COURT: No question about that.

MR. PETERSON: I believe the Court ordered we get the five boxes, and they are sitting over there. We have always endeavored to comply with the Court’s orders.

THE COURT: I sometimes feel that I am being used in this case, that I have been tolerant, I have listened to representations by all Counsel, I have accepted those. And then something comes along different. It never is anyone’s fault, and it’s never anyone’s responsibility. But somebody has to be responsible. Somebody has to be responsible for seeing that when a Court orders something, it’s done.

MR. PETERSON: When we started preparing the case, we had no idea of the scope of the testimony; for example, Mr. Armstrong, or any other witnesses. That’s why we didn’t have tapes down here, we didn’t have all the stuff here and available. Discovery has been ongoing since the beginning of trial, as evidenced by those boxes. Those are our entire files for the cross-examination of this witness sitting over there. I mean, it hasn’t helped us, these discovery orders, and we are doing our best to comply with the orders. As Mr. Cooley said, we had

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4694

no plans of playing the tape. We had enough trouble with this tape. Two more tapes would be — it just wasn’t in the plans. That’s why the stuff isn’t here, because we had no idea it would be needed.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, I share the Court’s concern and I realize Mr. McMurry and I are getting a little indignant. I mean, Mr. Peterson stood here the other day, and certainly maybe he didn’t say, “The tapes don’t exist anywhere and I don’t know about them,” but he certainly inferred there were no tapes. None whatsoever. And that’s all we have heard is those tapes were not in existence.

Mr. Gutfeld testified from the stand: nobody knows about those tapes. Mr. Armstrong testified about it, about people saying the tapes didn’t exist. That’s what they said; they said the tapes didn’t exist. I remember that statement: “They don’t exist.” And now they do exist. Now they want to cross-examine on the subject when they have tapes.

The first thing, they can’t cross-examine in that area until we get the tapes. The Court ordered the tapes be produced; they should be produced. And it is incredible to say, as Mr. Peterson has just said, “We didn’t think we needed those. We didn’t

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4695

think we needed to use those. You used the two tapes. You saw the problems we had with the two tapes. We didn’t think we would need these other tapes.”

Somebody in the Church certainly knew those tapes existed. And just because they didn’t want to use them or they didn’t want the testimony from those tapes, that’s why they weren’t here. That’s why they weren’t produced. It just doesn’t make any sense. This cat-and-mouse game doesn’t make any sense at all. An attorney or witness stands up and says things don’t exist, the tapes don’t exist, the program orders don’t exist, nothing exists, and then later on we find out they do exist. And I don’t think it’s anything less than misrepresentation.

MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, I stepped forward at the last hearing. I wasn’t on the stand. I volunteered that Mr. Wade or Mr. McMurry or the Court could ask me any questions regarding any documents or any tapes or anything. These two gentlemen had no questions, and I said, “Your Honor, I personally have no documents.” They were talking about documents at the time. I had no knowledge regarding those tapes until Mr. Cooley asked me, because he couldn’t get in touch with the Toronto

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4696

lawyer, if I would help him get in touch with the Toronto lawyer because he was in trial all day. And there’s been –

MR. COOLEY: Nonexistence, Your Honor. You may recall you asked me about whether there were tapes of the hotel meeting. I said there were no tapes that I knew about.

THE COURT: I tried to be as thorough in asking that question as I possibly could, because I don’t know of all the meetings. That’s why I made it as broad as I did.

MR. COOLEY: I specifically told the Court that I was still investigating the Toronto aspect of it to see whether there were any further conversations, tapes. I had satisfied myself that nowhere was there a tape of the meeting in the hotel room or a meeting in the lawyer’s office. I then said that I knew that Mr. Rinder had met on two occasions with the witness.

As a matter of fact, the first time I had met Rinder in any detail was when the witness spoke about it. I wasn’t familiar with the fact that they also had met at Griffith Park. I learned that; I spoke with Rinder; I had Mr. Peterson chase it down, and I now know there are two tapes. I don’t intend

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4697

to play them. Although from what I understand from Mr. Rinder, there is plenty of good stuff on there for me. The reason I don’t want to play it is that it has taken us a week to deal with the first two tapes, and that is enough time. Now I will present them to the Court and let the Court view them, and I will –

The COURT: Are these videotapes again?


THE COURT: Done under the same circumstances as the last?

MR. COOLEY: As I understand, under the same circumstances and the same investigator.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, it’s very strange to me that Mr. Cooley is able to obtain information that he says will show there are no tapes for the meeting in the hotel. Now, if this was the lawyer in Toronto, why didn’t he find out during that same conversation of the other tapes?

MR. COOLEY: The reason: I did not talk to the lawyer in Toronto. The thing was dealt with piecemeal. When the Court asked me — not the Court, but when I was asked by Mr. Armstrong, he said, “Well, you undoubtedly” — or he said to the

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4698

jury, “You undoubtedly have tapes. I went to the hotel room, I went to the lawyer, and you undoubtedly have tapes.”

Well, I didn’t know at that time I had tapes.

THE COURT: Your argument even going into this cross-examination regarding these meetings was you, just got through telling me, on the basis of bias. Now we are back to the original point we were with the other tapes.

MR. COOLEY: That was bias.

THE COURT: And I said at that time they have got to be coughed up so they can be at least heard by me first and then by Counsel to see whether or not, number one, they are, they do show bias; and secondly, whether they were in their proper context.

MR. COOLEY: That came in the context of me offering the tapes. I’m not offering them now.

THE COURT: But they are here and we know they exist. And I see no reason why Counsel on the other side shouldn’t know what’s on those tapes.

MR. COOLEY: That’s the first time the Court has made that ruling.

THE COURT: Because I think in this context I have been misled.

MR. COOLEY: I am very sorry, Your Honor,

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4699

because I did not deliberately mislead the Court. I’m sorry I pursued the matter, frankly.

THE COURT: Did you hear me say “deliberately”? I didn’t say deliberately, Mr. Cooley. I didn’t say deliberately. If I would have said deliberately, I also would have been calling for a sheriff.

MR. COOLEY: Well, then, I don’t know how I misled the Court.

THE COURT: Because you and Mr. Peterson have said, “That it,” at least led me to believe there are no — I asked, “Are there any more audio tapes?”

I remember my conversation. “Are there any other video tapes? Are there any audio tapes of this Armstrong Project that we are dealing with here?”

And I was led to believe by all the answers that there were none.

MR. COOLEY: I think if Your Honor reviews the transcript, you will see that is not the way it happened. I specifically left open the Toronto situation on anything dealing with –

THE COURT: When can they get here?

MR. COOLEY: When I go back for lunch, I’ll check on their location. I understand I could have them here no later than tomorrow morning.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4700

MR. McMURRY: Mr. Peterson is apparently the person that made the contact with Mr. Ruby in Toronto; certainly he should be able to give us the answer to that question, whether they are here or in Portland.

MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, it is just a matter of flight schedules. They can be put on a plane. I’m confident there are enough flights coming into Portland that they can be here by tomorrow. If not 9:30, by at least noon.

THE COURT: Well, they are going to have to get here.

MR. COOLEY: They will get here, Your Honor, and I will give them to the Court tomorrow.

THE COURT: They are going to be here immediately as soon as you can get them on the airplane and get them down here.

MR. COOLEY: We will deal with that when Mr. Peterson and I go back for lunch.

MR. McMURRY: The Court also ordered every other writing. The Court said, “This is inconceivable to me that there isn’t a paper trail.”

THE COURT: That’s what I said.

MR. McMURRY: Precisely. And the only thing that was excepted from your order was the writings,

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4701

the handwritings of Gerald Armstrong. Now, –

THE COURT: That was my order, Mr. McMurry.

MR. COOLEY: This is what I have been dealing with for two days.

MR. McMURRY: I submit that just from the beginning of this second attack through the Rinder meeting, and the specific language that is being used, that there is writings, and that they do exist, and that they are here in Portland and that they should be produced.

MR. COOLEY: That is not so. My information has come directly from Rinder and there are not writings to be produced and I’m not going to give him my work product under any circumstances.

THE COURT: Do I have to go through the litany again of what should be produced? I thought everybody by now should certainly understand it.

MR. COOLEY: There is no problem, Your Honor. These tapes, as I understand it, the last of the material to be produced.

THE COURT: I meant writings, documents, notes.

MR. COOLEY: I understand that.

THE COURT: Chalkboard material. Anything.

MR. COOLEY: I can tell you at this time I’m

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4702

not going to have transcripts made of those tapes. I’m deliberately going to avoid that. There would be no documents.

THE COURT: Anything at all regarding the Armstrong Project, as it’s been called here, has got to be coughed up.

MR. COOLEY: Everything is on that table or on the way from Toronto, I understand it, and that’s it.

MR. PETERSON: Is that supposed to be stuff that dealt with the Armstrong taping incidents? None of that stuff has anything to do with –

THE COURT: No. I understand Mr. Gutfeld saying that doesn’t have anything to do with the taping incident. Three boxes are claimed attorney/client privelege, two boxes may be discoverable matters or may or may not be. I haven’t the looked at them.

Now, –

MR. McMURRY: Would you please put the question to Mr. Peterson item by item, writings, handwritings, notes, reports, debriefing, project orders. Just item by item to Mr. Peterson, please.

THE COURT: Would you give me a — I don’t know that terminology you are talking about.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4703

MR. PETERSON: I don’t either.

MR. McMURRY: I hand the Court what I just dashed off. I hope it will be clear enough for Mr. Peterson.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Peterson. We are referring now to all documents, writings, memorandums, briefings, debriefings, evaluations, program orders, reports, all tape recordings, or electronic recordings, mechanical recordings, wire taps. Well, the third one I’m a little bit bothered by Mr. McMurry. I think that’s not a matter for this Court. I think it is a matter for a court.

MR. McMURRY: What other Court can make inquiry at this stage, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I think a California court is going to have to make an inquiry on this because I have no way of determining the authentication of police documents. We are back to that illegally seized evidence problem again.

MR. McMURRY: As the Court remembers, the Ingram exhibit, which is 876, had a date between November 7 and 14. The Rinder meetings, as we understand it now, occurred on the 19 and 30, if my notes are correct. So there must have been yet another authorization from Mr. Rodriguez or someone

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4704

like him.

THE COURT: Because I didn’t put much credence in that, if you remember correctly.

MR. McMURRY: That’s correct, Your Honor. But if there is the tape, as they now admit, the videotape, then –

THE COURT: Then Mr. Cooley would argue they had authority.

MR. McMURRY: That’s right. And –

THE COURT: Okay. Give me –

MR. PETERSON: If the Court didn’t put any credence in it, whether the –

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, did I ask for argument?

MR. PETERSON: Well, usually the procedure has been each side got to answer a question.

THE COURT: I didn’t ask you a question. I’m only telling you what to come up with.

MR. PETERSON: What to look for.

THE COURT: And come up with.

MR. PETERSON: If it exists. Your Honor, I have not seen any of this stuff and I don’t want the Court to take the opinion that because Mr. McMurry writes it down, that it exists somewhere.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4705

THE COURT: I now know there our videotapes, I just found out a few moments ago of another meeting in Griffith park. Now, if there is such a meeting and if it was videotaped, in order for it to have any smattering of legality, there had to be some authorization by some governmental agency to issue it, as I read the California Penal Code and Mr. Cooley explained it to me.

MR. PETERSON: That’s part of it. There are two grounds that you can have a legally recorded conversation in California. One is police authorization, and there is another exception, too. But again, — there probably is a letter in existence.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PETERSON: We have one, I’m sure there were two obtained. I don’t know.

THE COURT: Let’s have that.

MR. PETERSON: I will make inquiry.

THE COURT: Now, here you say — and I’m sure what you are referring to, Mr. McMurry, orders, Executive Directives, and amended orders or directives. What are we referring to? I want to make this very specific so there is no further misunderstanding as to discovery matters.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4706

MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. I make it generic because I don’t know what org it might be issued from. So I don’t refer to just RPF, RRF, ASI, Sea Org, OSA, all of these little acronyms for their various intelligence operations. I want all orders, all program orders, directing the undertaking of anything.

THE COURT: Relating to Mr. Armstrong?

MR. PETERSON: That’s a little broad.

MR. McMURRY: Relating to Mr. Armstrong and it goes on. It goes on.

THE COURT: Relating to Mr. Armstrong, his wife Jocelyn.

MR. McMURRY: Correct.

THE COURT: Mike Flynn.

MR. McMURRY: You recall in Exhibit 876, the Rodreguez also included Mike Flynn and others. I want to have all orders, all programs, all reports, whether they relate to Michael Flynn, Jocelyn A Armstrong, myself, plaintiff, anybody involved in this litigation as a witness or as a party or as a lawyer.

MR. COOLEY: I object to anything going beyond Armstrong and his wife. I have no problem with Armstrong and his wife. We are not going to

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4707

get involved in a wide sweeping discovery rematch now involving Michael Flynn.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. Mr. Cooley, as I understood the thrust of a lot of your questions of Mr. Armstrong, they dealt with Mike Flynn.

MR. COOLEY: That’s right. Your Honor, if we get into a discovery match now on the issue of Michael Flynn, this case is never going to get started again. It’s one thing to have it with respect to the witness, it’s quite another with respect to Michael Flynn.

THE COURT: I can settle that. Then we don’t ask any questions about Michael Flynn.

MR. COOLEY: I cannot believe what is happening here. I cannot believe it.

THE COURT: You want it all on your side.

MR. COOLEY: That isn’t so at all, Your Honor. That is simply not so. I have never been confronted with more stringent restrictions placed on cross-examination.

THE COURT: And I have never been confronted with evidence turning up on a daily basis that has been ordered by the Court on many occasions.

MR. COOLEY: Well, I am prepared to rest on the record as it stands and I have daily copy.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4708

THE COURT: You are not the only one that that has daily copy, Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I will show you the daily copy. Your Honor is really accusing me of something that is really unjust.

THE COURT: I told you when start accusing you, Mr. Cooley, that I will have a sheriff down here to accompany –

MR. COOLEY: That will be fine. Then I would defend myself in an appropriate form. I have been threatened in this case with all manner of things. I have had restrictions placed on cross-examination, Mr. McMurry is allowed to attack opposing Counsel at will. The Court allows these witnesses who are attacking the Church to absolutely say anything they want on the witness stand. And then discovery gets conducted in the middle of my cross-examination, and now Mr. McMurry has the nerve to ask, in the middle of this cross-examination, that everything in the Church’s files with respect to Michael Flynn be produced, and the Court says if I don’t do it, I’m not going to be allowed to ask questions on it. That, Your Honor, is absolutely improper in my opinion, requesting things like that.

THE COURT: One more time you raise your

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4709

voice to me, Mr. Cooley — Let this record indicate right now, this is the second warning I have given Mr. Cooley in two days regarding his attitude toward this Court. I am now prepared to take under advisement a matter of sanctions against Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I object to the attitude that the Court manifests toward me. I think it’s unfair, I think it manifests bias, and I think it manifests prejudice.

THE COURT: Fine. You may think whatever you will. I’m stating that for the record right now, Mr. Cooley. You’d better — number one, you take things the Court says out of context, you twist them around and state them in a manner which is not what the Court says. Nobody has yet ordered Michael Flynn documents to be produced. Nobody has ordered you to do anything, yet. Instead of that, you conduct this harangue against the Court, which is highly inappropriate, which is not done by any lawyer that I’m aware of in the state of Oregon nor do I know any Court which will accept it.

Now, I don’t understand the breath of Mike Flynn or Mr. McMurry documents.

MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. If the Court would look at Exhibit 876, a so-called authorization

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4710

issued by Philip Rodriguez unto Mr. Eugene Ingram, the Court will note that the authorization allowing illegal wire taping and eavesdropping included –

THE COURT: Incidentally, I might say something else. And I don’t — I don’t know whether it’s going on or not, but everybody should be aware that there is to be no recording done in the courtroom with the exception of Court recordings. I failed to make that announcement earlier and I hope everybody understands that.

I don’t know whether it is, I’m just making announcement that says under our court rules, it is not done. Okay.

MR. McMURRY: The Court will note on Exhibit 876 that the so-called authorization included the wiretapping or eavesdropping of Mr. Gerald Armstrong and attorney Michael J. Flynn and others for possible violation or attempts to violate certain laws and any other law. Now, I think with the revelations that keep coming out, that we should determine — Mr. Flynn’s name has been utilized time and again by defense counsel as if — and he has stated in open court, a criminal conspiracy exists somehow, and I have challenged him to exculpate that off the record as to whether he would include myself

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4711

or my law firm. I want to know what additional wiretapping, eavesdropping or recording occurred with Michael Flynn, and I would like to know what recording has occurred, if any, with me. And I would like it put to Mr. Peterson, who professes to be Counsel for the Church of Scientology, who apparently has more access to documents than Mr. Gutfeld or Mr. Cooley. I would like those questions put.

THE COURT: The proposition as to Michael Flynn I could almost answer myself. The problem with that is, they could be so voluminous as far as orders and directives and so forth that — and I’m only guessing –

MR. McMURRY: I’m speaking of the wiretaps, Your Honor, and transcripts.

THE COURT: Strictly wire taps?

MR. McMURRY: That’s right. Because that’s how his name comes up in the context of Exhibit 876.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, do you understand his question?

MR. PETERSON: Yes. Is this started? I thought we were talking with reference to the Rodriguez letter and the Toronto — you know, taping project, whatever it was, of Mr. Armstrong. That’s

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4712

the context that I viewing this in.

THE COURT: Yes, that’s where we are. That’s where we started. We started with that. He points out that this authorization, by officer Rodriguez, which I have noted before is not even on official stationary, says that this authorization shall specifically pertain to the investigation of Gerry Armstrong, Michael J. Flynn and others not known at this time.

And I guess your question, Mr. McMurry, is you want to know what else came within the purview of this alleged authorization.

MR. McMURRY: Precisely. Now, that’s on point three, the on that I referred to. With respect to Armstrong and his wife, we want every report.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson understands that.

MR. McMURRY: With respect to the eavesdropping and transcripts of any form, I don’t care whether it’s mechanical, electronic, video, wire, whatever method this guy Ingram uses, we want it.


MR. McMURRY: On me, on Mr. Wade, on Julie Christofferson Titchbourne, on Mike Flynn, and on

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4713

Gerry Armstrong and his wife Jocelyn.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, can you shed any information for me on this?

MR. PETERSON: You mean whether they exist? Well, like I have — on several occasions stated, this so-called Armstrong project was not commenced the by the Church, but –

THE COURT: I understand by Toronto.

MR. PETERSON: — and a private investigator, Mr. Ingram.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. PETERSON: I will make inquiries to see if any of these things exist as to the people Mr. McMurry has enumerated or listed out for me. Frankly, I don’t think so, but I will make the proper –

THE COURT: Will you report back to me on that as quickly as possible.

MR. PETERSON: I can check on that when we make the arrangements to get the two tapes –

THE COURT: That would be satisfactory. And give me the information. I’m not ruling on any of that. I have only ruled so far on Armstrong and his wife, Joscelyn. Do you understand that?

MR. PETERSON: Oh, yeah.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4714

THE COURT: That, you understand?

MR. PETERSON: Clearly.

THE COURT: I’m withholding Flynn, McMurry, and et al, yet until you give me some information.

MR. PETERSON: That’s fine.

THE COURT: Do you understand that? I hate to keep saying, “Do you understand that,” with every every question, but I think I’m getting into that area where I’ve get to on the record “do you understand what I’m saying.”

MR. PETERSON: And I want the Court and everyone that I understand and I’m going to do my best to comply, as I have always done.

Now the other stuff, Your Honor, I think we have complied with all that in the previous discovery and this ongoing discovery. As I listen to the things, I would like a copy of that list that — you know, I think we have complied, but again –

THE COURT: You mean Mr. McMurry’s list?

MR. PETERSON: All these EDs and program orders and all that other stuff. And that I’m not so sure I understand. Maybe if I could –

THE COURT: Well, let’s get an understanding before we recess.

MR. PETERSON: His last paragraph relating to

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4715

Gerry Armstrong, that’s fine, his wife, Jocelyn, although her name hasn’t been mentioned in this case, I don’t think. But Mike Flynn, all these other people, all these policies and orders? It would be probably another hundred thousand –

THE COURT: No, no, no. I think I can clarify that. I thought you understood that. That only refers to this authorization for video taping and taping. Those other items do not refer to all those people.

MR. PETERSON: Executive directives, amended orders, directives –

THE COURT: Those are for Mr. Armstrong.


THE COURT: Now, do you understand?

MR. PETERSON: Now, it appears to be clear.

THE COURT: Okay. We will recess for lunch until 1:30.

Mr. Runstein, I think I have to talk to you.

(Court recessed at 11:58 a.m., and reconvened at 1:33 p.m.)

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MR. COOLEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson was going to give me a quick rundown, I think.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4716

MR. COOLEY: I know Mr. Peterson made the call and the man was in court. The secretary said he had left for court.

THE COURT: Maybe he is still working on that problem.

Now, before we hear from Mr. Peterson — and I’m hesitant about the cross-examination regarding the park incident — do you have another area you can proceed to until Mr. Peterson reports back?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, I can.

THE COURT: Very good.

Mr. Armstrong, would you come up to the stand, please.

(Witness resumed the witness stand.)

THE COURT: I have taken under consideration those matters I have discussed this morning. I’m not going to take any sanctions against Mr. Cooley. Mr. Cooley, are you paying attention? At this time I’m not taking any sanctions against Mr. Cooley. Mr. Cooley’s actions were not deliberate, I am convinced. And whatever comments he made toward the Court, I feel, were in the heat of his representation of his client.

MR. COOLEY: It’s a long, tough case, Your Honor.

G. ARMSTRONG – X – 4717

THE COURT: Do I take that to mean you agree?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let’s get the jury.

Wait. Here’s Mr: Peterson.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, any news for me?

MR. PETERSON: I put a call in to Toronto. The attorney was not in his office. He was expected back at the end of the day. And I said I would call back, and left my name and number. But I’m still confident that I can get in touch with him either later this afternoon or this evening and the tapes will be here. I don’t foresee a problem.

THE COURT: Okay. And you are working on the other aspects?

MR. PETERSON: As soon as I can get through to him, I can ask about the other items.

THE COURT: Including all the questions we had. Some were relative to Mr. Armstrong; some were relative to other videotapes which may or may not be in existence.


THE COURT: Communication, okay? We understand each other?

MR. PETERSON: We understand each other.


  1. The PI was Eugene Ingram, hired by Mark Rathbun, according to Memoirs.

Christofferson: Excerpt of Proceedings (April 10, 1985)