Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 1
The Church had good reason for negotiating these particular clauses with Armstrong. In addition to his own litigation, Armstrong fomented significant additional litigation against the Church and other Churches of Scientology, stirring up enmities with other former members. Moreover, Armstrong became involved in plot after clandestine plot to take over or even destroy his former religion.
In November, 1984, for example, Armstrong was plotting against the Scientology Churches and seeking out staff members in the Church who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing Church leadership. The Church obtained information about Armstrong’s plans and, through a police-sanctioned investigation, provided Armstrong with the “defectors” he sought. On four separate occasions in November, 1984, Armstrong met with two individuals that he considered to be defectors, whom he knew as “Joey” and “Mike.” In reality, both “Joey” and “Mike” were loyal Church members who, with permission from the Los Angeles police, agreed to have their conversations with Armstrong surreptitiously videotaped. During the course of these conversations, Armstrong:
a. Demanded that “Joey” provide him with copies of documents published by the Church so that he could forge documents in the same style. Armstrong wanted “Joey” to then plant these Armstrong creations in the Church’s files so that Armstrong could tip off the Criminal Investigations Division of the Internal Revenue Service (“CID”), and the incriminating documents would be found in a resulting raid;
b. Sought to “set up” the defection of a senior Scientologist by finding a woman to seduce him;
c. Told “Joey” all about his conversations with Al Lipkin, an investigator for the CID, and attempted to get “Joey” to call Lipkin and give him false information that would implicate the Church’s leaders in the misuse of donations; and
d. Instructed “Mike” on the methods of creating a lawsuit against the Church leadership based on nothing at all:
ARMSTRONG: They can allege it. They can allege it. They don’t even have — they can allege it.
RINDER: So they don’t even have to have the document sitting in front of them and then —
ARMSTRONG: F ing say the organization destroys the documents.
* * *
Where are the — we don’t have to prove a goddamn thing. We don’t have to prove s__t; we just have to allege it.
(Exhibit 3, Farny Decl., ¶¶14 and 5.)
[…]On October 3, 1991, the Church filed a motion in Los Angeles Superior Court for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and for liquidated damages due to Armstrong’s breaches of the Agreement. In Armstrong’s papers and at the hearing of the matter, Armstrong did not deny that he has committed the multiple breaches which provoked the filing of the motion, and he did not deny that his activities violated the specific provisions of the Settlement Agreement cited in the moving papers.10Instead, Armstrong raised with the Court the tired refrain that he had been under “duress” when he executed the Agreement. Armstrong repeatedly raised this pretense and his alleged “fear” of the Church before Judge Breckenridge, the trial judge in the earlier, settled matter. It is, however, thoroughly belied by the approval of the Agreement by both the Court and Armstrong’s attorney. Moreover, the credibility of this refrain is shattered by Armstrong’s own words, uttered months after obtaining a defense judgment in the original Armstrong action based on his spurious claim of being under “duress” due to his “fear” of the Church. In the November, 1984 videotaped conversations with Joey referred to above, the following exchange took place while Armstrong was discussing hisplans for destroying the Church:JOEY: Well, you’re not hiding!ARMSTRONG: Huh?JOEY: You’re not hiding.ARMSTRONG: F— no! And.JOEY: You’re not afraid, are you?ARMSTRONG: No! And that’s why I’m in a f–king stronger position than they are!JOEY: How’s that?ARMSTRONG: Why, I’ll bring them to their knees!Exhibit 3, Farny Decl., para. 6. If anything, Armstrong has become bolder as time has passed.
DECLARATION OF LYNN R. FARNY1
I, Lynn R. Farny, do declare:
1. I am over 18 years of age and make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and for those matters stated upon information and belief, I believe them to be true and accurate. If called as a witness to testify as to the matters herein, I could and would do so competently.
2. I am corporate Secretary of the Church of Scientology International (“CSI”), a California religious corporation.
3. I am well familiar with Gerald Armstrong, as I have worked in the legal department of CSI since 1984, and prior to that in the legal department of Church of Scientology of California (“CSC”). I have actively followed the events occurring during that time in a lawsuit against Gerald Armstrong by CSC regarding his theft of private documents belonging to the Founder of the Scientology religion. 2
4. On four separate occasions in November, 1984, Armstrong met with two individuals that he considered to be defectors, whom he knew as “Joey” and “Mike.” In reality, both “Joey” and “Mike” were loyal Church members who, with permission from the Los Angeles police, agreed to have their conversations with Armstrong surreptitiously videotaped.3 I have seen a transcript of the videotaped meeting of November 7, 1984, and during the course of these conversations, Armstrong:
a. Demanded that “Joey” provide him with copies of documents published by the Churches so that he could forge documents in the same style. Armstrong wanted “Joey” to then plant these Armstrong creations in the Church’s files so that, should Armstrong tip off the IRS, the incriminating documents would be found in a resulting raid;
b. Sought to “set up” the defection of a senior Scientologist by finding a girl to seduce him;
c. Told “Joey” all about his conversations with Al Lipkin, an investigator for the CID, and attempted to get “Joey” to call Lipkin and give him false information that would implicate the Church’s leaders in the misuse of donations.4
5. In November, 1984, Armstrong was plotting against the Scientology Churches and seeking out staff members in the Church who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing Church leadership. The Church obtained information about Armstrong’s plans and, through a police-sanctioned investigation, provided Armstrong with the “defectors” he sought. On November 30, 1984, Armstrong met with one Michael Rinder, an individual whom Armstrong thought to be one of his “agents” (but who in reality was loyal to the Church). In the conversation, recorded with written permission from law enforcement, Armstrong stated the following in response to questions by Mr. Rinder as to whether they had to have actual evidence of wrongdoing to make allegations against the Church leadership:
ARMSTRONG: They can allege it. They can allege it. They don’t even have — they can allege it.
RINDER: So they don’t even have to have the document sitting in front of them and then —
ARMSTRONG: F ing say the organization destroys the documents.
* * *
Where are the — we don’t have to prove a goddamn thing. We don’t have to prove s t; we just have to allege it.
6. In another discussion, this one with “Joey,” videotaped on November 7, 1984, Armstrong discussed his plans to destroy his former religion as follows:
JOEY: Well, you’re not hiding!
JOEY: You’re not hiding.
ARMSTRONG: F— no! And. • •
JOEY: You’re not afraid, are you?
ARMSTRONG: No! And that’s why I’m in a f–king stronger position than they are!
JOEY: How’s that?
ARMSTRONG: Why, I’ll bring them to their knees!
7. In another discussion with Michael Rinder, videotaped on November 17, 1984, Armstrong revealed his true intentions toward the Church as:
G I am only a relay point in this thing. However, I do make it my purpose to create as much shit as possible. You know, hence I have. . .
M Shit for the organization?
G Yeah, I . . . whatever I do . . . cause I have no . . . I’m not hooked into anything.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Los Angeles, California the 28th day of January, 1992.
[signed] Lynn R. Farny
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
18000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 -3275
IRA REINER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
April 25, 1986
Rev. Ken Hoden
Rev. Kathleen Gorgon
Rev. Heber Jentzsch
Mr. John Peterson
Mr. David Butterworth
Church of Scientology
1301 N. Catalina
Los Angeles, California 90012
In re S.I.D. CASE NO. C85-0054
In your letters dated May 1 and July 19, 1985, you asked that this office investigate your allegations that:
1. Chief Daryl Gates of the Los Angeles Police Department, Agents Al Lipkin and Al Ristuccia of the Internal Revenue Service, Gerald Armstrong, and Michael Flynn have committed the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice.
2. Internal Revenue Service Agents Al Lipkin and Al Ristuccia additionally “aided and directed” the commission by Gerald Armstrong of violations of Penal Code Sections 182 (Conspiracy), 134 (Preparing False Evidence), and 653f (Solicitation of the commission of certain crimes).
3. Gerald Armstrong additionally prepared false documentary evidence in violation of Penal Code Section 134; committed extortion in violation of Penal Code Section 518; and solicited commission of the crimes of burglary, receiving stolen property, and forgery, in violation of Penal Code Section 653f.
Rev. Ken Hoden,et al.
April 25, 1986
4. Michael Flynn additionally aided Gerald Armstrong in his violations of Penal Code Section 182, conspiracy, and Penal Code Section 653f, solicitation of burglary, receiving stolen property, and forgery.
Following his receipt of your letters, Steven A. Sowders, Head of the Special Investigations Division, met personally with Rev. Jentzsch and Rev. Hoden to discuss your complaint. I have since reviewed the voluminous materials you submitted in support of your charges, and I have spoken at length on the telephone and in person with church members John Peterson and David Butterworth. In our several conversations, I informed both Mr. Butterworth and Mr. Peterson that in order intelligently to evaluate the Church of Scientology’s allegations, I would need further information. In addition to the documents already
provided, I asked them to provide me with:
(1) A complete description of the events to which the submitted documents relate, including:
(a) the time, date, and place of each event;
(b) the names of all persons present;
(c) the circumstances in which the event occurred;
(d) the name of each speaker and identifying information about him.
(2) A description of the manner in which the recording or other source information was obtained.
(3) A statement from the person who obtained the recording or other data, identifying him, describing the manner in which he obtained it, and setting forth the manner in which he could authenticate any recording and any transcript involved.
(4) An explanation of the relevance of the conversations and other materials cited to the allegations of criminal conduct.
I further requested that they furnish any other evidence they might have in support of the Church of Scientology’s allegations. I particularly requested documentation setting forth the specific facts in support of the allegations recited above. I asked that they provide the date, time, and place of each alleged event, and the name, address, and telephone number of each witness.
Rev. Ken Heden, et al.
April 25, 1986
In response, I received from Mr. John Peterson a letter dated September 27, 1985, which letter I discussed on October 3, 1985, with Mr. Butterworth. Thereafter, following many attempts on my part to schedule a meeting with either Mr. Peterson or Mr. Butterworth or both of them, on December 10, 1985, they came to my office and conferred with Investigator Alan Tomich and me.
In that meeting, I reiterated my need to know the date, time, and place of each alleged event, and the name, address, and telephone number of each witness. I further asked whether the Church of Scientology had any additional evidence in support of its allegations. Messrs. Peterson and Butterworth responded that they had submitted to this office all the evidence that they had.
I explained to them that, in order to decide whether a prosecutable crime had been committed, we had to interview those persons who had observed the events that were alleged to constitute the criminal conduct; and that in order to interview those persons we needed to know who they were and where we could find them. In response, Mr. Peterson repeated the suggestion he made in his letter of September 27, 1985, that we interview Eugene Ingram, who had videotaped certain events which, Mr. Peterson said, were the basis of his allegations. He declined, however, to identify, beyond the name “Joey,” the persons other than Gerald Armstrong who appear on the tapes. It was my understanding that Messrs. Peterson and Butterworth intended to review the matter and that they would subsequently forward the requested witness information to me. Their response was a letter dated December 15, 1985, which contained a witness list comprised of the names of the persons the Church of Scientology has accused plus another I.R.S. agent and two police officers. He furnished no further information.
I responded to Mr. Peterson in a letter dated January 16, 1986, in which I summarized our December 10 meeting. In it, I also asked Mr. Peterson to permit Investigator Tomich to interview Mr. Eugene Ingram (whom Mr. Peterson, as an attorney, apparently represents), and I again requested that Mr. Peterson supply us with the information outlined above.
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
In response, I received from Mr. Peterson a letter dated March 18, 1986. In it, he denied that he and Mr. Butterworth had intended, after the December 10 meeting, to provide further information, and he declared that we had received all the data he felt we needed.
It appears, then, that no further evidence in support of your allegations is forthcoming; and based on Mr. Peterson’s statement on December 10, 1985, that I had understood and accurately summarized the evidence the Church of Scientology had submitted, it appears that the assertions of fact described below constitute in its entirety the evidence in support of your allegations of criminal conduct.
That Chief Daryl Gates conspired to obstruct justice.
The allegation of “planting a ‘wire tap’ on Michael Flynn” was referred to Chief Gates  by Assistant City Attorney Lewis N. Unger on April 17, 1985.  On April 23, 1985, Chief Gates publicly rebuked Officer Phillip Rodriguez and Investigator Eugene Ingram for video taping Gerald Armstrong. Within hours, Investigators Lipkin and Ristuccia were seen, apparently by Rev. Heber Jentzch,  leaving Parker Center. There has allegedly been no effort to do anything about “Mr. Armstrong’s crimes.” Chief Gates also initiated an investigation “into the police officer and private investigator” (July 19 letter, p. 6).
That Internal Revenue Service Agents Al Lipkin and Al Ristuccia conspired with Gates, Armstrong, and Flynn to obstruct justice and that they “aided and directed” Gerald Armstrong in the commission of violations of Penal Code Sections 182, 134, and 653f.
John G. Peterson declared under penalty of perjury  that “Armstrong showed he was being used by the Internal Revenue Service to gather information.” In support of that declaration, Mr. Peterson included “excerpts from the videotape” which indicated that “GA” mentioned Al Ristuccia and gave Al Lipkin’s telephone number to “J”.
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Agents Lipkin and Ristuccia visited Officer Phillip Rodriguez and allegedly attempted to “strong arm” him. Agents Lipkin and Ristuccia stated that, on April 18, 1985, they interviewed Rodriguez, who admitted signing an authorization letter. The agents considered Rodriguez evasive and sought police assistance
in obtaining his cooperation. The agents were seen leaving Parker Center on April 23, 1985. 
Armstrong told ” J” that he had told Lipkin some people might want to talk to him,  and that he had told Lipkin to go after Peterson.
That Gerald Armstrong conspired with Michael Flynn, Daryl Gates, Al Lipkin, and Al Ristuccia to obstruct justice; prepared false documentary evidence; committed extortion; and solicited the commission of the crimes of burglary (Penal Code Section 459), receiving stolen property (Penal Code Section 496), and forgery (Penal Code Section 470), in violation of Penal Code Section 653f.
John Peterson declared that Armstrong conspired with a “church…staff member,” was “used by… the Internal Revenue Service to gather information,” “explained to the conspirators plans for attacking the church…and…Hubbard,” and had a videotaped conversation with “J” which demonstrates his involvement with the government. 
“GA” told “J” to type the completed staff work on the policy and bring it in, that “issues can be created,” but he was “not really saying create incrimination (sic) evidence-but just to write about the speculation.” He also said, “They can never tell where the issue came from.” He wanted the lawsuits to end so that he could get his “global settlement.” 
Armstrong told ” J” about a “good-looker” named Carol. He said “the way to the man’s mind is through his cock” and “that’s definitely the way to get to the top.” He wrote a note which reads in part, “Establish available route for holding the cock of someone in ASI/WDC/etc.”
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Armstrong allegedly wrote and handed over to someone on November 9, 1984, a “shopping list” of information which he asked a “church member to purloin.” “GA” told “J” “something should be done so that they can capitalize on getting stuff…into writing and…unstabilizing the whole PI, attorney apparatus.” He asked if “J” could get money to Peterson and told “J” to check the finance records. He said, “if we can get anything on Ingram (or) Peterson (or) finance records (or) other PI’s (or) operation ‘X’…, it’s all vital.”
Armstrong asked for specifics on payments to Ingram, and told “J” he should find what payments went to attorneys.
The handwritten list read in part, “1. Plan on Van Schaick…4. Anything on Hubbard or Don/ 5. Anything on upcoming legal battle… 8. Get me an original of an LRH Ed (current) or other issue type which could be from Hubbard. 8a. Same for WDC. Create one, get it distributed and get an assessment. Any partial that gives UP or ORG.”
He also told ” J” he had given one “fanatic” document “to the Feds” and was giving them another. 
Armstrong told ” J” on November 9, 1984, that he could type “things and duplicate them and make them look exactly the same” and that “we could set up a press and…produce issues…” He thought, “shouldn’t I get some I HELP materials (?)”. He wanted to know “how they’re run off, what the type face is like…, – because we can simply create these;… – I can create documents with relative ease ….”
“J” suggested changing some documents. “GA” responded that “a lot of things can be done”, but he did not propose to “be stuffing things into their comm basket.” He later commented that something could be pasted and photocopied. 
That Michael F Flynn conspired to obstruct justice, and aided Gerald Armstrong in the crimes of conspiracy (Penal Code Section 182) and solicitation of burglary, receiving stolen property, and forgery (Penal Code Section 653f).
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
In April, 1985, Flynn contacted the United States Attorney in Boston, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Los Angeles Police Department. Flynn’s attorney, Raul Martinez then made allegedly false accusations of wire tapping.
Flynn told the Los Angeles Police Department that “Cooley” had had a video recording and a letter signed by Officer Rodriguez authorizing such a recording. By letter, Attorney Raul Martinez, representing Mr. Flynn, asked the City Attorney to investigate. The City Attorney forwarded the letter to Chief Gates. 
John Peterson declared under penalty of perjury that evidence indicated that Michael Flynn was directing Gerald Armstrong in order to steal documents, plot forgeries, steal legal strategies, implement a plot to seduce and blackmail a Scientologist, and conspire to suborn perjury. 
The “Van Schaick” case, referred to in Armstrong’s “shopping list”, was settled by Attorney Flynn.
* * *
As Mr. Peterson has noted, I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and comprehending the materials you have submitted to this office. For the reasons set forth below, I do not find that those materials contain sufficient evidence of the commission of any of the alleged crimes to justify the further investigation of those allegations.
At the outset, I should like to point out the following regarding Mr. Peterson’s letter dated September 27, 1985 and my subsequent communications with him. 1) Mr. Peterson told me that “the interviews took place in Griffith Park during… November, 1984.” He has not otherwise responded to my request for a complete description of the events to which the documents related, including times, dates, places, names, circumstances, and identifying information, (See Request #1, above.)
2) Mr. Peterson told me that “tapes are not in dispute” and that details of the taping should be sought from Gene Ingram.
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
But when Investigator Tomich sought to follow his advice, Mr. Peterson asserted he was Mr. Ingram’s attorney, and he refused to permit Investigator Tomich to interview him.
In his letter of March 18, 1986, Mr. Peterson refused further to respond to my requests for a description of the manner in which recordings and other source information were obtained; and for a statement from the person who obtained the information (some of it apparently recorded, some of it apparently from other sources) identifying that person and describing the acquisition of the information, documents, or tape, and the manner in which it could be authenticated (proved to be what it purports to be). (See Requests Nos. 2 and 3, above.)
3) He submitted ” data on the background of Jerry Armstrong” and the other documents referred to in the footnotes to this letter, in which he highlighted those portions he considered relevant to the allegations. He has not otherwise explained the relevance of the submitted materials to the allegations of criminal conduct. (See Request #4, above.)
4) He told me that the individuals speaking on the video tapes are “responsible witnesses who can be produced if necessary.” Beyond submitting a list of the names of the persons you have accused and three of their associates, he has not otherwise responded to my requests that he document the specific facts which prove the commission of the crimes alleged, including the particular details about each event and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the witnesses (See the paragraph following request #4, above).
* * *
A conspiracy to obstruct justice is an agreement between two or more persons to do an act or omit to do an act, as the result of which justice or the due administration of the laws is obstructed or perverted. To convict a person of that crime the prosecution must prove that he made such an agreement with the specific intent to commit or omit the necessary act and that, while he was a member of the conspiracy, he or a co-conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the object within the prosecuting jurisdiction (in our case, Los Angeles County).
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Assuming that the factual allegations are true, and that Daryl Gates did receive from Michael Flynn a wiretapping complaint; did rebuke Officer Rodriguez and Investigator Ingram; and did initiate an investigation into possible criminal conduct by Rodriguez and Ingram; that Gerald Armstrong did have the above described conversations with “Joey” about Al Lipkin and Al Ristuccia; that Lipkin and Ristuccia did interview Rodriguez, did consider him evasive, did seek Los Angeles Police Department assistance in obtaining Rodriguez’s cooperation, and did visit Parker Center on April 23, 1985; that Armstrong told “Joey” to type staff work in order to create issues and that he did all the other things alleged (talked to “Joey” about “Carol,” told “Joey” that “they” should destablilize the “PI, attorney apparatus,” told “Joey” to check financial records, wrote and delivered the “shopping list,” and gave documents “to the Feds”) and that Michael Flynn both personally and through his attorney contacted the United States Attorney, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Los Angeles Police Department to complain about the tape recording, the actions of Officer Rodriguez, and other matters; and that he settled the “Van Schaick” case; we are unable to find in any of those allegations any evidence which would support an allegation that Chief Gates, Agent Lipkin, Agent Ristuccia, Mr. Armstrong, or Attorney Flynn agreed with anyone to commit or omit any act which might pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws.
No factual details (time, place circumstances, names of witnesses, etc.) have been submitted to support many of the conclusions that have been alleged. Thus there is no evidence that “there has been no effort to do anything about” crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Armstrong; that the Internal Revenue Service Agents attempted to “strongarm” Officer Rodriguez; that Mr. Armstrong conspired with a church staff member and explained to the conspirators his plans for attacking the church and Mr. Hubbard; that Mr. Armstrong wrote a “shopping list” of information and asked someone to “purloin” it; or that Michael Flynn made false accusations of wiretapping.
Therefore, the evidence of which we have been apprised of a conspiracy to obstruct justice is insufficient to warrant further investigation by this office.
To convict a person of the crime of preparation of false documentary evidence, the prosecution must prove that he in fact
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
made the document, that it was false, and that he intended it to be produced as true for a deceitful purpose in a proceeding authorized by law.
Even assuming that it can be proved by competent, admissible evidence that Gerald Armstrong told “Joey” to type staff work and that “issues can be created,” that “they can never tell where the issue came from,” and that he wanted the lawsuits to end so that he could get his “global settlement”; that Armstrong wrote and gave to someone the “shopping list”; that he told “Joey” he wanted to get “stuff…into writing” and to “unstabliz(e)” the “apparatus”; that he said getting records was “vital”; that he said he could type and duplicate things and create documents and set up a press and produce issues, that he wanted to know about a type face, that a lot of things could be done and that something could be pasted and photocopied; none of this, taken alone, constitutes evidence that Mr. Armstrong in fact created a single false document or that he intended that such a document be produced for any purpose in any legal proceeding.
Further, in the documents submitted to us, Mr. Armstrong is quoted as stating that he was not advocating the creation of incriminating evidence and that he did not propose to “be stuffing things into their comm baskets.”
We are aware of no other evidence which might lend criminal significance to the statements of Mr. Armstrong. We can find, therefore, no basis for a further investigation of the allegation that Penal Code Section 134 has been violated.
Extortion (Penal Code Section 518) is the obtaining of property from another with his consent, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear. The fear may be induced by a threat to injure a person or property, or to accuse the victim or a relative of crime, or to impute to any of them a deformity, disgrace, or crime, or to expose a secret affecting any of them. Penal Code Section 524 makes it a felony to attempt to commit extortion.
Assuming that it can be proved that Gerald Armstrong expressed the views alleged regarding the “way to the man’s mind” and that he wrote the note referring to “ASI” and “WDC”, that does not appear to us to be evidence that he or anyone obtained or
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
attempted to obtain property from anyone by means of any threat. We therefore find no basis for further investigation of the allegation that Gerald Armstrong committed extortion.
The solicitation of another person to commit or join in the commission of burglary, receiving stolen property, or forgery is a felony, the proof of whose commission requires the testimony of two witnesses or of one witness plus evidence of corroborating circumstances. To convict a person of solicitation,
the prosecution must prove that he asked another person to commit a crime with the specific intent that it be committed.
The solicitation of burglary requires a request that one enter a building or other specific place (See Penal Code Section 459) intending to commit larceny or a felony; the solicitation of receiving stolen property requires a request that one receive property that one knows has been stolen; the solicitation of forgery, a request that one, with the intent to defraud, sign without authority another’s name or counterfeit his handwriting, or make any of the false documents specified in Penal Code Section 470, or knowingly utter such falsified document, signature, or handwriting.
Assuming that the allegations are true that Gerald Armstrong told “Joey” to type staff work, that “issues can be created.” that “something should be done so that they can capitalize on getting stuff into writing,” that “if we can get anything on Ingram (or) Peterson (or) finance records…, it’s all vital,” and that “Joey” should find what payments went to attorneys; and, further assuming it to be true that Armstrong gave “Joey” a list which specified “plan” or “anything” ” on” certain matters and stated “get me an original …issue type”; that he told “Joey” he had given and would give documents “to the Feds,” that he could duplicate things and create documents, and that something could be pasted and photocopied; these allegations nonetheless do not constitute evidence that Mr. Armstrong, with the requisite intent, asked anyone to commit the crime of burglary, receiving stolen property, or forgery. We therefore find no basis for further investigation of the allegation that Gerald Armstrong violated Penal Code section 653f.
A person aids and abets the commission of a crime if, with knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and with the intent to encourage or facilitate the commission of the crime, he aids, promotes, or instigates its commission.
Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
The documents submitted to us indicate that Gerald Armstrong gave “Joey” Al Lipkin’s telephone number, that he told ” Joey” that he had told Lipkin some people might want to talk to him, that he told “Joey” that he had told Lipkin to go after Peterson, and that he mentioned Al Ristuccia to “Joey”. The allegations regarding Michael Flynn are described above.
None of those allegations is itself evidence of any unlawful connection between those men and Mr. Armstrong. Further, since we have been presented with no significant evidence of any unlawful conduct on the part of Mr. Armstrong, we do not find that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation
of the allegations that Al Lipkin, Al Ristuccia, or Michael Flynn aided and abetted the commission of any crime.
In addition to the lack of evidence set forth above, it must also be noted that, lacking knowledge of the manner in which the video tape recordings were obtained, we do not know whether their acquisition violated either United States or California law. If it violated federal law, material thus acquired even
if relevant – which it does not appear to be -might be inadmissible in evidence.
For all of the reasons described above, we have concluded that there is no evidence in support of the allegations of criminal conduct on the part of Daryl Gates, Al Lipkin, Al Ristuccia , Gerald Armstrong, and Michael Flynn. Accordingly, we shall take no further action in this matter, and our file is closed.
Very truly yours,
IRA REINER District Attorney
Assistant District Attorney
ROBERT N. JORGENSEN
Deputy District Attorney
c: Chief Daryl Gates, L.A.P.D.
Ron Townsend, I.R.S.
Al Lipkin, I.R.S.
Al Ristuccia, I.R.S.
1. This is set forth in a document entitled “6. Obstruction of Justice”.
2. See Exhibit 7 attached to “6. Obstruction of Justice.”
3. See Exhibit 11 attached to “6. Obstruction of Justice.”
4. See Number 1, above.
5. See document entitled “5. Conspiracy.”
6. See Number 1, above.
7. See document entitled “2. Soliciting… .”
8. See document entitled “1. Soliciting… .”
9. See Number 5, above.
10. See document entitled “4. Preparation of False Documentary Evidence.”
11. See document entitled “3. Extortion.”
12. See document entitled “1. Soliciting… .”
13. See Exhibit 1 page 16.
14. See document entitled “2. Soliciting… .”
15. See Number 1, above.
16. See Number 5, above.
17. See Number 8, above.
18. During our December 10 meeting, Messrs. Peterson and Butterworth identified “J” as “Joey”.
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
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
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:
Eugene M. Ingram
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:
Eugene M. Ingram
Earle C. Cooley
Ala Fadili Al Tamimi
L. Ron Hubbard
Akil Abdul Amiar Al Fadili Al Tamimi
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.
- Exhibit A: Testimony of Gerald D. Armstrong. ↩
- Exhibit B: Gerry Armstrong Project. ↩
- Exhibit C: Gamboa Debrief. ↩
- Exhibit D: Declaration of Gerald Armstrong ↩
- Exhibit E: OSA Int 19 Squirrels ↩
- Exhibit F: Rodriguez authorizations. Related: Philip Rodriguez. ↩
- Exhibit G: Excerpt of Proceedings (April 11, 1985) ↩
- Exhibit H: Declaration of John G. Peterson ↩
- Exhibit I: ↩
- See Declaration of John G. Peterson (July 30, 1984) ↩
- See Eugene M. Ingram ↩
- Excerpt of Proceedings: Rodriguez Deposition ↩
- Exhibit K: Freedom Issue 61 ↩
- Exhibit L: Freedom Issue 62 ↩
- Exhibit M: Freedom April/May 1985 ↩
- Exhibit N: Freedom May 1985 ↩
- Exhibit O: The Oregonian (May 30, 1985) ↩
- Exhibit P: Transcript of WTTP Radio “Freedom Magazine.” ↩
- Exhibit Q: IAS Flyer ↩
- Exhibit R: Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (October 23, 1985) ↩
- Exhibit S: Freedom (February 1986) ↩