Declaration of Michael Rinder (April 11, 1994)

John J. Quinn
QUINN KULLY & MORROW
520 S. Grand Avenue
Eighth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 622-0300

Kendrick L. Moxon
Timothy Bowles
BOWLES & MOXON
6255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 2000
Hollywood, CA 90028
(213) 953-3360

Jonathan W. Lubell
MORRISON COHEN SINGER & WEINSTEIN
750 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
(212) 735-8600

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California Non-Profit Religious Organization,
Plaintiff

vs.

STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ,
Defendants.

CASE NO. CV 91-6426 HLH(TX)

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RINDER1

I. Michael Rinder, hereby declare and state:

1. I am a Director of the Church of Scientology International (CSI). I was raised in the Scientology religion and have been a staff member in the Church since 1973. As such, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this

1

declaration and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.

2. As a Director of CSI, I have seen the filings made by the defendants and their lawyers in this case over the past six months.

3. Clearly, the focus of the defendants has not been on trying to disprove the defamation of which they were guilty or even to address issues related to the defamation. Instead, they have sought to turn this case into a witch hunt of the Scientology religion. In doing so, the paid witnesses in this case have specifically targeted the leader of the religion, David Miscavige, for their abusive lies and outrageous accusations.

4. Why would defendants and their counsel devote such an inordinate amount of attention to a non-party such as David Miscavige? Why would defendants’ counsel’s mercenary witness expose their lack of credibility so plainly by their resort to such outrageous and false allegations about him when he never had any involvement with Fishman, Geertz or this case? It is apparent that their effort to denigrate the leader of the religion is part of a campaign to create a false impression of, and thereby, denigrate Scientology. The lies that have been propagated in this case are vile beyond description. Their purpose, as made clear by Graham Berry himself, is to use them as a threat to extort funds from the Church. They have gotten away with this barrage of lies so far, and as a consequence, Berry now has the precedent of this case to use to create a future threat that he hopes will prompt CSI to pay to make him take his lies and go away.

2

5. David Miscavige prevented the Aznarans and Youngs from carrying out what would have been a catastrophic turn of events for the religion. Vicki Aznaran and Vaughn Young were involved in a scheme to pervert the scriptures of L. Ron Hubbard for their own profit. They were caught and stopped by David Miscavige. For this, every Scientologist is grateful. Even then, they were given the opportunity to redeem themselves within the Church. While they now rail against Mr. Miscavige and unleash the foulest lies about him their imaginations can concoct, any Scientologist would have thought it totally proper under the circumstances for those people to have been expelled from the Church without a chance for mercy. However, he gave them another chance. I know that he personally spent many hours with both Vicki Aznaran and Vaughn Young trying to help them regain their self-respect. They decided that rather than face those whom they had betrayed, that they would leave staff. Mr. Miscavige even helped the Aznarans to get themselves established in a new job. They were encouraged to continue in Scientology and treated civilly, as even they have testified elsewhere. Yet, all this being true, the Youngs and Aznarans still have a deep-seated hatred for Mr. Miscavige and have used this litigation to vent that hatred and to seek millions of dollars for their silence. There is no justifiable explanation for this, just as there is no explanation for savages dismembering missionaires who work for years helping them overcome poverty and disease. One can seek to help others and treat people with compassion and dignity, but the blind hatred harbored by a few cannot be restrained, no matter how hard one might try.

3

6. These people have gathered around them a few others who are bitter and harbor an unabiding resentment of Scientology and what it stands for and for their own failures in the Church. They view the Church as their “lottery ticket” and pursue their jackpot with lies and threats at the expense of the millions of happy and satisfied members who support the Church with their time and donations. The Aznarans and Youngs are joined in that pursuit by the likes of Hana Whitfield, Andre and Mary Tabayoyon, Larry Wollersheim, Steve Fishman and Gerry Armstrong. Though they either do not know David Miscavige, or had some remote contact with him many years ago, they are willing to make vindictive allegations, not based on personal knowledge or the truth, and defame him personally and as the leader of the religion. The tactic is as transparent as it is unconscionable — spread venom in the hope that the victims of the hate campaign will eventually be forced to buy their silence so the Church can get on with its real purpose of expanding the Scientology religion and helping more people.

7. While these so-called experts have no personal knowledge concerning David Miscavige, I do. I have known and worked with him since 1976.

8. The sheer volume of despicable allegations made about him are intended to create the false impression that where there is smoke there is fire. These “witnesses” know only too well from their experience in the Church that the tactic of telling bigger and bolder lies has been a strategy employed against the Church in litigation for years. Tell enough lies, and make enough allegations, and an impression will be created which

4

accomplishes the end of destroying a reputation no matter how untrue the allegations are. Public figures are especially susceptible to this fraud as any study of history shows. Jesus Christ was crucified based on the false accusations of Judas Iscariot and the prejudice of the Romans.

9. Pontius Pilate listened to the lies about Jesus and the Christians. The Germans bought the lies about the Jews. Innocence does not prevent the lies from being told. And when those lies fall on ears opened by bigotry and deaf to the truth, irreparable harm is done. Defendants, tactics in this case are a study in this technique.

10. I know David Miscavige personally. As such I know him to be completely honest, and sincerely dedicated to helping people. For what he has done to expand our religion, he has the respect and admiration of millions of Scientologists. And for this same reason, he has earned the enmity and particular scorn of those with a vendetta against Scientology.

11. In the last decade, he has personally done more to ensure Scientology is standardly applied and made more widely known and available than any other single individual. After L. Ron Hubbard, the Founder of Scientology, passed away in 1986, the religion entered a new phase. While there will never be another L. Ron Hubbard, his death marked a time of potential disruption and upheaval, and Mr. Miscavige shouldered the responsibility for not only keeping the scriptures pure, but for guiding our religion into a time of great stability and rapid growth. He never sought personal power or aggrandizement; he was thrust into the position he currently holds precisely because he is so

5

dedicated to helping others through our religion. It is because he has demonstrated time and time again his integrity and selfless willingness to serve for the good of others that he enjoys the support of the staff and parishioners of the Scientology religion.

12. I have spoken to him often, and spent a considerable amount of time working with him on various matters from the positions I have held throughout the years. I know from my own observation that he works sixteen hours a day, seven days a week without respite for only one reason–his sincere dedication to bettering the lives of others. He and his wife live in a single motel-style room. He eats with the rest of the staff in the communal dining room, he drives his own car and carries his own bags. He regularly partakes in general group activities. It would shock most people that anyone would work so hard for so little material reward. It certainly gave pause to ABC News when they saw it with their own eyes.

13. Until 1981, David worked, like hundreds of other Church staff, in positions that dealt with the internal operations of the religion. Apart from the staff he dealt with directly as part of his duties, few knew who he was. I never heard an unkind word said about him. That changed when he took action to protect the future of the Church by taking over and disbanding the Guardian’s Office. This story has been recounted before, but there are three things about it that bear repetition. First, what he did took an enormous amount of courage, for with no authority other than the moral authority of someone dedicated to the well-being of our Church, he overthrew what was at the time

6

the most feared and powerful group in Scientology (that they were feared is exactly why they had gone so far in contravention of Church policy as they were only answerable to themselves). Second, even after having achieved this feat, he did not seek a high profile position or attempt to “take over” the Church. He was happy to have those who were charged with running the Church continue to do so and have no part of it. Third, the overthrow of the Guardian’s Office began what I have seen to be a virtually unending history of personal attacks against him. He didn’t change, he merely became a-known name and high-profile target.

14. Over the last thirteen years, I have seen a parade of personal attacks levelled at Mr. Miscavige which would have caused a less determined and less capable individual to give up and relinquish the position of “lightning rod” for anyone seeking to disrupt or destroy the Church. The first. years saw attacks by government agencies, since proven totally false and unfounded, and documented by the government’s own files gained through the Freedom of Information Act. These attacks went on for more than a decade. Government agencies amassed huge volumes of files on him personally, and were aided by civil litigants who also jumped on the bandwagon and targeted Mr. Miscavige with their spite and malevolence. And in the face of this, when it would have been so easy to give up and walk away, never to be vilified or attacked again, I have seen him persist, because what he was doing in Scientology is important and invaluable to all those who are helped by L. Ron Hubbard’s technology. That determination was buttressed by the fact that none of the accusations made about him were true.

7

15. Mr. Miscavige is very approachable and friendly. He gives regular briefings to Scientology parishioners and staff in our Churches around the world. I estimate that he does such public briefings about 35 times a year. He stops and talks with the staff and public everywhere he goes. I have been with him on many occasions where he has stayed until the early morning hours to talk to individuals who remained after one of his briefings.  It is remarkable how many people know him and approach him as a friend. Thousands write to him to request his assistance on a wide variety of topics, and he always takes the time to help or see that help is gotten.

16. It is David Miscavige who has been the driving force in getting every single book, and all the materials of the Scientology Grade Chart, fully and strictly in accordance with the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. Every Scientologist is eternally thankful for this because it means the full availability of the complete Scientology scriptures as written or spoken by Mr. Hubbard. He took no credit for this accomplishment, though those of us who are aware of the enormous amount of time he spent working to make this goal a reality know that the credit he so graciously gave to others, in fact, belonged to him.

17. Perhaps less important in his eyes than what he does internally in the Church, he has directly and personally given a new face to Scientology through his appearances in the media, responding eloquently and effectively to the same, discredited allegations that have, been again dragged into this case.

18. And it is also David Miscavige who made the tax exemption by the IRS possible. It is he who personally walked

8

into the front lobby of the IRS National Headquarters and through two years of persistent work, ultimately brought about a peace with the IRS that had seemed impossible. But perhaps the most telling point is this: it was the IRS targeting individual Scientologists, merely because they were Scientologists, that motivated him the most in this endeavor. Again, he didn’t take credit for this, he has told me many times that he felt it was his duty to all Scientologists to carry this off so they would be free to practice their religion just like those of other faiths.

19. I have observed through the years David’s dedication to  helping his fellow staff in the Church. It is he who has raised the standards and conditions for staff members by insisting on constantly upgraded living quarters, dining areas and other staff facilities. It is he who has insisted on staff enhancement programs, and recreational facilities being provided for the staff of the Church.  Absurd allegations of slave labor being employed in the Church turn my stomach. I know the truth. They are lies, and those who utter them know them to be lies.

20. Mr. Miscavige has been the driving force in establishing the ideal school where my children have an environment-free from drugs and crime. My children and their peers know him as a friend and think the world of him for his thoughtfulness and care for their well-being and their education.

21. I know his compassion from personal experience. While Vicki Aznaran makes cruel claims concerning the death of my infant daughter, she does not know what in fact occurred, or if she does, she is simply lying to try to create a false impression. In this time of great personal upset, David and his

9

wife Shelly supported my wife and me beyond what could possibly be expected by anyone–seeing to our personal needs, arranging for the most highly trained auditors to give us spiritual counselling, arranging plane fares and reservations, helping with the funeral arrangements and making it as easy as possible in every fashion imaginable for us to come through this upsetting time. I resent any implication that has been made to the contrary by Vicki Aznaran–her statements are beneath contempt.

22. On many occasions I have seen David go out of his way to help others. I well recall two times where I took ill and it was David who called the doctor and personally ensured that everything possible was done to help me recover. He contacted the doctor (both occasions were late at night and required tracking down doctors in the middle of the night) and ensured I was properly treated. It would have been easy for him to let someone else take care of me, but he did so personally, and would not leave or rest until the matter was resolved. These are things I will never forget.

23. I have seen him act in a similar fashion with many others. As I work with him often, and know many of the people that know him, I am aware of the high regard in which he is held by Scientologists and those he comes in contact with. I have never heard a negative statement made about him by anyone other than those who seek to extort money from the Church. It really is that simple.

24. Comparing what I know to what I read in the declarations of these paid “witnesses,” makes the lies even more vivid and callous. There is no resemblance to the individual I know that

10

can be drawn from the innuendo, allegations and falsehoods that are written about him. To believe the statements of this tiny handful of spiteful apostates, in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would be to listen to the testimony of Judas Iscariot. Their lies are no less bold, baldfaced or malicious.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 11th day of April, 94.

[signed]
Michael Rinder

11

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (February 22, 1994)

I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and if called upon to testify thereto I competently would.

2. I am making this declaration in response to certain statements, principally those concerning me, made by David Miscavige in his declaration executed February 8, 1994, and filed in the case of Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 91-6425 HLH(Tx).

3. Mr. Miscavige states that I am a proven liar because he has found a discrepancy between a finding of Judge Paul G. Breckenridge Jr. in his decision rendered June 20, 1984 in the case of Scientology v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 420153 (Armstrong I), and a statement allegedly made by me and secretly recorded by Mr. Miscavige’s covert intelligence operatives in the fall of 1984. (Miscavige dec. p. 31, l. 22 – p. 32, l. 5). Mr. Miscavige is employing one of Scientology’s confusion techniques the organization’s founder L. Ron Hubbard dubbed “dropped out time.” Mr. Miscavige’s incidents, which he has linked for purposes of confusion, are years apart.

4. In this civilization fear is generally accepted to be an emotion or state of mind which can either be present or not present, or perhaps present in degrees. It is fairly well accepted that a not abnormal person can be afraid one

1

day, when, for example there are a couple of unidentified men at four a.m. outside the person’s bedroom window where no men ought to be at four a.m., and not afraid on another day, when the person is, for example, watching the Dodgers beat the Giants. That the person claimed to be afraid at four a.m. Sunday and not afraid at the Wednesday ballgame does not make that person a proven liar. In my case there were more than two years between one time when I was afraid and the next occasion when Mr. Miscavige says I said I was not afraid.

5. In his decision, a true and correct copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit [A] , Judge Breckenridge states:

“From his extensive knowledge of the covert and intelligence operations carried out by the Church of Scientology of California against its enemies (suppressive persons), Defendant Armstrong became terrified and feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger, and he also feared he would be the target of costly and harassing lawsuits.”

….

“It was thereafter, in the summer of 1982, that Defendant Armstrong asked Mr. Garrison for copies of documents to use in his defense and sent the documents to his attorneys, Michael Flynn and Contos

2

& Bunch.

After the within suit was filed on August 2, 1982, Defendant Armstrong was the subject of harassment, including being followed and surveilled by individuals who admitted employment by [Scientology]; being assaulted by one of these individuals; being struck bodily by a car driven by one of these individuals; having two attempts made by said individuals apparently to involve Defendant Armstrong in a freeway automobile accident; having said individuals come onto Defendant Armstrong’s property, spy in his windows, create disturbances, and upset his neighbors.” (Ex. A. Appendix p. 14, l. 6 – p. 15, l. 3)

6. It is clear that Judge Breckenridge in his statements about my fear of organization legal and extra-legal attacks is referring to my state of mind in the period between the organization’s publication of its “Suppressive Person Declares” on me in early 1982 and its filing of Armstrong I in August, 1982. This fear was not irrational or unfounded as the organization itself proved when it harassed my wife and me as Judge Breckenridge found, and did file harassing and costly lawsuits against me. All of these harassing and criminal acts were carried out during Mr.

3

Miscavige’s control of such activities, which he claims to have wrested from the Guardian’s Office, which, itself, just as he himself, according to Mr. Miscavige, “used unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived as enemies of the Church.” (Miscavige dec. p. 17, l. 17).

7. Mr. Miscavige’s new Guardian’s Office, the Office of Special Affairs, did not end its criminal and abusive tactics with the incidents listed by Judge Breckenridge, but has added ten more years of “fair game” attacks since the 1984 decision, including, but not limited to:

a. attempted framing by entrapment and illegal videotaping;

b. filing false criminal charges with the Los Angeles District Attorney;

c. filing false criminal charges with the Boston office of the FBI;

d. filing false declarations;

e. bringing contempt of court proceedings on three occasions based on false charges;

f. making false accusations in internationally published media of crimes, including crimes against humanity;

g. culling and disseminating information from my supposedly confidential auditing (psychotherapy) files;

h. relentlessly attacking my attorney, Michael Flynn of Boston, Massachusetts with some 15 lawsuits, baseless bar complaints, theft of office

4

documents, infiltration of his law practice, framing him with the forgery of a $2,000,000 check, an international black PR campaign, threats to him and his family, and, according to him, attempted assassination; all for the purpose of driving him out of the organization-related litigation in order to leave his clients undefended against the organization’s attacks;

i. fraudulently promising to discontinue “fair game” against me if I settled my cross-complaint against the organization, knowing full well that it would continue to attack me in the courts and the marketplace of ideas once I signed its settlement contract, which I did in December, 1986, and once it had contracted with Mr. Flynn to not defend me in future litigation;

j. following the settlement, publishing a false and unfavorable description of me in a “dead agent” pack relating to writer and anti-Scientology litigant Bent Corydon;

k. filing several affidavits in the case of Church of Scientology of California v. Russell Miller and Penguin Books Limited, case no. 6140 in the High Court of Justice in London England which falsely accused me of violations of court orders, and falsely labeled me “an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government”;

l. delivering copies of an edited version of an

5

illegally obtained 1984 videotape of me to the international media;

m. threatening me with lawsuits on six occasions if I did not abet its obstruction of justice in the Miller case, in the case of Bent Corydon v. Scientology, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694401, wherein Corydon had subpoenaed me as a witness, and in the case of Scientology v. Yanny, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 690211;

n. threatening to release my confidences, which it had stolen from a friend, and which had been specifically sealed by Judge Breckenridge in Armstrong I if I did not assist it in preventing Corydon from gaining access to the Armstrong I court file;

o. on February 4, 1992, filing a lawsuit, Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Marin Superior Court Case No. 152229 (” Armstrong II”), transferred to Los Angeles Superior Court and given Case No. BC 052395, alleging contract breaches, which it itself precipitated, for the purposes of, inter alia, obstructing justice, suppressing evidence, assassinating my reputation, retaliation and intimidation;

p. on July 8, 1993, filing a lawsuit Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong & The Gerald Armstrong Corporation, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 084642 (” Armstrong III“) for the same purposes

6

as in o. above;

q. on July 23, 1993, filing a lawsuit, Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Michael Walton & The Gerald Armstrong Corporation, Marin Superior Court Case No. 157680 (“Armstrong IV“) for the same purposes as in o. above;

r. twice more bringing contempt of court charges against me based on false sworn statements.

8. The videotapes from which Mr. Miscavige claims to quote were made in November, 1984. In order to provide a context for how I came to be involved with his operatives who set up the videotaping and to clarify the words of both the operatives and myself which were recorded, and a few of which Mr. Miscavige claims to quote, I am appending hereto as Exhibit [B] a copy of a declaration/screenplay outline I have just completed and called “Find a Better Basket.”

9. When I state on the 1984 videotape that I am not afraid, I am answering one of the operatives’ questions or challenges which he has been drilled to state. In responding the way I did I am honestly communicating one of the changes I had perceived in my psyche over the almost three years since I left the organization. Because the organization teaches its members to put their faith in what cannot protect them; e.g., data, wins, attacks, hatred, disconnection, leverage, lawsuits, private investigators, fair game, L. Ron Hubbard or David Miscavige; it leaves them with a seemingly irreducible fear. Those who put their faith in God, Wherein lies perfect protection, give up their

7

fear. There will still be times when fear will arise, but the reestablishing of faith in God will every time cause that fear to disappear into the nothing it is. I was beginning to learn that wisdom by the time of the 1984 videotaping. In fact it was that learning which seemed to move me to associate with the operatives who only sought my destruction. I have stated many times that I have an undeniable concern that before it comes to its senses or saner minds prevail in the organization its power structure headed by Mr. Miscavige will have me assassinated or do something else diabolical and dangerous, and this has produced in me an awareness of threat and is a fact of my present psychological condition. The power structure is quite capable of violent and criminal acts, or of purchasing such acts. The power structure is armed, and its head PI Eugene M. Ingram has threatened to kill me. The power structure makes a religion of terrifying countless vulnerable and innocent people who do not have my certa inty and do not have my skills to fight the organization’s tyranny. For these reasons I oppose its tyranny and its suppressive doctrines and practices. Mr. Miscavige should not be pointing out imagined inconsistencies in whether one of his victims in one year or another was afraid or not of his vicious organization, but should be eliminating all of its viciousness so that no one ever again is made afraid by it.

10. Mr. Miscavige calls the videotaping of me “a police-sanctioned investigation.” (Miscavige Dec. p. 31, l. 8 28) This is a lie Mr. Miscavige must tell as if his life depends on it. I provided the truth in “Find a Better Basket.”

“Organization lawyers, Earle Cooley and John Peterson, claimed (during the 1985 trial of Julie Christofferson v. Scientology, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, No. A7704-05184, that) the Armstrong operation had been authorized by the Los Angeles Police Department, and they produced a letter dated November 7, 1984, ….. signed by an officer Phillip Rodriguez, directing organization private investigator Eugene M. Ingram to electronically eavesdrop on me and Michael Flynn. On April 23, 1985, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates issued a public statement, ….. denying that the Rodriguez letter was a correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department, denying that the Los Angeles Police Department had cooperated with Ingram, and stating emphatically that all purported authorizations directed to Ingram by any member of the Los Angeles Police Department are invalid and unauthorized. On information and belief, the officer, Phillip Rodriguez, who signed Ingram’s letter was paid $10,000.00 for his signature. Also on information and belief, following a Los Angeles Police Department Internal Affairs

9

Division investigation and a Police Department Board of Rights, Officer Rodriguez was suspended from the Los Angeles Police Force.” (“Better Basket,” p. 13, paras. 22 and 23)

A copy of Officer Rodriguez’s “authorization” is appended hereto as Exhibit [C], and a copy of Chief Gates’ public announcement is appended hereto as Exhibit [D].

11. Mr. Miscavige claims that his illegal videotapes of me capture me acknowledging my real motives, to overthrow his organization’s leadership and gain control of it. (Miscavige Dec. p. 32, l.1 – l.3) This is absurd. His own people, operated by him, came to me with their idea, approved by him, as outlined in “Better Basket,” of wresting control of the organization from what they called the ” criminals” running it. I have never had a desire control the Scientology organization or Scientology, although I recognize that its leaders should be restrained from further abuse of anyone. My real motive in my day-to-day relationship with its leaders is to get it out of the litigation business and get it to cease its assault on the justice system, its abuse of innocence and its threatening of me, my friends and people of good will everywhere. I know David Miscavige personally. I know him to be a bully, a liar and a perfect replacement for L. Ron Hubbard at the controls of his empire. I also know that God is in him as He is in everyone else and that bullying and lying are just mad and useless efforts to fight that fact.

12. Mr. Miscavige states that I advise one of his

10

covert operatives to accuse the organization of various criminal acts and when I am told that no evidence exists to support those charges I respond to “just allege it.” (Miscavige Dec. p. 32, l. 5 – l. 8) “Better Basket” describes something of the context in which I make a statement differentiating between “allegations” and “proof.” The operative I’m talking to is Mike Rinder. Before this meeting I had already, on request of the “Loyalists,” provided them with a “bare bones” draft of a complaint. Complaints contain allegations. Complaints do not contain proof. Rinder, who had been represented to me as the Loyalists’ ” best legal mind” couldn’t seem to get the distinction between allegations and proof in the complaint, and I was frustrated in our conversation because he seemed so dense. Now, of course, his denseness is fully understandable. He had to appear stupid and had to deny that there was any “proof” of the sort of allegations that would be made in a complaint because he knew he was being recorded on a videotape which was going to be used to attack, and if possible destroy me. Even what the organization has done to me alone (see, e.g., crimes listed by Judge Breckenridge and the list in paragraph 7 above) is enough for actual true-hearted reformers to bring a lawsuit to take control of the organization from the criminals now in charge.

13. During Mr. Miscavige’s videotape operation a briefcase containing a book of my original drawings and writings and other documents was stolen from the trunk of my

11

car. My attorney made a demand on the organization for the return of these materials. The organization denied having them. I have recently been advised by Vicki Aznaran, a former organization executive who carried out operations against individuals on Mr. Miscavige’s orders, that he told her at the time of their theft that he had them and he described them to her. Knowing that this declaration will be seen by Mr. Miscavige, I herewith renew my demand to him for the return of my materials to me.

14. I will also take the opportunity to advise this Court that Mr. Miscavige’s organization considers that it has me under a contract whereby it may sue me for filing this declaration, not because it is untrue or libelous, but because that is what the organization insists its contract permits. This contract was obtained by Mr. Miscavige as the result of his organization’s years of attack on my attorney Michael Flynn, as stated in paragraph 7 subparagraph h. above. In order to get the organization to cease its fair game against Mr. Flynn I had to sign its contract, which, according to Mr. Miscavige, allows him and his agents to say whatever they want about me in any court proceeding or in the media and I may not respond. If I do respond I become subject to a $50,000.00 liquidated damages provision for every utterance, and the target in another Miscavige-ordered costly and harassing lawsuit. The three lawsuits, Armstrong II, III and IV described in paragraph 7, subparagraphs o, pand q, and the contempt of court proceedings at subparagraph r, are all pursuant to this contract. The contract is

12

against public policy and illegal. Mr. Miscavige, moreover, entered into a separate illegal contract with Mr. Flynn, which prohibits Mr. Flynn from assisting me in any litigation against the organization. If Mr. Flynn were to assist me he would again be subjected to “fair game.” Mr. Miscavige would be wise to rescind all these illegal contracts and discontinue his abuse of the legal process and totally eliminate from his organization the doctrine and practice of fair game, and not merely deny its existence.

15. Mr. Miscavige claims to know a great deal about the IRS dropping me as a witness because of his videotapes. In truth I was not dropped as a witness at all, and my credibility, despite more than twelve years of his organization’s attacks on it, is intact. One of the conditions of the 1986 “settlement” with Mr. Miscavige’s organization was that in order for the organization to discontinue the “fair game” against Mr. Flynn I had to sign a knowingly false affidavit, essentially stating that Mr. Miscavige’s new regime had discontinued the organization’s criminal activities. Mr. Flynn claimed that the organization had already tried to murder him and he felt his life and his family were in danger. I fully believed Mr. Flynn because I had myself been the target of fair game for five years by then and had likewise been threatened with murder. I, along with several other of Mr. Flynn’s clients, therefore signed these false affidavits which the organization had prepared. The organization then filed the false affidavits in its IRS litigations. Mr. Miscavige

13

makes much of the IRS granting his organization tax exempt status. Our government’s turning its back on this organization’s thousands of victims and apparently ignoring its obnoxious, irreligious and criminal core nature, however, does not make this victimization and antisocial nature either right or religious.

16. Mr. Miscavige also claims that Scientology’s philosophy and practice of opportunistic hatred, called “fair game” by L. Ron Hubbard, its originator, doesn’t exist. It does. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at San Anselmo, California, on February 22, 1994.

[signed]
GERALD ARMSTRONG

14

Notes

Exhibit [A]
Breckenridge Decision

Exhibit [B]
Find a Better Basket

Exhibit [C]
Rodriguez “authorization”

Exhibit [D]
LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates’ Announcement

Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (February 20, 1994)

Find a Better Basket

I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

1. I am making this declaration in response to allegations made by Scientology organization leaders, attorneys and agents in court proceedings and public media around the world concerning a 1984 organization intelligence operation targeting me, which has been called the “Armstrong Operation.” I am copyrighting this document prior to its use in court because it will, in addition to putting the organization’s allegations into a proper context, form an outline for a screenplay I am writing. It is my story.

2. After I left the organization at the end of 1981, the organization intelligence bureau assigned Dan Sherman, a Los Angeles spy story writer and intel operative, to get close to me and become my friend, which he did. I had been the intelligence officer on board the “Apollo” with the organization’s founder and supreme leader L. Ron Hubbard, had studied his intelligence policies and Guardian’s Office 1 intelligence materials, had an

1

appreciation for that literary genre, and I was myself a writer, so Sherman and I had a real basis for a real friendship.

3. Sherman told me he was no longer involved in Scientology, wanted nothing to do with it, saw it as a personal waste of time, and also saw that its leaders were ruthless and dangerous, and claimed to be afraid of them finding out that he was friends with me. Sometime in 1982 or 1983 he told me that he was still in communication in a limited way with some of his old friends still in the organization. He described these friends as smart, reasonable and not fanatics. They were still Scientologists and worked on staff, but felt that organization leaders were criminals. Having no allegiance to these leaders, Sherman’s friends would occasionally tell him about conditions inside and their desire to end the organization’s criminal activities. They said the conditions inside were oppressive and chaotic and they were at risk even talking to him because sec checks2 were rampant.

4. During the 1984 trial of the organization’s case against me, Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angles Superior Court no. C 420153 (“Armstrong I“), Sherman told me that one of these friends, whom he called “Joey,” had told him that there was an

2

actual group inside the organization who were dedicated to reforming it because management had become suppressive. They called themselves the “Loyalists,” claiming to be ” loyal” to the preservation of the ideals of Scientology, “what worked.” They also recognized that its leaders were criminal, crazy, dangerous, and not dedicated to those ideals but were acting to destroy them. The “Loyalists” wanted to take control in a well-planned, effective and peaceful action before some tragedy happened. They claimed to know of criminal activities and a key part of their plan was the documenting of these activities.

5. Sherman said they were 35 in number, or at least there were 35 who knew they were “Loyalists,” all smart, reasonable and not fanatics. Some of them were his old friends from B-1. Such persons tended to be smart, reasonable and often were not fanatics. The people whom I knew to be, including Hubbard, the organization leaders, prided themselves on their recognition of unreasonableness as a virtue, and maintained an abiding fanaticism to justify their abuses and keep their positions of power. Sherman was smart and gave every appearance of being reasonable and unfanatical. He said the Loyalists knew he was in communication with me and wanted to talk with me but were afraid for their lives. This was not surprising to me because I knew from my own experiences that the organization had a brutal side and its leaders were dangerous, armed and desperate. Thus the first communications with the Loyalists were a few messages relayed by Sherman. They said that I had a proven record against

3

the organization, that my integrity had been unshakable and they wanted my help.

6. A few days after the Armstrong I trial ended, Joey, who, I later learned, was actually one David Kluge, made the first direct contact with me, a phone call to my home in Costa Mesa, California. He said the Loyalists knew I wanted my pc folders,3 was the head of the Guardian Office for years and among other things, authored the infamous order ‘GO 121669’ which directed culling of supposedly confidential P.C. files/folders for the purposes of internal security.” “The practice of culling supposedly confidential ‘P.C. folders or files’ to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and/or harassment is repugnant and outrageous. The Guardian’s Office, which plaintiff [Mary Sue Hubbard] headed, was no respector of anyone’s civil rights, particularly that of privacy.”]4 that my folders were being moved on a certain day and that I could get them if I wanted. I told Kluge that even though the folders were mine the organization would claim, if it was discovered I had them, that I was accepting stolen property, so I had to decline his offer. I was also already booked, on the same day the Loyalists said they would get me my pc folders, to fly to London to testify in a child custody case5 involving

4

Scientology, and I told Kluge that I couldn’t change my plans.

7. When I returned from the UK, where, incidentally, I had been harassed by a pack of English private investigators working for the organization, Kluge reestablished contact, and I communicated with him or Sherman several times over the next few months. I was happy to be in communication with them, because I’m happy to be in communication with anyone, and my relationship with the Loyalists, who were admitted Scientologists, seemed a spark of hope in the seemingly hopeless and threatening Scientology situation.

8. I have believed and stated that when Scientologists have the freedom to communicate to the people their leaders label “enemies,” Scientology will cease to have enemies. The organization’s leaders prohibit their minions from communicating with me, thus I am their enemy. This prohibition is enforced with severe “ethics” punishment, which could easily include “declaring” the person who dared to communicate with me a “suppressive” person, thus making him the target of the organization’s philosophy and practice of opportunistic hatred Hubbard called “fair game.”

9. I had lost my law office job because of the Armstrong I trial, which really ran from April into June, 1984, and I did not get another job for some months, so had considerable time on my

5

hands in the fall of 1984 to meet with Sherman and the Loyalists and do some of the things they wanted. I had begun to draw and write seriously during this period, and some of my writings concerned the Scientology battle and the Loyalists. My situation with the organization and the Loyalists was bizarre and psychologically traumatic, and this is reflected in my writings of the period. Thanks to, I believe, my growing faith in God I was given the gift of a healthy sense of humor and that too is a facet of my communications and writings during the period.

10. In late July, 1984 the organization fed to the media the story, and filed papers in various court cases, including Armstrong I, charging, that Michael Flynn, who had fought the organization’s fair game tactics for five years, who had been my friend and attorney for two years and had just successfully defended me in the Armstrong I trial, was behind a plot to cash a forged check for $2,000,000.00 on one of Hubbard’s accounts at the Bank of New England. Sherman and Kluge communicated that the Loyalists knew Flynn was not involved, and that the organization leaders knew Flynn was uninvolved but were framing him with the forgery. The Loyalists said that they were working inside the organization to acquire the proof of the frame-up, and that when they proved Flynn’s innocence they would be in a position to effectuate the reforms they sought. This was fine with me, because I fully believed that Flynn was innocent, and that the organization was framing him just to be able to attack him to eliminate the threat he represented to its antisocial practices

6

 

and nature.

11. Over the next few months Sherman and Kluge communicated with me regularly about the Loyalists’ progress in documenting the truth about the Flynn frame-up. They claimed that all staff were searched before they could leave OSA or management offices, so it was hard to get any documents out. Nevertheless, on a couple of occasions Sherman and Joey gave me a page or two that had been smuggled out. I learned that a US Attorney in Boston had become involved in the investigation of the frame-up, and I passed whatever I got from the Loyalists to him through Flynn.

12. One of the ideas which developed with the Loyalists in the early fall of 1984 was the possible filing of a lawsuit to take control of the organization from the “criminals.” I saw this as an idea with merit, and could be the effective action the Loyalists said they were looking for to avert a major organization tragedy. I told Flynn what they wanted and he drafted a “bare bones” complaint which I passed to them. Sherman, Kluge and I discussed the lawsuit concept on several occasions, both of them asking me for my ideas and I helped as I could within the limits of my knowledge, ability and imagination.

13. The Loyalists then began discussing with me finding a financial “backer” for their lawsuit, basing this need on the likelihood that the bringing of the suit would freeze organization accounts, and the Loyalists would need operating capital. They claimed that the leaders had lots of money they had skimmed from the organization and squirreled away in their

7

own bank accounts, and the Loyalists were all staff members and thus broke. I couldn’t help them with money, and knew of no one who might finance whatever they did, so they said that, because I understood the situation so well, and had a proven record, they wanted me to talk to and encourage some prospective backers with whom they were in touch. One day I got a call from Kluge, asking me to fly to Las Vegas to meet with such a person, a “rich Scientologist” who had been mistreated by the organization and was aligned with the Loyalists on their goal of reformation.

Although on Kluge’s instructions I purchased a plane ticket, I called off the trip before leaving because my lawyers warned me that I could be walking into a trap.

14. There were many times during this period when I considered the possibility that I was walking into a trap. The thought arose in all my meetings with Kluge, and later with Mike Rinder, the second Loyalist I would meet. Their communications often didn’t jibe with what they or Sherman had said on earlier occasions, and sometimes they said things which were downright stupid. I had no way of originating a communication to them, had no telephone numbers, no locations, no names, and no idea what any of them did. They had my address, phone number, knew exactly what I did, and could call me any time they wanted. They told me almost nothing, and wanted to know everything I knew. They claimed I had to be kept in the dark because of their fear for their lives, and for that reason I went along with their, even to me, strange behavior.

8

15. Because of their fear for their lives they depended on secrecy, duplicity and intelligence procedures and goals. Although I had been in intelligence in the organization and had the essential quality for the field; i.e., native intelligence, I had, after leaving the organization, come to the conclusion that Scientology’s brand of intelligence; i.e., the secret world of data, duplicity, stealth, hidden intentions and hidden identities, was ineffective, unhealthy, unholy, and not my choice for how I would make my way through life and deal with my problems. Even inside the organization, which is an intelligence-based group, I had urged those who were in positions to do something about it to open up, stop lying, disclose its leaders, divulge its secrets; because I felt that its lies, secrets, and secret orders from its secret leaders would only bring upon it more problems. After leaving the organization, a factor in my life which led to my faith in openness and freedom as opposed to secrecy and leverage, was all the testifying I did, in trial in Armstrong I and in B & G Wards, and in many days of depositions in several more Scientology-related cases. Also I knew that the organization’s leaders, who had an undeniable determination to harm me, possessed my pc folders which contained every embarrassing incident or thought in my life, and my lives back umpteen impossibillion years. These facts had resulted in a tendency in me at times during this period to not care what happened to me and to act a little wild and silly.

16. Sometime during 1984 it came to me that what I was

9

following, and what was a far superior technology and faith than intelligence, or perhaps perfect intelligence, was guidance. I had been given, before and after my asking, a desire to know my Creator, and I believe I received during this period some of His communications to me. Hubbard in his writings put no faith in his Creator, but put it in something of his own making, an intelligence apparatus in which he was the secret leader with secret bank accounts, secret communication lines, secret codes, secret intentions, and secret lawyers to keep them all secret. I had come to know God a little, and understood that no matter how scary things got I was in hands in which I was in no real danger. I could be shot, my body could be destroyed, I could be defamed and ruined, and I would still be in no real danger. And things did get scary for me in my dealings with Sherman and the Loyalists during this period. I picked up surveillance on a number of occasions, and there was the nagging strangeness of the Loyalists’ communications and the movie-like quality of this play in which I was being played with. I still retained my intellect and acted with good sense most of the time, but a shift was occurring in my mind and soul. I began to walk deliberately into danger, but I was also new at this approach to life, and as yet a little foolhardy and undisciplined, and these facts too are reflected in my writings and actions of the period.

17. Sherman’s and Kluge’s interest was intelligence and they didn’t want to hear much of my philosophy of guidance, courage and openness, so I turned my mind to the intelligence

10

game, and as always happens when I turn my mind to any subject, I had ideas. Some of these ideas I communicated to the Loyalists, some I wrote down, some were only funny. Our meetings had a secretive, spy story feel to them, partly because of the danger the Loyalists said they were in and the danger I was in anyone would say, partly because of the subject matter we discussed, and partly because of the settings in which we met. Sherman insisted that I couldn’t come to his home, so we met on many occasions in the bird sanctuary in Griffith Park. My first meeting with Kluge was in a cemetery in Glendale. I met him two more times in early November at different locations in Griffith Park, and then met with Rinder two times in late November at two more locations in the park.

18. Sherman told me around October, 1984 that the Loyalists had found a potential backer, a woman named Rene, another “rich Scientologist,” who he said had been horribly hurt by the organization. He said he knew her personally and considered her a good and trusted friend. He said that she owned a publishing company which printed calendars, that he had told her about my artwork and writing, and that she wanted to see some of my materials for possible publication. Following our first meeting in Griffith Park Kluge took me to the Sheraton Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles to meet her. I took along a file of some of my work and left it with her. In my meeting with her she wanted to know my perspective on the lawsuit idea and my thoughts on removing the organization’s criminal leadership.

11

19. While claiming that the Loyalists wanted to take legal action to bring about a safe transfer of power, both Sherman and Kluge also claimed that they didn’t know anything about legal matters, nor any of the organization’s litigations, and that there were other people higher up in the Loyalist network who were trained in legal, stayed abreast of the organization’s litigation battles, and had an understanding of the Loyalists’ legal options and an overview of their plan which Sherman and Kluge didn’t have. Coupled with their claimed need to keep me in the dark for fear of their lives, their assertions of ignorance of legal matters caused considerable frustration in me and in our communications. As a result, I requested in a number of communications to speak to their “best legal mind.”

20. Finally the Loyalists said that their legal expert would meet me and a rendezvous was set up, again in Griffith Park. The “legal expert” turned out to be Mike Rinder, a person I had known in the organization, who had held various lower level administrative posts. Rinder, it turned out, also professed ignorance of legal concepts, and my meetings and communications with him were even more frustrating.

21. Some time after my last meeting with Rinder, which occurred November 30, 1984, I received a phone call from Kluge, advising me that the Loyalists did not trust me and would not be communicating with me again. I then wrote them my final communication, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A6, and gave it to Sherman to give to them.

12

22. During my cross-examination7 in the spring, 1985 trial of Julie Christofferson v. Scientology, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, No. A7704-05184, the organization broke the fact that Sherman, Kluge and Rinder had been covert operatives, the Loyalists were invented, and that my meetings with Kluge and Rinder had been videotaped.8 The organization called the whole more than two year affair the “Armstrong Operation.” Organization lawyers, Earle Cooley and John Peterson, claimed the Armstrong operation had been authorized by the Los Angeles Police Department, and they produced a letter dated November 7, 1984, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B 9, signed by an officer Phillip Rodriguez, directing organization private investigator Eugene M. Ingram to electronically eavesdrop on me and Michael Flynn.

23. On April 23, 1985, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates issued a public statement, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit C10, denying that the Rodriguez letter was a correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department, denying that the Los Angeles Police Department had cooperated with Ingram, and stating emphatically that all purported authorizations directed to Ingram by any member of the Los Angeles Police Department are invalid and unauthorized. On information and belief, the officer, Phillip Rodriguez, who signed Ingram’s letter was paid $10,000.00 for his signature. Also on information and belief, following a Los Angeles Police Department Internal Affairs Division investigation and a Police

13

Department Board of Rights, Officer Rodriguez was suspended from the Los Angeles Police Force. Eugene Ingram had himself some years before been drummed out of the Los Angeles Police Department. He is reputed to have been busted for pandering and taking payoffs from drug dealers. He is a liar and a bully who has been involved in organization intelligence operations against its perceived enemies for many years. During the period I was involved with the Loyalists Ingram called me at my home and threatened to put a bullet between my eyes.

24. Initially the presiding judge in the Christofferson trial Donald F. Londer refused to admit the tapes because they had been obtained illegally. Then he viewed them in chambers and when he returned to the bench stated that “the tapes are devastating, very devastating to the church.” Then he admitted them into evidence.

25. Despite Judge Londer’s ruling and comments, and despite Chief Gates’ repudiation of the Rodriguez “authorization,” the organization has continued in press and courts around the world to claim that the videotape operation was “police-sanctioned.”

The organization has continued to claim that I originated the “plot to overthrow ” church” management” and that I initiated the contact with the organization members, who merely played along with my plan while remaining “loyal” to the organization. It also has continued to claim that the videotapes show me plotting to forge documents and seed them in organization files to be found in a raid, show me creating “sham lawsuits,” show me urging

14

the Loyalists to not prove anything but “just allege it,” and show me seeking to take control of the organization. The videotapes show none of those things. The tapes show that in the fall of 1984, during the reign of the organization’s present supreme leader David Miscavige (DM), the fair game doctrine was alive and as unfair as ever. The tapes show a mean-spirited, mendacious and malevolent organization using well-drilled operatives and electronic gadgetry to attempt, unsuccessfully, to set up an unwitting, funny, sometimes silly, clearly helpful, at times foul-mouthed, but otherwise ordinary human male.

26. The organization’s refusal to stop telling these lies is not surprising, however, because its leaders have put so many of their eggs in their dirty tricks basket. These leaders are unbalanced and in a very precarious situation. Having lied about the Armstrong Operation in so many courts and publications and to so many people, including their own followers, these leaders risk their positions of power, and in their minds their very lives, if they ever admit the breadth of those lies. Yet it is in the acknowledgement of the truth behind those lies where ultimately their safety will be found.

27. It has not ceased to be embarrassing to me whenever the organization trots out the Armstrong videotapes, because I do say some silly and raunchy things. But the organization has never been able to embarrass me into silence and it won’t now.

28. The Scientology legal war has almost run its course. The organization’s leaders can never rewrite all history.

15

Scientologists of good will everywhere can be free.

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

Executed at San Anselmo, California, on February 20, 1994. 11
[signed]
GERALD ARMSTRONG

Copyright © 1994 Gerry Armstrong

16


Notes

  1. The Guardian’s Office (“GO”), headed from 1966 to 1981 by Mary Sue Hubbard, who reported to and was controlled by L. Ron Hubbard, consisted of five bureaus: Intelligence, Public Relations, Legal, Finance and Social Coordination (front groups). The GO was responsible for hiding its money and its actual command lines, defending the organization against attacks and for eliminating all opposition to its progress. Hubbard patterned its intelligence bureau, B-1, and the organization’s total espionage mentality on the work of Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s spy master. On Hubbard’s orders, after the conviction of 11 top GO intelligence personnel, including Mary Sue, for criminal activities against the US Government, Scientology’s second major arm of power, the Sea Organization, in a 1981 putsch took control of the GO’s functions and subsequently renamed the GO arm the Office of Special Affairs, “OSA.”
  2. Sec checks are accusatory interrogations using Hubbard’s electropsychometer or E-Meter as a lie detector. Sec checks could be brutal, could go on for many hours or days, could involve several people asking questions, threatening and badgering, and could have disastrous results for the interrogee.
  3. Pc folders, also called preclear or auditing files or folders, contain the record of processes run and questions asked by the auditor (psycho- therapist), E-Meter reads, and answers given and statements made by the preclear (or patient) during Scientology auditing (or psychotherapy) sessions. It was well known that I had opposed and exposed the organ- ization’s misuse of information divulged by the organization’s “preclears” (what were essentially psychotherapist-patient confidences) in auditing. I had been attempting to get the organization to deliver to me my pc folders throughout the Armstrong I litigation, and the misuse of auditing information was an issue in the Armstrong I trial. Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. stated in his decision following the 30-day Armstrong I trial: “[Mary Sue Hubbard
  4. See The Breckenridge Decision, filed June 22, 1984.
  5. This Royal Courts of Justice case, known as Re: B and G Wards resulted in a Judgment on July 23, 1984 issued by Justice Latey in favor of the non-Scientologist parent. The Judgment, which was upheld on appeal, contained a scathing condemnation of organization policies and practices.
  6. Exhibit A: Letter to the Loyalists
  7. See Excerpts of Proceedings in Christofferson
  8. See Illegal Videos
  9. Exhibit B: Illegal authorization November 7, 1984
  10. Exhibit C: Public Announcement by LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates
  11. Also see related Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (February 22, 1994).

Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (February 20, 1994)

FIND A BETTER BASKET

A Literary Work Created and Written
by
GERALD ARMSTRONG

FIND A BETTER BASKET
Copyright © 1994 Gerald Armstrong
All Rights Reserved
Contact:
The Gerald Armstrong Corporation
Copyright © 1994 Gerald Armstrong
© 1994 Gerald Armstrong


FIND A BETTER BASKET

    I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

1. I am making this declaration in response to allegations made by Scientology organization leaders, attorneys and agents in court proceedings and public media around the world concerning a 1984 organization intelligence operation targeting me, which has been called the “Armstrong Operation.” I am copyrighting this document prior to its use in court because it will, in addition to putting the organization’s allegations into a proper context, form an outline for a screenplay I am writing. It is my story.

2. After I left the organization at the end of 1981, the organization intelligence bureau assigned Dan Sherman, a Los Angeles spy story writer and intel operative, to get close to me and become my friend, which he did. I had been the intelligence officer on board the “Apollo” with the organization’s founder and supreme leader L. Ron Hubbard, had studied his intelligence policies and Guardian’s Office 1 intelligence materials, had an

1

appreciation for that literary genre, and I was myself a writer, so Sherman and I had a real basis for a real friendship.

3. Sherman told me he was no longer involved in Scientology, wanted nothing to do with it, saw it as a personal waste of time, and also saw that its leaders were ruthless and dangerous, and claimed to be afraid of them finding out that he was friends with me. Sometime in 1982 or 1983 he told me that he was still in communication in a limited way with some of his old friends still in the organization. He described these friends as smart, reasonable and not fanatics. They were still Scientologists and worked on staff, but felt that organization leaders were criminals. Having no allegiance to these leaders, Sherman’s friends would occasionally tell him about conditions inside and their desire to end the organization’s criminal activities. They said the conditions inside were oppressive and chaotic and they were at risk even talking to him because sec checks2 were rampant.

4. During the 1984 trial of the organization’s case against me, Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angles Superior Court no. C 420153 (“Armstrong I“), Sherman told me that one of these friends, whom he called “Joey,” had told him that there was an

2

actual group inside the organization who were dedicated to reforming it because management had become suppressive. They called themselves the “Loyalists,” claiming to be ” loyal” to the preservation of the ideals of Scientology, “what worked.” They also recognized that its leaders were criminal, crazy, dangerous, and not dedicated to those ideals but were acting to destroy them. The “Loyalists” wanted to take control in a well-planned, effective and peaceful action before some tragedy happened. They claimed to know of criminal activities and a key part of their plan was the documenting of these activities.

5. Sherman said they were 35 in number, or at least there were 35 who knew they were “Loyalists,” all smart, reasonable and not fanatics. Some of them were his old friends from B-1. Such persons tended to be smart, reasonable and often were not fanatics. The people whom I knew to be, including Hubbard, the organization leaders, prided themselves on their recognition of unreasonableness as a virtue, and maintained an abiding fanaticism to justify their abuses and keep their positions of power. Sherman was smart and gave every appearance of being reasonable and unfanatical. He said the Loyalists knew he was in communication with me and wanted to talk with me but were afraid for their lives. This was not surprising to me because I knew from my own experiences that the organization had a brutal side and its leaders were dangerous, armed and desperate. Thus the first communications with the Loyalists were a few messages relayed by Sherman. They said that I had a proven record against

3

the organization, that my integrity had been unshakable and they wanted my help.

 6. A few days after the Armstrong I trial ended, Joey, who, I later learned, was actually one David Kluge, made the first direct contact with me, a phone call to my home in Costa Mesa, California. He said the Loyalists knew I wanted my pc folders,3 was the head of the Guardian Office for years and among other things, authored the infamous order ‘GO 121669’ which directed culling of supposedly confidential P.C. files/folders for the purposes of internal security.” “The practice of culling supposedly confidential ‘P.C. folders or files’ to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and/or harassment is repugnant and outrageous. The Guardian’s Office, which plaintiff [Mary Sue Hubbard] headed, was no respector of anyone’s civil rights, particularly that of privacy.”]4  that my folders were being moved on a certain day and that I could get them if I wanted. I told Kluge that even though the folders were mine the organization would claim, if it was discovered I had them, that I was accepting stolen property, so I had to decline his offer. I was also already booked, on the same day the Loyalists said they would get me my pc folders, to fly to London to testify in a child custody case5 involving

4

Scientology, and I told Kluge that I couldn’t change my plans.

7. When I returned from the UK, where, incidentally, I had been harassed by a pack of English private investigators working for the organization, Kluge reestablished contact, and I communicated with him or Sherman several times over the next few months. I was happy to be in communication with them, because I’m happy to be in communication with anyone, and my relationship with the Loyalists, who were admitted Scientologists, seemed a spark of hope in the seemingly hopeless and threatening Scientology situation.

8. I have believed and stated that when Scientologists have the freedom to communicate to the people their leaders label “enemies,” Scientology will cease to have enemies. The organization’s leaders prohibit their minions from communicating with me, thus I am their enemy. This prohibition is enforced with severe “ethics” punishment, which could easily include “declaring” the person who dared to communicate with me a “suppressive” person, thus making him the target of the organization’s philosophy and practice of opportunistic hatred Hubbard called “fair game.”

9. I had lost my law office job because of the Armstrong I trial, which really ran from April into June, 1984, and I did not get another job for some months, so had considerable time on my

5

hands in the fall of 1984 to meet with Sherman and the Loyalists and do some of the things they wanted. I had begun to draw and write seriously during this period, and some of my writings concerned the Scientology battle and the Loyalists. My situation with the organization and the Loyalists was bizarre and psychologically traumatic, and this is reflected in my writings of the period. Thanks to, I believe, my growing faith in God I was given the gift of a healthy sense of humor and that too is a facet of my communications and writings during the period.

10. In late July, 1984 the organization fed to the media the story, and filed papers in various court cases, including Armstrong I, charging, that Michael Flynn, who had fought the organization’s fair game tactics for five years, who had been my friend and attorney for two years and had just successfully defended me in the Armstrong I trial, was behind a plot to cash a forged check for $2,000,000.00 on one of Hubbard’s accounts at the Bank of New England. Sherman and Kluge communicated that the Loyalists knew Flynn was not involved, and that the organization leaders knew Flynn was uninvolved but were framing him with the forgery. The Loyalists said that they were working inside the organization to acquire the proof of the frame-up, and that when they proved Flynn’s innocence they would be in a position to effectuate the reforms they sought. This was fine with me, because I fully believed that Flynn was innocent, and that the organization was framing him just to be able to attack him to eliminate the threat he represented to its antisocial practices

6

 

and nature.

11. Over the next few months Sherman and Kluge communicated with me regularly about the Loyalists’ progress in documenting the truth about the Flynn frame-up. They claimed that all staff were searched before they could leave OSA or management offices, so it was hard to get any documents out. Nevertheless, on a couple of occasions Sherman and Joey gave me a page or two that had been smuggled out. I learned that a US Attorney in Boston had become involved in the investigation of the frame-up, and I passed whatever I got from the Loyalists to him through Flynn.

12. One of the ideas which developed with the Loyalists in the early fall of 1984 was the possible filing of a lawsuit to take control of the organization from the “criminals.” I saw this as an idea with merit, and could be the effective action the Loyalists said they were looking for to avert a major organization tragedy. I told Flynn what they wanted and he drafted a “bare bones” complaint which I passed to them. Sherman, Kluge and I discussed the lawsuit concept on several occasions, both of them asking me for my ideas and I helped as I could within the limits of my knowledge, ability and imagination.

13. The Loyalists then began discussing with me finding a financial “backer” for their lawsuit, basing this need on the likelihood that the bringing of the suit would freeze organization accounts, and the Loyalists would need operating capital. They claimed that the leaders had lots of money they had skimmed from the organization and squirreled away in their

7

own bank accounts, and the Loyalists were all staff members and thus broke. I couldn’t help them with money, and knew of no one who might finance whatever they did, so they said that, because I understood the situation so well, and had a proven record, they wanted me to talk to and encourage some prospective backers with whom they were in touch. One day I got a call from Kluge, asking me to fly to Las Vegas to meet with such a person, a “rich Scientologist” who had been mistreated by the organization and was aligned with the Loyalists on their goal of reformation.

Although on Kluge’s instructions I purchased a plane ticket, I called off the trip before leaving because my lawyers warned me that I could be walking into a trap.

14. There were many times during this period when I considered the possibility that I was walking into a trap. The thought arose in all my meetings with Kluge, and later with Mike Rinder, the second Loyalist I would meet. Their communications often didn’t jibe with what they or Sherman had said on earlier occasions, and sometimes they said things which were downright stupid. I had no way of originating a communication to them, had no telephone numbers, no locations, no names, and no idea what any of them did. They had my address, phone number, knew exactly what I did, and could call me any time they wanted. They told me almost nothing, and wanted to know everything I knew. They claimed I had to be kept in the dark because of their fear for their lives, and for that reason I went along with their, even to me, strange behavior.

8

15. Because of their fear for their lives they depended on secrecy, duplicity and intelligence procedures and goals.  Although I had been in intelligence in the organization and had the essential quality for the field; i.e., native intelligence, I had, after leaving the organization, come to the conclusion that Scientology’s brand of intelligence; i.e., the secret world of data, duplicity, stealth, hidden intentions and hidden identities, was ineffective, unhealthy, unholy, and not my choice for how I would make my way through life and deal with my problems. Even inside the organization, which is an intelligence-based group, I had urged those who were in positions to do something about it to open up, stop lying, disclose its leaders, divulge its secrets; because I felt that its lies, secrets, and secret orders from its secret leaders would only bring upon it more problems. After leaving the organization, a factor in my life which led to my faith in openness and freedom as opposed to secrecy and leverage, was all the testifying I did, in trial in Armstrong I and in B & G Wards, and in many days of depositions in several more Scientology-related cases. Also I knew that the organization’s leaders, who had an undeniable determination to harm me, possessed my pc folders which contained every embarrassing incident or thought in my life, and my lives back umpteen impossibillion years. These facts had resulted in a tendency in me at times during this period to not care what happened to me and to act a little wild and silly.

16. Sometime during 1984 it came to me that what I was

9

 following, and what was a far superior technology and faith than intelligence, or perhaps perfect intelligence, was guidance. I had been given, before and after my asking, a desire to know my Creator, and I believe I received during this period some of His communications to me. Hubbard in his writings put no faith in his Creator, but put it in something of his own making, an intelligence apparatus in which he was the secret leader with secret bank accounts, secret  communication lines, secret codes, secret intentions, and secret lawyers to keep them all secret. I had come to know God a little, and understood that no matter how scary things got I was in hands in which I was in no real danger. I could be shot, my body could be destroyed, I could be defamed and ruined, and I would still be in no real danger. And things did get scary for me in my dealings with Sherman and the Loyalists during this period. I picked up surveillance on a number of occasions, and there was the nagging strangeness of the Loyalists’ communications and the movie-like quality of this play in which I was being played with. I still retained my intellect and acted with good sense most of the time, but a shift was occurring in my mind and soul. I began to walk deliberately into danger, but I was also new at this approach to life, and as yet a little foolhardy and undisciplined, and these facts too are reflected in my writings and actions of the period.

17. Sherman’s and Kluge’s interest was intelligence and they didn’t want to hear much of my philosophy of guidance, courage and openness, so I turned my mind to the intelligence

10

game, and as always happens when I turn my mind to any subject, I had ideas. Some of these ideas I communicated to the Loyalists, some I wrote down, some were only funny. Our meetings had a secretive, spy story feel to them, partly because of the danger the Loyalists said they were in and the danger I was in anyone would say, partly because of the subject matter we discussed, and partly because of the settings in which we met. Sherman insisted that I couldn’t come to his home, so we met on many occasions in the bird sanctuary in Griffith Park. My first meeting with Kluge was in a cemetery in Glendale. I met him two more times in early November at different locations in Griffith Park, and then met with Rinder two times in late November at two more locations in the park.

18. Sherman told me around October, 1984 that the Loyalists had found a potential backer, a woman named Rene, another “rich Scientologist,” who he said had been horribly hurt by the organization. He said he knew her personally and considered her a good and trusted friend. He said that she owned a publishing company which printed calendars, that he had told her about my artwork and writing, and that she wanted to see some of my materials for possible publication. Following our first meeting in Griffith Park Kluge took me to the Sheraton Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles to meet her. I took along a file of some of my work and left it with her. In my meeting with her she wanted to know my perspective on the lawsuit idea and my thoughts on removing the organization’s criminal leadership.

11

19. While claiming that the Loyalists wanted to take legal action to bring about a safe transfer of power, both Sherman and Kluge also claimed that they didn’t know anything about legal matters, nor any of the organization’s litigations, and that there were other people higher up in the Loyalist network who were trained in legal, stayed abreast of the organization’s litigation battles, and had an understanding of the Loyalists’ legal options and an overview of their plan which Sherman and Kluge didn’t have. Coupled with their claimed need to keep me in the dark for fear of their lives, their assertions of ignorance of legal matters caused considerable frustration in me and in our communications. As a result, I requested in a number of communications to speak to their “best legal mind.”

20. Finally the Loyalists said that their legal expert would meet me and a rendezvous was set up, again in Griffith Park. The “legal expert” turned out to be Mike Rinder, a person I had known in the organization, who had held various lower level administrative posts. Rinder, it turned out, also professed ignorance of legal concepts, and my meetings and communications with him were even more frustrating.

21. Some time after my last meeting with Rinder, which occurred November 30, 1984, I received a phone call from Kluge, advising me that the Loyalists did not trust me and would not be communicating with me again. I then wrote them my final communication, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A6, and gave it to Sherman to give to them.

12

    22. During my cross-examination7 in the spring, 1985 trial of Julie Christofferson v. Scientology, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, No. A7704-05184, the organization broke the fact that Sherman, Kluge and Rinder had been covert operatives, the Loyalists were invented, and that my meetings with Kluge and Rinder had been videotaped.8 The organization called the whole more than two year affair the “Armstrong Operation.” Organization lawyers, Earle Cooley and John Peterson, claimed the Armstrong operation had been authorized by the Los Angeles Police Department, and they produced a letter dated November 7, 1984, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B 9, signed by an officer Phillip Rodriguez, directing organization private investigator Eugene M. Ingram to electronically eavesdrop on me and Michael Flynn.

23. On April 23, 1985, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates issued a public statement, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit C10, denying that the Rodriguez letter was a correspondence from the Los Angeles Police Department, denying that the Los Angeles Police Department had cooperated with Ingram, and stating emphatically that all purported authorizations directed to Ingram by any member of the Los Angeles Police Department are invalid and unauthorized. On information and belief, the officer, Phillip Rodriguez, who signed Ingram’s letter was paid $10,000.00 for his signature.  Also on information and belief, following a Los Angeles Police Department Internal Affairs Division investigation and a Police

13

 Department Board of Rights, Officer Rodriguez was suspended from the Los Angeles Police Force. Eugene Ingram had himself some years before been drummed out of the Los Angeles Police Department. He is reputed to have been busted for pandering and taking payoffs from drug dealers. He is a liar and a bully who has been involved in organization intelligence operations against its perceived enemies for many years. During the period I was involved with the Loyalists Ingram called me at my home and threatened to put a bullet between my eyes.

24. Initially the presiding judge in the Christofferson trial Donald F. Londer refused to admit the tapes because they had been obtained illegally. Then he viewed them in chambers and when he returned to the bench stated that “the tapes are devastating, very devastating to the church.” Then he admitted them into evidence.

25. Despite Judge Londer’s ruling and comments, and despite Chief Gates’ repudiation of the Rodriguez “authorization,” the organization has continued in press and courts around the world to claim that the videotape operation was “police-sanctioned.”

The organization has continued to claim that I originated the “plot to overthrow ” church” management” and that I initiated the contact with the organization members, who merely played along with my plan while remaining “loyal” to the organization. It also has continued to claim that the videotapes show me plotting to forge documents and seed them in organization files to be found in a raid, show me creating “sham lawsuits,” show me urging

14

the Loyalists to not prove anything but “just allege it,” and show me seeking to take control of the organization. The videotapes show none of those things. The tapes show that in the fall of 1984, during the reign of the organization’s present supreme leader David Miscavige (DM), the fair game doctrine was alive and as unfair as ever. The tapes show a mean-spirited, mendacious and malevolent organization using well-drilled operatives and electronic gadgetry to attempt, unsuccessfully, to set up an unwitting, funny, sometimes silly, clearly helpful, at times foul-mouthed, but otherwise ordinary human male.

26. The organization’s refusal to stop telling these lies is not surprising, however, because its leaders have put so many of their eggs in their dirty tricks basket. These leaders are unbalanced and in a very precarious situation. Having lied about the Armstrong Operation in so many courts and publications and to so many people, including their own followers, these leaders risk their positions of power, and in their minds their very lives, if they ever admit the breadth of those lies. Yet it is in the acknowledgement of the truth behind those lies where ultimately their safety will be found.

27. It has not ceased to be embarrassing to me whenever the organization trots out the Armstrong videotapes, because I do say some silly and raunchy things. But the organization has never been able to embarrass me into silence and it won’t now.

28. The Scientology legal war has almost run its course. The organization’s leaders can never rewrite all history.

15

Scientologists of good will everywhere can be free.

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

Executed at San Anselmo, California, on February 20, 1994.
[signed]
GERALD ARMSTRONG

Copyright © 1994 Gerry Armstrong

16


Notes

 

  1. The Guardian’s Office (“GO”), headed from 1966 to 1981 by Mary Sue Hubbard, who reported to and was controlled by L. Ron Hubbard, consisted of five bureaus: Intelligence, Public Relations, Legal, Finance and Social Coordination (front groups). The GO was responsible for hiding its money and its actual command lines, defending the organization against attacks and for eliminating all opposition to its progress. Hubbard patterned its intelligence bureau, B-1, and the organization’s total espionage mentality on the work of Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s spy master. On Hubbard’s orders, after the conviction of 11 top GO intelligence personnel, including Mary Sue, for criminal activities against the US Government, Scientology’s second major arm of power, the Sea Organization, in a 1981 putsch took control of the GO’s functions and subsequently renamed the GO arm the Office of Special Affairs, “OSA.”
  2. Sec checks are accusatory interrogations using Hubbard’s electropsychometer or E-Meter as a lie detector. Sec checks could be brutal, could go on for many hours or days, could involve several people asking questions, threatening and badgering, and could have disastrous results for the interrogee.
  3. Pc folders, also called preclear or auditing files or folders, contain the record of processes run and questions asked by the auditor (psycho- therapist), E-Meter reads, and answers given and statements made by the preclear (or patient) during Scientology auditing (or psychotherapy) sessions. It was well known that I had opposed and exposed the organ- ization’s misuse of information divulged by the organization’s “preclears” (what were essentially psychotherapist-patient confidences) in auditing. I had been attempting to get the organization to deliver to me my pc folders throughout the Armstrong I litigation, and the misuse of auditing information was an issue in the Armstrong I trial. Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. stated in his decision following the 30-day Armstrong I trial: “[Mary Sue Hubbard
  4. See The Breckenridge Decision, filed June 22, 1984.
  5.  This Royal Courts of Justice case, known as Re: B and G Wards resulted in a Judgment on July 23, 1984 issued by Justice Latey in favor of the non-Scientologist parent. The Judgment, which was upheld on appeal, contained a scathing condemnation of organization policies and practices.
  6. Exhibit A: Letter to the Loyalists
  7. See Excerpts of Proceedings in Christofferson
  8. See Illegal Videos
  9. Exhibit B: Illegal authorization November 7, 1984
  10. Exhibit C: Public Announcement by LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates

Appellant’s Opening Brief (January 19, 1993)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR

Civ. No. B 069450
(Super. Ct. No. BC 052395)

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiff-Respondent
vs
GERALD ARMSTRONG,
Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal From

Superior Court Of The State Of California
County of Los Angeles

The Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF1

Ford Greene
HUB LAW OFFICES
California State Bar No. 107601
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

PAUL MORANTZ, ESQ.
P.O. Box 511
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
(213) 459-4745

Attorneys for Appellant GERALD ARMSTRONG

[…]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On February 4; 1992, Scientology filed its verified complaint for damages and for preliminary and permanent injunction against defendant Gerald Armstrong in Marin County Superior Court Action No. 152229. On March 30, 1992 the Marin court granted Armstrong’s motion to transfer to the Los Angeles County Superior Court where it became Action No. BC 052395. During the pendency of Scientology’s motion for injunctive relief, and in order to maintain the status quo, but specifically stating there was no adjudication on the merits, the Marin Court granted a temporary restraining order (16) 1/ which was ultimately dissolved in Los Angeles.
On May 7, 1992, Scientology filed its Amended Memorandum of

____
1 All citations designated (___) are to the particular sequential page number of the Appendix Filed In Lieu Of Clerk’s Transcript pursuant to California Rule of Court 5.1.

Page 2. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Breach of Contract (1-29), and Armstrong filed his Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (30-50) Scientology replied on May 20, 1992. (51-63) The matter was heard on May 26 and 27, 1992 by the Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian (RT 5/26/92 and 1594-1713) who issued a preliminary injunction by his minute order dated May 28, 1992. (1714-17) Notice of ruling was given on June 5, 1992 in conjunction with the posting of a $70,000.00 bond.

Armstrong’s Notice of Appeal was timely filed on July 30, 1992. (1728-30)

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY

Since this matter involves the granting of an injunction, it is the proper subject of an appeal. Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 (f).

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Gerald Armstrong, The Scientologist

In consequence of being a member of the Scientology Organization for 12 years, Gerald Armstrong gained first-hand knowledge regarding both the nature of the organization and the methods of its day-to-day operations. Although Armstrong ultimately learned, that L. Ron Hubbard (“LRH”) was “virtually a pathological liar when it [came] to his history, background, and achievements” (474-75, 485-89, 1004, 1008-14), at the outset of his involvement it was Hubbard’s lies which induced his affiliation. (1004-08, 1067)

Armstrong learned that after inducing the affiliation of its members by various deceptions, Scientology continually “violat[ed] and abus[ed] its own members’ civil rights, . . . with its “Fair Game” doctrine [and] harass[ed] and abuse[ed] those persons not in the Church whom it perceive[d] as enemies.” (474) The “Fair Game Policy,” a part of Scientology’s system of discipline and punishment, states:

Page 3. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

“Enemy – SP (Suppressive Person) Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

(1036-1037)

Scientology also abused its members’ civil rights through breaching its promises that the personal information it extracted from adherents through “auditing” 2/ would be kept confidential. Instead, it used such information for the purposes of domination, extortion and blackmail. (734-74, 1039-41) Auditing was also employed to eliminate the members’ ability to critically reason, (1038, 1081), despite Scientology’s public claim that its purpose was to free individuals. (1086)

Armstrong possesses first-hand information regarding the visible structure of Scientology, and how the leadership ran Scientology through internal organizations, such as the Guardian’s Office, the Sea Organization and the Commodore’s Messenger Organization, which managed, operated and controlled all of Scientology regardless of any particular corporate designation. (475, 997, 1023-30, 1045-46). He knew that LRH’s representation to the general public and the Scientology membership that “the fees you pay for service do not go to me” was false and that LRH lived in splendor while the organization staff lived like slaves. (1032-34)

Armstrong participated in and drilled hundreds of people in

____
2 During the process of “auditing” in Scientology, a person being “audited,” a “penitent,” communicates to the clergyman, counselor, or therapist, the “auditor,” his innermost thoughts and relates incidents from his life which are emotionally charged, embarrassing or for which he could be blackmailed. The auditor writes down what the penitent says in “auditing reports.” The auditor demands and records details such as time and place when an incident occurred, who was present, who knew about the incident, their relationship to the penitent and their address or general location. These “auditing reports” form, along with the auditor’s notes and instructions made after the auditing sessions, the penitent’s auditing files. (1081)

Page 4. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

institutionalized schemes of practiced deception called “shore stories” or “acceptable truths,” which LRH claimed were required to combat the “enemy.” (1051, 1016-19, 787-88)

Armstrong was assigned to the Intelligence Bureau of the Guardian’s Office 3/ headed by LRH and his wife and then posted as LRH’s communications aide. (996) During this time he coded and decoded Guardian’s Office telexes, and maintained LRH’s operations files including those which ordered infiltration of the federal, state and local government offices, and the theft of documents. Armstrong also handled LRH’s telexes and dispatches ordering corporate manipulations which showed an absence of corporate integrity among the Scientology organizations.(1045-46)

LRH ordered Armstrong and his wife into the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”), which was “a virtual prison Hubbard had created for any Sea Org members whom he considered to be in violation of or ‘counter-intention’ (“CI”) to his orders or policies.” (997; 738; 1048-49) The purpose of the RPF was to control members, who were physically held and not free to leave, break their will and obtain free labor. (740, 1050) Armstrong was imprisoned within the RPF for 17 months on one occasion and 8 months on a second. (739, 997, 999, 1048)

Armstrong personally participated in the massive destruction of evidence ordered in anticipation of a raid by the F.B.I. during which he came across LRH’s life archive. (480-81, 485-86, 1000-01) Throughout 1980 and 1981, Armstrong assembled an
____
3 “The Guardian’s Office is charged with the protection of Scientology. The Guardians handle intelligence matters including covert operations to acquire Government documents critical of Scientology, internal security within Scientology, and covert operations to discredit and remove from positions of power all persons whom Scientology considers to be its enemies.” United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F.2d 1238, 1247, cert. denied (1982) 102 S.Ct. 1971. The Guardian’s Office executed tremendous control throughout all of Scientology, and until 1981, was the most powerful of LRH’s two main control lines. (1023-28)

Page 5. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

archive of 500,000 pages of documentation of LRH’s life, writings and accomplishments. (1003) In October 1980, LRH contracted with an independent author, Omar V. Garrison, to write his
biography. (1004) Armstrong became Garrison’s “research assistant.” (1004; 483-85)

During his biographical research, Armstrong discovered that LRH and Scientology had continuously lied about LRH’s past, credentials and his accomplishments. (486, 1008-14) As the wide gap between LRH’s claims about himself and the reality evidenced by the documentation Armstrong had assembled became manifest, he attempted to convince Scientology executives to change the biographical materials being published and disseminated about LRH so that they would be truthful. (1004; 486-87)

In response to Armstrong’s requests that Scientology tell the truth about Hubbard, a leader ordered that Armstrong be “security checked. (487) Sec checking is a brutally accusative interrogation in which the E-Meter, the electrometer used in Scientology auditing, is employed as a lie detector and tool of intimidation. Upon learning that his sec checking had been ordered, Armstrong and Jocelyn, his wife, left Scientology. (1015)

Following Armstrong’s departure, Scientology sued him, and hired private investigators who assaulted him, ran into him bodily with a car, attempted to involve him in a freeway accident, and followed and harassed him day and night for over one month. Scientology made four attempts to bring false criminal charges against him, destroyed his marriage, used his best friend to set him up in an intelligence operation, and had its members, lawyers and private investigators make false statements against him. (1053, 492-93)

B. Scientology Sues Armstrong The First Time And Loses

On August 2, 1982, Scientology sued Armstrong in L.A.S.C. No C420153 (“Armstrong I“) for conversion of certain papers which he had archived as part of the Hubbard biography project. After a

Page 6. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

lengthy trial, Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., filed his Memorandum of Intended Decision in Armstrong’s favor on June 22f 1984. (467) Rejecting Scientology’s effort to silence Armstrong and his counsel, (see 1202-1226), he stated:

Defendant and his counsel are free to speak and communicate upon any of Defendant Armstrong’s recollections of his life as a Scientologist or the contents of any exhibit received in evidence or marked for identification and not specifically ordered sealed. . . . defendant and his counsel may discuss the contents of any documents under seal or of any matters as to which this court has found to be privileged as between the parties hereto, with any duly constituted Governmental Law Enforcement Agency or submit any exhibits or declarations thereto concerning such documents or materials, without violating any order of this court.

(469) Judge Breckenridge found the facts presented by Armstrong to be true and incorporated Armstrong’s trial brief as an appendix to its decision. (470) He characterized Scientology as malevolent, in part because the organization “or its minions is fully capable of intimidation [of witnesses, including Armstrong] or other physical or psychological abuse if it suits their ends” (474), and provided the following factual findings:

In 1970 a police agency of the French Government conducted an investigation into Scientology and concluded “this sect, under the pretext of ‘freeing humans’ is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract a maximum amount of money from its adepts by (use of) pseudo-scientific theories, by (use of) ‘auditions’ and ‘stage settings’ (lit. to create a theatrical scene’) pushed to extremes (a machine to detect lies, its own particular phraseology . . ), to estrange adepts from their families and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with this sect.” [footnote omitted] From the evidence presented to this court in 1984, at the very least, similar conclusions can be drawn.

In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its “Fair Game” doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization is clearly schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH [L.

Page 7. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

Ron Hubbard]. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

(Emphasis added.) (474)

In contrast to his findings regarding Scientology, Judge Breckenridge found Armstrong and his witnesses to be credible and sympathetic. He wrote:

As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the testimony of Gerald and Jocelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan, Nancy Dincalcis, Edward Walters, Omar Garrison, Kima Douglas, and Homer Schomer to be credible, extremely persuasive and the defense of privilege or justification established and corroborated by this evidence . . . In all critical and important matters, their testimony was precise, accurate, and rang true. The picture painted by these former dedicated Scientologists, all of whom were intimately involved [with the highest echelons of power in] the Scientology Organization, is on one hand pathetic, and on the other, outrageous. Each of these persons literally gave years of his or her respective life in support of a man, LRH [L. Ron. Hubbard], and his ideas. Each has manifested a waste and loss or frustration which is incapable of description.

(Emphasis added.) (473)

C. Scientology’s Attempt To Frame Michael Flynn 4/

Within four months of Judge Breckenridge’s decision, Scientology engaged in a massive “black PR” campaign against Michael Flynn which included the following operation:

The recent efforts of Hubbard and his Organization include procurement through the payment of $25,000 to an individual currently under indictment for perjury and fraud, of an affidavit claiming that I assisted in the forgery of a two million dollar check belonging to L. Ron Hubbard. The affidavit was procured by one Eugene Ingram who has been removed from the Los Angeles

____
4 This section is based upon the Declarations of Michael J. Flynn, Armstrong’s attorney. The Court should note that said declarations, however, were excluded from evidence. The trial court was incorrect however, because said declaration were based upon the personal knowledge of Flynn.

Page 8. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Police Department for aiding narcotics dealers, pimping, and running a house of prostitution. Mr. Ingram procured the affidavit from a citizen of the United Arab Emirates after publicizing a $100,000 reward in full page advertisements in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and other newspapers.

(1183-84) The foregoing facts were found to be accurate in the reported decision, United States v. Kattar (5th Cir. 1988) 840 F.2d 118, 119-22.

D. Scientology’s Attempt To Frame Armstrong

In 1984, after the Breckenridge decision, Scientology also attempted to set up and frame Armstrong, to “dead agent” him. As stated by Scientology in the Miller, Aznaran, and Xanthos litigation (discussed infra.)

Gerald Armstrong has been an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in [Scientology’s] files which would then be “found” by Federal officials in subsequent investigation as evidence of criminal activity.

(1546-50; see also (1320). He had been

“plotting against … Scientology … and seeking out staff members who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing [Scientology] leadership. [Scientology] 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 [Scientology]). 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 in Court against [Scientology’s] 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 — like — they don’t have to have the documents sitting in front of them and then–

Armstrong: Fucking say the organization destroys documents. . . . Where are the — we don’t have to prove a goddamn thing. We don’t have to prove shit; we just have to allege it.

Page 9. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

(Ex. E, Declaration of Lynn R. Farney, ¶ 6.) With such a criminal attitude, Armstrong fits perfectly into Yanny’s game plan for the Aznaran case.”

(1353-54)

The “written permission from law enforcement” was fraudulent and made without authority. The bogus document was dated November 7, 1984 on the letterhead of Eugene Ingram. (1572)

By public announcement, Los Angeles Chief of Police, Daryl F. Gates, repudiated the “written permission.” In part, Chief Gates stated:

I have directed an official letter to Ingram informing him that the letter signed by Officer Phillip Rodriguez dated November 7, 1984, and all other letters of purported authorizations directed to him, signed by any member of the Los Angeles Police Department, are invalid and unauthorized.

(1574)

Scientology’s allegations against Armstrong were thoroughly investigated by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and completely and soundly rejected. (1576-87)

E. The Settlement

In the Armstrong I litigation, on both the complaint and cross-complaint, Armstrong was represented by Boston attorney Michael J. Flynn, who also was Armstrong’s employer. (665) In early December 1986, an agreement was reached in Los Angeles by the Scientology Organization and Flynn to settle most of the cases in which Flynn was involved, either as counsel, or as a party. On December 5, 1986, Armstrong, along with nearly a score of other litigants adverse to Scientology – all of whom were represented by Flynn – was flown to Los Angeles to participate in a “global settlement.” (667) When Armstrong arrived in Los Angeles from Boston, he knew that settlement negotiations had been going on for months. (762) Upon Armstrong’s arrival, he was shown a copy of a document entitled “Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement” for the first time, as well as some other documents that he was expected to sign.

When Armstrong read the settlement agreement, he was shocked

Page 10. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

and heartsick. The agreement betrayed everything that Armstrong had stood for in his battle opposing Scientology. (760) He told Flynn that the condition, set forth in settlement agreement ¶ 7-D, of “strict confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with the [Scientology organization]” was outrageous and not capable of compliance because it involved over 17 years of his life. Armstrong told Flynn that ¶ 7-D would require him to pay $50,000 if he told a doctor or a psychologist about his experiences over those 17 years, or if he put on a job resume the positions he had held while in Scientology. He told Flynn that the requirements of non-amenability to service of process in ¶ 7-H and non-cooperation with persons or organizations adverse to the organization in ¶ ¶ 7-G and 10 were obstructive of justice. Armstrong told Flynn that agreeing in ¶ 4-B to allow Scientology’s appeal of Judge Breckenridge’s decision in Armstrong I to continue without opposition was unfair to the courts and all the people who had been helped by the decision. Armstrong said to Flynn the affidavit that Scientology demanded he sign along with the settlement agreement was false. (668, 759)

Right after Armstrong first saw the document, he was told there were a number of other people with claims against Scientology who had already signed and others were being flown in to sign. (762) Flynn told Armstrong that he, and all the other lawyers, wanted to get out of the litigation because it had ruined his marriage and his wife’s health. Flynn told Armstrong that all the other witnesses upon whom later he would have to depend wanted to settle, too.

In Flynn’s presence, Eddie Walters, another litigant adverse to Scientology, yelled at Armstrong. Walters said everybody wanted out of the litigation, that Armstrong’s objections would kill the deal for all of the them, and that Armstrong’s objections didn’t matter because the settlement was bigger than he was. (762-63) Flynn did not stick up for Armstrong. (764)

Page 11. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Flynn told Armstrong if he did not sign all he had to look forward to would be more years of threats, harassment and misery from Scientology, and everybody else would be very upset. Flynn advised Armstrong that the conditions of the settlement which he found offensive “were not worth the paper they were printed on” and that Scientology’s lawyers were aware of Flynn’s legal opinion and, nonetheless, wanted such language included. (759) Flynn advised Armstrong that in the event that there was further litigation against Armstrong by Scientology, Flynn would still be there to defend him. (768) Armstrong felt “a great deal” of pressure to sign the agreement, and capitulated. (761, 765-66, 772; 670-71)

It was Armstrong’s understanding and intent at the time of the settlement that he would honor the silence and confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement, and that Scientology would do likewise. (672)

On December 11, 1986, Flynn and Scientology attorneys John G. Peterson, Michael Lee Hertzberg and Lawrence E. Heller appeared, ex parte, before Judge Breckenridge, announced that they had settled Armstrong’s Cross-Complaint in Armstrong I (458), and submitted a number of documents for filing. (1235-36, 1238, 1240-41, 1243-45, 1247-49, 1251.) Despite its promises, Scientology never did file the settlement agreement. (1258)

When Judge Breckenridge inquired whether the agreement impacted the appeal of his decision, the attorneys said that the agreement did not (458), despite Paragraphs 4-A and 4-B. (75-76) None of the attorneys advised Judge Breckenridge of their side stipulation that any retrial of Armstrong I ordered by the Court of Appeal would limit damages claimed by Scientology to $25,001, (1253) 5/ and they failed to advise him there was another side

____
5 Said stipulation, signed by Michael Flynn on Armstrong’s behalf and by John Peterson and Michael Hertzberg for Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard, states: “The Church of Scientology of California, Mary Sue Hubbard, and Gerald

Page 12. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

agreement between Flynn and Scientology attorneys Cooley and Heller whereby they agreed to indemnify Flynn if the Court of Appeal reversed Armstrong I and they retried the case and won. (1255-56)

Moreover, prior to and at the time of the settlement Armstrong was not aware of the side agreements between his lawyers and the lawyers for the organization that considered Gerald Armstrong as their enemy! (712-13, 715; 771-72)

On December 18, 1986, the Court of Appeal dismissed appeal No. B005912 as premature because Armstrong’s cross-complaint remained to be tried. (1260-73) 6/

On January 30, 1987, Scientology filed an Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Memorandum of Intended Decision in Armstrong I. (1279-83) which Judge Breckenridge denied. (1285) Scientology then filed its second appeal in Armstrong I. (1287) On July 29, 1991, the Court of Appeal affirmed Judge Breckenridge’s decision. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.

F. Scientology’s Post Settlement Breaches

1. The Corydon “Dead Agent” Pack

In 1987, less than one year after the agreement was signed,

____
Armstrong, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that in any retrial ordered by any appellate court in Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong, LASC No. 420153, the total damages awarded to the Plaintiff Church of Scientology of California and Plaintiff in Intervention Mary Sue Hubbard, combined for any and all causes of action, shall not exceed twenty five thousand and one dollars ($25,001.00).”

6 The Court of Appeal would not have been advised of the resolution of the underlying Cross-Complaint in Armstrong I – on the existence of which it based its order of dismissal of the appeal – because the fate of said appeal was the subject of Paragraphs 4-A and 4-B of the secret agreement.

Page 13. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Scientology distributed a “dead agent” 7/ pack which included an attack on Armstrong. It stated:

“Corydon has used a description of the RPF provided by Gerry Armstrong, among others. Armstrong’s description in this book, however, is completely contrary to his own previous sworn affidavit about the RPF. (Gerry Armstrong’s description of the RPF in Corydon’s book can also be viewed in light of Armstrong’s numerous false claims and lies on other subject matters.)”

(1504) (Emphasis added.)

2. Scientology’s Declarations In The Miller Litigation

In October, 1987, Scientology representative Kenneth Long executed five affidavits in Church of Scientology of California v. Miller, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, No. 1987 C. No. 6140, wherein Long solely discussed his characterizations of Armstrong’s activities that had been at issue in the Armstrong I litigation, and thus included within the scope of the settlement agreement. (See Appendix pp. 1506-23; 1525-44; 1546-50, 1555-62, 1564-70)

Long’s third affidavit falsely charged that:

Gerald Armstrong has been an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in [Scientology’s] files which would then be “found” by Federal officials in subsequent investigation as evidence of criminal activity. (1549)

In another affidavit filed in the Miller case on October 5, 1987, Sheila M. Chaleff also falsely stated:

Mr. Armstrong is known to me to be a US government informant who has admitted on video tape that he intended to plant

____
7 “A ‘dead agent’ is a concept created by Hubbard in which an agent who is supposedly spreading stories about you, a lie, an untruth in his story is found. And that is documented. [¶] And then that documented fact is circulated to all of the people to whom the agent has communicated, and then he will become essentially dead, he will be killed by those people who have earlier trusted him. So you’ve destroyed his credibility and as an agent he is dead. [¶] And this pack of materials was a dead agent pack put out to dead agent Bent Corydon. Bent Corydon had written a book about Hubbard, and this is a pack of materials to discredit Bent Corydon.” (791)

Page 14. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

forged documents within the Church of Scientology and then using the contents to get the Church raided where these forged documents would be found and used against the Church.

(1553)

3. Heller’s Declaration And Argument In The Corydon Litigation

On or about November 1, 1989, in the case entitled Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc., et al., LASC No. C694401, Scientology attorney Lawrence E. Heller filed a Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Author Services, Inc. to Delay or Prevent the Taking of Certain Third Party Depositions by Plaintiff. (1294-1305) In his memorandum, Heller discussed the “block settlement” of which the Armstrong agreement was a part:

One of the key ingredients to completing these settlements, insisted upon by all parties involved, was strict confidentiality respecting: (1) the Scientology … staff member’s experiences within … Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by the Scientology entities concerning those staff members …; and (3) the terms and conditions of the settlements themselves. Peace has reigned since the time the interested parties entered into the settlements, all parties having exercised good faith in carrying out the terms of the settlement, including the obligations of confidentiality. [Original emphasis.]

(1297) In his sworn declaration, attorney Heller testified:

I was personally involved in the settlements which are referred to in these moving papers which transpired some two and one-half years ago. . . . a “universal settlement” was ultimately entered into between the numerous parties. The universal settlement provided for non-disclosure of all facts underlying the litigation as well as non-disclosure of the terms of the settlements themselves. The non-disclosure obligations were a key part of the settlement agreements insisted upon by all parties involved. [Original emphasis.]

(1301-02)

4. Scientology’s Complaint Against The IRS

On August 12, 1991, Scientology filed a complaint styled Church of Scientology International v. Xanthos, et al., in United States District Court, Central District of California, No. 91-4301-SVW(Tx). (1307-47) Therein, Scientology stated:

Page 15. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

The infiltration of [Scientology] was planned as an undercover operation by the LA CID along with former [Scientology] member Gerald Armstrong, who planned to seed [Scientology] files with forged documents which the IRS could then seize in a raid. The CID actually planned to assist Armstrong in taking over the [Scientology] hierarchy which would then turn over all [Scientology] documents to the IRS for their investigation.

(1320)

5. The Aznaran Litigation

On or about August 26, 1991, Scientology filed its Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice in Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. United States District Court, Central District of California, No. CV-88-1786-JMI(Ex). (1349¬59) Therein, a Scientology attorney stated that in 1984 Armstrong was

“plotting against … Scientology … and seeking out staff members who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing [Scientology] leadership. [Scientology] 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 [Scientology]). 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 in Court against [Scientology’s] leadership
• • •

(Ex. E, Declaration of Lynn R. Farney, ¶ 6.) With such a criminal attitude, Armstrong fits perfectly into Yanny’s game plan for the Aznaran case.”
(1353-54)

Armstrong was cleared by the Los Angeles District Attorney after a thorough – and Scientology generated – investigation. (1576-87)

G. Armstrong’s Post Settlement Breaches

Scientology’s position at the hearing below was that Armstrong violated paragraphs 7-G and 7-H of the settlement

Page 16. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

agreement. (81-82) The violations were predicated upon the facts that Armstrong had worked for two days in the office of Joseph A. Yanny and had executed two declarations to be filed in the Aznaran case (122-23; 128; 136-38), had later executed a declaration on Yanny’s behalf that was filed in Religious Technology Center v. Yanny, LASC No. BC 033035, (124-34), and had worked as a paralegal for Ford Greene in the Aznaran case (143
45; 159-64; 169) in which Armstrong filed another declaration on the Aznarans’ behalf. (147-57; RT 5/27/92 at 47)

[…]

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

CSI 1023 Submission: Exhibit III-10-Q: [Loyalist Program illegal video transcript excerpts] (November 23, 1992)

Exhibit III-10-Q: Excerpts of transcripts of illegal videos 1

Notes

Declaration of Lynn R. Farny (March 19, 1992)

Declaration of Lynn R. Farny 1

[…]

Armstrong’s motivation is stated most clearly in a statement he made to an investigator who, under the auspices of the Los Angeles Police Department, was covertly video-taping the conversation. Armstrong stated to his assumed ally, Joey:

JOEY: You’re not hiding.

GA: Fuck no! And…

JOEY: You’re not afraid are you?

GA: No! And that’s why I’m in a fucking stronger position than they are!

JOEY: How’s that?

GA: Why, I’ll bring them to their knees!

(Video Transcript, Nov. 7, 1984, pg. 8-9)

One of the ways in which Armstrong intended to accomplish this purpose was by encouraging the investigators, whom he thought were disaffected staff members, to file bogus lawsuits. When questioned about the lack of facts to support such suits, Armstrong responded (to his supposed ally, Mike):

MIKE: The point, the point I’m trying to get across is that … that’s the civil complaint in there and that would have to be proven.

GA: Show me the line you’re talking about.

MIKE: It’s over here.

GA: Where are the . . .

We didn’t have to prove a g-ddamn thing, we didn’t have to prove sh-t, we just have to allege it.

(Video Transcript, Nov. 30, 1984 pp. 4-5)

Armstrong had stated his philosophy clearly when he had earlier been challenged on the lack of data for such suits:

GA: They can allege it. They can allege it. They don’t even have, they can allege it.

MIKE: So they don’t have to like, they don’t have to have you know the document sitting in front of them —

GA: Fucking say the organization destroys the document.

(Video Transcript, Nov. 17, 1984, pp 28-29) (Ex. H) 2

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format. Filed in Armstrong 2.
  2. Exhibit H in PDF format. See also: Illegal videos and transcripts.

Notice of Motion And Motion For Preliminary Injunction For Breach Of Contract (February 4, 1992)

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.)

6

[…]

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.
10
Instead, 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.

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

Declaration of Lynn R. Farny (January 28, 1992)

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!

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!

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

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.
  2. There was no “theft”.
  3. There was no permission from the Los Angeles police. See statement by LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates.
  4. See the illegal videotapes and transcripts.

Declaration Of Gerald Armstrong Regarding Alleged “Taint” Of Joseph A. Yanny, Esquire (September 4, 1991)

I, Gerald Armstrong, declare and state that:1

1. I was a Scientologist and held many positions in many sectors of Scientology, hereinafter referred to as “the organization,” from 1969 to 1981. I have been involved in organization litigation as a witness, defendant, plaintiff and paralegal from 1982 until the present. I have testified in three trials and in depositions in ten organization cases approximately forty-seven days. I have authored over twenty-five declarations concerning L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology practices and the litigation. I am by trade a philosopher, writer and artist. In 1986 I founded a church which now has many members internationally.

2. I am the defendant and cross-complainant in the case of Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong Los Angeles Superior Court No. C420153. A decision in that case was rendered after a lengthy bench trial by Judge Paul Breckenridge, Jr. on June 20, 1984. The California Court of Appeal opinion, No. B025920, issued July 29, 1991, affirming the Superior Court’s decision, has recently been filed in this case as an exhibit to the Aznarans’ oppositions.

3. In December 1986 I entered into a settlement agreement with the organization, a copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit [1]. The organization did not honor the agreement, however, but has continued a program of threats and attacks to this day. I have detailed what I knew of these threats and attacks up to March 15, 1990 in my declaration of that date. The circumstances at the time of the settlement and a rebuttal of various organization attacks are contained in a declaration I executed on December 25, 1990. I can supply these declarations to the Court if it so wishes.

4. I make this declaration to respond to various allegations about me made by the organization in its papers recently filed in this case.

5. Organization attorney Laurie Bartilson states that my aid to attorney Ford Greene in preparing the Aznarans’ recently filed oppositions to organization motions “violated this Court’s orders and the Local Rules.” (Defendants’ Opposition To Ex Parte Application To File Plaintiffs’ Genuine Statement of Issues [sic] Re Defendants’ Motions ( 1 ) To Exclude Expert Testimony; and (2) For Separate Trial On Issues of Releases and Waivers; Request that Oppositions Be Stricken; hereinafter “Opp To Ex P”, p.2,3.) I aid Mr. Greene and the Aznarans out of my own free will and my sense of right and wrong. If I am ordered by any lawfully constituted court to cease rendering such aid I will.

6. Ms. Bartilson states that I “[am] employed by Joseph Yanny on this very case.”(Opp To Ex P p.4) I am not.

7. Ms. Bartilson states that for me “to now have switched [my] aid to Greene’s office further taints all (emphasis in original) of the papers filed by Greene…”(Opp To Ex P p.5) It doesn’t, because there was not and is not any taint.

8. Ms. Bartilson states that my aiding Mr. Greene “is grounds for [his] disqualification.”(Opp to Ex P p.5) It isn’t; but if this Court were so to order me, I will comply.

9. Ms. Bartilson suggests that Mr. Greene should be disqualified because I am “a paralegal formerly employed by defendant’s lawyers.” (Opp To Ex P p.5) I have never been employed by any organization lawyer.

10. Ms. Bartilson declares that “[she has] been informed by private investigators hired by [her] law firm that [I] was present at Ford Greene’s offices many times from August 3, 1991 through at least August 21, 1991,

2

often for hours and days at a time.” (Opp To Ex P p.9, para 4) I was outside the United States from August 3 until August 10, and not in Marin County where Mr. Greene’s office is located until August 13, 1991. Filed herewith as Exhibit [2] are copies of my boarding passes for my flights from San Francisco to Johannesburg, South Africa on July 19 and 2 0, returning August 9 and 10.

11. Organization attorney William Drescher states that “[a]s [I am] Yanny’s paralegal on this case, [my] near affiliation as an assistant to Ford Greene is truly outrageous.” (Supplemental Memorandum In Support of Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice; hereinafter “Supp Memo,” p.4) I am not Mr. Yanny’s paralegal on this case, and my affiliation with Mr. Greene is wholly peaceful, lawful, decent, helpful, respectful, and humorous.

12. Mr. Drescher states that “Yanny’s involvement in this case continues, this time through a different “extension”–the improper activities of Yanny’s paralegal, Gerald Armstrong.” (Supp Memo p.5) I am not Mr. Yanny’s paralegal. I answered his call for help during the period he was attorney of record in this case. I spent parts of two days on July 15 and 16 in Mr. Yanny’s office during which time the only “work” I did was to write two declarations, one of which was also used by Mr. Greene. Mr. Yanny gave me no instructions or suggestions at any time to pass on to Mr. Greene or to anyone else involved in the Aznaran litigation. I am not Mr. Yanny’s “extension” into this case. This organization’s actions in attempting to deny their victims, the Aznarans, not only legal representation but support to the Aznarans’ legal representatives is what is improper.

13. Mr. Drescher states that in 1984 I was ” plotting against the Scientology Churches and seeking out staff members who would be willing to assist [me] in overthrowing Church leadership.” (Supp Memo p.5) The

3

organization is not a church. Organization operatives David Kluge and Michael Rinder sought me out and gained my trust through a close friend whom the organization coerced into participating in an operation to attempt to entrap me. The organization operatives stated that they wanted to reform the organization and rid it of its criminal activities and they asked me to help. They said they wanted to save Scientology from its criminal leadership. They stated they were operating secretly within the organization for fear of, inter alia, being killed. They used my willingness to communicate and to help to attempt to enveigle me into the commission of a crime. When that failed, the organization simply twisted my refusal to participate in the suggested criminal act into further accusations.

14. Mr. Drescher states that “[t]he Church obtained information about [my] plans and, through a police-sanctioned investigation, provided (me] with the “defectors” [I] sought.” (Supp Memo p.5) That the organization and its lawyers have told this lie so many times in so many jurisdictions over so many years has not made it any more true now than when they concocted the plot. I was videotaped. The videos are still embarrassing to me because I use foul language. What I say does not mean what the organization and its lawyers say it means. A private investigator (who, during this period threatened to put a bullet between my eyes) obtained a false authorization from an LAPD officer, who was himself suspended six months for his participation in the crime. The organization did not obtain information about my plans; it created the whole operation, including what my ” plans” were to be.

15. Mr. Drescher states that “[o]n November 30, 1984 [I] met with one Michael Rinder, an individual whom [I] thought to be one of [my] ” agents” (but-who in reality was loyal to the Church” (parens in original). (Supp

4

Memo p.5) I never considered Rinder my agent, nor did I consider that I had any agents. Rinder was not loyal to the “church.” He was being operated by what the operatives called the “criminal leadership.”

16. Mr. Drescher states that “the conversation [was] recorded with written permission from law enforcement.” (Supp memo p.5) It wasn’t. The Chief of the LAPD denied authorizing the illegal operation, and the officer was suspended for his ‘permission.”

17. Mr. Drescher quotes some out-of-context statements from my November 1984 meeting with Michael Rinder and avers that they meant that I was recommending that the group of “reformers” did not need “actual evidence of wrongdoing to make allegations in Court against the Church leadership.” (Supp Memo p.5) My answer to Rinder is out of frustration because he appeared to be unable to understand that a complaint contains allegations, and the proof of the allegations is achieved through documentation and testimony, including even the well-known fact of the organization’s long history of destruction of evidence, obtained through the litigation up to the end of trial. Elsewhere and in other conversations I discussed with the “reformers” what was actually known and documented, and which could be alleged in the complaint they insisted they wanted to file. I discussed with the ‘reformers” an inventory of criminal acts for which we knew the organization was responsible. They included burglary of state and federal offices, theft, obstruction of justice, blackmail, assault, civil rights violations, immigration fraud, tax fraud, attempted entrapment of Federal judges, framing of my own attorney Michael Flynn, the use of preclear folder information against all Scientologists, all the acts which flowed from ” ” fair” game,” and the use of their charitable corporation funds to carry out these criminal acts.

5

18. Organization attorney Eric Lieberman states that “the utter disregard of the truth that the Aznarans have made the trademark of their litigation effort, bears the unmistakable signature of Gerald Armstrong, whose theory of litigating against Churches of Scientology, as captured on videotape in 1984, is not to worry about what the facts really are, but instead to choose a state of “facts” that should survive a challenge by the Church and “just allege it.”” (Reply In Support of Defendants’ Motion For Summary judgment Based On the Statute of Limitations; hereinafter “Reply Stat Lim,” p.2,3) This is not true. It is simply further exploitation of the fruits of the organization’s covert actions against me: the illegal 1984 videotape regarding what the organization calls the “Armstrong Operation.” Until I started to help Mr. Greene, I had nothing to do with the Aznaran case, which was filed in April 1988, except for my help to Mr. Yanny described in paragraph 12 above. I have given no facts to the Aznarans, nor any legal strategy. Besides the declarations I have written, all of which are now before this Court, I have written not one word in any of the filed papers. My help to Ford Greene in all of the papers recently filed has been in proofreading, copying, collating, hole-punching, stapling, stamping, packaging, labeling, air freighting and mailing. Mr. Greene and I have had several conversations during this period, some of which certainly concerned the litigation.

19. Mr. Lieberman states that “[i]t is clear that [my] influence and philosophy permeates the Aznaran’s oppositions.” (Reply Stat Lim p.3) I pray that that is true, because my philosphy in litigating against the organization is to tell the truth, have the faith that, no matter what lies the organization tells or operations it runs or how threatening the organization appears to be, truth will prevail; that, no matter how the organization

6

perverts the law, manipulates courts, testifies falsely, fights unfairly, wields religion as a sword and then a shield and abuses the legal process, justice will, if fought for honorably, triumph.

20. Mr. Lieberman states that [o]n August 19, 1991 [I] admitted to one of defendants’ counsel that [I ] was at Greene’s office “helping out.”” (Reply Stat Lim p.3) I admitted no such thing. I was doing nothing even faintly improper which would require admission. I have been completely up front about my being in Mr. Greene’s office and helping him. It is the organization which has skulked around and engaged in improprieties which it should admit to. I was so shocked when I discovered the organization operatives videotaping me on August 2 0 that I wrote Mr. Lieberman to protest the harassment. When I found the operation continuing on August 21 I again wrote Mr. Lieberman, and called his office, advised one of his associates of the operation and pleaded that it be called off. Copies of my letters are filed herewith as Exhibits [3]and [4]. Mr. Lieberman has not answered my letters, has not mentioned them in his papers, which he signed on August 26, but has escalated the attack on my character and intentions. The operation has continued at least until August 30. Because of its form and nature, and because of my knowledge of organization operations and its philosophy of opportunistic hatred, I believe that this operation does not have as its major goal the proof that I am helping Mr. Greene. I believe its goal is intimidation and the assembly of intelligence information for future acts.

21. Mr. Lieberman states that “the real thrust of the Aznarans’ Opposition is ….the “just allege it” philosophy of Yanny’s paralegal, Gerald Armstrong.” (Reply Stat Lim p.33) I am not Mr. Yanny’s paralegal, and “just allege it” is really the organization’s litigation theory. L. Ron Hubbard

7

established the Guardian’s Office and then the Office of Special Affairs to carry out his way of litigating.

“In the face of danger from Governments or courts …… If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture (emphasis added) enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.” L. Ron Hubbard, Policy Letter of 15 August, 1960 “Dept of Govt Affairs.” (Exhibit [5] )

22. Mr. Lieberman states that “[my] “helping out” while the Opposition was concocted not only reveals the continuing taint of Yanny’s involvement with this case, it establishes the guiding principle that resulted in [the] Opposition…” (Reply Stat Lim p.34) Not one thing, not the ability to proofread, photocopy, collate, hole-punch, staple, package, label, air freight or mail that I did in connection with the preparation of the Aznarans’ oppositions, did I learn from Mr. Yanny. Not the ability to spot and confront organization operatives did I learn from Mr. Yanny. Not the ability to write, nor any fact or idea or word in any declaration did I learn from Mr. Yanny. I have been the target of “fair” game since I left the organization in 1981, and understand its philosophy. I know the organization’s litigation theories and practices and I understand the psychopathology of L. Ron Hubbard and why he and his organization came to be viewed by Courts as paranoid and schizophrenic. There is nothing Mr. Yanny could possibly tell me which would surprise me or be additional to what I know about this organization. Mr. Yanny has provided no “guiding principle” whatsoever. The organization, by making and maintaining fair game as its guiding principle, established the guiding principle in this litigation. The fair game doctrine will dog the organization as long as there are honest and free men or until the

8

organization, not denies its existence, but completely and sincerely repudiates it.

23. Mr. Lieberman states that “[my] philosophy of litigation is that facts and the truth are irrelevant and that all that is required to prevail is to allege whatever needs to be alleged.” (Reply Stat Lim p.34) I have survived all the cross-examination and depositions by the organization, the documentation attacks by the organization, the character assassination by the organization, the use of my preclear folder information, the operations, the threats, the assaults, because truth is relevant. Although there undoubtedly is some memory loss over the past twenty-two years, and although there may even be some discrepancies in forty-seven days of sworn testimony, I have survived examination and cross-examination because I have, as much as is humanly possible, told the truth. I have said what I have known, known when I didn’t know something, and stated my opinions as opinions. It is my opinion that one honest man can confront and vanquish a dishonest organization, no matter how big or how organized. Gratefully there are a few honest men to make the work lighter.

24. Mr. Lieberman states that “[t]he Aznarans’ desperation to defeat this motion is so profound that they resort not only to the “just allege it” litigation philosophy of Joseph A. Yanny’s paralegal assigned to this case, Gerald Armstrong, but also to enlisting Armstrong’s help in this cynical, say-anything-you-have-to approach to the truth.” (Reply In Support of Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment Pursuant To the First Amendment; hereinafter Reply First Am, p. 2 ) I am not Mr. Yanny’s paralegal, and I am not assigned to this case. The desperation which resulted in the enlisting o my help had a purely logistical basis. Mr. Greene faced a mountain of organizational motions which required oppositions, and

9

no time to do them. He has no employees but a secretary who comes in a couple of evenings a week sometimes and sometimes on Saturdays. He needed simple office backup in the form of proofreading, photocopying, collating, hole-punching, etc. I am blessed with those simple office skills, and I have a knowledge of the subject matter and the cause in which Mr. Greene labors. I am aware of the awesome disparity of resources between Mr. Greene and the army of law firms, lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, and organizational legal machinery of his opposition. I am aware of the organization’s policies and practices of neutralizing or eliminating the legal support of its enemies. How could anyone resist a call to help in this situation? It was not a conspiratorial thought that plunked me down over a year ago within running distance of the Hub Law Offices and sporting the same zip code. What it was was merely making the inevitable not only funny but easier.

25. Organization attorneys have made much of the fact that Joseph Yanny has been enjoined from representing me in litigation. adverse to the organization. (Op To Ex P p.10; Supp Memo p.4) He is, of course, its former attorney. I have been working with Mr. Greene since August 17. I have not seen nor heard one word of Mr. Yanny’s influence in this case, beyond the fact that the organization just alleged it.

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

Executed on September 3, 1991 at Sleepy Hollow, California.

[signed]
G. Armstrong

10

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.