Plaintiff’s Reply To Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Preliminary Injunction (March 19, 1992)

[…]¹

In  Armstrong I, Judge Breckenridge found that the Church had made out a prima facie case of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence against Armstrong, and that Mary Sue Hubbard had made out a prima facie case of conversion and invasion of privacy. However, the Court went on to find that Armstrong was “justified” in his misconduct, because of an alleged “fear” of the Church on Armstrong’s part. Armstrong was permitted to introduce testimony by himself and a handful of other clients of Armstrong’s counsel on the purported “bad acts” of the Church. The Church, however, was not permitted to introduce any rebuttal evidence, because Judge Breckenridge held that the evidence was only admitted to show Armstrong’s alleged “state of mind.” (Id., para. 12) It is this one-sided and incomplete showing which led to the Memorandum Decision² quoted by Armstrong on pp. 7-9 of his Opposition. As demonstrated by plaintiff in its moving papers, Armstrong’s purported “fear” was in reality a sham, and a fraud upon that court. Motion for Preliminary Injunction³ at 10-12.¹⁵

__________
¹⁵Plaintiff introduced a videotape and transcript which show Armstrong’s covert efforts to attack plaintiff, with Armstrong boasting of his fearlessness just after his trial before Judge Breckenridge. Armstrong’s response to this showing is extraordinary. He never once denies that he said and did what plaintiff asserted, nor does he claim that any portion of the evidence so submitted is inaccurate. Instead, Armstrong rails an ad hominem attack on a private investigator purportedly involved in the taping. By his silence, Armstrong has yet again admitted the truth of plaintiff’s allegations.

[…]

 Notes