Philip A. Rodriguez

March 26, 2014 by Clerk1

Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (March 7, 2006)

March 7, 2006 by Clerk1

[…] ¹

28. Scientology leaders had used the same Ken Hoden in a similar attempt in 1985 and 1986 to have me prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney on charges

23

that the organization itself manufactured. Scientology ran a covert operation on me from 1982 through 1984 involving a writer Dan Sherman whom organization leaders operated to befriend me, get close to me, and set me up in a series of secretly recorded and videotaped meetings with other covert agents. Mr. Sherman and the other agents claimed that there were people inside the organization who wanted to reform it and stop Fair Game, but they were afraid for their lives and so sought out my help. The other agents David Kluge and Michael Rinder, pretending to be reformers, attempted to entrap me into the commission of crimes, without success. The recordings were made without my permission or knowledge and were illegal, and were in no way evidence of what Scientology claimed they were. Nevertheless, Scientology edited the recordings and used Mr. Hoden and others to try to get the LA DA to prosecute me, as well as my attorney Michael Flynn. Appended hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the letter dated April 25, 1986 from LA DA to Mr. Hoden, et al. fortunately refusing prosecution or further investigation of Scientology’s claims.² Scientology claimed that its covert videotaping operation was legal because it was authorized by the LA PD. As mentioned above, a Scientology agent had paid an LA PD officer at least ten thousand dollars for a series of phony “authorizations” to wiretap and eavesdrop on Mr. Flynn and me. Appended hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a public announcement of April 23, 1985 from the LA Chief of Police denouncing the “authorizations” as not from the LAPD³ Despite the scathing denouncement from the Chief of Police, and the corrupt officer being suspended from

24

the LA PD, Scientology has continued to this day to justify its unlawful entrapment operation and the false charges it sought with the lie that the videotaping was approved by the LA PD.

29. At the time he attempted to have me prosecuted on Scientology’s trumped up charges, Mr. Hoden was part of the organization authorized and directed to handle or treat or Fair Game SPs. Scientologists in such positions are expected to lie, including under oath, to obstruct justice, and do what is necessary and can be gotten away with to harm the people organization leaders want harmed, like Mr. Henson and me. I believe that Mr. Hoden was used specifically in the efforts to have us prosecuted because he has been willing to lie, testify falsely or otherwise Fair Game us, whereas other Scientologists might not be so willing. I believe that my knowledge of Scientologists lying and testifying falsely as a practice, and specifically Ken Hoden lying, to have the organization’s SP victims prosecuted and jailed or otherwise harmed, was very relevant in Mr. Henson’s terrorism case, and if the jury had heard that testimony he would have been found not guilty on all counts.

30. The scriptural principle given by founder Hubbard that Scientology is following in its actions in the legal arena against people like Mr. Henson and me states:

The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO,
yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will WIN. And the public, seeing that you won, will then have a communication line to the effect that Scientologists WIN. Don’t ever let them have any other thought than that Scientology takes all of its objectives.⁴

25

The charges that the Scientologists and their agents who execute the Suppressive Person doctrine bring against their SP victims are often false charges. Scientology sought to have me falsely charged by the LA PD in 1982 for theft. In 1985 and 1986, as shown above, Scientology tried to have me prosecuted by the LA DA. In 1985 and 1986 Scientology tried to have me prosecuted by the FBI in Boston on a charge Scientology manufactured that I had impersonated an FBI officer.⁵ In 1992 through 1994, Scientology sought to have me punished for contempt of court on false charges. In 1997, Scientology was successful, as shown above, in having me punished with a fine and jail for reporting the organization’s threat to me after I was subpoenaed. In 1998, Scientology was successful in having me fined and ordered to jail for twenty-six days for expressions expressed in Canada and Germany.⁶ In 2001, Scientology was again successful in having me found in contempt of court for more religious expressions in Canada.⁷ In 2001, Scientology also sought to get me in trouble with the FSB, the Russian intelligence service that succeeded the KGB, and tried to have me picked up by U.S. agents in Moscow.⁸ In 2002, Scientology sought to have me charged by the Ekaterinburg, Russia prosecutor on the basis of false statements by Scientologists that I had trespassed in their office in that city. In 2004 and 2005 a Scientology agent leased an office across the street from my apartment in Chilliwack, B.C. Canada, spied on my wife throughout that period, and tried to trick us into making a video recording to later be used against us.⁹

31. I am convinced that Ken Hoden and any Scientologists who testified that they were frightened by Keith Henson possibly bombing them or hurting them in any way are lying as part of a conspiracy run by Scientology’s leaders to deprive him of his rights in violation 18 U.S.C. § 241, and in violation of other state and federal criminal statutes. What Scientology is trying to do in silencing me judicially and

26

extra-judicially demonstrates the same, and the list of beneficiaries of Scientology’s efforts to deprive me of my civil rights shows that the conspiracy is organization-wide. Since Scientology is demonstrably inter alia a criminal conspiracy against rights, Mr. Henson has every justification in the world to interfere with the conspiracy, even if the conspirators call their conspiracy religion.

[…]

Notes

From Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (March 7, 2006). Filed in Hoden et al. v. Keith Henson. ↩
See Letter from Los Angeles County DA to Ken Hoden (April 25, 1986) ↩
See Los Angeles Police Department: Announcement by LAPD Chief Daryl F. Gates. ↩
See http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/dissem-of-material-1976.html ↩
See FBI Investigation of Scientology’s False Charges Against Armstrong. ↩
See Second Order of Contempt 02-20-1998. ↩
See Order of Contempt 07-13-2001. ↩
See Russian “Dead Agent” Documents. ↩
See Declaration of Gerry Armstrong 09-05-2005. ↩

Declaration of Gerry Armstrong (February 20, 1994)

February 20, 1994 by Clerk1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Notes

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.” ↩
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. ↩
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 ↩
See The Breckenridge Decision, filed June 22, 1984. ↩
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. ↩
Exhibit A: Letter to the Loyalists ↩
See Excerpts of Proceedings in Christofferson ↩
See Illegal Videos ↩
Exhibit B: Illegal authorization November 7, 1984 ↩
Exhibit C: Public Announcement by LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates ↩

Appellant’s Opening Brief (January 19, 1993)

January 19, 1993 by Clerk1

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

This document in PDF format. ↩

Letter from Los Angeles County DA to Ken Hoden (April 25, 1986)

April 25, 1986 by Clerk1

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
18000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 -3275
(213) 974-7437

IRA REINER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

April 25, 1986

Rev. Ken Hoden
Rev. Kathleen Gorgon
Rev. Heber Jentzsch
Mr. John Peterson
Mr. David Butterworth
Church of Scientology
1301 N. Catalina
Los Angeles, California 90012

Gentlemen:¹

In re S.I.D. CASE NO. C85-0054

In your letters dated May 1 and July 19, 1985, you asked that this office investigate your allegations that:

1. Chief Daryl Gates of the Los Angeles Police Department, Agents Al Lipkin and Al Ristuccia of the Internal Revenue Service, Gerald Armstrong, and Michael Flynn have committed the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

2. Internal Revenue Service Agents Al Lipkin and Al Ristuccia additionally “aided and directed” the commission by Gerald Armstrong of violations of Penal Code Sections 182 (Conspiracy), 134 (Preparing False Evidence), and 653f (Solicitation of the commission of certain crimes).

3. Gerald Armstrong additionally prepared false documentary evidence in violation of Penal Code Section 134; committed extortion in violation of Penal Code Section 518; and solicited commission of the crimes of burglary, receiving stolen property, and forgery, in violation of Penal Code Section 653f.

Rev. Ken Hoden,et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Two

4. Michael Flynn additionally aided Gerald Armstrong in his violations of Penal Code Section 182, conspiracy, and Penal Code Section 653f, solicitation of burglary, receiving stolen property, and forgery.

Following his receipt of your letters, Steven A. Sowders, Head of the Special Investigations Division, met personally with Rev. Jentzsch and Rev. Hoden to discuss your complaint. I have since reviewed the voluminous materials you submitted in support of your charges, and I have spoken at length on the telephone and in person with church members John Peterson and David Butterworth. In our several conversations, I informed both Mr. Butterworth and Mr. Peterson that in order intelligently to evaluate the Church of Scientology’s allegations, I would need further information. In addition to the documents already
provided, I asked them to provide me with:

(1) A complete description of the events to which the submitted documents relate, including:

(a) the time, date, and place of each event;
(b) the names of all persons present;
(c) the circumstances in which the event occurred;
(d) the name of each speaker and identifying information about him.

(2) A description of the manner in which the recording or other source information was obtained.

(3) A statement from the person who obtained the recording or other data, identifying him, describing the manner in which he obtained it, and setting forth the manner in which he could authenticate any recording and any transcript involved.

(4) An explanation of the relevance of the conversations and other materials cited to the allegations of criminal conduct.

I further requested that they furnish any other evidence they might have in support of the Church of Scientology’s allegations. I particularly requested documentation setting forth the specific facts in support of the allegations recited above. I asked that they provide the date, time, and place of each alleged event, and the name, address, and telephone number of each witness.

Rev. Ken Heden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Three

In response, I received from Mr. John Peterson a letter dated September 27, 1985, which letter I discussed on October 3, 1985, with Mr. Butterworth. Thereafter, following many attempts on my part to schedule a meeting with either Mr. Peterson or Mr. Butterworth or both of them, on December 10, 1985, they came to my office and conferred with Investigator Alan Tomich and me.

In that meeting, I reiterated my need to know the date, time, and place of each alleged event, and the name, address, and telephone number of each witness. I further asked whether the Church of Scientology had any additional evidence in support of its allegations. Messrs. Peterson and Butterworth responded that they had submitted to this office all the evidence that they had.

I explained to them that, in order to decide whether a prosecutable crime had been committed, we had to interview those persons who had observed the events that were alleged to constitute the criminal conduct; and that in order to interview those persons we needed to know who they were and where we could find them. In response, Mr. Peterson repeated the suggestion he made in his letter of September 27, 1985, that we interview Eugene Ingram, who had videotaped certain events which, Mr. Peterson said, were the basis of his allegations. He declined, however, to identify, beyond the name “Joey,” the persons other than Gerald Armstrong who appear on the tapes. It was my understanding that Messrs. Peterson and Butterworth intended to review the matter and that they would subsequently forward the requested witness information to me. Their response was a letter dated December 15, 1985, which contained a witness list comprised of the names of the persons the Church of Scientology has accused plus another I.R.S. agent and two police officers. He furnished no further information.

I responded to Mr. Peterson in a letter dated January 16, 1986, in which I summarized our December 10 meeting. In it, I also asked Mr. Peterson to permit Investigator Tomich to interview Mr. Eugene Ingram (whom Mr. Peterson, as an attorney, apparently represents), and I again requested that Mr. Peterson supply us with the information outlined above.

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Four

In response, I received from Mr. Peterson a letter dated March 18, 1986. In it, he denied that he and Mr. Butterworth had intended, after the December 10 meeting, to provide further information, and he declared that we had received all the data he felt we needed.

It appears, then, that no further evidence in support of your allegations is forthcoming; and based on Mr. Peterson’s statement on December 10, 1985, that I had understood and accurately summarized the evidence the Church of Scientology had submitted, it appears that the assertions of fact described below constitute in its entirety the evidence in support of your allegations of criminal conduct.

Allegation 1:

That Chief Daryl Gates conspired to obstruct justice.

Evidence:

The allegation of “planting a ‘wire tap’ on Michael Flynn” was referred to Chief Gates [1] by Assistant City Attorney Lewis N. Unger on April 17, 1985. [2] On April 23, 1985, Chief Gates publicly rebuked Officer Phillip Rodriguez and Investigator Eugene Ingram for video taping Gerald Armstrong. Within hours, Investigators Lipkin and Ristuccia were seen, apparently by Rev. Heber Jentzch, [3] leaving Parker Center. There has allegedly been no effort to do anything about “Mr. Armstrong’s crimes.”[4] Chief Gates also initiated an investigation “into the police officer and private investigator” (July 19 letter, p. 6).

Allegation 2:

That Internal Revenue Service Agents Al Lipkin and Al Ristuccia conspired with Gates, Armstrong, and Flynn to obstruct justice and that they “aided and directed” Gerald Armstrong in the commission of violations of Penal Code Sections 182, 134, and 653f.

Evidence:

John G. Peterson declared under penalty of perjury [5] that “Armstrong showed he was being used by the Internal Revenue Service to gather information.” In support of that declaration, Mr. Peterson included “excerpts from the videotape” which indicated that “GA” mentioned Al Ristuccia and gave Al Lipkin’s telephone number to “J”.

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Five

Agents Lipkin and Ristuccia visited Officer Phillip Rodriguez and allegedly attempted to “strong arm” him. Agents Lipkin and Ristuccia stated that, on April 18, 1985, they interviewed Rodriguez, who admitted signing an authorization letter. The agents considered Rodriguez evasive and sought police assistance
in obtaining his cooperation. The agents were seen leaving Parker Center on April 23, 1985. [6]

Armstrong told ” J” that he had told Lipkin some people might want to talk to him, [7] and that he had told Lipkin to go after Peterson.

Allegation 3:

That Gerald Armstrong conspired with Michael Flynn, Daryl Gates, Al Lipkin, and Al Ristuccia to obstruct justice; prepared false documentary evidence; committed extortion; and solicited the commission of the crimes of burglary (Penal Code Section 459), receiving stolen property (Penal Code Section 496), and forgery (Penal Code Section 470), in violation of Penal Code Section 653f.

Evidence:

John Peterson declared that Armstrong conspired with a “church…staff member,” was “used by… the Internal Revenue Service to gather information,” “explained to the conspirators plans for attacking the church…and…Hubbard,” and had a videotaped conversation with “J” which demonstrates his involvement with the government. [9]

“GA” told “J” to type the completed staff work on the policy and bring it in, that “issues can be created,” but he was “not really saying create incrimination (sic) evidence-but just to write about the speculation.” He also said, “They can never tell where the issue came from.” He wanted the lawsuits to end so that he could get his “global settlement.” [10]

Armstrong told ” J” about a “good-looker” named Carol. He said “the way to the man’s mind is through his cock” and “that’s definitely the way to get to the top.” He wrote a note which reads in part, “Establish available route for holding the cock of someone in ASI/WDC/etc.”[11]

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Six

Armstrong allegedly wrote and handed over to someone on November 9, 1984, a “shopping list” of information which he asked a “church member to purloin.” “GA” told “J” “something should be done so that they can capitalize on getting stuff…into writing and…unstabilizing the whole PI, attorney apparatus.” He asked if “J” could get money to Peterson and told “J” to check the finance records. He said, “if we can get anything on Ingram (or) Peterson (or) finance records (or) other PI’s (or) operation ‘X’…, it’s all vital.”

Armstrong asked for specifics on payments to Ingram, and told “J” he should find what payments went to attorneys.

The handwritten list read in part, “1. Plan on Van Schaick…4. Anything on Hubbard or Don/ 5. Anything on upcoming legal battle… 8. Get me an original of an LRH Ed (current) or other issue type which could be from Hubbard. 8a. Same for WDC. Create one, get it distributed and get an assessment. Any partial that gives UP or ORG.”[12]

He also told ” J” he had given one “fanatic” document “to the Feds” and was giving them another. [13]

Armstrong told ” J” on November 9, 1984, that he could type “things and duplicate them and make them look exactly the same” and that “we could set up a press and…produce issues…” He thought, “shouldn’t I get some I HELP materials (?)”. He wanted to know “how they’re run off, what the type face is like…, – because we can simply create these;… – I can create documents with relative ease ….”

“J” suggested changing some documents. “GA” responded that “a lot of things can be done”, but he did not propose to “be stuffing things into their comm basket.” He later commented that something could be pasted and photocopied. [14]

Allegation 4:

That Michael F Flynn conspired to obstruct justice, and aided Gerald Armstrong in the crimes of conspiracy (Penal Code Section 182) and solicitation of burglary, receiving stolen property, and forgery (Penal Code Section 653f).

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Seven

Evidence:

In April, 1985, Flynn contacted the United States Attorney in Boston, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Los Angeles Police Department. Flynn’s attorney, Raul Martinez then made allegedly false accusations of wire tapping.

Flynn told the Los Angeles Police Department that “Cooley” had had a video recording and a letter signed by Officer Rodriguez authorizing such a recording. By letter, Attorney Raul Martinez, representing Mr. Flynn, asked the City Attorney to investigate. The City Attorney forwarded the letter to Chief Gates. [15]

John Peterson declared under penalty of perjury that evidence indicated that Michael Flynn was directing Gerald Armstrong in order to steal documents, plot forgeries, steal legal strategies, implement a plot to seduce and blackmail a Scientologist, and conspire to suborn perjury. [16]

The “Van Schaick” case, referred to in Armstrong’s “shopping list”, was settled by Attorney Flynn.

* * *

As Mr. Peterson has noted, I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and comprehending the materials you have submitted to this office. For the reasons set forth below, I do not find that those materials contain sufficient evidence of the commission of any of the alleged crimes to justify the further investigation of those allegations.

At the outset, I should like to point out the following regarding Mr. Peterson’s letter dated September 27, 1985 and my subsequent communications with him. 1) Mr. Peterson told me that “the interviews took place in Griffith Park during… November, 1984.” He has not otherwise responded to my request for a complete description of the events to which the documents related, including times, dates, places, names, circumstances, and identifying information, (See Request #1, above.)

2) Mr. Peterson told me that “tapes are not in dispute” and that details of the taping should be sought from Gene Ingram.

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Eight

But when Investigator Tomich sought to follow his advice, Mr. Peterson asserted he was Mr. Ingram’s attorney, and he refused to permit Investigator Tomich to interview him.

In his letter of March 18, 1986, Mr. Peterson refused further to respond to my requests for a description of the manner in which recordings and other source information were obtained; and for a statement from the person who obtained the information (some of it apparently recorded, some of it apparently from other sources) identifying that person and describing the acquisition of the information, documents, or tape, and the manner in which it could be authenticated (proved to be what it purports to be). (See Requests Nos. 2 and 3, above.)

3) He submitted ” data on the background of Jerry Armstrong” and the other documents referred to in the footnotes to this letter, in which he highlighted those portions he considered relevant to the allegations. He has not otherwise explained the relevance of the submitted materials to the allegations of criminal conduct. (See Request #4, above.)

4) He told me that the individuals speaking on the video tapes are “responsible witnesses who can be produced if necessary.” Beyond submitting a list of the names of the persons you have accused and three of their associates, he has not otherwise responded to my requests that he document the specific facts which prove the commission of the crimes alleged, including the particular details about each event and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the witnesses (See the paragraph following request #4, above).

* * *

A conspiracy to obstruct justice is an agreement between two or more persons to do an act or omit to do an act, as the result of which justice or the due administration of the laws is obstructed or perverted. To convict a person of that crime the prosecution must prove that he made such an agreement with the specific intent to commit or omit the necessary act and that, while he was a member of the conspiracy, he or a co-conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the object within the prosecuting jurisdiction (in our case, Los Angeles County).

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Nine

Assuming that the factual allegations are true, and that Daryl Gates did receive from Michael Flynn a wiretapping complaint; did rebuke Officer Rodriguez and Investigator Ingram; and did initiate an investigation into possible criminal conduct by Rodriguez and Ingram; that Gerald Armstrong did have the above described conversations with “Joey” about Al Lipkin and Al Ristuccia; that Lipkin and Ristuccia did interview Rodriguez, did consider him evasive, did seek Los Angeles Police Department assistance in obtaining Rodriguez’s cooperation, and did visit Parker Center on April 23, 1985; that Armstrong told “Joey” to type staff work in order to create issues and that he did all the other things alleged (talked to “Joey” about “Carol,” told “Joey” that “they” should destablilize the “PI, attorney apparatus,” told “Joey” to check financial records, wrote and delivered the “shopping list,” and gave documents “to the Feds”) and that Michael Flynn both personally and through his attorney contacted the United States Attorney, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Los Angeles Police Department to complain about the tape recording, the actions of Officer Rodriguez, and other matters; and that he settled the “Van Schaick” case; we are unable to find in any of those allegations any evidence which would support an allegation that Chief Gates, Agent Lipkin, Agent Ristuccia, Mr. Armstrong, or Attorney Flynn agreed with anyone to commit or omit any act which might pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws.

No factual details (time, place circumstances, names of witnesses, etc.) have been submitted to support many of the conclusions that have been alleged. Thus there is no evidence that “there has been no effort to do anything about” crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Armstrong; that the Internal Revenue Service Agents attempted to “strongarm” Officer Rodriguez; that Mr. Armstrong conspired with a church staff member and explained to the conspirators his plans for attacking the church and Mr. Hubbard; that Mr. Armstrong wrote a “shopping list” of information and asked someone to “purloin” it; or that Michael Flynn made false accusations of wiretapping.

Therefore, the evidence of which we have been apprised of a conspiracy to obstruct justice is insufficient to warrant further investigation by this office.

To convict a person of the crime of preparation of false documentary evidence, the prosecution must prove that he in fact

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Ten

made the document, that it was false, and that he intended it to be produced as true for a deceitful purpose in a proceeding authorized by law.

Even assuming that it can be proved by competent, admissible evidence that Gerald Armstrong told “Joey” to type staff work and that “issues can be created,” that “they can never tell where the issue came from,” and that he wanted the lawsuits to end so that he could get his “global settlement”; that Armstrong wrote and gave to someone the “shopping list”; that he told “Joey” he wanted to get “stuff…into writing” and to “unstabliz(e)” the “apparatus”; that he said getting records was “vital”; that he said he could type and duplicate things and create documents and set up a press and produce issues, that he wanted to know about a type face, that a lot of things could be done and that something could be pasted and photocopied; none of this, taken alone, constitutes evidence that Mr. Armstrong in fact created a single false document or that he intended that such a document be produced for any purpose in any legal proceeding.

Further, in the documents submitted to us, Mr. Armstrong is quoted as stating that he was not advocating the creation of incriminating evidence and that he did not propose to “be stuffing things into their comm baskets.”

We are aware of no other evidence which might lend criminal significance to the statements of Mr. Armstrong. We can find, therefore, no basis for a further investigation of the allegation that Penal Code Section 134 has been violated.

Extortion (Penal Code Section 518) is the obtaining of property from another with his consent, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear. The fear may be induced by a threat to injure a person or property, or to accuse the victim or a relative of crime, or to impute to any of them a deformity, disgrace, or crime, or to expose a secret affecting any of them. Penal Code Section 524 makes it a felony to attempt to commit extortion.

Assuming that it can be proved that Gerald Armstrong expressed the views alleged regarding the “way to the man’s mind” and that he wrote the note referring to “ASI” and “WDC”, that does not appear to us to be evidence that he or anyone obtained or

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Eleven

attempted to obtain property from anyone by means of any threat. We therefore find no basis for further investigation of the allegation that Gerald Armstrong committed extortion.

The solicitation of another person to commit or join in the commission of burglary, receiving stolen property, or forgery is a felony, the proof of whose commission requires the testimony of two witnesses or of one witness plus evidence of corroborating circumstances. To convict a person of solicitation,
the prosecution must prove that he asked another person to commit a crime with the specific intent that it be committed.

The solicitation of burglary requires a request that one enter a building or other specific place (See Penal Code Section 459) intending to commit larceny or a felony; the solicitation of receiving stolen property requires a request that one receive property that one knows has been stolen; the solicitation of forgery, a request that one, with the intent to defraud, sign without authority another’s name or counterfeit his handwriting, or make any of the false documents specified in Penal Code Section 470, or knowingly utter such falsified document, signature, or handwriting.

Assuming that the allegations are true that Gerald Armstrong told “Joey” to type staff work, that “issues can be created.” that “something should be done so that they can capitalize on getting stuff into writing,” that “if we can get anything on Ingram (or) Peterson (or) finance records…, it’s all vital,” and that “Joey” should find what payments went to attorneys; and, further assuming it to be true that Armstrong gave “Joey” a list which specified “plan” or “anything” ” on” certain matters and stated “get me an original …issue type”; that he told “Joey” he had given and would give documents “to the Feds,” that he could duplicate things and create documents, and that something could be pasted and photocopied; these allegations nonetheless do not constitute evidence that Mr. Armstrong, with the requisite intent, asked anyone to commit the crime of burglary, receiving stolen property, or forgery. We therefore find no basis for further investigation of the allegation that Gerald Armstrong violated Penal Code section 653f.

A person aids and abets the commission of a crime if, with knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and with the intent to encourage or facilitate the commission of the crime, he aids, promotes, or instigates its commission.

Rev. Ken Hoden, et al.
April 25, 1986
Page Twelve

The documents submitted to us indicate that Gerald Armstrong gave “Joey” Al Lipkin’s telephone number, that he told ” Joey” that he had told Lipkin some people might want to talk to him, that he told “Joey” that he had told Lipkin to go after Peterson, and that he mentioned Al Ristuccia to “Joey”. The allegations regarding Michael Flynn are described above.

None of those allegations is itself evidence of any unlawful connection between those men and Mr. Armstrong. Further, since we have been presented with no significant evidence of any unlawful conduct on the part of Mr. Armstrong, we do not find that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation
of the allegations that Al Lipkin, Al Ristuccia, or Michael Flynn aided and abetted the commission of any crime.

In addition to the lack of evidence set forth above, it must also be noted that, lacking knowledge of the manner in which the video tape recordings were obtained, we do not know whether their acquisition violated either United States or California law. If it violated federal law, material thus acquired even
if relevant – which it does not appear to be -might be inadmissible in evidence.

For all of the reasons described above, we have concluded that there is no evidence in support of the allegations of criminal conduct on the part of Daryl Gates, Al Lipkin, Al Ristuccia , Gerald Armstrong, and Michael Flynn. Accordingly, we shall take no further action in this matter, and our file is closed.

Very truly yours,

IRA REINER District Attorney
CURT LIVESAY
Assistant District Attorney

By [signed]
ROBERT N. JORGENSEN
Deputy District Attorney

jeb

c: Chief Daryl Gates, L.A.P.D.
Ron Townsend, I.R.S.
Al Lipkin, I.R.S.
Al Ristuccia, I.R.S.
Gerald Armstrong
Michael Flynn

[page break]

FOOTNOTES

1. This is set forth in a document entitled “6. Obstruction of Justice”.

2. See Exhibit 7 attached to “6. Obstruction of Justice.”

3. See Exhibit 11 attached to “6. Obstruction of Justice.”

4. See Number 1, above.

5. See document entitled “5. Conspiracy.”

6. See Number 1, above.

7. See document entitled “2. Soliciting… .”

8. See document entitled “1. Soliciting… .”

9. See Number 5, above.

10. See document entitled “4. Preparation of False Documentary Evidence.”

11. See document entitled “3. Extortion.”

12. See document entitled “1. Soliciting… .”

13. See Exhibit 1 page 16.

14. See document entitled “2. Soliciting… .”

15. See Number 1, above.

16. See Number 5, above.

17. See Number 8, above.

18. During our December 10 meeting, Messrs. Peterson and Butterworth identified “J” as “Joey”.

Notes

This letter in PDF format. ↩