- Declaration of Michael Lee Hertzberg (September 20, 1999)
- American Lawyer: The Two Faces of Scientology (July 8, 1992)
- Declaration Of Gerald Armstrong Regarding Alleged “Taint” Of Joseph A. Yanny, Esquire (September 4, 1991)
- Memorandum (August 26, 1991)
- Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment (August 26, 1991)
- Complaint: Scientology v. 17 US Officials (August 12, 1991)
- Complaint: Church of Scientology vs. 17 IRS Agents (August 12, 1991)
Gerald L. Chaleff, SBN 39552
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017-5832
Telephone: (213) 629-2020
William. T. Drescher, SBN 93737
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM T. DRESCHER
23679 Calabasas Road
Calabasas, California 93102-1502
Telephone: (818) 349-8100
Attorneys for Non-Party
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Samuel D. Rosen, pro hac vice
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
399 Park Avenue, 3 1 st Floor
New York, New York 10022-4697
Telephone: (212) 318-6000
Alan K. Steinbrecher, SBN 79201
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
555 South Flower Street, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-2371
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Attorneys for Non-Party
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
Case No. C 332 027
MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG1
DATE: October 15, 1999
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
Judge Charles W. McCoy, Jr.
I, Michael Lee Hertzberg, hereby declare and state:
1. I am an attorney, admitted to practice before the courts of New York State, the District of Columbia Bar, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I make the following statement of my own personal knowledge, and if called to testify thereto, I could and would do so competently.
2. I was counsel of record in Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. I was present in May of 1994 in Dallas, Texas when Vicki Aznaran settled her then pending litigation against several churches of Scientology and related organizations. I was present to provide legal advice to the representatives of the defendants who were negotiating directly with Ms. Aznaran. She was represented by her attorney, Karen MacRae of Dallas.
3. On May 19, 1994 when Ms. Aznaran settled her litigation, she executed several declarations. Annexed hereto as Exhibits A – E are true and correct copies of the declarations executed by Ms. Aznaran. Her declarations cover a wide range of subjects. The most comprehensive declaration is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. This declaration provides an overview of her experience as a litigant against churches of Scientology, tactics used by individuals litigating against churches of Scientology, specific allegations from her complaint that she formally repudiated and ordered her attorneys to withdraw, the payment of thousands of dollars to witnesses for sworn statements against the churches of Scientology, and the addition of eleven pages of one of Ms. Aznaran’s declarations by an attorney representing opponents of Scientology, Graham Berry.
4. The remaining declarations (Exhibits B – E), cover specific topics related to Ms. Aznaran’s experiences as a litigant against churches of Scientology. Specifically, these declarations cover the following topics:
– Litigation tactics by Lawrence Wollersheim and Gerry Armstrong (Exhibit B);
– A specific refutation of claims that her testimony supports the contention that Church officials have destroyed documents in litigation (Exhibit C;
– Ms. Aznaran’s knowledge regarding Stacy Young (one of Mr. Wollersheim’s witnesses) (Exhibit D);
– In this declaration Ms. Aznaran also repudiates allegations of corporate irregularities similar to those being made in the instant case (Exhibit A);
– A declaration in which Ms. Aznaran explains why she executed the other declarations and her response to what she anticipates other apostates will say about her for having revealed their tactics (Exhibit E).
5. I invite the Court’s attention to particular passages relevant to the claims at issue here. Ms. Aznaran signed her declarations in May 1994, a year after her most recent statement cited by Wollersheim in support of his motion. In one declaration Ms. Aznaran explains how witnesses have been conditioned to sign affidavits to support whatever arguments opponents of churches of Scientology wish to “prove”:
The abusive device most consistently utilized by litigants and counsel adverse to the Church occurs in connection with the filing of declarations or affidavits. It is common knowledge among the stable of disaffected ex-Scientologists who supply such sworn statements that the attorneys dictate the desired content of such testimony with the primary, often sole, purpose of presenting inflammatory accusations that prejudice the Church in the eyes of the court. In such declarations or affidavits, context, the truth, and relevance to the issues in the case are disregarded altogether. As time has passed and this technique has evolved, anti-Church litigants and their counsel have become more and more emboldened in making such declarations and affidavits because the tactic has proven to be so effective in poisoning courts and juries against the Church.
Thus, it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. There is a group or “team” of anti-Scientology witnesses who are being paid for their testimony, and based on my experience, this testimony is being altered and falsified, either by the witnesses themselves or the attorneys. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 12, 17, 19.)
6. Ms. Aznaran even predicted that the attached declarations would be attacked by adverse litigants whose litigation tactics she has exposed:
On May 19, 1994, my husband and I each executed a series of declarations under penalty of perjury addressing a variety of issues. Among those declarations are one of mine that demonstrates that perhaps the most common litigation ploy that is used against Churches of Scientology is for opponents to submit false, inflammatory and accusatory declarations which make wild accusations irrespective of their falsity, lack of relevance, or lack of first hand knowledge.
I am executing this declaration on May 19, 1994 because I am certain that litigation opponents of the Church will react to one or more of my other contemporaneously dated declarations in precisely the fashion I describe in the preceding paragraph.
(Ex. E, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 2, 3.)
7. Ms. Aznaran identifies Stacy Young as employed by Graham Berry, Mr. Leipold’s former co-counsel in Wollersheim, to create inaccurate affidavits:
I know from subsequent conversations I have had that Andre Tabayoyon is similarly employed, as are Vaughn and Stacy Young and others, each paid to create declarations for Mr. Berry when he needs them. On the basis of my knowledge of the Church and the declarants, I can state that these individuals are not “experts” ‘in any recognized sense of the word as I understand it. They are nothing more than witnesses who are being paid to make sworn statements against the Church. More than just being paid, they are actually employed by Mr. Berry as a source of signed declarations of testimony or as a ” source” of allegations, the need for such is decided by him. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 22.)
That Vaughn and Stacy Young are experts is not true. They are being called experts not due to expertise in Scientology but in order to collect insurance money for their testimony.
What this creates, and what the Youngs are part of, is a stable of people who, for pay, write declarations. (Ex. D, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 7, 8.)
8. Ms. Aznaran also swore to Ms. Young’s lack of knowledge of inside workings of churches of Scientology, both corporately and ecclesiastically:
In my staff capacities in the early 1980s, and later in my executive positions in the Religious Technology Center, I was directly or closely involved in meetings with senior staff members of various Church corporations. These senior staff made significant or major decisions which affected the future of the Church. I know that neither Vaughn nor Stacy Young were included in such senior decision-making processes. They were never senior or key Church executives. They were not consulted regarding, nor were they privy to, the meetings where major issues were discussed an decisions made.
I am informed that the Youngs have made claims to specialized knowledge about the corporate status and structure of the Church. Such claims are false. Neither of the Youngs were in a position to have detailed knowledge of the corporate and fiscal structures and operations of any Church of Scientology. In fact, Vaughn Young worked in the area of Public Relations for the entire time that I was acquainted with him. Stacy was primarily a writer in the Church public relations department. (Ex. D, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 4, 5.)
9. Ms. Aznaran repudiated allegations of corporate irregularities that were contained in her complaint against the Church of Scientology of California. These allegations are very similar to those being made by Wollersheim in the instant case:
Paragraph 16 of the complaint included the allegation that I had been employed as a “missionaire” to remove assets of Defendant Church of Scientology of California to overseas trusts where they could not be accessed. This allegation was false, and it was not an allegation that either my husband or I requested be included in the complaint….
It was also alleged in paragraph 16 of the complaint that I was employed as a”missionaire” to “set up sham corporate structures to evade prosecution generally.” This allegation is also false. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 8, 9.)
10. In another sworn declaration Ms. Aznaran identifies Wollersheim witness Gerald Armstrong as the source of a litigation technique utilized by this small group of witnesses:
The fundamental premise upon which the Church’s adversaries and their lawyers operate is the likelihood that courts and juries are willing to believe any allegation made against the Church by a former member, without regard to plausibility, contrary evidence or the true facts. That concept was most succinctly expressed, on videotape, by anti-Scientology litigant, Gerald Armstrong, when he state that a lack of documents or evidence was no impediment to litigating against the Church when the litigant can “just allege it.” The active pursuit of that litigation approach has now led to the formation of a small group of disaffected Scientologists who are now employed by an even smaller number of attorneys who are making a practice of litigating against the Church. This stable of witnesses can be relied upon to furnish ” corroboration” for any allegation which an attorney wishes to make against the Church in pleadings, at deposition, in affidavits, and ultimately in trial testimony. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 5.)
11. Ms. Aznaran even addressed Larry Wollersheim’s allegations:
While I was in the Church I witnessed the “Fair Game” allegations made by Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim in their litigation against the Church. My position in the church at the time gave me broad access to what was occurring and I would have known were the allegations made by Armstrong and Wollersheim true. Wollersheim, for example, made the allegation that a pipe bomb was found on his parent’s lawn and, without any corroboration, blamed the Church. I know from my own personal knowledge that this outrageous allegation of Church involvement is absolutely false. During the Wollersheim trial, rumors began to spread throughout the trial courtroom that Judge Ronald Swearinger had been followed, his tires had been slashed, and his pet dog drowned, and that the Church was responsible for that supposed activity. All of those allegations of Church complicity were false, as I now personally attest. Armstrong alleged the Church was trying to kill him and this allegation was just made up. I know of its falsity of my own personal knowledge. Both Armstrong and Wollersheim, continue to make the same type of outrageous allegations of Fair Game to forward their litigation to this day, due ‘in no small measure to the fact that they practiced Fair Game so effectively in their earlier, victorious litigation against the Church.” (Ex. B, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 12.)
12. An allegation relied upon by Wollersheim is that David Miscavige ordered Vicki Aznaran and Jesse Prince to destroy documents, including documents compelled to be produced in this case. However, Ms. Aznaran states in another declaration:
During the time I was President of RTC, we fully complied to all discovery requests, I have never received an order from David Miscavige, Norman Starkey or Lyman Spurlock to destro any documents related to litigation and I have no reason to believe that the Church would destroy any documents related to the consolidated cases… (Ex. C, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 8.)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 20th day of September, 1999 at ______________.
MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG
- Document source: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/Aznaran.htm ↩
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 . 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,
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  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
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
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.
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
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 and . 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
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  )
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
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
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.
Supplemental Memorandum In Support of Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice […] 1
That Armstrong is amenable to the kind of covert representation in which Yanny is engaging in this case is highlighted by his recorded remarks made in November 1984. At that time, 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.2 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).3 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 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 — like — they don’t have to have the document sitting in front of them and then —
ARMSTRONG: Fucking say the organization destroys the 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.
(Ex. E, Declaration of Lynn R. Farny, para. 6.) With such a criminal attitude, Armstrong fits perfectly into Yanny’s game plan for the Aznaran case.