Source: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a4/2998.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:41:32+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, Church of Scientology International (" CSI") applies ex parte for an order directing Defendant/Judgment Debtor Gerald Armstrong ("Armstrong")to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of this Court, pursuant to section 1209 (a)(5) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, for willful disregard of this Court's Order entered on October 17, 1995, in the above-entitled action (the "Order").
on the Internet five documentary works in violation of the Order; (ii) appeared on a television program on Channel 4 in England entitled "The Secret Lives of L. Ron Hubbard" in which he violated the Order and gratuitously made numerous false statements concerning the Church of Scientology and the founder of the Scientology religion, L. Ron Hubbard; (iii) made three television appearances in Germany on or about October 26-28, 1997 on television stations N-TV, B1 TV, and SATI TV, making many of the same statements as well as others; (iv) made a speech in Berlin, Germany in which he also violated the Order in several respects; (v) gave an interview to the German regional newspaper Taz which violated the Order; (vi) made a speech which contained statements violating the Order in Hamburg, Germany on October 28, 1997, at an event sponsored by self-styled critics of the Church of Scientology; and (vii) prepared and posted on the Internet an alleged complaint for libel against CSI and other Beneficiaries of the Order.
Armstrong has treated this Court's authority with such callous disregard that he should be criminally sanctioned by fine and imprisonment under Code of Civil Procedure § 1218.
CSI submits that Armstrong's actions also warrant referral to the District Attorney for misdemeanor prosecution under Penal Code § 166(4).
Armstrong has been notified of this Application as set forth in the Declaration of Andrew H. Wilson, at ¶ 28.
This Application is based on this Application itself, the concurrently filed declaration ofAndrew H. Wilson; the exhibits submitted therewith; the records on file in this case; and such further evidence and argument as may be properly presented at the hearing of this Application.
Gerald Armstrong has become an outlaw. He regards himself as being above the law, and his acts put him outside the law. He entered into a settlement agreement with Church of Scientology International ("CSI"), but later announced in no uncertain terms that the only provision in that agreement by which he would abide was the one by which he was paid $800,000.00.1 This suit followed, and Armstrong's liability for damages and for permanent injunction were summarily adjudicated against him. Having "renounced" money and transferred his assets to friends, Armstrong went to the Bankruptcy Court where the damages CSI had won were discharged. The injunction, however, remained intact and Armstrong undertook to violate it, with willfulness and calculation.
This Court then held Armstrong in contempt and sentenced him to jail. Armstrong fled the country, and from his Canadian refuge, continued his open disregard for the Court's injunction, its bench warrant, and its authority. His violations of that injunction now number thirteen since September 2, 1997, on the Internet, in televised interviews on British television, and by making speeches and giving interviews in Germany.
with a "Happy Thanksgiving" salutation to CSI and the other beneficiaries of his settlement agreement.
Armstrong leaves himself only one fate. He must be held in contempt again, and he must face that same result each time he commits a contumacious action and his contempt must be enforced whenever he is within the jurisdiction. There is no other remedy for a calculating, deliberate outlaw.
This Court may recall the extent of Armstrong's behavior which gave rise to the Injunction, and his past disregard for the authority of the courts of this State. To summarize, in December 1986, Armstrong freely and voluntarily entered into a Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement ( the "Agreement") pursuant to which CSI paid Armstrong $800,000.00. Declaration of Andrew H. Wilson ("Wilson Decl. "), at ¶ 2. In exchange for his receipt of such funds, Armstrong promised, in essence, to cease disseminating "information" concerning CSI and to cease assisting others litigating or defending claims against CSI and related entities. Id. Beginning in approximately 1990, Armstrong fraudulently transferred substantially all of his assets to his attorney and close friends, and then began repeatedly breaching almost every covenant he made in the Agreement. Id., at ¶ 3.
As a result of Armstrong's conduct, CSI brought this action for breach of the Agreement seeking,inter alia, a permanent injunction preventing Armstrong from further breaching the Agreement. Id., at ¶ 4. For his part, Armstrong filed various claims against CSI for breach of the Agreement and other purported claims. Id.
recording, electronic recording or reproduction of any kind of any book ... television program ... or documentary work of any kind which discusses, refers to or mentions Scientology, the Church, and/or any of the Beneficiaries [of the Settlement Agreement] ."
Despite the Injunction, Armstrong's wrongful conduct continued as if nothing had happened. Earlier this year, he wrote and filed a lengthy declaration (the " Declaration") in support of litigants adverse to a beneficiary of the Settlement Agreement in three cases currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Armstrong then sent copies of the Declaration to the parties and their counsel. On CSI's application, an Order to Show Cause re Contempt was issued which was served by publication because Armstrong had fled the jurisdiction. Armstrong was subsequently held in contempt, and ordered punished by the imposition of a $1,000 fine and confinement for a period of forty-eight hours.
The recent violations of the Injunction in Great Britain and Germany have forced the Church to expend a great deal of time and money to correct the multiplicity of falsehoods and lies which Armstrong has promulgated. Armstrong's claimed expertise concerning the Church, based on nothing more than having been the clerk entrusted with the care of certain of Mr. Hubbard's personal files, gives him a superficial credibility, even though he has not been involved in any facet of the Scientology religion since 1981. Evidence of this is the German media's false reference to Armstrong as Mr. Hubbard's "biographer." The Church did not pay Armstrong to silence him by the settlement, but to save itself the time and expense of responding to and correcting every false allegation Armstrong made.
That is precisely why the Church feels it now must return to Court to enforce the Injunction with the only means available to it. Given the blatant and recurring nature of his violations, CSI cannot sit idly by while Armstrong thumbs his nose at this Court and the entire judicial system in general. CSI asks this Court to hold Armstrong in contempt as that is the only way in which he will be forced to realize that he must obey the Court's orders.
2 A brief perusal of this complaint reveals that it is based upon the same alleged wrongs done to Armstrong as was his cross-complaint in this action which this Court dismissed on summary adjudication. It is also based, in part, on alleged wrongs done to Armstrong prior to the Settlement Agreement sued on herein which the Settlement Agreement specifically released. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement pointedly prohibited Armstrong from relying on those wrongs in subsequent litigation.
proceedings are special proceedings, criminal in character and intended to implement the inherent power of the court to enforce its lawful orders).
Code of Civil Procedure § 1211 provides that when contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, an affidavit shall be presented to the court of the facts constituting the contempt. For this purpose, declarations can be used in place of affidavits. Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5.
The above declaration "need only make a prima facia showing of the elements of contempt." Crawford v. WCAB (1989) 213 Cal.App. 3d 156, 169. The declaration must show: (1) the rendition of a valid order; (2) the respondent's knowledge of the order; (3) the respondent's ability to comply with the order; and (4) the respondent's wilful disobedience of the order. See, Conn v. Superior Court (Farmers Group) (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784.
All these conditions are present here.
A. The Court's Injunction at Issue Is Valid.
The Order was valid when rendered and remains fully enforceable. A true and correct copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration of Andrew H. Wilson, filed herewith.
1. There has been no successful direct attack against the Injunction.
Since its entry, there has been no successful challenge to the validity of the Order by Armstrong. Wilson Decl., at ¶ 10. Armstrong has appealed from the Judgment and Order. Briefing is not yet complete and CSI has moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that a party may not simultaneously appeal from an injunctive order while willfully disobeying it. That motion is still pending. Id. Significantly, the Preliminary Injunction which preceded the Order was affirmed following Armstrong's petition to the Court of Appeals. Id .
2. Any collateral attack against the Injunction by Armstrong would be meritless. The only permissible collateral attack against the Order would be based on a wholly meritless claim by Armstrong that it is invalid on its face. People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Ca1.4th 804, 823-4.
The Court's file reflects that, prior to the entry of the Order, Armstrong fully litigated, and lost, the various claims he made against enforcing the Agreement through injunctive relief. Considerable time and effort was expended by the parties and this Court in addressing Armstrong's arguments.
B. Armstrong Had Actual Knowledge Of The Injunction When He Violated It.
There can be no question that Armstrong had actual knowledge of the Order. Armstrong's counsel appeared at the hearing pertaining to the Order and received notice of entry thereof. Wilson Decl., at ¶ 11. Armstrong further received a Notice of Entry of Order, served on his counsel, with a copy of the Order attached., Id. The law does not require that a party subject to an order be personally served with a copy of such order before he may be held in contempt of it. People v. Superior Court (1965) 239 Ca1.App.2d 99. In fact, service on Armstrong's counsel raises a rebuttable presumption that Armstrong had actual knowledge of it. Id. at 104.
Armstrong's actual knowledge of the Order is also shown by the fact that Armstrong himself signed and filed a Notice of Appeal and, on August 25, 1997, while appearing in pro per, signed and mailed for filing the APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF with respect thereto. Wilson Decl., at ¶ 10. Armstrong cannot, and apparently does not, deny that he has actual knowledge of the Order. To the contrary, he apparently delights in boasting of his refusal to honor it. See, e.g., Wilson Decl., at ¶ 8.
C. Armstrong Was Fully Capable Of Complying With This Court's Injunction.
3. Voluntarily assisting any person (not a governmental organization or entity) arbitrating or litigating adversely to the Beneficiaries.
4. Facilitating in any manner the creation, publication, broadcast, writing, . . . electronic recording or reproduction of any kind of . . .
documentary work of any kind which discusses, refers to or mentions Scientology, the Church, and/or any of the Beneficiaries [of the Order].
5. Discussing with anyone, not a member of Armstrong's immediate family or his attorney, Scientology, the Church, and/or any of the Beneficiaries.
Nothing in the Order requires that Armstrong engage in any affirmative action. Instead, Armstrong is merely restrained from continuing to disclose his " information" and opinions. The restrictions on Armstrong's behavior in the Order stem from an agreement which Armstrong made freely and voluntarily and for which he was paid $800, 000.00. Id., at ¶ 2.
The above sum of money was paid to Armstrong by CSI to end once and for all the relationship between Armstrong and CSI and to eliminate Armstrong's very deliberate campaign of harassment against CSI and its affiliates. Again, the Court's file in this case reflects that Armstrong's ability to cease such conduct was an issue fully litigated prior to the entry of the Order. This Court rejected all of Armstrong's claims as to his inability to comply with the Order.
D. Armstrong Has Willfully Disobeyed The Injunction And Must Be Appropriately Sanctioned.
The requirement that there be a "willful disobedience" of a court order to support the sanction of criminal contempt is undeniably met here. Armstrong's violation of the Injunction is clear, and his intent to do so is manifest.
From the moment he was first enjoined from the violation of the Agreement by the Hon. Ronald Sohigian in June 1992, Armstrong has made plain his disdain for the court's power to affect his actions and his intent to violate orders of court. See Wilson Decl., at ¶ 5.
In late 1994, Armstrong's disobedience of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Sohigian led to the issuance of an OSC re Contempt which was heard before the Hon. Diane Wayne, who admonished Armstrong for his conduct, but discharged the contempt with only a warning. Id., at ¶ 3. Recently, Armstrong was held in contempt and punished by a fine of $1,000 and forty-eight hours confinement for transmitting his declaration to Judge Whyte.
Armstrong's willfulness is shown starkly in his own Internet posting of October 20, 1997, Wilson Decl., Ex. I, in which he states: "[British television producers] 3BM did not induce me to breach any agreement or judgment. The fact is I am willing to communicate to anyone about Scientology or Hubbard and my experiences therewith at any time . . . and require no inducement. I was more than willing to be interviewed by 3BM . .."
CSI also submits that upon a finding of contempt under Code of Civil Procedure § 1209, et seq., referral to the District Attorney for misdemeanor prosecution under Penal Code § 166(4) is also necessary to curtail Armstrong's continued defiance of this Court's authority.
3 Armstrong, in fact, declared bankruptcy in the effort to avoid his obligations under the Agreement. Armstrong successfully discharged the approximately $300, 000.00 awarded by this Court in damages to CSI in his bankruptcy proceedings. Wilson Decl., at ¶ 4. Armstrong, however, failed in his effort to have the Bankruptcy Court discharge him from the contractual obligations upon which the Order is based. Id.
including attorneys' fees, in bringing this motion. Further, upon finding Armstrong in contempt under Code of Civil Procedure § 1209, et seq., referral to the District Attorney for misdemeanor prosecution under Penal Code § 166(4) is also necessary to curtail Armstrong's continued defiance of this Court's authority.
C/O George W. Abbott, Esq.
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 Francisco, California on December 5, 1997.

References: § 1218
 § 166
 § 1211
 § 2015
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1209
 § 166
 § 1209
 § 166