Source: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/2149.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:35:16+00:00

Document:
1. I am the defendant in the case of Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court No C 420153. Attached hereto as Exhibit [A] is a copy of the Armstrong decision rendered by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge Jr. on June 20, 1984. A cross-complaint I filed against plaintiff Scientology organization and other Scientology organizations, hereinafter referred to as "the organization," was bifurcated from the underlying case on motion of the organization and did not go to trial as it settled on December 11, 1986. The settlement agreement included delivery of certain documents from the underlying case to the organization and allowed the organization to maintain its appeal from the Armstrong decision then pending in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate Division as No. B005912. On December 18, 1986 the Court of Appeal, whose decision is attached hereto as Exhibit [B], dismissed the organization's appeal, reasoning that there would be no appealable final judgment until after trial of the cross-complaint.
2. On October 11, 1989 I was served at my home with a subpoena duces tecum, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [C], in the case of Bent Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694401. The subpoena, issued by Toby Plevin, attorney for Mr. Corydon, orders my appearance to testify at a deposition and to produce the agreements, releases and any other documents relating to the settlement I had entered into with the organization.
October 20 deposition date would probably be changed, and to ask me for alternative dates which would be convenient for me. We spoke two or three times by telephone over the next week or so to set or cancel dates. During one of our conversations she informed me that she had received "a threatening letter" concerning my deposition from attorney Larry Heller, who I knew to be an attorney of record for various Scientology-related organizations and individuals, and to have a supervisory role in virtually all the organization's legal matters. Ms. Plevin read me parts of Mr. Heller's letter in which he stated that it was inconceivable that I had any information relevant to Mr. Corydon's lawsuit, that Ms. Plevin was seeking to breach the settlement agreement by proceeding with my deposition, and that should my deposition ever go forward he would apply to the court for sanctions. It became apparent to me during this conversation with Ms. Plevin that I was very important to both sides in the Corydon litigation and that I was again intensely involved with the organization and could not avoid involvement.
get an order from the court compelling me to answer. I said I would have to think about the problem and get some advice. Mr. Heller gave me his phone numbers and asked me to call him back within two days.
5. Following my conversation with Mr. Heller I called my attorney Michael Flynn who had negotiated the settlement of my lawsuit and similar settlements on the same date for several other individuals. I informed him of Mr. Heller's offer and he said that Mr. Heller had called him earlier and offered to pay him to attend my deposition to prevent my testifying. Mr. Flynn said that he had refused the offer and reiterated that he did not wish to be involved in any way in Scientology-related litigation. I confirmed with him that nothing in the settlement agreement proscribed my obtaining assistance or advice from anyone currently involved in litigation against the organization.
6. I then called Ms. Plevin, told her of the organization's offer to pay for an attorney for me at the deposition, and asked her if she and Mr. Corydon could match the offer. She said that she is a sole practitioner, that she and Mr. Corydon are keeping the lawsuit going on a shoestring, and that they could not pay for my attorney. She said, moreover, that even if she and Mr. Corydon could afford it they would not pay for an attorney for me because it would be unethical.
ordered sanctions for my refusal to answer his client would indemnify me. He said I had a contractual obligation to the organization, which it had paid a lot of money for, not to divulge confidential information, and that if I answered I would have breached the settlement agreement and may get sued. He said he recognized that I was in the middle and that my safest position was to refuse to answer, make Mr. Corydon bring a motion to compel and let the court be the final arbiter.
8. This and other threats, other events and circumstances following the settlement, and my present level of importance to and involvement with the organization have impelled me to write this declaration. It is my opinion that some of the settlement conditions are unenforceable, that the organization is attempting to enforce them in a manner which is inconsistent with the spirit of settlement, and that these conditions and their attempted enforcement constitute an on-going obstruction of justice and violation of my and others' First Amendment rights. The purpose of this declaration is to make known this situation, to demonstrate certain conditions' unenforceability, and to support an action to have them so adjudged by the court with jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. I am also providing this declaration to parties and lawyers involved in the correction of legal abuses.
Church of Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by the Scientology entities concerning those staff members or parishioners; and (3) the terms and conditions of the settlements themselves."
regulatory associations or agencies, agree not to disclose any of the terms and conditions of the settlement negotiations, amount of the settlement, or statements made by either party during settlement conferences. Plaintiff agrees that if the terms of this paragraph are breached by him, that CSI and the other Releasees would be entitled to $50,000 for each such breach. All monies received to induce or in payment for a breach of this Agreement, or any part thereof, shall be held in a constructive trust pending the outcome of any litigation over said breach. The amount of liquidated damages herein is an estimate of the damages that each party would suffer in the event this Agreement is breached. The reasonableness of the amount of such damages are hereto acknowledged by Plaintiff."
11. It is my opinion that the conditions of this paragraph are unenforceable for two reasons: a. the organization's actions since the settlement have rendered them invalid; b. they are so broad and at the same time so restrictive that, even if the organization had not acted to invalidate them, they deny me, on their face, several inalienable rights and are therefore against public policy.
"Plaintiff understands that by the execution of this release no further claims arising out of his experience with, or actions by, the Releasees, from the beginning of time to and including the date hereof, which may now exist or which may exist in the future may ever be asserted by him or on his behalf, against the Releasees."
"Plaintiff further agrees that he waives and relinquishes any right or claim arising out of the conduct of any defendant in this case to date, including any of the organizations, individuals or entities as set forth in Paragraph 1 above, and the named defendants waive and relinquish any right or claim arising out of the conduct of Plaintiff to date."
14. I am including these two paragraphs because they contain what to me is essential in the settlement agreement, and they show that my rights arising out of the conduct of the organization following the settlement are not waived or relinquished.
15. Sometime in the fall of 1987 I received a copy of a document, pages 11, 12, 18 and 29 from which are attached hereto as Exhibit [E], created and circulated by the organization to discredit Bent Corydon who had written a book entitled L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? which had been published in August that year. Mr. Corydon had interviewed me several months before the settlement and had used some of my statements from the interview, my trial testimony in Armstrong, and from declarations I had written during the pre-settlement litigation in his book.
"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. See chapter on Corydon as an "author" for further information on Gerry Armstrong's incompetence as a researcher."
"Gerry Armstrong, another one of Corydon's main sources in the book, claims that L. Ron Hubbard " ... did not spend several years throughout Asia," and that Mr. Hubbard's total time in Asia was "a few weeks."
L. Ron Hubbard, in fact, was in Asia and the Orient several times during a three-year period, during which his travels were quite extensive."
These paragraphs concern my experiences in the organization as Mr. Hubbard's archivist and biographical researcher and my knowledge of Mr. Hubbard's history, and I consider that I have a right to reply.
"Homer [Schomer] had testified in 1984 in a court case brought by the Church of Scientology against Gerald Armstrong (a former staff member who had stolen valuable documents from Church archives).
In the Christofferson case, Schomer admitted to having committed perjury in the previous Armstrong case."
I believe the organization is in violation of the settlement agreement by discussing the Armstrong case.
"Corydon goes on to say that tens of millions of dollars paid for services delivered to Church members at the Flag organization were channeled into Hubbard's personal accounts.
There is no documentation to support this statement by Corydon. In fact, his claims are based on nothing more than hearsay, rumor and lies gathered from a small cabal of thieves, perjurers and disreputable sources."
who had this and similar knowledge and who were Mr. Corydon's sources for his statement. To denominate us "a small cabal of thieves, perjurers and disreputable sources" I believe is scandalous.
20. On October 7, 1987 I received a call from Michael Flynn who relayed to me a message from Earle C. Cooley, one of the organization's principal attorneys, concerning the then proceeding trial in London, England of a lawsuit the organization had brought against a writer, Russell Miller.
Mr. Miller had interviewed me in Boston, Massachusetts in 1986, some months before the December settlement, for a biography of L. Ron Hubbard.
According to Mr. Flynn, Mr. Cooley stated that it had been disclosed during the trial that Mr. Miller possessed documents in violation of sealing orders in Armstrong and he threatened that if I talked to any of the attorneys or parties involved in the trial the organization would view it as a breach of the settlement agreement.
21. In early 1988 I received copies of various documents, attached hereto as Exhibits [F] to [K], from the case of Church of Scientology of California v. Russell Miller & Penguin Books Limited in the High Court of Justice, Case No. 6140. The organization had unsuccessfully sought pre-publication suppression of Mr. Miller's book, which he titled Bare-Faced Messiah, and it was published and distributed immediately following the October 1987 trial.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit [F] is a copy of an affidavit of Kenneth David Long dated October 5, 1987, and the exhibits or partial exhibits thereto that so far I have in my possession. The purpose of Mr. Long's affidavit, as it relates to me, was to try to convince the English Court that I had provided documents to Mr. Miller in violation of various California Courts' sealing orders.
23. In pages 3 through 8 Mr. Long gives the organization's version of my job description and actions as Mr. Hubbard's biography researcher and archivist, the contracting of Omar V. Garrison to write the biography, and the procedural history in Armstrong from the filing of the complaint up to the settlement. At page 9 Mr. Long states that " following the trial the Church sought and obtained a series of sealing orders which effectively maintained the sealing of the trial exhibits right up to and including December 1986." He then identifies a number of documents Mr. Miller had quoted from in Bare-Faced Messiah: Mr. Hubbard's Boy Scout Diary, a letter to Mr. Hubbard from his mother, a letter from Mr. Hubbard to his first wife, Polly, a letter to the Cape Cod Instrument Company, a journal Mr. Hubbard kept while in the navy, three diaries from 1927 to 1929, and Mr. Hubbard's "Tentative Constitution for Rhodesia." Mr. Long also states that each of these documents "has never been unsealed or made available to the general public."
24. At page 13 of his affidavit Mr. Long, without providing any further elucidation, states, "I also know that Mr. Armstrong refused to obey an order of the court, and retained possession of documents which he had been ordered to surrender to the court for safekeeping under seal." He then concludes that "it is my belief that the documents quoted and paraphrased in Mr. Miller's manuscript were furnished to Mr. Miller by Mr. Armstrong, and that they could not have been furnished to Mr. Miller by anyone else as no one else other than Mr. Armstrong had access to these documents."
the court's exhibit sticker indicating it was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.
b. A copy of an affidavit I executed on April 12, 1980 while in the organization. This document, the first page of which I have attached to Mr. Long's affidavit, was also admitted into evidence in Armstrong .
c. A copy of my petition to Mr. Hubbard to assemble his archives for a biography. This document, which is presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.
d. A non-disclosure and release bond executed by me on March 18, 1977. This document, the first page of which I have attached to Mr. Long's affidavit, shows the court's exhibit sticker indicating it was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.
e. A copy of my dispatch of February 22, 1980. This document, which is presently unavailable to me was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.
f. A copy of my dispatch of May 14, 1980. This document, which is presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong .
g. A copy of the agreement dated October 30, 1980 between Omar Garrison and AOSH DK Publications. This document, which is presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.
h. A copy of a letter of November 14, 1980 from AOSH DK Publications regarding the Hubbard biography project. This document, which is presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.
i. A copy of a resolution adopted by the organization's board of directors providing an assistant to Mr. Garrison. This document, which is presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.
j. A copy of my letter of December 12, 1981 resigning from my position as Mr. Hubbard's researcher. This document, which is presently unavailable to me, was admitted into evidence in Armstrong.
k. A copy of pages 313 to 323 of my deposition testimony of August 1, 1986 in the case of Michael J. Flynn v. Church of Scientology International in the US District Court Central District of California, Case No. CV8504853R. I have attached these pages as an exhibit to Mr. Long's affidavit herewith.
26. Attached hereto as Exhibit [G] is a copy of a second affidavit of Mr. Long dated October 5, 1987 which was filed in the Miller case. In pages 2 through 16 of this affidavit Mr. Long again reviews the Armstrong litigation, expands his analysis of the case's various sealing orders, and again designates several documents he claims I gave Mr. Miller in contravention of those orders.
27. At page 9 of his affidavit Mr. Long identifies three diaries written by Mr. Hubbard between 1927 and 1929 and charges that Mr. Miller or Jonathan Caven-Atack, who had assisted Miller with his research, possessed them in violation of a sealing order in Armstrong. Mr. Long goes on to state at page 10: "I am certain that the only possible source for the diaries attached by Mr. Caven-Atack as Exhibit JC-A4 is Mr. Armstrong and/or his counsel."
28. In pages 11 to 15 of his affidavit Mr. Long describes a letter to Mr. Hubbard from his mother, Mr. Hubbard's Boy Scout diary, and a letter from Mr. Hubbard to his first wife, Polly, and alleges that Mr. Miller or Mr. Caven-Atack obtained these documents from me in violation of the Court's sealing orders.
"All three of these letters were surrendered to the Clerk of the Court by Mr. Armstrong and his counsel in September 1982, and all remained under seal until they were returned to the Church in December 1986. Mr. Miller's inclusion of the information cited herein clearly shows additional breaches of confidence and violation of the orders issued by the California courts."
30. I consider that Mr. Long's assertions of what documents were sealed, when they were sealed and where they originated are erroneous, and his conclusion that I had violated the Los Angeles Superior Court's sealing orders fallacious.
"Gerald Armstrong has been an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in Church files which would then be "found" by Federal officials in subsequent investigation as evidence of criminal activity."
contents to get the Church raided where these forged documents would be found and used against the Church."
"I have been deeply involved in the litigation of (Armstrong ) since the inception of that litigation on August 2, 1982. During the course of my participation in that litigation, I personally inventoried the materials surrendered pursuant to court order to the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court in September 1982 by Gerald Armstrong and his counsel. I also attended almost every deposition and/or pre-trial proceeding held in that case, and was present as an assistent to counsel throughout each day of the trials proceedings in May and June, 1984."
"There is no legal way that Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Miller and/or Mr. Newman could have possession of these materials."
personally hand deliver a new stay order. In addition, I also had my staff maintain a watch over the area of the court where these documents were kept during each so called "window" period and no one viewed and/or copied the materials."
"(t)here can be no doubt that the documents in issue herein, no matter through whom they were funneled to Mr. Miller, originated from Mr. Armstrong, in violation of court orders."
"Gerald Armstrong was the only person that had these letters and he knowingly violated several court orders -- the August 24, 1982 court order to turn in all materials to the court and the June 20, 1984 court order sealing the documents. He obviously didn't keep them sealed since Mr. Newman and Mr. Miller have copies and he didn't turn in all copies of the letters when ordered, since as a condition of settlement Mr. Armstrong turned in any materials he had concerning LRH or the Church. I personally inspected the documents he turned in in January 1987 and among them were the three Helen O'Brien letters, letters that he was ordered to turn into the court."
including but not limited to those tapes and other documents now in the possession of the United States District Court in the case of United States v.Zolin, Case No. CV 85-0440-HLH(Tx), presently in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the event any of these documents are currently lodged with the Court of Appeal, Plaintiff and his attorneys will cooperate in recovering those documents as soon as the Court of Appeal issues a decision on the pending appeal."
L. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 7(E) above, Plaintiff shall be entitled to retain any artwork created by him which concerns or relates to the religion of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard or any of the organizations, individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above provided that such artwork never be disclosed either directly or indirectly, to anyone. In the event of a disclosure in breach of this Paragraph 7(L), Plaintiff shall be subject to the liquidated damages and constructive trust provisions of Paragraph 7(D) for each such breach."
of April 23, 1984 in Armstrong, declaration of Michael Flynn from "another church case," and a comment of my lawyer Julia Dragojevic at a deposition of Homer Schomer.
39. Mr. Long also identifies, produces and quotes from an affidavit of mine dated March 7, 1986, a copy of which I have attached hereto as Exhibit [L]. This affidavit was filed in Tonja Burden v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 80-501-Civ-T-17. The organization settled this case in 1986 and had the case file sealed.
They also stated that if I didn't file something it would unsettle the settlement. They said they have a case on point. They said it would be bad for me. I could have to give the (settlement) money back. Mr. Flynn translated the facts to me: "It's a veiled threat." I said my decision at that time was to do nothing.
the file was sealed. Mr. Flynn said he was unsure how the case applies to what the organization wanted me to do. He said the court didn't get to the point of dealing with unsettling the settlement. I said I would still do nothing.
42. On December 27, 1988 I again spoke by telephone with Mr. Flynn who had himself spoken to lawyers on both sides of Mr. Corydon's litigation. This is what I considered relevant at the time: Following Judge Geernaert's unsealing of the Armstrong court file, the organization filed a petition for a writ of supersedeas claiming the sealing of the file was consideration for settlement. In his response Paul Morantz filed some settlement documents, a notary seal from the State of Pennsylvania on which identified Bill Franks, like me a former organization executive and witness in various organization-related cases, as their source. Mr. Franks had sent the documents to a lawyer to look at and the lawyer gave them to another lawyer who gave them to Mr. Morantz. The organization reacted. They claimed to have "the smoking gun," the proof of settlement violations. They charged that there are numerous breaches: they knew last summer that Mr. Franks had spent time with the Aznarans (who I understood to be organization executives who had recently defected and had sued the organization); and they had some instance of Homer Schomer doing something three weeks before. Mr. Flynn advised me he was going to file a pleading to say that the settlement documents should remain sealed. I said I felt the court file should be unsealed and almost certainly would be at some point, but that I wouldn't do anything at that time. Around November 15, 1989 I received from Ms. Plevin a copy of a document entitled " Response of Gerald Armstrong to Opposition Filed By Real Party in Interest, Bent Corydon" which is attached hereto as Exhibit [M].
43. On November 18, 1989 I received a copy of a videotape of me edited from illegal videotapes made in 1984 by organization operatives and used thereafter against me. This copy had been given to the London Sunday Times, along with a package of documents concerning me which I do not yet have, in late 1987 or early 1988. Taped to the cassette is the business card of Eugene M. Ingram, the organization's private detective who set up the illegal videotaping. A copy of one side of the video cassette showing Mr. Ingram's card is attached hereto as Exhibit [N].
"From everything I've seen that's going on and everything I've heard that's going on and knowing my history and the issues I cannot see ducking (the deposition) at all: The truthful declaration would be that I would see that my experiences and my knowledge of Bent would be relevant to his case."
"I think you could check with Ken Long on what has been done regarding Gerald Armstrong subsequent to the settlement. Just get from him everything that's been filed regarding Armstrong, all his declarations regarding me, all the so-called false report corrections that have been put out subsequent to the settlement, any time the so-called "Armstrong Operation" videotape has been used subsequent to the settlement."
Mr. Heller reiterated at the end of our conversation that if I start to testify, for example about the Hubbard biography project, or things he and the organization consider irrelevant, they will carefully examine their rights as to what action they will take. He said he strongly suggested that I refuse to answer subject to attorney instruction. He said I had a contractual obligation as far as he could tell.
G. Plaintiff agrees that he will not voluntarily assist or cooperate with any person adverse to Scientology in any proceeding against any of the Scientology organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above.
Plaintiff also agrees that he will not cooperate in any manner with any organization aligned against Scientology.
or any of the Scientology Churches, individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above unless compelled to do so by lawful subpoena or other lawful process. Plaintiff shall not make himself amenable to service of any such subpoena in an manner which invalidates the intent of this provision. Unless required to do so by such subpoena, Plaintiff agrees not to discuss this litigation or his experiences with anyone other than members of his immediate family. As provided hereinafter in Paragraph 18(d), the contents of this Agreement may not be disclosed."
46. It is my opinion that these provisions are unenforceable because the organization is using them in a coercive and obstructive manner, because on their face they deny equal justice to anyone who would engage the organization legally, and because they are suppressive of several basic rights: speech, assembly, safety, happiness.
47. On November 30, 1989 I attended a hearing in Corydon of the organization's motion to prevent my deposition from going forward before Judge Norman Epstein in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Judge Epstein ruled that the deposition would go forward and it is now set for April 12 and 13, 1990.
48. While at the hearing I was served with a subpoena duces tecum, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [O], ordering me to appear as a witness in the trial of Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Joseph Yanney, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C690211. The subpoena also orders the production of the settlement agreement. The Yanney trial is at this date proceeding before Judge Raymond Cardenas in department 41.
in Division Three of the Second Appellate District in the California Court of Appeal. In this appeal the organization seeks a reversal of the Breckenridge decision (Exhibit [A]).
50. On January 30, 1990 I received from Flynn, Sheridan & Tabb the "Reply Brief of Appellants and Response to Cross-Appeal" filed in Division Four of the Second Appellate District in the Court of Appeal in a case entitled Church of Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard, Appellants, against Gerald Armstrong, Defendant; Bent Corydon, Appellee, Civ. No. B038975. In this appeal the organization is seeking a reversal of Judge Geernaert's decision unsealing the Armstrong case file.
51. On February 15, 1990 I received a telephone call from attorney Michael Tabb, a partner of Michael Flynn, who said that he had been called by Larry Heller who told him that the organization considered I had violated the settlement agreement by being in the courthouse to be served in Yanney, that they intended to prove it, and that I would be sued.
52. On February 20, 1990 I executed a document I titled "Respondent's Petition for Permission to File Response and for an Extension of Time to File Response," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [P], and had it mailed to the Court of Appeal. The document was filed in the Armstrong appeal, No. B025920, in Division Three on February 28.
53. On February 21, 1990 I executed a document I titled "Defendant's Petition for Permission to File Response and for Time to File," a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [Q], and had it mailed to the Court of Appeal. This document was filed in the Corydon appeal, No. B038975, in Division Four on March 1.
54. At some point the Court of Appeal unsealed the settlement agreement, which I had attached as a sealed exhibit to my two petitions, and which I have attached hereto as Exhibit [R].
Executed this fifteenth day of March, 1990 at Oakland, California.
Exhibit [E] Pages 11, 12, 18 and 29 from Bent Corydon's book entitled L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.