Source: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a2/2297.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:39:55+00:00

Document:
1. I became involved with Scientology as a customer in 1969 in Vancouver, British Columbia. I worked on staff there in 1970 and in February 1971 joined the Sea Organization (SO or Sea Org) in Los Angeles. I was flown to Spain and joined the Sea Org's flag ship, "Apollo," in Morocco. L. Ron Hubbard, the Sea Org's "Commodore," was on board and operated Scientology internationally through the "crew" which numbered, during my stay on board of four and a half years, around four hundred. All my staff positions on board involved personal contact with L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, administrative organization staff and people in the ports and countries the "Apollo" visited, and included "Ship's Representative" (legal representative), "Port Captain" (public relations officer), and "Information Officer" (intelligence officer).
assigned me to the RPF, this time for eight months first in La Quinta, then at a newly purchased base in Gilman Hot Springs near Hemet, California. When I got out of the RPF in the Spring of 1979 and until the beginning of 1980, I worked in Hubbard's "Household Unit" (HU) at Gilman, the SO unit which took care of Hubbard's house, personal effects, transport, meals and so forth, as the "Purchaser," "Renovations In- Charge" and "Deputy Commanding Officer HU."
documents and other materials from individual collectors.
4. As a result of the activities described above, I have become very familiar with Scientology policies, practices, and policy documents. I also know that the Church of Scientology of California, as part of the Scientology organization, has followed and implemented these policies and practices, including those described below.
The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. [ ¶ ] The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway...will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
legal can mock up. [ ¶ ] One of the bright spots of US legal is that even if you lose you don't pay your opponent for his lawyers fees.
The phrase "Dev-T" is a term which Scientology uses to mean to cause someone to do unnecessary work.
7. Since leaving the Scientology organization, I have monitored the conduct of the organization, including the Church of Scientology of California. I am familiar with, and have been a target and victim of the "fair game" doctrine, which was described by the California Court of Appeal decisions in Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, Allard v. Church of Scientology, and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology . Although Scientology claims that the "fair game" doctrine has been abandoned, I know from personal experience that this is not true, at least as recently as this year. For instance, Scientology attempted in the first few months of 1993 to have me jailed for contempt of court based on the false declaration of a Scientologist lawyer, Laurie Bartilson, for acts which Scientology itself set up. This is only the most recent of over a decade of "dirty tricks" which Scientology personnel have directed at me.
Scientology's litigation practices. Scientology regularly attempts to bludgeon the opposition into submission with a blizzard of meritless paper, motions, depositions, appeals, writs, Bar complaints, criminal complaints, perjured testimony, and other improper and abusive tactics.
9. I am also aware that Scientology uses an attack strategy against judges who rule against it, which includes claims of bias and prejudice and frequently personal attacks. For instance, in my case, Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, L.A. Superior Court No. C 420153, Scientology twice tried unsuccessfully to disqualify Judge Breckenridge from the case because of alleged bias, and levied personal attacks on him, accusing him publicly of Nazi affiliation. Similarly, in Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, U.S.D.C. C.D.Cal # CV-88-1786-JMI, Scientology unsuccessfully attempted to recuse Judge James Ideman because of alleged bias.
10. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit C is a true copy of the June 20, 1984 decision by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., in the case of Church of Scientoloqy of California v. Gerald Armstrong, L.A. Superior Court No. C 420153, which was affirmed on appeal at 232 Cal.App.3d. 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917 (1991).
Executed this 4th day of June, 1993, at Oakland, California.

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