Gerry Armstrong--Objection of Cross-Defendant Church of Scientology of Califiornia to Release of Preclear Files

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §

JOHN G. PETERSON
PETERSON AND BRYNAN
8530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 407
Beverly Hills, California 90211

DONALD C. RANDOLPH
A Member of
OVERLAND, BERKE,, WESLEY, GITS,
RANDOLPH & LEVANAS
A Professional Corporation
2566 Overland Avenue, Seventh Floor
Los Angeles, California 90064
(213) 559-8150

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA, a California
Corporation;

Plaintiff,

GERALD ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 420 153

OBJECTION OF CROSS-DEFENDANT
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA TO RELEASE OF
PRECLEAR FILES

[UNDER SEAL]

INTRODUCTION

The Church has fought, at all times herein, to protect

Armstrong's privacy, and the privacy of its other

parishioners, by refusing to produce the preclear files

relating to Armstrong for an in camera inspection.

Needless to say, the Church does not wish to jeopardize its

ability to provide religious services to all of its

-1-

adherents simply because one ex-member lacks respect for its

religious principles. The Church urges this Court to consider

carefully, as several other courts have done, the potential

adverse impact on religious confidentiality for all Church

members which arises from Armstrong's own attempts at

self-destruction through insisting that his preclear files

become discoverable.

Throughout this litigation, the Church has maintained

these files securely and in confidence, and only within the

last few weeks have these files been copied, indexed and

reviewed by counsel in preparation for their production as

ordered by this Court. As is evident below, the Church has

very obviously not utilized or disseminated the information

contained in these files at any point. As is also evident

below, there is significant information contained in these

files which is directly contradictory and otherwise quite

detrimental to Armstrong's assertions in support of his case.

Additionally, there is a great deal of information contained

in the files which is undoubtedly personally embarrassing to

Mr. Armstrong and extremely destructive to his reputation and

credibility. Nonetheless, even in full awareness of the

damage that the contents of these files could inflict upon

Armstrong and his claims, the Church still urges this Court to

maintain the privacy of the documents and the information

contained therein. This position is not based upon any

overriding concern for Armstrong's welfare; rather, the Church

still maintains that the sanctity of the confessional must be

placed above all other concerns.

-2-

II.

APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THIS COURT

In Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California

et al., Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 332 027, the

Honorable Ronald Swearinger was faced with a similar, although

possibly even more serious, situation. In that case,

plaintiff Larry Wollersheim had alleged that the pastoral

counseling delivered to him by the Church had directly

resulted in physical and emotional damage to him. He further

alleged that the preclear files pertaining to him were

directly relevant as evidence of this damage, and the

intentional or negligent infliction emotional distress to

him.

As in the case herein, the production of the preclear

files relating to Larry Wollersheim occurred in stages, with

the Church bringing to the Court's attention at each stage the

relevant objections. On February 28, 1986, Judge Swearinger

required plaintiff Wollersheim to inform the Court that a

knowing and informed waiver of the priest-penitent privilege

was being made. (See Declaration of John G. Peterson, attached

hereto as Exhibit "[A] ".)

On March 13, 1986, Judge Swearinger took note of the

November 5, 1985 Order issued by the Honorable Judge Mariana

Pfaelzer in the case of Religious Technology Center, et al.

v. Larry Wollersheim, et al., U.S.D.C. C.D.Ca. Civil Action

No. 85-7197-MRP. That Order described as "confidential

religious scriptures" the materials known within the Church as

"(1) Solo Part II, (2) Power, (3) R6EW, (4) DCSI, (5) Sunshine

-3-

Rundown, (6) Clearing Course, (7) OT I, (8) OT II, (9) OT III,

. . ." (See Temporary Restraining order, attached hereto as

Exhibit "[B]".) Following the decision reached by Judge

Pfaelzer, Judge Swearinger ordered that "[w]e are not going

into the contents of those upper level materials." (See March

13, 1986 Trial Transcript, pp. 2208-2209, attached hereto as

Exhibit "[C]".) Judge Swearinger reiterated on April 3, 1986

that no testimony from the upper levels materials, being

defined as "Power through NOTS", would be allowed into the

trial of the action. (See April 3, 1986 Trial Transcript, pp.

786-4787, attached hereto as Exhibit "[D]".) Thereafter, the

preclear files were produced to Judge Swearinger for his in

camera inspection. The files containing upper level

materials were not required to be produced, and were not

produced.

On May 6, 1986, after Judge Swearinger had thoroughly

reviewed the contents of the files, a discussion was held

concerning the "tremendous confusion and side shows" that the

introduction of the preclear files into the Wollersheim case

would create. (See May 6, 1986 Trial Transcript, p. 7571,

attached hereto as Exhibit "[E]".)

A procedure whereby the files were maintained by the

Court, but in which Wollersheim and his counsel could review

them in the presence of a referee, was established. No such

review occurred, apparently due to a decision by Wollersheim

and his counsel that the interests balanced by the information

contained in those files becoming public or staying private

came down on the side of privacy.

-4-

The alternative suggested by the Wollersheim case is

completely applicable and appropriate to the case herein. The

Church has not produced the three files pertaining to

Armstrong which contain "confidential religious scriptures".

Those files, covering the time period from just a portion of

1978 into early 1980, include "(1) Solo Part II, . . . (6)

Clearing Course, (7) OT I, (8) OT II, [and] (9) OT III"

materials. It has, however, produced for inspection the

twenty-five files covering the time period from Armstrong's

first pastoral counseling, in 1970, up through the portion of

1978 when he engaged in the confidential upper level

counseling. This Court should require only the production of

the preclear files already produced.

This Court should also, as was established by the

Wollersheim court, require Armstrong and his counsel to

provide a waiver of the priest-penitent privilege prior to any

review of the files which have been produced. The procedure

formulated by Judge Swearinger, which would allow Armstrong and

his counsel to review the files in the presence of a referee,

is likewise completely appropriate for the case herein. Upon

completion of his review, this Court should require Armstrong

to specifically state which documents support his claims. The

Church is confident that Armstrong will be unable to

demonstrate any support for his claims that Armstrong's

files were "culled" for the simple reason that no such action

has occurred.

It seems highly unlikely that Armstrong and his counsel,

once they have reviewed these files, will still insist on

-5-

making their contents a part of this case as such an action

will create only harm to Armstrong. The Church has not

utilized these files in any way for this litigation, and

repeats its offer at this time to destroy the files, and any

copies thereof, in Armstrong and/or his counsel's presence

should they now be willing to adopt this course of action.

III.

INFORMATION IN THE PRECLEAR FILES IS HARMFUL

TO ARMSTRONG'S CASE AND CHARACTER

If Armstrong insists on making the contents of these

files a part of this case by obtaining copies of them, and if

the Court does not reconsider its intention to release these

preclear files to Armstrong, the Church will be forced,

against its wishes, to utilize the same documentation in its

defense as evidence of Armstrong's character and perjurious

statements.

A. Statements Regarding Armstrong's Case

The files contain numerous references to admissions by

Armstrong which are directly contradictory to his allegations

in the Third Amended Cross-Complaint as well as

representations made directly to this Court in various

declarations. Information in this regard includes the

following:

1. On November 18, 1977, Armstrong commented to his

minister oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

-6-

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooo. On February 26, 1977, Armstrong informed

his minister ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooo. On November 13, 1976, Armstrong stated that

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

2. On October 24, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister

that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

3. On October 16, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister

that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooo.

4. On September 20, 1977, Armstrong informed his

minister that ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo0oooooo

5. On September 2, 1977, Armstrong confessed to his

minister that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooo

6. On May 5, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister that,

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo .

7. On February 27, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister

that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

-7-

8. On February 26, 1977, Armstrong described the

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

All of the above statements by Armstrong are highly

relevant to this action. They lead to the inescapable

conclusion that Armstrong has lied to this Court and, when

that ultimately proves to be the case, contempt and dismissal

of the action is the proper sanction.

B. Statements Regarding Armstrong's Character

Other admissions contained in these files, which go

directly to Armstrong's credibility and character, include the

following:

1. Armstrong admitted to his ministers on numerous

occasions that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooo(see, e.g., March 26, 1970 and July 16, 1970

statements); oooooooooooo (see e.g., statement of April 17,

1970; oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooo (see e.g., statements of December

31, 1972, and July 20, 1973; (see, oooooooooooooo

e.g., June 30, 1977 statement).

2. Armstrong admitted to his ministers on numerous

occasions that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

-8-

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

(see, e.g., statements of July 18, 1974 and September 6, 1977;

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooo see, e.g., statements of May 23, 1970,

July 18, 1974 and February 27, 1997); oooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooo see, e.g., statements of May 23, 1970);

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (September

24, 1976); oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (see,

e.g., statement of December 8, 1976); oooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (see, e.g.,

statements of April 14, 1970, February 6, 1971 and August 12,

1977); oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooo (September 6, 1977); ooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (see, e.g.,

statements of September 15, 1971 and February 26, 1972.

3. Armstrong admitted to his ministers that oooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooo . (See, e.g., statement of July 25, 1973.

4. Armstrong admitted to his auditors on numerous

occasions that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooo (See, e.g., statements of February 6, 1971;

February 15, 1971; September 15, 1971; and October 10, 1972.)

The above admissions, if the Church is aver forced to use

them, must be construed as admissions against Armstrong's

interest. They paint an incredibly sad picture of a pathetic

and troubled individual who engaged in one illegal or deviant

-9-

act after another until entering the Church; who continued,

although in a comparatively minor way, to practice his debased

activities while a member of the Church; and who immediately

resumed his extremely aberrated activities upon leaving the

Church as demonstrated by his theft of thousands of pages of

personal materials and his "talking pig" essay, a sickening

"personal creative work" authored by Armstrong for potential

publication. (See essay, attached hereto as:Exhibit " [F]".)

IV.

THE DOCUMENT DATED NOVEMBER 26, 1976,

MARKED BY THE COURT AS SEALED EXHIBIT NO. 600,

IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRECLEAR FOLDERS

The document selected by the Court and denoted as sealed

Exhibit No. 600 in its Order of June 26, 1986 is not

representative of the majority of the documents contained in

the preclear files pertaining to Armstrong. The majority of

the documents contained in these preclear files are notes

taken by the ministers who delivered specific pastoral

counseling processes to Armstrong. Their notes, as

demonstrated above, reflect a great deal of spiritual

reflection and unburdening by Armstrong. The document

selected by this Court, however, is simply a review of an

earlier pastoral counseling process delivered to Armstrong;

its purpose was only to prepare Armstrong for additional

pastoral counseling processes.

Therefore, if the Court determines to release these files

to Armstrong, the Church proposes the addition of several

additional sealed exhibits as more truly being representative

-10-

of the documents contained within these preclear files. The

documents dated March 26, 1970, May 23, 1970, July 18, 1974 ,

and February 22, 1977 are hereby requested for introduction as

sealed Exhibits No. 601, 602, 603, and 604.

FURTHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

OF JULY 2, 1985

Pursuant to this Court's Order of July 2, 1985, attached

hereto as Exhibit " [G]" is a list of each of the pastoral

counseling sessions contained within the preclear files by

date, the name of the minister who counseled Armstrong, and

the location where the counseling occurred when known.

VI.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth hereinabove, the Church urges

this Court to allow Armstrong access to the preclear files for

inspection without copying or the taking of notes only. Such

an alternative will meet Armstrong's discovery objectives and

yet maintain the integrity of the confessional files without

interjecting their contents into this litigation. The Church

further urges this Court to require a waiver of the priest-

penitent privilege from Armstrong and his counsel prior to any

such inspection, to require a written statement specifying

///

-11-

what documents support his claims, and to exclude any

production of the "confidential religious scriptures".

DATED: July 3, 1986

Respectfully submitted,
OVERLAND, BERKE, WESLEY, GITS,
RANDOLPH & LEVANAS

By: ____________
DONALD C. RANDOLPH

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Cross-Defendant Church of
Scientology of California

-12-

Exhibit [A]
Declaration of John G. Peterson

Exhibit [B]
Temporary Restraining order

Exhibit [C]
March 13, 1986 Trial Transcript, pp. 2208-2209

Exhibit [D]
April 3, 1986 Trial Transcript, pp. 4786-4787

Exhibit [E]
May 6, 1986 Trial Transcript, p. 7571

Exhibit [F]
"Talking pig" essay

Exhibit [G]
"List of each of the pastoral counseling sessions contained within the preclear files by date, the name of the minister who counseled Armstrong, and the location where the counseling occurred when known."

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §