|
§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact § |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE
REPORTERS' TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Tuesday, May 8, 1984
APPEARANCES:
VOLUME 7 Pages 996 - 1177
|
|||||
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
APPEARANCES:
|
||||||
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
VOLUME 7 I N D E X
W I T N E S S E S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
I N D E X E X H I B I T S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
996
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
-o0o-
have Mr. Vorm testify. After court yesterday Mrs. Hubbard came to our office and we worked until about 10:00 reviewing these articles, and she will be here around 10:00 and we are prepared to proceed with Mr. Vorm.
recalled as a witness by the plaintiff, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand and testified further as follows:
just have a seat. State your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
|
|
|
|
997
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
item which I said was an evidentiary item which contains the marks of Mr. Armstrong. I have a copy for Mr. Vorm; I gave a copy to Mr. Flynn. I would like the court's copy to be marked Plaintiff's next in order.
DIRECT EXAMINATION, BY MR. HARRIS:
Mr. Armstrong marking certain sections of an inventory in your testimony previously as I recall; is that right?
of the inventory of the trunks from your files?
but at my request.
trunks, what did you do with it?
marks on them and put them together and put the others together separately.
are those the pages that you pulled out that had Gerry's markings on them?
|
|
|
|
998
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
pages at
my request?
|
|
|
|
|
999
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
first page which is circled, is that your writing?
throughout?
the bottom right-hand corner.
page, is anything there your writing?
exhibit 13 in going through the trunks?
exhibit 13 there is what appears to be trunk 8.
mean?
that was marked on the trunk. Trunk 8 had the number 8 mark on the trunk, and that was the contents of the trunk.
your numbering of exhibit 13 on the left-hand side appears to be the word "envelope" the number 1 and then a bracket which extends down toward the bottom of the page; do you see that?
used the inventory, part of which is now exhibit 13, were |
|
|
|
1000
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
you able
to ascertain that the items that are inventoried,
that is in the middle of page 14 of exhibit 13, were in fact contained in envelopes?
example, exhibit 13 contain an envelope No. 1 which contained the items that are on page 14?
page there appears to be some dark writing in the left-hand column.
trunk 8, did you find a packet re Pontiac papers, certificates, et cetera?
inventory page 14 of exhibit 13 in an envelope which had a designation 1?
side of page 14 of exhibit 13, whose marks are those?
transfer of materials to Gerry in approximately October of '81.
|
|
|
|
1001
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
he received
the originals or copies?
LRH wallets, one full of membership cards that would have just been given to him at the time?
of the envelope 1 which has check marks on the right-hand side?
|
|
|
|
1002
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
opened the trunks using the inventory, did those appear to contain the contents as designated in the middle of page 14?
Again, on the left-hand side there appear to be various envelopes. And so we can clear this up for the rest of it, in each of the cases where there was an envelope for file designated on the left-hand side, when you opened the trunks and looked in there was there an envelope which contained the items that are in the inventory, that is, the middle part?
there is what appears to be a bracket of some sort on the right-hand side with a check mark; do you see that?
every single item, all the items in that category were bracketed and a check mark was put beside it, meaning all of those items were given to Gerry.
kept by you?
copies. Those originals of those Xeroxed copies were given, and no copies were kept by me.
|
|
|
|
1003
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
it looks
like envelope 11; there appears to be a word on
the right-hand side near where other checks are which says "Missing."
envelope 11, to your recollection?
page 16 on the right-hand side, mid page, there appear to be M's underlined, some with question marks; what do those designate, if you know?
inventory indicated there was a manuscript, meaning it was several pages of handwritten, usually handwritten, sometimes typed, either an article or something that could be con- sidered a manuscript as opposed to just a single note or something like that.
check marks on the right-right side?
mid page, right-hand side, page 16, Exhibit 13?
was going to give it to Gerry. And after looking at it, decided that it was something that actually should be in my archives. And so the check mark was crossed off, and I kept that particular item. |
|
|
|
1004
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
bottom of the page on the right-hand side, were these envelope 22, envelope 23, with various categories, were these individual documents or multiple documents? What is it?
several articles, some of the pages stapled together because they are series, correspondence, or whatever that particular file contained. But there is definitely more than one item in those files.
Exhibit 13, again, each of the check marks on the right-hand side designated that these were items given to Mr. Armstrong and these were his check marks?
talking about single pages, files, or a mixture, when you are looking at page 17?
For instance, the letter from Karl Marx was either one or two pages, wasn't very big, as I recall. Some of the others, like folder, legal receipts, I recall that it had quite a few receipts in the file itself. So it is a mixture.
check mark, "Correspondent Home of this"; was that an indi- vidual document or a file? |
|
|
|
1005
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
several pages of correspondence in that.
this -- By the way, this is trunk No. 12-1 up at the right-hand corners what does that designate?
trunk that was marked 12-1, and this inventory would corres- pond to that trunk. |
|
|
|
1006
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
approximately how many were there?
like that when I first got them.
I take it, 1 to 20 judging from this?
numbering system was if you could figure it out?
12-3, 12-5, 12-6. I don't know why they started with 12, but that is what the trunks were marked and that is what the pages were marked so that is what corresponded.
phrase "Pack HWD-1."
trunks, what did HM mean?
HWD packs. HWD evidently stood for hand-written dispatches per the note on the top and also, I believe, the files themselves are labeled LRH handwritten dispatches or handwritten dispatches or something like that.
difference between a pack and an envelope by your observation?
actually like legal manila-sized brown envelopes with a flap on the front. They had numbers on the outside of the envelopes. |
|
|
|
1007
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
it looked like someone had gone into a file drawer and just taken out a section of files, wrapped them in cardboard and tied them with a string and then written on the outside of the cardboard the pack number of that particular pack.
inventory item appears to be ACC notes and then 16th and 17th have a circle around them, as does 20th and there is some handwriting; what is that?
through the trunks originally.
filed MSS" which is my indication of manuscripts, so what that means is that there was a booklet pertaining to the 16th and 17th ACC's which I considered should have been filed with the manuscripts, and I took it out and filed it in another file.
what does that designate?
pulled it out and filed it somewhere else. Those are my initials.
pages, those are indications that you took an item out of the trunk and filed it in some sort of file?
|
|
|
|
1008
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
indicate
files to be obtained by Mr. Armstrong from you?
multiple documents or single documents?
documents. Some of the files had hundreds of pages in them. Some of them had just a few.
there is some writing. Appears to be "two folders."
sure exactly.
be only two items designated by check mark; Cuba and deceased Scientologists.
make copies or did he make copies to return to archives?
just transferring them to him.
pack HWD-3, there is a notation, there is an item FDA Legal scratched out, and then there is some writing; whose writing is that?
|
|
|
|
1009
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
particular
pack, this file, FDA Legal, was missing and so
it was written "missing" and as we went through, then later on we found it in one of the other packs under a different heading. So we ca$er back and wrote that in, crossed out the "missing" and wrote in where to find it.
27 of exhibit 13 there is what appears to be handwritten "all HEC files" with a check mark; whose writing is that?
files?
If you look right underneath on page 27 where it says pack HWD-4(a), it says HEC. There was a file divider there labeled "HEC" which included all the files evidently in the file drawer. That is what was used and these files were HEC files and they were all given to Gerry except for the two items that I had taken out earlier on page 28.
ships org book?
the check mark that is on page 27 which is next to "all HEC files" encompassed the first part of page 28 through Tangiers?
"Legal" and then there is "AMA" and "FDA" with check marks; |
|
|
|
1010
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
what does
that indicate?
were taken and they were both checked off.
they single documents or multiple?
I think they were an inch or more/of correspondence, various things having to do with legal.
looked to be missing, and then there was this notation "See Legal FDA"; has that word showed up?
the bottom of page 28; 9-'53-'60 et cetera; what was it? I don't assume it was just dates sitting in the file.
and then afterwards it said whatever these designations were from 1953 to 1960. That would have been legal materials like correspondence with attorneys back and forth from that period of time, meaning 1953 to 1960, inclusive. |
|
|
|
1011
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
marks throughout and then some writing about two-thirds of the page down, "Legal AMA, Legal FDA"; whose writing is that?
was put there?
missing earlier, at least this one, this "FDA Legal." And either there was two additional files labeled "Legal AMA" or it was just written in on the wrong page. I am not sure. Gerry was handling the check marks as we went through on that particular item.
"Dear Fellows," there is an X; what does that indicate?
Exhibit 13, are they single documents or multiple?
labels on the file folders. In some cases, some of them were single pages. As I recall, for the most part they had more than one page. In some cases, they had a lot more pages.
that is up at the top and the category "Membership Cards"; what does that indicate?
taken. |
|
|
|
1012
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
which contain check marks, again, I take it it is a potpourri, some individual documents, some files?
individual documents.
correct; some were single: some were more than one.
to be a lot of check marks.
that Mr. Armstrong took?
"Ships and Boats, 1957-68," and then an indication, seven folders; that was given to Mr. Armstrong?
it looked like, what are the seven folders? Are we talking about big items, small? What is the best you can describe it?
at least an inch thick. There was just a lot of miscellaneous files and correspondence, that sort of thing.
writing about two-thirds of the way down the page, "Pack HWD 13"; do you recognize that writing?
|
|
|
|
1013
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
bottom -- well, it is actually mid page. But at the bottom of the typing appears to be some handwriting, "MSH Letter 1973 one pack LRH" -- I can't make that out -- "Certs" and then "(Photos) two packs"; what was that and what did it indicate?
that Mrs. Hubbard wrote to Mr. Hubbard in the 1973 period. He was away for a while.
certificates that were actual photos of the certificates as opposed to original certificates. There was two packs of those. Those were given to Gerry.
writing is that?
get the originals or copies?
originals to Xerox only, which he then brought back to me.
original form in your archives right now?
Exhibit 13, there appears to be an arrow of some sort about |
|
|
|
1014
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
a third
of the way down the page; is that your writing?
labeled RHOD; that stood for Rhodesia 1 and 2.
details, contents of Rhodesia drawer and top study."
page 45, which was basically a breakdown of those two packs as far as the files that they contained. And my notation just says, "To Senior PTR Researcher Both Packs," with my initials. |
|
|
|
1015
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
written slightly later than or slightly before. I think it was later. It had to have been later than this other transfer with the checks.
recall specifics on that.
crossed-out material supposed to be?
That was crossed out in a heavy black pen.
with that, to your knowledge?
two packs that are under Rhodesia 1 and 2 just broken down?
Rhodesia 1 and 2 to Mr. Armstrong?
Exhibit 13, about halfway down the page, "Some handwriting folder containing MSH letters, et cetera"; do you see that? |
|
|
|
1016
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
That was on the inventory when I received it.
trunks?
was we came across these letters, but we couldn't find the notation on the inventory as to where they were. So on page 42, Gerry just wrote them in, "MSH letters 1973, one pack."
will see on page 42 I wrote down at the bottom, "See 12-3 page 6," just as an indication.
there is some writing below the word "packs"?
notation up at the top which appears to be the title of the page as well as the date. There is a date 8 February 1969, then LRH per sec WW files to LRH. |
|
|
|
1017
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the inventory at the time you received the trunks?
trunks -- in this case, trunk 12-4, contained all of these items?
off. Were these files or individual documents?
to be primary correspondence files.
page there is on the left-hand side, something pack number LRH PS3, et cetera; whose writing is that, if you know?
packs, does the inventory reflect what was in those packs?
labeled LRH PS3. I believe that stood for per sec with a number after it, and those particular files matched up.
check mark next to it, two parcels, about how big were these, if you recall?
|
|
|
|
1018
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
than one
document in them.
page 52 there appears to be little dashes in the left margin; what are those?
than maybe we just looked at the files. I don't think they have any significance.
Double Doored Safe WW," with a date, that was all on there when you received this?
|
|
|
|
1019
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
page 58. I'd like to describe it in geometric terms, but I won't.
Records" down to "Sunburst Cross Pin plus Ornamental Ribbon." And there appears to be some writing on the right- hand side. What does that designate, if you know?
I gave to Gerry after I had sent the request to Mary Sue in January of '81.
Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 11. Is that the approval that you are talking about?
turn over to Mr. Armstrong --
mately 30 assorted science fiction paperbacks; where were those from?
find them on the inventory when I first picked up the trunks.
Mrs. Hubbard to be given to Mr. Armstrong, which are on |
|
|
|
1020
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
page 58?
And you'll see, it matches almost exactly with what is on the request.
Exhibit 13 the check marks indicate that Mr. Armstrong received the items after which the check marks appear?
from your memory of what was under seal here in the court, check all of the archives under your control with respect to items that you remembered being under seal?
of certain items that I remembered being under seal in court.
are originals?
of what was under seal as originals to determine if you had copies?
the page number on Exhibit 13, could you tell the Court some of the items that are originals under seal and no copies in |
|
|
|
1021
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
your archives?
Honor?
You are the controller archives?
the chart, Your Honor.
system, there is a file under "Pack HWD-3" called "Deceased Scientologists."
court, that file contained a funeral oration and handwriting by Mr. Hubbard for a lady named Peggy Conway, who had died at a certain time in the '60s or late '50s, something like that.
relating to a couple other Scientologists who had passed away. I could not find any copy of those particular original documents in the archives.
taken by Gerry, there was a file called Norton Rose 1966, which, as I recall, contained at least 75 pages of original documents, probably more, could have been in the hundreds of legal correspondence and that type of thing between -- |
|
|
|
1022
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
concerning
the firm of Norton Rose. And I could not find
any of those documents or copies of them in the archives.
particular items, those particular files, I am sure -- on some of these others I have a pretty good idea that they are missing. I am just not going to say for certain.
as you go through, name the page and the file. We'll under- stand that there is an original by your memory under seal which you do not have copies of in your archives.
HEC Files. It is a file called Constantine Diamontides, something like that. It is a Greek name. I don't recall those documents in the file.
pondences, handwritten, between Mr. Hubbard and this par- ticular person in Greece at the time.
two files, Legal AMA and Legal FDA.
in court, there were a lot of pages in those files. Some of them had like over 100 pages of legal correspondence, that type of thing, from that period of time. And I could find no copies in the archives concerning those.
|
|
|
|
1023
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 |
if you had copies so that the Court understands what you did?
had been turned over to me. I went through the material, the files that had been returned by Omar Garrison and also I went through my own files, the controller archives' files plus files that were listed as the G.O. Archives' files that had been given to me in '83.
items on the inventory that you could name where the originals are under seal and you do not have copies?
memory.
Mr. Flynn this morning, Your Honor, and indicated that I would use.
order?
inaccurate, Your Honor.
Mr. Armstrong, Your Honor, or others.
questions first.
called Guardian Archives WW?
|
|
|
|
1024
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
now under your control?
WW, there's been a lot of materials that have been called that at various times. Certain materials that I consider to be archive materials are now in my control that were called Guardian Archives WW?
to the court the other day, what is that an inventory of?
received when the Guardian Archives WW was broken up basically.
generally, did you prepare rough drafts from which exhibit 14 was prepared?
what the designations on item 14 mean and you have got to hold it up go the court could see it at the same time.
|
|
|
|
1025
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
and my own research into what they were pursuant to trying to sort out the confusion that existed when I came on the post, this is basically a delineation of the Guardian Archives and how that differs between the Controller Archives and what the various terms mean because some terms were used yesterday that kind of confused me as far as what was being referred to.
understood the archives to have occurred and how it came together. In 1966 there were the original materials of Dianetics, of Scientology, including original LRH dispatches of matters, that type of thing, plus the reference, the Dianetics and Scientology materials, magazines that the various organizations were asked to send in so that they could be on file as a historical reference plus other historical files. Those were all termed the Guardian Archives. Mrs. Hubbard was the guardian, and that is where they all were in England.
controller. There was some concern about the materials and the project was sent to England to bring some materials, the original materials of Dianetics and Scientology to the ship, leaving at England the reference files of Dianetics and Scientology materials, magazines, that type of thing, plus any other historical files.
The result of the project that did that just went through |
|
|
|
1026
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
and grabbed
anything and everything that they thought might
concern LRH and Mary Sue, and that is why you have a lot of personal materials and that type of thing in the trunks. So, the controller trunks then continue down the side.
They were kept in storage for a while. Some time around this period, at various times through this period the tape trunks were separated, the trunks containing the tape lectures for this project to preserve the tapes. They were kept in Clearwater, Florida in 1975 or 1976. A project was being done.
separate matter, then these other trunks containing the written materials and the personal materials.
post title was Guardian's Office Archives Librarian. There was a little confusion as to what archives. There was no Controller Archives at that time.
the tape trunks that I had, and that was when the Controller Archives came into being. That included the original Dianetics and Scientology materials, original LRH dispatches, personal materials that were in the trunks plus all the tapes, and that was the Controller Archives.
materials to Gerry which was this archives here. After Gerry left in October 1982 all these archives then came back to me. The name was changed to LRH Archives. |
|
|
|
1027
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Archives Worldwide. During this period they got a bit confused as to what they were supposed to be doing, too. It was under the public relations bureau and they had put all kinds of public relations operational files, various programs that we were working on, that type of thing into the archives which weren't archives material. That was -- it was kind of a confused mess all the way down here. |
|
|
|
1028
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
done basically at my request. They sorted out all of this other material; anything that was archives material, they shipped to me in packs. And that is the inventory that you have on your desk, the GO Archives Worldwide. That is basically the chart.
Bureau of Information Archives; is there such a thing?
Information what?
what are those?
correspondence, that type of thing which the personal secretaries would keep; also a valuable documents file, which I believe is supposed to include insurance policies, legal things like that.
which you have access?
materials in that file?
are not familiar?
|
|
|
|
1029
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
to this chart, in 1966 is where this chart started. Prior to that, prior to 1959, prior to Hubbard going to England, there were these other materials. Ana they were being stored in Washington DC.
Mr. Armstrong was putting together did he ever tell you that items that he was collecting were from R Storage? A I wondered where he got them. There was some mention of it, yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
the inventory, please?
|
|
|
|
1030
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
state that the Excalibur transcript was among the documents that are listed on page 30 to which Mr. Armstrong check marked as being given to him?
letters about the book "Excalibur."
of Excalibur was at the time that this inventory was created?
Mr. Armstrong's possession?
in this inventory; is that correct?
when Mrs. Hubbard testified that Gerald Armstrong stole these materials from her?
to that effect. |
|
|
|
1031
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
that you and Mr. Armstrong went through a fairly elaborate procedure to list every item that Mr. Armstrong received possession of?
two of you did?
off.
the inventory where you found it in other locations; is that correct?
Mr. Armstrong with your permission; is that correct?
unwillingly, I --
Honor?
Honor.
concept, there are a variety of ways a theft can be committed. |
|
|
|
1032
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
realize how this came up yesterday, but I think it begs the issue to say something was stolen from him. It is calling for a legal conclusion.
listed the materials that he could have; is that correct?
or Mr. Cook who was then the controller to do that; didn't you?
there anyone in the Church of Scientology of California of higher ranking authority than the controller?
particular -- there was a thing called WEC which was a committee. There were other terminals, other people.
received permission from any of these other higher authorities?
|
|
|
|
1033
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the command lines of -- based on the orders or authority of your immediate senior; is that correct?
do you mean? |
|
|
|
1034
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
was a great deal of confusion as to what materials should go in what archives; is that correct?
there was a project where everyone, quote, grabbed anything and everything, end quote, and that is why, quote, there were personal materials of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard in the trunks.
the testimony.
Why don't you ask him a direct question?
grab materials at Worldwide and place them in trunks?
know. But as far as I know there was a project to pack materials up and put them in trunks.
they were grabbing anything and everything?
why there were personal materials of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard in these trunks? Do you recall giving a reason? |
|
|
|
1035
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
they did that. I -- I don't know if I gave a reason.
of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard were in the trunks that you received?
real first-hand knowledge of it.
anything to do with the project in 1966?
people, trying to find out what had happened at that time.
exhibit 14 -- any of that prior to 1980 predicated on your first-hand knowledge?
and I saw them in the trunks; the fact that the tapes were separate from the trunks; that they had been moved separately to Los Angeles.
the project in 1966, Mr. Vorm?
|
|
|
|
1036
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
project to collect up materials; that they were going to bring these materials from England to the ship. There were, evidently, more than one person on it. one of the persons was named Wally Burgess.
that I have, they went through practically every place they could find that contained materials that pertained to Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard. They packed them into cardboard boxes; tied them up with string; made up this inventory; sent them to the ship. |
|
|
|
1037
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
with?
with me that they had to see that there were letters from Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard in order to list them as such in the inventory?
1966 that Mr. Armstrong was doing in 1980 and 1981, Mr. Vorm?
of Exhibit 11?
the sentence reads, does it not, "These are currently being gathered up by RH Pers Sec PRO Research Unit"?
founder which would be of historical interest; is that correct?
the materials in the inventory to Mr. Armstrong: isn't that |
|
|
|
1038
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
correct?
Sue Hubbard dated August 26, 1980 authorized that?
several days ago that that was the basis of your belief?
Mary Sue Hubbard authorized personal materials of the founder of historical interest to be delivered to the LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit?
that based on Exhibit 11, you believed that personal materials of the founder of historical interest could rightfully be delivered to Gerald Armstrong?
ticular first page.
historical items, and they were approved by Mrs. Hubbard.
materials, did you believe that the August 26, 1980 letter of Mary Sue Hubbard authorized the types of materials that are set forth in the inventory that you delivered to Gerald Armstrong?
|
|
|
|
1039
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the then
controller; is that correct?
GO WW was at the top; is that correct?
GO WW itself?
archives, Mr. Vorm, if there is any confusion in your mind.
in which GO WW Archives were located in January of '82?
Saint Hill Manor. It was a cement -- it is a cement floor. I am not sure what the walls were made of.
his answer, Your Honor, once the question is asked? He is trying to describe the building.
his answer.
wasn't it, Mr. Vorm? |
|
|
|
1040
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
entirety of the archives. I think there were other things in a room or whatever.
there in January of 1982, if you know?
Honor. I will object to the question.
If he doesn't know, he can state.
was PR Archives within GO WW in January 1982?
up, mixed together, as far as what I considered to be archives material and PR files.
at GO WW Archives in January 1982?
GO WW Archives in January 1982?
1981, when Mr. Armstrong was working on this project, that there was one entire building at GO WW Archives solely relating to PR Archives?
|
|
|
|
1041
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Archives?
Archives were the GO Archives. The GO Archives were placed under the PR bureau sometime in the mid '70s. |
|
|
|
1042
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
those archives before you did?
Archives when you visited there which comprised B-1 Archives?
Xeroxed copies of many of these materials that were in the trunks; is that correct?
Xerox originals in the trunks?
October, 1981 when you looked at this inventory.
original and a copy?
what has been marked as exhibit 13, did some of the items in exhibit 13 constitute originals and some constitute copies?
copies that you saw?
|
|
|
|
1043
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
some files
in there that had copies of hand-written originals.
But if I recall, I also had the original in another file of the ones I remember.
didn't have possession of the originals?
GO -- whether there were originals at the GO Worldwide Archives between October -- strike that -- in October of 1981 where you only had copies?
prior testimony that you never went to all of the documents in the LRH Archives collected by Gerald Armstrong?
specifically exactly what the words were.
the documents that were collected by Gerald Armstrong?
through, Mr. Vorm?
a few.
approximately 16 to 18 file cabinets?
|
|
|
|
1044
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
that comprise the documents that were collected by Gerald Armstrong?
four or five that contain original documents. There are other files that contain other types of materials like there was a working file that contained magazines and that type of thing.
someone else that they had written that weren't even LRH's. It may have been, but the whole file was like a Xeroxed copy of that. Some of the file drawers were empty.
there were?
went through all of that material this weekend?
of pages that you went through?
through these things generally. I don't know what that meant. Nobody asked him.
did you mean when you said you went through them generally?
|
|
|
|
1045
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
of the
originals that were in the sealed documents. So
there were a lot of files that just contained originals. And those particular files, I just went through and made sure they weren't copies.
original was a different colored paper or older age, that type of thing. Some of the boxes, some of the files, I just went through generally. Whatever the whole file of magazines, I could see in the files that there were no copies of the particular documents that I was looking for. Then I didn't go into the magazines page by page.
type of thing which just, by looking at the books, I could tell that there weren't files or loose copies of the documents I was looking for. So that is what I mean by generally.
|
|
|
|
1046
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
record reflect that parties and counsel are all present.
You are still under oath.
through Exhibit 13 and checking over the items you were giving to Mr. Armstrong --
yesterday or today or what?
gave him the materials when Mr. Armstrong was in your presence checking off the items, did you know that Omar Garrison was writing a biography on the life of L. Ron Hubbard?
was giving these materials to Omar Garrison?
know that he was giving them to Omar Garrison?
materials.
|
|
|
|
1047
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
biography; is that your testimony?
said.
materials, you knew that they were being used in the biography; is that correct?
Mr. Vorm, that all of those original materials had to be used for both of those purposes?
given to Mr. Garrison.
consideration about that.
being given to Mr. Armstrong for use in the biography or for Mr. Armstrong's archives, you knew that there were at least two groups of letters from Mary Sue Hubbard to L. Ron Hubbard; isn't that correct?
|
|
|
|
1048
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Archives; is there such a thing, to your knowledge?
mentioned here.
which came into your custody, what was the year of that project?
|
|
|
|
1049
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
and vice versa that Mr. Armstrong asked for, please, state the conversation at the time that he asked for those and what you did.
from 1966 and '67 and also the ones from 1973, I was not originally going to give them to Mr. Armstrong.
that the data in those letters was needed as background material to verify dates, names, places, that type of thing where Mr. Hubbard/was at a certain time, but that the contents of the letters would not be used, which was my concern because I considered them very private.
be used as background data, I allowed him to make copies of them and kept the originals for the archives.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
did you consult with anyone?
few days?
them to him, did you check with anyone to see whether it was okay to do it? |
|
|
|
1050
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
earlier instructions when she originally allowed the trunks to come to me.
anything that is in the court's exhibits under seal that appears to be a copy, the church has the originals somewhere?
I belive there are some copies here that we have.
him to take --- I'll back off of that.
matters which are copies, I gather, from reviewing exhibit 13?
to it.
was looking for original documents in the court's possession that we did not have copies for, not the other way around where there were copies in the court's possession where we did have originals.
|
|
|
|
1051
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
and exhibit
14, Your Honor.
testimony?
MARY SUE HUBBARD, recalled as a witness by the plaintiff, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
a seat and state your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. FLYNN:
Mr. Garrison completed a manuscript for the biography on your husband?
|
|
|
|
1052
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mr. Garrison in the summer of 1983, did you play any part in reaching that agreement with him?
were?
Omar Garrison, was it your understanding that if the contract was terminated for whatever reason, all of the documents would be returned to PUBS DK?
documents is Mr. Flynn referring to?
be writing the biography in quarters provided by the Church, and that all the materials therefore would be in the possession of the Church.
are any provisions in the contract relating to what would happen to the materials or proceeds of his research, Mr. Garrison's research --
terminated? |
|
|
|
1053
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
any knowledge. Overruled.
before Mr. Litt interrupts.
contractual provision in the contract between PUBS DK and Omar Garrison that the proceeds of Mr. Garrison's research, the documents he collected, the tape interviews that he did, would be returned to PUBS DK upon termination of the contract?
possession -- from the contract that they were going to be in the possession of Mr. Garrison. I considered that we were providing materials that he would come and look at and that we would always have the materials, so I don't quite understand your question.
program for Mr. Garrison to travel throughout the world with documents that he chose to take with him for purposes of promoting the biography prior to its publication?
the materials under seal?
under seal, did you see such a program? |
|
|
|
1054
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
not?
have Mr. Garrison travel throughout the world to promote the biography?
going to -- when the book was published and released, that he would be making appearances as an author, yes.
between Omar Garrison and any representatives of your husband at which you may or may not have been present with regard to the fact that Omar Garrison could use the docu- ments to defend his position in the biography?
Laurel Sullivan and Alan Wertheimer?
has been issued on Gerald Armstrong?
|
|
|
|
1055
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
accused
Mr. Armstrong of theft --
organization?
is irrelevant.
to something else. May go to bias, interest, motive.
Mr. Armstrong was threatened with a lawsuit by the Church of Scientology in April of 1982?
|
|
|
|
1056
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
which Mr. Armstrong came to me to seek legal assistance?
evidence, among other things.
you approved numerous financial expenditures by Mr. Armstrong for the biography; is that correct?
approve quite a few, yes.
of what the dollar mount of your approval of financial expenditures was?
that Mr. Armstrong was collecting materials relating to the biography of your husband?
materials from a wide variety of sources; is that correct?
approve financial expenditures for Mr. Armstrong to collect materials for the biography of your husband? |
|
|
|
1057
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
1980; through all '80 and then up until some time in '81, April -- May, '81 or thereabouts.
husband had approved Mr. Armstrong's petition in January, 1980 and that the approval came through a messenger; do you recall that?
in so many different ways.
that the petition of Mr. Armstrong to collect materials from the biography project was approved by a messenger?
with Laurel Sullivan about that fact?
messenger.
If this is supposed to be reference to what Mrs. Hubbard testified previously to, I --
Sullivan told you that?
done it. |
|
|
|
1058
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Is that your assumption?
predicated upon?
went to my husband, he usually signed it off with his own initials.
considered Mr. Armstrong -- I don't think he would have approved Mr. Armstrong to have done work on the biography.
messenger and not your husband?
page 10 filed in this case that you stated, "My husband approved in general terms and did not make reference to our personal storage"?
|
|
|
|
1059
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
that Mr. Armstrong work on the biography and collect materials; is that correct?
he approved in general terms --
already that is what she said.
terminal that delivers and receives messages.
simply approved this petition that started all of this project?
She said she didn't know about ten times at this point.
it?
order 3729?
May that be marked for identification, Your Honor?
|
|
|
|
1060
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
I'd expect I'd be about another 15 minutes, Your Honor.
Flag Order?
read it.
not familiar with it.
that when a messenger speaks, he speaks on behalf of the Commodore, your husband, and the messenger's orders are to be strictly obeyed as orders coming from the Commodore?
compound question.
isn't he?
was at the time.
|
|
|
|
1061
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Organization?
like that.
the Sea Organization?
the Sea Organization?
the Sea Organization as the commodore.
Organization?
as such pursuant to any policy of the Sea Organization?
my compound question.
was no?
bound per policy of the Sea Organization to follow the orders of your husband?
bound to follow the orders of your husband? |
|
|
|
1062
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
messengers bound to follow the orders given by the messengers on the basis that they were given by your husband?
when Mr. Armstrong was collecting materials for the biography project, do you know whether anyone queried his authority to do so?
Laurel if she personally knew whether my husband had approved his being on the project, and she said she didn't know, and I don't know of anyone else who did know. |
|
|
|
1063
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
queries?
Organization relating to written queries?
because there are ecclesiastical policies, corporate policies, as embodied in board minutes and other sorts of policies.
out what they are. And then we'll go from there.
from a senior, one does not approve of the order, then one queries one's senior in relationship to that order.
writing?
She wasn't your senior, was she?
|
|
|
|
1064
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
senior
was Senior Management Int. But that was only for
administrative purposes.
for?
sense, that Mr. Hubbard is her senior.
'81, counsel.
husband left in January, 1980?
all the papers. And it was really February, 1980.
petition before your husband had left, was your husband your senior?
word "senior."
|
|
|
|
1065
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
was he
your senior?
1980 and October, 1981, see any dispatches or orders from your husband removing Gerald Armstrong from his post?
you see any dispatches or orders from any messenger removing Gerald Armstrong from his post?
1981, did you make any effort to remove Gerald Armstrong from his post?
Exhibit 11 that the personal materials of the founder which would be of historical interest were currently being gathered up by LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit; do you recall that?
historical interest; is that correct?
about. |
|
|
|
1066
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the honesty, integrity and moral character of your husband to be of historical interest?
And it is really quite an outrageous question.
|
|
|
|
1067
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
biography project which is under seal that honesty in the project was the primary request of Scientologists throughout the world?
a matter of historical interest to be written about by Omar Garrison?
What does honest -- what are we talking about, honesty of your husband in what sense? Is this to lead to the fact of everything about her husband to come in to determine honesty for 70 years?
cannot be given the kind of definiteness of meaning in the context of this case for it to lead anyplace.
the form of the question.
philosophical matters, perhaps you can be more specific what you have reference to. Honesty as to what?
and you promoted the Church of Scientology, did you promote, the factual background relating to L. Ron Hubbard's life?
data printed on jackets of books that your husband wrote? |
|
|
|
1068
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the jacket of books to be honest statements of your husband's background?
talking about -- Mr. Hubbard has written dozens of books, hundreds of books in his lifetime, if we should include science fiction. He has written several hundreds of books.
It is broad, ambiguous.
Your Honor, I had the privilege of trying a case against the Internal Revenue Service in respect to the Church of Scientology of California, and I made an exhibit for that case about what Mr. Hubbard had written and books up to 1972, and that is it.
gives you an idea of the mass of it, anyway, just an aside.
of material that Mr. Harris has just referred to, do you know whether or not in promoting that mass of material repre- sentations were made about your husband and his biographical background?
used to put on the books. |
|
|
|
1069
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
materials promoted and sold by your husband. Mrs. Hubbard?
These are Scientology books.
for years.
has your husband written, Mrs. Hubbard?
counted them.
books on promotional items that he was a nuclear physicist?
holding a book in his hand. Why doesn't he show Mrs. Hubbard the book and let her read what he is referring to and let's get on with the question.
each and all of these questions, Your Honor.
historical interest, and he is getting into this, or at least he was when some objection was sustained, getting into historical interest.
Mrs. Hubbard?
|
|
|
|
1070
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Radiation" is by a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor; is that correct?
Scientology, Church of Scientology of California, an English company, and printed in Denmark, sir.
nuclear physicist or a medical doctor?
That is a conclusion.
Mrs. Hubbard? |
|
|
|
1071
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
nuclear physicist? He didn't graduate from any particular college.
Mr. Einstein.
around here, Your Honor.
The jury is not here, of course.
physicist?
was not a nuclear physicist.
he?
But this is written by authors.
of the medical doctor who wrote the book?
of the book requested that his name not be used. And it is signed. So we have here the dedication, "To Sir Winston |
|
|
|
1072
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Churchill,
who could have written and said it such better
and who Dwight D. Eisenhower who could have solved it if he had had a little more preparation." And it is signed "The Authors."
And the English medical doctor requested that his name be kept confidential and not released at the tine.
doctor's portion of the book?
M-e-d-i-c-u-s.
was written by your husband?
physically present when your husband was writing that book?
when he was working on the book, yes.
or whether this medical doctor wrote a portion of the book?
the book.
physics?
himself out as a nuclear physicist when he promoted the book |
|
|
|
1073
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
and sold
it?
relevance of this? This is beyond the scope.
the book jacket that we are dealing with here.
physicist when the book was promoted?
received royalties for the sales of the book?
historical interest as to whether Mr. Hubbard received royalites?
received royalties?
book.
nuclear physicist; is that correct?
|
|
|
|
1074
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
or not a mater of historical interest for Omar Garrison's biography?
Is he asking Mrs. Hubbard at the time that she wrote that that she was thinking nuclear physicist? The question is vague, ambiguous.
yesterday that you felt mentally raped by Omar Garrison and Gerald Armstrong having access to your husband's medical records during World War II?
in that reference, no.
by Omar Garrison and Gerald Armstrong having access to your husband's health records and academic records?
extremely personal and private. That is all I can say.
physicist when he wrote and sold that book made a matter of public interest in your understanding? |
|
|
|
1075
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
that Mr. Hubbard ever sold the book, and it is compound.
witness appears to be looking at the book.
lection.
is published by the plaintiff here, California -- CSC.
Scientology of California, UK branch through PUBS DK.
but it would appear to be, if nothing else, an admission against interest, at least an admission as to that aspect, as to CSC plaintiff.
millions of Scientologists throughout the world who revere your husband?
throughout the world who had read his books?
Scientology as one of the greatest men who ever lived?
|
|
|
|
1076
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
with the
promotion of your husband?
promotional literature of the Church?
the Church of Scientology and based on your knowledge of the millions of people that revere him, do you know whether it was generally considered by millions of Scientologists that he was one of the greatest men who ever lived?
or the witness' opinion about if she had asked all those millions of Scientologists?
guess, or state of mind. Overruled.
revere my husband?
ever lived.
I couldn't say whether they have compared him, you know, historically to all the people that are considered to be the religious leaders in the past. I don't know.
if you know, the books that he's written?
books now? |
|
|
|
1077
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mrs. Hubbard, as to what this reverence is based upon?
contained in his writings, his philosophy. It is based upon the application of the principles of Scientology to their own personal lives through pastoral counseling and the gains and achievements which they feel that they have made in their personal lives in the application of their religion.
I think it is merely what the philosophical and religious principles of my husband were, and I don't know if you are talking about honesty or not.
on the jacket, and I do know that you seem to have an old copy here which was done in England, and there is a new copy, and I know that the new copies say that he just attended George Washington University and took a course in nuclear physics.
are trying to get at.
I believe you testified that you don't believe your husband's |
|
|
|
1078
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
honesty
was a factor in the fact that millions of
Scientologists revere him; is that what you stated?
I said that the honesty -- I didn't know whose honesty, whether it was the publisher's or what, was a factor in this book, and I don't know -- this is not a religious book as such. It is about radiation, and -- anyway, I am sorry. I am rambling. What is your question?
people considered to be religious, but I am just telling my estimation of it.
presume is atomic radiation.
and that the new copies have corrected misstatements about your husband?
that it is different than what I have seen here. I just wonder why you presented the old copy.
under seal there is some 10 to 12 different biographical sketches of your husband that go from 1960 almost up to the present time?
through these -- sorry -- when I was going through what the Court asked me to do, I saw a reference to them and I saw some of them that were there, yes. |
|
|
|
1079
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
a factor --
millions of people revere your husband?
horse. Mrs. Hubbard has answered the question. First of all, it calls for speculation of what is in the minds of all of the Scientologists across the world anyplace. It also calls for reputation or opinion evidence.
whether or not -- I'll submit it. Clearly, it is 352-able now.
that this witness, just from the perspective of her involvement and the role that she has apparently played, it would seem to have a pretty good general idea as to what followers of Scientology have in mind and why they would appear to be followers of Scientology.
directed to asking her to read any particular individual's point of view or why any particular individual is a follower. But it seems to me as a general proposition she is uniquely in a position to generalize upon that subject considering her background and involvement with the church, the role that she has played. She was the controller; she had no senior on many matters, administrative matters and |
|
|
|
1080
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
her involvement
with the international aspect of it, it
seems to me, as I have indicated, she would be intimately familiar with these types of matters and should be able to give some fairly accurate generalizations.
speculation or conclusion is well taken.
different ways and has been responded to already. And it may be that you ought to try to ask a different question, Mr. Flynn.
two different answers to the same question.
millions of Scientologists have relied upon in revering your husband?
Honor. It is irrelevant and it is also getting into an extremely sensitive First Amendment area; that is, the business as it were, of a church and its flock and what the hierarchy of an ecclesiastical church might believe about the followers of that church in respect to church policy and the reputation of the founder.
issues here. It is irrelevant and intruding mightily at this point on the First Amendment.
in this particular question. It seems to me that the |
|
|
|
1081
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
question
was incomplete because you just spoke in -- honesty
in general. I don't know whether you mean honesty as it relates to Mr. Hubbard and the --
Mrs. Hubbard has testified as to what she believes has attracted people to her husband and to Scientology.
trying to get into his affirmative defense. If he wants to call Mrs. Hubbard in his case on his affirmative defense, he is entitled to do so. And if the court finds that questions about her opinion are appropriate in that context, he is entitled to do so. But Mr. Flynn's whole theory is supposedly Mr. Hubbard is not really honest and he'll go back, as he said, to the age of 12 to try to show that. And that is why this line of questioning is simply being phrased in a certain way to get into the defense of the case which does not appropriately belong at this time and as such it is beyond the scope and it is a very misleading question.
question. To break it down, are we going to find out her opinion as to whether or not people were attracted to him because of his physical demeanor? I mean, you can go on and on. She has answered the question. |
|
|
|
1082
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
sees him apparently.
and see what happens.
to the witness' state of mind or her emotional distress as having been mentally raped by Mr. Armstrong seeing what is in the documents, not to the affirmative defenses, and Mrs. Hubbard will be recalled on the defendant's case.
factors that you believe Scientologists have relied upon in revering your husbands is that correct?
his biographical background, academic, professional, military, whether he was a nuclear physicist, was his honesty about those factors in your mind any factor in the reliance of Scientologists or in the reverance that Scientologists placed on your husband?
have anything to do with any of your feelings of outrage or emotional distress that people might find out things about him that may not be what they had believed?
is that I think that my husband could say like jokingly, like |
|
|
|
1083
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
just take
an example in this. I don't know who promoted the
book or who wrote the promotion for the book. I presume the organization did, but in that my husband in lots of lectures that he gave would laugh and talk about the course of nuclear physics and how he had one theory about them and his professor had another theory, and I know that he was not in his lectures holding himself out to be a nuclear physicist.
jacket -- and I really don't, if you say like do the personal matters have -- I don't think many Scientologists consider those -- his personal background or whether he went to this or whether he did that of any significance at all.
his -- the writings, the materials, the many tape lectures and their gains that they have had in courses and personal counseling and so on that is the main basis of their reverence for him.
less of whether he really was a nuclear physicist or wasn't or attended or graduated from George Washington University or didn't. The question is was his honesty about those items a factor that Scientologists relied upon in their reverence of him?
Was his integrity a factor?
|
|
|
|
1084
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
distress. That is just bogus.
the same question that Your Honor just asked and exploring it.
assessment of whether or not those are in Scientologists' minds as to whether Scientology is important to them. We are not here saying whether or not Scientologists even considered -- I mean, where are we going with this?
quick. I will let him go a little bit further. If it doesn't end up anywhere, it is not going to go much further.
interruptions, we'd be finished by now.
background a factor in your mind with regard to the reverence that Scientologists placed him in?
I know that his integrity in relationship to his publishing and printing what he had researched in letting them have all that information and so on was a very vital factor, yes.
|
|
|
|
1085
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
and so on was a factor.
question with regard to his moral character. Do you think Scientologists revered/him and because they held/him in high esteem as having great moral character?
Beyond the scope of direct.
relates to these things that have a bearing upon emotional distress. Overruled.
line of questioning, so I don't have to do it for every objection.
character.
have known him and been married to him, is a very kind, loving, moral individual. I don't know what you are talking about.
been very honest, yes.
I will sustain the objection. |
|
|
|
1086
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
of your emotional distress relate to the fact that the documents under seal would show that your husband is dishonest?
is the fact that someone took papers and materials without my authorization and then gave them to you, Mr. Flynn, and I think I have said that. I really don't know how I can say it anymore times. I am tired. |
|
|
|
1087
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
to the fact that the documents under seal would reveal that your husband's almost entire biographical background has been falsified.
And the witness has already answered the question. She has said it I don't know how many times.
beating a dead horse. I'll sustain it under 352.
or not the documents under seal reveal the fact that your husband's biographical background has been almost uniformly falsified for almost 30 years?
argumentative; outside the scope.
conclusionary.
of this case, Your Honor. And we would like to have her available.
Counsel, she is under notice to appear when her testimony is required under 776.
fine. But we'll want at least 24 hours' advance notice. Mrs. Hubbard is not going to attend every day. |
|
|
|
1088
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
I was going
to ask -- to cut this short, she is visibly
tired now. I do have some redirect. I don't want to do it now. It is clear to me that she is having difficulty at this point. And so I do want an agreement that there will be advance notice.
defend himself for six weeks without a job. And he has been here in the courtroom every day.
matter, how much notice is required.
Mrs. Hubbard is very tired. Unless there is a matter --
going through all of these materials and then did not ask questions.
you to do it on direct.
continue Mrs. Hubbard right now. We can come back at 1:15, if Your Honor won't mind.
Garrison to read, Your Honor. We can do that.
|
|
|
|
1089
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
into it
is because I intend to recall Mrs. Hubbard in the
defense of this case after Mr. Armstrong has testified. And many of the documents are in evidence with regard to what his state of mind was.
unavailable. He is down at his home in Costa Mesa. We object to the reading of his deposition without the opportunity to examine him.
on the record that he is a resident of Utah in the deposition. To our knowledge he remains a resident of Utah as far as I am aware.
you have to present evidence one way or another. If you have something from a deposition that shows where he is a resident, you can read that into the record rather than oral assertions which are not evidence. And if counsel has something, I'll duly consider it. |
|
|
|
1090
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
book.
of Mr. Garrison. This is the deposition of July 12, 1983, page 6 of the deposition beginning at line 18:
the witness stand who will testify he lives in Costa Mesa and he has spoken to him within the last few days and we can try and get him on the phone right now.
then.
to us. It is fine with us. If Mr. Garrison is available, then we will bring him in.
that he lived in Utah and that he was not going to be available as a witness, and I will check with my office because I believe Mr. Magnuson spoke with him in Utah this |
|
|
|
1091
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
weekend,
but I will double check that to make sure.
one side or the other, let's get him here. Let's not unduly prolong matters.
subpoenaed or will he come in in response to his call?
have an address. We do have a phone number. Whether he will come in response to my call, I don't know. I will have to call him.
California. That is all I can say, Your Honor. Our knowledge has always been that he is a resident of Utah. We were planning to read the deposition this afternoon after Mrs. Hubbard finished.
Mr. Flynn, since he subpoenaed him, can call him in and he can be here this afternoon and we can have live testimony.
present his defense testimony.
anyway.
to intrude in our case-in-chief.
|
|
|
|
1092
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
can't get him in because the man maybe involved in other
|
|
|
|
1093
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
-o0o-
reflect that parties and counsel are present. You may call your next witness.
and here is the situation.
months. Apparently under the settlement agreement he can't voluntarily appear for any legal proceeding. He has to be subpoenaed. No subpoena was served on him by the plaintiff or the intervenor.
Utah. Never requested him to appear and never informed him that he would be served with a subpoena this week for purposes of having him appear. |
|
|
|
1094
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
this week. He considers his residence both in Costa Mesa and in Utah.
And Mr. Magnuson suggested to him that he didn't have to honor or obey that subpoena.
Mr. Magnuson is in the courtroom. He'll take the stand.
Apparently you are relying on information that you got from Mr. Garrison.
him that he didn't have to obey the subpoena that we served on him. And he intended to obey the subpoena that we served on him.
about the settlement agreement and the fact that he had to be subpoenaed.
months. He would obey the subpoena. We do consider him available.
marked as an exhibit for the court to read whenever it chooses. Since he is going to come to court to testify, we would object to taking two or three hours or whatever it is
|
|
|
|
[Missing 1095] 1096 |
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
consistently unavailable. We have no information and no information was ever provided to us that he was ever residing in Costa Mesa.
lot of time quibbling on where he is. If he is going to be here sooner or later, I don't see why we can't live with that.
one of procedure, which is that if Mr. Garrison is not going to be here until the end of the week, we will have completed the remainder of our witnesses before that. We obviously don't want -- Mr. Garrison's testimony is quite important. We cannot rest without having his testimony.
you can --
just what we want to read in in a deposition of a non-party witness, the procedure is that we read in what we want, and the other side reads in what they want, and either side makes appropriate objections. So, it is not the same thing as a party's deposition.
Court's consideration of our case. Mr. Garrison's testimony is critical to our case.
|
|
|
|
1097
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
redirect, and we have one other witness who is available.
effect, that it be marked as an exhibit. I can read it, and we can stipulate that the reporter copy it into the record as though it had been read here in the record, and that will get you off the dime.
a copy; and in that copy it is set forth as follows: We have bracketed in red the portions of the deposition that we are introducing and we have bracketed in blue where we have objections to the answers. They are all written out on the side because I didn't know whether the Court would want to follow the procedure that is now being discussed, and there are questions of our ability to object, and it is fine with us if the Court just rules based upon the notations with respect to any objections. So we can follow that procedure if the Court chooses.
objections are. Are there a lot of objections or just a few?
are objections calling for hearsay. They are objections to irrelevance; objection, nonresponsive. There is a decent number of objections, no question about that.
prior to the time that the Court had made certain rulings, |
|
|
|
1098
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
so I think
some of this probably the Court would not consider
to be appropriate, but we did note the objections that we have. They are in blue. They are somewhat extensive.
it, simply notes a ruling on the Court's copy.
not exactly be decipherable. That is the problem. If there are just one or two objections, it is no problem.
re-analysis, there are substantial objections. The part of the deposition that we intend to introduce is probably less than 50 pages total, however the Court wishes to proceed.
or in Utah?
subpoena, and he's also been in Costa Mesa for the last several months.
going to come out in the wash.
going to call him, if and when I make him available, if the plaintiff and the intervenor first want to do his testimony on direct, that is fine with me: and then I will have the opportunity to do my examination of him.
|
|
|
|
1099
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
case pursuant to the subpoena. Whenever our case begins, he will probably be our second or third witness.
If that is what Mr. Flynn wants to do, then my suggestion would be that we introduce the bracketed red portion now, that Mr. Flynn, at the time that Mr. Garrison appears, can do a cross-examination of him that would encompass the scope of that direct of him, then do a direct on other matters, and he can do them both in his case or he can designate whatever other portions of the deposition, and he can call Mr. Flynn in his case.
you want read?
you want read, or is that in relation to what you are anticipating Mr. Flynn is going to want read?
would be the basis of the testimony, and we made objections of various kinds in the course of the deposition as to what we felt were improper questions and those that we wanted to raise to the Court we noted in blue.
case?
other parts and we are reading in. |
|
|
|
1100
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
later.
collection can be marked as your next in order for identi- fication; and I will read the portions which are enclosed in red?
the red, so maybe I will just give you that.
in.
reporters put it into the record.
and we will proceed and have whatever witnesses you have available.
|
|
|
|
1101
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
marked in red are the portions that we intend to introduce. It is not -- this is not the whole deposition. I do have the whole deposition that has the red and the blue both.
collection be marked as an exhibit? Do you have a copy for Mr. Flynn?
deposition was going to be marked, but only a portion was going to be transcribed into the record.
thing if I am not going to read it, if I am just going to read selected portions.
lodged with the clerk, presumably, as far as that goes.
presented as far as your case, you are permitted to do that, I suppose.
the balance, Your Honor.
Mrs. Hubbard is going to take the stand.
accommodate the witnesses that are here. |
|
|
|
1102
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Have a seat.
are still under oath. THE WITNESS: My name is Mary Sue Hubbard.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
his cross-examination Mr. Flynn asked you something about whether you had knowledge of Mr. Armstrong being commissioned, I think was the word he used, to work on any biography; do you have any knowledge of his being commissioned?
on the biography. And that was approved by someone.
of you he showed you a declaration of January 26, 1983. And he asked you on several occasions about paragraph 15 in which there is a statement that your husband approved in general terms this petition; do you recall that?
declaration of yours was prepared and signed? |
|
|
|
1103
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Federal authorities.
or was one prepared and submitted to you?
study?
declaration was signed had you testified in a deposition in this case?
whether or not your husband had personally approved the petition?
generally?
who had authorized the petition, but that I did not believe that my husband had done so, but that a messenger had.
was actually a compound question, saying, 'Did your husband have approval of the biography on the contract," to which |
|
|
|
1104
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
you answered,
"Yes."
was referring to the Omar Garrison contract; did your husband actually have approval of the contract between AOSH, PUBS DK and Omar Garrison?
approval with respect to the biography contract he would have?
writing a biography.
He would have final authority, yes, to approve the biography if that was written.
that you were shown from Mr. Armstrong or, I suppose, it was the letter to you from Mr. Armstrong in early February where there was some mention of some personal letters; do you recall that?
Mr. Armstrong was referring to or, as you understood them, not as whatever he nay have intended, but as you understood them, tell me what you thought they were in as much detail as you can recall.
personal letters between myself and my husband. They were |
|
|
|
1105
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
very early letters.
on a coffee table.
the table?
that Mr. Armstrong was saying that he had found?
is clear on this because this was somewhat confusing, did you yourself actually approve Mr. Armstrong's petition?
Mr. Armstrong in early February, was that an approval by you?
communication with me.
confusion about these archives; did you have anything to do with the origination of what were at the time the Guardian Archives WW?
|
|
|
|
1106
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
to be collected up in the Guardian's office Worldwide Archives?
every book, all the publications of various organization magazines, every issue that had ever been issued and various historical items of the church's history. |
|
|
|
1107
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
from the Guardian's archive WW moved to the ship, the Apollo?
your husband's personal materials also moved with these, also with the archive materials?
designation for what was now a mixture of these personal materials with what had originally been Guardian worldwide archives?
testified about earlier today?
WW, did there remain some archival materials at WW?
Guardian office worldwide archives were moved to some par- ticular bureau within the Guardian's office worldwide?
|
|
|
|
1108
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
trying to review the designated exhibit list of the sealed documents in this case.
reference to that activity?
which is designated Defendant's List of Exhibits from Documents Under Seal, this list will have notations on it, marked Plaintiffs' next in order?
"Supplemental List of Plaintiffs' Exhibits," which in the text states that it is a list of exhibits under seal which has notations on it, marked Plaintiffs' 16?
unless you have another copy that you want to submit to the clerk.
duplicate.
Exhibit 15, there is various handwriting on this exhibit; is that right?
|
|
|
|
1109
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the word
"Private"; is that correct?
the words "Personal and Private"; is that correct?
marked; is that correct?
words "Don't Have, Don't Know"; is that correct?
words "Need to See"; is that correct?
each of these terms meant. When you put "Nothing" next to a document, what did that mean?
personal or private.
next to a document, what did that mean?
private but personal.
what did that mean?
relationship to myself or my husband or the Church or all of |
|
|
|
1110
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
us.
or "Need to See," or "Don't Have"; what did that mean?
view. We had no document to look at, so I couldn't make a determination.
"Attorney-Client" as well as "Personal and Private"; what did that mean?
I considered would fall under attorney-client privilege.
careful review of all of these documents or just a general review?
|
|
|
|
1111
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
is not your own; is that correct?
yours in some cases?
do it."
exhibit 16; is that correct?
document was?
writing are the words "all personal and private unless not marked personal. Then means only private." Do you see that?
those specificly noted.
the words "personal and private" next to each document on this list that you considered personal and private? |
|
|
|
1112
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
to the contrary that all of the documents an that list are personal and private documents?
actually, I wrote the words "not personal"?
information in relationship to myself or my husband in the documents.
in my hand, was the determination as to what categorization-- let me rephrase it.
was it that made the decision as to how to characterize whether it was personal or private?
Mrs. Hubbard, he asked some questions about the documents or sending the documents to him and what you knew about that.
any knowledge with respect to what litigation activities Mr. Flynn was engaged in as of the time period of May 1982 |
|
|
|
1113
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
regarding
your husband, yourself and the Church of
Scientology of California?
of in which Mr. Flynn represented plaintiffs who were suing the California church, you, and your husband in May, 1982?
them, can you tell me what lawsuits you know of of your own personal knowledge?
four out here in Los Angeles by Garrity, Peterson, Lockwood and Jefferson.
defendants in those suits?
named as defendants in those suits?
may not be other suits in which Mr. Flynn is involved as of that time period?
damages that are being sought in those suits?
|
|
|
|
1114
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
have one final area of questioning for you.
about your claim that Mr. Armstrong stole the documents; what is the aspect of Mr. Armstrong's conduct that you consider not only not authorized, but actually theft?
employed by the church, he took and stole documents and gave them to Mr. Flynn. And I consider that to be the theft that occurred. |
|
|
|
1115
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
stole them?
are here in court.
familiar with. Do you know how many suits Michael Flynn was defending brought by your organization in May 1982?
we introduced was introduced for one purpose, to show that Mr. Flynn had an adverse relationship to Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard and the Church. That adverse relationship is relevant in terms of the determination of Mr. Armstrong to give them to him, especially when there is an admission that he gave permission to use them in litigation other than the instant case.
testimony is introduced; and we did not go into any of this litigation for any other reason and in any other breadth.
|
|
|
|
1116
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
litigation
or suits against Mr. Flynn have nothing to do
with the examination of Mrs. Hubbard. It is beyond the scope and it is irrelevant at this stage, at least.
might be alleged in any of these lawsuits either for or against; but I will overrule the objection to that particular question. Puts things in context.
against clients represented by Mr. Flynn at that time?
or yourself or Mr. Hubbard?
Cooper suit. Isn't it a fact that the Paulette Cooper suit was brought by the Church of Scientology against Miss Cooper, and she counterclaimed?
lawsuits brought by your organization, does that refresh your memory at all, Mrs. Hubbard?
improper form.
your organization brought over the last 20 years against people pursuant to the Fair Game Doctrine to harass them, Mrs. Hubbard? |
|
|
|
1117
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
in excess of 150 --
tained the objection to the last one, Mr. Flynn.
did you collect 30 linear feet of information about Michael Flynn?
Your Honor, this has nothing to do with the testimony.
You may answer. The subject has come up.
saw anything that was collected in relationship to yourself except some public relations reports, news press releases and things like that that I personally saw.
While she is looking for that, I will ask a couple of questions. May I see those exhibits where you have marked -- I would just like to ask the witness whether she has seen that document, Your Honor.
|
|
|
|
1118
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
And are
there policies in fact in the Guardian's
Office in regard to collecting information on people?
but sometime in the past?
Mrs. Hubbard?
"private"?
release and has not been released to the public.
is of a personal nature, to -- and contains personal data to myself or my husband or other individuals.
"not to the public," what do you mean by "public"?
are not parties to the communication or to the document.
January 1980 and October 1981?
|
|
|
|
1119
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
mean the public.
in an envelope sitting on a coffee table at Gilman Hot Springs? A I said there were letters there, yes.
to you dated 5 February 1980 say personal letters and other things?
document.
thought he was referring to when he wrote the petition?
letters?
My husband had said look at these things.
were personal.
|
|
|
|
1120
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
they are personal letters?
that.
private document?
a biography on my husband.
Explorer's Club, New York City, as being private; do you know what that document is?
other documents, letters and so forth, a whole folder.
New York City?
|
|
|
|
1121
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
in relationship
to their files.
considered private.
privilege next to various documents; are you asserting the attorney-client privilege, Mrs. Hubbard?
relates to you or to your husband?
some of the affairs of my husband.
church affairs. |
|
|
|
1122
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
The first
one I come across is something
entitled "MCCS Tapes."
letter?
it is 5-C.
attorney-client privilege in connection with those tapes, Mrs. Hubbard?
I have not discussed it with Mrs. Hubbard. If there is going to be a question of what she is going to do legally, we have not gotten into the attorney-client privilege yet on those tapes.
client has testified, correct me if I am wrong, that she either made these entries or that you made them at her discretion.
written there, "Attorney-Client," she told you to put it there.
privilege is a complicated question which finally involves legal advice. All she wrote down is that she considered that to be attorney-client matters.
|
|
|
|
1123
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
these problems
may be complicated, but it seems to me that
what he can ask her -- for example, was she getting involved in a confidential communication with an attorney at that time and she can answer that yes or no.
would have a right to assert the privilege other than her, but in response to her direct testimony I would think that that limited inquiry would be permissible.
communicating to any lawyer?
on those tapes represents you?
without having the opportunity to consult with Mrs. Hubbard, Your Honor --
there are three --
reporter --
claims of privilege; personally, on behalf of her husband L. Ron Hubbard, and on behalf of the Church which she was representing, and at least on behalf of the Church I would claim the privilege.
cross-examination of this witness, and we are not getting into what is on the tape, just a question of whether she's made a |
|
|
|
1124
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
representation
that she's asserted the attorney-client
privilege, and he's just cross-examining on that as to the fundamentals on it.
into the substance of what is involved.
lawyer on those tapes that you say represents you?
entry?
husband. It is a legal document with regard to legal fees.
behalf of your husband?
designated 5-L, I believe; is that correct?
any communication between you and a lawyer?
entry?
|
|
|
|
1125
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
slow things
down, but at the time I -- we were going through
these very rapidly, and I was saying in my estimation, my feeling, that is a violation of the attorney-client privilege.
examine on it.
afraid I might be losing my own right.
I am sure your counsel will raise the issue. If there is any question about it, we will deal with it at that time.
cation between you and a lawyer?
privilege assertions that you have noted on Exhibit 15, do you know of any document where you have noted the privilege that relates to communications between you and a lawyer? |
|
|
|
1126
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
personally or through an agent, Your Honor, I think it would be a more appropriate answer.
Honor.
case, my husband's and myself.
terms of what archives that relate to document 5-T?
Controller archives. Sorry.
those documents between the early 1960s and the present date?
is Mr. Flynn asking how many people have read it? How many have had physical access, custody?
question, counsel.
in 5-T to any person other than a lawyer?
|
|
|
|
1127
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
is that correct?
which you claim that a personal communication between you and your husband was involved?
seen; so I don't know how I would mark them because we didn't have them.
not included in either this list or the other list which was, I believe, a -- a document between myself and my attorney, Mr. Baudin.
other list.
Summary was given to Mr. Garrison?
that you met your husband -- strike that.
Honor.
|
|
|
|
1128
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Honor.
husband?
|
|
|
|
1129
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
came into existence that are the documents of your husband prior to 1951 are personal and private to you?
and private to you; is that correct?
of your husband?
enter into an agreement that all of the property that he owned prior to the marriage would remain his property?
the question, at least he should read the agreement so that he quotes it right.
you can ask the question accurately.
Honor. I'd be happy to mark it as an exhibit, also.
Your Honor. As has been explained numerous times, it has to do with in the event of divorce. It has nothing to do with anything else.
it says.
|
|
|
|
1130
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
it during the recess.
|
|
|
|
1131
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
still under oath.
It appears to be upon the stationary of Hubbard Dianetic Foundation, Inc. of Wichita, Kansas.
these papers were signed?
sir.
were married?
carefully.
to our marriage
what was involved in these agreements, I have to find that this purports to be a prenuptial agreement and executed in Kansas. And I haven't the slightest idea of what the law of Kansas is, but in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the presumption is that California law would be identical. And California law requires that before a prenuptial agreement can be valid and enforceable, that it be acknowledged before |
|
|
|
1132
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
a notary
public, the signatures, and under Civil Code Section
5034. At least these do not appear to be so.
of this could be interpreted to be that this purports to be an agreement that what is hers is hers and what is his is his and that neither would make any claim upon the other.
validity.
contract, the law of California is clear that the parties may orally modify any previous expression of how they want to hold their property.
Mr. Flynn, so I'll sustain the objection to the use of it.
identification? We can mark it and I'll make the order that any exhibits which are marked for identification only or not received in evidence will be kept in a separate sealed envelope in some fashion. |
|
|
|
1133
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
order.
and kept in the same fashion.
about that.
ever formally established a residence to your knowledge in the State of California?
since.
don't know if that makes somebody a resident or not.
describes it. Of course, that matter -- the returns, themselves, would be privileged.
where he is living now, but I know we jointly file California State Income Tax. |
|
|
|
1134
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
you saw the Guardian Office Worldwide archives when they were established in 1966?
that you have described that were in the trunks were moved onto the ship?
Office Worldwide archives?
encompassed the archives?
documents in there, does that refresh your memory?
documents that were in the trunks and placed in GO Worldwide archives in 1969 after the documents were placed in the trunks and moved onto the Apollo?
|
|
|
|
1135
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
were putting
-- packing the trunks in 1969 -- whether copies
were made and left in England at that time?
made at that time.
that were in the trunks; is that correct?
copies were in the trunk. In other words, if a letter was written to someone else, all we had left was a carbon copy and those carbon copies were in the trunks and that was the only original we had of such things.
any, they were very slight and small. Most of them were original documents.
came aboard the ship, sir.
materials were packed up, were you there supervising it?
as you testified?
the time? |
|
|
|
1136
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the inventories look at the documents to see what they were?
at least.
he had a couple of other people helping him.
there just to be quite correct.
take the materials and they were supposed to bring back certain materials. They went beyond what they were asked to do and brought back a lot of personal materials which they had not been requested to bring, but after I had received them, you know, that was that.
were in the trunks under my control.
to make an inventory of them?
estimate you have allowed to manage or maintain possession of your personal and private materials? |
|
|
|
1137
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the present would you estimate have looked at the documents that are contained in defendant's list of exhibits marked as exhibit 15?
permission, Mrs. Hubbard.
give you an estimate. There would be typists who typed the materials, so to that degree they had permission.
materials in packing them up in 1969, and although I didn't grant them permission, you might say that I condoned it in that, you know, I didn't -- and those were, as I have said, about three people. |
|
|
|
1138
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
trunks to get materials out, that we tried to limit anyone going into them because we had inventories. And so they would look at the inventory. I suppose that I -- I feel like I trusted those individuals, you know, to go in there and take something out that was asked for without invading -- looking through everything else. I really can't give you an estimate. I would say about maybe -- about seven or eight people.
only documents that Mr. Garrison would have access to for purposes of the biography would be documents that only had been released to the public?
have access to other than documents that were released to the public?
Mrs. Hubbard at length on this in cross. This is certainly not within the scope of the redirect. We are going back into --
goes to what is personal and private that the witness has marked on exhibit 15.
what you anticipated that would be made available for Mr. Garrison, you may describe such. |
|
|
|
1139
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
available to Mr. Garrison. Those were materials from my personal storage. I never authorized them to be made available to him.
small quantities of material that I personally checked to be made available. And that is all I can say.
project was being written that Mr. Garrison had private and personal documents belonging to your husband?
least, authorized to be released to him, yes.
now in the context of the cross-examination to go through what is personal and private on this list, what we'll do is recall Mrs. Hubbard in the defendant's case after Mr. Armstrong testifies.
of that which I'll provide you tomorrow. But those are the court's.
Your Honor. Only I didn't leave an inventory behind.
Let me ask a couple of preliminary things and |
|
|
|
1140
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
then we'll
have one more witness that we can call now and
then we return to the problem of Mr. Garrison.
court take judicial notice of the temporary restraining order, which we can provide a copy of, although I don't know that I have one with me, that was entered by this court on, I believe it is -- I have to check -- August 24, 1982, which restraining order requires the return of various materials. This is just to establish the chain leading to the fact that the materials under seal were returned. |
|
|
|
1141
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
notice of it.
following reason: This specific problem arose in the context of the contempt proceeding that was brought against myself and also against Ms. Dragojevic.
temporary restraining order and how long it was in force and the language of the preliminary injunction became a specific issue before Judge Olson, and at that time Judge Olson ruled that since the preliminary injunction was written by Mr. Litt --
have been Tray and Kohleck at the time, and the language in the preliminary injunction had to be narrowly construed, and that the failure to place in the preliminary injunction the language of the temporary restraining order with regard to the return of the documents rendered the preliminary injunction on that issue and on that point defective.
do with anything --
that the documents that are identified in the inventory of materials turned over to the court by Mr. Flynn and by Contos & Bunch are those that were turned over to the court pursuant to court order. Isn't that what you want?
|
|
|
|
1142
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
that all
the materials under seal were returned from the law
offices of Michael J. Flynn, of which there were three boxes and the law offices of Contos & Bunch, which there were two boxes.
Mr. Armstrong that he return all materials that came from the church or church archives, whether directly or indirectly, be delivered into the custody of the church and that these materials were returned pursuant to that order by these two law firms as law offices representing Mr. Armstrong. That is what we are looking for in this context.
of handwritten proposal.
don't come from Mr. Flynn's office or Ms. Dragojevic's office?
that there are more elaborate First Amendment issues with regard to the contents of the documents that relate to the preliminary injunction and the temporary restraining order.
determining whether anybody is in contempt of court or not. All I am concerned about is he--wants to show, I guess, that the documents that are under seal came from your client pursuant to a court order essentially through your legal |
|
|
|
1143
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
offices.
said got a little more tortuous and was not as succinct as what the court just said. What the court just said, I'd be willing to stipulate to.
the TRO which speaks for itself is the order that should be entered and then I will enter into a stipulation that the materials under seal, and I would like a description of the three boxes from Mr. Flynn's office and two from the law offices of Contos & Bunch were returned pursuant to that order. That is clearly my understanding of the facts.
think the court order makes sense in the chain of events.
Mr. Litt just said because we think that the court order at the time it was written was invalid, and I don't want to waive my client's rights with regard to returning the documents.
the documents, but there is a serious question in our mind with regard to the validity of the order.
concerning the validity of the order, do you agree that following the order you returned these documents as indicated; three boxes from you and two boxes from Contos & Bunch to the County Clerk's Office? |
|
|
|
1144
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
to, the temporary restraining order, was, in fact, issued by the court without getting into whether it was valid or not, subsequently thereto you did return or deliver back into the custody or deliver into the custody of the court these aforementioned exhibits?
notice of the order?
existence of the order without commenting upon its validity.
down. I take it that is okay?
done now, but at some point before the conclusion of our case we would ask that the court take a view of the totality of the documents, not to read them but just so that the court has the opportunity to view the scope.
sometime.
Worldwide archives in England. |
|
|
|
1145
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
I can afford the trip down to the Clerk's Office. |
|
|
|
1146
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
witnesss; is that correct?
upon 24 hours' notice.
Your Honor.
JOHN PETERSON, called as a witness by the plaintiff, was sworn and testified as follows:
sworn.
may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
your name and spell your last name for the record, please.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS
Scientology of California?
|
|
|
|
1147
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
to Mr. Armstrong?
plaintiff's next in order?
plaintiff's exhibit 17, does that appear to be the letter that you wrote?
personally deliver it to Mr. Armstrong at his last-known address.
to Mr. Armstong?
letter.
1982; may this be marked plaintiff's 18, Your Honor?
exhibit 18, is that the letter that you referred to?
|
|
|
|
1148
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
body; how did you attempt to deliver that letter that is exhibit 18?
personally serve it on Gerry Armstrong at a post office box in Costa Mesa.
deliver it?
he did receive that letter a few days later.
what I call a deadline of June 3rd for something to happen?
deliver the materials that he had in his possession from the archives on or before Thursday, June 3rd, 1982 at my offices.
Mr. Armstrong delivered any materials to your office?
gators and asked them to conduct an investigation and surveillance, of Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong? |
|
|
|
1149
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
probably around June 11th, 12th, something like that.
the 9th of June, 1982.
Honor; may it be marked plaintiff's 19?
plaintiff's 19, did you receive that by mail at your offices?
June 9, 1982 what did you do, if anything?
telling them that I had received this letter and to finish off any little bits of investigation that they were doing; not to conduct any surveillance and to await further instructions from me; that I was going to try to resolve the matter directly with Mr. Armstrong.
to Mr. Armstrong?
the third week, 21st, something like that. I wrote another letter to Mr. Armstrong in response to his letter of June 9th.
may that be marked plaintiff's.. exhibit 20, Your Honor?
|
|
|
|
1150
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
plaintiff's
exhibit 20, does that appear to be a copy of a
letter that you wrote to Mr Armstrong on June 21st?
|
|
|
|
1151
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
receive any response to your letter of June 21 from Mr. Armstrong?
regarding my letter of June 21, 1982.
if we couldn't resolve this matter without any type of real proceedings or anything like that. And when I didn't receive any type of response, either from Mr. Armstrong or a representative, I again contacted the investigators and asked them to commence their investigation again and to set up a surveillance of Mr. Armstrong.
to recover any materials that Mr. Armstrong might have?
Goose?
led us to believe that Gerry Armstrong might have been in possession of materials that were taken from the archives, and when I didn't get any response to any of my corres- pondence and my request in the letter of June 21 was a simple request that he answer three little questions, I felt that because of the private nature of the archives and the docu- ments involved, that it would be necessary to try to ascertain the true facts. |
|
|
|
1152
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Incorporated performing services in respect to the Armstrong matter, approximately?
amount of investigation on the Armstrong matter in May. We are not claiming any of those bills as part of our damages.
June after one of the letters. They were off for a period of time, and then they continued at my request through September, I believe, of '82. once the documents were returned to the court, it was shortly after that that they were taken off the case.
like to mark collectively, Your Honor, as Plaintiffs' 21, if that is acceptable to the Court.
what has been marked collectively as Exhibit 21. Perhaps I ought to staple that or clip it or something, but right now we will leave it.
|
|
|
|
1153
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the Tin Goose.
exhibit 21, collectively in respect to the Tin Goose investigation in respect to Mr. Armstrong?
business?
the Church of Scientology of California?
opinion that these were reasonably incurred in an attempt to recover the documents for the Church of Scientology of California?
opinion, Your Honor.
Certainly, the fact that these documents -- these payments were made is evidence. And I suppose the witness can give his opinion as to whether or not it was reasonable. At the same time, what any investigator may or may not have done, this witness, presumably, has no personal knowledge of. And while he can give his opinion on matters that may not be in evidence, it would go to the weight to be given to such opinion. |
|
|
|
1154
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
any investigator did or didn't do.
practicing law in the Southern California area for close to 15 years, the rates that were charged, the hourly rate charged by the investigators were a fair rate for that period of time in 1982. And because of the very private and sensitive nature of the documents, I felt that the amount of surveillance and the amount of time spent was appropriate and very reasonable under the circumstances that resulted.
Goose, Inc.? What is their background experience if you know?
questions I asked them, why Tin Goose.
retired Los Angeles police detectives who, I imagine, put in their 20 years and then went on to become private investigators.
is Al Goosen.
and became the Tin Goose, Inc., Private Investigators.
|
|
|
|
1155
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
private investigator there in front of you?
identification.
Utah, date 9-10-82, do you see that?
page is Invoice No. 2116.
help me.
My apology.
regarding an invoice he'll ask me the invoice number; I'll flip to mine rather than you trying to put yours in the same order that mine is. |
|
|
|
1156
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mr. Peterson?
D. Armstrong."
that date was of Omar Garrison or Gerald Armstrong?
Armstrong.
On some of the reports there is underneath a caption which will say "Utah Surveillance."
The answer was that you believed it related to Gerald Armstrong; is that correct?
which shows that it was Armstrong as opposed to Garrison?
|
|
|
|
1157
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
involved driving around Utah or driving around Southern California from the face of the document?
Mr. Peterson has stated, and which I forgot, we are not making any claim to the damages in respect to any Utah surveillance.
on Mr. Garrison or Mr. Armstrong?
making a claim.
answer.
veillance?
surveillance was that Gerald Armstrong had indicated that he had given documents and items to Omar Garrison, and we at that time were checking into Omar Garrison. There was no surveillance of Omar Garrison at that time.
and doing some investigation on Omar Garrison.
indicated that he had given documents to Mr. Garrison?
|
|
|
|
1158
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
I mean,
it was known that documents had gone to Mr. Garrison,
and Mr. Garrison had told people that he had received docu- ments from Mr. Armstrong. It was no secret.
investigator's fees for early May which you are not claiming as damages; is that correct?
May, somewhere the first week of May.
investigators to conduct surveillance of Omar Garrison or Gerald Armstrong?
is relevant. As to the rest, I don't think it is, and I will object on that ground.
part of May.
Person Declare issued on Gerald Armstrong dated February 18, 1982 revised April 22, 1982, prior to its issuance?
What does that have to do with the damages testimony?
were sent. Demands were made. They may have some relevancy in that context. I don't know where he is going. |
|
|
|
1159
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Honor.
like to make clear a Suppressive Person Declare is an internal Scientology issue and it has nothing to do with this matter.
what happens.
Person Declare, Mr. Peterson, before it was issued, as an attorney for the Church?
And I have a copy for the Court, and may this be marked for identification, Your Honor?
which escapes me. M, like in music, Exhibit M. |
|
|
|
1160
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
to its being issued.
don't recall, Mr. Peterson?
and Julia Dragojevic relative to the fact that you reviewed this Suppressive Person Declare before it was issued?
Suppressive Person Declare before it was issued?
answers to interrogatories. That was one of the interrogatory questions.
would look into whether I reviewed it.
was no indication that I had ever seen or reviewed that document. I had no personal knowledge when I was talking to Julia whether I did or didn't.
a letter that I wrote, to look into it.
I had not looked at it.
|
|
|
|
1161
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
been marked
as exhibit 17 or exhibit -- correct, exhibit 17
dated May 26, 1982 did you review the Suppressive Person Declare?
Suppressive Person Declare?
What has this to do with Mr. Peterson's testimony?
this Declare was when reference was made to it in a cross- complaint.
that you had in fact proved the Declare?
there are some times when I review some Declares. I had no personal knowledge in our meeting whether or not this was one of the ones I had ever looked at.
did.
had seen, approved, and I don't approve Declares. I just look at them.
had no part.
|
|
|
|
1162
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
client?
Mr. Armstrong -- strike that -- Mr. Peterson, that the material that you claim was then in Mr. Armstrong's possession belonged to the Church of Scientology of California?
exhibit 17 actually ever reached Mr. Armstrong.
of the 27th. But I have no personal knowledge that he ever received the letter of the 26th. |
|
|
|
1163
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the first line you refer to your client; is that the Church of Scientology of California?
it your understanding that the Church of Scientology of California owned or had the right to possess any of the documents which you claim were in Mr. Armstrong's possession?
poorly formed.
right to possess?
the documents.
stolen. They should be returned to that person or entity.
been delivered to Mr. Garrison pursuant to any contract, Mr. Peterson?
|
|
|
|
1164
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
I am asking.
now?
written.
documents out of archives that had been sent to Omar Garrison.
between Oman Garrison and PUBS DK when you wrote these letters?
time or I had learned about the contract at a later time.
before writing the letters?
to any possessory interest involving the documents that Omar Garrison had?
was contained in it.
Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents and materials belong to the Church of Scientology of California, your client?
|
|
|
|
1165
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
regarding this case at the Church of Scientology of California.
What individual told you that Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents and materials belonging to the Church of Scientology of California when you wrote those letters?
|
|
|
|
1166
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
a suspicion, they thought that Gerry Armstrong might have materials that he had taken out of the archives without authorization. There was no determination at that point whether or not Mr. Armstrong had anything. That is why we hired investigators to conduct a lawful and professional investigation.
Mr. Armstrong and myself with criminal prosecution for Mr. Armstrong's possession of these documents?
this lawsuit did you write a letter to me threatening Gerald Armstrong with criminal prosecution?
the letter speaks for itself.
not have it here.
I am a private attorney. That is a function of the district attorney's office. I cannot threaten to prosecute anyone nor would I ever threaten to prosecute anyone.
prosecution of Mr. Armstrong?
investigation, I would see that my client is informed that they |
|
|
|
1167
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
have a
right to present the facts in a criminal complaint with
the appropriate authorities, but I have no power to do so, to prosecute.
Mr. Peterson?
years old. I'd have to see the letter to know exactly what I said. Your misrepresentation or mischaracterization is something --
the letter?
1982; is that correct?
by your client; is that correct?
photographs, transparencies or documentation concerning LRH or the church belonging to your client which he acquired while in the employ of your client; is that correct?
words.
Mr. Armstrong, did you acquire any information as to whether in June 1982 Mr. Armstrong had any possession of any documents or materials belonging to the Church of Scientology |
|
|
|
1168
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
of California?
when you started your question. Could you repeat it?
Mr. Armstrong, did you receive any information from any source that Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents or materials belonging to the Church of Scientology of California?
and several of your cases where you are suing Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, and in those declarations were information that only could have come from having the documents and, as a matter of fact, in one of the declarations you filed in the Burden case, the Ron DeWolfe affidavit, I believe there was attached to it a document which at that time we believed could possibly have come from Gerald Armstrong and his access to the archives.
affidavits that were filed by Mr. Armstrong, were there any documents attached to them?
|
|
|
|
1169
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
from the sealed documents under seal in this court?
today, but you asked me what information came to me from my client wherein they suspected that Gerald Armstrong had documents and that was some of the information that I had received from my client. To verify I'd have to look at it and see it, make a comparison, stuff like that.
attached to any affidavit of Gerald Armstrong; is that correct?
which you filed in the Burden case, I believe it was July 1st, was the date you filed it. I think it was executed earlier than that in June. There was attached a piece of paper which I believe the original of that paper or a copy is in those sealed things, but I can easily verify that.
to an affidavit of Gerald Armstrong in the summer of 1982?
|
|
|
|
1170
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents because he recited contents of the documents in the affidavit, Mr. Peterson?
Flynn, you'll see that he has a remarkable memory. And he actually sets off the contents as if he was giving exact quotes.
attached. I am just giving you the answer to your question which was items of information that were given to me by my client which caused us to suspect and therefore we went out and hired a lawful private investigative firm to do a lawful investigation.
not, per your prior testimony that Mr. Garrison had possession of documents that are presently under seal in this court; is that correct?
materials from documents that were in Mr. Garrison's possession at the time that he did the affidavit?
exhibit 19 from Mr. Armstrong, is that I hired private investigators to do an investigation. I myself at that time was not conducting an investigation.
Mr. Armstrong, which has been marked as exhibit 19, did you note that he stated that he didn't acquire any documents |
|
|
|
1171
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
while in
the employ of your client the Church of Scientology
of California?
aware in early August or late July 1982 from correspondence from me that Mr. Armstrong has continually claimed that he worked for L. Ron Hubbard; are you not?
you made the claim in the letter. I am sure you did. You don't miss a chance. But I do recall something to that effect.
fees are you claiming damages for after I informed you that Mr. Armstrong was claiming that he worked for L. Ron Hubbard and not for your client?
What amount came after August 1, 1982, Mr. Peterson?
these bills, I couldn't give you an exact number. I would say a great majority of it came after August 1. That much, I can tell you, if that is okay.
surrendered to the court by myself and Contos & Bunch?
last dated bill is for September 10th.
|
|
|
|
1172
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
to be
returned by September 3rd; however, your three boxes
didn't arrive for several weeks. So this investigation was concluded shortly after your boxes arrived about a couple of weeks late.
you receive any information from your private investigators that Mr. Armstrong was claiming that they were harassing him?
being harassed by these private investigators?
Mr. Armstrong might have been making that claim.
conduct loose surveillance or close surveillance?
|
|
|
|
1173
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
outside Mr. Armstrong's bedroom windows 24 hours a day?
Mr. Armstrong know that he was being surveilled. It was our plan that they stay as far out of sight, as far away as they possibly could so he wouldn't note that they were there. Otherwise, it would have been a useless surveillance.
has submitted to the court in this case; is that correct?
his bedroom window 24 hours a day?
hours a day.
window"?
mile?
reported to me.
letter to Mr. Garrison demanding the return of any documents; is that correct? |
|
|
|
1174
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
the period that the present lawsuit was brought did you contact the Los Angeles Police Department to seek the issuance of a criminal complaint against Mr. Armstrong?
Is there anything improper about that? Does it go to the reasonableness of the damages?
objection.
Mr. Armstrong's state of mind having been accused of theft on April 22, 1982 and then hiring me as an attorney and then being threatened with a criminal prosecution in this case.
recall Mr. Peterson in your case. At this point it seems to me it is outside the scope, laboring a little bit on the subject.
the person in early May 1982 who gave you information that Mr. Armstrong possessed documents belonging to the Church of Scientology of California? |
|
|
|
1175
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
any certainty. I heard information from a variety of sources, I think. |
|
|
|
1176
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
temporary restraining order in this case?
Mr. Peterson?
church?
Your Honor.
deposition, Your Honor, we would be pretty much prepared to rest.
move into evidence.
deposition into the record, then, tomorrow morning? I can |
|
|
|
1177
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
guess we
can start in the beginning --
Flynn?
plans to read it. One can read -- one can be the questioner; one can be the answerer. If you get tired, switch and other people can join you.
Your Honor.
Mr. Armstrong into the record and certain answers to interrogatories in discovery matters, does the court wish us to lodge all the originals of those things?
is read into the record; the reporters have made a transcript of it.
|
|
|
|
§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact § |