§  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

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 57        HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE

 

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

Defendant.


MARY SUE HUBBARD,

Intervenor.


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 420153

REPORTERS' TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Tuesday, May 8, 1984

 

APPEARANCES:        

  (See Appearances page.)

 

 

 

VOLUME 7

Pages 996 - 1177

  NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644
HERB CANNON, CSR #1923
Official Reporters
   
 

 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:

 

For the Plaintiff:

PETERSON & BRYNAN
BY: JOHN G. PETERSON
8530 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 407
Beverly Hills, California 90211
(213) 659-9965

-and-

ROBERT N. HARRIS
The Oviatt Building
617 South Olive Street
Suite 915
Los Angeles, California 90014
(213) 623-7511

 

For the Intervenor:

LITT & STORMER
BY: BARRETT S. LITT
Paramount Plaza
3550 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90010
(213) 386-4303

-and-

BARRETT S. LITT
BY: MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON
The Oviatt Building
617 South Olive Street
Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90014
(213) 623-7511

 

For the Defendant:

CONTOS & BUNCH
BY: MICHAEL J. FLYNN

- and-

JULIA DRAGOJEVIC
5855 Topanga Canyon Boulevard
Suite 400
Woodland Hills, California 91367
(213) 716-9400

 

 

 

 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

Day Date Session Page

Tuesday Mry 8, 1984 A.M. 996
    P.M. 1093

 

 

 

W I T N E S S E S

PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT   RECROSS

VORM, Tom
(Reopened)
997

1025

 

1048 1049
HUBBARD, Mary Sue   1051 1102

1115

 

PETERSON, John 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

 

 

 

I N D E X

E X H I B I T S

PLAINTIFF'S
IDENTIFIED
RECEIVED

13 - Inventory

 

997
1051

14 - Chart

 

1023
1051

15 - Defense list of exhibits

 

1108

16 - Supplemental list of
exhibits

 


1108

17 - Letter, May 26, 1982

 

1147

18 - Letter, May 27, 1982

 

1147

19 - Letter, June 9, 1982

 

1149

20 - Letter, June 21, 1982

 

1149
 

21 - Invoices

 

1152
 

DEFENSE:

 

 

K - Commodore Messengers

 

1059
 

L -

 

1133
 
M - Suppressive Person Declare
1159
 

 

 

 

 
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

 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984; 9:10 A.M.

-o0o-

 

MR. LITT: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. FLYNN: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, we are back in session.

Is Mrs. Hubbard available?

MR. LITT: Your Honor, what we would like to do is

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.

THE COURT: All right.

TOM VORM,

recalled as a witness by the plaintiff, having been previously

duly sworn, resumed the witness stand and testified further

as follows:

THE COURT: Mr. Vorm, you have already been sworn, so

just have a seat. State your name again for the record. You

are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: My name is Tom Vorm.

 

 

 
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

 

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I gave you a copy of the

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.

THE COURT: Okay. 13; so marked for identification.

 

DIRECT EXAMINATION,

BY MR. HARRIS:

Q Mr. Vorm, you previously made reference to

Mr. Armstrong marking certain sections of an inventory in

your testimony previously as I recall; is that right?

A That is correct.

Q Now, at my request did you obtain the entirety

of the inventory of the trunks from your files?

A Yes, I did.

Q Actually, it was pursuant to the court's order,

but at my request.

Now, When you obtained that inventory of the

trunks, what did you do with it?

A I pulled out the pages that had Gerry's check

marks on them and put them together and put the others

together separately.

Q And exhibit 13 which you have before you,

are those the pages that you pulled out that had Gerry's

markings on them?

A That is correct.

Q Prior to pulling them out did you number the

 

 

 
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?

A Yes, I did.

Q That is, the entirety of the inventory?

A The whole thing, yes.

Q From 1 to whatever it was?

A Yes.

Q After that was done you pulled out the pages?

A Right.

 

 

   
 
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

 

Q Directing your attention to the small 12 on the

first page which is circled, is that your writing?

A Yes.

Q And is that the numbering system that you used

throughout?

A Yes. I put a circle around all my numbers in

the bottom right-hand corner.

Q All right. Other than that 12 on the first

page, is anything there your writing?

A No it is not.

Q When you received the trunks, did you use

exhibit 13 in going through the trunks?

A Yes, I used the original of exhibit 13, right.

Q On the front that is on the first page of

exhibit 13 there is what appears to be trunk 8.

By your observation of the trunk, what did that

mean?

A Well, each trunk had a designating letter

that was marked on the trunk. Trunk 8 had the number 8 mark

on the trunk, and that was the contents of the trunk.

Q All right, directing your attention to page 14,

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?

A Yes, I do.

Q All right, when you opened the trunks and

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?

A Yes.

Q And did the inventory that is page 14, for

example, exhibit 13 contain an envelope No. 1 which contained

the items that are on page 14?

A Yes, it did.

Q Down about three-quarters of the way down the

page there appears to be some dark writing in the left-hand

column.

Do you recognize that?

A Yes, it looks like Nikki Friedman's handwriting.

Q And when you went through envelope No. 1 in

trunk 8, did you find a packet re Pontiac papers, certificates,

et cetera?

A No, I didn't. It wasn't there.

Q Was everything else that is indicated on the

inventory page 14 of exhibit 13 in an envelope which had a

designation 1?

A As far as I recall, yes.

Q Now, the check mark over on the right-hand

side of page 14 of exhibit 13, whose marks are those?

A Those were made by Gerry.

Q And what time were these done?

A They were done as part of the procedure for the

transfer of materials to Gerry in approximately October of '81.

Q In respect to the items that are checked off,

 

 

 
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?

A He received the original item.

Q I am now looking at the top. There were two

LRH wallets, one full of membership cards that would have

just been given to him at the time?

A That's right.

Q With no copies retained by you?

A No.

Q And that would have been true of the remainder

of the envelope 1 which has check marks on the right-hand

side?

A That is correct, yes.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Envelope 2, envelope 3, at the time you

opened the trunks using the inventory, did those appear to

contain the contents as designated in the middle of page 14?

A Yes. They appeared to be accurate.

Q Please, turn to page 15.

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?

A Yes.

Q Directing your attention to the top of page 15

there is what appears to be a bracket of some sort on the

right-hand side with a check mark; do you see that?

A Yes.

Q What does that designate?

A What that meant was instead of checking off

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.

Q And, again, these were originals and no copies

kept by you?

A Well, the items in the trunk were Xeroxed

copies. Those originals of those Xeroxed copies were given,

and no copies were kept by me.

Q Fine. Down about three-quarters of the way

 

 

 
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."

Whose writing is that, if you know?

A That would have been Gerry's.

Q And there was something that was missing from

envelope 11, to your recollection?

A Yes.

Q All right. Directing your attention to

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?

A Well, as far as I can tell, the M in this

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.

Q And, again, the check marks are Mr. Armstrong's

check marks on the right-right side?

A That is correct.

Q What is that X that is below the two check marks

mid page, right-hand side, page 16, Exhibit 13?

A What happened on that particular item was I

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

 

Q In Mr. Armstrong's presence?

A Yes.

Q Now, with respect to the check marks at the

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?

A Those particular items were files containing

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.

Q Directing your attention to page 17 of

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?

A That's right.

Q And not to be duplicative, but again, are we

talking about single pages, files, or a mixture, when you are

looking at page 17?

A Page 17 is actually a mixture, I believe.

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.

Q Turning to page 18, it appears to be just one

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

 

A That was a file. If I recall, there were

several pages of correspondence in that.

Q Directing your attention to page 24, up on

this --

By the way, this is trunk No. 12-1 up at the

right-hand corners what does that designate?

A That was the designation on the outside of the

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

 

Q Okay. Now, when you received the trunks,

approximately how many were there?

A As I recall, there were around 20, something

like that when I first got them.

Q And the numbering system on the trunks were not,

I take it, 1 to 20 judging from this?

A Right.

Q Could you explain to the court what the

numbering system was if you could figure it out?

A They just had various numbers on them, 12-1,

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.

Q Now there is on the left-hand side an underlined

phrase "Pack HWD-1."

By your observation of the contents of the

trunks, what did HM mean?

A Well, this particular trunk contained mostly

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.

Q Now, when it says "pack HWD-1" what was the

difference between a pack and an envelope by your observation?

A Well, in the earlier trunk the envelopes were

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

 

When he talks about pack here, what it was is

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.

Q All right, now, up in the center of the first

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?

A Those were notes that I made when I was going

through the trunks originally.

Q And what does that indicate?

A Well on the 16th and 17th it says "Booklet

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.

Q All right, and the circle around the 20th,

what does that designate?

A That would just be my notation that I had

pulled it out and filed it somewhere else. Those are my

initials.

Q And when we see those throughout the remaining

pages, those are indications that you took an item out of

the trunk and filed it in some sort of file?

A Right.

Q And again the check marks that go down page 24

 

 

 
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?

A That is correct.

Q In respect to these, are we talking about

multiple documents or single documents?

A In most of these cases there are multiple

documents. Some of the files had hundreds of pages in

them. Some of them had just a few.

Q And down at the -- it looks like mid-way

there is some writing. Appears to be "two folders."

Whose writing is that?

A That looks like Gerry's writing. I can't be

sure exactly.

Q Directing your attention to page 25 appears to

be only two items designated by check mark; Cuba and deceased

Scientologists.

These were items that were given to Mr. Armstrong?

A They were files that were given, yes.

Q And again with any of this so far did you

make copies or did he make copies to return to archives?

A No, these were the original files and I was

just transferring them to him.

Q All right. Directing your attention to page 27

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?

A That as Gerry's writing.

Q What did that indicate?

A What if I recall when we went through this

 

 

 
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.

Q Direcing your attention to the bottom of page

27 of exhibit 13 there is what appears to be handwritten

"all HEC files" with a check mark; whose writing is that?

A That is Gerry's writing.

Q And what files were included in all HEC

files?

A That included the entirety of pack HWD-4(a).

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.

Q Two items -- oh, I see, the RSF orders and

ships org book?

A That is correct.

Q All right. Now, so what you are saying is

the check mark that is on page 27 which is next to "all

HEC files" encompassed the first part of page 28 through

Tangiers?

A That is right.

Q Bottom of page 28 appears to be the designation

"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?

A That indicates that those were two files that

were taken and they were both checked off.

Q Do you recall the size of these files? Were

they single documents or multiple?

A Those particular files were pretty thick.

I think they were an inch or more/of correspondence, various

things having to do with legal.

Q Now, this FDA I noted earlier on page 27 was

looked to be missing, and then there was this notation

"See Legal FDA"; has that word showed up?

A That's right.

Q And what is the designations of the dates at

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.

A No, that was, if I recall the file said Legal,

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

 

Q All right. Page 29 appears to have check

marks throughout and then some writing about two-thirds of

the page down, "Legal AMA, Legal FDA"; whose writing is

that?

A That is Gerry's writing.

Q What does that indicate at the time that that

was put there?

A I don't recall exactly on that.

I think what happened is that these items were

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.

Q Up at the top of page 29, the third entry,

"Dear Fellows," there is an X; what does that indicate?

A I don't recall what that particular X meant.

Q And with respect to the items on page 29 of

Exhibit 13, are they single documents or multiple?

A These were all file folders. These were the

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.

Q Turn to page 30, the bracket with the check

that is up at the top and the category "Membership Cards";

what does that indicate?

A It indicated that those three items were all

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

 

Q And with respect to the items on page 30

which contain check marks, again, I take it it is a

potpourri, some individual documents, some files?

A Well, they were all files. There weren't any

individual documents.

As far as what the files contained, you are

correct; some were single: some were more than one.

Q All right. Quickly going through, 31 appears

to be a lot of check marks.

32, there is one, Excalibur. This is an item

that Mr. Armstrong took?

A That is correct.

Q Going to page 34, there is one check mark,

"Ships and Boats, 1957-68," and then an indication, seven

folders; that was given to Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q And what does -- from your recollection of what

it looked like, what are the seven folders? Are we talking

about big items, small? What is the best you can describe

it?

A As I recall, those particular folders were all

at least an inch thick. There was just a lot of

miscellaneous files and correspondence, that sort of thing.

Q Turning to page 37, there appears to be some

writing about two-thirds of the way down the page, "Pack

HWD 13"; do you recognize that writing?

A Yes.

Q That is whose 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

 

A That would have been Gerry's.

Q Directing your attention to page 42, at the

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?

A What that indicated was the -- the letters

that Mrs. Hubbard wrote to Mr. Hubbard in the 1973 period.

He was away for a while.

What those included also, there were some

certificates that were actual photos of the certificates as

opposed to original certificates. There was two packs of

those. Those were given to Gerry.

Q Those two items is handwriting, whose hand-

writing is that?

A That is Gerry's handwriting.

Q And the letters, 1973 MSH, did Mr. Armstrong

get the originals or copies?

A Well, per our agreement, he was given the

originals to Xerox only, which he then brought back to me.

Q So you maintained the MSH letters in 1973 in

original form in your archives right now?

A That is right.

Q And as far as you know, he made copies?

A Correct.

Q Directing your attention to page 43 of

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?

A Yes.

Q And what does that designate?

A What that is, the -- there were two packs

labeled RHOD; that stood for Rhodesia 1 and 2.

Then it says, "See following inventory for

details, contents of Rhodesia drawer and top study."

There are two pages following, page 44 and

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

 

Q And when was that written?

A I am not sure exactly. If I recall, it was

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.

Q A11 right. And how did that happen?

A I can't recall specifics on it. I can't

recall specifics on that.

Q In any event, pages 44 and 45 --

THE COURT: Before you leave 43, what is all this

crossed-out material supposed to be?

THE WITNESS: I don't know what that was, Your Honor.

That was crossed out in a heavy black pen.

THE COURT: Before you had access to it?

THE WITNESS: Before I received the inventory.

THE COURT: Did Mr. Armstrong have anything to do

with that, to your knowledge?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: Pages 44 and 45, then, are the

two packs that are under Rhodesia 1 and 2 just broken down?

A That's right.

Q And you gave the entirety of the packages

Rhodesia 1 and 2 to Mr. Armstrong?

A That's correct.

Q Directing your attention to page 48 of

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

 

A Yes.

Q Whose handwriting is that?

A I don't know whose handwriting that was.

That was on the inventory when I received it.

Q And was there, in fact, such a folder in the

trunks?

A Yes, there was. If I recall, what happened

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."

Q Page 42?

A Right.

Q Oh, I see.

A Then later I saw that notation, and if you

will see on page 42 I wrote down at the bottom, "See 12-3

page 6," just as an indication.

Q Oh, I see. In other words, back on page 42

there is some writing below the word "packs"?

A Right.

Q Which is your writing?

A Right.

Q Making reference to what is now page 48?

A That's right.

Q All right. Page 50 of Exhibit 13, there is a

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

 

You received page 50 along with the rest of

the inventory at the time you received the trunks?

A That's right.

Q And the items from your observation of the

trunks -- in this case, trunk 12-4, contained all of these

items?

A That's correct.

Q And a great many of them appear to be checked

off. Were these files or individual documents?

A These were all file folders. They appeared

to be primary correspondence files.

Q Originals?

A Original documents.

Q And that extends over to page 51?

A Yes.

Q Page 52, about a third of the way down, the

page there is on the left-hand side, something pack number

LRH PS3, et cetera; whose writing is that, if you know?

A I am not sure whose writing it is.

Q All right. As far as the contents of the

packs, does the inventory reflect what was in those packs?

A As far as I recall, yes. There were packs

labeled LRH PS3. I believe that stood for per sec with a

number after it, and those particular files matched up.

Q And the LRH Correspondence Files, which has a

check mark next to it, two parcels, about how big were these,

if you recall?

A I don't recall exactly. I know they had more

 

 

 
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.

Q All right. Now, over on the left-hand side of

page 52 there appears to be little dashes in the left

margin; what are those?

A I don't believe they signify anything other

than maybe we just looked at the files. I don't think they

have any significance.

Q Again on page 56, title "Contents of Large

Double Doored Safe WW," with a date, that was all on there

when you received this?

A Yes.

 

 

 

 
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

 

Q Now, I want to direct your attention to

page 58. I'd like to describe it in geometric terms, but I

won't.

There is a line running from "LRH Personal

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?

A These particular items were all the ones that

I gave to Gerry after I had sent the request to Mary Sue in

January of '81.

MR. HARRIS: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: I am going to show you

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 11. Is that the approval that you

are talking about?

A Yes.

Q And you listed the items that you wanted to

turn over to Mr. Armstrong --

A Right.

Q -- in box 1 and box 2. Now, I don't see any paperbacks -- approxi-

mately 30 assorted science fiction paperbacks; where were

those from?

A I think those were in trunk 8, but I couldn't

find them on the inventory when I first picked up the

trunks.

Q So these are the items that were approved by

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?

A Right.

What I did was I just went down the inventory.

And you'll see, it matches almost exactly with what is on

the request.

Q In any event, throughout the remainder of

Exhibit 13 the check marks indicate that Mr. Armstrong

received the items after which the check marks appear?

A Yes.

Q Now, did you also, at my request, this weekend,

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?

A Yes, I did.

Q And for what purpose?

A To be able to determine whether we had copies

of certain items that I remembered being under seal in

court.

Q And the items under seal you are talking about

are originals?

A Right.

Q So you compared your archives with your memory

of what was under seal as originals to determine if you had

copies?

A That's right.

Q All right. Using Exhibit 13 and pointing to

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?

MR. FLYNN: Which archives are we referring to, Your

Honor?

THE COURT: The one under his control.

You are the controller archives?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

THE COURT: Is that the same as the G.O. archives?

MR. HARRIS: I think we'll straighten that out with

the chart, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Charts are always helpful.

THE WITNESS: Page 25 of the inventory, my numbering

system, there is a file under "Pack HWD-3" called

"Deceased Scientologists."

If I recall, when I was downstairs in the

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.

There also was some other correspondence

relating to a couple other Scientologists who had passed

away. I could not find any copy of those particular

original documents in the archives.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: All right.

A On page 27, under the HEC Files that were all

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.

Also the file called "Catterall 1966"; those

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.

Q Only ones where you are certain.

A Right.

Q And only a few. If you could, just designate

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.

A Right.

The next page, page 28, again, is part of the

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.

If I recall, there are several big corres-

pondences, handwritten, between Mr. Hubbard and this par-

ticular person in Greece at the time.

At the bottom of page 28, under "Legal," those

two files, Legal AMA and Legal FDA.

Also, the file Legal 1962 to 1967. As I recall,

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.

Q Let me stop you for a minute.

 

 

 
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

What archives did you look through to determine

if you had copies so that the Court understands what you did?

A I went through Gerry's archives, the ones that

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.

Q So we don't extend this out, was there more

items on the inventory that you could name where the

originals are under seal and you do not have copies?

A I don't have any more that I could name from

memory.

If I had a complete inventory, I am sure --

MR. HARRIS: I have a chart which I showed to

Mr. Flynn this morning, Your Honor, and indicated that I

would use.

May this chart be marked Plaintiff's next in

order?

THE COURT: 14.

MR. FLYNN: We object and contend that it is

inaccurate, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: Any inaccuracies can be handled by

Mr. Armstrong, Your Honor, or others.

Q Showing you Exhibit 14, let me ask you a few

questions first.

Are you familiar with the contents of what is

called Guardian Archives WW?

A Right now?

 

 

 
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

 

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q And were you ever at Guardian Archives WW?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A That was January 1982.

Q And are the contents of Guardian Archives WW

now under your control?

A Well when you say was called Guardian Archives

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?

Q All right. The inventory which I turned over

to the court the other day, what is that an inventory of?

A That is an inventory of the materials that I

received when the Guardian Archives WW was broken up

basically.

Q All right. From your knowledge of archives

generally, did you prepare rough drafts from which exhibit

14 was prepared?

A Yes.

Q Ail right, could you explain to the court

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.

A Do you want me to go through the whole chart?

Q Yes.

A Okay.

 

 

 
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

 

Well, from what I know of the various archives

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.

Anyway this is basically a drawing of how I

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.

In 1969 Mary Sue Hubbard was made the

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.

So, this is where the trunks were created.

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.

Around 1975-1976 they were moved to California.

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.

They were moved in 1977 to Los Angeles as a

separate matter, then these other trunks containing the

written materials and the personal materials.

In 1977 I came on post over the tapes. My

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.

In 1979 I received these trunks to add to

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.

In 1981 the transfer occurred of some of these

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

 

In February '83 what was left was at GO

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

 

In February, '83 there was a project that was

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.

Q All right. Now, there have been mention of

Bureau of Information Archives; is there such a thing?

A Not that I know about.

Q Those are called Bureau of

Information what?

A Files.

Q There has been a mention of Per Sec files;

what are those?

A Those were -- basically, those were files of

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.

Q Is there a Pers Sec file in Los Angeles to

which you have access?

A Yes.

Q And do you know generally the nature of the

materials in that file?

A Yes.

Q Is there any Pers Sec file with which you

are not familiar?

A Yes.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Which one is that?

A Pers Sec files at Worldwide.

Q Now, the term R Storage has also come in.

A Uh-huh.

Q What is that?

A Well, the way I understand it is in relationship

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.

Q Where did they wind up?

A R Storage at Gilman Hot Springs.

Q When you visited the archives area that

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.

Q All right.

Q No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may cross-examine.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. FLYNN:

Q Would you turn to page 32 of exhibit 13,

the inventory, please?

Do you have that in front of you, Mr. Vorm?

A Yes.

 

 

 
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

 

Q In response to a question of Mr. Harris did you

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?

A I don't think I mentioned the word "transcript."

Q Did you state that it was a manuscript?

A No.

Q Do you recall what it was?

A Yes.

Q What was it?

A It was a file containing various notes or

letters about the book "Excalibur."

Q And do you know where the original manuscript

of Excalibur was at the time that this inventory was created?

A No. I don't.

Q Do you know whether it ever came into

Mr. Armstrong's possession?

A Yes.

Q Do you know where it came from?

A No.

Q In any event, it didn't come from anything

in this inventory; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Now, were you in the courtroom yesterday

when Mrs. Hubbard testified that Gerald Armstrong stole these

materials from her?

A I don't recall her exact testimony; something

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

 

Q Well, would you agree with me, Mr. Vorm,

that you and Mr. Armstrong went through a fairly elaborate

procedure to list every item that Mr. Armstrong received

possession of?

A Would I agree with you?

Q Would you agree with me that that is what the

two of you did?

A Yes. We went through and checked the materials

off.

Q In fact, you even listed what was missing?

A In some cases, yes.

Q And you cross-referenced to other areas of

the inventory where you found it in other locations; is that

correct?

A In one or two cases, yes.

Q And you gave all of this material to

Mr. Armstrong with your permission; is that correct?

A Well, if you mean I did it willingly or

unwillingly, I --

Q Did he steal the materials from you?

MR. HARRIS: May the witness finish the answer, Your

Honor?

MR. FLYNN: I'll withdraw the last question, Your

Honor.

Q Did he steal the materials from you, Mr. Vorm?

A I am not sure.

THE COURT: Of course, the word "steal" in legal

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

 

We are dealing with a lay person here. I am not sure -- I

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.

MR. FLYNN: I'll withdraw it, Your Honor.

Q You and Mr. Armstrong agreed together and

listed the materials that he could have; is that correct?

A Agreed together about what?

Q About what he could have.

A As we went through, yes.

Q And you received permission from your supervisor

or Mr. Cook who was then the controller to do that; didn't

you?

A That's right.

Q Now, is there anyone -- strike that.

In October of 1981 when you did this was

there anyone in the Church of Scientology of California

of higher ranking authority than the controller?

A Yes.

Q Who?

A A post called ED Int. There was some

particular -- there was a thing called WEC which was a committee.

There were other terminals, other people.

Q Did you ask Mr. Cook whether or not he

received permission from any of these other higher authorities?

A No.

Q Is Mr. Cook still a member of the church?

A I have no idea.

 

 

 
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

 

Q I take it, then, Mr. Vorm, you just followed

the command lines of -- based on the orders or authority

of your immediate senior; is that correct?

A I followed the command lines to put my request,

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

 

Q To give the materials to Mr. Armstrong.

A That is right.

Q Now, you testified that over the years there

was a great deal of confusion as to what materials should

go in what archives; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And I believe you testified that in 1966

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.

MR. LITT: That is not the testimony. That misstates

the testimony.

THE COURT: Well, we have all heard his testimony.

Why don't you ask him a direct question?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: was there a project in 1966 to

grab materials at Worldwide and place them in trunks?

A I don't know if they were grabbing things.

What you mean by that particular word, I don't

know. But as far as I know there was a project to pack

materials up and put them in trunks.

Q On direct examination, did you state that

they were grabbing anything and everything?

A I don't recall.

Q And did you give a reason to the court as to

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

 

A I don't recall. I think I recall saying that

they did that. I -- I don't know if I gave a reason.

Q Well, is there a reason why personal materials

of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard were in the trunks

that you received?

A Probably.

Q What is it?

A Do you want my opinion? I don't have any

real first-hand knowledge of it.

Q Do you have any first-hand knowledge of

anything to do with the project in 1966?

A No.

Q Where did you get your information?

A From talking to various people, writing to

people, trying to find out what had happened at that time.

Q When did the chart that has been marked as

exhibit 14 -- any of that prior to 1980 predicated on your

first-hand knowledge?

A Part of it is, yes.

Q What is?

A The fact that these materials were in the trunks

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.

Q What is the sum total of your knowledge about

the project in 1966, Mr. Vorm?

A Sum total?

Q Right.

 

 

 
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

 

A Do you mean personal first-hand knowledge?

Q Any type of knowledge, first-hand, hearsay.

What do you know about the project in 1966?

A Basically what I testified; that there was a

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.

They -- per the materials and the inventory

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

 

Q Now, do you know whose permission they did that

with?

A I don't know exactly, no.

Q When they made the inventory, would you agree

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?

MR. HARRIS: I will stipulate to that, Your Honor.

That is self-evident.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Didn't they do the same thing in

1966 that Mr. Armstrong was doing in 1980 and 1981, Mr. Vorm?

A I don't think so.

Q Do you have Exhibit 11 in front of you?

A No.

MR. HARRIS: I took it away.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Would you turn to the last page

of Exhibit 11?

A Yes.

Q In the last sentence in the first paragraph,

the sentence reads, does it not, "These are currently being

gathered up by RH Pers Sec PRO Research Unit"?

A Yes.

Q And that refers to personal materials of a

founder which would be of historical interest; is that

correct?

A That is correct.

Q And that is the basis upon which you gave all of

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?

A No, that is not correct.

Q Didn't you believe that this letter of Mary

Sue Hubbard dated August 26, 1980 authorized that?

A No.

Q Didn't you testify on cross-examination

several days ago that that was the basis of your belief?

A That it was an authorization?

Q Didn't you testify that you believed that

Mary Sue Hubbard authorized personal materials of the

founder of historical interest to be delivered to the

LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit?

A By this particular document?

Q The question is, Mr. Vorm, didn't you testify

that based on Exhibit 11, you believed that personal

materials of the founder of historical interest could

rightfully be delivered to Gerald Armstrong?

A Well, I am a little confused per this par-

ticular first page.

Yes, materials were authorized. They were

historical items, and they were approved by Mrs. Hubbard.

Q In October 1981, when you delivered more

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?

A No, I didn't.

Q And you did that solely on the authority of

 

 

 
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?

A Right.

Q Now, in your chart, you have laid out what

GO WW was at the top; is that correct?

A My understanding of it, yes.

Q And that is as of 1976, Mr. Vorm?

MR. LITT: Is that referring to GO WW Archives or

GO WW itself?

THE WITNESS: It is referring to archives.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: All these questions relate to

archives, Mr. Vorm, if there is any confusion in your mind.

A Okay.

Q When did you visit GO WW Archives?

A In January of '82.

Q And would you describe the physical premises

in which GO WW Archives were located in January of '82?

A It was a building down the road from the main

Saint Hill Manor. It was a cement -- it is a cement floor.

I am not sure what the walls were made of.

Q It was an entire building?

MR. HARRIS: Could the witness be allowed to finish

his answer, Your Honor, once the question is asked? He is

trying to describe the building.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let the witness finish

his answer.

THE WITNESS: It had a locked door on it.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: It was an entire building,

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

 

A I don't think the entire building was the

entirety of the archives. I think there were other things in

a room or whatever.

Q How many divisions of GO WW Archives were

there in January of 1982, if you know?

MR. HARRIS: "Divisions"? It is ambiguous, Your

Honor. I will object to the question.

THE COURT: Well, overruled.

If he doesn't know, he can state.

THE WITNESS: I didn't know of any divisions.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, do you know whether there

was PR Archives within GO WW in January 1982?

A It looked to me that it was pretty well messed

up, mixed together, as far as what I considered to be

archives material and PR files.

Q And do you know whether there were B-1 Archives

at GO WW Archives in January 1982?

A I didn't get part of your question.

Q Do you know whether there were B-1 Archives at

GO WW Archives in January 1982?

A No.

Q Isn't it a fact that between 1980 and October

1981, when Mr. Armstrong was working on this project, that

there was one entire building at GO WW Archives solely

relating to PR Archives?

A I am not sure. I don't know what that is.

Q You don't have any firsthand knowledge of that?

A That there was an entire building?

 

 

 
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

 

Q That was just PR Archives as part of GO WW

Archives?

A Well, it was my understanding that the PR

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

 

Q Do you know whether Mr. Armstrong ever visited

those archives before you did?

A I believe he did, yes.

Q Did you find any separate section of GOWW

Archives when you visited there which comprised B-1 Archives?

A No.

Q You testified that in the inventory there was

Xeroxed copies of many of these materials that were in the

trunks; is that correct?

A I don't recall saying that.

Q Well, were there Xerox copies which you called

Xerox originals in the trunks?

A In the trunks?

Q In the trunks that you had possession of in

October, 1981 when you looked at this inventory.

A I am sorry. I am confused.

Q Could you give me the first question?

Q You understand the difference between an

original and a copy?

A That's right.

Q When you opened the trunk and you went through

what has been marked as exhibit 13, did some of the items

in exhibit 13 constitute originals and some constitute

copies?

A Yes.

Q Do you know where the originals were of the

copies that you saw?

A Well, the copies, I recall, were -- there were

 

 

 
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.

Q Were there any copies in the trunks that you

didn't have possession of the originals?

A I can't say one way or the other.

Q You don't know?

A I don't recall any specific ones, no.

Q Do you know whether there are originals at

GO -- whether there were originals at the GO Worldwide

Archives between October -- strike that -- in October of 1981

where you only had copies?

A I don't know that, no.

Q Now, do you recall testifying in your

prior testimony that you never went to all of the documents

in the LRH Archives collected by Gerald Armstrong?

A I couldn't have said that. I don't recall

specifically exactly what the words were.

Q This past weekend did you go through all of

the documents that were collected by Gerald Armstrong?

A In general, yes.

Q Approximately how many documents did you go

through, Mr. Vorm?

A That is hard for me to say. There were quite

a few.

Q Well, do you recall testifying that there were

approximately 16 to 18 file cabinets?

A I don't recall saying that number, no.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Do you recall how many file cabinets there are

that comprise the documents that were collected by Gerald

Armstrong?

A Well, there is approximately -- there is around

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.

There was a file that contained some letter from

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.

Q Do you recall how many boxes of materials

there were?

MR. HARRIS: Originals, or copies, Your Honor?

MR. FLYNN: Originals or copies.

THE WITNESS: Fifteen or twenty.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is it your testimony that you

went through all of that material this weekend?

A Yes.

Q Can you give me an estimate as to the number

of pages that you went through?

THE COURT: Well, the witness di say that he went

through these things generally. I don't know what that

meant. Nobody asked him.

But as distinguished from specifically, what

did you mean when you said you went through them generally?

THE WITNESS: Well, what I was looking for was copies

 

 

 

 
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.

In one case it was easy to tell because the

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.

In many cases, boxes contained books and that

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.

THE COURT: We'll take a 15-minute recess.

(Recess.)

 

 

 

 
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

 

THE COURT: All right. In the case on trial let the

record reflect that parties and counsel are all present.

The witness has retaken the stand.

Just state your name again for the record, sir.

You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: My name is Tom Vorm.

THE COURT: You may continue, counsel.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Vorm, when you were going

through Exhibit 13 and checking over the items you were

giving to Mr. Armstrong --

THE COURT: Are you talking about when it happened or

yesterday or today or what?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: At the time that you actually

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?

A I think so, yes.

Q And at that time did you know that Mr. Armstrong

was giving these materials to Omar Garrison?

A Original materials?

Q Any of the materials that are checked, did you

know that he was giving them to Omar Garrison?

A I was not aware that he was giving him original

materials.

Q Did you give him original materials?

A Yes.

Q For what purpose?

 

 

 
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

 

A For use in the biography and for his archives.

Q You gave him original materials for use in the

biography; is that your testimony?

A Uh-huh.

MR. LITT: Objection; his testimony is what he just

said.

THE COURT: There was an "and," also.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When you gave him the original

materials, you knew that they were being used in the

biography; is that correct?

THE COURT: Or in his archives. That is what he said.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, was it your understanding,

Mr. Vorm, that all of those original materials had to be used

for both of those purposes?

A It was my understanding that copies may be

given to Mr. Garrison.

Q In whose discretion?

A I don't know.

Q In Mr. Armstrong's discretion?

A I don't know. I didn't have any particular

consideration about that.

Q Now, when you knew that the materials were

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?

A That is true.

 

 

 
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

 

MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Redirect.

MR. HARRIS: Just briefly, Your Honor.

 

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARRIS:

Q Mr. Vorm, again Mr. Flynn mentioned B-1

Archives; is there such a thing, to your knowledge?

A I have never heard that term until it was

mentioned here.

Q And the project which resulted in the trunks

which came into your custody, what was the year of that

project?

A It would have been 1969.

 

 

 
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

 

Q The letters from Mary Sue Hubbard to Mr. Hubbard

and vice versa that Mr. Armstrong asked for, please, state

the conversation at the time that he asked for those and

what you did.

A The particular letters in question, the ones

from 1966 and '67 and also the ones from 1973, I was not

originally going to give them to Mr. Armstrong.

He basically insisted that he needed them;

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.

Q Did you give him the originals or copies?

A Based on his assurance that they would just

be used as background data, I allowed him to make copies

of them and kept the originals for the archives.

MR. HARRIS: No further questions.

 

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. FLYNN:

Q Prior to giving those letters to Mr. Armstrong,

did you consult with anyone?

A What do you mean by "prior"? Like within a

few days?

Q At that time, contemporaneous with giving

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

 

A Regarding the letters, no.

Q You used your own discretion?

A I used my discretion based on Mary Sue's

earlier instructions when she originally allowed the trunks

to come to me.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Mr. Vorm.

THE COURT: Was it your testimony, Mr. Vorm, that

anything that is in the court's exhibits under seal that

appears to be a copy, the church has the originals somewhere?

THE WITNESS: No. That wouldn't be my contention.

I belive there are some copies here that we

have.

THE COURT: I got the impression that you only allowed

him to take --- I'll back off of that.

You are not able to identify any of those

matters which are copies, I gather, from reviewing exhibit 13?

THE WITNESS: I probably could if I put attention

to it.

THE COURT: What items?

THE WITNESS: Originals. My contention is that I

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.

THE COURT: Anything further, gentlemen?

MR. FLYNN: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down, sir, again.

MR. HARRIS: I move the admission of exhibit 13

 

 

 

 
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.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. FLYNN: I object to 14, Your Honor.

No objection to 13.

THE COURT: It was part of the witness's testimony.

Overruled. It will be received.

We are going to resume with Mrs. Hubbard's

testimony?

MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may retake the stand, ma'am.

 

MARY SUE HUBBARD,

recalled as a witness by the plaintiff, having been previously

sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: You have already been sworn. Just have

a seat and state your name again for the record. You are

still under oath.

THE WITNESS: My name is Mary Sue Hubbard.

 

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)

BY MR. FLYNN:

Q Mrs. Hubbard, do you know whether or not

Mr. Garrison completed a manuscript for the biography on

your husband?

A No, I don't know.

 

 

 
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

 

Q So you have never seen one; is that correct?

A No, I have not.

Q When the agreement was reached with

Mr. Garrison in the summer of 1983, did you play any part in

reaching that agreement with him?

A No, I did not.

Q Do you know who the parties to that agreement

were?

A No. I don't.

Q In the original contract between PUBS DK and

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?

MR. LITT: Objection as to the "documents." What

documents is Mr. Flynn referring to?

MR. FLYNN: All of the materials in the possession of

Omar Garrison.

THE WITNESS: No. I thought that Omar Garrison would

be writing the biography in quarters provided by the Church,

and that all the materials therefore would be in the

possession of the Church.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether or not there

are any provisions in the contract relating to what would

happen to the materials or proceeds of his research,

Mr. Garrison's research --

MR. LITT: Objection; the contract speaks for itself.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: -- if the contract was

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

 

THE COURT: He is asking this witness if she has

any knowledge. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: What was your question?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if I can complete my question

before Mr. Litt interrupts.

MR. LITT: I am sorry.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you have any knowledge of a

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?

A I never considered that they were in the

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.

Q Are you aware of a public relations bureau

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?

A No, I am not aware.

Q Did you testify that you have looked through

the materials under seal?

A Yes.

Q And when you looked through the materials

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

 

A To the best of my recollection I didn't see

any such program.

Q So you don't know whether it is under seal or

not?

A I don't know.

Q Did you know anything about the proposal to

have Mr. Garrison travel throughout the world to promote

the biography?

A I think generally I heard that there was

going to -- when the book was published and released, that

he would be making appearances as an author, yes.

Q And do you know anything about discussions

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?

A No, I do not.

Q Do you know whether that was discussed between

Laurel Sullivan and Alan Wertheimer?

A No, I don't.

Q Are you aware of the fact that an SP Declare

has been issued on Gerald Armstrong?

A No, I am not.

Q So you haven't seen it?

A I have not seen it.

Q And you don't know anything about it?

A I don't know anything about it.

Q Do you know whether the Church of Scientology

 

 

 

 
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 --

MR. LITT: Objection --

Q BY MR. FLYNN:-- after he left the

organization?

MR. LITT: Objection; it is beyond the scope and it

is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Well, overruled. It may be preliminary

to something else. May go to bias, interest, motive.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't know.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether or not

Mr. Armstrong was threatened with a lawsuit by the Church of

Scientology in April of 1982?

A No, I didn't.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Do you know any of the circumstances under

which Mr. Armstrong came to me to seek legal assistance?

A No, I don't.

MR. LITT: I object. That assumes facts not in

evidence, among other things.

MR. FLYNN: There will be evidence on it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I'll let it stand.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: You testified yesterday that

you approved numerous financial expenditures by Mr. Armstrong

for the biography; is that correct?

A I don't know if I stated numerous. But I

approve quite a few, yes.

Q Do you recall car do you have an estimate

of what the dollar mount of your approval of financial

expenditures was?

A No.

Q You did that in your position as controller?

A Yes.

Q And did those expenditures relate to the fact

that Mr. Armstrong was collecting materials relating to the

biography of your husband?

A Yes.

Q And you knew that he was collecting those

materials from a wide variety of sources; is that correct?

A Well, from a variety o£ sources, yes.

Q And over how long a period of time did you

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

 

A That must have been for a period some time in

1980; through all '80 and then up until some time in '81,

April -- May, '81 or thereabouts.

Q Now, you testified that you learned that your

husband had approved Mr. Armstrong's petition in January,

1980 and that the approval came through a messenger; do you

recall that?

MR. LITT: I object. That misstates the testimony

in so many different ways.

THE COURT: Well, you can reframe your question.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you receive information

that the petition of Mr. Armstrong to collect materials

from the biography project was approved by a messenger?

A No. That was my assumption only.

Q Did you testify that you had a conversation

with Laurel Sullivan about that fact?

A Yes.

Q And that she told you it was approved by a

messenger.

MR. LITT: I object. That misstates the testimony.

If this is supposed to be reference to what

Mrs. Hubbard testified previously to, I --

THE WITNESS: I didn't say that, no.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: You didn't say that Laurel

Sullivan told you that?

A No.

Q So you simply assumed that a messenger had

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

 

MR. LITT: I object. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: I guess it is an attempt to pin it down.

Is that your assumption?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What was that assumption

predicated upon?

A On two factors: One, usually when a petition

went to my husband, he usually signed it off with his own

initials.

Secondly, I don't think that my husband

considered Mr. Armstrong -- I don't think he would have

approved Mr. Armstrong to have done work on the biography.

Q So on that basis you assumed that it was a

messenger and not your husband?

A Yes, on that basis, those two facts.

Q Now, do you recall in your declaration on

page 10 filed in this case that you stated, "My husband

approved in general terms and did not make reference to

our personal storage"?

A Yes.

 

 

 
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

 

Q And your husband approved in general terms

that Mr. Armstrong work on the biography and collect materials;

is that correct?

A That is no what I think, no.

Q Well, did you state in your declaration, that

he approved in general terms --

THE COURT: Well, she's read that. She's indicated

already that is what she said.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What is a messenger, Mrs. Hubbard?

A A messenger is more or less like a communication

terminal that delivers and receives messages.

Q And is it your testimony that a messenger

simply approved this petition that started all of this

project?

MR. LITT: Objection; that has not been her testimony.

She said she didn't know about ten times at this point.

THE WITNESS: I am only assuming.

THE COURT: Is it your testimony that you are assuming

it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you familiar with Flag

order 3729?

A No.

Q Entitled "Commodore's Messengers"?

May that be marked for identification, Your

Honor?

THE COURT: Okay. What are we up to?

 

 

 
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

 

THE CLERK: K as in king.

THE COURT: All right, K.

MR. LITT: You have a copy for us, Mr. Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: I don't. I will have one made, Mr. Litt.

I'd expect I'd be about another 15 minutes,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's okay. We are not going anywhere.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you familiar with that

Flag Order?

A No, I am not familiar with it, but I have just

read it.

Q Never seen it before?

A I think I saw it before, but as I say I am

not familiar with it.

Q Well are you familiar in general with the policy

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?

A Yes and no.

THE COURT: Well, that is what you get for asking a

compound question.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Your husband is a commodore;

isn't he?

A Yes, he is.

Q Commodore of what?

A Of the Sea Organization, or that was what he

was at the time.

Q How long was he the commodore of the Sea

 

 

 
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?

A I am not certain, since 1968, '69, something

like that.

Q And then he stopped being the commodore of

the Sea Organization?

A No.

Q How long did he continue to be commodore of

the Sea Organization?

A Well he is still referred to among those in

the Sea Organization as the commodore.

Q So he is still the commodore of the Sea

Organization?

A In their minds, yes.

Q And he can still deliver orders to messengers

as such pursuant to any policy of the Sea Organization?

A I presume. He is -- yes, I presume.

Q Now, you testified yes and no in response to

my compound question.

What part of it was yes and what part of it

was no?

MR. LITT: Your Honor --

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, was a messenger

bound per policy of the Sea Organization to follow the orders

of your husband?

A Unless they queried such an order, yes.

Q Well, assuming there was no query, were they

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

 

A Yes.

Q And were people taking orders from the

messengers bound to follow the orders given by the messengers

on the basis that they were given by your husband?

A Yes, but --

Q In the period from January 1980 to October 1981

when Mr. Armstrong was collecting materials for the

biography project, do you know whether anyone queried his

authority to do so?

A I think I was the only one who did. I asked

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

 

Q Was that a written query or an oral query?

A An oral query.

Q Were there policies relating to written

queries?

MR. HARRIS: Objection. Made, Your Honor.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Were there policies of the SEA

Organization relating to written queries?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Policies, Your Honor, get into a problem

because there are ecclesiastical policies, corporate policies,

as embodied in board minutes and other sorts of policies.

THE COURT: The witness said they are. Let's find

out what they are. And then we'll go from there.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What are those policies?

A The policies are if one receives an order

from a senior, one does not approve of the order, then one

queries one's senior in relationship to that order.

Q In writing?

A In writing.

Q Does it have to be in writing?

A It has to be in writing.

Q When you made your query, did you do it in

writing?

THE COURT: This wouldn't be a query.

She wasn't your senior, was she?

Q Who was your senior?

A For reporting and administrative purposes, my

 

 

 
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.

Q For what other purposes did you have seniors

for?

A I didn't have any other seniors.

Q Was L. Ron Hubbard your senior?

A He wasn't there.

Q Prior to his leaving, was he your senior?

MR. LITT: Objection.

Are we talking now in an ecclesiastical sense?

We'll stipulate that in an ecclesiastical

sense, that Mr. Hubbard is her senior.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.

We are getting back into ancient history now.

We are talking here of what happened in '80 to

'81, counsel.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Your testimony is that your

husband left in January, 1980?

A I testified to that, but I got confused with

all the papers. And it was really February, 1980.

Q In January, 1980, when Mr. Armstrong filed the

petition before your husband had left, was your husband your

senior?

A He was not --

MR. LITT: Just a minute.

I have the same objection as to the use of the

word "senior."

THE COURT: For the purposes of this concept of query,

 

 

 
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?

How is that? For that purpose only.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, did you, between January,

1980 and October, 1981, see any dispatches or orders from

your husband removing Gerald Armstrong from his post?

A No. My husband had left in January.

Q Between January of 1980 and October, 1981, did

you see any dispatches or orders from any messenger removing

Gerald Armstrong from his post?

A No, I did not.

Q At any time between January, 1980 and October,

1981, did you make any effort to remove Gerald Armstrong

from his post?

A No, I did not.

Q Now, you testified yesterday and you noted in

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?

A I don't recall that particular title there.

Yes. LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit.

Q Was gathering up personal materials of

historical interest; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q You knew that in August, 1980?

MR. LITT: I object. This has been stated and askod

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 COURT: Sustained.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, do you consider

the honesty, integrity and moral character of your husband

to be of historical interest?

MR. LITT: Objection. That calls for speculation.

And it is really quite an outrageous question.

What is going on here?

THE COURT: Well, it is a compound question.

I'll sustain the objection.

 

 

 

 
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

 

MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor.

Q Are you aware that a survey was done for the

biography project which is under seal that honesty in the

project was the primary request of Scientologists throughout

the world?

A I don't know of any survey.

Q Did you consider honesty of your husband to be

a matter of historical interest to be written about by Omar

Garrison?

MR. LITT: Your Honor, the question is so vague.

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?

It is an improper question. The word "honesty"

cannot be given the kind of definiteness of meaning in the

context of this case for it to lead anyplace.

THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection as to

the form of the question.

Without getting into spiritual matters,

philosophical matters, perhaps you can be more specific what

you have reference to. Honesty as to what?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Over the years that your husband

and you promoted the Church of Scientology, did you promote,

the factual background relating to L. Ron Hubbard's life?

A No, I can't remember promoting anything.

Q Do you know whether there was biographical

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

 

A Yes.

Q And did you consider that biographical data on

the jacket of books to be honest statements of your husband's

background?

MR. LITT: Objection. Without knowing -- we are

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.

To ask a question, did you consider --

THE COURT: All right. I will sustain the objection.

It is broad, ambiguous.

MR. HARRIS: While Mr. Flynn is digging for his item,

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.

MR. FLYNN: That is s very fine.

MR. HARRIS: On the subject of Scientology, so that

gives you an idea of the mass of it, anyway, just an aside.

THE COURT: Very well.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, with regard to this mass

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?

A I think there were things that the publisher

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

 

Q And over how many years was this mass of

materials promoted and sold by your husband. Mrs. Hubbard?

MR. LITT: Objection; assumes facts not in evidence.

These are Scientology books.

THE WITNESS: The Church has sold and promoted books

for years.

THE COURT: It can be reframed.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Approximately how many books

has your husband written, Mrs. Hubbard?

A Innumerable ones. I have never sat down and

counted them.

Q Now, do you know whether he sold any of his

books on promotional items that he was a nuclear physicist?

MR. LITT: Objection. Your Honor, Mr. Flynn is

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.

THE COURT: All right. We will go forward that way.

MR. HARRIS: And also beyond the scope of direct,

each and all of these questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, no. There's been testimony about

historical interest, and he is getting into this, or at

least he was when some objection was sustained, getting into

historical interest.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you familiar with that book,

Mrs. Hubbard?

THE COURT: What is the name of it, for the record?

THE WITNESS: "All About Radiation."

 

 

 
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

 

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And the title "All About

Radiation" is by a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor;

is that correct?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Who is it published by?

THE WITNESS: It is published by Hubbard College of

Scientology, Church of Scientology of California, an

English company, and printed in Denmark, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, have you read that book?

A I did years ago, yes.

Q And was your husband or is your husband a

nuclear physicist or a medical doctor?

MR. LITT: Objection as to what is a nuclear physicist.

That is a conclusion.

THE COURT: Well, it is a compound question.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was he a nuclear physicist,

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

 

MR. LITT: I make the same objection, Your Honor.

What is the question? Was Albert Einstein a

nuclear physicist? He didn't graduate from any particular

college.

MR. FLYNN: That happens to be incorrect about

Mr. Einstein.

THE COURT: Let's not get involved with Albert Einstein

MR. HARRIS: He seems to be the only thing sacred

around here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Disregard the asides, jury.

The jury is not here, of course.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was your husband a nuclear

physicist?

A No, he wasn't.

He took a course in nuclear physics, but he

was not a nuclear physicist.

Q He flunked that course that he took, didn't

he?

A I don't know.

Q Was he a medical doctor?

A No.

But this is written by authors.

Q Would you refer to the book and name the name

of the medical doctor who wrote the book?

A A portion of the book.

But the medical doctor who wrote a portion

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."

Q And who was the authors?

A An English medical doctor and my husband.

And the English medical doctor requested that

his name be kept confidential and not released at the tine.

Q Was a term used to describe the medical

doctor's portion of the book?

A Yes. I think -- it is called Medicus,

M-e-d-i-c-u-s.

Q Mrs. Hubbard, were you around when that book

was written by your husband?

THE COURT: I don't know what you mean by "around."

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Were you there? Were you

physically present when your husband was writing that book?

A Not while he was -- you know, but I was there

when he was working on the book, yes.

Q Do you know whether he wrote the entire book,

or whether this medical doctor wrote a portion of the book?

A I know the medical doctor wrote a portion of

the book.

Q Your husband wrote the part on nuclear

physics?

A That's correct.

Q Was it your understanding that he was holding

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?

MR. LITT: I object as to what the -- what is the

relevance of this? This is beyond the scope.

MR. HARRIS: And it assumes facts not in evidence.

MR. LITT: That he held himself out. Because it is

the book jacket that we are dealing with here.

THE COURT: Okay. It is compound question.

MR. FLYNN: I'll withdraw it, Your Honor.

Q Was it your understanding that he was/a nuclear

physicist when the book was promoted?

MR. LITT: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I don't know how the book was promoted.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether your husband

received royalties for the sales of the book?

MR. LITT: Your Honor, is this going into matters of

historical interest as to whether Mr. Hubbard received

royalites?

THE COURT: I think in peripheral way.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether your husband

received royalties?

A He did receive royalties.

Q For the sale of this book?

A I don't know specifically for the sale of the

book.

Q Now, you have testified that he was not a

nuclear physicist; is that correct?

A No.

Q You didn't testify to that?

 

 

 
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

 

A I testified that he was not a nuclear physicist.

Q Now, was whether he was a nuclear physicist

or not a mater of historical interest for Omar Garrison's

biography?

MR. LITT: I object.

Is he asking Mrs. Hubbard her present opinion?

Is he asking Mrs. Hubbard at the time that she wrote that

that she was thinking nuclear physicist? The question is

vague, ambiguous.

THE COURT: I think he is asking her opinion.

MR. LITT: Presently?

THE COURT: Whenever.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, did you testify

yesterday that you felt mentally raped by Omar Garrison

and Gerald Armstrong having access to your husband's

medical records during World War II?

A I don't know if I specifically used that phrase

in that reference, no.

Q Do you feel mentally raped here in the courtroom

by Omar Garrison and Gerald Armstrong having access to

your husband's health records and academic records?

A I consider such records to be personal,

extremely personal and private. That is all I can say.

Q Now, was whether or not your husband a nuclear

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

 

MR. LITT: Objection; assumes facts not in evidence,

that Mr. Hubbard ever sold the book, and it is compound.

MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor.

Q Did your husband copyright the book?

MR. HARRIS: Other than by looking at the book -- the

witness appears to be looking at the book.

THE COURT: That is not a bad way to do it.

MR. HARRIS: Well, that would not refresh her recol-

lection.

THE COURT: It would obviously be an admission. It

is published by the plaintiff here, California -- CSC.

MR. HARRIS: It was published by the Church of

Scientology of California, UK branch through PUBS DK.

THE COURT: I don't know all these interrelationships,

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.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Let me ask you this: Are there

millions of Scientologists throughout the world who revere

your husband?

A I think so.

Q Are there millions of Scientologists

throughout the world who had read his books?

A Yes.

Q And has he been promoted by the Church of

Scientology as one of the greatest men who ever lived?

A I don't know what they ever promoted, no.

Q Have you ever heard that phrase in connection

 

 

 
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?

A Not directly. I think so, but --

Q But you have never heard that phrase in any

promotional literature of the Church?

A Not that I can recall specifically, no.

Q Well, in the 30 years you were involved with

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?

MR. HARRIS: Is this calling for reputation opinion

or the witness' opinion about if she had asked all those

millions of Scientologists?

THE COURT: Just asking for this witness' belief, I

guess, or state of mind. Overruled.

You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Do I feel that Scientologists generally

revere my husband?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: As one of the greatest men who

ever lived.

A Well, I certainly think they revere him, yes.

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.

Q Is that reverence based upon at least in part,

if you know, the books that he's written?

MR. LITT: Are we referring to the content of the

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

 

MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you have an understanding,

Mrs. Hubbard, as to what this reverence is based upon?

A Yes.

Q And what is it?

A It is based upon the writings and materials

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.

Q Is it based upon the honesty of your husband?

A I don't think that would be a factor at all.

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.

Q Do you know what the term "honesty" means?

A Yes, I do. You see, I don't know who put this

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.

So I don't know -- I don't understand what you

are trying to get at.

Q Well, just so I am clear about your testimony,

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?

A No, not -- that isn't what I 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?

Q That book is not a religious book?

A There might be some beliefs in there that

people considered to be religious, but I am just telling my

estimation of it.

It says, "All About Radiation," which I

presume is atomic radiation.

Q You testified that is an old copy of the book

and that the new copies have corrected misstatements about

your husband?

A I am just saying that there is a new copy and

that it is different than what I have seen here. I just

wonder why you presented the old copy.

Q Do you know whether or not in the documents

under seal there is some 10 to 12 different biographical

sketches of your husband that go from 1960 almost up to the

present time?

A When I was going through these -- going

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

 

Q Now, did you testify that honesty was or was not

a factor --

MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: -- based upon the fact that

millions of people revere your husband?

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, we are really beating a dead

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.

Her state of mind is irrelevant, Your Honor, to

whether or not -- I'll submit it. Clearly, it is 352-able

now.

THE COURT: Setting the numbers aside, it seems to me

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.

Obviously, the question, really, can't be

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.

I don't think the objection that it calls for

speculation or conclusion is well taken.

It is true that this question has been asked in

different ways and has been responded to already. And it

may be that you ought to try to ask a different question,

Mr. Flynn.

MR. FLYNN: I submit, Your Honor, I think I have got

two different answers to the same question.

Q Was honesty a factor in your opinion that

millions of Scientologists have relied upon in revering your

husband?

MR. HARRIS: I'll object to that as irrelevant, Your

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.

What is God?

There are any number of possible First Amendment

issues here. It is irrelevant and intruding mightily at

this point on the First Amendment.

THE COURT: I don't see that as a particular problem

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 --

MR. FLYNN: I'll rephrase it, Your Honor.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, may I also add an objection?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LITT: On this line of questioning, Your Honor,

Mrs. Hubbard has testified as to what she believes has

attracted people to her husband and to Scientology.

What Mr. Flynn in reality is doing now is he is

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.

Mrs. Hubbard has essentially answered the

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

 

THE COURT: Well it is pretty hard because nobody

sees him apparently.

MR. LITT: Well, people did once.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if I could be briefly heard.

THE COURT: Why don't you just try another question

and see what happens.

MR. FLYNN: And for the record, Your Honor, this goes

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.

Q Now, Mrs. Hubbard, you testified about various

factors that you believe Scientologists have relied upon

in revering your husbands is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Now, was his honesty about his background,

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?

MR. HARRIS: Objection; compound.

THE COURT: Well it is pretty compound, but did this

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?

THE WITNESS: No. I think -- to answer his question

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.

So I don't know who, you know, on the printed

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.

I think it is mainly based upon, as I said,

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.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: My question is, Mrs. Hubbard,

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?

A No, I don't think so.

Q Same question with regard to his integrity.

Was his integrity a factor?

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to object once again.

 

 

 
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

 

This is not going to Mrs. Hubbard's mental

distress. That is just bogus.

MR. FLYNN: That is where I am going to get asking

the same question that Your Honor just asked and exploring

it.

MR. LITT: And the question should be clear --

THE COURT: Well, let's not talk at the same tine.

MR. LITT: This question is only as to Mrs. Hubbard's

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?

THE COURT: Well we better get somewhere pretty

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.

MR. FLYNN: I am very close to finishing, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I have heard that before.

MR. FLYNN: If I didn't have these continual

interruptions, we'd be finished by now.

Q Mrs. Hubbard, was his integrity about his

background a factor in your mind with regard to the reverence

that Scientologists placed him in?

A I think -- I don't know. I couldn't say.

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.

Q His integrity in his research?

 

 

 
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

 

A His integrity in publishing what he had done

and so on was a factor.

Q Now, what about his moral character? Same

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?

MR. HARRIS: Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant.

Beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Well, it is cross-examination as it

relates to these things that have a bearing upon emotional

distress. Overruled.

MR. HARRIS: Just so it is clear, the whole

line of questioning, so I don't have to do it for every

objection.

THE COURT: Yes, I will deem the objection be remade.

BY MR. FLYNN: His moral character?

A I don't know quite what you mean by moral

character.

I mean, I think that any husband is, since I

have known him and been married to him, is a very kind,

loving, moral individual. I don't know what you are talking

about.

Q Is he an honest individual?

A In my relationships with him he's always

been very honest, yes.

MR. LITT: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Well, we are going around in circles.

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

 

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, Mrs. Hubbard, does any part

of your emotional distress relate to the fact that the

documents under seal would show that your husband is dishonest?

A No. I think my emotional distress and upset

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

 

Q Does any part of your emotional distress relate

to the fact that the documents under seal would reveal that

your husband's almost entire biographical background has

been falsified.

MR. LITT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

And the witness has already answered the question. She has

said it I don't know how many times.

THE COURT: I can see no reason in going over it and

beating a dead horse. I'll sustain it under 352.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, do you know whether

or not the documents under seal reveal the fact that your

husband's biographical background has been almost uniformly

falsified for almost 30 years?

MR. LITT: Objection. assumes facts not in evidence;

argumentative; outside the scope.

THE COURT: Let's not get executed.

It assumes facts not in evidence. It is very

conclusionary.

I'll sustain the objection.

MR. FLYNN: We'll recall Mrs. Hubbard in the defense

of this case, Your Honor. And we would like to have her

available.

THE COURT: All right.

Counsel, she is under notice to appear when her

testimony is required under 776.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, with respect to that, that is

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.

THE COURT: All right. 24 hours' notice.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, Mr. Armstrong has had to

defend himself for six weeks without a job. And he has been

here in the courtroom every day.

THE COURT: I don't know what that has to do with the

matter, how much notice is required.

Just relax.

MR. LITT: I'll have some redirect.

Mrs. Hubbard is very tired. Unless there is a

matter --

Mr. Flynn had Mrs. Hubbard spend several hours

going through all of these materials and then did not ask

questions.

THE COURT: I assumed it would probably be easier for

you to do it on direct.

MR. LITT: That is fine.

And there are other things. But I don't want to

continue Mrs. Hubbard right now. We can come back at 1:15,

if Your Honor won't mind.

THE COURT: Do you have any other witnesses?

MR. LITT: We have the deposition testimony of Omar

Garrison to read, Your Honor. We can do that.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the reason I didn't go back

 

 

 
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.

With regard to Omar Garrison, he is not

unavailable. He is down at his home in Costa Mesa. We

object to the reading of his deposition without the

opportunity to examine him.

MR. LITT: We called him in Utah to check. He stated

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.

THE COURT: It is very simple. If there is a dispute,

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

 

MR. FLYNN: I am going to retrieve, Your Honor, my

book.

THE COURT: Oh, well, let's just take a recess.

MR. LITT: I can read to the court from the deposition

of Mr. Garrison. This is the deposition of July 12, 1983,

page 6 of the deposition beginning at line 18:

"Q Let me begin by asking, Mr.Garrison,

what is your occupation?

"A I am a professional author.

"Q And where do reside?

"A I reside at 1099 West Cedar Knoll South,

Cedar City, Utah."

THE COURT: When was that deposition taken?

MR. LITT: July 12, 1983.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I could put Mr. Armstrong on

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.

THE COURT: Well, it looks like he may be available

then.

MR. LITT: Well, if he is available, that is news

to us. It is fine with us. If Mr. Garrison is available,

then we will bring him in.

It was always our understanding, he told us

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.

THE COURT: If he is available and you want him here,

one side or the other, let's get him here. Let's not unduly

prolong matters.

Have you got an address where he can be

subpoenaed or will he come in in response to his call?

MR. FLYNN: We subpoenaed him, Your Honor. We do

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.

THE COURT: When do you want him?

MR. LITT: It is news to us that he is a resident of

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.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know --

MR. HARRIS: We will have some redirect. Maybe

Mr. Flynn, since he subpoenaed him, can call him in and

he can be here this afternoon and we can have live testimony.

THE COURT: I assume if he does, he would want to

present his defense testimony.

MR. FLYNN: That is exactly --

THE COURT: Of course, it will come out in the wash

anyway.

MR. HARRIS: I suppose so, but I don't think it ought

to intrude in our case-in-chief.

Q If you can get him in, give it a shot.

 

 

 
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

 

MR. FLYNN: I will try.

THE COURT: You should have some back up in case he

can't get him in because the man maybe involved in other

things. After all it is a quarter to 12:00.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: We are convening at 1:30?

THE COURT: 1:30.

(At 11:47 a.m. the luncheon recess

was taken at 11:47 a.m. until 1:30 p.m.

of the same day.)

 

 

 

 
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

 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984; 1:30 P.M.

-o0o-

 

THE COURT: Okay, in the case on trial. let the record

reflect that parties and counsel are present.

You may call your next witness.

MR. FLYNN: We spoke to Mr. Garrison, Your Honor,

and here is the situation.

He's been in Costa Mesa for the past several

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.

This past weekend Mr. Magnuson called him in

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

 

He plans to return from Utah the latter part of

this week. He considers his residence both in Costa Mesa

and in Utah.

We have a subpoena which we have served on him.

And Mr. Magnuson suggested to him that he didn't have to

honor or obey that subpoena.

MR. LITT: That is absolutely --

Mr. Magnuson is in the courtroom. He'll take

the stand.

THE COURT: I think you should restate it, counsel.

Apparently you are relying on information that you got from

Mr. Garrison.

MR. LITT: That he is interpreting.

THE COURT: You shouldn't state it as a fact, but as --

MR. FLYNN: Mr. Garrison stated that Mr. Magnuson told

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.

So our position is basically that they knew

about the settlement agreement and the fact that he had to

be subpoenaed.

He has been in Costa Mesa for the past several

months. He would obey the subpoena. We do consider him

available.

We are willing to have his entire deposition

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

 

To the best of our knowledge, he has been

consistently unavailable. We have no information and no

information was ever provided to us that he was ever residing

in Costa Mesa.

THE COURT: Well, gentlemen, I don't want to spend a

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.

Do you have any other witnesses to present?

MR. LITT: We do, Your Honor. Here is the question,

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.

MR. FLYNN: I can cure that, Your Honor.

MR. LITT: Can I please finish, Mr. Flynn, and then

you can --

With respect to this question of reading in

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.

It is going to cause problems in terms of the

Court's consideration of our case. Mr. Garrison's testimony

is critical to our case.

We do have other witnesses that we can put on.

 

 

 
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

 

We are going to call Mrs. Hubbard for some

redirect, and we have one other witness who is available.

THE COURT: How long is this deposition?

MR. LITT: It is about a hundred pages.

THE COURT: Counsel has offered to stipulate, in

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.

MR. LITT: That is fine, and I can provide the Court

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.

THE COURT: Well, I really don't know what the

objections are. Are there a lot of objections or just a few?

MR. LITT: They are evidentiary objections. They

are objections calling for hearsay. They are objections to

irrelevance; objection, nonresponsive. There is a decent

number of objections, no question about that.

Of course, some of them, these notes were done

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 is fine with me if the Court, as it reads

it, simply notes a ruling on the Court's copy.

MR. HARRIS: I am beginning to think the record will

not exactly be decipherable. That is the problem.

If there are just one or two objections, it is no problem.

MR. LITT: At this stage, at least, subject to a

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.

THE COURT: When he was spoken to, was he in Salt Lake

or in Utah?

MR. FLYNN: He is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So he is not available today.

MR. FLYNN: But he has also never been served with a

subpoena, and he's also been in Costa Mesa for the last

several months.

THE COURT: You are going to put him on. It is all

going to come out in the wash.

MR. FLYNN: What I was thinking was that since I am

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.

THE COURT: When would he be here?

 

 

 
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

 

MR. FLYNN: I am going to have him come during our

case pursuant to the subpoena. Whenever our case begins, he

will probably be our second or third witness.

MR. LITT: That really doesn't solve the problem.

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.

THE COURT: Are you objecting to portions of what

you want read?

The blue marks, do they have reference to what

you want read, or is that in relation to what you are

anticipating Mr. Flynn is going to want read?

MR. LITT: We assumed that the deposition itself

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.

THE COURT: As a part of what you want put in in your

case?

MR. LITT: No.

THE COURT: Well, then it is totally academic.

MR. LITT: Right. It is only if they are reading in

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

 

THE COURT: They can read it or they can present it

later.

Well, then, is it stipulated that that

collection can be marked as your next in order for identi-

fication; and I will read the portions which are enclosed in

red?

MR. LITT: I have a separate set that is just with

the red, so maybe I will just give you that.

THE COURT: Then the reporter can copy that portion

in.

(A discussion was held off the record

among the Court, counsel and the

reporter.)

MR. FLYNN: I have no objection to whenever the

reporters put it into the record.

THE COURT: Mark it as your next in order collectively,

and we will proceed and have whatever witnesses you have

available.

MR. LITT: If I can just find it, Your Honor.

 

 

 

 
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

 

MR. LITT: What I have here, Your Honor, that is just

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.

Does the court want --

THE COURT: Is that acceptable, Mr. Flynn, that this

collection be marked as an exhibit?

Do you have a copy for Mr. Flynn?

MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor, I do.

MR. FLYNN: It was my understanding that the whole

deposition was going to be marked, but only a portion

was going to be transcribed into the record.

THE COURT: There is no reason to mark the whole

thing if I am not going to read it, if I am just going to

read selected portions.

The original, presumably, is supposed to be

lodged with the clerk, presumably, as far as that goes.

If there is some portion that you want to be

presented as far as your case, you are permitted to do that,

I suppose.

MR. FLYNN: What I would be willing to do is offer

the balance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have witnesses here prepared to

testify?

MR. LITT: We do have some, Your Honor.

Mrs. Hubbard is going to take the stand.

THE COURT: Let's pass this problem and go on and

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

 

MARY SUE HUBBARD,

having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and

testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Mrs. Hubbard, you have already been sworn.

Have a seat.

State your name again for the record. You

are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: My name is Mary Sue Hubbard.

 

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. LITT:

Q Mrs. Hubbard, I believe that in the course of

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?

A No.

Q What is the extent of your knowledge?

A That he petitioned for a position of working

on the biography. And that was approved by someone.

Q In the course of Mr. Flynn's cross-examination

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?

A Yes, I do.

Q What were the circumstances under which 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

 

A That was the day before I was to report to

Federal authorities.

Q Did you actually write out the declaration,

or was one prepared and submitted to you?

A It was prepared and submitted to me.

Q Did you read it?

A I did.

Q Did you have time to give it very detailed

study?

A No.

Q Now, two weeks prior to the time that that

declaration was signed had you testified in a deposition

in this case?

A I had done that, yes.

Q Had Ms. Dragojevic examined you?

A She had.

Q Did she ask you your view with respect to

whether or not your husband had personally approved the

petition?

A She did.

Q And what did you answer on that occasion

generally?

A More or less to the effect that I did not know

who had authorized the petition, but that I did not believe

that my husband had done so, but that a messenger had.

Q Mr. Flynn also asked you a question which

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."

I would like to clear that up. The contract

was referring to the Omar Garrison contract; did your

husband actually have approval of the contract between

AOSH, PUBS DK and Omar Garrison?

A No.

Q What was your understanding as to what

approval with respect to the biography contract he would

have?

A Allegedly in relationship to the petition of

writing a biography.

Q What about the biography itself?

A Oh, do you mean the finalization?

He would have final authority, yes, to approve

the biography if that was written.

Q Mr. Flynn also asked you about the petition

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?

A Yes.

Q Now, tell me, these personal letters 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.

A They were just old letters and they were not

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.

Q Where did you see them?

A I saw them in the house at Gilman Hot Springs

on a coffee table.

Q Were they in an envelope, or were they out on

the table?

A They were in an envelope.

Q And was it these letters that you thought

that Mr. Armstrong was saying that he had found?

A Yes.

Q Now, also, just so we are sure that the record

is clear on this because this was somewhat confusing, did

you yourself actually approve Mr. Armstrong's petition?

A No, I didn't.

Q And the exchange of letters between you and

Mr. Armstrong in early February, was that an approval by

you?

A No, sir, it was not.

Q How would you characterise it?

A It was more or less an acknowledgement of his

communication with me.

MR. LITT: Does the clerk have exhibit 14, please?

Q Now, Mrs. Hubbard, there has been a lot of

confusion about these archives; did you have anything to do

with the origination of what were at the time the Guardian

Archives WW?

A I did.

Q And when was that?

 

 

 
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

 

A That was in 1966,

Q And what materials at that time were supposed

to be collected up in the Guardian's office Worldwide

Archives?

A The writings of Scientology, publications of

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

 

Q Okay. And did these have originals?

A No, they were not originals.

Q Now, at some point were these four materials

from the Guardian's archive WW moved to the ship, the

Apollo?

A They were in 1969.

Q And when that happened, were any of yours and

your husband's personal materials also moved with these,

also with the archive materials?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And subsequently did there come to be a

designation for what was now a mixture of these personal

materials with what had originally been Guardian worldwide

archives?

A Yes.

Q And what was that designation?

A Controller's archive.

Q And those were the archives that Mr. Vorm

testified about earlier today?

A That's correct.

Q With respect to the Guardian's office archive

WW, did there remain some archival materials at WW?

A Oh, Yes.

Q And do you know whether at some point the

Guardian office worldwide archives were moved to some par-

ticular bureau within the Guardian's office worldwide?

A Yes.

Q What bureau was that?

 

 

 
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

 

A The public relations bureau.

Q Which is also known as the PR Bureau?

A That's correct.

Q Mrs. Hubbard, last night we took a stab at

trying to review the designated exhibit list of the sealed

documents in this case.

Do you have some exhibit list before you in

reference to that activity?

A Yes, I do.

MR. FLYNN: May we have, Your Honor, the exhibit list

which is designated Defendant's List of Exhibits from

Documents Under Seal, this list will have notations on it,

marked Plaintiffs' next in order?

THE COURT: Okay. Exhibit 15.

MR. LITT: .And may we have the exhibit list entitled

"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?

THE COURT: All right. 16 by reference to the file,

unless you have another copy that you want to submit to the

clerk.

MR. LITT: We can give the clerk this copy. I have a

duplicate.

Q Now, Mrs. Hubbard, there is, speaking now to

Exhibit 15, there is various handwriting on this exhibit; is

that right?

A That is correct.

Q And there are marked next to certain documents

 

 

 
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?

A That is correct.

Q And there are marked next to some documents

the words "Personal and Private"; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And next to some documents there is nothing

marked; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And next to some documents it is marked the

words "Don't Have, Don't Know"; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And also next to some documents are marked the

words "Need to See"; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Let's go through so that we can define what

each of these terms meant.

When you put "Nothing" next to a document, what

did that mean?

A That meant that I didn't consider it to be

personal or private.

Q When you put the words "Personal and Private"

next to a document, what did that mean?

A That meant that I considered it to be not only

private but personal.

Q And when you put the word "Private" next to it,

what did that mean?

A I considered that to be private either in

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.

Q And the notations that said "Have not Seen,"

or "Need to See," or "Don't Have"; what did that mean?

A That meant there was nothing there for us to

view. We had no document to look at, so I couldn't make a

determination.

Q And there are also some notations that say

"Attorney-Client" as well as "Personal and Private"; what did

that mean?

A That means that they were communications that

I considered would fall under attorney-client privilege.

Q And in making this list, were you able to do a

careful review of all of these documents or just a general

review?

A 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

 

Q And on some of the pages here the handwriting

is not your own; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Whose handwriting is it?

A It is yours.

Q And why is my handwriting there instead of

yours in some cases?

A Because I got very tired. And I said, "You

do it."

Q All right. Now, referring to exhibit 16 --

A Yes.

Q -- you didn't review each of the documents on

exhibit 16; is that correct?

A No.

Q Did you review the description of what the

document was?

A I did.

Q All right. And at the top also in my hand-

writing are the words "all personal and private unless

not marked personal. Then means only private."

Do you see that?

A That is correct.

Q What is that notation for?

A That is for all of the documents except for

those specificly noted.

Q So does that mean that if --- did you write out

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

 

A No, I did not.

Q Do you consider on this there is a notation

to the contrary that all of the documents an that list are

personal and private documents?

A I do consider.

Q And next to some you wrote the words --

actually, I wrote the words "not personal"?

A That is correct.

Q And what does that mean?

A That meant that it contained no personal

information in relationship to myself or my husband in the

documents.

Q So as far as you were aware --

A As far as I was aware, correct.

Q Now, Mrs. Hubbard, where the notes are written

in my hand, was the determination as to what categorization--

let me rephrase it.

When the notes are written in any hand, who

was it that made the decision as to how to characterize

whether it was personal or private?

A I did. You merely wrote it down.

Q In the course of Mr. Flynn's examination of you,

Mrs. Hubbard, he asked some questions about the documents

or sending the documents to him and what you knew about

that.

I would like to ask you a question: Do you have

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?

A I did, yes.

Q Now, are there lawsuits that you are aware

of in which Mr. Flynn represented plaintiffs who were suing

the California church, you, and your husband in May, 1982?

A Yes.

Q And without asking you the specific title of

them, can you tell me what lawsuits you know of of your own

personal knowledge?

A Yes. There is one by Tanya Burden, B-u-r-d-e-n.

There is one by Paulette Cooper and there are

four out here in Los Angeles by Garrity, Peterson, Lockwood

and Jefferson.

Q And are you and your husband named as

defendants in those suits?

A Yes, we are.

Q And in May, 1982 were you and your husband

named as defendants in those suits?

A Yes, we were.

Q Do you know for certain whether there may or

may not be other suits in which Mr. Flynn is involved as of

that time period?

A No, I don't know.

Q And do you have some notion of the amount of

damages that are being sought in those suits?

A Generally.

Q What is your knowledge of that?

 

 

 
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

 

MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: In the tens of millions.

THE COURT: I'll let it stand.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mrs. Hubbard, I only

have one final area of questioning for you.

Mr. Flynn spent quite some time asking 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?

A After he left the church and was no longer

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

 

MR. LITT: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?

 

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. FLYNN:

Q Who did he steal them from, Mrs. Hubbard?

A I don't know.

Q What were the circumstances under which he

stole them?

A Sneakily, I guess. I don't know.

Q You are guessing?

A Well, I don't know. All I know is that they

are here in court.

Q You mentioned four suits that you are

familiar with. Do you know how many suits Michael Flynn was

defending brought by your organization in May 1982?

MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. The testimony that

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.

That is the sole purpose for which that

testimony is introduced; and we did not go into any of this

litigation for any other reason and in any other breadth.

The question of the merits of any other

 

 

 
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.

THE COURT: Well, we are not going to go into what

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.

Do you know if there were any lawsuits pending

against clients represented by Mr. Flynn at that time?

THE WITNESS: Lawsuits against --

THE COURT: Clients of his by Church of Scientology

or yourself or Mr. Hubbard?

THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of, Your Honor.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, you mentioned the Paulette

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?

A I don't know that. I don't recall.

Q If I suggest to you that I was defending 15

lawsuits brought by your organization, does that refresh your

memory at all, Mrs. Hubbard?

MR. LITT: Objection; irrelevant, beyond the scope,

improper form.

THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know how many lawsuits

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

 

MR. LITT: Objection; beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: If I suggest to you that it is

in excess of 150 --

THE COURT: There is no question pending. I sus-

tained the objection to the last one, Mr. Flynn.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When you were the controller,

did you collect 30 linear feet of information about Michael

Flynn?

MR. LITT: Objection; beyond the scope.

Your Honor, this has nothing to do with the

testimony.

THE COURT: I will overrule that objection.

You may answer. The subject has come up.

THE WITNESS: I never saw any linear feet. I never

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.

MR. FLYNN: Could we see Exhibit 6-S?

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.

THE COURT: Okay.

Have you seen that document?

THE WITNESS: No.

 

 

 
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?

MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. This is really --

MR. FLYNN: This is the last question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I assume you are talking about not today,

but sometime in the past?

MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor.

Q -- collecting information on people,

Mrs. Hubbard?

A Yes, collecting information on groups of people.

Q Now, what did you mean by "private" when you say

"private"?

A I mean that it is something that is not for

release and has not been released to the public.

Q What do you mean by "personal"?

A I mean something that contains information that

is of a personal nature, to -- and contains personal data to

myself or my husband or other individuals.

Q Personal data relating to you and to your husband?

A Yes.

Q And when you say "the public" in your phrase

"not to the public," what do you mean by "public"?

A I mean yourself and generally other people who

are not parties to the communication or to the document.

Q And was Mr. Armstrong part of the public between

January 1980 and October 1981?

A What was the time period again?

 

 

 
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

 

Q January 1980 to October 1981.

A I didn't consider him to be a party to it. I

mean the public.

Q You mentioned that there were personal letters

in an envelope sitting on a coffee table at Gilman Hot

Springs? A I said there were letters there, yes.

Q Did you say personal letters?

A I don't recall specifically what I said.

Q Did Mr. Armstrong in the petition that he sent

to you dated 5 February 1980 say personal letters and other

things?

A I don't recall. I'd have to look at the

document.

Q What are the letters that you remember that you

thought he was referring to when he wrote the petition?

A Letters from very early in my husband's past.

Q And when had you last seen those letters?

A In 1979 on a coffee table.

Q And in whose possession did you leave those

letters?

A I left them there on the coffee table.

My husband had said look at these things.

Q What were the letters about?

A I didn't read the letters. I just assumed they

were personal.

Q Who were the letters between?

A I didn't read them.

 

 

 
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

 

Q If you didn't read them, how do you know that

they are personal letters?

A I merely assumed because -- I merely assumed

that.

Q You list I, Tomkins' Biographical Summary as a

private document?

A Yes.

Q Who is Tomkins?

A He was a man who at one time was going to write

a biography on my husband.

Q An author?

A Yes.

Q Was he a Scientologist?

A I think.

Q Was he part of the public?

A yes.

Q You mentioned a document 26 May '74, the

Explorer's Club, New York City, as being private; do you

know what that document is?

A Yes.

Q What is it?

A It was an application to the Explorer's Club and

other documents, letters and so forth, a whole folder.

Q Is that on the files of the Explorer's Club in

New York City?

A It might be. I don't know.

Q Do you know whether that is public?

A I don't know what they -- what policy they have

 

 

 
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.

Q So you are assuming that, too.

MR. LITT: Objection. Her testimony was what she

considered private.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you noted attorney-client

privilege next to various documents; are you asserting the

attorney-client privilege, Mrs. Hubbard?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: That calls for --

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether the document

relates to you or to your husband?

A They relate to some of my personal affairs and

some of the affairs of my husband.

Q Which ones relate to your personal affairs?

A I don't have anything before me to -- and also

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."

THE COURT: Do you have an identifying number or

letter?

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, sir. That is on page 5, and

it is 5-C.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. FLYNN: Now, are you asserting the

attorney-client privilege in connection with those tapes,

Mrs. Hubbard?

MR. LITT: Just a moment. This is a legal matter.

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.

THE COURT: Well, the only problem is, counsel, your

client has testified, correct me if I am wrong, that she

either made these entries or that you made them at her

discretion.

MR. LITT: That is correct.

THE COURT: So I presume that if there is something

written there, "Attorney-Client," she told you to put it

there.

MR. LITT: Yes, but as to whether -- who holds the

privilege is a complicated question which finally involves

legal advice. All she wrote down is that she considered

that to be attorney-client matters.

THE COURT: Well, I would agree with you that some of

 

 

 
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.

It may be some attorney on behalf of a client

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.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is your voice on those tapes

communicating to any lawyer?

A No.

Q Are you claiming that the voice of any lawyer

on those tapes represents you?

MR. LITT: Objection; that calls for a conclusion and

without having the opportunity to consult with Mrs. Hubbard,

Your Honor --

MR. HARRIS: There are two. There are personal --

there are three --

THE COURT: You are talking at the same time, and the

reporter --

MR. HARRIS: We are talking about three possible

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.

THE COURT: Well, that may be, but this is still

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.

Let's go forward. We are not going to get

into the substance of what is involved.

MR. FLYNN: I don't intend to.

Q All I want to know, Mrs. Hubbard, is there any

lawyer on those tapes that you say represents you?

A Not me personally.

Q What is the next attorney-client privilege

entry?

A 5-L.

Q And what does that refer to?

A I am asserting that in relationship to my

husband. It is a legal document with regard to legal fees.

Q Your testimony is you are asserting that on

behalf of your husband?

A Yes.

Q Is there anything in that document which is

designated 5-L, I believe; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Is there anything in document 5-L that contains

any communication between you and a lawyer?

A I don't believe so.

Q What is the next attorney-client privilege

entry?

A 5-M.

Your Honor, I'd really like -- I don't want to

 

 

 
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.

THE COURT: Okay. But he's got a right to cross-

examine on it.

THE WITNESS: But I'd like to see the documents. I'm

afraid I might be losing my own right.

THE COURT: If we ever get around to what is involved,

I am sure your counsel will raise the issue. If there is any

question about it, we will deal with it at that time.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: On 5-M, is there any communi-

cation between you and a lawyer?

A No.

Q Let me ask you this: On the attorney-client

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

 

MR. HARRIS: If it could be amended, the question,

personally or through an agent, Your Honor, I think it would

be a more appropriate answer.

THE COURT: Is that an objection?

MR. HARRIS: Trying to help, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: Mr. Harris' help, I can do without, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Apparently it is a one-way street.

THE WITNESS: 5-T on page 6, that involves my IRS tax

case, my husband's and myself.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: 5-T; were you a party in that case?

A I certainly was.

Q Do you know where the documents came from in

terms of what archives that relate to document 5-T?

A I believe they came from Guardian archives --

Controller archives. Sorry.

Q Do you know how many people have had access to

those documents between the early 1960s and the present

date?

MR. LITT: I object as to the term "access." What --

is Mr. Flynn asking how many people have read it? How many

have had physical access, custody?

THE COURT: Maybe you had better reframe your

question, counsel.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you ever give the documents

in 5-T to any person other than a lawyer?

A No.

 

 

 
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

 

Q And they were, however, given to Omar Garrison;

is that correct?

THE COURT: If you know.

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is there any other document in

which you claim that a personal communication between you

and your husband was involved?

A There are some documents here that I haven't

seen; so I don't know how I would mark them because we

didn't have them.

There was another document, I believe, that is

not included in either this list or the other list which

was, I believe, a -- a document between myself and my

attorney, Mr. Baudin.

Q And it is not on that list?

A It is not on this list and it is not on the

other list.

Q Do you know whether the Tomkins Biographical

Summary was given to Mr. Garrison?

A I don't know.

MR. FLYNN: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, prior to the time

that you met your husband -- strike that.

When did you first meet your husband.

MR. HARRIS: Beyond the scope of the direct, Your

Honor.

MR. FLYNN: It goes to the personal and private, Your

 

 

 

 
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.

THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When did you first meet your

husband?

A In 1951.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Now are you claiming that the documents that

came into existence that are the documents of your husband

prior to 1951 are personal and private to you?

A Yes and my husband.

Q Well, you are claiming that they are personal

and private to you; is that correct?

A To us jointly.

Q Prior to 1951 did they constitute the property

of your husband?

A Yes.

Q And when you married your husband, did you

enter into an agreement that all of the property that he

owned prior to the marriage would remain his property?

MR. LITT: Objection; if Mr. Flynn is going to ask

the question, at least he should read the agreement so that

he quotes it right.

MR. FLYNN: Fine, Your Honor.

MR. LITT: No. You should read the agreement so

you can ask the question accurately.

MR. FLYNN: I'd be happy to read the agreement, Your

Honor. I'd be happy to mark it as an exhibit, also.

MR. LITT: No, that is not what the agreement says,

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.

THE COURT: I haven't seen it, so I don't know what

it says.

MR. FLYNN: Can we get the agreement?

 

 

 
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

 

THE WITNESS: It is personal and private.

THE COURT: We will take a recess and I will look at

it during the recess.

What identifying number is it?

MR. FLYNN: 4Z, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. We will take a 15-minute recess.

(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

 

THE COURT: We are back in session.

The witness can retake the stand.

State your name again for the record. You are

still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Mary Sue Hubbard.

THE COURT: Well, I have reviewed these two documents.

It appears to be upon the stationary of Hubbard Dianetic

Foundation, Inc. of Wichita, Kansas.

Do you know when, approximately what date

these papers were signed?

THE WITNESS: I think it was some time in late 1951,

sir.

THE COURT: Before you were married, or after you

were married?

THE WITNESS: I don't have -- I haven't reviewed them

carefully.

To the best of my recollection, it was prior

to our marriage

THE COURT: Before marriage?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, without getting into any detail of

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.

It is somewhat ambiguos. I think the words

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.

At the same time I don't think it has any

validity.

Furthermore, it there were a post-marital

contract, the law of California is clear that the parties

may orally modify any previous expression of how they want

to hold their property.

I don't think this has much evidentiary value,

Mr. Flynn, so I'll sustain the objection to the use of it.

Do you want to mark it as an exhibit for

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

 

MR. FLYNN: That is fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So we could mark this defendant's next in

order.

THE CLERK: L.

THE COURT: All right, L.

We have one other, I think, that's been marked

and kept in the same fashion.

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: H, I think.

Well, we will go on anyway. We won't worry

about that.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, has your husband

ever formally established a residence to your knowledge in

the State of California?

A Yes.

Q When? A '76, '77, '78, '79 and I don't know for 1980 and

since.

Q Thank you.

A Could I amend that, sir?

We do file jointly California State Taxes. I

don't know if that makes somebody a resident or not.

THE COURT: Well, I suppose it depends how he

describes it. Of course, that matter -- the returns,

themselves, would be privileged.

THE WITNESS: I don't know either because I don't know

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

 

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, you testified that

you saw the Guardian Office Worldwide archives when they

were established in 1966?

A Yes.

Q And did you see them in 1969 when the materials

that you have described that were in the trunks were moved

onto the ship?

A No.

Q When was the last time you saw the Guardian's

Office Worldwide archives?

A In 1969, summer.

Q And were they housed in a building that solely

encompassed the archives?

A Not at that time.

Q Did that subsequently take place?

A Must have done.

Q Do you know how big the building was?

A I don't know.

Q Do you know how many documents were in there?

A I don't know.

Q If I suggest to you that there were millions of

documents in there, does that refresh your memory?

A I have no knowledge of it.

Q Do you know whether copies were made of

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?

A You mean whether -- I'm not certain when they

 

 

 
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?

Q Correct.

A To the best of my knowledge, no, no copies were

made at that time.

Q There were copies of documents and not originals

that were in the trunks; is that correct?

A I don't know what you mean by "copies." Carbon

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.

Q Were there Xerox copies in the trunks?

A To the best of my recollection, if there were

any, they were very slight and small. Most of them were

original documents.

THE COURT: What date is this?

THE WITNESS: I presume he is talking after the trunks

came aboard the ship, sir.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, in 1969 when all these

materials were packed up, were you there supervising it?

A No, I was not.

Q Were those your personal and private materials

as you testified?

A Yes.

Q And were inventories made of those materials at

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

 

A Yes.

Q And did the people, if you know, who were making

the inventories look at the documents to see what they were?

A I presume they would have to have looked at them

at least.

Q And do you know how many people looked at them?

A There would have been Mr. Burgess, and I think

he had a couple of other people helping him.

Q And did you authorize that?

A I did. I think I ought to modify something

there just to be quite correct.

What I authorized them to do was to go there and

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.

Q Did you sue them for invasion of privacy?

A No, because I received the materials and they

were in the trunks under my control.

Q You knew that they had read them, though; right?

A I didn't know that, no.

Q You knew that they had read them at least enough

to make an inventory of them?

A They would have to have done that, yes.

Q Now, over the years how many people would you

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

 

A I don't know which ones you are referring to.

Q Well, how many different people between 1966 and

the present would you estimate have looked at the documents

that are contained in defendant's list of exhibits marked as

exhibit 15?

THE COURT: Pursuant to her permission, express or implied.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: First, pursuant to your

permission, Mrs. Hubbard.

A Well, there would have been -- I really can't

give you an estimate. There would be typists who typed the

materials, so to that degree they had permission.

There would have been people who saw the

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

 

I know that in going through the archives

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.

Q Now, did you have any understanding that the

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?

A No.

Q What documents did you understand he would

have access to other than documents that were released to

the public?

MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Flynn examined

Mrs. Hubbard at length on this in cross. This is certainly

not within the scope of the redirect. We are going back

into --

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.

MR. FLYNN: It is going to be very limited. It only

goes to what is personal and private that the witness has

marked on exhibit 15.

THE COURT: All right. If you can answer that generally,

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

 

THE WITNESS: I did not authorize those to be made

available to Mr. Garrison. Those were materials from my

personal storage. I never authorized them to be made available

to him.

In the archives trunks I authorized only

small quantities of material that I personally checked to

be made available. And that is all I can say.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you know when the biography

project was being written that Mr. Garrison had private and

personal documents belonging to your husband?

A When he was starting to write?

Q Between January, 1980 and October, 1981.

A I knew that he had materials that I had, at

least, authorized to be released to him, yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, rather than take the time

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.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. LITT: Mr. Flynn, I can have a copy made for you

of that which I'll provide you tomorrow. But those are the

court's.

MR. FLYNN: Receiving stolen goods again, I guess,

Your Honor. Only I didn't leave an inventory behind.

THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.

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.

First, Your Honor, we would ask that the

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

 

THE COURT: All right, the court will take judicial

notice of it.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I would object for the

following reason: This specific problem arose in the

context of the contempt proceeding that was brought against

myself and also against Ms. Dragojevic.

The issue with regard to the contents of the

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 --

MR. LITT: By me?

MR. FLYNN: By the attorneys for the church which may

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.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I don't know what this has to

do with anything --

THE COURT: Can't you just enter into a stipulation

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?

MR. LITT: Yes. All we are trying to establish is

 

 

 

 
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.

They were returned pursuant to an order to

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.

THE COURT: Is that acceptable, counsel?

MR. FLYNN: It was so long, I'd have to see some type

of handwritten proposal.

I am very reluctant to waive my client's rights.

THE COURT: Are there any exhibits under seal that

don't come from Mr. Flynn's office or Ms. Dragojevic's

office?

MR. FLYNN: I don't believe there are, but I think

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.

THE COURT: Well, I am not going to get involved in

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.

MR. FLYNN: That I will agree to. What Mr. Litt just

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 COURT: Is that agreeable, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: Here is what I would suggest. I think that

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.

Nobody is trying to slip anything by you, but I

think the court order makes sense in the chain of events.

MR. FLYNN: We don't necessarily agree to what

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.

We agreed because the order existed to return

the documents, but there is a serious question in our mind

with regard to the validity of the order.

THE COURT: Without entering into a stipulation

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

 

MR. FLYNN: That we agree to, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And that the document which is referred

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?

MR. FLYNN: Correct.

THE COURT: So stipulated?

MR. LITT: So stipulated.

THE COURT: Ms. Dragojevic, you join in that?

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I join.

MR. LITT: And that includes the court taking judicial

notice of the order?

THE COURT: I will take judicial notice of the

existence of the order without commenting upon its validity.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, we have had Mrs. Hubbard step

down. I take it that is okay?

THE COURT: That is okay.

MR. LITT: We would also ask, it doesn't have to be

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.

THE COURT: That is okay. I will be glad to do it

sometime.

MR. FLYNN: We request a view of the Guardian

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

 

THE COURT: If you pay the way, I will view them

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

 

MR. LITT: Your Honor, Mrs. Hubbard is excused as a

witnesss; is that correct?

THE COURT: Subject to being recalled by the defendant

upon 24 hours' notice.

MR. LITT: Our next witness will be John Peterson,

Your Honor.

 

JOHN PETERSON,

called as a witness by the plaintiff, was sworn and testified

as follows:

THE CLERK: Please, raise your right hand to be

sworn.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you

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?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Be seated in the witness stand. State

your name and spell your last name for the record, please.

THE WITNESS: John Peterson. P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

 

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARRIS

Q Your occupation, Mr. Peterson?

A I am an attorney.

Q Is one of your clients the Church of

Scientology of California?

A Yes.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Did there come a time that you wrote a letter

to Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q And approximately when was that?

A May 26, 1982.

MR. HARRIS: May the May 26th, 1982 letter be marked

plaintiff's next in order?

THE COURT: 17.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to

plaintiff's exhibit 17, does that appear to be the letter

that you wrote?

A Yes.

Q I note that there is no address on there.

A Correct.

Q How did you attempt to get that to Mr. Armstrong?

A A messenger was sent with the letter to

personally deliver it to Mr. Armstrong at his last-known

address.

Q And subsequently did you write another letter

to Mr. Armstong?

A Yes, I believe on May 27, 1982 I wrote another

letter.

MR. HARRIS: I have another letter dated May 27,

1982; may this be marked plaintiff's 18, Your Honor?

THE COURT: So marked.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to

exhibit 18, is that the letter that you referred to?

A Yes.

 

 

 
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

 

Q And on that I note an address in care of some-

body; how did you attempt to deliver that letter that is

exhibit 18?

A This letter was also sent by messenger to

personally serve it on Gerry Armstrong at a post office box

in Costa Mesa.

Q Did you receive word that he did in fact

deliver it?

A Yes. The May 27th letter was confirmed that

he did receive that letter a few days later.

Q Now, in the 27 -- in exhibit 18 there is a --

what I call a deadline of June 3rd for something to happen?

A Yes. I made demand that Gerry Armstrong

deliver the materials that he had in his possession from

the archives on or before Thursday, June 3rd, 1982 at my offices.

Q And when June 3rd came and expired had

Mr. Armstrong delivered any materials to your office?

A No. I hadn't heard anything from Mr. Armstrong.

Q What did you do then?

A I contacted some professional private investi-

gators and asked them to conduct an investigation and

surveillance, of Mr. Armstrong.

Q By name?

A They were called the Tin Goose.

Q T-i-n Goose?

A T-i-n G--o-o-s-e, Inc.

Q At some point did you receive a letter from

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

 

A I believe I received a letter from Mr. Armstrong

probably around June 11th, 12th, something like that.

I recall his letter was dated something like

the 9th of June, 1982.

MR. HARRIS: I have a letter dated June 9, 1982, Your

Honor; may it be marked plaintiff's 19?

THE COURT: So marked.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to

plaintiff's 19, did you receive that by mail at your offices?

A Yes.

Q All right. After you received the letter of

June 9, 1982 what did you do, if anything?

A Well, I recall contacting the Tin Goose and

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.

Q And subsequently did you write another letter

to Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes. It was the latter part of June, around

the third week, 21st, something like that.

I wrote another letter to Mr. Armstrong in

response to his letter of June 9th.

MR. HARRIS: I have letter dated June 21st, 1982;

may that be marked plaintiff's.. exhibit 20, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. It may be so marked.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to

 

 

 
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?

A Yes. This is a copy.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Within a reasonable period of time did you

receive any response to your letter of June 21 from

Mr. Armstrong?

A I never received any response from Mr. Armstrong

regarding my letter of June 21, 1982.

Q All right. What did you do next, if anything?

A Well, I had, you know, inquired in the letter

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.

Q And was your purpose for doing that to attempt

to recover any materials that Mr. Armstrong might have?

MR. FLYNN: Objection; leading, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: Well, okay. I will withdraw it.

Q Why did you retain the services of the Tin

Goose?

A My client and I had received information that

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

 

Q And for how long was the Tin Goose,

Incorporated performing services in respect to the Armstrong

matter, approximately?

A Well, I believe the Tin Goose did a short

amount of investigation on the Armstrong matter in May. We

are not claiming any of those bills as part of our damages.

They again commenced investigation in early

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.

MR. HARRIS: I have a series of invoices that I'd

like to mark collectively, Your Honor, as Plaintiffs' 21, if

that is acceptable to the Court.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Are these being marked?

MR. HARRIS: They are.

THE COURT: Yes.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to

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.

Do you recognize Exhibit 21?

 

 

 
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

 

A Yes. These are the invoices I received from

the Tin Goose.

Q And were these each received, that is, all of

exhibit 21, collectively in respect to the Tin Goose

investigation in respect to Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q And did you pay these in the ordinary course of

business?

A Yes. I paid these.

Q And were you reimbursed for those payments by

the Church of Scientology of California?

A Yes.

Q In respect to the amounts thereon, was it your

opinion that these were reasonably incurred in an attempt to

recover the documents for the Church of Scientology of

California?

MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: I think it is an appropriate subject of

opinion, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I'll overrule the objection.

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

 

MR. HARRIS: I fully understand that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I won't consider it as evidence of what

any investigator did or didn't do.

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, in my experience of

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.

Q BY MR. HARRIS: Who are the principals of Tin

Goose, Inc.? What is their background experience if you

know?

A Oh, yes. I know. Probably one of the first

questions I asked them, why Tin Goose.

The principals of the Tin Goose, Inc. are two

retired Los Angeles police detectives who, I imagine, put in

their 20 years and then went on to become private

investigators.

One is Al Tinsley -- Gene Tinsley and the other

is Al Goosen.

So they chopped off the last part of their name

and became the Tin Goose, Inc., Private Investigators.

They came very highly recommended.

MR. HARRIS: No further questions.

THE COURT: You may cross-examine.

 

 

 
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

 

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

 

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. FLYNN:

Q Mr. Peterson, do you have the expenses of the

private investigator there in front of you?

A I have exhibit 21 in front of me marked for

identification.

Q Now, on the first page of your surveillance re

Utah, date 9-10-82, do you see that?

A I don't see it on the first page -- my first

page is Invoice No. 2116.

Maybe if you went by invoice number, it would

help me.

MR. FLYNN: My first page is 2209.

MR. HARRIS: That is my first page too.

My apology.

What number do you have?

THE WITNESS: When Mr. Flynn asks me a question

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

 

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What is the first one you have,

Mr. Peterson?

A 2116.

Q And that is dated 6-21-82?

A Yes.

Q Now, that invoice says "Re Omar Garrison-Gerald

D. Armstrong."

A Yes.

Q Do you know whether the surveillance involving

that date was of Omar Garrison or Gerald Armstrong?

A This one at this time was regarding Gerald

Armstrong.

There may be a point that should be clarified.

On some of the reports there is underneath a caption which

will say "Utah Surveillance."

Q I will get to that, Mr. Peterson.

A That is not included in our claim for damages.

Q If you could just answer the question.

The answer was that you believed it related to

Gerald Armstrong; is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q Is there anything on the face of that document

which shows that it was Armstrong as opposed to Garrison?

A Yes.

Q What is it?

A The date.

Q Other than the date?

A Yes.

 

 

 
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

 

Q What?

A The mileage.

Q Do you know whether that was mileage that

involved driving around Utah or driving around Southern

California from the face of the document?

MR. HARRIS: Just so it is clear, Your Honor,

Mr. Peterson has stated, and which I forgot, we are not

making any claim to the damages in respect to any Utah

surveillance.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, was the Utah surveillance

on Mr. Garrison or Mr. Armstrong?

MR. HARRIS: Now, it is irrelevant if we are not

making a claim.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know. Overruled. He can

answer.

THE WITNESS: What was the question again?

THE COURT: What was the purpose of the Utah sur-

veillance?

THE WITNESS: The purpose. The purpose of the Utah

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.

We were also looking into locating Garrison

and doing some investigation on Omar Garrison.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: You say Mr. Armstrong had

indicated that he had given documents to Mr. Garrison?

A Well, it was part of his archives project.

 

 

 
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.

Q Now, you testified that there were private

investigator's fees for early May which you are not claiming

as damages; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q Do you recall when in May?

A Oh, I think they started around the 10th of

May, somewhere the first week of May.

Q Prior to that time had you ever hired private

investigators to conduct surveillance of Omar Garrison or

Gerald Armstrong?

A Prior to May 10th?

MR. HARRIS: Well, as to Gerald Armstrong, I think it

is relevant. As to the rest, I don't think it is, and I will

object on that ground.

THE COURT: Well, overruled. See where we are going.

THE WITNESS: I can't remember any prior to the first

part of May.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, did you see a Suppressive

Person Declare issued on Gerald Armstrong dated February 18,

1982 revised April 22, 1982, prior to its issuance?

MR. LITT: Objection; that is beyond the scope.

What does that have to do with the damages testimony?

THE COURT: Well, we have had testimony that letters

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

 

MR. FLYNN: That is exactly where it is going, Your

Honor.

MR. LITT: For the record, Your Honor, I would just

like to make clear a Suppressive Person Declare is an

internal Scientology issue and it has nothing to do with this

matter.

THE COURT: It is a preliminary question.

MR. LITT: I just want to make --

THE COURT: It is a preliminary question. We will see

what happens.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you review the Suppressive

Person Declare, Mr. Peterson, before it was issued, as an

attorney for the Church?

A Which one?

Q This one dated April 22, 1982.

And I have a copy for the Court, and may this

be marked for identification, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. I think we are up to the letter

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

 

THE WITNESS: No. I can't remember seeing that prior

to its being issued.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Your testimony is that you

don't recall, Mr. Peterson?

A That is true.

Q Did you have a conversation with Bruce Bunch

and Julia Dragojevic relative to the fact that you reviewed

this Suppressive Person Declare before it was issued?

A No.

Q Did you have a conversation with Julia Dragojevic?

A Yes.

Q Relative to the fact that you reviewed this

Suppressive Person Declare before it was issued?

A That wasn't what it was relative to.

We were in a meet and confer meeting regarding

answers to interrogatories. That was one of the interrogatory

questions.

I indicated to her that I may have; that I

would look into whether I reviewed it.

I checked with my client. I found that there

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.

I indicated to her, which is memorialized in

a letter that I wrote, to look into it.

I looked into it and my review indicated that

I had not looked at it.

Q Prior to your writing the letter which has

 

 

 

 
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?

A No.

Q When was the first time that you reviewed the

Suppressive Person Declare?

MR. LITT: I'll renew my objection, Your Honor.

What has this to do with Mr. Peterson's testimony?

THE COURT: We'll see.

THE WITNESS: I am sure the first time I reviewed

this Declare was when reference was made to it in a cross-

complaint.

Q BY MR.FLYNN: Now, did you tell Ms. Dragojevic

that you had in fact proved the Declare?

A No.

As I had explained earlier with Miss Dragojevic,

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.

I said I would have to check and see. And I

did.

When I checked, this was not a Declare that I

had seen, approved, and I don't approve Declares. I just

look at them.

It is an internal church function of which I

had no part.

Q When you wrote exhibit 17 who was your client?

A The Church of Scientology of California.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Was L. Ron Hubbard your client at that time?

A No.

Q Has L. Ron Hubbard ever been your client?

MR. HARRIS: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was Mary Sue Hubbard your

client?

MR. HARRIS: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LITT: Is this at the time the letter was written?

MR. FLYNN: At the time the letter was written.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was PUBS DK your client?

MR. HARRIS: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe so.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is your letter accurate,

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?

MR. LITT: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: It relates to the letter, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Was this ever delivered?

THE WITNESS: I have no personal knowledge that this

exhibit 17 actually ever reached Mr. Armstrong.

He said he has received 18 which is the letter

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

 

Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to exhibit 18, in

the first line you refer to your client; is that the Church

of Scientology of California?

A Yes.

Q And at that time you wrote the letter, was

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?

A Yes.

Q Is that your position today?

A Yes.

Q Which documents?

A Well, your question, really, was sort of

poorly formed.

You said own or right to possess.

Are we going through each document for own,

right to possess?

I believe my client has a right to possess all

the documents.

Q The Church of Scientology of California?

A They were the bailee at the time they were

stolen. They should be returned to that person or entity.

Q Do you know whether or not the documents had

been delivered to Mr. Garrison pursuant to any contract,

Mr. Peterson?

A At what time?

Q Between January of 1980 and October of 1981.

A At what time did I hold that knowledge is what

 

 

 
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.

THE COURT: At the time these letters were written.

THE WITNESS: At the time I wrote this letter, or

now?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: At the time the letters were

written.

A I had had information that there were some

documents out of archives that had been sent to Omar Garrison.

Q And did you know that there was a contract

between Oman Garrison and PUBS DK when you wrote these

letters?

A I can't remember if I knew exactly at that

time or I had learned about the contract at a later time.

Q Did you as an attorney examine the contract

before writing the letters?

A No.

Q Did you know whether the contract related

to any possessory interest involving the documents that

Omar Garrison had?

A Well, if I hadn't read it, I didn't know what

was contained in it.

Q Did you write a similar letter to Omar Garrison?

A No.

Q Where did your information come from that

Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents and materials

belong to the Church of Scientology of California, your client?

A From my client.

Q Who?

 

 

 
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

 

A The Church of Scientology of California.

Q What individual?

A I have spoken with a great number of people

regarding this case at the Church of Scientology of

California.

Could you be a little more specific?

Q Could you be more specific, Mr. Peterson?

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?

A Well, I wasn't told that by my client.

 

 

 

 
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

 

Q Where did you arrive at that information?

A Well what my client told me was that there was

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.

Q Did you write a letter to me threatening

Mr. Armstrong and myself with criminal prosecution for

Mr. Armstrong's possession of these documents?

A No, I would never do that.

Q At any time between June and the bringing of

this lawsuit did you write a letter to me threatening

Gerald Armstrong with criminal prosecution?

MR. LITT: Objection. If there is a letter, then

the letter speaks for itself.

MR. FLYNN: I will get the letter. I just happen to

not have it here.

THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.

THE WITNESS: I have no power to prosecute anyone.

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.

Q BY MR, FLYNN: Did you threaten to seek

prosecution of Mr. Armstrong?

A Well, if the facts are there after a lawful

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.

Q The question is did you threaten that in a letter,

Mr. Peterson?

A Well, Mr. Flynn, the letter is about two

years old. I'd have to see the letter to know exactly

what I said. Your misrepresentation or mischaracterization

is something --

Q The answer is you don't recall without reading

the letter?

A Without reading the letter, I don't, no.

Q Mr. Armstrong responded by letter dated June 9,

1982; is that correct?

A That is the date of the letter.

Q And he states that you have been misinformed

by your client; is that correct?

A That is what the letter says.

Q And that he did not have possession of

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?

A That is what the words say. You put your own

words.

Q Now after you received that letter from

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?

A I am sorry. I was still reading the letter

when you started your question. Could you repeat it?

Q After you received the letter from

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?

A Any information?

Q Any information.

A After this June 9th letter?

Q Correct.

A Yes.

Q From whom?

A You.

Q What was the information, Mr. Peterson?

A Well you had filed declarations of Mr. Armstrong

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.

Q Let's take one affidavit at a time. The

affidavits that were filed by Mr. Armstrong, were there any

documents attached to them?

A The Armstrong affidavits?

 

 

 
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

 

THE COURT: In this lawsuit?

THE WITNESS: No they are in other lawsuits.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Any documents that you claim are

from the sealed documents under seal in this court?

A I'd have to see them to be able to testify

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.

Q But presently you can't identify one document

attached to any affidavit of Gerald Armstrong; is that

correct?

A Well I said in the Ron DeWolfe affidavit

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.

Q Did you hear the question?

A I, thought I did. I tried to answer it.

Q Let me try it again.

Can you presently identify one document attached

to an affidavit of Gerald Armstrong in the summer of 1982?

A Very good.

Q That you claim comes from the sealed documents?

A There was no documents that were attached.

 

 

 
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

 

Q And did you infer from the affidavit that

Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents because he recited

contents of the documents in the affidavit, Mr. Peterson?

A Well, if you read the affidavit carefully, Mr.

Flynn, you'll see that he has a remarkable memory. And he

actually sets off the contents as if he was giving exact

quotes.

I am not saying that there was anything

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.

Q Well, Mr. Peterson, you would agree, would you

not, per your prior testimony that Mr. Garrison had

possession of documents that are presently under seal in

this court; is that correct?

A There has been testimony to that effect.

Q Did you find out whether Mr. Armstrong quoted

materials from documents that were in Mr. Garrison's

possession at the time that he did the affidavit?

A What I did at the time, after I had received

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.

Q When you received the letter dated June 9th from

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?

A I read that.

Q And you are aware, are you not, and you became

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?

A Without reading your letter, I am not sure that

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.

Q And what portion of the private investigative

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?

A All of them.

Q How many came after -- strike that.

What amount came after August 1, 1982,

Mr. Peterson?

A Well, without sitting down with a calculator and

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.

Q What amount came after the documents had been

surrendered to the court by myself and Contos & Bunch?

A The last bill I have, which appears to be the

last dated bill is for September 10th.

As I recall the court order, they were supposed

 

 

 
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.

Q Now, during the course of the investigation did

you receive any information from your private investigators

that Mr. Armstrong was claiming that they were harassing

him?

A That they were claiming --

Q That Mr. Armstrong was claiming that he was

being harassed by these private investigators?

A I think there was some indication that

Mr. Armstrong might have been making that claim.

Q Did you order your private investigators to

conduct loose surveillance or close surveillance?

A I'm not sure I understand the difference.

 

 

 
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

 

Q Did you order your private investigators to sit

outside Mr. Armstrong's bedroom windows 24 hours a day?

A I sure hope they didn't. I didn't order it.

Q You hope they didn't?

A No. The purpose of it was not to have

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.

Q Now, you have seen photographs that Mr. Armstrong

has submitted to the court in this case; is that correct?

A No, I haven't.

Q But your hope is that they didn't sit outside

his bedroom window 24 hours a day?

A They did not sit outside his bedroom window 24

hours a day.

Q Did they sit outside his bedroom window at all?

A Well, what do you consider "outside his bedroom

window"?

Do you mean within three feet of the house or a

mile?

Q Within 10 feet.

A Within 10 feet. Did they sit out there?

A I have no indication of that. That was never

reported to me.

Q Now, you testified that you did not write a

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

 

A That is correct.

Q Did you ever write such a letter?

A Did I?

Q Correct.

A No.

MR. FLYNN: May I have a moment, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Peterson, at any time around

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?

MR. LITT: Objection. What is the relevance of this?

Is there anything improper about that? Does it go to the

reasonableness of the damages?

THE COURT: Well, I don't know. I will sustain the

objection.

MR. FLYNN: I submit, Your Honor, it goes to

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.

THE COURT: Well, if it becomes relevant, you can

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.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Peterson, can you identify

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

 

A The person -- there may have been two. Not with

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

 

Q Do you know who Andrew Lenarcic is?

A Yes.

Q Did you prepare this declaration to obtain a

temporary restraining order in this case?

A No.

Q Do you know who did?

A No.

Q Do you know where Andrew Lenarcic is,

Mr. Peterson?

A Today?

Q Today.

A No.

Q Do you know whether he is still a member of the

church?

MR. HARRIS: This is way beyond the scope of direct,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Redirect?

MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. You may step down.

MR. HARRIS: With the exception of the Garrison

deposition, Your Honor, we would be pretty much prepared to

rest.

MR. LITT: We have to make a review of what we want to

move into evidence.

THE COURT: Why don't we just figure on reading the

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 --

You wanted to put it all in, didn't you, Mr.

Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor.

I would offer the entire thing.

THE COURT: Let's let the whole thing in, then. Make

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.

MR. HARRIS: We'll provide somebody to be the readers,

Your Honor.

MR. LITT: When we read the deposition of

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?

THE COURT: There is no necessity at this point. It

is read into the record; the reporters have made a

transcript of it.

MR. LITT: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: 9:30 tomorrow morning.

 

(At 3:55 p.m. an adjournment was taken

until Wednesday, May 9, 1984 at 9:30 a.m.)

 

 

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