§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact § |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE
REPORTERS' TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, May 9, 1984
APPEARANCES:
VOLUME 8 Pages 1178 - 1388
|
|||||
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
APPEARANCES:
|
||||||
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
VOLUME 8 I N D E X
E X H I B I T S
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1178
|
|
1 2 3 4 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; WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984; 9:45 A.M. -o0o-
record reflect that counsel are present.
Mr. Garrison's deposition testimony let me see if we can deal with some other housekeeping matters. One, there are a few items of evidence that we would like to move in.
we do so, if the court feels it is necessary on the question of unavailability I have and am obtaining a certified copy of, which should be here by the noon break, the decision in the case in re Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, a missing person which is a decision of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside which states in relevant part:
|
|
1179
|
|
1 2 3 4 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. Hubbard is in seclusion. It is a judicial finding by the court of this state. We don't really think it is necessary.
are prepared to add that on the unavailability issue. And we would ask that the court take judicial notice of that decision.
copies, although I believe counsel for the defendant is fully aware of the decision.
Honor.
on -- we would move in exhibit 1. We have other exhibits, but I assume Mr. Flynn wants to be heard on exhibit 1.
in the probate case, it is over a year old, first.
the context of the California Missing Persons Statute where a person is missing for more than 90 days, the court found because of a declaration submitted by L. Ron Hubbard under the pain of penalty of perjury, which has not been done in this case, that Mr. Hubbard was not missing. That was the entire scope of the ruling. It had nothing to do with availability for purposes of service of process or service of a witness subpoena. |
|
1180
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 a copy of a ruling that I have provided to the court specifically found that L. Ron Hubbard is concealing himself.
was subsequently appealed on two occasions to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal which is now the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. And the decision of the Federal Judge was confirmed.
Circuit Court did not hear the interlocutory appeal. There was no affirmation.
submitted approximately a foot of materials to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. The court rejected the appeal. The Federal District Court in Florida ruled as follows:
|
|
1181
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 comprise corroborative and supportive evidence
of the Hubbards' efforts and intent to conceal themselves. Accordingly, the file herein presents a showing sufficient to indicate concealment under Florida law." |
|
|
1182
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
where one federal court has ruled that L. Ron Hubbard is hiding from service of process. The court has received for identification this exhibit which initially when it was provided to the court was provided with an attached affidavit of a Mr. Brunell that was secured by an attorney named Lawrence Heller, and the exhibit 1 is dated February 3, 1982, and Mr. Brunell provided the special ink in which the letter is written and states in his affidavit, which we intend to introduce through Mr. Heller who we have subpoenaed in our part of the case, that the special ink was prepared and transmitted to Mr. Hubbard on February 2nd, and the letter is dated February 3rd.
the part of Mr. Hubbard's attorneys, of which Mr. Heller is one, of immediate access to Mr. Hubbard. We have subpoenaed, as I indicated, Mr. Heller to appear before this court.
Dr. Eugene Denk. Dr. Denk is Mr. Hubbard's physician, and we have testimony from other individuals that he has been his physician from at least 1979.
in California within the last five to six months, and on one occasion took an electrocardiogram machine out of his office and took it to Mr. Hubbard's location. We have received information as to where Mr. Hubbard's location may be. |
|
1183
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
three separate homes that have been set up as residences under an assumed name, and that Mr. Hubbard --
have spent this whole case hearing about Mr. Flynn's incriminations. Let's get to facts.
he's received? I have heard so many statements from Mr. Flynn of information that he has that has not turned out to be any such information, has not turned out to be evidence. I don't think it is right.
in a dispute, it is going to have to be presented by way of evidence and not by way of assertion.
rulings on the in limine matter. I don't know that there's anything that's occurred since then that would cause me to change my mind, but let me look at this letter. It will be helpful if you could read this.
written February 3rd, 1983. Under 1250 of the Evidence Code this would be evidence of Mr. Hubbard's state of mind at that time, and as far as I am concerned, it is evidence of his state of mind on February 3rd that he'd like to have the belongings returned to the church or the legal representative of it. As to what he may have done in years before, it is |
|
1184
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
not admissible
under 1250 subsection (b).
mental state, there has to be unavailability and it has to go to his state of mind and not a corporeal act or that he acted in accordance with that state of mind, and further under 1252 the evidence is admissible under the article that the statement was made under circumstances such to indicate its lack of trustworthiness. |
|
1185
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
unavailable to prove the truth of what is asserted there. I consider it to be hearsay, as I have indicated before. And I think that there is nothing to indicate anything that relates to its trustworthiness. And there is no opportunity to cross-examine.
but I'll receive it under 1250 of the Evidence Code which doesn't require unavailability insofar as the third paragraph is concerned in which he requests that it be returned. It is received for that limited purpose.
this point and clean up moving whatever into evidence. And I am just going through as they are marked.
exhibit which we are all in agreement on which is the Omar Garrison PUBS DK agreement which was marked by the defendant as exhibit G. He would move that in.
exhibits first? Are they all in?
would move in are exhibits 17 through 21 which Mr. Peterson testified to yesterday.
and bills?
|
|
1186
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 object
to the bills for the reasons stated yesterday.
received with the same comments the court made yesterday relative to the objections.
exhibits that we are moving into evidence at this time.
into evidence at this time, Your Honor, because they are lists of the sealed documents. And unless they are going to be received as such under seal, we are just reluctant to move them into evidence.
anything that makes these matters a public record.
private and confidential? If it wasn't developed, how am I going to receive it?
the case begins and we see what has and hasn't come out in the way of documents, the court can agree to receive that at this time under seal.
personal and private; isn't it?
the court anyway as a list of exhibits?
|
|
1187
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 waiver
in respect to the actual documents which underlie
the index, Your Honor; no problem. We'll move it in.
any kind of waiver. Your position is very clear. I understand your position.
as the two attachments are also marked which are exhibit I.
I don't think there is any evidence.
about which was --
Honor, if I can find it. And we can --
attachment?
initials OVG in the lower right-hand corner dated March 16, 1977.
fine.
into one exhibit.
|
|
1188
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 understanding
that I was included within exhibit G.
of the defense?
before we begin, which is that the process of absorbing the defendant's marked exhibits has still been a difficult process for us because each day at the end of the day the defendant marked more exhibits and including the last day after we had had the last access to the documents. I wonder if the court would permit Mr. Long, who is here, who has been acting -- he is a church staff member from the legal bureau of the church and has been acting as a factual research assistant. I wonder if the court would permit that he sit in the jury box with the defendant's exhibits just so he can review them and make some notes on them for our purposes?
even sure still what the notations even refer to or what the contents of some of them are.
security of the documents. So I am just trying to think of any means that would allow him, since they are here now, to be able to review them while the trial is proceeding in some form. If the jury box isn't a good suggestion, I am |
|
1189
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
open to
whatever makes the most sense.
is doing?
there are no other people around.
and the clerk will --
of Mr. Garrison's depo?
me.
set that has the blue markings and the red markings. Because that is all I had.
and Mr. Harris can read Ms. Dragojevic's questions and I can rule on the objections as we deal with them. |
|
1190
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
exhibits here. Are we going to use those exhibits in this proceeding?
that is marked exhibit 1 in this deposition transcript would be exhibit G in this case.
of the agreement, settlement agreement between Mr. Garrison and New Era Publications which has not yet been marked as an exhibit and that when we come to it we will mark as plaintiff's next in order.
medical questions. We can go to page 6, line 18.
Wherever Mr. Litt stops, I am going to join in?
to ask me the questions?
|
|
1191
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
but okay.
us know.
|
|
1192
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1193
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1194
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1195
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1196
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1197
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1198
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
no objection by me to them.
responsive, Your Honor.
|
|
1199
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1200
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1201
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1202
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1203
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1204
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1205
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1206
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1207
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1208
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1209
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1210
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1211
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1212
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1213
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1214
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
nonresponsive. I moved it in the transcript.
the answer as nonresponsive.
|
|
1215
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1216
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1217
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1218
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1219
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1220
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1221
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1222
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1223
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1224
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1225
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1226
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1227
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1228
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1229
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1230
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1231
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1232
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
designate a switch hitter, Mr. Peterson?
present.
|
|
1233
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1234
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1235
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1236
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1237
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1238
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1239
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
part of that response that says "approaching him in parking lots and that sort of thing" as being based on hearsay which is not an objection that has to be made at the deposition.
by Mr. Armstrong. It will be limited to that purpose, keep the context of what we are talking about.
|
|
1240
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1241
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 Honor.
|
|
1242
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1243
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 last sentence.
made as an insurance." The rest of it will go out.
|
|
1244
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1245
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1246
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1247
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1248
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1249
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1250
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 next in order, Your Honor?
This is what was exhibit 2 at the deposition, counsel?
important matter. And that is that this is not the entire settlement agreement. And Mr. Litt has refused to give us the entire settlement agreement. He is appending merely a portion of it.
at this moment. The only reason for it is that this is to preserve and understand what was done at the deposition. Now, at some point in time if you want to make a motion with reference to something else, we'll consider it in due course. But at this point we are trying to recreate the deposition that was conducted here. And this is, I assume, what was presented at that time. |
|
1251
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
settlement agreement made available to me so I could review it.
to take some time.
|
|
1252
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1253
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1254
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mr. Peterson and he can give it to the Court so you will know what is being referred to.
|
|
1255
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1256
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1257
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1258
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1259
|
|
1 2 3 4 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'm going to go down to line 13.
|
|
1260
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1261
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
I can adopt her voice, but I'll do the best I can.
|
|
1262
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1263
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1264
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1265
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1266
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1267
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1268
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
whole colloquy here about his belief on SO-1. I mean, I let some of the beginnings come in, but I don't think it is relevant, and it is all conclusions, basically, through page 69.
with anything? |
|
1269
|
|
1 2 3 4 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. Hubbard as he says on lines 5 to 7 on page 69.
ficance of this in the total picture. But it deals with -- the question was asked whether he had other communications with Mr. Hubbard, and he said he had many of them repre- sented to be from Mr. Hubbard and signed by Mr. Hubbard, and which I believe came from SO-1. And then, I guess, he goes on to explain, try to explain how he came to that conclusion.
it has any great evidentiary value, but it may shed some light upon his later answers or testimony he may give in this case.
|
|
1270
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
at least that portion. That is clearly hearsay, and I don't think it goes to any state of mind.
to his communications with Mr. Hubbard.
SO-1 has a full discretion as to correspondence with Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard or not any SO-1 communication, somebody told him something about the fact that SO-1 was doing this, that and the other thing.
It is really getting out into left field. Pretty much hearsay, so we will strike --
the last sentence between lines 5 and 7 on 69. Whether the other portion goes out on Mary Sue Hubbard, I don't'care. She's already testified she didn't think her correspondence was getting to him. But his understanding as to whether or not SO-1 -- "So, SO-1, it appeared to me, had the full discretion as to correspondence with L. Ron Hubbard."
who he believed he was dealing with. He believed he was dealing with Hubbard.
|
|
1271
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 deals
they were intervening in Mary Sue Hubbard's
letters to her husband and extracting portions. That is on lines 2 through 5 on page 69.
|
|
1272
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 in.
Honor.
Honor.
problem with this colloquy here.
before line 15 is Mr. Garrison does state that he is not planning to be available for trial.
does that have to do with it?
just going on and on, and also it is just not relevant at this point.
|
|
1273
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1274
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
time and still move to strike it.
"ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PROPHESY" in that one sentence will be stricken. The last sentence can remain.
sentence. |
|
1275
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1276
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1277
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mr. Garrison's first sentence in that response as nonresponsive.
object, Your Honor.
|
|
1278
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1279
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1280
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1281
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1282
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1283
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
next approximately three pages which are essentially dis- cussions at negotiation meetings, which are -- I am not sure what purpose they are introduced for, but I don't think they are relevant if it is for interpreting the contract. I don't really think it does anything to do that, and for any other purpose it is not really relevant.
all kinds of statements about his feelings, about that he had bad feelings about this and that.
request that some of the material on page 79 should go into evidence.
with regard to total disclosure regarding Mr. Hubbard's life was a very important consideration, and as Your Honor will see, a prerequisite of Mr. Garrison was that he be given total access to all of L. Ron Hubbard's personal files; and it was for this reason that he did request that, which goes to the issue of what he was entitled to have, and therefore what Mr. Armstrong was entitled to have.
was done with it after it was given to Mr. Garrison.
|
|
1284
|
|
1 2 3 4 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
|
bailee
and could properly make Mr. Armstrong a bailee.
thoughts about what should be done but they weren't expressed. So it seems to me it is substantially just his own mental thoughts that he was going through. This isn't the meeting in England. This is some meeting that he had with Mr. Gayman and somebody else on an earlier occasion. I think the --
earlier had been an individual engaged to write the biography who discovered the same falsehoods, and he was taken off the project.
He might get the same treatment.
discussion prior to that."
I will sustain the objection.
on page 81, line 24.
|
|
1285
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
---o0o---
Counsel are present.
|
|
1286
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1287
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1288
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 on the grounds that there was no foundation and that it was hearsay. And Ms. Dragojevic then tried, I would say unsuccessfully, to establish such a foundation. So we would move to strike that answer. Mr. Garrison doesn't know who prepared the contract.
Is there other testimony relating to it?
gone over that and it was established. I am sorry. Keep reading.
answer. |
|
1289
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1290
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
remainder of that. It is all hearsay, Your Honor. The witness has no personal knowledge. |
|
1291
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1292
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 page through line 18 of the following page. Further- more, the contract speaks for itself in terms of who the contract was with.
whether or not Pubs DK is an alter ego of L. Ron Hubbard. That is the basis of his claim, that he contracted with L. Ron Hubbard for which there is no foundation.
that he had a contract. Mr. Armstrong had a contract with Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Armstrong believed that Mr. Garrison had a contract with Mr. Hubbard based upon the tripartite contract between he and Pubs DK and Pubs DK and L. Ron Hubbard. That is why we feel that that contract is relevant |
|
1293
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 interpreting
the contract between Pubs DK and the
Garrison contract.
mind would have relevance to all of these matters. I don't really see that Mr. Garrison's state of mind and who he believed he might be contracting with is all that relevant.
|
|
1294
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
answer, I am going to move to strike it as hearsay. As to the second part --
that these were summaries of conversations he had with the people he was dealing with.
|
|
1295
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Exhibit G.
|
|
1296
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1297
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1298
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 reply as being hearsay under the best evidence rule. The defendant does, I believe, have a copy of that corres- pondence.
I don't believe, at least at this point. This is a response of Mrs. Hubbard to Mr. Garrison.
question was whether he had the letter, not what it said.
show Mrs. Hubbard's state of mind. |
|
1299
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
would be the best evidence. The problem is if the document is in the possession of somebody else and nobody asked him to put it into evidence or mark it or anything, secondary evidence would be admissible.
be cross-examined on it. I will take the position it is secondary evidence and the original wasn't put in the record, so I will deny the motion to strike. You can read the answer.
|
|
1300
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1301
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
all pretty straight-forward hearsay, down to --
anything either.
|
|
1302
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1303
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1304
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1305
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 questions are all questions relating to questions concerning Mr. Hubbard's background as Mr. Garrison views it. It is not based on personal knowledge; it is all interpretive. It is beyond the scope. It is all based on hearsay. He had been told that, and he had seen this, and he concluded that.
You can see it goes on quite a ways. And we object to this whole line of questioning. We don't think it is appropriate. Certainly not appropriate at this stage.
|
|
1306
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
regard to what Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Garrison went through and discovered the facts about Mr. Hubbard.
material.
THE COURT: Well, I am of the feeling that we are still on the plaintiff's case, and I am going to sustain the objection at this time without prejudice, and presumably this gentleman is coming here to testify.
the defendant's case. I'm not quite sure how his recitations necessarily would relate to the defense of the case, but I think at this stage of the game -- I won't refer to it as a game, but at this stage of the trial I will sustain the objection. And you either present it again and we will rule upon it again when he gets here or perhaps you will have to read it again if it is appropriate. I think we are over to about page 115, line 26.
|
|
1307
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1308
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 line of questioning through the top of page 120.
about it. I am going to overrule the objection.
|
|
1309
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
characterization "handed a letter from an attorney indicating that legal action was pending against him."
evidence. Those were the letters presumably from Mr. Peterson. Those were the only letters that were sent to |
|
1310
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mr. Armstrong
that I am aware of, and that is not what the
letters say.
Apparently it is hearsay, but it is his state of mind. He is asked about when he became concerned with the security, and I suppose it has to do with evidence that you developed as to his movement of exhibits to and fro to other places.
you want to change your ruling.
strike his conclusion of what was obvious because that is a |
|
1311
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
conclusion
on his part.
|
|
1312
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
is worth. Explanation of why he did what he did.
|
|
1313
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1314
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1315
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
grounds.
|
|
1316
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 mind; overruled.
|
|
1317
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mr. Armstrong's state of mind, I don't think is in issue.
the case.
|
|
1318
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1319
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
received, it is solely for state of mind.
what is therein stated.
objection here.
that in this case, but I do believe that in our case that is well beyond the scope. There was no testimony in our case about it. It has to do with an affirmative defense essentially, and there was no testimony in Mr. Garrison's deposition that would raise this issue.
and the hiring of the private investigator that Mr. Peterson put in yesterday.
investigators were hired. This is in April. |
|
1320
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
mind. I will overrule the objection.
state of mind?
Mr. Armstrong's testimony as it is later developed or not corroborative.
|
|
1321
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1322
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1323
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1324
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1325
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 is compound.
|
|
1326
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
as hearsay.
|
|
1327
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1328
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1329
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
basis that the contract, which is in evidence, speaks for itself, Your Honor.
will be stricken as nonresponsive. |
|
1330
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 could use Exhibit 22.
deposition. Otherwise there will be some confusion in the record.
|
|
1331
|
|
1 2 3 4 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.
|
|
1332
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
words "it is my belief."
page 137.
|
|
1333
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
[Missing pages 1334, 1335] 1336 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
on page 141.
|
|
1337
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1338
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1339
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1340
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1341
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1342
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 speculation, Your Honor.
guess, so I will strike it.
It is a question of your state of mind. If we allow in these things about his state of mind, his state of mind was when Mr. Armstrong left the church he no longer had authority to act for Mr. Hubbard.
issue in this lawsuit.
gone into at some length in the cross.
We will let the guess stand then, Your Honor.
|
|
1343
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1344
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
|
|
1345
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
is redirect on things that the court struck.
court struck were representations or misrepresentations that had been made about Mr. Hubbard's background. This goes to state of mind as to his knowledge of harassment by the B-1 Bureau.
time. Let's just go on with this and get it over with. We are approaching the end of it. |
|
1346
|
|
1 2 3 4 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
|
are only five cartons and not twenty-two cartons, and the press misreported the fact that twenty-two cartons were turned over to the court. I think all of this is misleading without foundation based on a false statement.
is irrelevant and go on to line 14. |
|
1347
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 same ground, that the 5,000 in the mind of the witness, from what I understand, was that there were 22 cartons of documents.
on.
|
|
1348
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
based on the 22 cartons, plus thousands of more pages to Contos & Bunch -- All of this is totally irrelevant. |
|
1349
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
testimony from Mr. Armstrong that corroborates these assumptions.
22 cartons, plus another eight to ten thousand --
about it. Let's just finish it and chalk it up to experience. Let's go ahead.
|
|
1350
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
doesn't.
was under the impression 22 cartons of materials were turned over, which, as we know, is totally false.
the record asked by his co-counsel.
ahead, Mr. Litt.
|
|
1351
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
deposition. It is probably easier.
interested in, if the court will go to page 155, beginning at line 10. This is a question asked by Miss Dragojevic.
line 24.
|
|
1352
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
recess.
|
|
1353
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
are back in session. Counsel are all present.
raise at this time with the court, and that is the settlement agreement that was referred to of which a public statement of the settlement agreement has now been marked as an exhibit.
who owns or who has the right to possess documents that are at issue in this case because under the agreement with Mr. Garrison and his testimony specifically at page 56 of the deposition, it was his understanding pursuant to that agreement, the settlement agreement, that he was to return the documents to the Church of Scientology International which is not a party to this lawsuit.
for there to be a conversion, there had to be a conversion, the plaintiff or the intervenor had to have a right to possession at the time of conversion, and we believe that up until at least the summer of 1983, the only one who had the right to possess the documents were Mr. Armstrong pursuant to his contract with Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Garrison pursuant to his contract with PUBS DK. Therefore, the settlement agreement would be relevant to show what Mr. Armstrong's rights are with respect to who owns or has the right to possess the documents as of the summer of 1983.
L. Ron Hubbard might also address the issue of the documents |
|
1354
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
since they
are not addressed as Mr. Garrison testified in
the contract between him and PUBS DK, so we'd similarly like to have the opportunity to see the agreement and see the settlement agreement to determine whether it might be relevant to the defense of the case.
line 21.
don't even know what he is referring to.
was expressly written to be a public statement of the agreement that explains all the relevant facts which is that Mr. Garrison entered into an agreement with New Era Publications, the successor to PUBS DK, to return the documents to the custody of the Church of Scientology International.
Churches of Scientology, that is irrelevant. This case was brought by the party that had provided the materials to Mr. Garrison, or at least that Mr. Armstrong had gotten them from. The contents are confidential, and the only relevance as to what is contained in that statement is that Mr. Garrison makes no claims to the documents, and it is a confidential agreement and it is not relevant.
light on anything here. Mr. Hubbard, through his letter, has requested that any documents be turned over to the |
|
1355
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Church
International. That was in February of '83.
something that might go to the matter of bias or prejudice, I suppose, when the witness is testifying, but precise details seem to me to be irrelevant.
agreement says that Mary Sue Hubbard is to have no access to the materials. That would totally defeat her interests.
binding upon her. Unless she was a party to the agreement, she'd have her own rights. People can make their own agreements as between themselves, but they are not binding upon third parties who are not a party to the agreement. If she has rights in those documents and she wants to assert them, hypothetically she could do so.
Hubbard owns the documents and has the right to possess them. That would fulfill the contract that Mr. Armstrong had with him.
what these documents say. They could be vital to the defense.
showing at this point that there is any necessity for that, so I will deny the motion.
that the court made.
|
|
1356
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
argue this
later I suppose, that the materials be returned
to the church, and he sent a copy to the Church of Scientology International, which is the mother church as of now, but not the church that had the original custody of the documents. So we just want to have that clear because Mr. Flynn is going to argue that the Church of Scientology International is not a party to this agreement, and the Church of Scientology of California is, and therefore Mr. Hubbard's statement is returned to the Church of Scientology International. His statement is to the church with a carbon copy to the Church of Scientology International. I just want to clear that up factually.
that particular problem at the moment.
exhibit 22.
public statement of a contract which now you are making relevant to the issues in the lawsuit, and we don't know what the contract is.
says on its face.
whatever value it may have.
whether the defendant is prepared to stipulate that other than the instant suit which was filed on August 3, 1982 he |
|
1357
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
has not
been sued in any court by any Church of Scientology,
by L. Ron Hubbard or by Mary Sue Hubbard? We will present testimony --
Mr. Peterson who knows, but we can stipulate to it and save time.
enter into the stipulation on that?
Honor. THE COURT: Well -- |
|
1358
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
not when Mr. Armstrong took these materials he was a defendant and was taking them for any case in which he was a defendant.
move for a nonsuit and/or directed verdict.
argument on it, if I could.
shows that Mr. Armstrong was authorized by L. Ron Hubbard or his representative to collect documents for the biography.
or description which rebuts the evidence that L. Ron Hubbard or a representative messenger authorized him to collect the documents.
placed on the circumstances under he could collect documents. He was, in effect, either an agent or an independent contractor working for L. Ron Hubbard, where there was no supervision over his day-to-day activities in terms of what he did in connection with the collection of the documents.
in this collection process he could bring the documents to |
|
1359
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Omar Garrison
for purposes of the writing of a biography.
underlying document in the case, places no limitation on what Mr. Garrison could do with the documents. And, in fact, there is specific evidence, which we have just read, that he allowed Mr. Armstrong to use the documents in the legal arena. There is no evidence that Mr. Armstrong violated that trust or that agreement between he and Mr. Garrison. Namely, that the documents were used outside the legal arena.
any restriction on the manner in which Mr. Armstrong collected the documents during the period of time that he was working for L. Ron Hubbard up to December, 1981, per the testimony of Mrs. Hubbard and other representatives of the church, and there is no evidence that Mary Sue Hubbard communicated any restriction to Gerald Armstrong about the specifics of where he could and could not collect documents. No evidence whatsoever.
that she didn't communicate with Gerald Armstrong. So, in effect, the court has a situation where Mr. Armstrong is engaged by L. Ron Hubbard, or a messenger acting on his behalf, to collect documents from no restricted sources. There is no other source inside the organization that restricts him. In fact, the testimony is precisely the opposite. The testimony of Mr. Vorm was that he gave him permission to have the documents from the so-called control of his archives. |
|
1360
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
no evidence of any nature or description that up to the time of the settlement agreed to in the summer of 1983 Gerald Armstrong did not have the right to possess the documents per his agreement with L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard, in fact, to date -- no one has heard from Mr. Hubbard. In fact, exhibit 1 doesn't even state whether or not Gerald Armstrong couldn't have copies of the documents.
I specifically asked Mr. Peterson this question. There was no evidence that Omar Garrison was asked to return any documents until he entered into the settlement agreement, which has been a public statement, which has been marked as exhibit 22.
Gerald Armstrong and L. Ron Hubbard and Omar Garrison and PUBS DK, which is also not a party to this action, permitted both Mr. Garrison and Mr. Armstrong to have these documents.
plaintiff and the intervenor had the burden of proving that at the time they brought this lawsuit they had a right to possess the documents or at the time of the alleged conversion they had the right to possess the documents.
it, are that when the documents were given to me, Mr. Armstrong's lawyer, the invasion of privacy and the intrusion took place. Well, I submit, Your Honor, that there is no evidence that either the plaintiff or the intervenor had the right |
|
1361
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 possess
the documents at that time. In fact, the evidence
is precisely the opposite.
law of California, I submit that the plaintiff and the intervenor should be nonsuited and/or a directed verdict should be entered in favor of Mr. Armstrong with respect to those counts.
we submit that the only way that the court could frame relief in this action with respect to these documents is for Mr. Hubbard to have been a party and to have appeared and to have explained to the court and made claims in this proceeding as to what his contractual rights were under the contract.
I will briefly mention to the court, which we feel are specifically relevant to this case.
Federal Savings & Loan, 136 Trial Reporter at 731.
of contractual rights between several parties. And the contractual rights basically -- or the assignment basically arose in the following context:
funds, and we will call him the bank manager of Bank A. He then went to his own bank, Bank B, and deposited checks which he had used to embezzle the funds from Bank A. Bank A thereafter, pursuant to an insurance contract that it had, |
|
1362
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
paid off
the claim of Bank B, when Bank B subsequently lost
the funds because it had wrongfully deposited them. The issue became whether or not Bank A, after it had assigned its rights pursuant to its insurance contract -- but then brought a separate action -- needed to bring in as a party the insurance carrier to which it had assigned its rights. And it failed to do so.
relied on, in part, this U-Tex case, a copy of which I have provided to the court, where the failure to join an indispensable party was brought up for the first time in appeal. It wasn't even raised at the trial level, as we have here. And the court held that where there has been a partial assignment of contractual rights all parties claiming an interest in the assignment must be joined as plaintiff's in the action involving those rights, since they were indispensable parties and since without them the court lacks jurisdiction. |
|
1363
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 middle of this litigation the contractual rights with regard to the possession of these documents in the hands or Omar Garrison, from whom Mr. Armstrong received them, gave them back, apparently, to an organization called New Era Publications pursuant to the settlement agreement public statement which is marked as exhibit 22; New Era Publications is not even a party to this action, and it apparently received an assignment of all the rights of PUBS DK.
case is really L. Ron Hubbard, there is no indication that L. Ron Hubbard approved of such an assignment. As we know, under the original agreement he had to approve the final biography, and apparently from what Mr. Garrison has testified, there was a completed manuscript. There is no evidence that Mr. Hubbard even considered that manuscript to determine whether it was approved.
Publications, which is apparently, from the little evidence we know, been assigned the contractual rights under Garrison's contract is not a party to the action, and therefore the conversion counts should be dismissed because that corporation, whichever it is, under the case law that I have just cited is an indispensible party.
that limited Omar Garrison from disseminating the documents to anyone. In fact, if there had been such a provision, if |
|
1364
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 provision
was written into the contract that if Omar
Garrison found in the documents matters that indicated that L. Ron Hubbard had engaged in fraudulent representations over many years or engaged in other criminal acts, if such a clause had been put in under the case of Brown versus Freese, F-r-e-e-s-e, 28 Cal.App.2d 608, the contract would have been void as against public policy.
also relying on the Restatement of Contracts, if such a clause had been put in the contract, it would have been void as against public policy. The Allen versus Jordanos is 53 Cal.App.3d at 162.
situation where the underlying burden that the plaintiff and the intervenor have in this case to prove its conversion count relates to something that goes to the right of possession of these materials at certain critical points in time. Those critical points in time are when the documents were turned over to me because that is their claim when the conversion took place, and under the contract the only one who had the right to possess the documents at the time was either Gerald Armstrong or Omar Garrison.
once Omar Garrison found discreditable information and then disseminated it and that terminated the contract, that clause would have been unenforceable which would have continued the right to possession per the fact that Mr. Hubbard is the individual who originally authorized the |
|
1365
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
collection
of the documents. It would have continued the
right to possession in Mr. Armstrong until such time as Mr. Hubbard came forward and entered into a different contractual arrangement either with Mr. Armstrong or with Omar Garrison which was never done. For that reason, Your Honor, we think the conversion counts of both parties should be dismissed.
count, the fiduciary duty was owed to L. Ron Hubbard if it was owed to anyone because it was L. Ron Hubbard that Mr. Armstrong entered into the agreement with. In fact, the evidence has only been that there were no restrictions on the documents. That Mary Sue Hubbard, although she now claims there are restrictions, and I will admit on the witness stand she claims that in her mind she put restrictions in the documents, but she certainly never communicated them to Mr. Armstrong, number one, and number two, the party with whom Mr. Armstrong contracted was not Mary Sue Hubbard. It was with her husband, L. Ron Hubbard, and he never placed any restrictions on the documents nor did the organizational representative, Mr. Vorm, who testified precisely the opposite that he gave the documents to Mr. Armstrong and he got authority from his organizational senior.
evidence at all of any fiduciary responsibility between Mr. Armstrong and the Church of Scientology of California. Therefore, there is no evidence that he could have breached |
|
1366
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
any.
absolutely no indication in the record. In fact, Mary Sue Hubbard testified she never spoke to Gerald Armstrong. Never communicated anything to him, so there was obviously not fiduciary duty or relationship that existed between the two of them.
Mary Sue Hubbard, as I understand it, the claim is that the intrusion took place without publication, but simply the fact of an intrusion with the documents were turned over to me, although I must confess I don't presently understand the intervenor's allegations nor do I believe that there is any evidence whatsoever to support the fact that there can be an intrusion where documents have been given consentually, and where documents have been given pursuant to a contract, and where another party comes forward; namely, Mary Sue Hubbard and claims that her privacy rights have been invaded upon when her husband has appointed someone to collect up the documents and give them to Omar Garrison and then Omar Garrison, who enters into a contract with a third party corporation which places no restrictions on the documents, gives them to Mr. Armstrong, which once the defense of this case begins will show that he was entirely justified, in fact, shockingly justified in doing what he did.
that there's been an intrusion, then I submit there can be no intrusion where there's been consent and that consent |
|
1367
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
flowed
from L. Ron Hubbard, and it, for all intents and
purposes based on the evidence that has been presented in this case, the consent continues right up to the present time.
state of mind of L. Ron Hubbard under Section 1250 of the Evidence Code as of February 1983, not to the truth of the matter asserted in it, there is no indication that L. Ron Hubbard has terminated his rights in the original contract that was made with Garrison, no evidence whatsoever.
the court is confronted with a situation where the only evidence in the case is that Mr. Armstrong came into the documents consentually, there can be no intrusion.
introduced of publication with with regard to a claimed invasion of privacy. If there is an allegation of publication, and I submit that the only testimony at all was from Mrs. Hubbard and I asked her very specifically as to what the circumstances were under which she claimed that Mr. Armstrong stole the materials, and she said she didn't know. And I asked her specifically what he did with them, and she said she didn't know other than give them to me, and I, as his attorney, had placed them under seal in this court.
publication, if they are claiming that, there is no evidence of publication. |
|
1368
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
made to an attorney in the context of Mr. Armstrong, per the testimony of Mr. Peterson, retaining counsel to represent him after Mr. Peterson sent the letters to him, then I submit to the court that at that critical point in time Mr. Armstrong giving documents to a lawyer, after a lawyer from the church has contacted Mr. Armstrong, and after he has been told, per the testimony of Mr. Garrison, to get a lawyer, would not under the law constitute an intrusion. In fact, all it would be is Mr. Armstrong doing precisely what he was told by the organization; namely, to get a lawyer.
any state, or under federal law, the fact that an individual gives documents to his lawyer to defend himself, which became the subject of a lawsuit, can constitute invasion of privacy.
that a conversion, the invasion of privacy, and the breach of fiduciary duty counts should all go out. And that the balance of the case should only go forward on the issue of equitable issues, where there is a claimed declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to what should be done with the documents.
feels -- Frankly, I think it is clear that there is no |
|
1369
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
nonsuit
here, and I am prepared to argue it. I don't want
to unnecessarily take up the court's time.
have been shown are.
Honor. There is no contract between Mr. Armstrong and L. Ron Hubbard, and certainly to the extent that one can argue it is a contract it is merely that -- an argument.
Church of Scientology of California employee, petitioned Mr. Hubbard and got some response in connection to gathering up materials about Mr. Hubbard. No mention of Mr. Hubbard's private materials. But he is appointed to this post, and somebody who signs the document or whatever that comes back said, "Okay."
Mr. Hubbard's reverence within the church and whatever clearly means that the fact that somebody communicates with Mr. Hubbard, who is an employee of the church, inquiring of him for his approval to hold a particular post, approval which is ecclesiastical approval -- the idea that they become a personal agent of L. Ron Hubbard and that they have entered into a contract with L. Ron Hubbard is, I would suggest, fanciful on its face, and certainly the evidence that has been presented here doesn't support that.
post. Mr. Armstrong admitted that he could have been removed by a senior other than Mr. Hubbard from his post. |
|
|
1370
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 paid by the church on that post, he expended church moneys to go out and buy materials for the archives. The archives were private and confidential. He testified that he had use of them solely for gathering up the archives and providing them to Mr. Garrison; that they were provided to Mr. Garrison on a confidential basis. That is his understanding; they were provided to Mr. Garrison solely for use in the biography. That was his understanding.
position? The evidence is quite clear. Gerald Armstrong is a church employee. He gets posted to a certain position. That position affects the interest of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, therefore is of particular concern to the church, of course, but he is on a church post, he is on a Scientology post, he is being paid by the church, he is expending moneys of that church.
entrusted with certain materials. The church is a bailee. A bailee has the right, in the absence of the claim of the actual owner, the superior claim of the actual owner, to protect the bailment.
gathered up with the church as the bailee, for use in building up an archives, which includes, for whatever set of reasons, gathering up private materials of Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard, materials that Mrs. Hubbard herself had packed up some 20 years before. Mixed materials of their marriage. |
|
1371
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
arguing in this record -- and if there is a basis for arguing it, it is certainly not a basis for a directed verdict -- that there is any contract.
Mr. Armstrong, is, in fact, that he was on a church position, just like hundreds or thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of individuals.
to Mr. Garrison for work on the biography; he provides originals. The court has seen some originals. When the court takes a look at the materials, the court will see a large number of originals, which he is not supposed to do because they are originals. He is supposed to be providing copies. But he provides originals. He gives them to Mr. Garrison solely for use on the biography.
later with respect to him taking it is a whole different thing. So when he gives them to Mr. Garrison he is acting as a church agent he gives them to Mr. Garrison for one purpose.
they were very, very private, I considered them confidential, I had a 10-year working relationship with the church. It wasn't even a subject that had to be discussed, it was just assumed that I would not provide them to anyone else."
which the private papers of primarily L. Ron Hubbard and |
|
1372
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 part
of Mary Sue Hubbard have been gathered up by the
church because of Mr. Hubbard's reverence by the church. They are provided through the church, whether properly or not we don't really need to really resolve at this point, through Mr. Armstrong -- they are provided to Mr. Garrison. Whether Mr. Hubbard knew about that or Mrs. Hubbard knew about that, for purposes of this case, is not dispositive, because regardless of whether either of them knew about it there was a very limited purpose. That purpose had controls on it which insured that the confidentiality would not be violated because the contract required final approval, and the contract had a privacy clause, the contract between PUB DK and Omar Garrison.
a research assistant. Omar Garrison says it is his understanding that Gerald Armstrong is the research assistant provided pursuant to the contract.
PUBS DK to the Church of Scientology saying, "Please appoint an assistant," and there are board minutes doing so.
of California representative who may have some permission of some vague sort, because it is quite vague -- this petition is quite vague -- from Mr. Hubbard, and I emphasize "may" because Mrs. Hubbard said she doubted it, to act in this church post. And the confidentiality of all of this material is assumed.
|
|
1373
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 his
relationship with Mr. Garrison. He goes to
Mr. Garrison at one point, after some disputes with the church, in which he had not been sued, and when all of the evidence is out -- if we are going to discuss this photo incident, the way it has been characterized, and Mr. Armstrong has had his photos -- if we are going to discuss what is not in evidence yet -- Mr. Armstrong goes to Mr. Garrison knowing that he no longer is acting on behalf of the church. They claim that he continues to act as agent for L. Ron Hubbard, when he is antagonistic to L. Ron Hubbard, when he is attacking L. Ron Hubbard, when he wants nothing to do with L. Ron Hubbard. I would suggest it is a relative difficult claim to even listen to. It is just -- a generous description is disingenious of any argument that there was a continuing contract that went beyond the time that he left the church. |
|
1374
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
whatsoever, supposedly -- and I will even assume for the purposes of my argument Mr. Garrison is having him help on the biography. However, Mr. Garrison stops in May 1982. Mr. Garrison even says he is not really working under the contract anymore. So there is a question as to whether or not Mr. Garrison has any right to deal with him. But more importantly he gave the documents to Gerry Armstrong, having nothing to do with the work on the biography. He said that in his deposition. He gave the documents to Gerry Armstrong because Gerry Armstrong said "I need them for my legal defense of a lawsuit that doesn't exist," and Mr. Armstrong has admitted that that was not what the documents were used for. He has admitted he gave them to Mr. Flynn for use in other cases. That was a request to admit. Cases other than this case.
Mr. Armstrong to Mr. Flynn to use them, and when the full evidence is in we will see to what extent and how they have been used. But the evidence is he gave them, he went and got them, knowing that he had no right to them, knowing that they were private, knowing that they were confidential. |
|
1375
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
case, even if that was the situation. That is what court process is for, but he didn't even only take it for his own case by his own admission and his own testimony, he took it to use in other cases. He agreed to become a witness for Mr. Flynn in other cases.
certainly in this context without some justification that I suppose they will try to make in their defense that you can go take someone's papers because you think you need them for your lawsuit, you can't do that.
facts even after cross-examination. Those are the only possible inferences.
in relationship to those facts. Well, original materials were taken. Mr. Armstrong had what now appears to be quite literally hundreds of original materials of substantial economic value which he took, which he didn't have a right to take, which weren't supposed to be taken out of the archives at all.
to these lawyers. He makes copies of a variety of private materials. Mrs. Hubbard has identified large amounts of private materials.
he take with him? A document which you have not seen identified as part of the defense in his case, a very |
|
1376
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
private
letter from Mary Sue Hubbard to L. Ron Hubbard in
the 1950s. I didn't see that marked as part of the alleged proof of anything. That is the first thing, the first item that he takes to Mr. Flynn.
everything else we have heard, establishes invasion of privacy. All you need in California for an invasion of privacy or for a breach of confidence is that you have confidential information that you know it is for one purpose and you use it for another purpose. You give it to any single party not entitled to have it, and you use it for any purpose not within the terms under which you were given it. The terms under which it was given were quite clear. They are admissions from Mr. Armstrong. We don't even have to introduce other evidence on that. He said it himself.
conversion is clear. Even if you would accept the notion, which we do not, that making copies of materials is not conversion. The evidence has established and all the court has to do is to take the view that we have asked it to take that there are numerous originals. Mr. Armstrong had them. They got turned in to the court when they were supposed to be returned. They had come from the archives. That sure sounds like pretty straight-forward conversion to me.
is needed for a breach of fiduciary duty is that one have an obligation. That obligation continues after employment, and that one breached that obligation. Here the obligation was |
|
1377
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
quite clear.
Mr. Armstrong was given access to
extraordinarily private and confidential information. When he was given it, he considered that there were extreme limitations on it. He considered that he was only given it for limited purposes. |
|
1378
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
about how carefully at the time he maintained the security of these materials, about how confidential they were, about how they were kept. Very few people had keys and quote, Hubbard archives were kept under locked file cabinets and all of the security measures taken by Mr. Armstrong, himself.
antagonistic to Mr. Hubbard, to Mrs. Hubbard and to the church, and he takes these materials and he distributes them for use in cases to Mr. Flynn. He gives them to Mr. Flynn apparently to use in his own case, which is a violation of his fiduciary duty on this record because he has no right to do so.
dispute with my former employer to go in and take their records. If I am entitled to them, and there is a lawsuit, that is what court process is all about. The law does not condone self-help, but that is not even it. That, by itself, is a breach of his obligation of confidentiality.
not only for his own purported suit because he had no lawsuit at the time, and when asked what he was going to be sued for, he said he didn't know. He also gives them for use in other suits to Mr. Flynn, to Mr. Flynn to use, knowing that Mr. Flynn has suits against L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, so that he can use them, and he is a witness for Mr. Flynn in those |
|
1379
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
suits to
use this confidential information against the
Hubbards and against the church.
fiduciary duty as one can get. I would suggest even communicating the information in his head is a breach of fiduciary duty, but taking documents which he had no right to is a breach of fiduciary duty clearly.
about whether or not a limitation on this contract would be in violation of public policy. Mr. Flynn is trying to ague in that respect through the back door.
issue that still perhaps needs to be dealt with, and that is the terms of the contract. The contract is, it is true, by its terms silent with respect to what happens, what the terms of providing materials are. Since it is silent, the practice of the parties, which Mr. Garrison testified to at length, and the understanding and practice of those carrying out the activities in relationship to it, are the guiding evidence. And on that score all the evidence is that the practice was to maintain the confidentiality, the understanding was provided for only a limited purpose, confidential, private and on and on and on.
else we have here there's been nothing, nothing to the contrary, and to argue that because the contract doesn't specify that somehow means that you can take someone's private materials when you have had a practice and you have |
|
1380
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
had an
understanding with all involved that you will
maintain them privately and give them out is clearly not the law. The contract cannot be interpreted that way.
with respect to whether or not Mr. Armstrong has engaged in acts which give rise to liability under the theories that have been advanced in our complaint, technically because I am not arguing all the evidence now in the context of a non- suit, I think that there is no question about that fact. We have made out all of the necessary elements. We have provided ample facts to support them. I would suggest we have provided overwhelming facts to support them, and it is time for Mr. Armstrong to show whether he can, in fact, justify any of this wrongful conduct that he engaged in. |
|
1381
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
few brief points?
by his own admission was not admitted into evidence, so we have no idea what it is, and the extent of the testimony was that Mr. Litt believes it was shown to me, Mr. Armstrong's lawyer.
litigation, while this court has permitted that per the terms of the preliminary injunction, number one.
identify a single document that was used in other litigation.
is an employee who took documents from his employer and then attempts to use them against the employer, Mr. Litt has got his facts based on the evidence that's been introduced wrong. The evidence is that Mr. Armstrong had the documents consentually from Mr. Garrison and from L. Ron Hubbard, and that he had them consentually right up to the time that the lawsuit was brought.
has basically done and what Mary Sue Hubbard has done is they have dumped the gun, Your Honor. If they wanted the documents that were in Mr. Armstrong's possession and/or |
|
1382
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Mr. Garrison's
possession, then they should have simply
sought equitable relief because at that point all Mr. Armstrong had done is sought legal counsel based upon the church telling him to go get a lawyer after they had stolen his photographs. That is the extent of the evidence, so I submit that basically what they did is they brought their tort causes of action before they had them.
and tried to write a book based on these materials, then a different argument might obtain, but I think that if all they sought back were the materials, they simply should have sought equitable relief rather than bringing these various causes of action when all Mr. Armstrong had done was give these documents to his lawyers to defend himself.
whether or not this, being a court trial, whether the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts necessary to support their claims for damages upon the various theories that they have alleged in their complaint.
the plaintiff's case. It appears to me that the plaintiff has preponderated as to whether or not Mr. Armstrong was an employee of the plaintiff church, and it appears to me that while there isn't any permanent deprivation, there is withholding of property and use of the property outside the scope of what the original purposes were, which he was entrusted with the property, and it seems to me that is really all you need to have, assuming that there is damage |
|
1383
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
also as
a proximate result to establish the plaintiff's
case.
and there is been testimony. Whether it is all of the testimony to be presented, I don't know. But there are documents that are under seal that the church does not have copies of in their archives. |
|
1384
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
value, and so that would support the conversion theory, and the breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, essentially misuse of the property that would be entrusted to an employee or fiduciary. And the invasion of privacy is a little different; it doesn't fit into the usual category of publication of private matters. More appropriately, it probably comes under a number of the California Constitutional Provisions that deal with the misuse of property lawfully acquired.
intrusion I don't know it is necessary to decide so I don't propose to decide that.
his case at this point and the matter goes to whether or not the defense that will be presented disestablishes or demonstrates that there isn't a preponderance on any of these issues or establishes a defense of privilege, justification, so forth.
until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time the case will be with the defense. Will you have witnesses available ready to proceed?
our first witness and I anticipate he could probably be on for several days on direct examination.
|
|
1385
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
establish the defense of privilege is to show what Mr. Armstrong's state of mind was, what he found the documents --
one question at a time, one exhibit at a time.
transcript. I don't know if Mr. Flynn is ordering it. It seems to me -- I haven't seen Your Honor getting any. Would there be any objection --
court.
submitted a 50-person or so witness list. Perhaps now our case has been presented he could be of some assistance and give us a list somewhat tailored down so we have some idea what we are dealing with here.
indication of who my witnesses are. I submit there will probably be 10 or 15 10-minute witnesses, who will simply say they are all members of the church for the last 10, 15 years, they all relied on the honesty, integrity, moral character of L. Ron Hubbard when they joined and paid money, et cetera, et cetera.
and I think they already know who they are, Laurel Sullivan, |
|
1386
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Gerald
Armstrong, Omar Garrison, Bill Franks, the former
head of the church, Sherman Linsky, the lawyer who has been mentioned, Eugene Denks, the physician of Mr. Hubbard. That is about all I can think of off the top of my head; there may be a few more.
agreement that with certain witnesses we would have advance depositions and with others we would deal with it as we went along. All I am asking at this point is Mr. Flynn give us advance notice so the question of a deposition of Bill Franks, who has been specifically designated as a person whose deposition would be taken -- that those arrangements could be made. It doesn't have to be done right now.
owned the photographs that were stolen from Mr. Armstrong that started this whole thing. He will be a witness.
at this point for deposition testimony, we are in the middle of the defense of our case, Your Honor. If we have to take out time to attend depositions -- I have already been in California for five weeks on this case --
other than Laurel Sullivan --
The court suggested we wait until the defense case and deal with it then.
|
|
1387
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
|
Dincalci is coming from four or five hundred miles from here.
before Monday. You indicated Franks wasn't going to testify to very much, was he? No, it was Dincalci.
he, per the orders of L. Ron Hubbard, removed Mary Sue Hubbard from her post.
that were stolen were stolen from Gerald Armstrong, that they were his photographs, and he is also going to testify that he was with L. Ron Hubbard in 1973 while L. Ron Hubbard was hiding from the French fraud case. And the sole basis for him joining the organization and working for the organization was the honesty, integrity, and moral character of L. Ron Hubbard. It is that simple. If he had known what was in the documents, then he would never have joined. |
|
1388
|
|
1 2 3 4 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 question of bringing people in, because we can bring in a thousand for every one that Mr. Flynn brings in, if that is what we are going to do in this case.
Scientologists would flock to the opportunity to come into this trial and testify about anything that could be said about L. Ron Hubbard, and whether they are still Scientologists and so if that is what this case is going to be we may be here an awfully long time.
whether or not the state of mind of Mr. Armstrong believed that in his mind, in the minds of Scientologists, he knew the honesty, integrity, and moral character, truth of the representations of L. Ron Hubbard were in issue relating to these documents, specifically as related to the SP Declare accusing him of defamation.
prematurely rule upon whether something is cumulative or unnecessary or whatever. I think we will take one witness at a time and see what happens.
|
|
§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact § |