Gerry Armstrong--Reporters Transcript of Proceedings 05-14-1984 LASC 420153

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contac t §

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

Monday, May 14, 1984

APPEARANCES:

(See Appearances page.)

VOLUME 11

Pages 1740 - 1895

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

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

INDEX FOR VOLUME 11		Pages 1740 -

DAY	DATE	SESSION	PAGE

Monday	May 14, 1984	A.M.	1740
		P.M.	1820

DEFENSE WITNESS	DIRECT	CROSS	REDIRECT	RECROSS

ARMSTRONG, Gerald
(Resumed)	1746
(Resumed)	1820

EXHIBITS

DEFENSE EXHIBITS:	IDENTIFIED

TT	1762
UU	1787
500-	1808
500-H	1808
500-L	1813
500-O	1813
500-M	1813
500-N	1813
500-P	1815
50-BB	1833
WW	1834
500-CC	1841
500-DD	1841
500-FF	1845
500-GG	1845
500-II	1846
500-KK	1848
500-LL	1849
XX - Deck log	1858
500-MMM	1879
500-NNN	1879
500-OOO	1879
500-PPP	1880

1740

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984; 9:35 A.M.

-o0o-

THE COURT: Good morning, Counsel.

MR. FLYNN: Good morning.

MR. LITT: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, in the case on trial let the

record reflect that counsel are present.

The witness has retaken the stand.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment,

having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and

testified further as follows:

THE CLERK: Just state your name again for the record,

sir. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: You may continue.

MR. LITT: May I raise one preliminary matter before

we proceed?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I have in my hand an article

from the Clearwater Sun which I can provide a copy of to the

court in which Mr. Armstrong is quoted as describing the

particular contents and quoting from the contents of documents

that remain under seal at this time, and we would ask that the

order of the court, to the extent it is not clear which we

thought it was, that these materials remain sealed means that.

1741

The contents of them are not to be discussed,

particularly contents that have now been reviewed in preparation

for this trial.

1742

It is just improper. These are not general

statements by Mr. Armstrong.

I can provide the court the quote, but he purports

to be quoting specifically from sealed documents. I can give

the court -- I have bracketed in red the section that I'm

specifically referring to.

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Flynn.

MR. FLYNN: Our view, Your Honor, is that this issue

was extensively litigated during the year and a half this case

has been proceeding. And it has come up in the context of two

contempt actions against myself and Ms. Dragojevic.

Judge Cole specifically addressed it. There

is a transcript in which Judge Cole specifically said that

he is not placing any restrictions on Mr. Armstrong's First

Amendment rights to discuss whatever is in the documents.

The preliminary injunction only prohibits the

dissemination of the documents themselves.

I have not read the article. I would like to

see a copy of what Mr. Litt is referring to.

Is there a particular area, Mr. Litt, that you

are concerned about?

MR. LITT: Yes. If you give it to me, Mr. Flynn,

I'll bracket it for you.

MR. FLYNN: But this issue was addressed at length over

the last year and a half. And we believe that the Supreme

Court cases make it abundantly clear that no restriction can

be placed on Mr. Armstrong's First Amendment Rights to discuss

1743

what he learned inside the organization.

THE COURT: Well, I am inclined to agree with that.

I don't know what the clear and present danger is of that

happening. There is no prior restraint. In the absence

of some clear and present danger, some serious harm being

involved now that we are trying this case, I don't know what

is going to come into evidence, And I don't know what is not

going to come into evidence.

I would think that Mr. Armstrong would be well

advised at this point to refrain from discussing the matter

until the case is completed. I think once the case is

completed, then we know what is in evidence; we know what is

not in evidence.

I don't want to get sidetracked at this point.

And I'm going to have to deal with some of these problems

later on anyway.

Let's go forward.

What is it you want me to do?

1744

MR. LITT: I would like, Your Honor, that it be clear

that the sealed order of the court means that documents that

are under seal may not be quoted publicly. That is what a

seal means.

The defendant has notes and probably large

numbers of verbatim copies. Can they walk out and memorize

them and from memory say this says this and this says that?

This article purports to quote from the documents

which at this time are under seal.

THE COURT: Is there any existing order relating to

Mr. Armstrong, any kind of a gag order?

MR. LITT: There is an order that says --

THE COURT: A gag order, we have such a thing as a

gag order when there is a clear and present danger of

somebody not getting a fair trial. I don't see any problem

in that regard here.

MR. LITT: That is not what I am referring to. There

is a preliminary injunction.

Mr. Flynn says that this issue has been resolved.

This issue has not been resolved. The preliminary injunction

requires that the documents be under seal and that they be

used, the materials be used only for purposes of this case.

Going through the documents and then walking

out into the hallway or to the hallway or to the -- some hotel --

THE COURT: As I understand it, there are procedures

set forth whereby other litigants in other cases may have

access to the documents.

MR. LITT: They must go through a special master

1745

procedure with a document-by-document review where there is

determination of what is discoverable. There is also a

balance of the privacy. They must establish revelancy.

They must establish no privilege.

There is a judicial procedure designed specifically

to protect the privacy and other privileged aspects of these

materials. When Mr. Armstrong walks out after having had

the opportunity to/go through the documents and quotes from them,

that judicial oversight is gone.

THE COURT: I have a little trouble with the whole

concept. Here is a man who, according to his testimony,

lived within the organization for over 10 years. He's got a

vivid memory. It is obvious, abundantly clear that this

particular individual is blessed with a vivid memory. He

remembers things and he remembers things in detail, and I

don't see how anybody can order him not to talk about things

that he underwent or claims he underwent during -- he is

subject to civil process for libel or slander if he does

slander the organization or individuals within it, but I

don't know that I can -- it seems to me we are getting side-

tracked. Let's go ahead and try the case and resolve these

matters.

I don't see how his statements to some reporter--

I don't know when they were made or what the context was.

MR. LITT: According to the article they were made

sipping a martini at a hotel.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. HARRIS: Sounds good.

1746

MR. LITT: Well, I just want to make it clear, Your

Honor, our position is that the preliminary injunction

presently in effect prohibits this. That there is ample

authority that while the case goes forward that the specific

contents -- I am not talking about what is in his memory

from what he remembers when he was there in 1980 or '81,

but going back through the documents and then coming out and

quoting from them or purporting to quote from them and utilizing

the fact of continued access because he is a defendant in

this case, we would just like to make it clear we don't

think that is permissible. We think it is improper.

The documents that he is referring to when the

court sees them are the most single set of private materials

in the whole of the 10,000 pages, and it is no coincidence

that it is those that they choose to make reference to.

THE COURT: I think the witness would be well advised

to refrain from such comments during the pendency of the trial.

If he is in violation or apparent violation of an order, you

can seek some OSC re contempt, but at the same time I feel

we may be getting sidetracked here and let's go ahead and

try the case.

Mr. Flynn, you may continue.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor. We will abide by

the court's advise.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)

BY MR. FLYNN:

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, before we get into the

1747

documents, I'd like to clarify a few areas of your testimony

last Friday.

First of all with regard to the documents that

you sent to me and the documents you sent to Contos & Bunch,

would you describe to this court the circumstances under which

you possessed those documents at the time you sent them to me

and to Contos & Bunch?

A Somewhere around March or April of 1982

Omar Garrison again asked me to assist him in the research

on the biography.

1748

The reason that he expressed for this was

because he was not getting the desired assistance from the

man who had, I suppose, replaced me at the -- on the

biography project or doing the research.

Q That was who, Mr. Armstrong?

A Vaughn Young.

So I agreed with Mr. Garrison. There was a

period of time around this time when I was not employed at

the law firm and it was just prior -- I worked at the law

firm for a while. And I continued on helping Mr. Garrison

for a bit.

Previous to that I had only been assisting

Mr. Garrison with his other books. I was obtaining

printers' quotes having to do with another book which he was

publishing at that time.

So during March and April two things happened.

First of all, he was in some fear that the organization was

going to steal the materials which he had for the biography

at that time. So he had me copy a great deal of those

materials, particularly materials which he intended to use

in the biography which he felt he would have to quote from

extensively. So those materials, I copied for him over a

period of probably a month. I did them a bit at a time as I

was able to. There was quite -- I don't know, maybe ten,

fifteen, twenty thousand pages. So there was quite a lot of

material. And it costs quite a bit of money.

I was maintaining for him at that time an office

in Costa Mesa. He was paying half the rent on that office.

1749

And the office was, in fact, the place, the apartment, where

I lived with my wife and --

Q You say he was paying half the rent; was there a

company that he had that paid half the rent on the

apartment?

A Yes. It was the publishing company, a company

called Ralston Pilot, Incorporated. And Ralston paid the

rent and, I guess, in a way I was working for Ralston.

He did not pay me anything during that time; in

fact, he didn't pay for the copies that I had made. The

reason for this was because he was, apparently, broke at the

time or did not have a lot of money. So he was in a bit of

a bind.

He also gave me during that time a great

quantity of originals, the unsorted originals which I had

given him some months previously.

Q Before you left the organization?

A Yes.

He had not been able to go through these things.

And he wanted them sorted out as well as I could.

So I was doing both of these things as best I

could. I transcribed a series of tapes for him during that

period and I arranged from interviews for him during that

period. And I continued to work with the biographical

materials which I maintained in the place in Costa Mesa.

In the end of May Mr. Garrison drove up to Utah.

In fact, I went with him at that time. And it was around

that period, around the end of May, when I obtained from

1750

Mr. Garrison specific binders which I thought had relevance

in the legal battle which I felt was going to begin at that

point. And he gave me virtually everything that I asked

for. And I had in the apartment a great deal more material.

And it was this material which finally ended up with your

office and the office of Contos & Bunch.

Q Now, referring to this letter that you had in

your possession when you came to see me, did you seek advice

as to what should be done with that letter?

A Basically, I had the letter in my briefcase.

And I had been carrying it around for a while and I took the

opportunity while I was seeing you to show you the letter

and to ask you about it.

I had not been able to get it to Mrs. Hubbard

who, at that time, I thought was victimized.

And we discussed, you and I, the letter briefly

at that time.

Q Now, without saying what is in the letter, was

your state of mind at the time that -- was there matter in

the letter that was personal and private to Mrs. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And was there another whole area of the letter

that you thought was of immense public interest to members

of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes.

Q And without saying what is in the letter, did

the immense public-interest factor, did that relate to

L. Ron Hubbard's public image and character?

1751

A Yes.

Q Would you describe the sequence under which you

tried to return the letter to Mrs. Hubbard and the sequence

under which it was placed under seal in this court, the

dates, as best you can recall.

A Okay. Late in the fall of 1981 I attempted a

number of times to communicate to Mrs. Hubbard; my

correspondence was opened.

I sent it in sealed envelopes because that had

been the security custom at the time regarding

communications to her so that they weren't just put on an

open communication line within the organization.

1752

I sent them sealed. And two of them were opened

and sent back to me. They were held for a while and then

they were sent back to me. And I was communicated to at

that time by two of the people who were in the Special

Project, which was Mr. Hubbard's legal unit, people who took

care of his legal and business affairs. One was Terry

Gamboa and the other was Julia Watson, both of whom told me

at that time that there could be no -- there was no

correspondence, no communicating to Mary Sue.

Q That was October of 1981?

A Approximately October, November.

At the end of December I had a number of

discussions on that subject. I felt like she was being --

that communications were being directly withheld from her.

It was expressed to me as, well, we couldn't

admit to a communication line to her because someone will

try to effect service in one of the civil cases. And to me

at that time that didn't make a lot of sense. I felt that

there was communications being directly withheld for another

reason. It had to do with control of the organization.

So I attempted it during that period.

And then when I left the organization some

months later, I learned from Laurel Sullivan that she was in

communication with Mary Sue Hubbard and had an address.

I then asked Laurel and she confirmed that the

address that she had was still good. And this brought us

into the summer of 1982.

Shortly after that and after the -- after this

1753

case had begun, I sent this particular letter to Mary Sue.

Q Was that before the restraining order was

issued?

A Yes. It was before, I believe, anything was

issued in the case.

1754

Q But had the case begun?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Go ahead.

A So I sent a letter to her to the mailbox, and

I received -- that would have been sometime in August, and

I received back the letter sometime in December. It had gone

to the address and then had been -- then was returned some

months later, some probably five months later, four or five

months later I received back the same envelopes and then we

had a deposition coming up in the beginning of January, the

next year, January 1983, and we just produced it for

Mr. Litt at that time with the intention that he could give

it to Mary Sue or do whatever was proper with it at that

time.

Q So it was returned to you by the postal service

in December '82?

A Right.

Q Now, the original letter or envelope that it

was returned in, did you give that to Mr. Litt?

A Yes, the whole thing.

Q And the date stamp that it was mailed by you

in August '82 was on the envelope?

A Yes.

Q And was there handwriting on the envelope of

someone other than yourself?

A Yes.

Q And did you recognize that handwriting?

A I believe it to be the handwriting or printing

1755

of David Miscavige.

Q Now, when you were collecting the documents

for the biography project, Mr. Armstrong, what was your

state of mind with regard to what documents were pertinent

to the biography and what were not?

A Well, I considered, and Mr. Garrison considered,

virtually anything pertinent to the biography. He said, he

used the phrase, "Everything is grist for the mill."

He wanted to see virtually everything. He did

not want to see materials which were what we would call

technical materials or policy materials. He was not

interested in doing a work on Dianetics or Scientology. He

was doing a work specifically on the personal life of

L. Ron Hubbard.

You could not extricate Mr. Hubbard, of course,

from Dianetics and Scientology, but that was the thrust of

Mr. Garrison's work, and he wanted virtually anything which

showed where Mr. Hubbard was at a particular time, who he

was in communication with, letters of all descriptions.

He used to use the phrase "Even a laundry list

was grist for the mill." So he wanted virtually everything.

Q Why did you give him originals?

A Well, the situation with originals came up in

November and December of 1981, and it came up simply because

there was a considerable bulk of them. There was no way I

was going to be able to copy them all for him. It didn't

make sense to copy them all for him. Mr. Garrison did not at

that point have an office in the building. He had not had an

1756

office for several months in the Cedars building. He didn't

have a desk there anymore.

So, in order for him to sort out what he

considered usable biographically or what he would get from

this mass of materials, there was not going to be a great

deal selected from it, but he wanted to see it.

Mr. Garrison ended up doing the biography

chronologically, and so the materials which I -- the original

materials were principally from 1966 or so onward. There was

very few original materials which predated that.

I had been providing materials as chronologically

as possible. I did the early days first because I thought that

he would want them in that order and that's how we discussed

him. These were later materials and there simply was no way,

no time to copy them all, and it would have been a very

burdensome job because out of those materials there was

relatively little that he would quote from.

Q Now, in November and December of 1981, was it

your understanding or state of mind that you were working for

L. Ron Hubbard and it was L. Ron Hubbard that had the owner-

ship and possession of these materials?

A Right.

Q And was it your state of mind that he had given

permission for those to go to Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q Now, prior to that point in time, had you ever

given originals to Mr. Garrison?

A He may have had some. I don't recall if it

1757

ever came up at that point. There were books which I

provided him which were definitely originals. Again, this

would come up if it was too burdensome to copy, so complete

books I provided him in that way.

Q Now, why did some of the materials end up

being sent to me and some of the materials end up being sent

to Contos & Bunch?

A Well, initially everything that I sent was

sent to you and at least part of the reason for that was that

I had not been able to obtain a West Coast attorney at that

point. This didn't happen until sometime in July or August,

at which point I simply delivered to them the bulk of

whatever I had.

I sent it to you as I was able either to

obtain it or copy it or box it up and send it. That is

really how it occurred. There was no more logic to it than

that until the end when I finally just took whatever I had,

cleaned out my house completely, and sent that material to

Contos & Bunch, and that is a relatively random assortment

of stuff which I referred to as junk, but it is a very random

assortment of materials.

Q Why did you retain me as your lawyer?

A Well, I think a lot had to do with -- there

was really a number of reasons.

I had no one inside the organization or I had

heard your name inside the organization, and all I knew was

that you were an SP of the first kind, a very evil person,

and then I had contradictory material from Jim Dincalci,

1758

whose opinion I appreciated, and he had gone out, both he and

his wife had seen you a couple of weeks I think prior to my

decision to go see you. They came back and told me that you

had an extremely good understanding of Scientology, of the

Scientology mind, of our experiences, of what we had gone

through, of what we could expect, and that contrary to what

the organization had said, you were not dedicated to the

destruction of Scientology but were trying in your way and

according to your business to represent your clients who you

felt had been wronged and deserved redress of those wrongs.

1759

And so it was that and it was also the idea that

I was at that point deprogramming myself, shall we say; going

through the steps of confronting what the organization and

Mr. Hubbard had represented to me for years as being evil and

confronting those things which I had been taught or drilled

were evil and learning that they were not, indeed, evil.

There was another factor -- and this is probably

a very important one, and that is to obtain an attorney to

represent one in a battle with the Scientologists, which I

knew was coming, is a very difficult task. And it was very

difficult with Contos & Bunch.

I think you put a lot of work into it. And

they were extremely reluctant to get involved because of

how wearing the subject is, how esoteric it is and how

difficult it is to even brief an attorney on what an attorney

can expect in the ins and outs and intricacies and the mental

madness that you are dealing with. So that is why --

Q Now, before you left the organization did you

see a document called "The Clearwater Report"?

A Yes.

Q And when did you see that, Mr. Armstrong?

A I saw that, I think it would be, some time in

the fall -- was -- it was the same date, whenever the thing

was -- day or two prior to whenever it was submitted to the

Clearwater City Commission.

Q It was prior to the time it was submitted to

the Clearwater Commission?

A Yes.

1760

Q Do you know where it came from?

A I don't know specifically. I was told that --

I was shown it in the PR Bureau, GOUS in the Gardian's Office

and that they had someone in close to you and that they had

obtained it. It looked like it was an assembled copy taken

from either trash or rough drafts of the report.

Q Now, do you know there are approximately six or

seven attorneys that authored that report? Was that on the

materials that you saw?

A I don't recall that.

Q Do you recall approximately how long it was?

A What I saw at the time was a pack of material

that would have been about maybe half an inch thick. It was

a lot of materials which I recognized which I had seen earlier

had come from Michael Shannon.

The final Clearwater report which I saw was

probably total of two inches thick.

Q Were the materials in there relating to

L. Ron Hubbard; namely, in this half-inch pile of materials

that you saw while you were inside the organization?

A Yes. That is the material that I was -- I was

actually called to view those materials. The PR people --

and I can't recall who it was, the DGPR US at that time, but

I spoke with him at length. And there was another couple of

PR people in the DGPR office, the Deputy Guardian for Public

Relations in U.S. And he showed this report to me and asked

my opinion about it at that time.

The thing that he was asking particularly about

1761

had to do with the black magic allegations.

And I said that well, from what I had learned

to understand -- from what I understood from information

that I had, the claims which were being made were in fact true

and that we could not continue on -- you could not refute

them with simply Hubbard's statements or denial because there

was too much evidence to the contrary.

So they then began to develop a different tact

for the combatting of that particular report. They were not

going to try and deny or refute those things.

That is what I got from the conversations at

that point. I had nothing further to do with the Clearwater

report at that time.

Q Now, when you say "black magic" that Mr. Hubbard

was involved in, was that in the late 1940's?

A Yes, 1945, '46.

Q Was that with reference to a cult called

the OTO?

A Yes.

1762

MR. FLYNN: I think I only have one copy of this,

Your Honor.

Q Mr. Armstrong, in October, November 1981, did

you see that document?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What are we up to?

THE CLERK: Double-T.

THE COURT: Okay. Mark that as double-T, counsel.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q Now, in the first paragraph there is a

notation and that was by Vaughn Young; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And he was in the Guardian's Office at the

time?

A He had two roles at the time. One was in the

Guardian's Office, and one was sort of a liaison working in

the personal office. He had not moved completely over into

the personal office at that time, although my understanding

was he was on his way at that time.

Q Now, the first paragraph states, "We have a

situation of en theta being presented around L. Ron Hubbard

that would be DA'd very specifically by producing an inter-

view with Omar that covers what he is discovering in his

research on the man."

What does en theta mean?

A En theta is a contraction of enturbulated.

Q What does that mean, Mr. Armstrong?

A Scientologists and Mr. Hubbard view en theta

1763

as derogatory comments. Comments viewed as derogatory are

termed en theta, particularly in the press, and that would be

the en theta being spread about there.

Q What does the term "DA'd" mean?

A DA is a dead agent.

Q What does that mean?

A It refers to an agent who is spreading lies

about someone or about a group. The way you handle that

agent and the way you handle the lies is to document the

truth about that, showing that what he is saying is, in fact,

a lie. Then you show the truth, the documented truth, to the

people to whom the agent has been communicating, and there-

after he will no longer be believed and he is dead. He is

dead as an agent or dead.

Q Now, it says, "An interview with Omar that

covers what he is discovering in his research on the man."

To your knowledge, at that time was Omar Garrison discovering

material that conformed to the Clearwater report that you

read or was contradictory to the Clearwater report?

MR. LITT: Objection as to what Mr. Garrison was

discovering.

THE COURT: Well, I think it is probably overly broad.

I will sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, at the time you were

providing materials to Omar Garrison; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And this document is dated right about the time

that you saw the Clearwater report?

1764

A Yes.

Q And at that time, Mr. Armstrong, were you dis-

covering materials that were confirming the truth of the

contents of the Clearwater report about Mr. Hubbard or

contradicting what was in the Clearwater report?

MR. LITT: Same objection; vague.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, it then goes on to say,

"This would be produced in both a video form and a written

form for broad usage on media lines and that additional

material would be given from the current state of things in

the legal arena."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Now, at that time did you have any conver-

sations with Vaughn Young about getting additional materials

to Mr. Garrison about Mr. Hubbard?

A Yeah. We discussed this at great length since

one of the reasons that Vaughn became involved with this

project was because I did not have access to the Guardian's

Office Archives.

1765

What I had was LRH's archives. And these

archives did not contain what they call the historical

context materials. Some of that was provided by Vaughn

Young. And it was necessary because I didn't have access.

Q Now, so thereafter did Vaughn Young provide

you with materials from Guardian's Office Archives to dead

agent N-Theta being spread about Mr. Hubbard?

A I think that that -- at least to some level

that was done. It was done, really, to dead agent the

spreader. I guess that they considered -- they considered

that you were one of the sources who were spreading the

N-Theta. So there was a document provided to Mr. Garrison

which indicated that you were a very big enemy, connected you

in with psychiatric groups who were considered the real enemy.

And I would perceive that as an attempt to dead agent you.

Q Now, did you find any material at that time

and forward in your research that you gave to Mr. Garrison

that disproved any fact that was in the Clearwater report

about L. Ron Hubbard?

MR. LITT: Objection. The question is overly broad.

This report is apparently -- I have never read

it, but it is apparently rather long, two inches thick,

according to Mr. Armstrong. We are now having some con-

clusory statement made about a two-inch report, about its

accuracy.

THE COURT: Read the pending question, please.

(The question was read.)

THE COURT: That you were aware of as being in the

1766

report; you may answer.

THE WITNESS: There is only one which comes to mind

that I suppose is a rather miniscule fact. And it had to do

with Mr. Hubbard going down to Puerto Rico and how he went

down to Puerto Rico.

And in the materials that Michael Shannon had

provided, it showed that he hadn't gone down to do a

mineralogical survey; he had gone down as part of a Red Cross

Mission into Puerto Rico as a result of the hurricane which

occurred on the island sometime before and that somehow

Mr. Shannon had found out that Mr. Hubbard's passage had

been booked on board a particular line for that reason and

had some documents to that effect.

But I knew that this was not the case; that in

fact he had gone down -- Mr. Hubbard had gone to Puerto Rico

looking for gold, looking for other minerals and that the

reason for booking the passage appeared to be what was

fraudulent.

So that it was the -- Mr. Shannon had stumbled

onto something, but he hadn't correctly interpreted the facts.

And that was what I recalled.

I think it was the only fact at the time which

stuck out in my mind.

THE COURT: On this Exhibit double-T, it is entitled

"Project Biography Debug"; what would the terminology

"debug" mean in this context, if you know?

THE WITNESS: A bug is a problem. And to debug it is

to get rid of the bug in the works or in the ointment, I guess.

	1767
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28	And so he was in charge of debugging the biography project. The project had a number of bugs, one of which was I did not have access to these materials. Another one was that Garrison was at that point asking for his -- asking for a contract to be reevaluated and some of the clauses rewritten, some of the conditions changed. Those were bugs or problems. And Mr. Young was assigned to handle those things. THE COURT: All right. You may continue. Q BY MR. FLYNN: when you say "these materials," in your last response, you meant Guardian Office materials? A Right. Q For the purpose of dead agenting, the N-Theta being spread about L. Ron Hubbard? A Well, this was that, but there was also information which I was not able then to get ahold of. For example, the Quentin materials. The Quentin Hubbard death has considerable interest among Scientologists and non-Scientrologists. I did not have any information on it and I was not able to within archives get any. But I knew that the B-1 had that material. And Mr. Young was able to get it. So it was not just dead agenting. It was also to provide biographical information which I did not have. Q Now, in the summer of 1982, did you prepare several legal declarations for the Tonja Burden case?

1768

A Yes.

Q And were those declarations prepared prior to

the inception of the lawsuit?

A I believe at least one of them, maybe two.

Q Now, what was your understanding at that point

in time, Mr. Armstrong, with regard to the restrictions that

Omar Garrison had placed on your use of the documents?

A Only that they not be allowed out of the legal

arena.

His one concern was that he not be scooped,

that some other author -- that the materials find their way

to someone else who would quickly get the book out before he

was able to. That was his concern. And that is what I

honored in my dealings with everyone.

Q What was your state of mind and purpose for

filing declarations in the Tonja Burden case?

A Well, I had taken the position by this point

that I could not back down from the organization. I thought

that I was being terrorized. And I made the conscious

decision along with my wife to take a stand.

I felt, particularly regarding Tonja, that --

I had a great deal of responsibility in the Tonja matter.

Tonja was a young girl on board the ship. She had been for a

period of time my junior when we were working in the LRH

External Calm Unit at Dunedin.

1769

I have been her guardian along with my first

wife. We had been appointed sort of a quasi-legal guardian

of some sort, and I felt that she had gone through a very,

very rough experience and she deserved my support and my

help at that point, and I wanted to do whatever I could to

rectify the wrongs which I perceived that the organization

was involved in and which I had helped over my 11 or 12

years inside.

Q Now, at that point in time, were you being

followed during the sumer of 1982?

THE COURT: Well, did you believe you were being

followed?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And when you made this decision

to not back down from the organization, were you contacted by

various people in the media during the summer of 1982?

A The initial contact was, I guess, in the end

of May, beginning of June, and that was the producer from

"20/20," and I agreed at that point to be interviewed on

"20/20." And I also made the conscious choice, along with my

wife, to assume a high profile and to be willing to be inter-

viewed and to be willing to speak out and say what I per-

ceived was the truth of the matter simply because I felt that

there was a higher degree of protection in doing that, and

that the facts needed to come out, the other side of the

story needed to be told, and that I had an obligation after

all that had gone on, so that was the choice.

Thereafter, the press -- there was no further

1770

contact for a while, and then I was contacted almost on a

daily basis throughout several months after the case got

started.

Q When you say a "higher degree of protection,"

do you mean protection to yourself?

A Myself and my wife.

Q And what did you feel with regard to having a

high profile, as you put it, in connection with protecting

yourself?

A Well, the information about the organization

was -- a lot of it was contained in my mind, a lot of it was

contained in the documents, and I felt that the -- I would

alleviate to a degree the threat that I might do something

by doing it, and also that by being known, by being willing

to speak out and by being recognized, if anything did happen

or rather the organization would be more reluctant to do

anything of a very serious nature because I was known to the

press and because I was a known individual at that point.

Q Now, at that point in time, how many people had

you known that had actually been physically locked up by the

organization?

A I knew of probably several dozen. I don't know

that I could name all of those people, but I knew that it was

a regular pattern of conduct, so there is a great number

throughout all that time.

Q And in November 1981, did you know that Bill

Franks, the supposedly highest ranking official in the world

of the Church of Scientology, had been physically locked up

1771

in Gilman Hot springs?

MR. LITT: Objection; leading. Assumes facts not in

evidence.

THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the latter objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What if anything did you know

about Bill Franks in November, December 1981 being physically

restrained at Gilman Hot Springs?

A I was out at Gilman Hot Springs during that

period and I was told that by two people, actually one was

Harvey Haber, and one was a guard on the property.

Q And did you know what Bill Franks' position

was at that time?

A Well, the last position I knew he was holding

before the lockup was the executive director international.

Q What was your understanding as to at least on

paper the rank that that position held in the Church of

Scientology?

A That he was the top official.

Q And did you know at that time the circumstances --

was that shortly before you left the organization,

Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q Now, in your years of research had you come

across various deaths that had occurred that you felt were

unexplained inside the Church of Scientology?

MR. LITT: Your Honor, this is unbelievable.

THE COURT: Is that an objection?

MR. LITT: Yes, it is an objection.

1772

At this point are we going to allow as relevant

evidence in this case any evidence or things that

Mr. Armstrong ever heard about any unexplained death in 13

years that he knows nothing about, that he has no personal

knowledge of as part of scene vague state of mind?

MR. FLYNN: I will restrict it a little more.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Armstrong, at this point in

time, in November 1981, up until the summer of 1982, what was

your state of mind with regard to your fear that the

organization would kill you?

A Well, I viewed it as a real probability. It

was there practically at all times. I never went outside a

door without thinking that it could happen right now. I

altered my times when I went places so that my schedule was

always varying. I was acting like a person who believed that

he was going to be blown away. It went on for months,

probably for a couple of years.

Q Prior to this trial beginning, did you have

that fear?

A I get it occasionally even during the trial.

Q Now, had you been exposed to any Guardian's

Office documentation of operations against people prior to

leaving the organization?

A Yes.

Q And how much?

A Not -- really not very much in the big scope

of things.

1773

Q After you left the organization, were you

exposed to Guardian's Office materials about operations

against people?

A Some.

Q And where did that material come from?

A At least the majority of it came from you.

Q And did you have an understanding as to where

I received it from?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Purely hearsay, Your Honor. What is the

relevance?

THE COURT: All he did was ask him if he had an

understanding, and he said yes.

The next question may be something you want to

object to. Let's wait and see what it is.

MR. HARRIS: My objection would be relevant. After

he sees Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Flynn gives him a lot of

materials, what possible relevance could that have to this

lawsuit?

1774

THE COURT: Well, it certainly might go to the

witness' state of mind as to whether or not it is force-fed

or whatever it is. That is something else. It goes to the

weight to be given to it.

MR. FLYNN: Did you see documents that had been seized

by the FBI in July of 1977?

A Yes.

Q And did you know when you left the organization

that the FBI had conducted a raid against the Church of

Scientology?

A Yes.

Q What was your understanding as to how much

documentation had been seized by the FBI, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. HARRIS: Objection as irrelevant.

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

THE WITNESS: I don't have pages, but I knew that it

was a tremendous mass of documents.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Having seen those materials after

you left the organization, did that affect your

state of mind?

MR. LITT: Objection.

MR. HARRIS: Irrelevant.

He has now got the documents in Mr. Flynn's

hands, Your Honor. His state of mind after that is

irrelevant.

THE COURT: I suppose so. I'll sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: In the summer of 1982 when you

felt like you were being followed, did you know you were

1775

being followed by private investigators?

A I was told that by them and by the police.

Q When were you told that?

A In August of 1982.

Q Now, at that point you had been followed for

several months; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Who did you think was following you before that?

A I didn't know; although I knew that I was

accosted outside the Post Office in, I believe, the

beginning of June and someone had come up who obviously knew

me and he had thrust a letter inside my shirt. So I knew at

that point that I had been under surveillance; that they

must have known where my PO box was, what car I drove, what

I looked like.

So I assumed that this was a process server, not

a Scientologist. And I assumed throughout that period that

I was under surveillance by both Scientologists and hired

private investigators.

Q Now, in 1982 did a woman named Nancy Dincalci

assist you in fleeing from the surveillance of the private

investigators?

A Yes.

Q Would you describe what happened at that time.

A Well, my wife and I were living in the trailer

park. And we were --

MR. LITT: Can we have a time frame on this?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When was this, Mr. Armstrong?

1776

A September 1982.

Q What happened?

A We had been followed at that point night and

day, 24 hours a day. They were watching us or following us

wherever we went. And it had gone on for a couple of weeks

and we had not been able to leave. And we were under a lot

of pressure and we were going a little mad at the time.

So I made arrangements with Nancy for her to

come and pick us up on the property, thinking there was no

way we could drive off the property because they had two

cars on us the whole time. So we would have been followed.

And we wanted to get away for a little while.

So Nancy drove in and she put on a wig and a

bunch of lipstick and looked funny and was able to actually

drive onto the property.

We hid in a laundry room in another part of the

whole complex and then we got down on the floor of her car

and she was able to get away.

So we spent that evening and the next day with

her away from the whole private investigator scene.

Q Now, just prior to your leaving the organization

you were asked to sign a contract with Church of Scientology

International, which has been marked as exhibit double-M; do

you recall that?

A Yes.

Q And just again, how much prior to your leaving

was it, Mr. Armstrong?

A I received this about maybe a week or 10 days

1777

prior to leaving.

I was told that this new organization was going

to start on December 10th and that it had to be signed by

then.

Q Prior to that and for the previous several

months had you been working in the MCCS mission?

A I had been working in MCCS in the year

previously for a couple of months and then just sometime in

1981. I did relatively little work, just mostly the

couriering to or from attorneys.

Q Now, when you were working on the MCCS mission

did you understand that the purpose of the MCCS mission was

to conceal L. Ron Hubbard's control over Scientology moneys?.

MR. HARRIS: I'll object to that as calling for a

conclusion of the witness or else based upon attorney-client

privileged information learned while couriering items to the

attorney, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: I'll withdraw it.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Armstrong, just

restricting --

Who was in charge of the MCCS mission?

A David Miscavige.

Q And who was your senior?

A Laurel Sullivan.

Q And did you have communications with Laurel

Sullivan about Hubbard's relationship to church funds

without an attorney being present?

1778

A Yes.

Q And what were those conversations?

MR. HARRIS: Objection, Your Honor, as attorney-client

privileged.

He is part of the mission; she is part of the

mission; David Miscavige is part of the mission according to

this witness' testimony. Any disclosure made about those

items is attorney-client privilege. It is the

organization's means of communicating back and forth between

the people who are in the organization and the attorneys.

1779

THE COURT: Well, one of the problems, of course, is

that there is -- the attorney-client privilege, of course,

is a very important, significant privilege; and, of course,

when you are dealing with an entity which is rather amorphous,

it has various forms at different times, and personalities

come and go and offices change. But communications are

prepared obviously for submission to counsel and vice versa.

So I am not really clear.

Another problem, of course, is that there is an

exception to the attorney-client privilege if it deals with

anything which might relate to fraud or a crime.

MR. HARRIS: That is correct, Your Honor, but there

must be first extrinsic evidence of same.

MR. FLYNN: I will see if I can do that, Your Honor.

Q Mr. Armstrong, when Exhibit double-M was

placed in front of you and you read the portion, "That

neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard are officers or directors of

the Church and that neither of them are in any manner

responsible for actions of the Church . . ." and that

neither had received "any compensation or remuneration from

training or processing by the Church . . ."

Now, at that time in December 1981, when you

read that, did you have specific knowledge that that was

false?

A Yes.

Q And did you know that everyone in the

organization was being asked to sign that document?

A Yes.

1780

Q And did you know at that time that funds were

being specifically funded to L. Ron Hubbard through a

corporation called Religious Research Corporation?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: This corporation, Your Honor, is Church

of Scientology International by its heading. Unless the

witness knows that Church of Scientology International was

funneling money and knows it from personal knowledge, it is

not okay to say it was false.

THE COURT: Just relax. Let me see it a minute.

Well, I will overrule the objection. He can

certainly testify as to his state of mind with reference to

what he knew. If this was something that he was being asked

to sign that appeared to him to be untrue, he can so state.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, if I may add, what is happening

or what is about to happen in this line of questioning is that

the purported knowledge that Mr. Armstrong has is knowledge

obtained that is privileged.

Now, then, he is -- and the process is going

like this. Document is presented.

Did you know this to be false? Yes, which it

is not because this is after his knowledge, so he doesn't

know it to be false as to what the present situation is.

He purportedly knows it to be false at some

point in the past.

Then, well, how did you know? Privileged

information, and then the allegation of crime or fraud.

Now, if we are going to get into this, then I

1781

would suggest to the Court that these be a full-blown hearing

where the ground rules are set as to what can be talked about

before the privilege is abrogated or not. We can establish,

and the Court has to make a preliminary fact determination

that all of the communications that Mr. Armstrong learned

about and all of the information that he learned about was

privileged. That it was not in furtherance of a crime or a

fraud and that no privileged information may be used in

testimony. And when the question is asked did you know X

fact, it should be on that day whether he knew, not something

that he learned in preparing and communicating with

attorneys about how to sort out inner relations among a

variety of Scientology Corporations and the founder of

Scientology, which is what is about to happen.

It is a back door way to try to use the

privileged information to supposedly show that it is not

privileged and it is privileged and we can establish that it

is privileged, and we can bring in all the attorneys

involved, if that is what the Court wants. But this is not

right, and that is the position that we are in here. That is

what is happening.

THE COURT: I don't know. You said that you knew

something that he had received funds through some religious --

how did you obtain that information?

THE WITNESS: During the MCCS briefings.

THE COURT: Who was conducting the briefings?

THE WITNESS: Well, the people who were present were

Laurel, Laurel Sullivan, myself, Mike Smith, who was the LRH

1782

accounts at the time in charge of Mr. Hubbard's accounts, and

we were at that time discussing payment which had been made

to Mr. Hubbard of two point some odd million dollars from

RRF; and then the subject of how RRF got its funds and what,

in fact, those funds were came up, and it was during those

conversations.

I had known about the existence of RRF for some

years, but how exactly it worked I did not know until I was

in communication with Laurel dealing with this exact thing.

MR. LITT: But, Your Honor, may I pose some questions?

THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess and come

back to it.

(Recess.)

1783

MR. HARRIS: I have a suggestion for Your Honor which

you might find beneficial or might not.

The court has the inherent power to control the

order of proof.

My suggestion that -- I assume Mr. Armstrong is

going to be on at least the remainder of today -- that we

have an in camera determination tomorrow morning about this

subject matter.

We would be prepared to disclose to Your Honor

information in order to determine the privilege under the

circumstances. And I think that is probably the only way we

can do it, including letters from lawyers and the like.

THE COURT: That would be agreeable with me.

Is there any problem with the defense to work

around this subject?

MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor, as long as it is

understood -- the scope of this evidence gets greatly

expanded with the testimony of Laurel Sullivan. As long as

it is understood that we can -- that I can recall

Mr. Armstrong after Laurel Sullivan testifies.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FLYNN: But I would like to put in the record at

this point a couple of questions that won't get into the

context of any MCCS material.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you familiar with the

document, Mr. Armstrong, entitled "What Your Fees Buy"?

A Yes.

1784

Q And what is that?

A It is a brief document by Mr. Hubbard in which

he says that he is not paid. It is the standard thing which

is shown to public people when they are buying Scientology

services.

Q And is that broadly disseminated within

Scientology?

A Yes.

Q And does it relate to the fact that Mr. Hubbard

claims that he has not received any funds from the church

and he has forgiven millions of dollars in debt?

A Yes.

Q Prior to 1980 did you believe that?

A Yes.

Q And was it represented to the public prior to

1980 that Mr. Hubbard didn't control any Church of

Scientology corporations?

MR. LITT: Objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: If you know.

MR. LITT: By whom, when, what?

THE COURT: Well, that doesn't contribute anything

when you say, "by whom, when, and what." He is not required

to do that. If there is an objection --

MR. LITT: The objection is that the question as

framed is overly vague and ambiguous.

THE COURT: If you are aware whether or not the church

ever held out to the public such a matter, you may so state.

If you don't, you can so state.

1785

THE WITNESS: That picture was held out to the public,

but it was not the picture which was given to those of us on

the inside at a certain level.

1786

Q Now, when you say to the public, what is a

public Scientologist?

A A public Scientologist is a person who is not

on any staff anywhere and who is simply paying for the series

which he takes.

Q And just briefly with regard to paying for

series, would you describe how the payment procedure worked

based on your 11 years of observations inside the

organization?

A One talked to a registrar, was sold a particular

service or product and paid for it.

Q And were there price lists for these products?

A Yes.

Q And could Master Charge and Visa be used?

A I never came across that.

Q What was the price range of many of these

services?

MR. LITT: Objection; vague as to time.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: In the 1978-79 area, what was

the price range for the services?

A I don't recall any service particularly, but we

are talking about several thousand dollars in a case; $10,000

for a Flag executive briefing course, a few thousand dollars

for an OT level. It is a considerable amount of money, but I

don't recall exact figures on any particular service.

Q Had you seen price lists?

A Yes.

Q Let me show you that price list. Have you seen

1787

a price list of that type?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Have you seen this, counsel?

MR. LITT: No.

MR. HARRIS: No.

MR. FLYNN: This is the only one I have with me, Your

Honor.

Q While that is being reviewed, did you know of

any Scientology services that were given out without the

necessity of a fee being paid?

A Yes. There were certain cases when people,

and here particularly comes to mind celebrities, would be

awarded. There were occasions when people not on staff, but

who would be called public were awarded for some contri-

bution of some sort, but they would not have to pay. They

would be awarded their next level or a particular service.

These were quite rare. Those of us who were

on staff were, as long as we were on staff, we did not have

to pay directly for those services which we took.

Q Do you recall whether some of the courses went

up to as much as $42,000?

A I don't recall that particular figure at all.

I know that there were some very big figures,

but I don't recall that figure.

MR. FLYNN: May this be marked as next in order?

THE COURT: Okay. Double-U.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you knew in general, did

you not, that millions of dollars were being paid by public

1788

Scientologists to the organization during the period you

were involved?

A Yes.

Q And you saw this document "What Your Fees Buy"

during the period that you were involved?

A Yes.

Q And when was the first time that you saw that

document, if you recall?

A I recall at least that phrase very early. It

may even have been when I was in Vancouver. It may have been

sometime on the ship, but I definitely recall the phrase.

It was a well-known Scientdlogy phrase.

Q Prior to 1980, did you rely on the fact that

L. Ron Hubbard was not receiving any Church funds and had

forgiven millions of dollars to continue your work for

Mr. Hubbard?

1789

A I put a great deal of reliance in that fact. I

believe it contributed to my undergoing all the time I did

in the RPF and in making the type of wages that I did make

throughout that period.

I had no idea at that point about what kind of

money he was making.

Q And did you subsequently learn that in 1980,

1981 when you were working on the biography project?

A Yes.

Q And Laurel Sullivan was in charge of both the

biography project and in charge of MCCS; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q What was Hubbard called inside the organization

at the level that you were working on with him?

A It depended; either LRH, R, The Boss.

From 197- -- from the point when we went off the

ship onward in Dunedin, he was always referred to as "The

Boss." And that carried on into La Quinta and Gilman Hot

Springs.

Q Now, is there any aspect of the workings of

Scientology organizations that you observed over a period of

11 years that you did not see Mr. Hubbard supervise or

manage?

A That is an interesting question. There were --

things which got done, obviously, without his knowledge

because he was not everywhere. But he controlled every

aspect. And he managed every aspect. And everything that I

saw was done pursuant to his orders.

1790

Q And were those orders issued and obeyed in a

command line that was similar to a military command line?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever hear the word "ecclesiastical" when

you were inside the organization?

A Nothing to do with Scientology or as used here,

a differentiation between ecclesiastical and temporal

matters. Such a thing never existed when I was involved.

Q Now, with regard to the Nobel Prize project, did

you see any orders from L. Ron Hubbard with regard to the

use of Scientology funds to obtain Mr. Hubbard the Nobel

Prize?

A Yes.

Q What did you see?

A It was -- there was a series of communications,

orders from him regarding obtaining a Nobel Prize. And one

of them and the one which laid out what he wanted, he stated

that unlimited funds were allocated for this project, the

project of getting him a Nobel Prize.

Q Unlimited Scientology funds?

A Yes.

Q And you saw that order?

A Yes.

1791

Q And since 1982 have you had conversations, just

yes or no, with officials of the Canadian government?

A Yes.

Q And an a result of these conversations, was a

declaration of yours used to secure a search warrant by the

Canadian government?

MR. LITT: Objection; calls for a conclusion.

MR. HARRIS: Also irrelevant; '83.

THE COURT: What is the relevance, counsel?

MR. FLYNN: It goes to the MCCS Mission, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: I thought we had an agreement that this

was going to be handled tomorrow morning, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: I am going to leave it with just this.

THE COURT: Well, all right. 0verruled.

The question really is did you submit a

declaration that was utilized by Canadian authorities for

some legal purpose.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, and it was a different

sequence from what you had mentioned there.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What was the sequence?

A The sequence was they used the declaration,

and the declaration was used, from what I was told by the

Canadian officials, my affidavit or declaration was used as

part of the evidence in obtaining a search warrant. And I

spoke to them after that fact and after the search had been

carried out.

Q And did that declaration relate to Religious

Research Foundation and MCCS in the funneling of Church funds?

1792

MR. HARRIS: Objection; irrelevant, Your Honor. The

timing, and also I thought again we had this agreement.

MR. FLYNN: That is going to be the last question,

Your Honor, just so Your Honor will know that the witness

has filed declarations with respect to MCCS.

THE COURT: Well, of course, the fact that he might

have disclosed something that we might conclude is privileged

here in some other proceeding wouldn't make it non-privileged

here.

MR. FLYNN: No, it wouldn't, Your Honor. But the fact

that there is an ongoing criminal investigation with regard

to future fraudulent activity of the Church might be some-

thing --

THE COURT: I can't -- this certainly wouldn't be

evidence. It would be hearsay; and all we know is that he

gave a declaration. Everything else would be hearsay, and

what their purpose was, getting into all kinds of collateral

issues. I will sustain the objection.

MR. FLYNN: Fine, Your Honor.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, during the period of time

that you were involved in the Church of Scientology and were

working with Mr. Hubbard, did you hear him make thousands of

statements?

A Yes.

Q And in connection with your duties as the

biographer for L. Ron Hubbard in possessing his materials,

did you attempt to select for Mr. Garrison and review with

Mr. Garrison representations made by Mr. Hubbard in writing