Gerry Armstrong--Reporters Transcript of Proceedings 05-17-1984 LASC 420153

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

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' DAILY TRANSCRIPT

Thursday, May 17, 1984

APPEARANCES:
(See Appearances Page)

VOLUME 14

Pages 2174 - 2344, incl.

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
For Dr. Denk:	OVERLAND, BERKE, WESLEY, GITS, RANDOLPH & LEVANAS BY: ROBERT BERKE 10951 West Pico Boulevard Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90064 (213) 474-6020

I

INDEX FOR VOLUME 14		Pages 2174-2344, incl.

DAY	DATE		PAGE

Thursday	May 17, 1984	A.M.	2174
		P.M.	2263

WITNESS

DEFENSE:			CROSS

ARMSTRONG, Gerald
(resumed)			2178-L
(resumed)			2269-L

EXHIBITS

PLAINTIFF'S:

FOR
IDENTIFICATION

24 - 3-page document 8-17-80 "LRH Biography Plan"

25 - 3-page letter 6-16-80 from Sheila to Omar

26 - 7-page letter 10-30-80 & 3-page document 11-2-80

27 - 1-page letter 5-25-80 Gerry to Rick

28 - l-page letter 6-15-81 to Laurel from Gerry

29 - 8-page document 12-10-81, staff contract

30 - 2-page letter 12-12-81 Gerry to Barbara

31 - 2-page letter 5-7-80 Gerry to "Dear Sirs"

32 - 2 letters 5-14-80 & 5-7-80, 4 pages

33 - 1-page letter 10-13-80 Gerry to Ted

34 - front & back copy of cancelled check #854

35 - 1-page document 4-27-69 Flag Order 196OR

36 - 5-page handwritten document 2-22-80 & copy
of 2 handwritten letters

2192

2199

2213

2232

2234

2237

2242

2251

2252

2256

2271

2282

2291

2174

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1984; 9:05 A.M.

-o0o-

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

record reflect that counsel are present.

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 COURT: The witness has retaken the stand. Please

state your name again for the record, sir. You are still

under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Litt.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

Your Honor, before we proceed, perhaps we

could finish up the matter of the discovery of the materials

that were going to be given to us.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Flynn?

2175

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the chronology was sent to me.

And it is attorney-client privileged. I am getting it from my

office.

I don't think we have any objection to it anyway,

but I want to read it first.

The notes, we have collected and Mr. Armstrong

has brought them in here this morning. I haven't had a chance

to look them over.

Financial bills, I have got to get from my

office and they are on their way. I'll estimate by tomorrow

morning we'll have it here and we'll have everything sorted

out.

THE COURT: You are getting them from Boston?

MR. FLYNN: Federal Express, Your Honor.

I have piles and piles of files here, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Miles of piles of files?

MR. LITT: With respect to what Mr. Flynn referred

to as "the notes," can we have an agreement that they will

be reviewed by the end of the lunch hour? I mean --

MR. FLYNN: I would think so.

MR. LITT: We are in cross-examination. If we are

going to make use of them, we have to get them.

MR. FLYNN: I'll get that to you.

THE COURT: He'll try to accommodate you.

MR. LITT: The other matter was there was something

that Mr. Armstrong had written, a story, that we had discussed,

that was on the subject of Scientology. I think it was,

2176

but not using the name which you didn't make reference to,

Mr. Flynn.

I was curious about the status of that.

MR. FLYNN: I have the records of experiences with

the private investigators which we are going to Xerox; the

chronology of positions; that is what he sent to me. And

notes on his state of mind.

Is that what you are referring to?

MR. LITT: No. I thought --

THE COURT: What was it that you had made reference

to in general relating to what Mr. Litt is asking?

2177

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, in May 1982 I started to write

down what was going on in my mind regarding the paranoia and

the steps that I was going through at that time, and that

is what it is.

I gave it some time ago to Miss Dragojevic and

it is in her office somewhere, and I think she hasn't been

able to locate it as yet, but that is the one we are talking

about, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: Apparently Miss Dragojevic does have that,

Your Honor. We will seek to locate that.

THE COURT: Was there something else about a book that

you were writing?

THE WITNESS: No, I wasn't writing a book.

MR. LITT: I asked him -- my recollection is I asked

a question whether he had written anything that was possibly

for publication, whether it had been published or not, and

I thought he said that he had.

Is that the thing that he gave to Miss Dragojevic?

THE WITNESS: I mentioned there was a short thing which

I never completed. So, I never completed it. I never

intended it for publication.

MR. LITT: But it was, whether by name or not, dealing

with your view of your experience in Scientology?

THE WITNESS: It was the part that I had written at

that time I recall was only dealing with what was going on

at that time in my mind.

THE COURT: This is the same thing that you were talking

about that Miss Dragojevic has?

2178

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I will look for it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LITT: Are we ready to proceed?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)

BY MR. LITT:

Q Mr. Armstrong, with respect to, I'm not sure of

the exhibit number, but the last exhibit, the book

"Scientology, A World Religion Emerges in the Space Age,"

I don't recall for sure whether you actually had a chance

to a look at the book before we broke yesterday.

THE COURT: It is exhibit 23.

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't.

Q BY MR. LITT: Can you take a look at that and

just tell me if that is the book that you had reviewed and

had given to your parents and to the chief of police in your

home town?

A This is the book that I gave to them.

Q That is fine. You don't have to read it at the

moment. I just wanted to confirm that that was the book.

Now, Mr. Armstrong, as I understand it, it is

your testimony that you worked directly for L. Ron Hubbard

during all of your years in Scientology; is that right?

A Basically that is correct. He was the --

Q That is all.

2179

A Well, let me explain it more so that you get it

in the proper context.

Q Okay.

A You may be using "directly" in the sense that

there was nobody between him and me. I am using in the sense

that he was the person who could order anyone above me. No

one could order him.

There were times in which there were people

between us, but he was -- he was my senior, yes.

Q Well, perhaps I am confused. I thought your

testimony was more than that he was your senior. I thought

your testimony was that you worked for him and not the church;

isn't that right?

MR. FLYNN: Well --

THE COURT: You are talking about 13 years, counsel.

MR. LITT: Well, I think his testimony was that that

was the case throughout all the 13 years. That is what I

am trying clarify.

THE COURT: Your use of the word "directly" is

ambiguous. That is the problem.

2180

MR. LITT: Well, I'll rephrase the question.

Q Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Armstrong, but is

it your view that you worked for Mr. Hubbard as opposed to

working for the church throughout all your years in

Scientology?

THE COURT: The Church of California, do you mean, or

an amorphous body of the church?

MR. LITT: Any Church of Scientology.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR. LITT: So as far as you were aware, you

were never employed by any church; correct?

A What I knew regarding the employment was that

there were certain steps necessary in order to cover up the

fact of Mr. Hubbard's control. So I played along with that.

But I knew at all times that I was working for him and that

he controlled and that I -- the same as the Scottish Highland

Club; I really did not work for them, although on paper you

could say I did. A similar situation was what you called

"The Church."

Q So as far as you knew, in reality you never

worked for the church; correct?

A I worked for Mr. Hubbard; correct.

Q Now, let's take your first working experience

after leaving Canada which was the ship; as far as you knew

did the ship have any relationship to the Church of

Scientology of California or any other church?

A The only connection that I knew throughout the

time that I was on board was that we were in the Sea

2181

organization and that all Scientology was controlled from

on board the ship.

I did not know at that point of the subsequent

plan to make the ship a mission of the Church of Scientology

of California. I only learned of that connection in 1982.

Q Okay. So at some subsequent point you learned

information about the connection, but at the time your

testimony is that you didn't know about the connection?

A That is correct.

Q All right. Now, when you petitioned Mr. Hubbard

in January, 1980, can you take a look at exhibit F.

MR. FLYNN: Do you want me to use our copies of the

exhibits, or do you want to get each one out as we go through

it?

THE COURT: We can find it.

Here is exhibit F.

Are there any other exhibits you are going to

refer to so that the clerk can pull them?

MR. LITT: In the next sequence it would be exhibit f,

exhibit Y, exhibit AA.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: now, this petition is addressed

to Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And was it your intention at the time that you

wrote this petition to enter into a personal employment

contract with L. Ron Hubbard?

MR. FLYNN: I'll object, Your Honor.

2182

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. It is

ambiguous. Personal employment contract? I am not sure.

Like when you're in the movies and you have a personal

employment contract or what?

MR. LITT: No.

Was it your intention in writing this petition

to ask that Mr. Hubbard hire you personally to engage in this

activity?

A I never articulated it like that in my mind.

The way I perceived it was that I was requesting

to be able to do certain things which required his agreement.

And he was to do certain things.

I never articulated, as I said, that it was a

personal employment contract, but that I expected to do

those things if my petition was approved.

Q Well, what things did you say in your petition

to him that he was supposed to do other than to approve your

doing what you asked?

A That he was to be the line for verification of

data and approvals.

Q That was his obligation under this agreement that

you entered into with him?

A Yes.

And as he later stated in later communications,

"I did pursue that for awhile and I did send him information;

however he dropped out of sight and we could not then admit

to a line of communications. So it did not continue."

MR. LITT: I move to strike as nonresponsive.

2183

THE COURT: The letter is stricken as nonresponsive.

Q BY MR. LITT: In the second paragraph you say

to Mr. Hubbard, ". . .I feel it warrants a petition to you

because it entails research of your personal time track and

the person doing such would have to have your trust."

I take it from that that there are other things

that you did in your 13 years that didn't require such a

petition to Mr. Hubbard personally; is that right?

A Well, as I stated in here, this is the first time

that I had petitioned for a position, that I petitioned

Mr. Hubbard for anything. I did a number of things from my

first time on board the ship. I drove his cars and I assumed

that I --

MR. LITT: Move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE WITNESS: Well, I didn't petition any other time.

Q BY MR. LITT: That was not my question,

Mr. Armstrong.

A I am sorry.

2184

Q My question is I take it from the way that

you phrased that "I feel it warrants a petition to you,"

that there were a variety of other things that you did that

did not require any petition to Mr. Hubbard in your prior

11 years prior to writing this petition; right?

A That's correct.

Q And they didn't require Mr. Hubbard's trust;

correct?

A No, that is not correct.

Q Well, here, you say, don't you, that "The

person doing this would have to have your trust"?

A As opposed to, for example, someone who did

not already have Hr. Hubbard's trust.

Q Well, did you already not have his trust?

A I did have it.

Q Now on page 3 of the petition you say, "I

am requesting your approval on creating this post"; right?

A Yes.

Q Now isn't it a fact that all you were doing

was writing within Scientology to Mr. Hubbard getting his

approval for something that you wanted to do because it

affected him and that is all this petition was about?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, object to "within Scientology."

I think it is ambiguous.

THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection.

I assume the letter speaks for itself.

MR. LITT: We are going to his state of mind. He's

testified, Your Honor --

2185

THE COURT: Now, you don't need to argue with me.

If you want to read a clause, that is what he wrote. That

is there in black and white.

Q BY MR. LITT: All right. Now the response

that you got to this petition, Mr. Armstrong, basically

said, "This sounds like an excellent idea. Get with your

senior."

Did you at the time interpret this response

to be a contract between you -- to form a contract between

you and Mr. Hubbard; is that how you viewed it at the time?

A I never used in my mind that word, but I knew

in my mind that he had agreed to the points which I had

laid out.

2186

Q Yes, but you didn't think, did you, that you

had entered into a contract with him at the time?

MR. FLYNN: I am going to object. Calls for a legal

conclusion.

THE COURT: Argumentative; sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. LITT: Exhibit double A, Mr. Armstrong,

this is a document which if I recall your testimony correctly

referred to the fact that -- I am sorry, you were going

to send this document to a whole number of people, correct,

and that is why the two parts at the beginning is blank?

A Yes.

Q And it discusses your new position; correct?

A Yes.

Q Did you send it to a variety of people?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall who you sent it to?

A I... Sue Anderson in Clearwater, Ken

Urquhart in Clearwater, Jim Isaacson in Los Angeles.

Sue Anderson was the LRH pers PRO international.

Ken Urquhart was the former personal communicator. Jim

Isaacson was then pers sec US -- or pers sec PAC, the Pacific

area.

I sent it to, I believe, David Gaiman and

Sheila Gaiman who were the Guardian Worldwide and the Deputy

Guardian for public relations worldwide.

There were a number of other people whose

names and posts I don't recall at this time.

Q First let me ask you a question. Guardian

2187

Worldwide, was the Guardian Worldwide an employee of

Mr. Hubbard's, too, as you understood it?

A When you say "employee of Mr. Hubbard's,"

do you mean was he working as I was working specifically

for Mr. Hubbard and directly working for him personally?

Q Is that what you mean when you say that you

were an employee of Mr. Hubbard?

A Right. I tried to explain this.

Q Well, then, --

A During --

Q Was the Guardian Worldwide an employee of

Mr. Hubbard?

A I would say less than I was.

Q But also the Guardian Worldwide was an employee

of Mr. Hubbard as you understood it?

A The Guardian Worldwide was under Mr. Hubbard,

subject to his orders.

Q And therefore in your mind as you see it,

an employee of Mr. Hubbard but not as direct an employee

as you?

A Right, ultimately, yes.

Q And the Deputy Guardian of Public Relations

Worldwide, he was also an employee?

A Ultimately --

Q She, Mr. Harris says she. I am not sure,

but whatever.

A They considered themselves employed by, I

don't know. They were subject to his orders.

2188

Q But you considered them. We are going to

know how you understand this.

As you understand it, they were employees

of Mr. Hubbard?

A I understand that there was a distinct

differentiation between the degree of employment and the

fact that I was working on his personal matters.

2189

A I was not having anything whatsoever to do with

the organization. I used organizational communication lines

just like Mr. Hubbard did, but I worked only for him and only

on his personal matters.

So there was in my mind a differentiation between

the types of duties that I had when I was in his household

unit and when I was in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard

as opposed to the types of duties that a Guardian's office

personnel may have who didn't even see Mr. Hubbard.

Q Was everybody who was in the Sea organization

an employee of Mr. Hubbard?

MR. FLYNN: When, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Well, I assume at the time they were in

Sea Orgs.

MR. LITT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Do you mean were they subject to his

orders? Did they work for him? Did they think they were

working for him? Then, yes.

Q BY MR. LITT: So it is your testimony that

everybody that was in the Sea Org thought that they were

employees of Mr. Hubbard, at least as you understood it?

A Again, there are degrees of this. And there are

degrees of the whole fraud.

But those who are closest to Mr. Hubbard,

obviously, were his employees; those who were further away,

I don't know what they thought. They were subject to his

orders; they thought they worked for him.

Q They didn't think they worked for any church,

2190

any of these people, as far as in your experience; right?

A They may have also thought that. But no one was

senior to L. Ron Hubbard within what you call the church.

If Mr. Hubbard was not a part of the church and

they took orders from him, then they worked for L. Ron

Hubbard.

Q Do you have something that says that L. Ron

Hubbard is not connected to the Church of Scientology? Were

you told that L. Ron Hubbard had no connection to the church?

A No. I was --

Q You have answered my question.

Now, at some point, Mr. Armstrong, while you

were holding your archivist position you worked on something

called a "LRH biography plan"; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And this was something to be issued that would

describe this plan and what it was to do; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And it was to be issued as an executive directive

or, at least, that was the plan; that it would be issued as

an executive directive from the central office of LRH?

A Yes.

Q And did you draft the initial version of that

petition -- I'm sorry -- that directive?

A My recollection is that I had some input into

it.

Laurel also was a major contributor to that

executive directive.

2191

Q It was written by you and Laurel jointly?

A Yes.

Q In that directive you set some targets; is that

right?

A Yes.

Q And these were targets as to what the biography

plan was supposed to do; is that right?

A At least part of it, yes.

Q I'm trying to get a copy so I can show it to

Mr. Armstrong. But we seem to be having some difficulty

here.

MR. FLYNN: I was going to mark this and I overlooked

it.

MR. HARRIS: Good. Then it served everybody's purpose.

2192

MR. FLYNN: That is our only copy, too.

MR. LITT: That is what, Mr. Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: Apparently what you gave me in the middle

of the examination.

MR. LITT: Let me just make sure that is a copy of

that. Let me make sure you are getting the right thing.

May this be marked as plaintiff's next in

order?

THE COURT: 24 for identification.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Armstrong, the worthwhile

purpose that is listed on this document which is on the

first page under primary targets to is, "To bring about

greatly increased acceptances of LRH and demand for his products

and create goodwill with all LRH, GO and Scientology

publications"; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now that was a target that was primarily aimed

at Scientology; isn't that right?

A This -- the whole document here is -- what

was written and included the various parts of the Scientology

network who would be involved, and all the targets directly

concerned these people in addition to the LRH personnel

who were involved.

The other part of this thing, of the whole

overall project did not have to be included because here

we are issuing targets to people within the whole Scientology

network.

Q Well, the Scientology network, as you say,

2193

that is the various churches and other Scientology organizations;

correct?

A Right.

Q And this document sets up targets for and

activities for a variety of Church of Scientology posts

as to what they should be doing with respect to this biography

claim; correct?

A That is correct.

Q And it makes reference to the -- on page 2

in discussing who has responsibility for what, makes reference

to the LRH pers PRO International. That is Laurel; is that

correct?

A No.

Q That was somebody under Laurel?

A Yes.

Q And that person's job, according to this,

was "to coordinate source missions and PR exploitation to

staff."

Is that Scientology staff, Church of Scientology

staff?

A I think -- did you leave out an earlier part;

"coordinate source missions and PR exploitations to staff"?

Q No, I read that, but I am asking you about

the word "staff."

A Right.

Q That is Church of Scientology staff; right?

A Probably is Church of Scientology.

Q Okay.

2194

A Church of Scientology staff, Scientology Missions

International staff, missions staff, Guardian's office staff,

that sort of thing.

Q And "to reach Scientologists in general";

right?

A That is what comes after "staff," yes.

Q And "new public" meaning new people to be

attracted to Scientology; correct?

A It could mean that. It could mean Mr. Hubbard's

public. Within the LRH pers PRO International Bureau, there

was a pers PRO for staff. In other words, the person who

represented Mr. Hubbard to the staff of Scientology organizations

and they -- that person was in charge of coordinating the

source missions. Source missions were briefings on Mr. Hubbard.

Those were continually given and that would be the action in

the use of the book to staff.

Mr. Hubbard would be PR'd through this new

biography to staff and Scientologists.

Q And it was always considered within Scientology

that whatever promoted Mr. Hubbard's public image, promoted

Scientology; is that correct?

A I guess -- the two were continually linked, so,

yes.

Q Now, this document that you drafted, I don't

notice that it has Mr. Hubbard's name on it at the end; can you

look at the last page?

A Yes.

Q It says "Senior Pers PRO Researcher and Senior

2195

Pers PRO"; that is you and Laurel; right?

A Yes.

Q "Authorized by AVC INT."

A Yes.

Q And AVC INT, what is that?

A AVC INT was -- my recollection is that that was

Julia Watson at that time.

A I am not asking who it is. What does it stand for

first?

A It is Authorizations and Verifications, and I am

not sure what the C is, but in any case they were Authori-

zation and Verification Unit, and were in the personal office

of L. Ron Hubbard, and I believe then it was Julia Watson but I

am not sure.

2196

Q And then the Watch Dog Committee, was that in

the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?

A Well, the Watch Dog Committee was in the --

Q You didn't answer my question.

Right now I am just asking you if it was in the

personal office of L. Ron Hubbard.

A I need to explain the personal office of L. Ron

Hubbard for you to realize that there are two separate

sections to it. And it is -- I can't answer it with a yes

or no.

Q Are the boards of directors of the Churches of

Scientology in California that is the last at the bottom of

this document, are they part of the personal office of

L. Ron Hubbard?

MR. FLYNN: Does this call for a legal conclusion?

MR. LITT: I'm asking him his understanding.

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: He has answered.

Q BY MR. LITT: So this was a document written

ultimately on behalf of various boards of directors of the

Churches of Scientology; is that what you understood it to

be? Is that correct?

A No.

Q But you and Laurel did write it up this way for

the boards of directors of the Churches of Scientology, did

you?

A When you say "for the boards of directors," it

is likely that we put this in here that we wrote for the

2197

boards of directors for the Churches of Scientology.

If you mean did we write it for the boards, no.

These documents did not go to any boards of directors

anywhere.

We all knew that this was a standard step which

went to the bottom, standard statement to remove --

Q Go on.

A -- the control from Mr. Hubbard. The document

was, in fact, approved by Mary Sue Hubbard because it involved

the Guardian's office and it was approved by WDC, Watch Dog

Committee.

Watch Dog Committee was the body who acted for

Mr. Hubbard and who had been in control of Scientology under

Mr. Hubbard since 1978.

Q Okay. Now, in carrying out your post of

researcher -- that is what it was called at this time, right,

researcher?

A It was called at various times various things,

archivist, researcher. Those were the main two designations.

Q When you sent your February 3rd letter to the

controller, do you recall that? That is already into

evidence.

A Yes.

Q That is addressed -- the controller was a

Scientology post; is that correct?

A She was a Scientologist. She had control of

Scientology organizations. You could call it a Scientology

post.

2198

Q So were all of the people who worked in the

Guardian's office, as you understood it, Mary Sue Hubbard

and L. Ron Hubbard's employees?

A I think that you have to go back to what I said

before. And it depended to the degree they were their

employees, the degree that they worked directly for them.

Ultimately, yes, they were.

Q So the people, all of the people who --

There was a Controller's office; right? Do you

know anything about that?

A Yes.

Q And there were various Controller assistants for

different areas; correct?

A Yes.

Q And those -- there were communicators and

secretaries and the Controller assistants had aides; correct?

A Yes.

Q And all of these people were the -- as you

understood it, were the personal employees of L. Ron and

Mary Sue Hubbard or just Mary Sue Hubbard?

A Let me explain. Ultimately they were the

employees of L. Ron Hubbard.

The further you got away from L. Ron Hubbard,

the less they became the personal employees; how far those

people were removed from that, I don't know; how far they

were in their own minds, I don't know.

Q Now, in your capacity as a researcher did you

have contact with a variety of people who were, as you

2199

understood it, Church of Scientology staff as opposed to what

you say you were?

A I had contact with Scientologists on all levels

in many, many organizations.

Q Okay. Did you have any contact with the

Guardian's office at Worldwide in connection with the

biography?

A Yes.

Q And showing you --

May this be marked next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. 25.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, for the record, we had requested

the production of all correspondence with Omar Garrison.

This was never produced.

MR. LITT: This was not between Mr. Armstrong and Omar

Garrison.

THE COURT: Let's go forward.

2200

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize

this document?

A It could be one that I received from -- a copy

of it, at least, I received from Sheila Gaiman. If this is

not it, I received something which contained similar

information.

Q Okay. Now, on page 2 -- this is a letter

between Sheila Gaiman -- what post did she hold?

A I believe she was a deputy guardian or at least

the temporary deputy guardian for PR Worldwide at that time

in the Guardian's office.

Q And this is a letter between -- well, from her

to Mr. Garrison in reference to he biography; correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, Ms. Gaiman was -- she had a Church of

Scientology of California position at that time; right?

A I didn't think of her in terms of Church of

Scientology of California.

Q Well, you thought of her in terms of Church of

Scientology Worldwide?

A I thought of her in terms of the Guardian's

office Worldwide.

Q Well, you thought that the Guardian's office was

a part of one church or another; didn't you?

A I thought it was part of the overall network of

Scientology. Some years later I learned that they were a

part corporately of the Church of Scientology of California,

but then I had no idea.

2201

Q In April 1980 you had no idea?

A Right.

Q June 1980.

Now, on page 2 in discussing with Mr. Garrison

how he will receive research materials she says, "There is a

particular research terminal assigned to this biography."

That is you; right?

A Okay.

Q Is that right? Was that your understanding of

what she meant?

A Yes, uh-huh.

Q And, in fact, she said that she would arrange

for Garrison to meet you; isn't that right, on page 3?

A Yes.

Q So your first meeting with Mr. Garrison was

arranged and coordinated by Sheila Gaiman, Deputy Guardian

of Public Relations Worldwide; correct? That is how it came

about?

A Well, I don't quite understand what you mean by

that, that overall picture.

Sheila never made any arrangements for me.

Sheila knew Garrison. Garrison was going to be there at a

certain time.

I made all the arrangements at my end. I sent a

communication to Mary Sue and had the CMO on SU approve all

the money. Sheila never made those arrangements.

Q Sheila was the one who was dealing at that point

with Mr. Garrison and she arranged -- she was the one who

2202

said to Mr. Garrison, "I will arrange for you to meet with

this research terminal"; right?

A I guess she wrote it in the letter.

Q All right, that's all.

Now, let's take a look at the agreement,

exhibit G.

MR. FLYNN: Was that marked, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, 25.

MR. LITT: This is your exhibit -- that one is

marked 25.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, you recognize this document.

This is an agreement between Mr. Garrison and HUBS-DK;

correct?

A Yes.

Q And at paragraph 10-B, take a look at that.

That is on page 3.

A Okay.

Q It says, "The publisher shall use its best

efforts to provide author with an office, an office

assistant and/or research assistant" et cetera; correct?

A Yes.

Q Were you as you understood it the research

assistant to be provided by the publisher?

THE COURT: Well, are you asking him now or are you

asking if he knew at that time or if he had any knowledge

about what this contract was at that time?

Q BY MR. LITT: Well, you saw this contract at the

time; didn't you?

2203

A Yes. Q And you were the archivist at the time; right?

A Yes.

Q And did you review the contract at the time?

A I believe that I saw it at the time. I did not

at that point have a copy and I did not read it over in

depth.

Q Well, was there ever any in the year 1980 other

research assistant for Mr. Garrison provided to Mr. Garrison

in connection with the biography project other than you?

A No.

Q All right, and was it your understanding that

this contract which had been entered into called for the

fact that Mr. Garrison would be given research help and you

were that research help?

A Well, what my understanding was was that there

was a second contract and the second contract was between

PDK and Mr. Hubbard.

2204

MR. LITT: I object and move to strike. This is

completely nonresponsive.

Q I'm asking you about your understanding.

THE COURT: He is explaining what his understanding

is.

Let's have the question read back.

(The question was read.)

THE COURT: Well, it is a compound question. I guess

that is the problem; it is a compound question.

Q BY MR. LITT: Was it your understanding that

under this contract Mr. Garrison was to get an assistant in

researching the biography?

MR. FLYNN: This contract, or the overall contractual

picture?

THE COURT: Exhibit G.

Did you have such an understanding at the time?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the understanding that I had

was that this was a part of it and that there's another

contract and another set of agreements between PDK and

Mr. Hubbard which include the provision of the researcher

which I was. And that this referred to that. But that there

was going to be a second agreement; that is what I understood

from Laurel and Mr. Wertheimer at that time.

Q BY MR. LITT: You understood there were some

proposals for a second agreement; is that correct?

A I understood --

Q You didn't think that there had been any signed

2205

second agreement when you saw this agreement, did you?

A Well, I knew there couldn't be because we

couldn't admit to any communications with Mr. Hubbard. So

I had been the researcher even prior to this contract. I

had been performing the same function.

In fact, prior to the signing of the contract

I had already prepared an office for Mr. Garrison.

Q I know, I'm just -- really, I'm just --

Did you understand that the contract, this

contract, called for providing research help to Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, it has also been our contention

that this contract," to use Mr. Litt's language, includes

within it the contractual proposals that are set forth in

the Wertheimer letter and that Mr. Hubbard was the most

essential party to that contract.

THE COURT: It is obvious that this person had no

direct communications with PDK or whatever. We all know

contracts which say things that are not necessarily accurate.

The document speaks for itself, for whatever it

is worth.

Q BY MR. LITT: And you were to -- and you in fact

were the researcher who assisted Mr. Garrison; correct?

A Up to a particular point at which time there was

another person who became involved.

Q When was that?

A In the fall of 1981.

Q Okay. So up to the fall of 1981 you were the

2206

person; correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, did --

Could the witness be handed exhibits 7 and 8?

THE COURT: Very well.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, this document, exhibit No. 7,

Mr. Armstrong, at page 2 it discusses the fact that CSC is

willing to provide certain things to Mr. Garrison including

an office space for him to work in the Cedars Complex;

complete access to archives and records of Mr. Hubbard and

an assistant to assist Mr. Garrison; do you see those

references?

A Okay.

Q Now, all of those things were done; is that

correct?

Mr. Garrison was provided an office in the Cedars

Complex?

A Yes, up to a certain point he had an office.

After a particular point, he no longer had one.

Q And a variety of archival materials and records

were provided to Mr. Garrison?

A No. This isn't quite true.

The CSC archives and records on LRH were not

provided and some were provided sometime later.

Mr. Vaughn Young was able to obtain access to

those, but the CSC archives were never made available. I

did not have access to them; Mr. Garrison did not have access

to them. And we were able to obtain a small bit of

2207

information which included the FOI documents mentioned here

from Vaughn Young.

Q We'll come back to more discussion of that.

An assistant, you, was provided to Mr. Garrison?

A It mentions an assistant. I never received or

was told about this communication or plan.

I knew about the other information which was that

Mr. Hubbard was to provide research help.

Q All right. But, again, there was no other

assistant provided other than you; is that right?

A Mr. Young was provided in the fall of 1981.

Q All right. And this board minute, which is

exhibit No. 8, which --

A You left off No. 4.

Q That's all right. I'm not asking you any

questions about No. 4 at the moment. It is not relevant to

what I'm asking about.

A Okay.

Q And this board minute, adopting it, you never

saw that or, did you see that?

A I never saw it at the time. I saw it sometime

later.

It was produced in a deposition by the

organization.

Q Now, let's turn to exhibit J.

Do you recognize this document?

A Yes.

Q This is this October 15, 1980 communication

2208

addressed to Controller that you have testified about

before?

A Yes.

Q And the copy, again, that you had, you obtained

that from Mr. Garrison?

A I am not sure. My recollection is that it was

produced by the organization at a deposition, but --

Q We have checked our records and that appears not

to be the case.

Does that help to refresh your recollection?

A Okay. If that is not the case, then, it was

amongst the materials given to me by Mr. Garrison.

2209

Q All right, and when would you have given this to

Mr. Garrison at the time?

A Sometime in -- probably in 1981, later in the

year 1981.

Q At some point in 1981 did you copy up a whole

set of your files that were International files and give

them to Mr. Garrison?

A No, just when the subject -- we were trying to

sort out the biography contract and the problems that we

were having because we ran into a real bug, you'd call it,

when we found out that PUBS-DK, with whom I was in

communication, did not know of the existence of the

contract, and I couldn't find anyone who knew anything about

it who was on what you call "on-line" at that time because

the people had been -- the hierarchy of the Guardian's

office had been removed by the CMO in the summer of 1981,

and we ran into a great deal of problem.

So, in trying to sort this out, in trying to

assist Mr. Garrison to prepare the contract and even to get

him the money which was owed him at that time, $2,500, I

gave him a lot of materials so that we could understand what

had gone on through that period.

Q All right, and this document is the document

that you --

A That which?

Q This is the one that you say that you sent on

October 15, 1980; is that correct?

A Yes.

2210

Q And you said you got an answer but you don't

have the answer; was that your testimony?

A Yes. My recollection is that I got an answer

and I don't believe it was very long. It was just an

acknowledgement of it. It certainly would have registered

in my mind if I had not gotten an answer. I would have

written again and asked her again if she had received it

because it was such a massive letter and contained so many

things. I am very positive that I got an answer.

Q Now in this document on page 4 it says, you are

discussing the fact that you have been traveling around,

finding various materials and actually you start the

discussion on page 3.

You say, "Situation A. It appears the various

churches around are either doing nothing about it or are

giving away their valuable artifacts."

Do you see that on page 3?

A Yes.

Q And then you have a long discussion that goes

through page 4. Aren't these proposals that you are making

about the church and what the churches should do with

respect to these materials?

A Yes.

Q And you are making a variety of recommendations

about how the various church organizations should handle

these materials; correct?

A Okay.

Q And you are making them to Mrs. Hubbard who was

2211

the controller, but you are making them actually to the

controller post; right? It wasn't a personal communication

to Mary Sue; right? It was a communication to her post?

A Well, I think you will find that part of the

communication could only have been made to her. If it had

been to someone else and not her on the post, I think I

wouldn't have written what I did, especially in the

beginning.

Q Okay, but in this section you would have written

it; wouldn't you?

A Perhaps. I'd have to really think of that one.

While I was traveling around doing the biography

project, I came across other situations which I alerted

people within the organization about, and this was part of

it. There is no way that I could from where I was take care

of all the situations in the organization, but at least at

that point had become aware of the existence of some of this

early material which I considered then had historical value,

and I tried to inform the proper people of that.

Additionally, I picked up materials which I did

not need for the biography, but which in liaison with Tom

Vorm, who had possession of the technical or policy

materials and the tapes which were technical materials, I

picked those up.

It was because I was there. It wasn't because

it was my job.

Q In any event, you were writing about

various churches should do; correct?

2212

A Yes.

Q And let me just go back to clear up one thing.

Do you have any idea when you would have

received a response to this communication? I take it it

would have been somewhat close to the date?

A It would have been, yes, shortly after that.

Q Let me show you a document --

Your Honor, I'm going to use the original on

this and then ask to substitute.

I have a document here which seems to be an

identical copy of this exhibit except that it is dated

October 31. It has white-out on it. It has some other

white-out on it.

Do you recognize that document, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

2213

Q It is -- comparing it --

Could this be marked next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: 26 for identification.

Q BY MR. LITT: Comparing it to exhibit 26 -- I'm

sorry -- comparing exhibit 26 to exhibit J, there is white out

at the top of the first paragraph; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And there is white out next to the date after

the 15; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And could you look at the back? Can you see a

15?

A Yes.

Q On the back?

A Yes.

Q Mr. Armstrong, did you do this white out?

A Probably did.

Q Okay.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, for the record, this was never

produced either. And it was requested; nor was it listed

on the exhibit list.

MR. LITT: Exhibits in examination don't have to be

listed, Mr. Flynn.

THE COURT: What was the comment?

MR. LITT: Well, Mr. Armstrong is still examining it.

THE COURT: No; your comment that something doesn't

have to be listed.

MR. LITT: Exhibits that may have to come up in the

2214

cross-examination of defense, we don't know what we may have

to use until the testimony is in.

THE COURT: What is this document anyway?

MR. LITT: This is a document that was an identical

copy that was recently located in the files after

Mr. Armstrong had testified about this October 15th letter.

That is an identical copy of that, apparently, an original

that was still in his file with a changed -- different date

than this copy. And it appears that it remained in his

file.

THE COURT: Well, let's go ahead and see what happens.

Q BY MR. LITT: You made this change, is that

correct, Mr. Armstrong?

A My recollection that this was sent to Laurel;

whatever date. And Laurel requested that I put these

materials in.

The reason -- this is something that I often

did was -- I did not have a correcting typewriter. And my

copies were often very messy like this. So I wouldn't have

sent --

Down here you can see by the back thing here,

which in fact it is a paste-up. And I would not have sent

Mrs. Hubbard this sort of a paste-up. I would have Xeroxed

this and sent her a good Xeroxed copy.

Q So you would have sent this to her --

Is it now your testimony that it is the

October 31 version that you sent to her?

A Now I am more positive than ever that I did get

2215

a response and that this, at the beginning -- I sent this;

Laurel sent it back to me.

THE COURT: You say "I sent this"; refer to the letter

or number, please.

Q BY MR. LITT: This is No. 26 --

THE COURT: He also has an exhibit J?

MR. LITT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is routed --

THE COURT: Not "this."

THE WITNESS: -- Exhibit J is routed by the Senior Pers

PRO.

Laurel asked me to change it and say why I was

sending it. Hence, I added these -- I changed the

introduction at Laurel's request.

This doesn't have --

Q BY MR. LITT: "This" being what?

A Exhibit J does not have on the back of it this

proposed archives issue which I was proposing. And by the

state of it, I would not have sent this this way because it

was a paste-up. I would have made a good Xerox and sent it

in in that manner.

Q So it is now your testimony that this October 15th

document which is exhibit J was sent on October 15th to Laurel

who sent it back to you and said, "Redo it"?

A That is correct. That is my best recollection.

I am very positive.

Q And you took the original of that, correct?

Because this is, presumably, the original, "this" being

2216

exhibit 26, since it has the whited out 15 that you can see

on the back and is now dated 31 October?

A Yes.

2217

Q You took the original and you changed it after

Laurel returned it to you?

A Yes.

Q Correct?

A Yes, and then I Xeroxed that and sent her the

Xerox which would be nice and neat and not a whited-out

mess.

Q And it is now your testimony that it is to the

October 31, document that you got a response?

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if there are any more

documents that haven't been produced, you are dealing with

years of documentation in this organization and obviously

transfer of documents and command lines in the organization,

if there are any such documents that Mr. Litt intends to use

in this examination, I think he should produce them.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, with respect to production,

there was a lot of discovery back and forth in this case.

There were things produced. There were things that the

church took the position were not relevant to the case if

there were not motions to compel made and rulings that they

should be produced.

I mean you can't say as an abstract, "Produce."

There is no order of this court with respect to discovery

what was not obeyed. I was not involved in most of that

because I was not representing the church at that time, and

we have tried to find what we can after hearing

Mr. Armstrong's testimony. I don't see that there is

2218

anything the least bit wrong with what is going on.

We have received a lot of things that we had no

idea that Mr. Armstrong had that were not on the exhibit

list and that we had no idea of.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, the court has tried to permit

both parties to have the benefit of in-trial discovery

production, so you can produce whatever else you have got,

Mr. Litt and Mr. Harris, too, of what you are going to use

and that is the order of the court.

MR. LITT: I just want to understand the order.

Is this anything that we are presently

planning --

THE COURT: Yes, in the cross-examination of this

witness.

MR. LITT: Okay. We can get that together at the

break.

THE COURT: All right. We will take a break now for

15 minutes.

(Recess.)

2219

THE COURT: We are back in session.

MR. HARRIS: Could I address the court before the

witness resumes the stand, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. HARRIS: As you know from my belated appearance,

I don't have a great familiarity with the files; however,

I did check the discovery requests briefly.

On September 8, 1983, at least the date that is

stamped at the top the defendant and cross-complainant

request for production of documents item No. 20 -- I don't

know if I want to read it all, but, essentially, it asks

for originals and copies of any and all correspondence

concerning the biography project and/or the L. Ron Hubbard

archives to or from any of the following individuals, and

then there is a whole list of people, apparently:

Then counsel objected which is Mr. Peterson on

a date, 8 November, 1983 to No. 20:

"Object. This request is overly

broad, burdensome, and to a great extent

irrelevant; however, plaintiff has located

and is prepared to provide for inspection

certain materials which are relevant to the

suit and would constitute correspondence of

the nature requested."

2220

There was no inspection by the other side.

However, we will have Mr. Peterson here at 1:30

if the court desires.

THE COURT: No. All I want to do is see that they get

these exhibits so they can prepare. We don't have to spend

a lot of time spinning our wheels and wasting time so we can

go forward.

I have been here a couple of weeks already. As

I indicated yesterday, I am not going to spend the rest of

my life on this case. In fact, I don't expect to spend that

much more time although you are going to have an adequate

time to cross-examine, and I don't know how many more

witnesses the defense will present. But the point is I

don't see any reason to get bogged down in things which are

going to come out anyway, and that is the purpose of the

trial is to determine, try to find out what the truth was or

is, and not a game, and that is my approach to this.

MR. HARRIS: That is mine as well, Your Honor.

We will do all that we can.

THE COURT: Okay, fine. Let's continue with

Mr. Armstrong.

Please retake the stand, sir.

MR. LITT: While Mr. Armstrong is taking the stand, we

have provided a set of documents to Mr. Flynn. I am not yet

certain because I didn't have a chance to go through

everything that it is everything, but we will at the lunch

break try to continue a review and bring additional

materials.

2221

THE COURT: Fine. I appreciate that, Mr. Litt.

Please state your name again for the record,

sir. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Armstrong, when you were

in Scientology, was it considered a matter of prestige to be

connected to Mr. Hubbard?

A I think that it probably depended on the

individual, the degree, but I think that it was an asset

being connected with him, yes.

Q In fact, people would, if anything, tend to use

his name in a variety of contexts as sort of authority

because his name carried a great deal of weight; correct?

A If you mean would they say that they had orders

from him when they didn't or he had told them something when

he hadn't, I think not because to fake an order was a very

serious offense in Scientology and to later be found out by

Mr. Hubbard would be deemed to be a serious offense.

I can't recall someone faking such a thing other

than pursuant to Mr. Hubbard's orders.

Q I am not asking you about faking a thing. All I

am asking you is people would, where the conditions allowed,

use his name because if it was associated with Mr. Hubbard,

it would get done faster and people would sort of snap to,

so to speak; right?

THE COURT: If you know.

THE WITNESS: Right. By association, where I was in

the organization --

2222

Q BY MR. LITT: I am not asking about you in

particular. I am just asking about your general impression

overall.

A Right. I am trying to explain that.

By association was not enough. An order from

Mr. Hubbard was sufficient to get something done on a very

speedy basis, but not just by saying that you were

associated in some way. I hope that answers it.

2223

Q Well, you got a lot of things done because of

the post that you held that dealt with Mr. Hubbard's archives;

right?

A Well, I was able to do what I did throughout

those two years because of the approval of Mr. Hubbard of

my petition.

Q Well, how many people in the organization had

seen to that? Did all of the people that you have sent all

of these communications to, had they seen that, or did they

just know that you were a researcher collecting LRH materials

and that was important? Wasn't that what you understood

what their knowledge pretty much was?

A Each person who was in a position of power that

I had to deal with knew that Mr. Hubbard had approved the

position.

Q I'm not talking about just positions of power.

THE COURT: The whole thing is a compound question the

way you have phrased it. You can get any kind of an answer.

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

Q You had communications throughout the organization;

correct?

A Yes.

Q At many different levels where you needed to get

something, needed help with something in the course of these

two years; right?

A Yes.

Q And many of these people, as far as you knew,

hadn't been sent a copy of your petition or directly informed

2224

of your petition; right?

A I --

MR. FLYNN: Again, Your Honor, it is compound, but I

hate to keep making needless objections.

THE COURT: Well, if the witness can answer it, he may

do so.

THE WITNESS: I'm trying to think of any particular

person who would be in a position like that with whom I had

communications who I would not have had to tell that sort

of thing.

When I was dealing with, for example, the people

who assisted in the setting up of the office for Mr. Garrison,

there I liaised with organization people doing -- who

installed the carpet and painted the walls, that sort of

thing. And I was able to do that simply because of the

altitude that I had as a result of working for Mr. Hubbard.

I never had to explain that he had approved my

petition.

Q Okay. Fine. Now, in doing your work did you

get a car at some point?

A I did get a car at some point.

Q When you say in doing my work, it is not quite

that way. I was able to obtain the car not directly in

connection with the biography project, but as a result of

Mr. Hubbard's order regarding the Nobel Prize project; that

unlimited Scientology funds were to be allocated for that

project.

It was on the basis of that order from Mr. Hubbard

2225

that I submitted a proposal for the purchase of the car which

was also used on the biography project which was used by

MCCS.

But the initial order which paved the way for

the purchase of the car was the unlimited funds allocated

to get the Nobel Prize. I was also working on that project

at the time. So that is how I got the car.

Q Now, the car that you used in connection with

the biography work, had that been paid for by the Church

of Scientology of California as far as you knew?

A I don't know. It came from -- the way I

understood the finances worked, was the special unit, which

then was in Gilman Hot Springs, received a lump sum per month

from what it called SOR, Sea Org Reserves. And it was from

those Sea Org Reserves monies that I obtained the car.

Q And the Sea org Reserves monies, did you know

what they were? Did you know whether they were Church of

Scientology of California, or Mr. Hubbard's, or something

else's?

A My understanding was Sea Org Reserves contained

the monies from all Scientology sources internationally

except for those that were designated RRF or except for those

that were maintained in the local organizations' accounts.

So they had operating expenses. There was --

this was GO accounts in addition to Sea Org Reserves. Sea

Org Reserves was the biggest.

Q Did you think Sea Org Reserves was Mr. Hubbard's

personal money?

2226

A Well --

MR. FLYNN: At what point in time, Your Honor?

MR. LITT: During the archives period.

THE COURT: What is meant by "personal money"?

MR. LITT: Did he think it was Mr. Hubbard's money as

opposed to money that belonged to one or another church.

THE WITNESS: My understanding was that Mr. Hubbard

could order whatever he wanted done with that money; whether

or not that made it his personal money, that is really hard

to say.

I think that he acted as if it was his personal

money. It probably wasn't his personal money.

2227

Q And the funds that came to set up your archives

project you knew came from Sea Org Reserves?

A Yes. Well, let me say that was my

understanding. Sea Org Reserves simply sent an amount of

money monthly to the Special Unit which was controlled by

WDC, Watchdog Committee, which was the committee under

Mr. Hubbard who controlled Scientology internationally.

The disbursements at the outset of the biography

project simply came to me from the treasury in what was

called the HKU, the Housekeeping Unit, and the person who

disbursed them was Gary Press, and Gary -- and the

Housekeeping Unit was the service unit attached to the CMO

International CMO International, then the smaller body

within CMO International, WDC, was the group which under

Hubbard controlled Scientology.

Later on I was asked to shift the --

Q I am going to -- you are not answering my

question, Mr. Armstrong.

A Well, you asked me about Sea Org Reserve.

Q There is no question pending.

A I don't know if I completely answered your

question, Mr. Litt.

Q That's all right.

Now, did you know or did you believe at the time

that Sea Org Reserves belonged to the Church of Scientology

of California?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the last question was similar

to this one with regard to what the witness believed and he

2228

was not permitted to give the completion to his answer as to

what he believed, so if the question is going to be this

broad, then I would submit that Mr. Armstrong should be

allowed to complete it.

THE COURT: Well, it is a compound question. Did you

know or did you believe. There are two different ideas

involved.

You can ask him what his belief was. You can

ask him what he knew. We are talking about what he knew of

his own personal knowledge.

MR. LITT: Right. The question was "belief." I am

sorry.

Q Did you belief that Sea Org Reserves belonged to

the Church of Scientology of California?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I believe if I can interject

here just so the court will know in the future, I believe

this is going to become a major issue on MCCS. If Mr. Litt

is now waiving any --

THE COURT: When does MCCS go into effect? When was

the date on that?

MR. LITT: Begins in early 1980.

MR. FLYNN: And runs throughout the period of the

biography project, and the purpose of MCCS --

THE COURT: You have made your point.

Do you want to ask your question?

MR. LITT: No, if it came during MCCS, no.

THE COURT: You were asking about his belief.

Did your belief or knowledge come from what you

2229

learned through MCCS?

THE WITNESS: Part of MCCS, and part outside of MCCS.

My understanding of Sea Org Reserves --

MR. LITT: That is all right. I will withdraw the

question.

THE COURT: It is withdrawn.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, the moneys -- you traveled

around and purchased a variety of materials while you were

in the archives post; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And do you remember some of the things you

purchased? You purchased a set of Helen O'Brien letters;

right?

A Yes.

Q And did you purchase any John Campbell letters?

A I don't believe so.

Q You obtained them and made copies of them?

A Correct.

Q And what other things did you purchase, just

roughly?

A I purchased a number of tapes, a number of early

publications. I purchased a number of letters and

correspondence. This would be from Barbara Snader.

Those are principally -- well, there was another

group of materials from A. E. Van Vogt that I also purchased

around that time. It included tapes and early publications.

Q And were the moneys for all of those from the

Sea Org Reserves?

2230

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: I consider that to be the same type of

question, Your Honor, with regard to MCCS.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FLYNN: As Your Honor is going to find out from

the testimony of Laurel Sullivan

THE COURT: Well, I don't know what I am going to find

out or what I am not going to find out, but counsel is

asking the questions. He's answered and in due course we

will get around to something else.

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, can you take a look

at exhibit II?

THE COURT: That is from aboard ship, obviously.

Q BY MR. LITT: This is your letter to Cirrus of

November 25, 1981 that you have already testified about;

right?

A Yes.

Q On page 5 the bottom paragraph, second sentence

says:

"If this" referring to how you

are performing your duty -- "is unsatisfactory

and I should not be on the project with this

viewpoint, please let me know right away."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Now, Cirrus worked in the CMO; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q I take it from this that it was your

2231

understanding when you wrote this letter that the CMO had

the power to determine whether or not you should be on the

project?

A Well, in a sense, yes. In a sense, no, but in a

sense, yes.

Q Well, you said that if Cirrus or whoever worked

with Cirrus didn't consider your work satisfactory, then you

should be told so that a replacement can be arranged; right?

A Yes.

2232

Q So they could have made the determination that

your work wasn't satisfactory; right?

A Yes.

Q And they could have told you you shouldn't

continue on this project; right?

A They could do that.

Q And if they had done that, you would not have

continued on this project; right?

A Without all the support needed, it would have

been virtually impossible.

I had no line of communication to L. Ron Hubbard

at that time. They were acting for him.

Q So if they had said you are gone, you would have

been gone?

A I would have been RPF'd or dead, if they said

that.

Q And you would have been removed from post if they

had so determined?

A If that had been the decision from upstairs, yes.

MR. LITT: I have some documents to have marked, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. LITT: The documents in front of the witness are

no longer needed.

Q Mr. Armstrong, I am showing you a document

here --

Can we have this marked next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Plaintiff's 27.

2233

Q BY MR. LITT; -- can you take a look at that and

tell me if you recognize that document?

MR. FLYNN: Which one is that, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: That is the 25 May, 1980 document.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR. LITT: Did you write that document?

A I believe so.

Q Now, this is a document that is addressed to somebody

named Rick.

It says, "Re INS Cycle."

And in the second paragraph it says, "There's

one action which I could use some help on. And that is the

letter of employment from the church."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Now, this was written while you were on the

archives post; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you were asking for a letter of employment

from the church?

A This was not for me. This was for Dick and Laurel

Sullivan.

This is the Immigration and Naturalization

Service. I was then handling that for Laurel Sullivan. She

was -- did not have a Green Card at the time and there were

a number of problems. And the way they got around this was

these letters of employment.

Part of the cycle was a letter of employment with

2234

the organization. And the GO provided these letters or they

provided whatever kind of documentation was needed for the

foreign people to work in the States. And it was for Laurel

Sullivan that I was requesting this letter of employment.

MR. FLYNN: If Your Honor will note, this is MCCS

correspondence also.

MR. LITT: This is not MCCS correspondence.

THE COURT: The exhibit speaks for itself. If it comes

into evidence, it will, again, speak for itself. There may

be other evidence relating to it. I don't know.

MR. LITT: Next in order is plaintiff's No. 28, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, will you take a look

at that and see if you recognize that document.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, on this document, I would ask

that the same notation be made in the record all on the issue

of waiver, Your Honor.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, this is written in his position

as archivist.

MR. FLYNN: he starts off, "a determination" --

THE COURT: Let's not argue about it now, It may be

something you might want to argue about later.

He is simply letting you know, Mr. Litt, his

position.

MR. LITT: All right.

Q Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize this document?

A Yes.

2235

Q This is a document that says, "With the

termination of MCCS, can you tell me where the archives trust

plan is?"

And Laurel's answer to you -- and she talks about

the archives trust and how what might happen with that and

then she says, ". . .right now it doesn't affect what you

are doing. You are working for the CSC and supported by SOC,

belonging to CSC"; is that correct?

A Okay.

Q And then says, ". . .when the new corp gets set up,

you'll be paid by the new corp, by very likely will receive

your project funds by CSC"; correct?

A That is what she says, yes.

Q ". . .but we'll cross that bridge when we come

to it."

Okay. Now, this letter was written 15 June, 1980;

is that right?

A Yes.

Q So on 13 June, 1981 Laurel Sullivan advised you

that you were working for the Church of Scientology of

California; is that correct, in this letter?

A That is who ostensibly I had -- was working for.

2236

Q All right, so you understood that ostensibly you

were working for the Church of Scientology of California?

A I knew that there was a separate corporation

which there was two parts to it. One was the archives trust

which Mr. Hubbard was to control and the other one was

F and P Consultants was to be a profit corporation which was

to be over top of all Scientology corporations through which

Mr. Hubbard could at arm's length control Scientology

corporations. This later became Author Services,

Incorporated or ASI.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to move to strike as

nonresponsive. My question was real simple.

THE COURT: Okay, I will strike it. We will start

with the question and see what the question is again. Read

it back, please.

(Record read.)

THE COURT: That can be answered yes or no, you don't

know.

THE WITNESS: Ostensibly that is what we said.

Q BY MR. LITT: And that is what Laurel said to

you in this internal communication; correct?

A Right. The complete understanding was --

THE COURT: Well, that is not the question. Your

attorney can ask you that later. We will see what happens

at that time.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I have a document that I am not

2237

certain whether it's been marked as an exhibit or not so I

am checking. It is the document "Staff Contract for

Employment by Church of Scientology International." I

believe Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Armstrong -- I believe it is

double-M, Your Honor.

THE COURT: "Declaration of Religious Commitment and

Application for Active Participation on Church Staff." Is

that what you have reference to?

MR. LITT: No, that is a different document.

All right, then, we will mark this next in

order.

THE COURT: All right, 29 for identification.

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize

the document that's been placed before you, plaintiff's 29?

A Yes.

Q This document says -- this copy is addressed to

you; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you remember getting it at the time?

A Yes.

Q And it advised you that as of December 10th a

new corporation, the Church of Scientology International,

begins operation; that it affects several staff members who

are part of the following; correct, and it lists several

things?

A Yes.

Q And one of the things it list is PDOI; correct?

A Yes.

2238

Q And what was PDOI?

A That had formerly been called the Personal

Office of L. Ron Hubbard and this had to do with, I think it

was called "Product Development" at that point.

Q So you were in PDOI at that point in the latter

part of 1981. What had formerly been the Personal Office

was now Project Development office; correct?

A Yes.

Q All right, and this document advised you that

you should look at the changes because they are changes that

will occur in the Church of Scientology of California as

well as the new churches that will be formed; right?

A That is what it says.

Q And it advised you that you will be part of the

new CSI; correct?

A Yes.

2239

Q Now, on the back of that page, on the back of

that document is a chart; do you see that chart?

A Yes.

Q Did you see the chart at the time?

A Yes.

Q And the chart has a heading that says "current."

And then it says "CFS of C" and then it lists

several things, different -- it has initials next in little

boxes; do you see that?

A Yes.

Q And those initials refer to various Scientology

subdivisions; correct?

A Yes.

Q And this chart is listing out what prior to the

reorganization was within the Church of Scientology of

California; correct?

A Yes.

Q And the PDOI, the Product Development Office which

you were in which was formerly the personal office was

listed there as being under the Church of Scientology of

California; correct?

A That is what it shows.

Q And across from it is HU; that is Household Unit?

A Yes.

Q And now Household Unit was -- you had worked in,

according to your testimony, prior to the time you petitioned

to become an archivist; is that correct?

A Yes.

2240

Q And that lists that the HU, being the Household

Unit, is part of the Church of Scientology of California;

is that correct?

A That is what is shown here, yes.

Q And then it shows HKU; also listed there as being

under the Church of Scientology of California; what is the

Housekeeping Unit?

A The Housekeeping Unit was the service unit which

served only the WCD and CMO Int.

Q And the Household Unit had to do with the

Hubbards, specifically Mr. Hubbard?

A That is correct.

Q How, also within CFS of C is listed this CMO Int.

Those are the people that could have removed you that you

talked about before; correct?

A Well, some of them could have. And it depended

on the situation. If they had removed me, they would have

removed me.

Q And WDC,that is the Watch Dog Committee, also

listed there under the Church of Scientology of California;

right?

A Yes.

Q And this proposed reorganization shows that

several of these things are going into a new corporation

called Church of Scientology International; right?

A Yes.

Q And that included CMO Int; right?

A Yes.

2241

Q And the Product and Development Office, formerly

the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard and the Household Unit

as being now moved into the Church of Scientology

International; is that right?

A That is what it shows, yes.

Q Mr. Armstrong, you signed a security pledge at

some point which I'm having trouble finding and I'll keep

looking for.

When you signed that document -- if I can find

it -- do you remember when that was? I think in deposition

you testified that you signed such a document in 1979.

A I'm sorry. I signed many of those documents,

probably 30 throughout my history in the Sea Org.

Q I recall in your testimony in deposition at one

point saying that you had signed one in 1979; right?

A Actually, the attorney referred to that document

at that time. And so he had it in his possession at that

time because he referred to it. I didn't recall it as well

as he did because I did not possess it.

Q I'll have to see if I can find it. We'll let

that go until a little later.

Now, when you received this document that we have

just marked which is plaintiff's exhibit 29, you decided that

you didn't want to -- this was right around the time you had

already decided to leave Scientology; right?

A Yes. I received it not on the 10th of December

as noted here, but some days prior to that.

This thing was prepared as if it was on the

2242

10th of December. But it wasn't. I got it a few days prior

to that.

Q Okay. So you never did in fact become part of

the Church of Scientology International?

A No.

Q As far as you know.

And you wrote a letter of resignation at the time

that you left; is that right, December 12th?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: May we have this marked as next in order,

Your Honor?

THE COURT: Exhibit 30.

BY MR. LITT: And in your letter of resignation

you say that you are resigning from the archives post and

the Sea Org; correct?

A Yes.

Q Did you say anything about resigning from your

employment or contract with Hr. L. Ron Hubbard in that whole

document?

A Not specifically. But that is what it was. And

both things refer to entities in which I worked directly for

Mr. Hubbard. That is what we're talking about.

2243

Q Okay. Did you ask in here anyplace that

Mr. Hubbard be advised that you would no longer be working

for him?

A Well, I would have sent something to Mr. Hubbard

at the time, but as I have said many times, no

communications went to Mr. Hubbard and certainly no

communications from an SP would go to Mr. Hubbard, and I

think that it would have been rather futile at that time.

Q Okay. By the way, all of these purchases that

you made that we.were talking about before, was that made

with Church of Scientology of California money?

THE COURT: If you know.

Q BY MR. LITT: If you know.

A My recollection, all but one, one purchase from

Virgil Wilhite I made with L. Ron Hubbard money, and the

reason for that was that it was an effort to make the books

look right so that Mr. Hubbard could retain control or

retain ownership of the archives because there was a

question which we were handling in MCCS --

Q Just a moment. It is all right. You have

answered the question. I don't want you to go into MCCS. I

didn't ask you a question about MCCS.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the entire issue with the

corporate restructuring which Mr. Litt has gone into at

length is the essence of MCCS, so the court will be aware

when Miss Sullivan testifies.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: But other than this one purchase,

2244

you were aware that the Church of Scientology of California

was paying for your other purchases?

A I was aware that Sea Org Reserves was paying for

them, whether or not that is the same thing and it is all

CSC money, I really don't know.

MR. LITT: If I may have just a moment, Your Honor.

May exhibit 9 be placed before the witness?

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Armstrong, within exhibit

9 is a purchase order dated 6 September 1981 asking for

money in the amount of $1,500; is that signed by you?

A Yes.

Q And at the top of that particular document does

it say "The Church of Scientology of California Purchase

Order"?

A Yes.

Q So I take it you knew that whatever you

purchased with these moneys, which were the Helen O'Brien

letters; is that right?

A Yes.

Q Was from money held by the Church of Scientology

of California?

A No.

Q Well, you knew that you were requesting it from

the Church of Scientology of California. That is what the

purchase order did; right?

A No. The purchase order is just a purchase

order, and we out in Los Angeles -- I was out in L.A., I

2245

believe, at the time, and I simply did not have the same

purchase orders as everyone else did. I just grabbed -- it

didn't matter what it had on the top. The information was

the same in every organization or corporation. The OTC

purchase orders were identical to these things. It just

happened to be what was there at the time.

Who was paying, I knew it came from SOR. There

wasn't an SOR --

Q There was no Sea Org Reserve purchase order?

A Right. Here is a different one which is --

doesn't have any title on it.

Q I understand.

There were several of your purchase orders, in

fact, that said at least Church of Scientology of

California; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, let's go to the period of

time when you were first -- just before you went into the

archives project.

You have testified that you were working in the

Household Unit and that there was some shredding that was

going on and that Brenda Black brought you a box of these

materials; correct?

A Yes.

2246

Q Now, Brenda Black asked you what should be done

with these materials; is that correct?

A That is basically correct.

Q And you were above her at the time?

A Yes.

Q And you reviewed these materials; you took a look

at them; right?

A Yes.

Q And you made the determination that they should

not be shredded; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you went to Laurel Sullivan and told her about

this and she concurred that they should not be shredded; that

they should be preserved; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you then left these materials, this box of

materials with Miss Sullivan who held them; right?

A Yes, for a short time.

Q Right.

A There was a period of time in which they were

put underneath someone's bed because they were still deemed

as security documents. But also at that time they were

copied. And copies of them were sent off by Laurel Sullivan.

Q Okay. And it was shortly thereafter that you

sent off this petition to gather up various materials; is

that right?

A Yes.

Q And the petition called for preserving all of

2247

the materials relating to Mr. Hubbard, right, gathering them,

preserving them, maintaining them; right?

A Yes.

Q Now, did anybody ever inquire of you why they

hadn't been shredded pursuant to the purported orders that

they should have been shredded under according to your

testimony?

Do you understand my question?

A Yes. Only -- I think only -- only after leaving

the organization.

Q Okay. But when you sent this petition up, nobody

came back to you and said why didn't you shred these; isn't

that right?

A That is correct. No one asked that.

Q And, in fact, everyone that you had communications

with said that these were valuable materials that should be

preserved and saved; isn't that correct?

A Well, that is what I was saying. I don't know

that anyone would have repeated it back.

But no one told me that my concept was wrong.

Q Okay. And I believe you testified in the course

of your direct examination that these materials should have

been shredded, but weren't, or words to that effect; do you

recall that testimony?

A Well, according to the criteria set down for

shredding, they certainly could have been.

Q All right. Do you recall -- just a moment.

Didn't you say in your previous testimony that

2248

under the criteria these were supposed to be shredded?

A Something to that effect.

I say they certainly could have been. I don't

think anyone could have been hit for obeying that particular

order. No one would have even known about it, for one thing.

But they could have been.

Q So now it is your testimony that it is possible

that these materials would have come within that order?

A Well, they did come within the order.

What I am saying, they could have been shredded;

that would have been an acceptable action.

Q Now, when you took this action, when you made

the determination that these were not the types of materials

to be shredded, you were on the premises as a Scientology

staff member; is that correct?

A I was a Scientologist and I worked for

Mr. Hubbard, So I was a Scientology staff member in that

sense, yes,

Q You had a -- what you understood at the time to

be a Scientology post; right?

A There are degrees of Scientology posts.

Q I know that. But you understood that you had

a Scientology post?

A My understanding was that I was working for

L. Ron Hubbard.

Q You didn't understand that you had a Scientology

post?

A It had nothing to do with Scientology.

2249

If Scientology means that -- and it is supposedly

a philosophy of science and if what it means is that you

build houses, then it was a Scientology post.

But I had nothing whatsoever to do with -- at

that time the subject of Scientology.

Q So it is your testimony that your work had nothing

to do with Scientology?

A I was a Scientologist.

Q But other than that, what you did had nothing

to do with Scientology?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, maybe we should define

Scientology.

THE COURT: Well, the idea of nothing to do with it

is rather vague.

MR. LITT: Those were his words, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is still very vague, even if they are

his words.

MR. LITT: All right.

Q Now, after you had this petition granted, you

set about collecting up the archive materials; right, or what

became the archive materials?

A Yes. I had -- yes. Right around that time, sure.

2250

Q And the first thing you did was gather up the

materials from the Hotel Del Sol; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And when did you move them to the Cedars

complex?

A It would have been somewhere around the end of

February 1980.

Q All right, and is that when you also moved and

you were now working out of the Cedars complex?

A Yes.

Q Now, aside from the Del Sol materials, you began

collecting up materials from a variety or at least trying to

collect materials from a variety or at least trying to

collect materials from a variety of other sources within

various churches; correct?

A Yes.

Q And did you at any point meet any resistance

with respect to some of that?

A Yes.

Q Where did you meet resistance from?

A From the Guardian's office. I think that is the

main point of resistance.

Q What about any of the Pers Sec files?

A No, they were all sent to me.

Q Well, within the Flag, there was a Pers Sec

office at Flag; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you tried to get -- in approximately May

2251

1980 if you recall you tried to get some materials from the

Flag Pers Sec office; is that right?

A Well, I was in Clearwater in approximately that

time, maybe June, and I did obtain materials from Pers Sec

and from the Pers PRO Bureau at that time.

Subsequently, this would be the end of 1980 or

sometime in 1981, I was sent virtually all the Pers Sec

files except for what they would call a current file, the

most up-to-date correspondence, but I ended up with

everything, virtually.

Q Okay. Let me show you a document which will be

plaintiff's next in order.

THE COURT: 31, I believe.

BY MR. LITT: Do you recognize that document?

A Yes.

Q Now, in that document there is -- this is a

letter written by you; correct?

A This document is?

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q And it was written by you on May 7, 1980?

A Yes.

Q And it is written to a variety of posts and it

is asking for some help, apparently, on trying to get some

materials from the Pers Sec offices at, I gather, at Flag;

is that what this was about?

A Well, it is about four distinct areas; Pers

Comm, Pers Sec, R Compilation, SO #1 Unit.

2252

Q And it says you have "Run into some reluctance

from Pers Sec to send me certain data and slows and no comms

from SO #1 Units."

Right?

A Yes.

Q And it says, "A briefing of each of these areas

is needed and an authorization to get the file data I need."

Right?

A Yes.

Q So essentially you were concerned about getting

some help to have things move along more quickly because

people were rather reluctant, at least some people that you

were trying to get materials from, were reluctant to provide

them to you; is that correct?

A I note here some reluctance from Pers Sec. I

don't recall exactly what, but I knew that from each of the

other units it simply was a matter of manpower and money.

Q Now, I have here a set of documents which maybe

you can tell me about because I am not clear how they go.

This will be plaintiff's No. 31.

THE COURT: We just did 31.

MR. LITT: Oh, I am sorry, 32.

Q Do you recognize this set of materials?

A Yes.

Q The top one is a letter of May 14, 1980, and it

has to do with SO #1, basically saying why do you need

materials from the SO #1 files; right?

A Yes.

2253

Q And the So #1 files are -- in general, the SO #1

files are correspondence to Mr. Hubbard -- general

correspondence?

A Yes.

Q From Scientologists, and then within the SO #1

files was also maintained some family correspondence;

correct, I gather from this document?

A Yes.

Q All right, now, in the document you state that

"Pers Sec was very reluctant to give me any data from these

files on family members, specifically they didn't want me to

see correspondence between Katie and LRH"; right?

A Yes.

2254

Q And you wanted help, right, in jarring that loose,

more or less; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And so in the attached documents -- and

I'm not sure what the relationship exactly of this 7, May,

1980 document is to this set of correspondence -- but in

there, on page 2 of this thing that says "LRH biography

documentation from CW," do you see what I am referring to?

A Yes.

Q On page 4 it says -- and this is referring to

the LRH Pers Sec Flag, I believe -- you can correct me if

I'm wrong -- it says, ". . .give her the list of names whose

SO number one files we need; assure her as to the

confidentiality these files are given."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Now, I take it what you were doing here is that

in order to be able to obtain these files, you were giving

assurances within the church that they would be maintained

confidential; is that right?

A Well, I was giving an assurance to Pers Sec Flag.

That was Pat Bryce.

I don't know if by that time -- I said up there

that I would brief her on the biography. I possibly had not

sent her the needed and wanted which I distributed rather

broadly.

So maybe she was not aware at that time of the

biography project or what exactly I was doing.

2255

So anyway, this was intended for her, yes.

Q And you were assuring her that she needn't be

concerned about giving up these private and confidential

files because they would be maintained confidential;

correct?

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may the record note that this,

again, refers to the MCCS Mission.

MR. LITT: That is a mistake. There is a document in

there that shouldn't be there. It doesn't involve it. I'll

take it out.

Mr. Armstrong says he can leave that position

without it being a problem.

I would ask the Court's permission to remove it.

I haven't asked any questions on it.

MR. FLYNN: The whole thing relates to the MCCS Mission,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, gentlemen, you prepared this exhibit

or you put it together, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor. This got in by mistake.

Unfortunately, these things happen.

THE COURT: You may remove it.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, what was the Action Chief CMO,

Mr. Armstrong?

A The Action Chief was the person in the CMO or

in various other units, but what it meant was the person in

charge of the firing of missions.

Q This is a document addressed to someone named

2256

Ted, dated October 13, 1980; do you recognize that document?

MR. FLYNN: Are these all part of 32, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: No. This is a new document that will in

a moment be 33.

MR. FLYNN: The last one you referred to about the

assurance of confidentiality, was that part of 32?

MR. LITT: Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Now the top page of that is not now part

of 32, of what you gave me? The one that says MCCS, is

that --

MR. LITT: That is correct. It was stapled by me by

mistake.

MR. FLYNN: That is now not part of 32?

MR. LITT: Correct.

Q Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize this document?

A Yes.

Q Did you write that document in October, 1980?

A Yes.

Q And I gather --

THE COURT: Before you go on -- oh, go ahead. I

misunderstood something. Go ahead.

Q BY MR: LITT: I gather that this document was

written in connection with providing -- gathering up some

photographs and providing them to Mr. Garrison; is that

right?

A Yes.

Q And although one can't tell for sure, it seems

that there was some concern about providing these materials

2257

to Mr. Garrison; is that correct, or is that incorrect?

A No. There had been no concern from Ted, if that's

what you mean.

Q Well, no. I'm not sure what I mean because I

don't know. So just --

A Well, the date of this is 13 October, 1980. This

predates, I believe, the biography contract.

Garrison had not been contracted at that time.

But I said, "I expect he'll begin in the next week or two.

2258

Q Okay.

A We had already discussed if you are referring to

paragraph, the third from the bottom, Laurel and I and

everyone had discussed the fact that Mr. Hubbard had the --

he was in control of the whole thing, so that is why I said

there is no problem in what Garrison chooses or says.

Q Well, let's discuss that a little bit.

That paragraph is talking in reality, not just

about the photos, but about the whole question of what is

going to be provided to Mr. Garrison; correct?

When you say there is no problem in what he

chooses or says, you are referring not just to photos, of

course, but to all of the materials that are going to be

provided to him in the course of his work on the biography?

A Yes.

Q And you in this document were advising people

that whatever was given to Mr. Garrison would remain private

because of the way that the contract was being set up with

Mr. Hubbard having the final approval of anything that would

go in it; right?

A That at that time, 13 October, that was what we

were discussing. That was the arrangement with -- which we

discussed with Laurel Sullivan.

Mr. Hubbard had, he had control. He had control

of the whole thing, and he was going to be the final checker

of the manuscript.

Q And therefore what goes to Mr. Garrison one

needn't worry about because Mr. Hubbard could review it to

2259

protect the privacy of anything he wanted or whatever;

correct? That is what you meant when you made this comment?

A Basically, yes.

Q Okay, and throughout the period of time that

materials were provided to Mr. Garrison, that was your

understanding and everybody else's understanding of the --

that there was a fundamental check on the privacy of the

materials because Mr. Hubbard would review what was

ultimately done with them; right?

MR. FLYNN: By Mr. Hubbard.

THE COURT: I am sorry. Was that an objection or

what?

MR. FLYNN: I object. As long -- I think there is

some confusion in the question.

THE COURT: Do you want to read the question back.

(Record read.)

MR. FLYNN: It is a compound question. I don't object

to the compound question as long as it is clear that the

ultimate check which came earlier in the first part of the

question was by Mr. Hubbard.

THE COURT: I think that was the gist of the question;

wasn't it?

MR. LITT: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. You may answer it, sir.

THE WITNESS: Well, that was our understanding at the

outset, but very soon we realized that such a thing was, in

2260

fact, impossible because no one could communicate to

Mr. Hubbard.

2261

So I continued on with the project. But the

fact of a check, in fact, the possibility of having the

manuscript ever approved diminished because there was no

line of communication to Mr. Hubbard.

Q But the fact is that it was always to be the

case, that this book and any of the materials that were

given to Mr. Garrison in connection with the book would

not be used in any way without his prior approval?

A That was never discussed.

Q That was your understanding?

A My understanding was that Mr. Hubbard had final

approval of the manuscript.

As far as use without his approval is concerned,

that was not the way it was. In fact, I used the biography

materials. And, in fact, Mr. Garrison was to -- in advance

of the book, was to do a video and was to handle all the

rumors regarding Mr. Hubbard with those documents.

Q Well, let me ask you something: your statement

in this letter of October 13, are you telling me now that

you had the discretion to take whatever you wanted and use

them in whatever way or you and laurel did and you didn't

have to -- is that your testimony, that you could have taken

any private material you wanted and used it?

A No. I think you are misstating what I have said.

I did take materials and I did publish them in

the -- during the time when I was doing the biography

project.

Mr. Garrison was to as well in advance of even

2262

writing the biography.

THE COURT: We are going to take a recess at this time.

We'll reconvene at 1:30.

(At 11:59 a.m., a recess was taken

until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)

2263

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1984; 1:30 P.M.

---O---

THE COURT: Counsel is apparently here to move to

quash a subpoena duces tecum; is that correct?

MR. BERKE: Yes, Your Honor. Robert Berke for the

record representing Dr. Gene Denk.

THE COURT: Very well, I have read the motion and the

declaration based upon a variety of points that are

involved.

Whatever happened to that proof of service that

I had? Was that part of the file?

THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is Ms. Dragojevic the one that is handling

this, Mr. Flynn?

2264

MR. FLYNN: I'll have to handle it, Your Honor.

We have been trying to get ahold of the process

server.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Excuse me, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's all right.

Have you had a chance to review the motions,

the declarations that have been submitted, Miss Dragojevic?

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Yes, I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The contention is made by declaration that

the process server didn't serve the doctor, but served his

wife, apparently, on his behalf.

The declaration doesn't so indicate one way or the

other.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I did manage to get in touch with the

process server and what is described in Mrs. Denk's declaration

is essentially what, apparently, did occur.

He was advised --

THE COURT: I think you had better get another process

server.

The motion is granted.

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

we did serve him the day before in hand; however, the day

before when we served him in hand, apparently, the date that

he was to appear was the same date as the subpoena. And we

had --

THE COURT: How does that help us or change the

situation?

MR. FLYNN: We did get them in hand.

2265

THE COURT: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush;

is that the point?

MR. FLYNN: We did get him in hand with one subpoena

and went back the next day to give him a day's notice and,

apparently, Mrs. Denk was served.

One of the primary reasons we need Dr. Denk is

that Mrs. Hubbard testified that she knows of no one who is

in communication with her husband.

The evidence would be that Dr. Denk saw L. Ron

Hubbard in October, 1983; met with two of Mr. Hubbard's

children, Arthur and Diana and had conversations with

Mrs. Hubbard at that time about just having seen her

husband.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I would like to add, Your Honor,

that the process server indicated that at the time he left

the subpoena on the doorstep, he was apparently advised by

Mrs. Denk that Dr. Denk was in the house; that he did not

wish him to be on the premises and that at that point he,

apparently, yelled into the house that he was going to serve

the subpoena and that he was leaving it on the doorstep.

And Mrs. Denk was present when that communication was relayed

into the house.

2266

MR. FLYNN: And we have a further problem, Your Honor.

We have been in communication with someone who is the

receptionist for Dr. Denk, and Dr. Denk left a note that

this person has seen that said, "I will be gone for the next

two or three weeks. Someone else is taking care of my

practice and get rid of all reporters" or something like

that.

MR. BERKE: Your Honor, if I can be heard briefly as

to this.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BERKE: First of all in the Sternbeck case we

indicate in the points and authorities service was made

within a hundred feet of the person. The wife accepted

service for the person served. The husband was out of view

but on the premises, and the court ruled that service must

be pursuant to Section 1985 et seq, be personal service.

Now, according to Mr. Flynn, just the day

before, Dr. Denk was personally served and if he was

personally served with a subpoena that was later withdrawn,

it seems to me as if counsel is in poor position to say that

they were not able to serve him with this subpoena.

Furthermore, regardless of what the materiality

of the testimony is that is dated to this court, Section

1987 clearly provides that the declaration contain

statements of materiality, not some statement of counsel.

The other point I'd like to raise is that

counsel's representations here as to what other people told

him would be hearsay if there was testimony to that effect.

2267

They are not placed in declarations. We have no witnesses

and it is undisputed that the service was made outside of

the presence of the doctor. The service was made not on the

wife. The service was made by leaving the subpoena out of

the view of the doctor on the doorstep. No personal service

was made, despite the fact that there was a declaration

indicating that there had been personal service from the

process server or indicating something to that effect, and I

would submit that the remedy there is to simply locate the

witness and effectuate service.

Section 1987 allows no exceptions such as the

fact that the process server yelled something in the window,

and allows no statement from counsel to be a substitute for

sworn and dated declarations, nor do the cases so provide.

THE COURT: Well, I have a problem with the whole

thing because it seems to me like the whole matter is an

exercise in futility. Almost anything that would be

communicated to the doctor would be privileged and --

MR. BERKE: That is correct and he intends to claim

the privilege.

THE COURT: Whether he wants to or not, he's got an

obligation, and I just think that we have got enough

problems getting this case through as it is without getting

involved in these side events which I don't really see are

going to get anywhere.

If the last time he saw him was in October of

'83, just assuming for the sake of discussion that that was

true, I don't see how that is going to help anybody get him

2268

at this time because this is May 17th of 1984, and in seven

months or eight months a person can manage to go around the

world a few times, probably into space a few times or other

planets if that was his intention or within his capability.

2269

It seems like we are spinning our wheels over

something that is not going to add up to anything in the

long run, frankly.

I'll grant the motion to quash.

MR. BERKE: That is as to the subpoena and the subpoena

duces tecum, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Right.

The witness has retaken the stand. State your

name again for the record. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

the witness on the stand at the time of recess, having been

previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further

as follows:

THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Litt.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. LITT:

Q Mr. Armstrong, was Laurel Sullivan, as you

understood it, like you, an employee of Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And you indicated in your testimony this morning

that you had made some purchases by the church and you made

one purchase by -- on behalf of Mr. Hubbard or something to

that effect; is that right?

A Yes.

2270

Q And the purchase on behalf of Mr. Hubbard was

from Virgil Wilhite; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And was that for some substantial amount of

materials?

A No.

Q You did make a purchase from Mr. Wilhite in the

amount of -- did you make any purchases from Mr. Wilhite for

the church?

A I got Mr. Wilhite in touch with some people in

Clearwater -- I believe it was in Clearwater. And then

finally the approval, to my recollection, came from SOR or

WDC. I don't know exactly what the conditions of the purchase

were.

But I did assist him in making that arrangement

with someone in Clearwater, I believe.

Q And do you know what those materials were?

A That was a collection of materials which

Mr. Wilhite had, publications, pulp magazines which included

stories by Mr. Hubbard and a collection of Mr. Hubbard's

Dianetics and Scientology writings front the '50's and

onwards.

Q And was that a purchase -- where did that

material go? Did that go to you?

A Yes, it did.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I had asked that these materials

be provided to me in advance; they are being provided to me

as the witness is being questioned.

2271

MR. LITT: I said over lunch, Your Honor, we would try

to get together. But we have been unable to get together.

Your Honor, may this be marked next in order?

THE COURT: 34.

MR. FLYNN: Is that the check to Wilhite?

MR. LITT: Yes.

Q Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize that check?

A No.

Q The check indicates that it is from the Church

of Scientology of California for a purchase in the amount

of $65,O00 of a collection of published works.

Was that the collection that was, after being

purchased, placed with you?

A That is correct.

Q That was the purchase price as you understood?

A Well, my understanding of it is that in part of

the arrangement, Mr. Wilhite was to buy a bunch of auditings

and training statements and that isn't reflected in this check

or receipt.

Q That's all right.

Anyway, the published materials that you got from

Mr. Wilhite, as you understood it, the notation on there,

that is the only collection of published materials that you

received from Mr. Wilhite?

A Yes.

2272

Q With respect to these various materials that you

gathered up, did you gain some -- let me ask the question

this way: How much money was expended to purchase materials

for the archives while you were the archivist that you are

aware of?

A When we are talking here about archives, do you

mean for Mr. Hubbard's archives, materials which he

personally owned?

Q No, that were put under your care. In other

words, like these collected published works. They were put

under your care in the archives; right?

A Yes.

Q Materials that were purchased while you were the

archivist that were then delivered to the archives under

your care, do you have a ballpark figure of how much money

was expended by the church while you were the archivist for

such purchases?

A In addition to the $65,000, probably $6,000

more.

Q And you had a discussion with Mr. Wilhite or

spent some time with him in which you and he went through, I

guess, an inventory or a partial inventory of what was in

the archives or in some form tried to get a valuation of

them; is that correct?

A I never went through the archives with him. I

was in communication at that time with LRH accounts who

throughout that period -- two people, first Mike Smith and I

believe the original authorization came from Mike Smith to

2273

pay Mr. Wilhite to do the inventory. I did not assist him

in the inventory other than show him where the materials

were and point him and give him time in the archives. I did

not go through the materials at that time with him or assist

him.

Q And when was this done?

A It would have been in the summer of 1981 --

1980, I am sorry.

Q And generally at that time you had in the

archives the materials from Del Sol; correct?

A Yes.

Q Those were the main materials that you had?

Well, I guess and you had the Pers Sec files that you had

gathered?

A At which time?

Q When you were dealing with Mr. Wilhite, when he

came in to look at the materials?

A To do the first inventory?

Q Were there two?

A Well, we worked on another one for controller

archives.

Q Okay. Leaving aside controller archives for the

moment, you did one prior to the time that you had had

access to the controller archives?

A Yes.

Q And at that time you had the Del Sol materials?

A Principally the Del Sol materials.

Q Were those mostly original materials that you

2274

had in there?

A Yes.

Q And about how many pages of original materials

were there?

A Total probably of one hundred, two hundred

thousand pages.

Q And those were valued, you said, by Mr. Wilhite

at approximately $5 million?

A I believe the inventory which he did at that

time was -- came up to $5 million. That was one figure.

That inventory was scrapped because he was to provide two

figures, a minimum and a maximum.

Q And the $5 million figure, do you know whether

that was a minimum or a maximum?

A My understanding was it was a maximum.

Q And did you have discussions with Mr. Wilhite

about how he made determinations of value of various

materials?

A No, he seemed to understand what this type of

materials sold for.

Q Okay. Now, either through your contact with

Mr. Wilhite or through other means did you get any

experience in valuing, say, a three-page letter of

Mr. Hubbard's just by way of example; did you purchase any

letters that had been handwritten by Mr. Hubbard?

A I purchased collections which contained some

handwritten letters. One of these was from Barbara Snader.

One of these was from Helen O'Brien.

2275

Q And the Helen O'Brien collection, about how many

pages of handwritten materials of Mr. Hubbard did that have?

A I recall there was one long letter of probably

eight or ten pages, and there was another few shorter

letters, and then there was about 60 or 100 pages of

typewritten materials.

Q That had been typed by Mr. Hubbard as opposed to

handwritten or typewritten by Miss O'Brien or both?

A My recollection is that at least the majority of

them were from Mr. Hubbard if not all of them.

2276

Q And you paid $1,500, is my memory correct, for

that collection?

A That is correct.

Q And the Barbara Schnader collection, how much

did you pay for that?

A I recall $4,000. But I really -- I could be wrong

in that.

Q And what was in -- what was in the -- in that

collection, the Barbara Schnader collection?

A Well, there was a couple of letters, I recall.

The thing which was most important was a chart,

the original chart of human evaluation which first appeared

in the book called "Science of Survival."

Mr. Hubbard had written that while living with

Barbara Schnader in Palm Springs, 1951. And it was this

document which was most valued. And it was that that made

up the -- in terms of dollar value the bulk of the $4,000.

A lot of what she had was just early newspaper

articles and materials of that sort.

Q How many pages of originals was it? Was it just

this chart, or were there other original materials?

A No. There was another several pages of

originals.

Q You paid how much for that collection?

A My recollection is it was $4,000. But I could

wildly off on it.

Q Okay, Now, could --

May we have exhibit 15 placed before the witness?

2277

This is the list of sealed exhibits.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, this is a list of exhibits

under seal prepared by you or you and your counsel that you

are using. Ignore the writings on the left-hand side which

are by Mrs. Hubbard, but rather than try to go through each

set of materials, let's talk some about what of these exhibits

are originals.

On page 1 do any of the files on page 1 contain

original materials?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I think that question may be

a little unfair without looking at the --

MR. LITT: I am just trying to save time. We can pull

them all out if the witness can't answer.

MR. FLYNN: My recollection is it is kind of an

administrative publication. It is something like a carbon

copy that could be deemed to be an original.

THE COURT: Is it that critical at the moment? Maybe

the witness can look at them during a recess or something.

MR. LITT: We can handle it that way.

I am just trying to get a sense of the amount

of original material that he has chosen.

Let's try it this way:

Q Mr. Armstrong, while I haven't reviewed all of

the exhibits that have been identified by you and your counsel

completely, there seem to be a large number of originals;

do you have any estimate of what the total number of original

materials are that have been identified by you?

THE COURT: As a defense exhibit in this proceeding?

2278

MR. LITT: At this point, just as defense exhibits.

THE WITNESS: My best guess is 200 pages.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, I notice that there were

several original handwritten letters of Mr. Hubbard that your

counsel questioned you about; I think some of them had to

do, for instance, with HEC or something like that.

Do you recall those? There were a couple of files

that were filled with original writings that you were going

through?

A Yes.

Q Based on your experience of buying materials,

do you have any original L. Ron Hubbard materials? Do you

have any estimate of what those could have been sold for?

MR. FLYNN: Presently, Your Honor? A present estimate,

or an estimate in 1981 or an estimate after the truth of

L. Ron Hubbard comes out?

MR. HARRIS: Apparently none could be sold, since they

are in Your Honor's possession. So we can eliminate that.

THE COURT: If you can pry them loose from the court.

Q BY MR. LITT: We'll go to December, 1981 when

you left; do you have any estimate of what any of those

materials --

THE COURT: I don't know if this witness is qualified

relative to giving an opinion on this subject. It may be

that as part of the overall picture of selling this kind of

material that some materials can be sold because of their

content and have value and some can be sold just because

they are written by an individual person. And I don't

2279

know whether that weighs in the balance here or not, but

I am not real sure that this witness can -- but maybe he

can.

2280

MR. LITT: I am not sure he can either, Your Honor. I

am just trying to see.

THE COURT: We had a case one time we tried here

involving a family bible of Samuel Colt. It was inscribed

by Samuel Colt and we had wide variation of opinions as to

what that particular bible was worth and all for the

inscriptions that were in it. It was a rather interesting

case.

That is neither here nor there, but it reminds

me of it. Go ahead.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, this is Mr. Armstrong's

opinion.

MR. LITT: If he can form one. If he can't, that is

fine.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: An original 10-page -- let's say

hypothetical-like, an original 10-page, handwritten letter

of L. Ron Hubbard that comes from the period of the Apollo;

do you have any estimate, and it discusses Scientology

matters of one type or another, do you have any estimate of

what that might sell for, such a document, roughly?

MR. FLYNN: Well, that is a different question. What

it would sell for in December 1980 or what he thinks it is

worth. He may think it is worth zero and it might sell

for --

THE COURT: I suppose if you want to ask him what the

fair market value is; what a reasonable seller might sell

and what a reasonable buyer might pay and all those other

2281

parameters that go with it, neither under any compulsion.

Q BY MR. LITT: Fair market value, if you can make

an estimate as to what its fair market value would have been

in December 1980.

A I think within certain circles, it is a very

small circle of collectors to whom these things have any

value whatsoever, but within the small circle of very

wealthy devotes of Mr. Hubbard, I would say a couple

thousand dollars.

Q Now, the practice with respect to original

archive materials throughout Scientology was that the

original archive materials were considered very valuable; is

that a fair statement?

A Yes.

Q And they were to be kept in a stored, locked

condition?

A By which you mean Del Sol was like that?

Q No, no. I am talking about once things were put

into an archive type of situation.

A Right. This thing had never happened before I

created it. I took the documents out of a very poor

condition and established them in a condition which made

them relatively more safe.

I always treated them that way. I never

destroyed, altered any documents.

Q No, I understand, and have you seen this

document before?

May this be marked plaintiff's next in order?

2282

Is that 35 or 36.

THE COURT: 35.

MR. FLYNN: What is that, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: That is the document entitled "Flag Order

Archives."

Q You have seen that document before; is that

correct?

A Yes.

Q And that is a document speaking to handling of

organizational archives; right?

A Of Dianetics and Scientology.

Q Uh-huh.

A Yes.

Q And this document says that any originals should

only go out for 24 hours; is that correct?

A This document refers to other archives under the

control of the controller. They were not the documents

which I had. I don't believe I ever saw this until you

produced it in a deposition and in any case, it did not

apply to the archives which I had. I did not have

organizational archives.

Q Uh-huh.

A Or Guardian originals as they are called here.

Q But in general, you would agree, wouldn't you,

that this document reflected the approach to original

archive materials concerning Mr. Hubbard or -- well, just

leave the question at that.

A This was generally the approach which I took.

2283

Q And you were not to remove originals from the

archives; right? You were to keep the originals there;

isn't that correct?

A No one ever said such a thing or implied such a

thing.

They were under my control and when I delivered

to Mr. Garrison the originals which I did --

Q Mr. Armstrong --

MR. FLYNN: Could he finish the answer?

MR. LITT: Could you direct the witness --

THE COURT: Well, I think the answer ended with nobody

ever expressly or impliedly stated to him, and let the

answer stand. The rest can be stricken.

MR. FLYNN: An ambiguity is created by the prior

question.

THE COURT: We don't need to worry about that at this

point. Let's go on to the next question.

Q BY MR. LITT: Regardless of whether somebody

told you, it was, in fact, your understanding that originals

weren't to be removed; isn't that right?

A You thought that these original materials could

be taken various places?

A Well, they were taken various places, and in

order to expedite the ends of the biography, Mr. Garrison

was supposed to at that point have a manuscript produced by

May 1982. It was getting on. It was November 1981. There

simply was too big a mass for me to copy, for him to go

through, and I had to make the judgment to give him the

2284

originals so that he could sort out what he was going to

quote from.

Q All right, now, these originals were mostly from

what you had taken from the controller archives after

Mrs. Hubbard had left that post; is that right, that you

gave Mr. Garrison?

A I would say the majority of them are from

controller archives, yes.

Q And when did you get those materials, again?

Was it October?

A Probably October, November, in that period.

Q 1981?

A That's correct.

Q Now, up until that time how much material had

been given to Mr. Garrison?

A Probably half of what he ended up with.

Q "Half" being how many pages of materials?

A Maybe 50,000.

2284 [sic]

Q And you gave him 50,000 more in the next six

weeks?

A Something like that.

Q Okay. And of those 50,000 more, I take it that

some 45,000 of them were copies of materials?

A No. There was a great number of originals which

were given to Mr. Garrison.

Q How many thousands of pages of materials did you

give Mr. Garrison?

A A guess is 100,000.

Q Of original materials?

A Are we talking only about originals?

Q Yes. Right now my questions are about originals.

A When you said up to that point how many pages

had I given to Mr. Garrison, were you talking about

originals?

Q No. But my later question -- we'll start again.

A Okay.

Q You gave Mr. Garrison from -- I guess from

November until December 12 some 50,000 pages of materials;

correct?

A Probably, yes.

Q Of those 50,000 pages of materials, how many were

originals?

A Maybe half.

Q And those mostly came from the Controller

archives?

A Yes; either that or from the Pers Sec, Pers Com,

2285

or Pers Sec WW files.

Q All right. Now, and was this after your

wife -- when you were giving these 50,000 pages, was that

after your wife had come to work with you in the archives

area?

A Yes.

Q And you and she were copying large numbers of

materials to get to Mr. Garrison; right?

A Yes.

Q And you were trying to copy as many materials

as you could to get to Mr. Garrison; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And I gather you accomplished copying some

25,000 pages of materials in that period of time; right?

You said you gave Mr. Garrison 25,000 pages of

copies; so these copies were made during that period of

time?

A Yes.

Q And upon -- when did you give Mr. Garrison this

other 25,000 pages of original materials? Do you remember

precisely when or --

A No. It would be in November, December.

Q All right. And during this whole period of time

was the period of time when you and your wife were discussing

leaving the church; is that correct?

A No. Our discussions about leaving the

organization began sometime around the beginning of December.

Q In fact, you had decided to leave by the beginning

2286

of December; hadn't you?

A Something like that: right around that period.

Q But you also decided that prior to leaving you

were going to make sure that Mr. Garrison got all of the

materials that you wanted him to get; is that right?

A Basically all the materials that Mr. Garrison

requested, all that I deemed that he would need for the

biography.

Q The biography that you supposedly thought was

never going to be written at that point; is that right?

A We had very large --

Q I'm talking about you, not "we."

A I had considerable doubts about it. I was still

very much dedicated to the project and to the possibility

of having the truth about L. Ron Hubbard known and having

the facts about the organization and knocking off the sham

and facade and the fraud.

I was very much dedicated to that project at

that time. So I tried in my own way to get him whatever I

could.

Q Yes. Because you felt, didn't you, that you

wanted to use this material to expose, as you viewed it,

the organization and Mr. Hubbard; isn't that right? Is that

what you thought this material would do?

A I never thought in terms of exposing Mr. Hubbard

until I was attacked by his organization.

Q Well, I thought -- Mr. Armstrong --

A I wanted the truth out. Pursuant to Scientology

2287

policies, the truth will set you free.

Q The truth as you viewed it; right, at that time?

A The truth as shown by an extensive study of

hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation from all

periods of Mr. Hubbard's life.

Q That when you were giving them to Mr. Garrison,

you thought showed that scientology was a sham; is that

right?

A There was an increasing awareness throughout that

period -- I think if you go back and look at my communications

through that period, I was very concerned about the unethical

practices; I was very concerned about the fraud of

Mr. Hubbard, of the misrepresentations in his life. And it

was that which I sought to correct.

Q And you wanted to make sure that Omar Garrison

got all the materials that you thought showed that?

A I wanted Mr. Garrison to have all of the material

necessary for him to do an honest biography.

I felt very much committed to Mr. Garrison. I

had been the initial person to go and contact him. I had

given him a faulty bill of goods which had conned him into

doing this biography. He was trapped into it. I wanted to

help him in every way I could.

Q In fact, by November 25th, after this experience

with Mr. Starsky, you had made the decision that you were

going to get out of the church; isn't that right?

A sometime around that period it became very

apparent to me that there was no way that I could make any

2288

changes in the organization; that Mr. Hubbard would ever

admit to his indecent acts, to his control of the organization,

to his theft from me of years of my life, to his control of

my mind; there was no way. And it was at that point when

I suddenly came to my senses, that I left. It was after

writing the communication to Cirrus Slevin.

2289

Q And after you came to your senses, as you say,

you and your wife worked day and night just to get as much

material out of the archives and into Mr. Garrison's hands

as you could; didn't you?

A I don't believe that we worked day and night, as

you say it. I copied whatever I could. My wife worked with

me on it.

I was very committed to Mr. Garrison and I was

committed to the truth getting out. I did not have any

vendetta. I did not feel any ill will toward Mr. Hubbard.

I wanted to get out what I felt would help him, and help all

Scientologists, help me and help the world.

Q And most of the originals that you gave

Mr. Garrison were given after that period of time when you

came to your senses; weren't they?

A I copied whatever I could and I copied a great

deal of the material from the controller archives.

Q And what you couldn't copy, you then just took

the originals and gave it to Mr. Garrison?

A That is correct. I told Barbara Decelle.

Q And, Mr. Armstrong, during that period of time

did you have any relationship with an organization -- let me

ask a question this way: What is an organization called

Ralston Pilot?

A Ralston Pilot is a corporation, I believe, owned

by -- of which Omar Garrison is at least a major, was a

major shareholder, and it was -- it had published a couple

of books and it was also a signer on the contract, I

2290

believe, or Omar Garrison for Ralston Pilot.

Q And it was a signer on the contract concerning

the biography of Mr. Hubbard?

A I believe, yes.

Q And it was the vehicle through which Mr. Garrison

contracted a lot of his writing business or publishing

business; correct?

A I believe I have seen that name on "Playing

Dirty." What exactly he did with Ralston Pilot, I really

don't know in detail.

I filled orders for Ralston Pilot throughout

1982 and '83, or at least up to the fall of '83, whenever

they came in. I had some Ralston books in the apartment

where I lived and I filled orders.

Q And in the fall of 1981 you became a director of

Ralston Pilot; is that correct?

A I have been told this before. I was asked about

being a director of Ralston Pilot in another deposition. I

don't know anything about being a director of Ralston Pilot.

When I left the organization --

Q No, my question goes strictly to before December

12th.

Q Was I a director?

Q Yes.

A I have never heard this until this instant.

Q Now, you indicated in your direct examination

that you and Mr. Garrison had had some discussions about how

this biography would never see the light of day; do you

2291

recall saying that you had discussed that?

A My recollection is he used the phrase "light of

print," but the same meaning.

Q And you had that discussion with Mr. Garrison

after your July trip through the Midwest; is that right?

A He used that phrase a number of times. He may

have mentioned it earlier, but certainly during discussions

after the Midwest trip, yes. Probably before.

Q So when you made all of these copies of

materials that you gave to Mr. Garrison, it was after these

discussions?

A When you say these copies of materials --

Q This large volume of materials made in November

and December.

A Yes.

MR. LITT: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. LITT: This is, I believe, plaintiff's 36.

THE COURT: 36.

MR. LITT: This is the document, Mr. Flynn, dated 22

February 1980 in handwriting.

MR. FLYNN: The one you just handed me just before

this, Mr. Litt, that you never produced before?

MR. HARRIS: I thought we had been through this, Your

Honor. If Mr. Flynn wants to point out specifically in the

discovery, I will get Mr. Peterson and we can have a fight

about it.

THE COURT: If you want to fight, go outside and

2292

fight. Let's go on with the trial, gentlemen.

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize

that document?

A Yes.

Q That is a document dated February 22, 1980; is

that right?

A Yes.

Q Did you write it, the original of that?

A Yes, it looks like my handwriting.

Q Did you write it at the time that you had just

begun work on the archives project?

A Yes.

Q And did it discuss in general the various

measures you are talking about to protect the security of

the archives?

A Yes.

2293

Q You can hand it to the Court. I don't have any

further questions on it.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may the record note that we

consider this another part of the documents relating to MCCS?

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Armstrong, I believe you

testified on your direct examination that you had not been

the person to obtain the materials concerning Quentin Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q You had, in fact, requested Vaughn Young to

obtain them for Mr. Garrison; is that right?

A I don't believe that I requested him exactly like

that.

I knew that B-1 had them. Once Vaughn Young was

assigned, there was a list of items which I had not been able

to obtain. That was included among those items.

Q You made a list for Mr. Young of materials that

you had not been able to obtain to date?

A Right. I believe I gave it to him verbally.

He made a bunch of notes regarding this type of material.

Q So you asked him to get that and various other

things and he did?

A Yes. And he also provided a bunch of other

material himself.

Q Now, on December 12 when you left your position,

had you been -- up until that time had you resided on church

premises? Did you and your wife have a room?

MR. FLYNN: When is this?

2294

MR. LITT: Prior to December 12, 1981.

MR. FLYNN: How much prior? Including Gilman Hot

Springs?

MR. LITT: Say, the last few months prior to that.

THE WITNESS: I lived in the Cedars Complex.

BY MR. LITT: Did you and your wife have a room

in the Cedars Complex?

A Yes.

Q And did you empty out the materials from your

room at the Cedars Complex?

A Yes.

Q And did you do that over a several day period?

A Yes.

Q And did you tell anybody you were doing it?

A No.

Q And you didn't tell anybody you were doing it

because you didn't want anybody to know you were doing it;

correct?

A Run that by me again?

Q The reason you didn't tell anybody was because

you didn't want anybody to know; right?

A The reason I didn't tell anyone was because I

didn't want to be locked up.

Q You didn't want them to know you were moving your

materials out?

A I didn't want to be locked up.

Q And while you were moving your things out of your

room is the same period of time when you were copying all

2295

of these things that we have discussed for Mr. Garrison;

those two events were simultaneous?

A That is correct.

Q Now, when you left on December 12, where did you

go?

A To Omar Garrison's place in Costa Mesa.

Q Was Mr. Garrison there?

A Yes.

Q And you and your wife spent the night with

Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q And then the following day did you and your wife

drive up to Mr. Garrison's home in Utah?

A Yes.

Q And this was without Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q And did you have with you at that time -- did

you transport from Mr. Garrison any materials that were from

the Archives?

A Yes.

Q And on December 12 when you went to

Mr. Garrison's, in fact, you delivered with you on that

very day a whole set of materials; isn't that right?

A Yes.

Q So you delivered them to him and then you got

them back from him and took them to Utah?

A Well, whatever went into the truck at that point.

I don't know. I don't recall if they were the same. There

2296

were probably different materials.

I took all of my stuff, my wife's and my personal

stuff. My recollection is that the majority of the Archives

materials stayed in Costa Mesa. Some probably went because

up in Utah I built shelves for Mr. Garrison to put the

materials into a logical order. But there would not have

been room because we had all of our personal stuff we took

at that time.

I was intending at that point to go to Canada.

Q And did you go to Canada?

A Yes.

Q A few days later?

A When I say go to Canada, I mean I was intending

to stay in Canada at that time.

2297

Q But from Utah did you go to Canada?

A Yes.

Q And did you call Vaughn Young at some point

within a period of time after you left your position?

A I received a letter from Vaughn Young and

upon receipt of the letter, within a day or so after that,

I called.

Q And that was the first discussion you had had

with anyone about the archives post or the fact that you had

left; is that right?

A No.

Q Well, I'm sorry, I should correct that.

With anyone within the church or within Scientology?

MR. FLYNN: From what date; Mr. Litt?

THE COURT: From the time he left, I gather,

December 12.

Q BY MR. LITT: From December 12.

A No.

Q Did you also have a discussion was Barbara

De Celle?

A Yes.

Q And that was in connection with the resignation

letter you had sent her?

A Well, in the discussion with Barbara De Celle,

I told her, I explained to her why I left. I told her what

the state of the project was. I told her that I still had

one more thing which I had to do which only I could do, and

that was to identify a bunch of slides which I had taken on

2298

a couple of trips.

So, I told her that I would do that when I would

get to it, and that I would then send them to her. That

was mainly what our conversation was about.

Q And how long did you stay in Canada?

A Roughly until -- from approximately maybe the

18th of December through perhaps the 27th or 28th of December.

Q And did you then come back to Los Angeles?

A Well, I came back to Utah, and while I was in

Utah in December Mr. Garrison had offered me a job working

for Ralston Pilot, and I --- it sounded like a very good job

and I made the choice while up in Canada to accept it.

So I came back down and told Mr. Garrison.

This would be at New Year's. We spent New Year's in Utah,

and then a short time after that, perhaps around the 8th or

so of January, 8th or 10th of January, came back down and

got an apartment and set up an office for Mr. Garrison.

So I arrived back in the Los Angeles area,

actually down in Orange County in Costa Mesa approximately

the 12th or so of January.

Q So at that point you were on the payroll of

Ralston Pilot?

A Well it never really worked out. I worked for

him and he paid $200 a month for, I believe, three, maybe

four months, and this was just to pay part of the rent and

the job never worked out, so I -- some time in March I

went to work at a law firm.

Q Now you mentioned earlier that there was some

2299

question about whether -- about renegotiating Mr. Garrison's

contract with PUBS DK; is that correct? I'm going back now

to before you left.

A Yes.

Q And it was in the context of there being these

questions in which you sent Mr. Garrison all these internal

materials that you identified yesterday; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you felt that this contract had been

renegotiated; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you felt that Mr. Garrison should get

different terms; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you felt that he should -- and Mr. Garrison

both felt that he should get more favorable terms; is that

right?

A Yes.

Q And you were not at all sure during this period

of time whether that would be agreed to; is that right?

MR. FLYNN: Agreed to by whom?

MR. LITT: By whoever it was that Mr. Garrison was

trying to renegotiate this contract with.

MR. FLYNN: That is what the case is all about.

THE COURT: Well, let's go back and have the question.

(Record read.)

THE WITNESS: I assume by whoever Mr. Garrison was

contracting with. I was not sure.

2300

MR. LITT: Okay.

Q And, in fact, you weren't sure whether or not

in light of this contract dispute, shall we call it,

Mr. Garrison was ever going to write a book pursuant to that

contract; isn't that right?

A At what time?

Q In this period of time. October, November,

December, 1981.

A No. I felt that Mr. Garrison was, in talking

to him, that he was going to continue to write the book.

He hoped that these things could be taken care of.

We couldn't even find anyone in PDK who knew of

the existence of the contract to even handle the problems

with -- so there were lots of difficulties. And I really

didn't know if we could surmount them.

But I don't think that throughout that period

Mr. Garrison changed his -- the plan at all. He kept saying,

"I am writing a book." And he kept on writing at it and he

kept on writing. I don't think that that occurred at that

time at all.

Q In fact, you had discussions with Mr. Garrison,

at least later, didn't you, in which he said that if that

contract couldn't be settled agreeably, he was going to go

ahead and publish a book some other way; isn't that right?

A He did attempt later -- my understanding is that

he did attempt to secure a publisher who could publish the

book.

Q Using the archives materials?

2301

MR. FLYNN: Could we have a date?

Q BY MR. LITT: Is that your understanding?

A This is in 1982 or '83.

Q BY MR. LITT: And the book that he was writing

was using the archives materials that you had given him;

right?

A Yes.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, in a deposition that was taken

in a case called Cooper versus Church of Scientology taken

on January 10, 1984 you were asked the question when you

worked for Ralston Pilot Publishing Company did you receive

any checks from them; do you recall that?

A Yes.

Q And you answered yes; do you recall that?

A Yes.

Q Now, I am a little confused. I thought you had

testified just now that you hadn't received checks from

Ralston Pilot, or did I just misunderstand?

A You must have misunderstood.

Q So you did get checks?

A I told you I was given, I believe, three checks.

It might have been four. But in any case, Mr. Garrison paid

the rent or he paid one-half of the rent which was $200 on

three different times. So I possibly got three checks.

Q Okay.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, just for the future, apparently

we are now into Mr. -- Mr. Litt has just used a deposition

from another case. I have no idea who was present.

2302

MR. LITT: That is just to refresh his recollection.

Miss Dragojevic was present.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I would like to add for the record

that the name of that case is Church of Scientology versus

Cooper. Mrs. Cooper has a counterclaim.

MR. LITT: I'm sorry. That is correct.

Q Going back to January, 1982 when you returned

to Los Angeles, did you have any discussions with any people

who were still Church of Scientology staff in the month of

January?

A When you say "Church of Scientology staff," do

you mean RTF and ASI or Church of Scientology organizations?

Q No.

A Then it is difficult for me to answer.

Q All right. Then we'll use the term "current

Scientologists." All right. How is that? Do you understand

that term?

A Okay.

THE COURT: I am not sure I do, but I don't count.

Q BY MR. LITT: Did you in the month of January

talk to anybody who was still part of the church or still

a Scientologist? You no longer considered yourself a

Scientologist; is that right?

MR. FLYNN: Part of what church, Your Honor?

MR. LITT: Any Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: If the witness understands, he can answer.

THE WITNESS: Which question?

THE COURT: Mr. Litt's.

2303

THE WITNESS: He asked me two questions.

Q BY MR. LITT: You no longer considered yourself

a Scientologist at that point; is that right?

A That is a real difficult question to answer.

You would have to define that term.

I did not feel at that point that I -- that I

had any allegiance to the organization in that I would from

then on continue to lie and cheat and steal.

But did I understand that the definition of a

Scientologist which is someone who is trying to better

conditions, was I one of those people then? Yes; I was no

longer a part of any Scientology organization.

I hope that answers --

Q All right. And you considered that there were

many people who were still part of Scientology, what you

called the organization; that is the phrase you used

generally; right?

A Yes.

Q So if I use the phrase "the organization," you

understand that phrase to mean people who were still

connected to Mr. Hubbard and to various Scientology

organizations, right, including RTF and ASI?

2304

Q I will substitute the phrase, where you use the

term "the organization," I will use the phrase "current

Scientologists" so we will be clear.

All right, so that is what I mean, current

Scientologists, when I use that phrase. You understand

that now?

A Current Scientologists --

Q Whatever you mean by "the organization."

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I think he should use the

witness's term then.

THE COURT: I assume what you mean is sometimes people

refer to a church as being an organized church as distinguished

from what a person might on his own personal level treat in

a religious fashion. I assume you are dealing with people

who might be part of this organized church as Scientologists

as it may exist in the world today.

MR. LITT: That is correct.

Q Now, did you have any contact with current

Scientologists in January 1982?

A Yes.

Q When was your first contact after you came

back from Canada, back to the States?

A I think the first was a meeting with Barbara

De Celle and Vaughn Young.

Q And do you know when that was?

A Some time probably in January.

Q Did you have any discussions prior to that

with anybody, telephone discussions?

2305

A I believe I had one with Barbara, maybe one or

two with Barbara to set up the meeting.

Q Did you have any discussions with Marilyn Brewer?

Do you know who Marilyn Brewer is?

A Yes.

Q She was a friend of yours and your wife who

was then a Scientologist; right?

A Yes. I don't know. I don't know if we saw

Marilyn during this period. We may have. May have talked

to her. My recollection talking to her was some time later,

but that may be --

Q Did you some time around or prior to meeting

with Barbara De Celle and Vaughn Young, did you go to ASHO?

A ASHO? I don't believe so.

Q Where did you meet Mr. Young and Barbara De Celle?

A In a restaurant on Sunset Boulevard called

the Grinder.

Q And that is near the Cedars Complex?

A Yes.

Q And were both you and your wife present?

A Yes.

Q And how long did you and Mr. Young and

Miss De Celle spend talking?

A Probably an hour.

Q And in the course of that discussion did you

make comments about your attitude toward Scientology at

that time?

A I probably did. I think that my attitude would

2306

probably have been more toward L. Ron Hubbard than what he

had done rather than Scientology at that point.

Q So you made without getting into the susbtance

of them, you made, shall we call them critical comments

concerning Mr. Hubbard?

A By critical, do you mean truth?

Q No, by critical, was it true or false which

we won't get into. We will deal with that later. I mean

critical.

A I think that during that conversation I

explained my position regarding Mr. Hubbard and the fact

that I felt cheated. I felt the guy had lied to me. I felt

that he had betrayed me, so I went on probably at some

length on that subject.

If those are what your reports are regarding

critical comments, then those are what I said. Those are the

comments I made.

Q And do you recall whether you made a statement

that the only way anyone can help you is to leave Scientology?

A The only way anyone can help me?

Q Yes.

A Help me?

Q Yes, or words to that -- you had discussions

with Miss De Celle and Mr. Young about sort of -- they wanted

to know what your feeling was about Scientology and see whether

any/of the concerns or problems you had could be worked out or

whatever. That was part of what was the topic of discussion;

right?

2307

A Well they may have brought something like that

up. They were willing to listen to some degree, but I don't

think either of them expressed any willingness to help.

Q I am not asking whether anyone expressed a

willingness to help.

Didn't you make the comment in response to a

discussion about whether any of your problems with Scientology

could be resolved or anything, that basically the only thing

that can deal with that is for people to leave Scientology;

do you remember anything like that?

2308

A No. I made a comment -- and this probably should

have been in one of the earlier reports -- I made the comment

while in the --

A I don't have any reports. I have interview notes,

if that is all right.

Go on.

A -- that I felt that the organization had become

little more than an intelligence operation and that in my

opinion the only thing decent that got done by Scientology

were the decent acts by the individuals and that the best

thing that Scientology could do and the best thing that we

could do for Mr. L. Ron Hubbard was to leave the organization

and go out in the world and do what we can do that is decent

because the organization was not involved in anything decent

at all.

So maybe there are misconstrued times.

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

(Recess.)

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I think we have some difficulties

on how we are going to handle some of this discovery matter.

THE COURT: First, let me say on the record that all

counsel are present; the witness has retaken the stand.

State your name again for the record, sir. You

are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: Now, what kind of problem, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: I spoke with Mr. Flynn over the break

2309

concerning providing the materials that we discussed asking

to be produced to us. And so far we don't have them.

Apparently, the notes concerning the private investigators,

which were requested yesterday, Mr. Flynn has. He doesn't

have a copy for us. We would like to have that and we would

like to have it over the evening and, if some arrangements

can be made to have a copy --

He offered to make some trade which is, frankly,

not clear to me which included MCCS material which is

unsatisfactory.

At this point the bottom line is that we have

so far not received any of the materials we have asked for.

And we are coming to these things in cross-examination and

don't have the materials to review beforehand.

MR. FLYNN: The situation is this, Your Honor: the

detailed descriptions of what happened with the private

investigators were prepared for us. So theoretically, they

are attorney-client privileged; however, we are prepared to

give them to Mr. Litt.

THE COURT: Do you want to swap a waiver for his waiver?

Is that it?

MR. FLYNN: What I would really like from Mr. Litt,

I'm informed by Mr. Armstrong that there are numerous

documents relating to the biography project in papers that

were prepared in his handwriting and things like that that

have never been produced for us, most of which would put the

whole thing in very proper perspective.

I would like those from Mr. Litt, documents

2310

pertaining to the biography project that this witness was

involved in between 1980 and 1981, I would like those

produced.

2311

THE COURT: Well, you know, I think we are going to

have to call a halt somewhere. This case has been going

along. We are in, I think, the 13th day of trial testimony,

and I am not going to order them to go out and start researching

things that could have been developed months ago through

notices to produce and motions to compel production and so

forth, the normal discovery routine that is followed.

At the same time, if there's been representations

the thing would be made available, that is all I am really

interested in. Is there something you are claiming the

privilege on or not claiming the privilege on or what?

MR. FLYNN: We are going to give this to them. I

just thought in fairness there was a motion apparently

deferred to Your Honor as the trial judge which Ms. Dragojevic

can tell you about.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I had requested production

of the MCCS documents and they were objected to. I did end

up filing a motion to compel. It was set for hearing shortly

before this trial and Judge Shimer decided to defer ruling

on it to the trial court, and we just never brought it up

until this point, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well that has to do with all this matter

of whether these things are privileged, I assume; is that

right?

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Yes. That was the main objection to

the materials at the time that the response was given, so

we did request production and I did file a motion, and the

law and motion judge it should be decided here at some point.

2312

THE COURT: Well, are there certain documents that

you have in mind? Are they attached to your motion? I have

got 13 files now.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: No, Your Honor, We didn't attach

anything to our motion because we didn't have the documents.

We just requested production of them and had nothing. All I

had is what Mr. Armstrong might be able to tell us about and

that is about it. They have got possession of all the documents.

MR. FLYNN: What we would like, Your Honor, is the

mission programs, targets and operations and --

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I am prepared to produce

some of that to you in camera, as I was prepared to do before

without waiving the privilege, but I am not about to give

them to Mr. Flynn.

THE COURT: Well, that's okay. We are going to have

to deal with this problem sooner or later.

I know you have got some memorandums here.

Do you have any declaration in support of your memorandum,

so we have some starting point?

MR. HARRIS: There is a Lisa Britowich is the name

on the declaration.

MR. LITT: That was submitted as an exhibit to

the motion in limine, and that mainly concerned but not

exclusively concerned the tapes and then in the document itself

there is reference also to the deposition testimony in the

memorandum of Miss Sullivan which also shows the nature of

this.

Miss Britowich's declaration establishes prima

2313

facie that the MCCS mission was an attorney-client privileged

activity of which the tapes were a part, the tapes specifically

being a record of an attorney-client conference.

2314

THE COURT: Well, I think from everything that has been

said, it is obvious that we're going to have to deal with

this in some way when and if Laurel Sullivan is called to

testify. And that may be the best way to deal with that at

that time.

MR. FLYNN: That is fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If the Court concludes then that there is

no privilege, the Court can then order production or it can

review the specific documents at that time in camera and

we should probably defer that aspect of it until then.

What about this deal? Are you going to give that

to Mr. Litt?

MR. FLYNN: I'm having it Xeroxed now, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there any other problem? Are you waiting

for your Federal Express to get here from Boston, or did it

arrive?

MR. FLYNN: That is the chronology, Your Honor. It

is purely attorney-client privileged. I haven't read it in

probably two years.

It was sent to me by Mr. Armstrong and by his

wife where they each wrote up their entire chronology inside

the church.

THE COURT: If you claim the privilege, I'll sustain

the privilege.

MR. FLYNN: My inclination is I will assert the

privilege on that.

With regard to these notes, Miss Dragojevic has

to get them from her office. We have those that Mr. Armstrong

2315

brought in. These all relate to the 1983-1984 period which

relates to his state of mind during that period of time about

a wide variety of events. I don't see any relevance,

materiality.

I believe the Court's order was notes regarding

his state of mind about matters he has testified about.

I am perfectly content to have the court look

at these and conclude that they don't have anything to do

with what he has testified about, but they are just

Mr. Armstrong's notes about what he thinks about the whole

trial, the whole litigation process, basically that he has

been caught up in.

THE COURT: Are you asserting a privacy interest there

and desire them to be placed under seal?

MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor. I just don't think they

are relevant or material to anything. I think they are

mostly just pertaining to the case, such as "look for the

truth, the truth." Things like that, Your Honor.

And as I say, they are of recent vintage. These

notes that relate to May, 1982, they apparently in

Mrs. Dragojevic's office.

THE COURT: You can have those by tomorrow?

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you serious about having the Court

examine this collection of things, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: If it is represented that they are not

any things that relate to Scientology, Your Honor, that is

satisfactory.

2316

THE COURT: It depends on how you interpret them.

MR. FLYNN: I think they relate to Scientology. I think

they relate more to this case and a view toward the process

that Mr. Armstrong has been subjected to in discovery and

how much discovery he has obtained and how much he has had

to give.

MR. HARRIS: If that is what they are, Your Honor, we

are certainly not interested in them. I don't think we need

to subject you to it, if that is the representation of

Mr. Flynn.

MR. FLYNN: That is basically what they relate to.

THE COURT: Very well. Let's proceed on course.

2317

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: One optimistic word, Your Honor. I

think I have cut down the 10-day estimate.

THE COURT: Well, I won't ask you to what extent;

nine and a half days.

MR. FLYNN: There is a ray of hope.

THE COURT: Okay, let's go ahead.

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, I think we had

finished up what we were talking about this meeting that you

had at the Grinder restaurant with Vaughn Young and Barbara

De Celle.

At the time that you left Barbara De Celle had

been your immediate senior; is that correct?

A In a way, yes,

Q She was the one that you wrote the resignation

letter to?

A That is correct.

Q And Vaughn Young had been working at least

part-time with you on the archives project?

A Yes.

Q When was the next time that you had any

discussions or meetings with any current Scientologists?

A Vaughn asked me at that time to meet with

someone from the organization. The person he wanted to meet

with was named Peter Alvet. I declined because I knew

Peter Alvet was an intelligence officer in the organization.

He then -- Vaughn then said, "Well, you meet

with Terry Gamboa?" That was my former wife and I said okay,

2318

I'd meet with her, and I met with her also in the Grinder,

and my recollection is some days, maybe a week or two after

the meeting with Vaughn and Barbara.

Q All right, and you had a discussion with Terry

Gamboa about why you left?

A Yes.

Q And did you have any discussions with her

concerning your view of Scientology?

A Probably a little bit. I was most concerned

with her about operations at that time. Friends of mine

had been contacted by someone by the name of Brad Ballentine

who I knew was an intelligence officer, and Brad Ballentine

had tried and had gotten information about me from these

people. I knew also that my parents had been contacted and

there was something else which I communicated at the time,

but I don't recall, but it was another indication of an

intelligence operation and I asked Terry, I said to call

off the dogs.

She said that she didn't know of any such

thing going on, but if it was she would look into it.

I spoke to her some time later by phone and

she indicated at that time that if I didn't do anything,

everything would be okay.

Q Now, did you also have any meetings or discussions

with Marilyn Brewer during this same time period? We are

talking about January.

A Right. I probably did meet with Marilyn and

maybe also with Ed Brewer, her husband, and Bill Duckhorn.

2319

During that period we may have gone out to dinner. I don't

recall if it was then or prior to leaving, but we met, my

wife and I met with Marilyn, I think, twice, maybe three

times in the early part of 1982.

Q By early part, you mean January and February?

A January, February, March, April.

Q And Marilyn Brewer and her husband were current

Scientologists when you met with them?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall where the first meeting was?

A My recollection is that it was a restaurant

called Sarno's, but -- and the next meeting was in a

different place and I don't recall the name of the restaurant,

but it was on Fountain Avenue.

Q Now these various meetings that you have

described with Vaughn and Barbara, with Terry and Marilyn,

I guess we have discussed at least three so far during

January, was the place where you were going to meet them

prearranged? Had you and they agreed on you will meet at

such and such a place or whatever?

A I think so. I don't know if that was the case

with Marilyn. We may have met Marilyn and gone somewhere,

it is my recollection.

Q When you say met her, you mean met her at the

church or met her someplace else?

A I am not exactly sure. I remember driving

with her in the car, but I don't recall if we picked her up

at a certain place or went by the organization to meet her.

2320

Q Now, at some point did you go and meet with

Vaughn Young at the Archives, in the Archives area?

A Yes.

Q And do you recall when that was?

A My best recollection is it was probably February,

1982. I don't recall a date or even if it was in the

beginning or end. It seems to me it would have been early

February.

Q And did you and Mr. Young discuss at that time

some matters relating to the Archives and he had various

questions for you about different things?

A Yes.

Q And do you recall having a discussion about a

particular letter of Mrs. Hubbard's that Mr. Young asked you

about?

A I believe Barbara DeCelle had asked me about the

letter.

Q And either Barbara DeCelle or Vaughn Young told

you that there was one particular very personal letter of

Mrs. Hubbard that they hadn't been able to locate; is that

correct?

A I don't know if they said that or not.

Barbara asked me about the letter because I went

into the organization to take out a box of mine. And I had

at one -- this is a big wooden box on wheels -- and I had

within there all my financial records which I took at that

time.

Vaughn was there and I told him I was taking them.

2321

And Barbara asked me at the same time was the letter in there

because earlier I had the letter in there because I was

holding it when I was trying to send it to Mary Sue. And

I said no, it was with Omar.

Q So you told them that Omar had the letter?

A Yes.

Q That you had given this letter to Omar to review?

A That is my best recollection of what I told them.

I don't recall much about the letter coming up, but it is

probably what I would have said at that point.

Q This is the letter that you subsequently took

to Mr. Flynn on your first meeting with him; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And how long on that occasion did you spend

meeting with Mr. Flynn and -- was only Mr. Young there, or

Barbara DeCelle also came in at some point, I think?

A I think Barbara was there briefly and she may

have been there more than Vaughn. And Vaughn's wife Stacy

was in and out.

Q And how long did that meeting take?

A I was probably there a total of half an hour.

Q Now, when was your next contact, as best you can

recall? I guess we are into February by now; when was your

next contact with a current Scientologist?

A my guess is somewhere around -- sometime in March,

maybe April. When we -- my wife and I met with Marilyn

Brewer.

Q Did you have any written communications with

2322

Mr. Young, further communications about the Archives?

A I wrote him a letter. I think it has been --

it is an exhibit, I believe. And the purpose of that was

to explain a particular binder of materials which he said

he couldn't locate. And I thought that it may be in a couple

of places and explained to him in that letter where it would

be.

I got that he could not locate it from Omar

Garrison.

So to assist -- because I was pretty sure that

the binder must still be in the Archives or it would be in

one of the locations that I laid out in the letter that I

wrote to Vaughn Young.

Q Now, you said that you had gone to a meeting at

the Archives on one occasion; did you go on a second occasion

at some point?

A I don't believe so.

Q Your recollection is that you were only there

one time?

A Yes.

Q Now, let me go to a period a little later on;

did you in the month of May meet with any current

Scientologists?

A You are talking about the meeting with Marilyn

Brewer?

2323

Q Well did you meet with Miss Brewer in May?

A No, probably in April. I met with a number of

people in April.

Q All right. Well, leaving aside the photographs

incident which we will discuss in a bit, what other meetings

did you have with current Scientologists in April?

A There was one with Marilyn Brewer and one with

or one or two or three with Virgil Wilhite.

In fact, just recalling now there were some

other meetings with Virgil probably in January or February.

I was in touch with him a number of times, and out of those

meetings grew the idea to sell him my photographs, the ones

taken on board the ship.

Q All right. So your recollection is aside from

the photographs incident which we will discuss later that

you met with Virgil Wilhite and Marilyn Brewer in April?

A Yes. The meetings with Virgil in April were

to do with the photos.

Q I don't want to go into that right now. I

am just trying to get a chronology of some other things, and

in May did you meet with anyone?

A My recollection is that there was just -- in

Clearwater I met with a number of people. I don't know if

you would call them current Scientologists, and I saw them

just briefly.

Q I am not -- aside from Clearwater, anything

else?

A Then around the middle of May I believe it was

2324

I met with Andre Clavel.

Q And did you contact Mr. Clavel or did he contact

you?

A I contacted him.

Q And where did you meet with him?

A In a restaurant on Vermont street and I think

it is called George's Cafe.

Q And had you set up to meet there in your

telephone call that that is where you were going to meet?

A Yes.

Q And had you set up the time?

A Yes.

Q Was that a prearranged time?

A Yes.

Q George's is right across the street from the

church complex at Cedar's; is that correct, from the Cedar's

Complex?

A No.

Q Well maybe I have my geography -- is it on

Vermont?

A Yes.

Q Vermont near Fountain?

A No.

Q Near what cross street?

A North of Hollywood, north of Sunset.

Q So it is about two or three blocks from the

complex?

A Three or four.

2325

Q And at this meeting did you have a purpose for

this meeting?

A Yes.

Q And that purpose had to do with the 32 slides

that had been taken during your July 1981 trip?

A Thirty-two pages of slides.

Q Sorry, 32 pages of slides?

A Yes.

Q And you contacted Mr. Clavel to arrange to

meet with him to return these 32 slide sheets; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And at your meeting you returned them to him;

is that correct?

A I gave him a note to give to Barbara De Celle

with an explanation of where they came from, and I gave

them to him to give to Barbara.

Q And did you have any discussion with him other

than discussions about the return of these materials?

A Undoubtedly I did.

Q Nothing sticks out in your mind?

A No.

Q Now when was the next occasion on which you

had pre-arranged meeting with a current scientologist?

A I believe some time in 1984.

Q And who was that with?

A This was -- I was called by the same intelligence

personnel, Bradley Ballentine, and he told me that the

organization wanted to talk to me.

2326

So I said, "okay."

And he arranged -- he gave me the number of the

guy who was supposed to talk to me, a guy by the name of

Marty Rathbun. And my wife and I met with Marty and Tom Vorm

in a restaurant. I think it may be called Googles, something

like that, down on -- near your old office.

Q In the downtown area?

A Yes.

Q And did -- and you called Marty Rathbun after

having spoken with Mr. Ballentine?

A Well, Brad Ballentine told me that Marty wanted

to get in touch with me. And so I followed up on it.

Q And did you have a series of discussions with

Mr. Rathbun over a period of time, a few discussions?

A Well, there may have been three, but there was

definitely two.

The second one was about two months ago when he

came to my house.

Q Now, in any of the discussions that you had with

Mr. Rathbun -- and I'm not referring now to when he came to

your house -- did you have discussions with him about the

fact of how to resolve this case?

A Well, Mr. Rathbun and I began the conversation

with the agreement that -- and he agreed to this -- that

neither of us would use any of the subject matter, the

contents or anything said in our conversation to attack the

other.

Q Okay.

2327

A So I took that to mean that the -- I am not

unwilling to talk about it, but I consider that Mr. Rathbun

is in violation of that agreement.

Q Just one other question on this: did you

discuss -- did you understand that when your counsel and I

met and had settlement discussions, that they were also

confidential and weren't to be used except in the context

of the discussions?

A I wasn't involved with those discussions.

Q But your counsel was involved in those discussions;

was that your understandincg of the nature of the discussions,

or didn't you have any understanding?

A I'm not sure.

Are you referring to what you brought up in a

deposition some time ago?

Q No. I am referring to the fact that you testified

here about what position you had taken in settlement

discussions.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor our view is that that is not

a position in settlement discussions. Our view is that that

was a formal offer that had nothing to do with settlement.

We simply made a formal offer when we learned of the Garrison

settlement to return originals for copies. It is that simple.

It had nothing to do with settlement.

The issue is we made that because we believed

that the basis of our position then, as is now, that the

rightful possessor of the documents was Omar Garrison until

such time that he was no longer the rightful possessor; when

[Missing 2328]

2329

in that company.

I worked in the accounting department and took

care of the trust funds in the trust account for the last

year of my employment there.

Q And how did you come to get this particular

job?

A My wife was employed at the job at that firm.

One of the -- the person who preceded me in the position

that I held, which was at the beginning just a clerical \

kind of job, quit. There was an opening; they needed

someone.

My wife asked the person in charge of the

division that we worked for if I could try.

I went in and they hired me,

Q How did your wife get the job?

A She was interviewed for it.

Q Isn't it a fact that these attorneys were friends

or acquaintances of Mr. Garrison?

A One of the woman who worked in the firm was a

friend of Mr. and Mrs. Garrison. And through them we

learned of the opening in the firm which my wife applied

for, interviewed for, and was hired for.

2330

Q And did Mr. or Mrs. Garrison make any

recommendation to the firm in support of your wife's application?

A Well I believe that the Garrisons talked to

the person that I am referring to, Barbara Murray. I don't

believe that they talked to any of the attorneys of the

firm or the partners, and there was no formal recommendation

in the sense of a letter or anything like that.

Q But they did put in a plug for you, so to

speak?

A They put in a plug for my wife.

Q And later when you applied, they put in a plug

for you?

A I don't know if they knew that I was going to

apply.

Q All right now let's go to the period of your

discussions with Virgil Wilhite.

You had a set of photographs that were taken on

board the Apollo; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And this set of photographs had to do with the

wedding ceremony of you and your then wife, Terri?

A Yes.

Q And was Mr. Hubbard portrayed in many of these

photographs?

A He was in some of them, yes.

Q How many photographs did you have in this

album?

A Probably 30 or 40.

2331

Q And had Mr. Hubbard taken many of the

photographs?

A He had taken probably three or four,

Q And had the remainder of the photographs been

taken by his personal photographer, one Chris Potter?

A I don't know.

Q Now the photographs, do you remember what

percentage of them had Mr. Hubbard portrayed?

A About 30 percent.

Q And when you and your wife Terri broke up, I

take it that you maintained or kept the photographs; is that

right?

A No, actually when we broke up she took all

the photographs.

Q But later on you got them back?

A No, this was an album which we had given to

my parents and I wanted to sell them because when I got out--

Q I am not asking you about selling them at the

moment. I am just asking you about where they are from.

A That is where they came from.

Q In January or February of 1982 you had some

discussions with Virgil Wilhite about the fact that you

had these photographs?

A Yes.

Q And you had some discussions about the fact

that they portrayed, many of then portrayed Mr. Hubbard in an

informal setting?

A You mean a wedding?

2332

Q Well, they weren't -- most of the photographs

of Mr. Hubbard that are published are photographs that are

taken for publication; right? Published photographs of

Mr. Hubbard in your experience are photographs that are

taken and sat up specifically for publication purposes; right?

THE COURT: Posed; is that what you mean?

Q BY MR. LITT: Posed.

A All of the photographs of Mr. Hubbard which

have been published by the organization are poses.

Q Now these photographs were not taken for

publication; correct? They were taken to be pictures of

your wedding ceremony?

A I never spoke to any of the photographers

regarding publication or not.

Q Well at the time you didn't understand them to

be taken for publication; did you?

A No.

Q You understood them to be pictures of your

wedding?

A Yes.

Q Now when you met with Mr. Wilhite, you explained

to him the nature of the photographs; is that right?

A Yes.

Q That you had and you explained to him the

circumstances under which they had been taken?

A Yes.

Q And you explained to him that some of them had

been taken by Mr. Hubbard; right?

2333

A Yes.

Q And that others of them portrayed Mr. Hubbard?

A Right.

Q And that these were pictures from the yacht,

the Apollo?

A Yes.

Q Let me put it like this: Mr. Wilhite told

you that they probably had a substantial market value among

collectors; is that right?

A Yes.

Q Now in the discussions that you had with

Mr. Wilhite, I take it that at a certain point you decided

that you wanted to sell this set of photos?

A Yes.

Q They were no longer of particular importance

to you?

A Yes.

2333-A

Q And then you had a meeting with Jim and Nancy

Dincalci at some point?

A Yes.

Q And in that meeting you advised then about your

discussions with Mr. Wilhite and the fact that these photos

had a substantial economic value?

A It came up during those talks.

Q And in the course of those talks it came up that

they had candid photos of Mr. Hubbard also; is that right?

A Yes.

Q So you had a discussion about the fact that your

photos and their photos could potentially be sold through

Mr. Wilhite; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And did you have a similar such discussion with

Mike and Kima Douglas?

A Yes.

Q And then at some point you talked further with

Mr. Wilhite and described to him the pictures that you had

and that the Douglases and the Dincalcis had; is that

right?

A Yes.

Q Now, do you know what period of time the Douglas

photographs were from?

A I believe the beginning of 1980 and sometime on

board the ship. I believe it would around March, 1974.

Q So they were from two periods?

A Yes.

2334

Q And the Dincalcis' photographs, do you know what

period of time they were from?

A They were from 1973.

Q Taken in New York?

A Yes.

Q How many photographs did the Dincalcis have?

A When you say "how many," do you mean how many

were they going to include in the sale?

Q Yes.

A Fifteen.

Q And how many were the Douglases going to include

in the sale?

A Fifteen.

Q And how many were you going to include in the

sale?

A The whole album.

Q And they were put together in an album form,

each of the sets of photographs; is that right?

A The sequence of events was Virgil called my home

on April 22nd and he left a message on my answering machine

saying that they were sold; get them to me.

And the next day or thereabouts, I went, first

of all, to the Douglases; they lived in Palm Desert.

And I picked up -- they had negatives and prints,

15 total. Some of what they had were just prints. A lot

of what they had were negatives.

I went to the Dincalcis; Jim had all negatives.

And he had some contact print that went with them. And I

2335

got -- I bought an album and I typed up a statement -- I

interviewed both people on laying out what each one was,

when it was taken, what it concerned so that there was a

record so it was an identifiable photograph.

Then I put all of this stuff, the two write-ups

and the negatives and the prints, whenever they were

available, into an album. And within a few days of that,

somewhere around, maybe, the 25th, 27th of April, I delivered

both albums, my album and the album I had made up of the

others to Mr. Wilhite.

Q Enough, enough, enough. I'm not asking for a

20-minute recitation here.

Prior to all of these events occurring, you had

had discussions with Mr. Wilhite and explored with him the

possibility of selling these photographs; is that right?

A Prior to all this?

Q Prior to these events that you have described

where you got this call from him and then you went and got

all of these things together and typed what they were?

A Yes. Mr. Wilhite told me that he was in touch

with someone in Clearwater who was very much interested and

he was talking about a price of $6,000 for the totality of

it.

And Mr. Wilhite was to get a percentage on top

of that. Whatever he made over that was his. He was getting

a commission. I has no idea what it was, but he seemed to

be happy about it.

Q And the value of these photographs was that they

2336

portrayed Mr. Hubbard in these various settings; is that

correct?

A The value was that there were collectors who were

willing to pay this for them.

Q Because they had pictures of Mr. Hubbard; they

weren't going to pay for pictures of you, were they?

A That is correct.

2337

Q And then you delivered to Mr. Wilhite these

three sets of photo albums; correct?

A There was two albums, three sets of photos.

Q And the notes that you wrote up on each of

these sets of photos gave background on the pictures and

where they were taken and their relationship to Mr. Hubbard;

is that correct?

A Yes.

Q All right now the sequence of events after that

I find a little confusing.

At some point shortly thereafter you talked to

Mr. Wilhite and he told you that someone named Lyman Spurlock

had taken the photographs; is that what happened?

A Some days later --- Mr. Wilhite was supposed to

call me within a couple of days of my delivery. He said he

was going to air freight them off to Clearwater the same day,

so he was going to package them up and air freight them

to Clearwater.

Three or four days went by. I didn't hear

back from them so I called him, at which time he said that he

had been contacted by a Scientology attorney or he said --

I forget if he used the words "organization attorney" or

something, but at in any case an attorney, Lyman Spurlock,

and that he had given all the photos to Lyman Spurlock.

I was quite incensed and I said, "Do you have

the money?"

He said, "No."

I said, "Well, I want the photos back."

2338

He said, "Well, you will have to contact the

attorneys."

I said which attorneys? Lyman spurlock isn't

an attorney."

He said, "Well, he told me he is an attorney."

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to move --

THE COURT: You said you were a little confused about

it and he is relating it, so I will deny the motion.

Conversation with Mr. Wilhite.

Q BY MR. LITT: All right.

Now when you talked to Mr. Wilhite, did he

still have your set of photos?

A Well, first I am talking first about the

telephone communication. That is what I am talking about

right now when I called him up and he told me this. He said

he had been shown a Declare on me and that -- and that

Mr. Spurlock or Lyman Spurlock, he called him, had taken the

photos.

At this point I said -- this was after work.

I had just gotten home from work and I called him and had

this conversation. I said I was driving up right away to

Los Angeles. I was coming to his home and I wanted the

photos or the money.

So I got a hold of Omar Garrison and his wife

and my wife, and the four of us went to Mr. Wilhite's

place, at which time I had another conversation with

Mr. Wilhite.

Q Now, at Mr. Wilhite's place did you go in and

2339

have a further conversation with him concerning the photos?

A Well, Mr. Wilhite met me --

Q I am just asking whether you had a further

conversation at this point.

A You began that by saying did I go in. I was

about to explain that we had a conversation in the street.

Q Okay. Did Mr. Wilhite have any of these photos

with him at that time?

A Yes, he had my photo album.

Q This was the album that was of your wedding

that had been -- you had been trying to sell?

A That is correct.

Q And did he return to you at that point the

photo album of your wedding?

A Yes.

2340

Q And did he tell you that it took two photo albums

which were --

THE COURT: There is only one.

MR. LITT: You are right.

THE COURT: There are two sets.

Q BY MR. LITT: The other photo album with the two

sets were -- had been taken by Mr. Spurlock?

A That is correct.

Q And within his possession or somebody's possession

that he didn't know of?

A He told me at that time that they were with

attorneys. He thought that Lyman Spurlock was an attorney,

but that -- but he pluralized that and said, "They are with

attorneys."

Q So your photos were returned to you within a day

after you --

Was this actually the same day, I gather, that

you learned about Mr. Spurlock's contact with Mr. Wilhite?

Is that right?

A Yes.

Q And then you and Mr. Garrison went over to the

Commodore's Messengers building at the Cedars Complex; is

that correct?

A Yes.

Q And that building is on Fountain Avenue; is that

right?

A Yes. I went with Mr. Garrison, Mr. Garrison's

wife and my wife.

2341

Q And you went in and demanded to see someone; is

that correct?

A Yes. I wanted to first see Lyman Spurlock.

Q And you were told that Lyman Spurlock wasn't

there?

A I believe that is what I was told.

Q And then you demanded to see somebody to discuss

the photographs?

A Yes. I believe I requested to see Vaughn Young

at that point.

Q And were you told he wasn't available?

A That's right.

Q And then you ended up speaking with a couple of

people whose names are, I think you said, one was Steve

Marlowe; am I right about that?

A Yes.

Q And was another Peter Alvet?

A No. John Alesio.

There is a third person whose name I do not

recall.

Q And you were quite upset at this point; is that

right?

A Very.

Q And quite emotional?

A Yes.

Q And you were demanding that these photographs

be returned to you; is that correct?

A Yes.

2342

All I needed was an acknowledgement that they

would be returned.

Q When you were told they wouldn't be returned to

you, you got increasingly upset; is that correct?

A I was upset. I was very upset.

Q You were shouting; is that right?

A I think I raised my voice; in fact, I swore

several times.

Q And do you recall Mr. Garrison's description of

you as maniacal?

A When I left?

Q By the time you left.

A I was not maniacal when I left. There were

points when I could have been termed maniacal during my

conversation with these three gentlemen.

Q And the three gentlemen told you that they would

not give you back the photographs that were those of the

Douglases and the Dincalcis; is that right?

A They told me they would not tell me which

attorneys had them.

They told me they were with attorneys, but they

would not tell me who the attorneys were. And they told me

they would not give me back the photos.

Q And at some point Terry Gamboa, your former wife,

came down and you had been yelling quite loudly at that point;

is that correct?

A I had been loud. I wouldn't say that I was

yelling loudly throughout or at that point.

2343

Q In the course of the conversation you had been

yelling loudly; is that correct?

A I don't think I was yelling loudly.

Q You were yelling?

A Not even yelling.

Q Well you could be heard beyond your own room;

isn't that right?

A I have no doubt of that.

Q All right, and Mr. Garrison and his wife and

your wife Joyce were out in a hallway area while you were in

having this conversation?

A During most of it, yes.

Q And Miss Gamboa came down at some point and

said to you, "You are not going to get the photographs

back"; right?

A She said something like that.

Q And she or someone said, "Tell the Douglases or

the Dincalcis to talk to us directly"; isn't that right?

A No.

Q And when you continued to yell, she told you

to leave; isn't that right?

A She came down immediately and told me to leave.

Q Immediately when the conversation began?

A When she arrived. Immediately she said, "Get

out."

Q And you continued to yell when she said, "Get

out"?

A No, I didn't.

2344

Q You continued to demand the photographs didn't

you?

A I asked her at that point, "I want the

photographs back."

Q And it is in the context of that conversation

that she said to you words to the effect, "If you want them

back, get an attorney."

A She didn't say "If you want then back." She

just said, "Get an attorney."

Q In response to your demand for the photographs?

A It followed on the heels of my demand.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, this may be -- it is a couple

minutes early, but I'm about to begin another topic which will

take some time, so this may be a good time to break.

THE COURT: Did you get all your pictures back?

THE WITNESS: I got mine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Including the ones of Mr. Hubbard?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. We will take a recess until 9:00 a.m.

tomorrow morning.

(At 3:58 p.m, the proceedings were

adjourned until Friday, May 18, 1984

at 9:00 a.m.)

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