Gerry Armstrong--Armstrong II Hearing Transcript 03-05-1993

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

1671

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT N0. 86

HON. DIANE WAYNE, JUDGE

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

N0. BC 052 395

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
March 5, 1993

APPEARANCES:

(See appearance page.)

COPY

COURT MONITOR:
TRANSCRIPTION BY: E. VELASCO
FOX TRANSCRIPTIONS

Fox Transcriptions

1672

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff:

ANDREW WILSON
Attorney-at-Law
Suite 450
235 Montgomery
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 391-3900

BOWLES & MOXON
BY: LAURIE J. BARTILSON
Suite 2000
6255 Sunset Boulevard
Hollywood, CA 90028
(213) 661-4030

For Defendants:

HUB LAW OFFICES
BY: FORD GREENE
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-0360

PAUL MORANTZ
Attorney-at-Law
P. 0. Box 511
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
(310) 459-4745

Fox Transcriptions

1673

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1993, A.M.

DEPARTMENT N0. 86

HON. DIANE WAYNE, JUDGE

THE COURT: Church of Scientology versus Armstrong.

MR. WILSON: Good morning, Your Honor.

Andrew Wilson and Laurie Bartilson appearing on

behalf of the plaintiff, Church of Scientology.

MR. GREENE: Good morning, Your Honor.

Ford Greene and Paul Morantz on behalf of Gerald

Armstrong, who is sitting at the end of counsel table.

MR. WILSON: Your Honor, before we begin I'd like to

ask the court's permission to have Mr. Michael Hertzberg sit

at counsel table with me. He's not counsel in this action.

He's a New York attorney who represented my client in the

previous Armstrong action on the appeal.

THE COURT: It won't be necessary because we're not

going to go very far.

Gentlemen, let me ask -- I'm sorry.

MR. WILSON: Okay.

THE COURT: This case is on appeal?

MR. WILSON: Yes.

THE COURT: And it just seems to me -- you're the

moving party?

MR. WILSON: That's correct.

THE COURT: It seems to me ridiculous to hold this

hearing prior to a determination whether or not this is a

valid order. I mean, I have some serious questions about the

validity of the order. And I'm not prepared to waste my

Fox Transcriptions

1674

time, if it's going to be heard. And apparently it's going

to be heard very soon, because the briefs have already been

filed and one is left to be filed; is that correct?

MR. GREENE: Actually, Your Honor, the respondent's

brief is due. Scientology's brief is due on March 22nd.

THE COURT: The respondent being the moving party here?

MR. GREENE: Being the moving party here and the

plaintiff in the action. And, as we noted in a footnote in

our papers and we were going to call the court's attention to

that fact again this morning.

THE COURT: It just seems like an inordinate waste of

our time.

MR. WILSON: May I address that point?

THE COURT: Sure. You can address, but --

MR. WILSON: And I will attempt to convince you.

THE COURT: You're not. Especially after seeing all

the papers you filed.

MR. WILSON: The point here is not whether

Judge Sohigian made an error.

THE COURT: No, no. I absolutely agree and I would not

relitigate the validity of the order and I'm not going to

relitigate that. And I think you're absolutely right. But

it does have to be a valid order.

Now, I don't know how broadly or narrowly you

find that but I think that it's stupid for me to waste my

time, your time, deciding whether or not Mr. Armstrong is in

actual contempt of an order that may be set aside.

MR. WILSON: I agree it would not be a good use of your

Fox Transcriptions

1675

time.

THE COURT: Well, I don't mean that my time is so

valuable. I don't mean it in that sense.

MR. WILSON: It would not be a good use of judicial

time, but I don't believe that any of the issues --

THE COURT: That's not my personal time that I'm

talking about.

MR. WILSON: I don't believe that any of the issues

that are going to be addressed on appeal will solve the

problem of whether Mr. Armstrong should be held in contempt

for this very simple reason:

The cases say that the only excuse that

Mr. Armstrong could have for violating this court's order

would be if the court did not have jurisdiction. And the

cases talk about what that jurisdiction is and it's either

personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.

There's no question that Judge Sohigian had

jurisdiction to issue this order. Mr. Greene tries to

bootstrap his arguments, which are essentially arguments that

Judge Sohigian's order was wrong, into arguments that Judge

Sohigian did not have jurisdiction.

But if you look at the cases that we've cited --

and I think this is a very important point -- particularly

the Walker v. City of Birmingham case, where in that case

there was an injunction issued against people marching, a

Civil Rights march, that involved the infamous Bull Connor,

who didn't give them a permit. A court enjoined them; they

violated the injunction and it went all the way up to the

Fox Transcriptions

1676

Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court said it doesn't matter this

ordinance was unconstitutional; it doesn't matter whether

your rights of free speech were violated. What matters is

you cannot disobey the order of the court.

And in the Walker case the Supreme Court made a

statement, and I'd like to read it to you briefly. And the

court said, "Without question, the state court that issued

the injunction had, as a court of equity, jurisdiction over

the petitioners and over the subject matter of the

controversy. And this is not a case where the injunction was

transparently invalid or had only a frivolous pretense to

validity.

We have consistently recognized the strong

interest of state and local governments in regulating the use

of their streets and other public places."

I submit to the court that the interest here that

the court has in making sure its orders are obeyed is at

least as strong as the interest of the State in Walker in

regulating its streets and public ways.

What's going on here is not that Mr. Armstrong is

involved in this hearing against the Church of Scientology.

This is a case of Mr. Armstrong against this court. There is

an order of this court and he violated it. That's what's

relevant here and there's no issue before the appellate court

that's going to resolve that.

THE COURT: Oh, but I think there is. And that's

whether or not this is an order --

Fox Transcriptions

1677

I'll tell you, when I first looked at this order,

I thought the order was clear until I then read part of the

transcript. Then it became unclear to me. And I think that

is in front of the appellate court, whether or not this is an

order capable of being followed, because Judge Sohigian's

comments that at least it confused me a little bit.

So I do think that issue is there and I'm going

to put this matter over until I think that will be decided

without prejudice to anybody's rights and I would suggest

that you return in June. I think that would give us

sufficient time.

[MR. WILSON:] Your Honor, my concern -- and I know this is not

before the court, but my concern is that Mr. Armstrong has

stated in deposition -- you've probably seen that

statement -- he's not going to obey this agreement no matter

what a court says.

We have put forth numerous instances in which we

believe he is --

THE COURT: If that's a valid order, each time he

disobeys it, he faces five days in jail. I take contempt

very seriously. And, I mean, I don't treat it lightly and he

just does it at his peril.

MR. WILSON: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Let's pick a date in June. Why

don't we make it June 1st.

MR. WILSON: May I be able to look at my calendar?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. GREENE: These proceedings are being electronically

Fox Transcriptions

1678

recorded; right, Judge? Could we get a transcript.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GREENE: Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. BARTILSON: Your Honor, the case is scheduled for

trial May 3rd. Judge Horowitz found no problem with going

forward on the trial of this case, despite the appeal. And

essentially the message that I hear Mr. Armstrong being told

is you do the contempt at your peril, but by filing an

appeal, no matter how frivolous, you can avoid an order of

the court.

THE COURT: You know what? I don't try to interrupt

you, so try not to interrupt me. All right.

MS. BARTILSON: I'm sorry. I apologize, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is June 1st all right?

MR. GREENE: For me it's not, Your Honor. I have a

conflict and maybe I can change that conflict, so I'll try.

THE COURT: June 1st. Is that all right for you?

MR. WILSON: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll see you back here June 1st.

Mr. Armstrong, you are ordered to return on

June 1st at 9:30.

MR. GREENE: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Proceedings concluded.)

Fox Transcriptions

1679

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT N0. 86

HON. DIANE WAYNE, JUDGE

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

N0. BC 052 395

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

)
)
)

ss.

I, MARIE FOX, a duly designated transcriber, do hereby

declare and certify under penalty of perjury that I have

caused to be transcribed the portion of tape 1 which was duly

recorded in the Superior Court of the State of California,

County of Los Angeles, Department 86, on the 5th day of

March, 1993, in the above-mentioned case, and that the

foregoing 6 pages comprise a true and correct, accurate

transcription of the aforementioned tape.

Dated this 19th day of March, 1993.

[signed] Marie Fox [stamp: COPY ]

Transcriber

Fox Transcriptions

This document in .pdf format

For final disposition of this contempt proceeding, see Ruling of Judge Diane Wayne 7-29-1994

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