|
§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact § |
|
|
DECLARATION OF ANDREW H. WILSON IN SUPPORT
ANDREW H. WILSON deposes and says: 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Wilson Campilongo LLP and am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of California. I was the attorney principally responsible for the representation of the Plaintiff and Appellant, Church of Scientology International (the "Church or CSI") and was lead counsel for CSI in the litigation of this matter at the superior court level. As such I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and, if called upon to testify on such matters, would and could do so competently. 2. In December 1986 the Church entered a settlement (the Settlement Agreement") with Gerald Armstrong. This settlement was part of a settlement of a number of lawsuits, which included litigation between the Church and Armstrong. Armstrong was the "lead" plaintiff, and all plaintiffs were represented by the same attorney. Armstrong was also the principal witness for the other plaintiffs, as a self- proclaimed expert on the workings and management of the Church. In settling this litigation, it was the Church's desire to end its relationship with Armstrong once and for all. In order to accomplish this, the Church insisted on the following covenants by Armstrong: (i) Armstrong's agreement to end his active and voluntary support to anti-Scientology litigants which he had been voluntarily providing in the form of purported expert declarations and testimony for the preceding several years, (ii)
[page break]
Armstrong's agreement to return to the Church documents which he had stolen and all copies of them and (iii) Armstrong's agreement to refrain from discussing with third parties his experiences with the Scientology religion and to keep confidential all terms of the settlement itself. In exchange., and as his part of the overall settlement, Armstrong received $800,000. 3. Armstrong, however, quickly betrayed his agreement. In 1990 he conveyed to his friends and attorney virtually all of his assets, including an expensive house which he had built in Marin County with proceeds from his settlement with the Church. Then he resumed voluntary and active litigation support in direct violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and began making and publicizing statements of his purported experiences in and knowledge of the Church. ;4. CSI filed the action underlying this appeal in Marin County Superior court in February 1992 (where Armstrong resided). The complaint sought injunctive relief to prohibit Armstrong from committing further violations of the Settlement Agreement and also liquidated damages for the violations which Armstrong had already committed. The Church rapidly obtained a Temporary Restraining Order, compelling Armstrong to adhere to the Settlement Agreement but Armstrong was able to delay the motion for preliminary injunction through various procedural maneuvers, including a motion to change venue to Los Angeles County. In May, 1992, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, the Hon. Ronald Sohigian entered a preliminary injunction which prohibited Armstrong from further violations of the key provisions of the settlement agreement. 2
5. In June, 1992 I took Armstrong's deposition in this case. During the deposition, in the face of Armstrong's assertions that he did not consider himself restrained in any way by the contract which he had entered with CSI in 1986, I questioned him as to whether he intended to obey the order of Judge Sohigan. Armstrong responded:
A true and correct copy of the relevant pages of that deposition are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit [A]. 6. Armstrong sought review of the preliminary injunction by writ of mandate which was denied on November 20, 1992 and then prosecuted an interlocutory appeal. On May 16, 1994, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed the issuance of the preliminary injunction by its unpublished opinion of that date, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit [B]. 7. True to his challenge to the order of the Court and his avowal to disregard his contractual obligations, Armstrong continued to engage in breaches of the terms of settlement arid of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Sohigan. CSI responded by amending its complaint several times in order to incorporate these new breaches. After Armstrong stipulated to a transfer of the action back to Marin 3
County where it had originally been brought and where Armstrong had resided throughout the case, the Church then brought and won a series of summary adjudication motions on specific breaches, ultimately being awarded a total of $300,000 in liquidated damages. CSI filed and won a motion for summary adjudication on its claim for a permanent injunction. Further, on summary adjudication the Church obtained the dismissal of Armstrong's cross-complaint attacking the validity and enforceability of the settlement agreement and also obtained the dismissal of Armstrong's affirmative defenses. Judge Gary H. Thomas entered a detailed, carefully crafted Order of Permanent Injunction of October 17, 1995 and entered Judgment in the breach of contract case on May 2, 1996. 8. In his Order of permanent injunction, Judge Thomas enumerated 31 breaches of the settlement agreement by Armstrong in the period from 1991 to 1995. A true and correct copy of the Order of Permanent Injunction and the subsequent Judgment attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit [C]. After devoting five pages to the itemization of Armstrong's breaches of the agreement -- all of which were carried out in violation of Judge Sohigian's preliminary injunction -- the Court recognized the futility of attempting to bring Armstrong into compliance with his settlement contract through the imposition of a monetary sanction and noted the need for a court order to compel Armstrong's compliance:
4
Exh. C, 6:18-20, 24-27) 9. Armstrong's immediaatee rinse to the award of $300,000 in liquidated damages to CSI and to the issuance of the Order of Permanent Injunction was to file for bankruptcy and request that the bankruptcy court discharge this debt and the injunction. CSI brought an adversary complaint in opposition. After a one- day trial, the Hon. Alan Jaroslovsky, of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Santa Rosa Division discharged Armstrong's monetary debt but left whole the Order of Permanent Injunction. 10. Unfortunately Armstrong, has chosen to ignore this Order of Permanent Injunction of the Marin County Superior Court, just as he earlier had ignored the Order of Preliminary Injunction of the Los Angeles Superior Court. On October 7, 1996 Armstrong sent a letter to the Los Angeles City Council, which at the time was considering the renaming of a city street in honor of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology religion. Armstrong's letter (which evidently had no impact on the City Council as they ruled virtually unanimously to approve the street name change) was a direct and flagrant breach of both the 1986 settlement agreement and 1995 Order of Permanent Injunction. Armstrong compounded this violation by having his letter posted on the Internet. A true and correct copy of the Internet posting of Armstrong's letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit [D]. In response to this violation, I sent Armstrong a letter warning him 5
that such actions constituted a violation of Judge Thomas' order and that " further violations of the Order will only serve to exacerbate and compound the seriousness of this matter." A true and correct copy of my latter of october 23, 1996 to Armstrong is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit [E]. 11. Unrestrained, Armstrong again violated the Marin Court's Order. This time, on January 26, 1994, Armstrong submitted a 45 page declaration against the Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), one of the named beneficiaries of the 1986 Settlement Agreement. He sent this declaration, containing material directly violating the agreement and Order, to the Hon. Ronald M. Whyte, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, who was presiding over several copyright infringement cases brought by RTC. Armstrong's declaration was rejected by the court as improperly submitted. Nevertheless, since this was a further and egregious violation of the Order of Permanent Injunction, CSI concluded that Armstrong's actions must be brought to the attention of Judge Thomas. Accordingly, CSI moved for an Order to Show Cause why Armstrong should not be held in contempt of court for his actions. Rather than responding to the OSC Armstrong fled the country, moving to Canada where, to the best of my knowledge, he currently .resides. Armstrong's flight required that we serve tire Order to Show Cause by publication. 12. Judge Thomas reviewed the evidence and found Armstrong in contempt of court. On July 5, 1997 he issued an Order of Contempt which states, in part: 6
(A true and correct copy of said order is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit [F]) In finding Armstrong guilty of Contempt of Court, the Marin Court noted that "the Order was valid and enforceable; ARMSTRONG had knowledge of the Order, and had the ability to comply with the Order and willfully disobeyed the Order." (Id. ) 13. The Court sentenced Armstrong to a $1,000 fine and 48 hours confinement in the county jail. (Id.) Armstrong did not appeal the Order of Contempt and the time for filing a notice of appeal has passed. On August 6, 1997 Judge Thomas issued a Bench Warrant for Armstrong's arrest, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [G]. The Warrant is still outstanding and Armstrong has not appeared to satisfy the terms of the Order of Contempt. 14. Further, despite the Order of Permanent Injunction, despite the Order of Contempt, and despite the Bench Warrant, from his refuge in Canada, Armstrong has continued to flagrantly violate the order of the Marin Court and ignore his contractual duties to the Church per his 1986 settlement. On October 28, 1997 7
Armstrong appeared on a German television broadcast for which he had given an extensive interview, discussing matters at length which constituted repeated violations of the Order of Permanent Injunction. I have viewed a videotape of this broadcast and have personally observed Armstrong's numerous statements in violation of that Order. The videotape is not made part of the record at this time in order not to burden the court. The videotape and/or a transcript, can be provided promptly if necessary. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 18th day of November, 1997
8 Exhibit [A] Exhibit [B] Exhibit [C] Exhibit [D] Exhibit [E] Exhibit [F] Exhibit [G] |
|
§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact § |