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

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND
DECLARATION OF ANDREW H. WILSON IN SUPPORT THEREOF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

ii

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND
DECLARATION OF ANDREW H. WILSON IN SUPPORT THEREOF

INTRODUCTION

    Plaintiff and Respondent Church of Scientology International moves this Court

to dismiss the appeal of Defendant and Appellant Gerald Armstrong on the ground that

he has been held to be in ongoing contempt of the very court order from which he seeks

to appeal, that he is a fugitive from that court order, and that a bench warrant has been

issued by the Superior Court for his arrest pursuant to the order of contempt. Pending

determination of this motion, respondent seeks a temporary stay of respondent's

[page break]

obligation to file Respondent's Brief, until, if necessary, thirty days after the

determination of this motion by this Court.

    This motion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and authorities,

the declaration of Andrew H. Wilson and the accompanying exhibits, and the files of

record of this case, and such other and further evidence as may properly come before

this Court at the hearing of this matter.

    Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Appellate Rule 41, any showing in

opposition to this motion shall be served and filed within 10 days after the service of the

motion.

2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

    Respondent Church of Scientology International ("Church" or " CSI") moves to

dismiss this appeal because Appellant Gerald Armstrong ("Armstrong") has willfully

disobeyed the injunctive order from which he appeals and has been held in contempt for

that disobedience. "A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and

assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt

to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state." MacPherson v. MacPherson

(1939) 13 Cal. 2d 271, 277, 89 P.2d 382. The court below held appellant Gerald

Armstrong in contempt of court for willful violation of the permanent injunction which

is the subject of this appeal and punished Armstrong by imposing a fine of $1,000.00

and a term of confinement in the County Jail for a period not to exceed 48 hours. Rather

than discharging the contempt order of the Superior Court, or properly noticing a timely

appeal from it, Armstrong fled the United States and is prosecuting this appeal from

Canada. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW

    This action arose out of numerous clear and egregious breaches by Armstrong

of a settlement agreement (the " Settlement Agreement ") he entered into with the Church.

In December 1986 the Church sought to end a period of long and bitter litigation with

Armstrong , a former member turned professional anti-Scientologist. It paid Armstrong

1

$800,000 and entered into the Settlement Agreement which required Armstrong to end

his litigation against the Church, and to refrain from aiding others in litigation, to return

to the Church the documents which he had stolen and all copies of them, to refrain from

aiding others in litigation, to refrain from discussing with third parties his experiences

with the Scientology faith, and to keep confidential all terms of the Settlement

Agreement itself. Declaration of Andrew H. Wilson, ¶ 2 (hereinafter Wilson Dec., ¶

__") These provisions were necessary because, in addition to being a litigant,

Armstrong had become a professional expert witness in litigation against the Church,

devoting virtually all his time and energy to fomenting litigation against the Church and

providing assistance to other persons litigating claims against the Church. Id

    Unfortunately, the peace which the Church bargained for was short-lived. In

1990, Armstrong conveyed virtually all of his assets to his lawyer and close friends, and

then began repeatedly breaching the Settlement Agreement Wilson Dec., ¶ 3. This

action was filed in February 1992 in the Superior Court of Marin County (where

Armstrong resided) seeking injunctive relief to prohibit further violations and damages

for the violations which had occurred. Armstrong was able to delay a motion for

preliminary injunction through various procedural maneuvers, including a successful

motion to change venue to Los Angeles County.¹ Wilson Dec., ¶ 4. In May, 1992, after

an extensive evidentiary hearing, the Hon. Ronald Sohigian entered a preliminary

injunction which prohibited further violations of these key provisions of the Settlement

¹In a later about-face, Armstrong stipulated to transfer of the action back to the
Marin County Superior Court where it was assigned to the Hon. Gary Thomas.

2

Agreement Id. The ink was scarcely dry on Judge Sohigian's order when Armstrong

declared his defiance:

A. When I mean, I have, I have absolutely no
intention of honoring that settlement agreement. I
cannot. I cannot logically. I cannot ethically. I cannot
morally. I cannot psychically. I cannot philosophically.
I cannot spiritually. I cannot in any way. And it is
firmly my intention not to honor it.
Q. No matter what a court says?
A. No court could order it They're going to have to kill me.

Wilson Dec., ¶ 5 and Exh. A thereto.

    Armstrong petitioned for a writ of mandate, which was denied and then filed an

interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed Judge

Sohigian, recognizing that it was quite proper to restrain ". . . Armstrong's voluntary

intermeddling in other litigation against the Church, in violation of his own agreement."

Wilson Dec. ¶ 6 and Exh. B thereto, p.10.

    The Church successfully moved for summary adjudication of certain causes of

action and was awarded $300,000. The Church then moved for summary adjudication

of its injunctive relief claim, which was granted in October 1995. By his Order of

Permanent Injunction dated October 17, 1995, the Hon. Gary Thomas found that

Armstrong violated the Settlement Agreement repeatedly. Order of Permanent

Injunction (Wilson Decl., Exh. C), at 2 - 6. Finding that "Defendant Armstrong has

reiterated numerous times that he intends to contin[ue] breaching the [Settlement]

Agreement unless he is ordered by the Court to cease and desist" and that " entry of a

permanent injunction in this action is necessary . . . because pecuniary compensation

could not afford the Church adequate relief" (Id. at 6), Judge Thomas issued an Order

3

of Permanent Injunction enjoining further violations. Id. at 7-8. Armstrong then

declared bankruptcy and contended that not only was the damage award discharged, but

also that he was discharged from all obligations under the Settlement Agreement,

including those which prohibited his voluntary intermeddling in litigation against the

Church. The Church was required to bring an adversary proceeding in which it

established that these obligations were not discharged. Wilson Dec., ¶ 9.

    Armstrong's violations of the Settlement Agreement and the Permanent

Injunction persisted. On January 26,1992, Armstrong submitted a 45-page declaration

against the Religious Technology Center ("RTC") one of the named Beneficiaries of the

Settlement Agreement directly to the Hon. Ronald M. Whyte of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California, who was presiding over a

copyright infringement case brought by RTC. The declaration was not properly filed

with the Court, although Armstrong gratuitously "served" it on all parties. The goal of

of this transparent subterfuge was to make the declaration widely available. Wilson Dec.,

¶11.² On July 5, 1997, Judge Thomas held Armstrong in contempt of court for this

egregious conduct, stating:

ARMSTRONG willfully disobeyed the Order [of
Permanent Injunction]. On or about January 26, 1997,

²Armstrong had been only recently warned. Armstrong previously violated
the Permanent Injunction when on October 7,1996, he wrote a long letter to the Los
Angeles City Council opposing the naming of a city street after L. Ron Hubbard, the
founder of Scientology. He then made the letter available for posting on the Internet.
The Church did not seek an order of contempt for this violation, but instead turned
the other cheek and simply warned Armstrong by letter not to commit further
violations. The Church's restraint was rewarded by Armstrong's direct submission
of the declaration to Judge Whyte. Wilson Dec., ¶¶ 10-11

4

ARMSTRONG sent a document entitled
DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG to
United States District Judge Ronald M. Whyte. Judge
Whyte was at the time presiding over three cases in
which the plaintiff is RTC [one of the Scientology related
entities against which Armstrong had agreed not to assist
litigants and which was covered by the Permanent
Injunction]. In the declaration, ARMSTRONG recites
his understanding that he was prohibited from sending
such a Declaration directly to litigants and states that he
is instead sending it directly to Judge Whyte in the hopes
of influencing his decision on a pending matter. This
evidences ARMSTRONG's willful disobedience of the
Order and Judgment.

Order of Contempt (Wilson Dec., ¶ 12, Exh. F).

    Judge Thomas then found that "GERALD ARMSTRONG is guilty of Contempt

of Court for failure to obey the Order and Judgment" Id. and noted, "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. Armstrong was

ordered punished for contempt by a fine of $1,000 and forty-eight hours confinement

in the county jail. Id. at 3. Armstrong did not appeal the Order of Contempt and the

time for filing a notice of appeal of that Order has passed.

    Rather, in the face of the Order of Contempt, Armstrong fled the United States.

He has not paid the $1,000 fine and he has not submitted to confinement in the county

jail. Wilson Dec., ¶ 13. A Beach Warrant issued by Judge Thomas on August 6,1997

is still outstanding. Beach Warrant, Wilson Dec., Id. Indeed, Armstrong continued to

defy the Order of Permanent Injunction even after he was found in contempt by the

Superior Court. On October 28, 1997, the German television service broadcast an

5

interview with Armstrong in which he repeatedly violated the Order of Permanent

Injunction. Wilson Decl. I, ¶ 14.

    Armstrong's defance continues before this Court, In his Opening Brief, he

boldly reaffirms his refusal to abide by the court's lawful orders and declares (speaking

of himself in the third person), "he cannot be silenced by the obstructive [Settlement

Agreement], nor by the Marin Court's enforcement." Appellant's Opening Brief at 41. ³

ARGUMENT

    Armstrong's appeal should be dismissed because he has refused to comply with

the order of the Superior Court in this action. As a contemnor, and now a fugitive, he

may not proceed with his appeal. Moreover, while Armstrong cannot be bothered by

compliance with the orders of the Superior Court, he is nonetheless willing to place the

massive imposition of this appeal on respondent and this Court. The record on this

appeal is extensive as evidenced by Armstrong's designation of 224 exhibits, amounting

to many thousands of pages, for inclusion in the Clerk's Transcript.⁴ Rather than engage

in an unnecessary and unwarranted review of the Superior Court's order (which review

would only demonstrate Armstrong's refusal to comply with his own agreement and the

Court's orders), this Court should follow established precedent and dismiss Armstrong's

³ Armstrong's Opening Brief is dated August 25, 1997, less than three weeks
after the issuance of the Beach Warrant. The brief was mailed from " Chilliwack,
B.C., Canada" and Armstrong does not provide his address, but rather it is "care of"
someone else. Appellant's Opening Brief, cover and Proof of Service.

⁴In his Opening Brief, Armstrong states that he "has no present access to
published California and U.S. law and appellate opinions." Appellant's Opening
Brief at 3. Presumably, this is due to his own decision to flee the country.

6

appeal because he is in open and continuing contempt of the Superior Court order he

seeks to challenge.

    The Supreme Court of California held in MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13

Cal. 2d 271,. 89 P.2d 382, that a father who had fled California to Mexico with his

children in violation of the custody arrangements made in his divorce agreement and

ordered by the court thereby forfeited his right to appeal the court's order of fees against

him in the action. The Court stated:

In secluding the children in a foreign country and alienating
them, appellant violated not only his agreement with plaintiff
and the provisions of the interlocutory and final decrees of
divorce, but he has also wilfully and purposely evaded legal
processes and contumaciously defied and nullified every attempt
to enforce the judgments and orders of the California courts,
including the very order from which he seeks relief by this
appeal. Such flagrant disobedience and contempt effectually bar
him from receiving the assistance of an appellate tribunal. A
party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and
assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in
an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the
courts of this state.

Id. at 277.

    Armstrong cannot proceed with his appeal to test the validity of the Permanent

Injunction. The law does not give him the right to decide for himself whether or not he

will abide by the orders of the courts. As the United States Supreme Court held in an

appeal brought by an escaped convict, "If we affirm the judgment, he is not likely to

appear to submit to his sentence. If we reverse it and order a new trial, he will appear

or not, as he may consider most for his interest. Under such circumstances, we are not

inclined to hear and decide what may prove to be only a moot case." Smith v. United

States , 94 U.S. 97 (1876). As stated by the California Supreme Court in MacPherson,

7

"until that contempt is purged appellant is not entitled to a hearing before an appellate

tribunal." 13 Cal. 2d at 279.

    The "disentitlement doctrine" established by MacPherson has been routinely

applied to bar litigants such as Armstrong who are in contempt of court from

prosecuting their appeal. See Alioto Fish Co. Ltd v. Alioto (1994) 27 Cal. App.4th

1669, 34 Cal. Rptr.2d 244, 250-51 ("Although the power to stay or dismiss an appeal

is typically exercised when the litigant is formally adjudicated in contempt of count, 'the

same principle applies to wilful disobedience or obstructive tactics without such an

adjudication'") (quoting 9 Witkin Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 172, p.184);

Say & Say v. Castellano (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 95, 27 Cal. Rptr.2d 270, 273 ("It is well

established that an appellate court may stay or dismiss an appeal by a party who has

refused to obey the superior court's legal orders"); Stone v. Bach (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d

442, 145 Cal. Rptr. 599 (appeal of accounting proceeding dismissed where appellant

was found in contempt for failing to deposit monies ordered paid into court). The

language and reasoning of Rude v. Rude (1957)153 Cal. App.2d 243, 314 P.2d 226

when it dismissed the appeal of a contumacious husband, is remarkably similar to that

of the Supreme Court in Smith: "The husband's attitude seems to be that if this case is

decided in his favor it will be quite all right, but if it is not so decided he will be out of

reach of the court, so that no matter what is done or what decision is made, he will

continue to do just as he has done in the past, namely pay no attention whatsoever to any

order of any court in California insofar as complying with any such order is concerned."

This case is virtually on all fours with Smith and Rude. Armstrong urges the Court to

8

reverse the decision below, but if it does not, he will be out of reach of the court and will

continue, as he has in the past, to willfully defy valid court orders.

CONCLUSION

    Armstrong's voluntary intermeddling in other litigation against the Church and

numerous other clear violations of the Settlement Agreement led to the preliminary

injunction issued by Judge Sohigian. Armstrong defied the preliminary injunction

though it was upheld on appeal. Judge Thomas issued a permanent injunction which

Armstrong unsuccessfully tried to avoid through filing bankruptcy. He then repeatedly

violated the permanent injunction and was held in contempt for doing do. Rather than

discharge the contempt, he fled the jurisdiction. He now prosecutes this appeal

apparently from Canada and, while still in contempt, travels to Germany to commit

further violations of the permanent injunction from which he appeals.

    Armstrong's appeal should be dismissed now because he has been held in

contempt for his willful defiance of the order and judgment from which he appeals.

Determination of this motion to dismiss requires only reference to the Declaration of

Andrew H. Wilson, and the accompanying exhibits including the Order of Permanent

Injunction, the Order of Contempt, and the Bench Warrant. As the appeal is readily

resolved without reference to the merits of the action and simply by review of these few

enumerated documents, thereby obviating the need of the Respondent and this Court to

9

review and digest the extensive record, it should be granted in the interests of judicial

economy.⁵

⁵Respondent further requests that its time to respond to Appellant's Opening
Brief be stayed pending determination of this Motion to Dismiss Appellant's Appeal.
If necessary upon determination of the motion, Respondent further requests an
additional stay of thirty days from the date of determination of the motion to file its
answering brief.

10

DECLARATION OF ANDREW H. WILSON IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

    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. When I mean, I have, I have absolutely no
intention of honoring that settlement agreement. I
cannot. I cannot logically, I cannot ethically. I cannot
morally. I cannot psychically. I cannot
philosophically. I cannot spiritually. I cannot in any
way. And it is firmly my intention not to honor it.
Q. No matter what a court says?
A. No court could order it. They're going to have to kill me.

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:

Defendant Armstrong has reiterated numerous times
that he intends to continue breaching the Agreement
unless he is ordered by the Court to cease and desist.

Accordingly, the Court finds that entry of a permanent
injunction in this action is necessary in this action

4

because pecuniary compensation could not afford the
Church adequate relief, and the restrain is necessary in
order to prevent a multiplicity of actions for breach of
contract.

Exh.C, 6:18-20, 24-27)

    9. Armstrong's immediate response 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

ARMSTRONG willfully disobeyed the Order [of
Permanent Injunction]. On or about January 26, 1997
ARMSTRONG sent a document entitled
DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG to the
United States District Judge Ronald M. Whyte. Judge
Whyte was at the time presiding ever three cases in
which the plaintiff is RTC. In the Declaration,
ARMSTRONG recites his understanding that he was
prohibited from sending such a Declaration directly to
litigants and states that he is instead sending it directly
to Judge Whyte in the hopes of influencing his decision
on a pending matter. This evidences ARMSTRONG's
willful disobedience of the Order and Judgment."

(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

[signed]
ANDREW H. WILSON

 

8

See also: Armstrong Declaration in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff/Respondent's
Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

Exhibit [A]
Armstrong Deposition Excerpt [.pdf] 06-24-1992

Exhibit [B]
Unpublished opinion Court of Appeal 05-16-1994

Exhibit [C]
a) Injunction
b) Judgment

Exhibit [D]
Armstrong Letter to Los Angeles City Council 10-7-1996

Exhibit [E]
Wilson Letter to Armstrong 10-23-1996

Exhibit [F]
Order of Contempt 07-05-1997

Exhibit [G]
Bench Warrant 08-06-1997

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