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







A Literary Work Created and Written


Copyright ©1994 Gerald Armstrong
All Rights Reserved

The Gerald Armstrong Corporation
[former address]

Copyright ©1994 Gerald Armstrong
© 1994 Gerald Armstrong



    I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

    1. I am the defendant in the cases of Scientology v.

Gerald Armstrong, Marin Superior Court No. 157680 (Armstrong IV)

and Los Angeles Superior Court Nos. C 420153 (Armstrong I) and BC

052395 (Armstrong II). Scientology v. Armstrong, LASC No. BC

084642 (Armstrong III) was consolidated with Armstrong II and

given the same case number, BC 052395. I am also the sole

assistant of Ford Greene, my attorney in the Armstrong II and

Armstrong IV cases.

    2. On October 31, 1994 I took a telephone call from Judy

in the Marin County Clerk's office who advised me that the

Scientology organization's paralegal had completed his review of

the Armstrong II court file, which had been transferred from Los

Angeles to the Marin Superior Court, that the Scientology

paralegal had determined there were documents missing from the

file, and that it was now the turn of someone from Mr. Greene's

office to review the file to ensure that Scientology's record of

the file's incompleteness was complete.

    3. Despite our best intentions, due to some other matters

in Mr. Greene's office of considerable more urgency and

importance than reviewing the transferred file, the first

opportunity I had to review the file was Thursday, November 3.

When I arrived at the Clerk's office, however, I was advised by

Arlene that Judy, who had been given responsibility for the file,

was out that day and my review would have to wait until she



returned the next day. I spent almost all of Friday, November 4

reviewing the file and returned Monday, November 7 and completed

the review. The same day Mr. Greene faxed Scientology attorney

Laurie Bartilson a letter based on my review, listing various

documents and other items I had determined were missing from the


    4. Now on November 16 Ms. Bartilson urges the Court to

order the file deemed complete and accepted by the clerk and to

order $400.00 sanctions against me and Mr. Greene. As I

understand the word "complete," and believing that the Court's

definition of the word must be no less complete than mine, the

file is not complete. No sanctions should be ordered, other than

appropriate sanctions against Ms. Bartilson's organization and

its lawyer.

    5. Scientology states that its purpose in seeking the

Court's orders to deem the file complete and sanctions is "to end

the delaying tactics of defendant Armstrong and his counsel in

connection with the routine transfer of the file of this action

from Los Angeles to Marin County." (Scientology's Memorandum of

Points and Authorities at 2:1-5) Scientology's actual purpose is

to take advantage of a concocted opportunity to "dev-T" and

threaten me and Mr. Greene, and to get in front of the Court one

more time whatever it can find or manufacture to show that I am

the bad guy Ms. Bartilson and her organization are trying by all

their antisocial means to get the world to think I am.

    6. "Dev-T" is a Scientology term shortened from " developed



traffic" which means "unusual and unnecessary traffic" or, as a

verb, to generate such unusual and unnecessary traffic; or to

cause someone to do unnecessary work. It also means confusion or

to generate confusion. "Dev-T's" usage in organization policies

and orders is spelled out in its "Dictionary of Administration

and Management," relevant pages from which are attached hereto as

Exhibit [A].

    7. Scientology's use of dev-T as a litigation tactic is

spelled out in an internal Scientology document, Guardian Order

166, dated October 7, 1971, a copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit [B]. The document, which was one of many such documents I

studied inside the organization, was written by the

organization's former "Guardian," Jane Kember, at the time junior

in the organization only to L. Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard. Kember

explains to Guardian's Office personnel in all organizations

internationally that Scientology's legal strategy in the U.S. is

to use litigation as a financial club:

"The button used in effecting settlement is purely

financial. In other words, it is more costly to

continue the legal action than to settle in some

fashion . ...[¶] Therefore, it is imperative that legal

US Dev-T his opponents and their lawyers with

correspondence (a lawyer's letter costs approx $50),

phone calls (time costs), interrogatories, depositions

and whatever else legal can mock up. [¶] One of the

bright spots of US legal is that even if you lose you



don't pay your opponent for his lawyers fees." (Ex. B.

p. 3)

    8. L. Ron Hubbard spelled out what the organization's

legal personnel are to do in his policy letter entitled "Legal,

Tax, Accountant and Solicitor, Mail and Legal Officer," dated

February 3, 1966, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit


"The purpose of the Legal Officer is to help LRH handle

every legal, government, suit, accounting and tax

contact or action for the organization and by himself

or employed representative, to protect the organization

and its people from harm and to bring the greatest

possible confusion and loss to its enemies." (Ex. C)

9. Hubbard spelled out the way he expected his

organization to use the law in a 1955 article entitled "The

Scientologist," relevant pages from which are attached hereto as

Exhibit [D]. This article was reprinted by the organization in its

"scriptures" at least into the 1980's.

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage

rather than to win. [¶] The law can be used very easily

to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is

simply in the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is

not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause

his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin

him utterly." (Ex. D p. 157)

Scientology's present supreme ruler, David Miscavige, has,



without fanfare, removed this mad mandate from the organization's

latest reprinting of its "scriptures;" but he, as his former boss

did a generation ago with his idiom "fair game," has removed

neither the policy nor the practice from what he enforces and

uses as Scientology. Scientology's Armstrong I-IV litigation is

its dramatization into present time of Hubbard's "use the law to

harass - ruin him utterly" decree.

    10. Exhibits B through D deal with the litigation aspect of

Hubbard's basic philosophy and practice in dealing with his and

his organization's labeled enemies, a terrifying doctrine he

called "fair game." Attached hereto as Exhibit [E] is his Policy

Letter entitled "Penalties for Lower Conditions" dated October

18, 1967, wherein he states as organization policy:

"ENEMY - SP Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of

property or injured by any means by any Scientologist

without discipline of the Scientologist. May be

tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." (Ex. E)

    11. Scientology and its lawyers pretend to be oblivious to

the immorality of their litigation practices and their reputation

in the legal industry, even among judges in all sorts of courts,

for the same. Actually Scientology and its lawyers are fully

aware of the immorality of their practices and their reputation

for Dev-T, dishonesty and threat, because this immorality and

reputation are what Hubbard wanted and do give them the imagined

advantage they imagine they need. Scientology's leaders desire

to be known for the very base, animal nature that Scientology


claims is responsible for all human ills. Scientology claims

that Hubbard's "technology" alone is the cure for that base

nature, and David Miscavige claims that his personal corporation

Religious Technology Center owns Hubbard's tech. Attached hereto

as Exhibit [F] is an unpublished opinion filed June 29, 1994 in

Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International

and Church of Scientology of California v. Joseph Yanny,

California Court of Appeal Case No. B058291, Los Angeles Superior

Court Case No. C690211, wherein Justice Staniforth writes:

"This appeal court and the trial court below was used

as a means in Scientology's pursuit of the "fair game,"

policy of punishing those who leave Scientology without

Scientology's approval. This appears to be a

continuation of the fair game procedures of Scientology

to discredit and to destroy and ruin an adversary by

whatever means available. [Cites, including Scientology

v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal. App.3d 1060]" (Ex.F, p.



"This was an appeal (by Scientology) on unproved--

rejected as false--facts. This appeal and its delays

and total lack of merit must be viewed in conjunction

with the other groundless similar lawsuit pursued

against Yanny. Such evidence leads to the conclusion

that this proceeding was a device for destroying Yanny

and any lawyers who chose to work with him. This




appeal is the "Fair Game" of Scientology infamy at

work." (Ex.F, p. 31)

The "other groundless similar lawsuit pursued against Yanny" is

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 033035, wherein

Scientology sued Joseph Yanny, alleging, based on no facts other

than ones Kendrick Moxon, another lawyer in Ms. Bartilson's firm,

mocked up, that Mr. Yanny was defending me in Scientology


    12. Ms. Bartilson states that she has " agreed to supply the

Marin Court with every document defendant claims should be a part

of the file." (Scientology's Ex Parte Application at 2:20-22).

Ms. Bartilson has, however, only made this "agreement" because of

Mr. Greene's and my refusal to bend before her threats. In her

letter of November 8 (Ex. G to her declaration) she states, for


"3. OSC exhibits: None of these appear on the Los

Angeles Court docket, and none appear to be retained by

that court. If they are not part of the Los Angeles

court files, they cannot be transferred."

She did not agree to have these exhibits located, and did not

agree to provide them to make the transferred file complete.

This is understandable when Scientology's peccant litigation

policy of creating the greatest possible confusion for its

enemies is recognized. Based on the perjured charging

declarations Ms. Bartilson signed for the organization,

Scientology actively prosecuted me for a year and a half, urging



the LA Superior Court over and over to jail me for " violations"

of the injunction entered May 29, 1992 in this case, " violations"

which Ms. Bartilson and her organization manufactured. Now,

after a lengthy evidentiary hearing this past July, which

resulted in all contempts against me being discharged, a result

Scientology did not appeal, the exhibits entered into evidence

are, according to Ms. Bartilson, simply not part of the file. It

is my intention, moreover, to bring a cross-complaint for abuse

of process in connection with Scientology and its lawyers'

efforts to have me prosecuted for contempt of court; thus these

missing exhibits are not as Ms Bartilson asserts "such things as

books and videotapes which plaintiff had lodged in Los Angeles

and had returned to it by the clerk, and evidentiary documents

which had been served on Mr. Greene but never filed."

(Scientology's Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 4:25-28)

Nowhere does Ms. Bartilson state what steps she took, if any, to

obtain the missing exhibits, and other missing documents relating

to the contempt charges, from the LA Superior Court. This also

is understandable because Scientology is never able to completely

snuff out anyone's God-given decent nature, and Ms. Bartilson,

even after years of using her professional status to further her

organization's abuse of the innocent, would rather that all her

lying and trying to get me jailed had never happened. It was a

nightmare for me for a year and a half to have a dishonest lawyer

and her dishonest cultic cohorts do whatever they could using the

courts' authority and powers to have me jailed. Scientology's



actual but hidden purpose in having me jailed, and why Ms.

Bartilson and the rest of the organization's litigation machine

worked so diligently to achieve that end, is spelled out by L.

Ron Hubbard in his Bulletin entitled "Secret - Why Thetans Mock

Up" dated October 1, 1969, a copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit [G]:

"Jailing is a sure way to confirm criminals and also

make them crazy as well." (Ex. G, p. 2)

Scientology has dramatized its intention to make me crazy for

over twelve years, ceaselessly scheming, and working to get some

court.who might listen to its lies to jail me. Ms. Bartilson's

ex parte application is another unpretty dramatization of that

evil intention.

    13. Ms. Bartilson states that "defendant and his counsel

have succeeded in keeping the case from the Court (and pending

dispositive motions resolved) for more than two months."

(Scientology's Points and Authorities at 2:6-9) The only

possible delays Ms. Bartilson can actually point out are a few

days after she first contacted Mr. Greene requesting that he

stipulate to the procedure of review of the transferred file and

the few days between when Scientology's paralegal reviewed the

file and when I reviewed the file. Because, however, I am to Ms.

Bartilson and her organization "fair game," it is just ducky with

her to stretch the truth of a couple of weeks at most into a

Scientological lie of two months.

    14. Ms. Bartilson states that "Armstrong did not review the



file until November 7, 1994." (Scientology's Memorandum of Points

and Authorities, at 4:21-22). As stated in paragraph 3 above, I

was unable to review the file on November 3 only due to the

clerk's absence, did review the file on November 4, and completed

my review on November 7.

    15. Ms. Bartilson states that "[t]he file is now here;

thanks to the efforts of plaintiff's counsel's paralegal, it is

organized and ready for the clerk to proceed." (Scientology's

-Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 2:9 11) The file is not

organized and it is not ready for the clerk to proceed. Ms.

Bartilson makes much of her organization dispatching one of its

paralegals from Los Angeles to review the transferred file.

Scientology corporate deponent, Lynn R. Farny, testified recently

in the Armstrong IV lawsuit that even Church of Scientology

International, the corporate component the organization uses as

its plaintiff in the II, III and IV cases, has upwards of 50

people in its legal department doing the work for the

organization that I do for Mr. Greene; so it is no big deal for

Scientology to fly its people all over the world to carry out its

silly schemes or go through other people's files. It would be a

big deal if they told the truth about the schemes and the files.

    16. Ms. Bartilson states that "[d] efendant, however, has

failed and refused to cooperate with plaintiff in providing the

Court with the few documents which will make the file complete."

(Scientology's Points and Authorities at 2:11-1) To make this

attack Ms. Bartilson has apparently and not inconveniently



forgotten that, in order to obtain our agreement to the transfer

of the case and its file to Marin County from Los Angeles, she

promised that Scientology, not me or Mr. Greene, would be

responsible for "payment of costs and fees of the transfer."

(Stipulation and Order Changing Venue, Exhibit A to Bartilson

Declaration) Failing and refusing herself to provide the Court

with the missing documents, which she agreed to do, she charges

that I failed and refused to provide them.--Ms. Bartilson follows

a basic Scientology maxim that "the bank follows the line of

attack." Hubbard's idea is that the common denominator among

people is their "reactive mind" or "-bank;-'-'-which he blamed for

all human ills and invented and sold his gilt psychotherapy

"auditing"--to eliminate. Hubbard trained his intelligence, legal

and public relations personnel-in the concept that all one has to

do is attack something or someone, and other uninvolved people,

in reaction to the attack, will follow the line of attack and

join it against the thing or person being targeted. Pursuant to

Hubbard's "technology," Ms. Bartilson and her organization attack

me, with the intention of restimulating the "reactive bank" of

the Judge, who must read their attacking papers, to get him to

join their attack. Hubbard taught that if one attacks long and

hard enough others will follow your attack line and you will win.

He also taught, but "forgot," that this sort of continual attack

on imagined enemies is what identifies the truly crazy.

    17. Ms. Bartilson states that [t]he delay deliberately

caused by defendant is inexcusable, and has forced plaintiff to



the expense of bringing this motion." (Scientology's Ex Parte

Application at 2:26-28) She also states that Mr. Greene's and my

"willful failure to comply with their stipulation, which has had

the effect of grinding the case to a halt, is a clear example of

a 'bad-faith action or tactic' that is 'solely intended to cause

unnecessary delay.'" (Scientology's Memorandum of Points and

Authorities at 6:7-11) These claims of delay are absurd, and the

idea that I have forced her organization to bring this motion,

application, or any of the rest of its dev-T, lies and threat is

truly miscavigian in its megalomadness. Discovery has continued.

Scientology has taken my-deposition during this period, and the

depositions of three of my friends. I have continued to provide

discovery to Scientology. The transfer of the case, at

Scientology's request, to Marin, moreover, extended the whole

case over 6 months; so the organization will have months left

before trial to keep its fair game litigation machine rolling;

months more than it had before I agreed to the transfer of the LA

case. The fact is, it is Scientology, in dramatization of its

own hubbardian dictum that "the overt doth scream loudly in

accusation," which engages, and religiously, in bad faith

delaying tactics, as will be seen as this case moves to trial.

Though quick to do meanness, Scientology delays any justice, and

refuses to be just itself. This has been its pattern in all the

cases it has brought against me, a pattern spelled out in the

declaration of U.S. District Court Judge James M. Ideman dated

June 17, 1993, filed June 21, 1993 in Religious Technology



Center, Petitioner v. U.S. District Court, Respondent, David

Mayo, Real Party in Interest, No. 93--0281 in the 9th Circuit

Court of Appeals, a true copy of which is appended hereto as

Exhibit H:

"[Scientology's] noncompliance [with the Court's

discovery orders] has consisted of evasions,

misrepresentations, broken promises and lies, but

ultimately with refusal. As part of this scheme to not

comply, [Scientology has] undertaken a massive campaign

of filing every conceivable motion (and some

inconceivable) [Judge Ideman's parens in original] to

disguise the true issue in these pretrial proceedings.

Apparently viewing litigation as war, [Scientology] by

this tactic (has] had the effect of massively

increasing the costs to the other parties, and, for a

while, to the Court. The appointment of the Special

Master 4 years ago has considerably relieved the burden

to this Court. The scope of [Scientology's] efforts

have to be seen to be believed Yet it is almost

all puffery -- motions without merit or substance."

(Ex. H, p. 2, para 4, 5)

In this lawsuit, while receiving every possible morsel of

discovery from me, and all the while howling "delay," Scientology

has yet to produce to me one document.

    18. It is time that this and every court into which

Scientology sends its corporate entities refuse to allow itself



to follow this organization's line of attack and refuse to be

used any longer in its pursuit of fair game.

    19. I have spent 11 hours dealing with Scientology's ex

parte application. My rate for this sort of work is $55.00 per


    I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the

state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Executed at San Anselmo, California, on November 16, 1994.




Exhibit [A]
Modern Management Technology Defined ©1976 L. Ron Hubbard Pages 149, 150
[Definition: Dev-t]

Exhibit [B]
GO 166 7 October 1961 by Jane Kember, Guardian Worldwide

Exhibit [C]
Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter 3 Feb 1966

Exhibit [D]
1955 Article "The Scientologist" by L. Ron Hubbard

Exhibit [E]
HCO PL 18 October 1967
© 1967 L. Ron Hubbard

Exhibit [F]
Opinion filed in Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International and Church of Scientology of California v. Joseph Yanny 06-29-1994

Exhibit [G]
HCO BULLETIN 1 October 1969 WHY THETANS MOCK UP© 1969 L. Ron Hubbard

  © Gerald Armstrong


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