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

   

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

---oOo---

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a California
not-for-profit religious
corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG; MICHALE
WALTON; THE GERALD ARMSTRONG
CORPORATION, a California for
profit corporation; DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.


AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.


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

 

 

 

 

NO.157-680

DEPOSITION OF:

LYNN R. FARNY

Monday, July 11, 1994

VOLUME I

 

Reported by:
PENNY L. GILMORE
CSR NO. 4724
PENNY L. GILMORE & ASSOCIATES
DEPOSITION REPORTERS
P.O. BOX 862
ROSS, CALIFORNIA 94957
(415) 457-7899

 

 
1
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

INDEX

Witness: LYNN R. FARNY

Examination by:

Mr. Walton

Mr. Greene

PAGE

4

110

 

E X H I B IT S

 

DEFENDANT'S

1 Five-page document entitled Who Is
Gerald Armstrong

PAGE

37

 
2
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BE IT REMEMBERED that pursuant to Notice and on

Monday, the 1lth day of July 1994, commencing at the hour

of 10:15 o'clock a.m. thereof, at the conference room of

900 Larkspur Landing Circle, Larkspur, California, before

me, PENNY L. GILMORE, a Certified Shorthand Reporter

licensed by the State of California, personally appeared:

LYNN R. FARNY

a witness herein, who, being by me first duly sworn,

was thereupon examined and interrogated as is hereinafter

set forth.

---oOo---

KENDRICK L. MOXON, Esq. and LAURIE J. BARTILSON,

Esq., representing the Law Offices of Bowles & Moxon, 6255

Sunset Boulevard, Suite 2000, Hollywood, California 90028,

15 appeared as counsel on behalf of Plaintiff.

 

MICHAEL L. WALTON, Esq., representing the Law

Offices of Michael L. Walton, 700 Larkspur Landing Circle,

Suite 120, Larkspur, California 94939, a defendant,

appeared in pro per.

 

FORD GREENE, Esq., representing the Law Offices 23 of

Ford Greene, 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San

Anselmo, California 94960, appeared as counsel on behalf

of Defendant Gerald Armstrong.

 
3
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

WILLIAM R. BENZ, Esq., 900 Larkspur Landing

Circle, Suite 185, Larkspur, California 94939, appeared as

the referee in said action.

ALSO PRESENT: Gerald Armstrong, Defendant.

---oOo---

 
4
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

EXAMINATION BY:

MR. WALTON: Q. Please state your name for the

record and spell it, please.

A. Lynn Robert Farny: L-Y-N-N; Robert, usual

spelling; F-A-R-N-Y.

Q. Mr. Farny, what's your address?

A. 6331 Hollywood Boulevard.

Q: And you are here on behalf of Scientology; is

that right?

A. I'm here on behalf of the Church of Scientology

International, the plaintiff.

Q. What's their address?

A. 6331 Hollywood Boulevard. I use that as my

mailing address.

Q. How long have you been a member of the Church?

A. A parishioner of the Scientology religion or an

employee of the Scientology Church?

Q. A member of the Church. Are you a member of the

Church?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. How long have you been a member?

MR. MOXON: Objection. Would you please clarify

your question? The witness asked for clarification.

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you understand the question?

A. I do now. You want to know how long I have been

 
5
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a parishioner of the Scientology religion.

Q. How long have you been a member of the Church of

Scientology? Do you understand my question?

A. The interpretation I put on it, since late 1976.

Q. What's the difference between your

interpretation and my question?

MR. MOXON: Objection.

MR. WALTON: Q. Member of the church and a

parishioner, is there a difference in your mind?

A. No, if you are not implying a difference, not at

all. No.

MR. MOXON: He simply asked for a clarification.

There's obviously a difference between the corporate

entity, the Church of Scientology International that's a

party in the case, and the Scientology religion. You can

say how long have you been a Catholic and how long have

you been a member of the Catholic Church, how long have

you been a member of St. Michael's Diocese. That's a

distinction we are asking you to clarify. If you ask a

clear question, no problem.

MR. WALTON: Q. Are you part of the

corporation? Are you an employee of the corporation?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. What's your title?

A. Secretary.

 
6
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. How long have you been secretary?

A. June 1988.

Q. Have you held any other position in the

organization? When I say "the organization," I'm talking

about the organization that filed the lawsuit in this

litigation. Do you understand that?

A. Yes, I do.

Prior to my becoming secretary of the

corporation for the Church of Scientology International

I was an employee for approximately four years.

Q. Did your position as an employee involve you

having any kind of title?

A. Yes.

Q. What were your titles starting from the first

and progressing until the last?

A. The entire time I'm been with the Church of

Scientology International I've worked in the legal

department. I've had various job titles, some of which I

don't remember, but they're all in the area of litigation

working in either a paralegal capacity or as an executive

over the department in which the paralegals work.

Q. How big is that department?

MR. MOXON: Objection. Which department?

MR. WALTON: The legal department.

MR. MOXON: Objection as to time. Now?

 
7
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. WALTON: Q. What's the biggest it has been

since you have worked in it? What's the maximum number of

people in that department from the time you worked in it

until now?

A. Approximately 50.

Q. Does that include lawyers?

A. No.

Q. What's the smallest that it's been?

MR. MOXON: I object to relevance. Is there

some point as to how large or small the department is?

MR. WALTON: I think it may relate to the amount

of experience that this witness has. This witness is here

on behalf of the plaintiff and I'm going to be asking a

lot of questions. I need to know if he's qualified. I'm

looking at what his qualifications are.

MR. MOXON: Is there a particular qualification

you are interested in?

MR. WALTON: I want to know what his experience

is.

MR. MOXON: How large or how small the

department is is irrelevant to how much experience he has.

MR. WALTON: I don't think so. I think if he's

been working with 50 people, for example, he's been number

two in charge of 50 people, that would indicate a lot of

experience than if he's been working with one person and

 
8
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

he's been the second in command.

Can we have a ruling?

MR. BENZ: I'm going to allow the question as to

background.

THE WITNESS: Four.

MR. WALTON: Q. At the present time how large is

it, just approximately?

A. Approximately 25 to 30.

Q. Do you have direct control, management control

over any of these people?

A. Yes.

Q. How many?

A. Three.

Q. To whom do you answer? Who is your supervisor?

A. You want his name, is that what you are asking?

Q. Yes.

A. Ed Parkin, P-A-R-K-I-N.

Q. What is Mr. Parkin's title?

A. Legal activities chief.

Q. Mr. Farny, how many times have you had your

deposition taken?

A. At least a dozen, but I'm not certain how many

times.

Q. How many of those times in relationship to some

Scientology litigation?

 
9
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. All of them.

Q. How many depositions have you attended?

A. Lots. I wouldn't be able to say how many.

Q. Dozens?

A. Yeah.

Q. Hundreds?

A. Probably not.

Q. Under a hundred?

A. I'd have to guess, but I don't think so.

Q. We don't want you to guess. You have attended

enough depositions to know that.

Could you tell me just briefly what your formal

education is?

A. Four years of college but I didn't graduate.

Q. What was your major?

A. Political science.

Q. Other than your experience with the Scientology

legal department -- and I refer to it because I'm not sure

what you do call it -- what is that department called?

A. Legal Bureau.

Q. Legal Bureau. Other than your experience with

the Legal Bureau have you had any other training either

formal or informal in the law in California: paralegal

courses, that's the sort of thing I'm looking at.

A. I had some undergraduate courses on different

 
10
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

aspects of the law, but other than that, no.

Q. Could you give me some examples of the kinds of

things that you do in the legal department currently?

MR. MOXON: Objection. This is irrelevant to

the action.

MR. BENZ: Can I ask a question for my

clarification? Was this witness subpoenaed or noticed by

name or is he represented by representative capacity?

MR. MOXON: Representative capacity.

MR. BENZ: I think you are entitled to go into

what his connection to the plaintiff is.

THE WITNESS: Generally I supervise litigation

involving Church of Scientology International. By that I

mean making sure any cases we have have counsel to

litigate and that counsel is provided with the assistance

required, coordinate activities for one case to the next.

I keep the board books for the corporat1on; ratify

contracts; enter into contracts at the direction of the

board; open bank accounts, that sort of thing.

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you know who supervises

Mr. Partkin?

A. Yes,I do.

Q. Could you tell me?

A. Neil Levin, L-E-V-I-N.

Q. What does Mr. Levin do?

 
11
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. He's the head of the Legal Bureau.

Q. In these times that you have represented, being

an employee of Scientology -- again, I recognize that

Scientology has a lot of meanings and we'll get into that

in a little while -- for now when I say Scientology or the

organization I'm talking about the entity that's brought

suit here. Do you understand that?

A. I do. It's fine with me if it's fine with the

lawyers.

MR. MOXON: Any time you say "Scientology" or

"Church" you are talking about the Church of Scientology

International?

MR. WALTON: Until I find out who the rest of

the folks are ,and what their relationships are, but at

this point because I am such a novice in this area I can

only --

MR. MOXON: Neophyte.

MR. WALTON: I am indeed. I'm working towards

expertise.

Q. In these times that you represented the Church

in these litigations, and what I'm talking about is in

deposition.

A. You mean testified on behalf?

Q. In deposition only.

A. Okay, fine.

 
12
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Are you in the position that you have selected

yourself to attend a deposition or does someone tell you

to go to a deposition?

MR. MOXON: Objection, it's compound. Question

calls for -- it's impossible to answer that.

MR. WALTON: Q. You find it impossible, sir?

MR. MOXON: I do.

THE WITNESS: If I answer it yes or no you have

no idea which half of the question I have answered.

MR. WALTON: Q. These can go on for days and

days if we get real technical. I don't mean to make it

real technical. We can certainly do it that way. All I

want to know is how you came to be here as opposed to any

of the other people who could have come.

A. I do not mean to be hypertechnical. Once it

gets put on a piece of paper on a transcript any

ambiguities are difficult to interpret.

In any event, I think I understand your

question. If you want to ask it again, otherwise I'm

prepared to answer.

Q. Please do.

A. Usually I have been the one to recommend that I

testify. However, it's always counsel's decision who

represents the Church in a given proceeding. But I don't

recall a time when someone has said that I would be the

 
13
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

witness unless, of course, it's one of the lawyers who

said we have a corporate representative deposition notice

and I assume you will be the witness. Generally I would

be the one to make the decision.

Q. In your position in the legal department,

then -- and we'll talk specifically about this case rather

than for purposes of this question -- have you read the

pleadings and the discovery in this case?

A. I've read the Complaint, Answer and

Cross-complaint. Most of the discovery; perhaps not all

of it.

Q. In general when discovery comes in in one of the

Scientology cases is someone assigned to respond to the

discovery?

A. What do you mean?

Q. I mean, for example, say you get, not you, but

say Scientology gets a Request for Production of

Documents; the attorney then gives it to someone in 19

Scientology. Who would they give it to, the legal

department?

A. Yes.

Q. From the legal department who would get it

initially?

A. Generally I would.

Q. What would you do with it?

 
14
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Depending on its scope, how large it is --well,

this step doesn't depend --I would sit down with the

lawyer and go over what the parameters are of it and

decide on a course of action I would take in order to

gather up the materials to respond to it, then either

myself or one of the staff, one of the paralegal staff

would go about finding the documents, or whatever, give

them to the lawyer, sit down, go over, determine what's

responsive, and the lawyer would draft the response.

Q. Would you assign the next person if it were to

be assigned?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm not asking you who, but do you recall

assigning in this particular action, assigning any of your

staff to respond to any of the litigation requests, the

discovery requests?

A. I may have had them assist in gathering up

things or xeroxing or whatever, but I worked out the

response with counsel. Responses, actually.

Q. As a sort of an aside, did you bring any

documents today for me?

A. No, sir, I didn't. None were asked for in the

Notice.

Q. No, there were no requests in the Notice, but as

I indicated to both your counsel last week I've never been

 
15
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

served with any documents pursuant to --I'm not sure if

it's Mr. Armstrong's request or Mr. Armstrong's

corporation's request, but I understand there were some

documents pursuant to that request. And as I understand

from the letter I received I believe last week, week

before last, there were either some supplemental responses

that were served or some supplemental responses that were I

to be served. Do you know anything about those

supplemental responses?

A. Wow. I was waiting for a question somewhere.

Supplemental responses to document requests in this case?

There's one in preparation, yes.

Q. That hasn't been served?

A. No.

Q. Do you know if there's been an initial service

of documents which responded to a document request?

A. I believe there has, yes.

Q. Do you know to whom that was served?

A. The other defendant.

Q. Which other defendant?

A. Gerry Armstrong through his counsel.

MS. BARTILSON: We sent it. After I got your

letter I sent them out. Take a look, you should have

gotten them.

MR. MOXON: Have you been in your office?

 
16
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. WALTON: You use three addresses for me. Which

one did you send it to?

MS. BARTILSON: That I'II have to check.

THE WITNESS: Which one is the right one? We

wouldn't want you to get the --

MR. MOXON: Which one is it?

MR. WALTON: If you send it to the 700 Larkspur

Landing address. Here, let me give you my card.

MS. BARTILSON: Service was done initially when

they were originally responded to. They were sent to an

address for you. Obviously you didn't get them. I don't

know where they were. We served everything on this

office.

MR. WALTON: If you served everything to my

office -address I think it would be a lot clearer because

there have been a lot of things I haven't gotten.

MS. BARTILSON: You have different addresses.

MR. WALTON: Sometimes I get things by fax and

sometimes I don't, although the proofs of service say I

have been faxed sometimes I don't get them. In this case

I am going to need whatever documents have been served.

MS. BARTILSON: Sure.

MR. MOXON: Did Mr. Greene tell you there have

been some documents that have come in?

MR. WALTON: With respect to what?

 
17
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: I'm going to object to any --

number one, it's not your deposition. Number two, that

would fall within the joint defense privilege and I object

to any response to that question.

MR. MOXON: Object to the --

MR. WALTON: I became aware --I can tell you I

got a letter recently and it indicates from Mrs. Bartilson

some supplemental documents were being sent out and I've

not gotten anything, so...

Q. If you have read the Complaint and you have read

the Cross-complaint then you know who I am with respect to

this lawsuit?

A. Yes.

Q. Who am I with respect to this lawsuit?

A. You are a defendant.

Q. Do you know who I am with respect

to any other Scientology-related lawsuits?

A. I don't believe you are a party to any other

suits that we're involved in.

Q. Do you know anything else about me with respect

to any other Scientology-related lawsuits?

MR. MOXON: Are you referring to the other

Armstrong cases?

MR. WALTON: Q. Any Scientology-related

lawsuit.

 
18
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. You have been deposed here, perhaps in the

breach case in Los Angeles. I'm not certain of that, but

we saw each other at a hearing at a trial involving Church

of Scientology International in the spring of 1990 wherein

Mr. Armstrong sought to appear voluntarily. Well, there was

a subpoena served and there was a hearing on the

matter, and to my knowledge we have never run across each

other beyond that.

Q. Do you know if I ever represented Mr. Armstrong

as his counsel in any Scientology-related litigation?

A. To my recollection Gerry testified that you were

representing him during the settlement negotiations in

1986 providing advice to him in addition to the advice he

was receiving from Mr. Flynn.

Q. Do you know of any other, any other specific

cases where I have represented Mr. Armstrong as his

counsel in Scientology-related litigation?

A. None that presently come to mind, but if I have

forgotten something perhaps you can reacquaint me with it.

Q. Were you with the Scientology organization

during the time that Mr. Armstrong appeared in his appeal?

Actually it was Scientology's appeal in what this group

commonly refers to as Armstrong I.

A. Yes.

Q. What were you doing for Scientology during that

 
19
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

time period?

A. That was a long appeal. I was working in the

legal department.

Q. What were you doing in the legal department at

the time that the appeal was finally decided?

A. Refresh me. When was that?

Q. Do you recall?

MR. MOXON: Mr. Benz, I object on relevance.

We've spent a lot of time on background. I don't know

specifically what he was doing at a specific time. If he

would state the relevance to any of the allegations.

MR. BENZ: Mr. Walton?

MR. WALTON: Mr. Benz, I'm in a very peculiar

position here. Scientology has sued me for three or four

million dollars and they're basing that number on some

litigation that's been ongoing for a dozen years, and I

have not been a party to any of the prior lawsuits,

Armstrong I, II, III and IV, with the exception of having

represented Gerry in an appeal on Armstrong I.

I'm going to want to know what it is, if I lose

on this thing, if I'm a defendant I'm entitled to know

what I'm defending against, and to begin with, I want to

understand a little bit about this organization that's

suing me.

Gerry Armstrong and Scientology have a long

 
20
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

history. I have virtually no history with this

organization. And to properly defend myself I'm going to

have to find out some very basic facts.

MR. MOXON: Such as what this witness was doing?

MS. BARTILSON: It's a fraudulent conveyance

action. He's a party to the lawsuit because Gerry

committed property to him, that's why he's a party. The

background information as to what this witness was doing

at the time Gerry was appealing something else has

absolutely no relevance to anything that's at issue in

this case. This is a small and simple case. It's about

property that was conveyed in 1990, that's how we

eliminated the other discovery that's been done in this

case.

MR. BENZ: From the standpoint that it alleges a

conspiracy between the two, I think it would be relevant

to go on to see what the witness knows about the

association between Mr. Walton and Mr. Armstrong, since

that's one of the allegations. To that extent, on that

basis I'll allow that line of questioning.

MR. MOXON: We've not precluded that at all.

What he was asking was what particularly was the witness

doing at a certain point in time.

MR. BENZ: As I understand it -- and correct me

if I'm wrong and we can redirect your question -- but I

 
21
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

thought he was attempting to find out whether the witness

was involved in the appeal and what the relationship was

with Mr. Walton.

MR. MOXON: That question is fine. If the

witness wants to answer that question, I have no problem.

THE WITNESS: I think the only question pending

is mine which is when was the oral argument.

MR. WALTON: Q. But you are not asking the

questions. If you don't remember, that's fine.

A. I remember generally. Early '91?

(Directed to Mr. Greene) Do you remember? It

will help answer the question. If you don't want to answer,

that's fine.

MR .GREENE: The opinion came out in October of

'91. I was not involved in the litigation. The oral

argument was in February.

THE WITNESS: That helps. Your question was what

was I doing then?

MR. WALTON: Q. Generally.

A. I was working in the legal department.

Q. Did you do anything on the Armstrong appeal?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell just generally what you did?

A. Generally I worked with the lawyers and provided

them with what information they needed in order to produce

 
22
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the briefs and get ready for oral argument.

Q. Having said that, do you recall ever seeing my

name on any of the pleadings that issued from Gerry's camp

as his counsel on the appeal?

A. Now that you brought it up I believe that's

correct.

Q. Do you know if Michael Douglas is a defendant in

this lawsuit?

A. He's not a named defendant at this point.

Q. Do you know if Michael Douglas ever represented

Gerald Armstrong in Scientology-related litigation?

A. Douglas is not a lawyer. I don't believe he

represented him as a lawyer since he is not.

MR. MOXON: Are you referring to Michael

Douglas, the former Scientologist?

MR. WALTON: Yes. I think the deponent had no

problem recognizing which Michael Douglas I was referring

to.

Q. Do you know if Kima Douglas is a defendant in

this lawsuit?

A. Not at present.

Q. Do you know if Kima Douglas had represented

Mr. Armstrong in any Scientology-related litigation?

A. I don't believe she's an attorney, so the answer

would be no.

 
23
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Do you know who Andrew Armstrong is?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Have you ever seen the name Andrew Armstrong in

connection with testimony that Mr. Armstrong, Gerry, has

given in this litigation?

A. Perhaps as someone who received some of Mr.

Armstrong's money, I have a vague recollection of that;

otherwise, no.

Q. Is Andrew Armstrong a named defendant in this

litigation?

A. Not at present.

Q. Do you know if Andrew Armstrong ever represented

Gerry Armstrong in any Scientology-related litigation?

A. I don't think.

Q. Do you know who Gerry Solfvin is, S-O-L-F-V-I-N?

A. I may have seen the name, but otherwise I don't

know.

Q. Would that have been in connection with one of

the names that Mr. Armstrong testified that he had given

property to?

A. I'm not certain.

Q. Do you know if Mr. Solfvin has ever represented

Mr. Armstrong in any Scientology-related litigation?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you know who Laurie Eaton is, E-A-T-O-N?

 
24
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Is that Laurie Phippeny?

Q. I don't know.

A. No. If they're different people, then no, I

don't.

Q. Do you know if there's a Laurie Eaton, if a

Laurie Eaton has been named as a defendant in the current

litigation?

A. No, she hasn't.

MR. MOXON: Do you want to review the Complaint?

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you know who Nancy Rhodes

is?

A. I've seen that name in this litigation. I

believe it's Nancy Dincalci.

Q. Do you know who Nancy Dincalci is?

A. Yes.

Q. Has Ms. Dincalci been named as a defendant in

this litigation?

A. No, not at present.

Q. Do you know if Ms. Dincalci has ever represented

Gerald Armstrong in any Scientology-related litigation?

A. No, she's not a lawyer.

Q. And Bambi Sparks aka Laurie Phippeny, do you

know who that is?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Has Ms. Phippeny been named in this action?

 
25
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. You just reminded me of something. Laurie Ann

as well as the Douglases, I believe it's come up through

discovery, are the directors of Gerry Armstrong's

corporation. So to that degree they would be defendants

because the corporation is a defendant. I want to clarify

that. But as individuals they may not be.

Anyway, Bambi, I believe, has been named as a

defendant.

Q. Has she been served?

A. I actually don't know.

Q. During the time that Mr. Armstrong testified

that he divested --of the people that he's testified that

he divested to who were beneficiaries of his divestment,

Michael Walton, that is me, is the only person who's been

named and served in this lawsuit?

MR. MOXON: I object. The question is vague and

ambiguous. I don't understand what you are asking. It's

also compound.

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you understand my question?

THE WITNESS: I think she said something.

MS. BARTILSON: Misstates the witness's

testimony.

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you understand my question?

A. Not really because it didn't seem to match what

I said.

 
26
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. I'm asking do you understand that Mr. Armstrong

released his interest in certain property in 1991, 1990,

1991 and that's what gave rise to this lawsuit?

MR. MOXON: Again I object to the term

"understand." I don't know if you are asking for his

personal knowledge or allegations he has read based on Mr.

Armstrong's testimony or a conclusion you may have

drawn.

MR .WALTON: Let me try to make it more clear.

We'll get it clear.

MR. MOXON: I want a clear question, clear

record.

MR. WALTON: What I'm trying to find out, of

course, is why there's only one named and served

defendant.

MR. MOXON: Why you are being sued?

MR. WALTON: Q. I understand why I'm being

sued. I don't understand why no one else is being sued.

What I'm trying to get at is why Scientology selected me

and if they did only select me because I represented Gerry

on a prior lawsuit I want to get --

A. That's a question I can answer.

Q. Why don't I start with this, because Scientology

has had information, specific testimony from Mr. Armstrong

regarding other beneficiaries, I'm going to call those

 
27
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

people, who received property from Mr. Armstrong at the

same time I did. Why has Scientology not filed a lawsuit

against them?

A. At the time we filed the suit I believe the

evidence we had is that you got the lion's share. You got

the house, which was worth nearly half a million dollars

and a substantial amount of cash. I'm not certain we knew

of the extent to which any of these other individuals

received property or money.

Some of the names, as we discussed them, I seem

to recall the evidence in this case is they got small

amounts. When we filed the suit that's the best evidence

we had.

Now since then, as I said, I believe we've added

Bambi as a defendant and perhaps, you know... Beyond that

I don't know the answer to your question. If it was the

government I would say prosecutorial discretion. We're

not.

Q. I'm not sure that exists in civil law anyway.

Since the time of filing of the lawsuit,

however, you have had an opportunity to take

Mr. Armstrong's deposition; is that correct?

A. When you use "you," are you talking about

Scientology?

Q. I'm talking about Scientology.

 
28
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Sorry, I was talking through counsel.

MR. MOXON: It is confusing when you say

Scientology. Maybe if you say plaintiff or CSI, identify

it that way.

MR. WALTON: I thought we agreed in the

beginning I could use it that way, but if it's confusing

I'll certainly use "plaintiff."

Q. So plaintiff has taken Mr. Armstrong's

deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. And plaintiff has found out, pursuant to a

direct order I believe from the referee in this case,

exactly what the property in general terms, the property

was that Mr .Armstrong gave away?

MR. MOXON: I object. That calls for a

conclusion that all the property that Mr. Armstrong gave

away has been revealed. You are asking for a conclusion of

the witness whether or not there's been a full

disclosure.

MR. WALTON: Let's break it up.

MR. MOXON: You may have given away property,

too, and I don't know what you have done.

MR. WALTON: I'm talking about the stuff he's

testifying to.

MR. MOXON: Just what Mr. Armstrong testified

 
29
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to?

MR .WALTON: Right.

MR. MOXON: Your question is did he read Mr.

Armstrong's deposition?

MR .WALTON: Q. Did you read Mr .Armstrong's

deposition?

A. Perhaps some of it, yes.

Q. Do you know or does Scientology know -- Do you

know, let's start with that, do you know what

Mr. Armstrong's testimony is as to what he gave away?

A. I'm aware he has testified to having given away

money to various individuals, forgiven debts; he gave you

the house; substantial amount of cash. As far as a

specific memory quiz on how much, as I sit here I wouldn't

be able to remember it. The deposition record would be a

better reflection of that. But I do remember testimony to

that effect, yes.

Q. Because I received the lion's share I was a

named defendant. What about Ms. Phippeny, was she named

as a defendant for the same reason?

MR. MOXON: I object to asking the witness what

the reason was why someone was sued. I don't know what

the relevance is. As to why you were sued, you got that

information and it's, again, asking for a conclusion.

It's also potentially asking for attorney/client

 
30
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

privileged information. Obviously he is a representative

of the parties and has had communications from counsel

suing or not suing particular individuals, the relative

strengths and weaknesses, and whatnot. So I also object

on attorney-client basis.

MR. WALTON: I'm certainly not trying to invade

the attorney-client privilege. However, to the extent

that I may have been singled out for inclusion in this

lawsuit because I represented Gerald Armstrong in a prior

litigation, and to the extent that Scientology may

understand that this lawsuit has little or no merit, to

the extent that this may be an attempt to destroy pursuant

to what the courts have called black PR --

MR. MOXON: Mr. Walton --

MR. WALTON: Please let me finish.

MR. MOXON: I understand what you are saying

now. The witness already testified that you received the

lion's share. In fact, I think the testimony was you

received something in the neighborhood of 70 to 80 percent

of the proceeds of the settlement. Now if you consider

that's an inconsequential amount of money, that you

received no benefit from it whatsoever, it was just given

to you, that it wasn't a fraudulent transfer to you of

virtually all of his property, well, if you consider

that black PR you can have any conclusion you want.

 

 
31
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BENZ: May I suggest that we're departing from

asking the witness questions and I'm not quite clear

what the question was or what its purpose was. If you

want to rephrase it and make it direct so he can have a

direct objection perhaps I can rule on it.

(Record read back.)

MR. BENZ: I think it's unclear. I don't know

what a lion's share is in any given meal. If you want to

rephrase it.

MR. WALTON: Maybe I'll come back to that. Let me

establish a couple more things here.

Q. Scientology, in its lawsuit, and your counsel

just now indicated that Mr. Armstrong gave me a house that

had a worth of $397,000.

MR. MOXON: I made no such statement as to value

of the house. The witness testified earlier what he

thought it might be worth. It's in the record.

THE WITNESS: What's your question, whether I

was paying attention to what he said and heard the number

or whether I have any knowledge of the value of the house

he gave you for no consideration?

MR. BENZ: There isn't a question.

MR. WALTON: Q. I'm about to pose a question.

A. I thought you had asked it, I'm sorry. Go

ahead.

 
32
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. How did Scientology arrive at the sum of

$397,000?

A. I'm not certain we did. My recollection is the

value of the house is somewhere in the area of $400,000,

give or take whatever.

Q. How do you have that figure in your mind?

A. I read it in a document.

Q. Do you remember which document?

A. I believe either a deposition transcript or

property record. We do have the property records

concerning the house.

Q. What would the property record have reflected

that would have given you the idea it was around 400,000?

A. That's why I'm not certain. Whether there was

testimony as to the value or whether that was indicated in

any of the property records, I'm just not certain. I

remember reading in a document that that was the

approximate value of the house, as far as I know, that no

one is disputing that.

Q. Could you have read -- could that have been in a

loan document?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Would that $397,000 have included -- would

credit for a mortgage owed have been included in that

397,000?

 
33
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. have no idea and I haven't adopted your

397,000. I said around 400,000. Your question is would

that have included a mortgage? Is that the equity in the

house or is that the overall value of the house, whatever?

Q. I'm trying to find out --

A. I'm not certain but my understanding is -- and

it's approaching its limit -- is that Armstrong owned it

free and clear -- but I'm not certain of that fact -- at

the time it was conveyed to you.

Q. What's a dead agent pack?

MR. MOXON: Objection, relevance. Does this

have something to do with the transfer?

MR. WALTON: Has to do with documents that I

understand Scientology produced pursuant to a document

request in this litigation.

MR. MOXON: Relevance?

THE WITNESS: Which you didn't receive.

MR. WALTON: I didn't receive, no. And I did

receive this document; it was brought to my attention. I

want to find out now if in fact it was a document

Scientology produced and what it is.

MR. MOXON: Again, I object.

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you recognize --

MR. MOXON: Again, I object as to relevance.

The relevance is that it was produced?

 
34
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. WALTON: It was produced, as I understand

it, it was produced in a document request by Scientology.

Mr .Armstrong and Mr .Armstrong' s corporation requested

certain documents responsive to this litigation and this

was one of the documents that was produced. If it wasn't

relevant, why did Scientology produce it?

MS. BARTILSON: They produced a lot of --

MR. MOXON: Can I ask the relevance other than

you think someone else thought it might be relevant?

MR. WALTON: I want to find out --

MR. MOXON: If you don't know if it's relevant or not

then I object to the relevance without a proper

ruling.

MR. WALTON: Let's find out if Scientology

produced it.

MR. MOXON: I'm sorry, I'm asking what the

relevance is other than you think someone else may have

produced it.

MR. WALTON: This is an allegation concerning me.

I would like to find out about them.

MS. BARTILSON: In this document there's

allegations concerning you?

MR. WALTON: That's correct.

MR. BENZ: I think Mr. Walton is entitled to

find out whether or not this witness knows it was produced

 
35
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in the document production in this litigation.

THE WITNESS: Your question, sir?

MR. WALTON: Q. Was this document produced in

response to a document request in this litigation?

MR. MOXON: Hold on a second, let me take a look

at it.

THE WITNESS: It appears to be a document

produced in this litigation, yes.

MR. WALTON: Q. Could you tell me the origin of

this document?

A. How's that?

Q. The origin, can you tell me the origin, where the

document came from?

A. It came from us.

Q. Who prepared it? "From us," you mean the

plaintiff?

A. Yes, the plaintiff. Various staff of CSI. This

looks like my writing in terms of content. It's a

typewritten document.

Q. Who would have directed this document to be

produced?

MR. MOXON: Who would have?

MR. WALTON: Q. Who did, if you know?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, assumes facts not in

evidence that someone directed it to be written.

 
36
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE WITNESS: I don't remember. Save you a

second question, I don't remember.

MR. GREENE: Why don't we mark this as an

exhibit since you are asking questions about it?

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit number 1
was marked for identification.)

MR. WALTON: Q. What part of this appears to be

your writing?

A. Or was in an earlier incarnation. The material

from the Griffith Park tapes, the material discussing the

breaches. The material concerning Ford Greene does not

appear to be originated from something I wrote. And,

again, as to the earlier portions of it it was either --

there was an earlier incarnation of this that this

material came from a draft, if you will.

Q. This is a document entitled Who Is Gerald

Armstrong. That's, I believe, your document number 200298

on page one. Is that Scientology-marked numeration?

A. If we produced it, which I believe we did, it

would have been our Bates stamp. It goes, for clarity,

through 200302. Ford is happy with that.

Q. I understand that the section representations

referred to attachments that were produced when this

original document was produced.

A. I don't remember. I see references to sections

 
37
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

but I don't remember.

Q. So this, when you did that production aspect of

this document that you did, was that within the Legal

Bureau?

MR. MOXON: Objection.

THE WITNESS: Try again.

MR. MOXON: It's vague and ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, try again. I don't

understand.

MR. WALTON: Q. I'm trying to find out if you

don't really know where it was generated but you did some

work on it and you don't know who directed it to be done,

I'm striving to sort of figure out, narrow down where it

came from.

A. I'm not tracking with you at all. Let's rewind

and start over.

Q. Let's start over. If I repeat a question,

forgive me.

Do you have any idea why this document was

produced?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

You mean produced to Ford Greene in this litigation?

MR. WALTON: Produced originally.

Q. Why did Scientology put together a document like

this? Can you explain to me so I understand why?

 
38
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. It was compiled so we would have a concise

statement so as to respond to Gerald Armstrong's many

media appearances and other statements he was uttering in

violation of his settlement agreement. So it was prepared

so we would have a response to communicate the truth,

things which Gerry tends to leave out of the things he

says.

Q. This is a press release?

A. Where did you get that? Is the question is this

a press release? No.

Q. What would you characterize this document as?

A. A pack of information.

Q. What is a dead agent pack?

A. I was wondering if you were going to get an

answer to that. I assume that was part of the overruled

objection earlier, was the objection to your second

question that you to before that? Is there one?

MR. MOXON: I object as to relevance. What's the

relevance to this case what this term is?

MR. WALTON: I suspect that a Scientologist can

speak for a long period of time without me understanding

anything that's going on because of the sort of sub-

language that exist in Scientology, some of which I read

and don't understand. I need to understand some of the

basic things that go on, some of the basic language. I

 
39
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

just want to know what it is. If this is it, I want to

know that, too.

First of all, I want to know what a dead agent

pack is.

MR. MOXON: Again, I object. What's the

relevance to this lawsuit? What does this term have to do

with this lawsuit? I don't understand.

MR. BENZ: I don't know what a dead agent pack

is so I can't really rule on this except does it appear in

here? Does it appear someplace? From whence does it

come?

MR. ARMSTRONG: I would be happy to answer that.

THE WITNESS: As would I on the record. Gerry,

you're not in deposition.

MR. BENZ: I need Mr. Walton to explain to me why

he needs it defined.

MR. WALTON: From my understanding, but then,

again, I'm not sure about this, a dead agent pack and

black propaganda are two ways that I'm told that

Scientology attacks its perceived enemies, and there is an

attack on me in this document that was produced as a

response to a document production in this litigation. I'm

trying to find out what this document is and why there's

an attack on me in it.

MR. MOXON: There's no attack of you in this

 
40
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

document, for one.

MR. BENZ: If you want to ask something was this

produced as part of a dead agent pack plan or something,

fine. Without more on what dead agent pack means I

can't --

MR. MOXON: Why don't we let the witness give a

definition so we can get back to the deposition.

THE WITNESS: The phrase "dead agent pack" is

slang. It refers to a pack which compiles the truth about

someone who's been telling lies, and the term springs from

Sun Tsu's book on war and wherein he describes various

different types of agents and one which he describes as

dead agent is one who's been feeding lies whose lies have

been exposed; and as an information source he is dead in

the eyes of the individuals to whom he has been spreading

false information.

That book was written several centuries ago. In

those days he was dead more that just as an information

source. But today it's slang for information pack which, I

if you will, communicates the truth about the individual

in such a way that their credibility with the source to

whom they have been spreading false information no longer

exists.

MR. BENZ: Can I ask one question in case this

comes up again? You are talking a pack?

 
41
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE WITNESS: P-A-C-K, package. This is a

several page memo which would have documentation attached.

MR. BENZ: I wasn't sure about the word pack or

pact, whatever.

MR. WALTON: Q. Is this a dead agent pack?

A. No, it's a cover write-up but there's no package

of information with it.

Q. I'm sort of at a disadvantage because I haven't

been served with these documents. It's my understanding

there were a number of documents such as four, five, six,

seven, eight, nine, number of sections that are referred

to that Ford --

A. Ford doesn't indicate it's attached; just says

"video available."

Q. In the original that was produced to Mr.

Armstrong' s attorney, would you consider the original as a

dead agent' s pack?

A. As I testified, I don't remember if we produced

the package of information that goes with it. If we did,

I would have, yes.

Q. Is that the same thing as black propaganda?

A. No.

Q. Could you tell me what black propaganda is?

A. Black propaganda is what one is trying to

correct when one compiles a dead agent pack. It's when

 
42
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

someone is spreading lies about someone to destroy their

reputation. The way you deal with that is document the

truth, and then the people to whom the black propaganda has

been spread hopefully no longer believe the lies.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of the entities to

whom this document was disseminated?

A. Not really.

Q. Are there any records to show what entities to

whom this document would have been disseminated?

A. No, it no longer would have been kept. It would

have been disseminated where needful to correct false

reports. I don't remember to whom it was disseminated.

Q. On page Bates-stamped 200301, the last line of

the fifth full paragraph, it says "Walton also knew of

Armstrong's intention to breach the agreement and was thus

fully aware of the fraudulent nature of the conveyance."

Do you see that line?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a line that you wrote?

A. Possibly.

Q. Could you briefly outline what facts Scientology

has in their possession that would support this statement?

A. There's a statement in the first half of the

sentence and a conclusion in the second half. I assume

you want the first half. The second half of the sentence

 
43
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

flows from the first half; the basis for the second half of

the sentence is the first half of the sentence. You

want the basis for you knew his intention to breach the

agreement?

Q. That's correct.

A. I saw you stand up in court when he tried to

appear in the RTC v. YANNY trial of March '90 where we

outlined the entire argument of Armstrong striving to

breach the settlement agreement. This was prior to him

divesting himself of his assets to you.

There's also been deposition testimony from your

co-defendant that you were aware of his breaches of the

settlement agreement, at least some of them. So that's

the basis for that. As I said, the second half of the

sentence is a conclusion based on the facts underlined in

the first half.

Q. Let's read the first half: "One of the

recipients of Armstrong's assets was an attorney named

Walton."

A. No, no, no, first half of this sentence:

"Walton also knew of Armstrong's intention to breach the

agreement," that's what I'm talking about. Then the

conclusion that flows from that is, "...was thus fully

aware of the fraudulent nature of the conveyance."

That was a conclusion based on your knowledge of

 
44
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

his breaches of the settlement agreement.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your

response. The initial part of the response had to do with

some incident where I stood up at a Yanny --

A. When Armstrong appeared, or sought to appear as a

witness at the Yanny trial, you were there with him. I

don't remember if you made an appearance but you were

there in the courtroom with him. I believe you did

introduce yourself. The entire argument of why he should

not be permitted to testify was laid out and the fact that

it violated his settlement agreement, et cetera. So...

Q. Who made that argument?

A. Counsel for the Church. I believe it was either

Earl Grew or Bill Gresham, counsel for the Church, who was

was trying that case.

Q. What did that indicate to the Church with

respect to me in this litigation?

A. It indicated that you were aware of our position as regards

Armstrong's breaches of the settlement

agreement. That's all I indicated at that time.

You asked what my foundation was for Walton also knew

of Armstrong's intention to breach. I listed that as one of

the issues because I happened to be there that day

and saw you receive the information --

Q. Excuse me, let me --

 
45
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. -- of deposition question.

Q. You are confusing me. I don't mean to interrupt

you, but I'm not sure how that indicia of that set of

circumstances that you just testified to, is indicia of

Armstrong's --

A. Intention to breach.

Q. -- intention to breach.

MR. MOXON: Do you have a question?

MR. WALTON: He's going to explain to me how it

is.

MR. MOXON: If you want to ask a specific

question... You are asking for a legal conclusion. You

asked for a fact. He gave you reasons why he believed

that. It's been asked and answered. I object on that

basis. If you have a specific question, go ahead.

MR. BENZ: I'II sustain the objection.

MR. WALTON: Q. Are there any other facts that

Scientology has that indicate that I knew of, that I was

fully aware of the fraudulent nature of the conveyance?

A. Without limitations, because there's been

discovery exchanged back and forth in this case and

there's been deposition testimony by your co-defendant

that you knew of his breaches of the settlement agreement.

So I don't want to limit the evidence available in the

case that's already on the record by way of this memory

 
46
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

quiz, but certainly there was that day in, I believe,

March '90 that indicated his intention to breach and we

argued that there was an active breach by his

participation in that proceeding because of the sham

nature in which he had arranged to be served with the

subpoena. There was no valid reason for him to be there.

The judge, for whatever reason, saw fit to exclude him.

There has been deposition testimony from Mr. Armstrong of

your knowledge of the breaches of the agreement. There

has been --

Q. Can you be specific about that?

A. Page and line? Of course not.

Q. Not page and line, just generally what breaches

was I aware of? We're talking about before the fact here.

A. I understand. As I sit here what I recall is

his testimony that you were aware that he had no intention

of abiding by the settlement agreement for his own reasons

which he stated specifically. I don't remember, but it's

in his deposition.

Q. As you sit here can you give me an example of

one breach that you accused Mr. Armstrong of doing that I

knew about in advance? I'm talking about specific breaches

here.

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance.

MR. MOXON: Asked and answered, also.

 
47
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. WALTON: It hasn't been asked and answered.

The relevance is that every time Mr .Armstrong allegedly

breached an agreement Scientology is looking to me for

$150,000.

THE WITNESS: That's not true at all. No, what

we're looking for from you, sir, I don't want you to --

MR. WALTON: If I am wrong --

(Whereupon a four-way conversation ensues.)

MR. BENZ: I don't think that question was

clear, so if you can rephrase the question. I'm not going

to foreclose the area, but that particular question isn't

clear and the reason it isn't clear to me, if I remember

back that far, is you are not saying -- is the point in

time and you are not making clear, you are not connecting

up whether or not the knowledge -- when the knowledge of

the breach was supposed to be.

MR. WALTON: Let's do that.

THE WITNESS: While you are looking through your

notes might this be a good time for a break?

MR. GREENE: All agreed off the record?

(Brief recess.)

MR. WALTON: Back on the record.

Can I ask you, Mr. Benz, to direct one or the

other attorneys to make objections instead of this double

tag deal?

 
48
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. MOXON: I'm representing, Mr. Farny which he

is entitled to individual counsel. She's representing the

plaintiff, okay?

MR. WALTON: I'd also like a directive that when

one person starts to talk he or she be allowed to finish

what they are saying before there's any interruption. If

it's inaccurate or there's some objections, certainly it

may be appropriate to make it, but I'm not sure in the

middle of someone speaking it's appropriate to jump in and

interrupt.

MR. MOXON: I think that's a great idea.

THE WITNESS: Can we agree to the same thing

with respect to my answers? A couple of times you jumped in

a bit early.

MR. MOXON: If you refrain from that we will

appreciate it a lot.

THE WITNESS: I will only say I will do the best I

can.

MR. WALTON: That's all I ask.

A. Mr. Farny, do you know when the Church of

Scientology International was formed?

A. November 1981.

Q. Do you know if it operates under any other

names?

A. Yes, one of our divisions is Golden Era

 
49
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Productions, a registered dba for CSI.

Q. Any other dba?

A. I don't believe so. Wait, yes, perhaps there is

one other called the Uniform Exchange. It's a division

that acquires our uniforms and such. I think they have a

registered dba. Other than that I don't think so.

Q. It acquires the uniforms?

A. Uniforms. We wear uniforms and it acquires it for

staff in bulk, contracts with tailors to make them, such as

that.

Q. When we first started this deposition there was

some question as to what Scientology, when I used

"Scientology," what that meant. How many, if you know,

how many Scientology-related organizations are there?

MR. MOXON: Object. The question itself is

ambiguous. Related organizations? You mean other

religions like any church of any religion is related in

the sense there's churches? There are churches of

Scientology.

MR. WALTON: That's what I'm trying to find out.

I have Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology

International, Church of Scientology California. I don't

know if there are any others. This is on a face sheet on an

Appellate District Division. I'm just wondering. I'm

trying to get an idea in my mind if CSI has some related

 
50
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

entity and where it is in the scheme of things.

THE WITNESS: Okay, now I understand. Your

question is how many?

MR. WALTON: Q. How many are there, just

approximately?

A. Approximately 1400.

Q. Are these described as separate churches or

separate organizations? Could you explain to me?

A. Yes.

Q. Separate organizations?

A. Separate churches, separate organizations.

Q. Is there a sort of a mother organization, sort

of one that controls all the others?

MR. MOXON: Objection, compound question.

THE WITNESS: And calls for a legal conclusion but

I'll answer it anyway.

There is a Mother Church in the hierarchy that

performs the function of the Mother Church regarding the

entire religion and its individual component churches,

missions and groups. That organization is Church of

Scientology International.

MR. WALTON: Q. The plaintiff in this action?

A. You got it.

Q. So CSI doesnot answer to any other

organization?

 
51
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. MOXON: Objection.

THE WITNESS: I don't understand your question.

MR. WALTON: Q. It is not controlled by any other

organization?

A. No, it's not controlled by any other

organization.

Q. It's a non-profit organization?

A. Yes, a non-profit religious organization.

Q. Do you know what Religious Technology Center is?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it have any relationship at all to CSI?

A. Yes.

Q. Was is its relationship?

A. Religious Technology Center owns the trademarks

and service marks of Scientology. It licenses us to use

those marks and is responsible for the purity of the

technology of our religion.

Q. Could it for any reason withhold any of the

service marks on any of the technology?

A. Yes. It's never done so with respect to CSI.

Q. With respect to CSI's sort of internal

management is there a Board of Directors?

A. Yes.

Q. How many people on the Board of Directors?

A. Five.

 
52
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Do you know the names of those individuals?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me, please?

A. Maybe six. Marc Yager, M-A-R-C, Y-A-G-E-R;

Michael Rinder, R-I-N-D-E-R; Kirk Weilend, W-E-I-L-E-N-D;

Guillaume Lesevre, G-U-I-L-L-A-U-M-E, L-E-S-E-V-R-E; and

Katherine Rinder.

Q. This is the current board?

A. There may be a sixth but I'm pretty certain

that's all of them.

Q. Do you know if the board meets with any sort of

pre-determined regularity?

MR. MOXON: I object to relevance. I don't know

what the point is in a fraudulent conveyance case what the

activities are of the board. We gave you their identity and

the fact there is one, what further relevance is

there?

MR. WALTON: Again, I'm striving to understand

how the inner workings of this organization, plaintiff

organization, how it works in order to try to put together

some defense. I don't have the facts, and if I

specifically ask something and can't get an answer from the

person that Scientology has provided, then I would like to

know who to go to who may have the answer.

MR. MOXON: You have that question answered, so

 
53
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

would you move along?

MR .WALTON: We have?

MR. MOXON: You got their identities.

MR. BENZ: What you are asking is how often the

board meets. Explain to me what the relevance is.

MR. WALTON: What I would like to know is how

often they meet and if there are minutes of any of these

meetings that reflect the fact that the board has decided

that these lawsuits should be filed. If this is not a

board-sanctioned activity, then it's probably not a proper

activity.

MR. MOXON: Completely irrelevant whether it's a

proper or improper activity according to the board.

MR. WALTON: If the board has not approved it

they may not -- whoever has done this may not represent the

Church of Scientology International.

MR. BENZ: It may be relevant but I don't see it

at this point in what's been said. I will say I do not

appear to have and do not know the contents of the

Cross-complaint, if any. So I don't know whose

Cross-complaint it is and what it alleges. So I have no

idea if there's any relevance on that and I have not

attempted to memorize the affirmative defense here, but

from what you have given me I'll sustain the objection.

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you know if the board keeps

 
54
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

minutes of its meetings?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you know where the board meets, the physical

address, the location of the board?

A. Did you say where the board minutes are or

meets?

Q. Meets.

MR. MOXON: Objection, relevance.

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you know where the minutes

are kept?

A. Of course I do.

Q. Where are they kept?

A. Kept in my file cabinet. I testified in the

beginning that's one of my functions, to keep them,

maintain custody of them in my file cabinet.

Q. Do you know who the officers are of CSI?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me?

A. President is Heber Jentzsch, J-E-N-T-Z-S-C-H;

vice-president is Liesa Goodman; and Janet Weiland,

W-E-I-L-A-N-D. Liesa is spelled L-I-E-S-A.

Q. That's the same lady that's on the board?

A. No, there's no Liesa on the board. There's a Kirk

Weiland on the board. That's Janet's ex-husband.

It's not relevant to this.

 
55
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I'm the secretary. I have an assistant whose

name is Leslie Browning. And the treasurer is Jonathan

Epstein.

Q. I'd like to go over the specific allegations in

the underlying lawsuit in this matter.

A. You mean the Complaint as opposed to the

counter-claim?

Q. We don't even have to use the Complaint. I just

need to know what the allegations are.

A. In this case?

Q. No, the underlying.

A. Underlying? I guess I'm not understanding you.

Q. Does Scientology, does the plaintiff claim to be

a creditor of Gerald Armstrong?

MR. MOXON: Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion.

MR. WALTON: I'm not talking about in the legal

sense, but if they are a creditor I'm entitled to get that

information. You see what's happened here is that

plaintiff, Scientology, as I've said, has sued me for seven

million dollars based upon, as far as I can tell,

upon Mr. Armstrong's alleged breach of a settlement

agreement in a lawsuit that's titled Armstrong I out in

Los Angeles Superior Court, a case that was settled in

1985 or '86, something like that.

 
56
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Again, as I understand it, based upon those

breaches Scientology is claiming that Mr .Armstrong

deposed of money. Using that, they say that they are a

creditor.

What I want to do is I want to find out exactly

what it is that Mr. Armstrong allegedly did with my

participation according to parts of the allegation of the

current Complaint that make me allegedly responsible for a

seven-million-dollar debt. Is that clear? Does that

answer your question?

MR. MOXON: No, you misunderstand the Complaint.

You don't understand.

MR. WALTON: I'm not understanding exactly what

Mr. Armstrong has done that gives rise to a seven-million-

dollar liability.

MR. MOXON: It's in the Complaint.

MR. WALTON: Which Complaint?

MR. MOXON: If there's some ambiguity about it

you should file a demurrer.

MR. WALTON: In which Complaint?

MS. BARTILSON: He did, in fact. It was

overruled.

MR. WALTON: In which Complaint?

MR. MOXON: In this case.

MR. WALTON: It's not set out, as far as I can

 
57
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

tell, in this Complaint.

MR. BENZ: Excuse me, if I can step in I think

you are arguing with each other. If you have a question to

ask, go ahead and ask it, then we can figure it out from

there.

MR. WALTON: Q. Can you specifically delineate

the alleged breaches of the contract that Scientology is

relying on in order to collect damages in this case that

either Gerry or some entity related to Gerry has done?

MS. BARTILSON: Can I object? I'm going to

object to this question, Your Honor, on the basis that the

breaches form the basis, as Mr. Walton has said in his

roundabout way, for a lawsuit that is ongoing in Los I

Angeles. All those breaches are delineated in the

Complaint in this action that have been provided to

Mr. Walton and provided to Mr. Greene and Mr. Armstrong,

and those breaches are all delineated there at great

length, all the facts that are being litigated there.

I'm going to object to this action being used

for discovery as to facts relevant to that action. This

is an action for declaratory relief based on the concept

that once judgment is obtained in that case, we want to be

able to obtain property that Mr. Armstrong fraudulently

conveyed.

MR. BENZ: Is Mr. Walton a party to that Los

 
58
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Angeles suit?

MS. BARTILSON: He is not.

MR. BENZ: I think Mr. Walton is entitled to go

into the allegations of this Complaint. Included in the

allegations of this Complaint are the so-called, at least

the general allegation of breaches in the other action. I

understand it's not necessary that plaintiff try the case

and become a judgment creditor in order to sustain this,

but I think Mr. Walton is entitled to know the background

upon which you are asserting an indebtedness, whether it's

correct or not, and from that standpoint I would rule that

he can go into what is the basis upon which you are

pleading an indebtedness from Armstrong to the plaintiff.

MR. MOXON: The only point, Mr. Benz, is it's

irrelevant at this point because we're only asserting in

this case there was a fraudulent transfer of money to Mr.

Walton. That's what's relevant in this case. Whether or

not there is ultimately prevailing in the other case or

not is not relevant here at this point in time.

MR. WALTON: Mr. Benz, if I may?

I'm not sure that's what the Code says. It's a

new Code. I'm trying to find cases that flush it out.

However, I would concede that counsel may be true, he may

be correct if there were not the conspiracy allegation.

What the allegation is is that I conspired with

 
59
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Armstrong to do these things that they allege in some

lawsuit to which I am not a party, and based upon my

conspiracy with him I'm brought in to the tune of 2.8 or

3.8 million dollars, which is substantially more than what

the transfer was worth.

Now if you are talking about just an

interpretation of the uniform fraudulent transfer act,

that's one thing. What I'm trying to figure out is what

exactly did I conspire to do. What I am being accused of

conspiring to do I don't know.

MR. BENZ: I will agree with counsel that we do

not need to go into all the facts into which the LA suit

is based, but why don't you direct your question, then, to

the allegation of conspiracy and the fraudulent transfer.

To the extent there's an overlap you are certainly

entitled to go into it, but I will revise my current -- my

previous ruling that you can go into the whole area, but

just keep it in connection with this Complaint and the

conspiracy complaint and get some nexus from this of what

you are going into.

MR. WALTON: Okay.

Q. Let's look at this Complaint, Verified Complaint

to Set Aside Fraudulent Transfers.

A. Do you have one for me?

Q. I don't. I'd rather you not look at the

 
60
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Complaint. I'm just going to ask you questions regarding

the Complaint.

A. A memory quiz.

Q. Does Scientology know why you sued me?

A. Of course I do.

(Whereupon a two-way conversation ensued.)

MR. BENZ: Stop, stop. You are both talking at

once.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

MR. BENZ: It's been my policy to try to wait

and keep out of this until asked, but I am going to start

asserting when we start getting off the track. So Mr.

Walton is entitled to go ahead and ask general questions

and ask your recollection, if that need be, if that's the

approach he wants to use.

So why don't you go ahead to the extent you want

to ask questions with reference to the Complaint, that's

fine.

THE WITNESS: Fine with me. I was wondering which

way he was intending to proceed.

MR. WALTON: Q. With respect to conspiracy,

Scientology has filed a Complaint and alleged a conspiracy

between Gerald Armstrong and Michael Walton, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. As you sit here, without benefit of looking at

 
61
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the Complaint, I understand, do you have any facts or any

information to support that allegation, only the

conspiracy allegation? We're not taking about damages or

breach of contract or any conveyance.

MR. MOXON: I object. Mr. Benz, I suppose we

can do it this way, as Mr. Farny characterized it as a I

memory quiz. He can give whatever information he recalls.

He's here as a representative of the party. If we want to

do that and not allow him to look at the Complaint and see

what he knows, give him a grade, we can do that. I don't

know what the point is if you want to get his best

testimony. So I object to the procedure.

MR. BENZ: The question is unclear, anyway, and

it's too broad. What supports the conspiracy. A

conspiracy is made up of various parts. You will have to

go through each part.

MR. WALTON: Let's go back to the Complaint.

THE WITNESS: I can look at it now?

MR. GREENE: For the record, would you mind, Mr.

Farny, specifying what Complaint you are looking at? I

believe there have been a couple of Complaints in LA.

MR. WALTON: We're looking at the Marin.

THE WITNESS: I don't know what Mr. Walton is

looking at. I'm looking at the Verified Complaint To Set

Aside Fraudulent Transfers and For Damages; Conspiracy,

 
62
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

filed July 23, 1993.

MR. GREENE: That's fine. I just wanted to make

sure the record is clear.

MR. WALTON: Q. Let's start with page two line

number two: "In or about February of 1990, Armstrong

began to take a series of actions which directly violated

provisions of the agreement."

Will you tell me what those actions were?

A. Assistance to adverse litigants.

Q. Can you tell me which litigants?

A. Ones that immediately come to mind were Bent

Corydon, Joseph Yanny. There are a few others. Vicky and

Richard Aznaran; Malcolm Nothling; Denise Cantin and Sam

Ochi. The latter two aren't actually litigants. Those

are the ones I recall as I sit here.

Q. These are all in or about February of 1990?

A. No, some are later.

Q. Can you tell me about the ones just in or about

February of 1990?

A. Prior to February 1990 he began with Corydon and

Yanny and I believe Aznaran, but I'm not certain about

that.

Q. What did he do to assist in Corydon, if you

know?

A. Arranged for the voluntary acceptance of a

 

 
63
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

subpoena for deposition and gave testimony beyond that

which was directly called for by the questions asked so as

to actively and voluntarily support that litigant in

violation of the agreement settlement. He may also have

done other things.

In other words, he actively assisted him rather

than just merely honoring whatever legal obligation he

would have had with respect to that litigation.

Q. What facts do you have to support that claim?

A. I've read the deposition transcript, Armstrong's

deposition transcript. I was there the day we had the

hearing concerning his motion --sorry, concerning his

deposition. He came in with Corydon and his lawyer and

appeared to be actively assisting them in preparation for

the argument.

Q. Did you ever hear anything that was said between

those parties?

MR. MOXON: Ever?

MR. WALTON: Q. At that time.

A. I did. Several times they were close enough to

hear and I got the general sense that he was helping them.

He appeared to be like saying things along the nature of

"they're going to claim this; they're going to claim

that," but I don't remember the specifics of it as I sit

here.

 
64
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. What about with respect to Yanny?

A. That same day as that I remember waiting for the

hearing; up comes one of Yanny's co-defendants and comes up

to the group that was standing there, which was Gerry

and Bent Corydon. And his lawyer shakes everybody's hand

and it was apparent to me, because I was standing fairly

close, maybe 20, 30 feet away, that they had been

expecting this gentleman. And the gentlemen then handed

Mr. Armstrong a subpoena. I could hear words to the

effect: Here's your subpoena, Gerry. And they all burst out

laughing having a great old time about the subpoena.

It had arranged for him to be there to receive

that. About a month or so later, if my time sense is

correct, we had the hearing at the trial.

This incident I'm referring to was I believe

earlier than February. My recollection is it was earlier

than February. It may have been February, I'm not certain

of that, but just to be fair. In fact, I seem to recall

in the fall of '89; it wasn't until the fall of '89, but I

don't remember.

Q. With respect to Aznaran can you give me any

specifics regarding Gerry's breach of the contract that

gave rise to this Complaint?

A. He worked as a paralegal on their lawsuit against

us for quite a long time.

 
65
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Against "us"? You mean against Scientology?

What specifically, which cases or what matters?

MS. BARTILSON: Can I raise an objection?

I'm going to object, Your Honor, because Aznaran

is specifically part of the Los Angeles action and is

being dealt with in detail there. We can ask the witness

to do a synopsis, perhaps.

MR. BENZ: Glancing through the Complaint I

think paragraph 45, plaintiff's request for punitive

damages, states that defendants Walton, Armstrong and the

corporation knew of Armstrong's obligation to plaintiff and

knew that plaintiff's claim could only be satisfied

out of the property.

So the fact that it alleges that defendant knew

of Armstrong's actions, I think he's entitled to go into

what the action and intended actions are.

MS. BARTILSON: These are all actions that took

place after the transfer of the property, that' s why I'm

having a little bit of a difficult time with it.

MR. BENZ: I'm having a little bit of a

difficult time with the breath of the allegations here and

with the dates. So if you want to make it a cutoff date

then I can rule on that. But the allegation for punitive

damages does state knowledge of Armstrong's actions and

intended actions, so he's certainly entitled to go into

 
66
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that, what those actions are.

THE WITNESS: I'm a bit confused because what is

being talked about is what acts he took. I think you used

the word "actions" in relation to the lawsuit asking about

the Aznaran action, so if we can get a clarification on

that when you get back to your question I would appreciate

it.

MR. BENZ: If Mr. Walton wants to inquire what

acts the plaintiff is referring to that Mr. Armstrong did,

you may pursue that under the allegation -- because of the

allegations in paragraph 45.

THE WITNESS: I understand.

MR. WALTON: Q. That's what we're doing now,

just to make it clear. I'm trying to find out what it is

that Scientology has alleged that Gerry has done and that

I conspired with him to do. So I'm trying to start with

the beginning which, according to this Complaint, was in

February of 1990. And after I determine what it is that

he's alleged to have done I'm going to try to find out how

it is I conspired with him, just so you know where we're

going.

A. All right. And your question was?

Q. I think we're up to Aznaran. We talked about

Corydon and two incidents there, and Yanny. And I took it

as one incident which was Gerry working for him as a

 

 
67
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

paralegal. And I think when we get these individual

incidents out of the way maybe we can break them down.

MR. MOXON: I'm entirely confused. Do you have

a question?

MR. WALTON: I'm trying to make it clear for

your witness who seemed to be confused.

Q. Now we're at Aznaran. Anything other than his

working for him as a paralegal?

A. How is that?

Q. You testified that Gerry breached the --

allegedly breached the contract by working as a paralegal

in the Aznaran case. Did I miss that?

A. I said that. That's correct.

Q. Is there anything else about the Aznaran case

that Gerry allegedly did that allegedly breaches the

agreement?

A. As I said, he filed one or more declarations in

that case as well.

Q. In determining damages, just so I understand it,

in determining damages Scientology is sort of charging --

how does Scientology arrive at the damages number?

A. In which case?

Q. In the instant case.

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion.

 
68
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. MOXON: Also attorney-client privileged

communications.

MR. BENZ: You can clarify the question, Mr.

Walton. Mr. Walton is entitled to know what the basis of

the damages is and if it's being computed at X dollars per

Offense.

MR. MOXON: I agree. It's the way he's asking

the questions.

MR. WALTON: Q. So how is it computed? Are the

damages computed by offense?

MR. MOXON: Same objection.

THE WITNESS: Here's my understanding: We set

forth in this Complaint the damages amount that we had

calculated at the time we filed the most recent

incarnation of the breach action in Los Angeles as it

constituted itself at that time. That was based upon an

amount set forth for violation of the liquidated damages

provision to the settlement agreement, which was $50,000

per breach plus damages according to proof and punitive

damages.

My understanding of the way the law works -- and

I'm not a lawyer so it's going to be incomplete, I'm

sure -- but that each person to whom assets were

transferred in a fraudulent manner would only be liable to

the extent that they received assets. Now if I'm wrong

 
69
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

then I'm sure my counsel can correct me, but that's my

understanding of one of the positions here as regards

purely the fraudulent conveyance of it.

Now in regards to the conspiracy aspect we would

have raised the issue of whatever fraud, pressure or malice

was engaged upon on your part that gave rise to punitive

damages in that aspect of it.

Now I probably misstated the law several times,

but that's my understanding of the basis of damages in

this case.

Q. So it's a 50,000-dollar-per-occurrence liquidated

damage clause, that's the original underlying contract; is

that correct?

A. That's one of the provisions. There is

injunctive relief sought as well as damages according to

proof for violation of the provisions of the agreement that

aren't pinned to the liquidated damages clause.

Q. Let's just talk about those damages that are

pursuant to the liquidated damages clause. Can you do

that?

A. Sure.

Q. Can you carve out those allegations that reflect

occurrences which generated $50,000 in liquidated damages?

MS. BARTILSON: I'll object at this point

Because he's asking him to enumerate what's in the Second

 
70
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Amended Complaint in the Los Angeles action which is set

forth there in each separate breach and which ones are

connected with the damages and provisions and which ones

aren't.

We can go through this exercise with this

witness but I think it's a waste of time and I don't think

it's particularly relevant at this point. Mr. Farny

outlined the basis for damages in this action against this

witness and it doesn't include the details of any of those

breaches.

MR. BENZ: Mr. Walton, can you connect this up?

Why is it relevant here?

MR. WALTON: It's relevant, Your Honor, because

again I'm trying to determine what it is. It's sort of

like a two-part thing here. We have this underlying

lawsuit to which I am not a party; I have no idea what's

going on in that lawsuit. But based upon that lawsuit

Scientology is claiming some three or four million dollars

in damages all of which, not just a little bit of which

but all of which they're claiming that I'm equally liable

for. I don't know what they are. I don't know what it is

that Scientology claims Gerry Armstrong has done, but

whatever it is they're claiming he's done they're claiming

that I have conspired with him to do it. I cannot even

come close to defending unless I know what it is I'm

 
71
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

accused of conspiring to do.

MR. BENZ: Then will you tie your questions into

the conspiracy?

MR. MOXON: I think he is misunderstanding the

scope of conspiracy.

MS. BARTILSON: He conspired with Mr. Armstrong

to enable to fraudulently divest himself of the assets.

That's what's complained of in this action.

If you look at the Second Cause of Action,

paragraph 42: "The defendant conspired and agreed to hide

any and all future assets by Armstrong and his

corporation. They agreed that Walton could take ownership

of his assets of value." So long as Armstrong is breaching

the agreement, that's the conspiracy alleged and it's

alleged pretty clearly. It's not that he conspired with

Gerry to breach the agreement. If it were that he would be

a party to the Los Angeles action.

MR. BENZ: You have a conspiracy and a

conspirator can be held liable for the whole thing and you

also have your punitive damage claim where you are alleging

that Walton knew of the actions and intended actions

against plaintiff.

What I'm asking -- and you are asking three

million in punitive damages now. As far as the actions are

concerned I already said that those are relevant and

 
72
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you can go into that. I'm still not clear as to why, what

the relevance of each particular item of damage is.

MR. WALTON: I'm not sure either, Your Honor.

I'm sure what the relevance to me is is I'm trying to be

able to address each of these allegations and sort of in

order of what I consider of importance, and one of the

things that is important to me is their value. As an

example, it's my understanding -- and I'm trying to elicit

that testimony -- Mr. Armstrong wrote a letter subsequent

to this 19 --

MR. BENZ: Don't tell me that. Okay, go ahead,

he wrote the letter but...

MR. WALTON: One letter that was copied to a

number of people and I'm trying to find out if each of

those copies was worth $50,000 or just the letter was

worth $50,000. I'm trying to see how this figure of

$3,800,000, $1,800,000 plus the sanctions that are set

forth there and exemplary -- general damages of 1.8

million, exemplary and punitive damages in the sum of

three million, I would like to find out what this 1.8

million dollars in damages is.

MR. BENZ: Okay, now that is alleged against you

under this conspiracy clause and you are entitled to go

into that. Okay.

MR. GREENE: Maybe it's a good time for lunch.

 
73
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BENZ: Do you want to take a lunch break?

MR. WALTON: Yes, please.

(Whereupon the deposition was adjourned

for lunch.)

---o0o---

 

 
74
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

AFTERNOON SESSION
1:45 P.M.

---o0o---

MR. MOXON: Back on the record.

I just want to clarify one scheduling matter. I

understand you haven't served Mr. Miscavige with a

subpoena so his deposition is not on.

MR. WALTON: Unless you are voluntarily providing

him.

MR. MOXON: I don't have the ability to do that.

---o0o---

EXAMINATION RESUMED BY:

MR. WALTON: Q. So we were going to attempt to

figure out what this 1.8 million dollars in general

damages is enumerated in the Complaint. Do you know if

the 1.8 million is a factor of multiplying $50,000 by the

number of alleged breaches?

A. I believe it is.

Q. So could we go through the breaches in order

sequentially from the very first one in terms of time until

the last one?

A. Might be easier if we go through it working from

the breach complaint in the order it appears there.

That's the easiest way for me to do it and I see another

copy over there. We can do it chronologically but I think

I'd be flipping back and forth in the document, although

 
75
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it appears chronologically in the Complaint.

MR. MOXON: It's easier to work from the

Complaint.

MR. WALTON: Q. Although perhaps we could, even

through we wouldn't progress chronologically, we could make

sure we have dates of each of these alleged breaches.

MR. MOXON: Do you have a copy of the Complaint?

MR. WALTON: This is the Verified Second Amended

Complaint.

THE WITNESS: That's what I have.

MR. GREENE: For clarification, that's the

combined, essentially the two Complaints, right, in LA?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

MS. BARTILSON: Are we going to make one an

exhibit to make it part of this record?

MR. WALTON: Isn't it already part of record?

MR. GREENE: No.

MR. MOXON: Maybe you can adopt it and say here

are what the basic allegations are and basic testimony and

utilize that.

MS. BARTILSON: We'll stipulate that's what it

is.

MR. MOXON: Cut a couple of hours going through

it. If you have any specific questions about any

allegations you can consider flushing them out.

 
76
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. WALTON: What I want to get away from is

relying on the allegations in the Complaint.

MR. MOXON: It's a Verified Complaint.

MR. WALTON: I know, but just as the allegations

in this action were verified by the attorney in the office

it's legalese, we know how they're produced. It doesn't

give me enough factual information to intelligently

respond. I have no idea what a lot of this stuff is and

certainly those of you who have been in the Scientology

business for a long time now –-

MR. MOXON: There is no Scientology legalese, as

you coined the term earlier. This is just a legal

complaint. Having an understanding of Scientology isn't

required. If you have specific questions, why don't you

ask the witness, that's what he's here for. Otherwise,

it's pointless to have him read the Complaint.

MR. GREENE: Just ask the questions.

MR. WALTON: Q. I wouild like to know if you can

give me the very first – in this case I think we're going

to have to do it in chronological order – the very first

breach of contract Mr. Armstrong allegedly did that gave

rise to 50,000-dollar liquidated damages.

A. The first one he did and the first one we're

suing on aren't necessarily the same thing.

Q. The first one I'm looking for, the 1.8

 
77
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

million –

A. The first one in the Complaint is assistance in

the Aznaran case beginning in June of 1991. This is

alleged in the First Cause of Action.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, hang on. It's the

assistance to the Aznaran as alleged not in the First

Cause of Action but the Second Cause of Action which

encompasses his assistance to Aznaran and Yanny beginning

on page seven.

Q. What kinds of assistance did he lend?

A. He filed a declaration in support of Yanny in

the RTC v YANNY case.

Q. What is RTC?

A. Religious Technology Center versus Josheph Yanny.

MR. MOXON: Cited on page eight of the Complaint

you have in front of you, Mr. Walton.

MR. WALTON: Q. Did he do anything else in this

Yanny case?

A. He filed a second injunction -- I'm sorry, a

second declaration and formed paralegal services for Mr.

Yanny around that time in the summer of '91.

Q. So there are two declarations and paralegal

services?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that one 50,000-dollar breach or three

 
78
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50,000 breaches.

A. Second Cause of Action has one 50,000-dollar

breach for the two declarations.

Q. Is there any 50,000-dollar damage claim for the

paralegal services?

A. It appears to be included within this Cause of

Action, but I'm just not certain it appears. So, yes,

although it's vague it specifically references the two

declarations and references the paragraphs 7G and 10 of the

agreement which concerned liquidated damages for

disclosures.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't quite get your testimony.

A. If you look at paragraph 32, that's the

paragraph of the Complaint which alleges what paragraphs

of the settlement agreement were violated by the conduct

alleged in this Cause of Action and that conduct is

referred to in paragraphs 30 and 31.

Q. I don't mean to be rough about this, but this

document was filed on behalf of Scientology by Scientology

attorneys, and if you are finding it hard to understand

what it represents you can certainly sympathize

with me.

A. I came here to be deposed in the case in which

you are sued in which we have alleged that you have

conspired with Gerry Armstrong to receive his money for no

 
79
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

fair compensation. Nowhere do we ever allege that you

conspired with him to breach the settlement agreement. He

was doing that. What you conspired with him to do is make

him judment proof, to stash his assets with you, survive

the litigation and take it back or not at the end. So I'm

having a little difficulty talking about another case I

wasn't necessarily prepared to discuss today. I am more

than happy to because I understand your reasoning for

wanting to have the information, but if I have to refer to

the Complaint which, including exhibits, stands nearly a

half inch tall, excuse me if I have to do that. Do you see

what I'm saying?

Q. I don't mind, but what I'm suggesting, I don't

understand your answer.

MR. MOXON: Mr. Walton, your question was

unclear also. You are asking him to combine both the

liquidated and other damages in here. Obviously the

liquidated damages, according to the Complaint --

THE WITNESS: If I can interrupt for a second?

Here's where I think I sent you off the rail is

you asked me what Armstrong did with regard to Yanny and I

answered it independent of a reference to this Cause of

Action. Then we came back to finding that conduct within

this Cause of Action, and two of the three instances I

gave are expressed here; the third isn't.

 
80
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

So, one, I was asking what did he do, I was

answering the third one. I saw what's reflected on the

documents and I think that's why I threw you off with my

original answer.

MR. WALTON: Q. As I recall in this morning's

deposition I asked you – Let me ask you again. If I

repeat, please forgive me.

Is it fair to say that this 1.8 million dollars

is a factor of multiplying $50,000 by the number of alleged

breaches that Mr. Armstrong committed?

A. I believe that is fair to say, although the

numbers are expressed here and we can total them up. There

are different types of damages alleged in the underlying

Armstrong breach case. One is for disclosures of

information, which is liquidated damages connected to that;

one is for aid, and that's consequential damages according

to proof. We're just talking about the liquidated damages

here. I believe you are correct, although we can just take

a calculator out and take what's expressed on pages 29

onward and add it up.

Q. Or we can go through each of the alleged breaches

and multiply those by 50,000?

A. We just said the same thing.

Q. Let's find out what the alleged breaches are.

A. Fine.

 
81
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object. This is

really harassing and unnecessary for this witness. All the

breaches are laid out in the Complaint. They are all there

and you can take out a calculator and we'll take five

minutes or we can sit this witness down for hours and hours

of testimony for what? I think it's harassment at this

point. We can do it; we'll sit here and do it.

MR. BENZ: I haven't seen the Complaint. Are

there any specific questions that aren't covered in the

Complaint? If you want to test an allegation or

something, fine; but if it's just listing them, if they're

already there. . . I don't want to interrupt your taking of

the deposition, but at the same time if you are just --

you say is this in the Complaint and the answer is yes, I

see that in the Complaint, we're not getting anywhere.

MR. WALTON: After we identify the allegation I

would like to be able to ask questions about these

individual allegations. Simply reading a Complaint that

some lawyer has prepared doesn't really tell me what

happened.

MR. BENZ: I understand that, but you are not

telling me what more you want. You are asking him, first

of all, to list it. If it's already listed then you can go

ahead and read it out of the Complaint if you want it read

into the deposition, but I don't know what you are

 
82
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

doing. I don't have the Complaint; I don't know where you

are going and there's been an objection. Lead me or

direct me.

MR. MOXON: If you want some clarification of

further points in there why don't you ask rather than go

through --

MR. WALTON: I'll go through each of the Causes

of Action and ask specific questions about specific

paragraphs.

THE WITNESS: That would nbe much more helpful to

me, and I don't mean to be obstreperous.

MR. WALTON: Q. On page seven at line 13 --

we'll be talking about the Verified Second Amended

Complaint, Damages for Preliminary and Permanent

Injunctive Relief for Breach of Contract in Superior Court,

State of California, County of Los Angeles, BC

052395.

A. I'm on page seven.

Q. Line 13 says: "Armstrong's acceptance of

employment by Yanny to work on the Aznaran's litigation is

a direct violation of paragraphs 7G and 10 of the

Agreement."

Is this part and parcel of the alleged breach

that gives rise to a claim of $50,000?

A. No, that's a claim concerning aid and

 
83
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

assistance. That's consequential damages according to

proof and that was the third part of what I was talking

about. The declarations are in the next Cause of Action.

Q. What was it that Mr. Armstrong did on this

occasion that caused the breach?

A. He was hired by Yanny to help him put

together a response to a TRO, preliminary injunction

application we sought in a second suit we had in regard to

Julian who worked in his office and helped prepare papers.

Q. Do you have any documents to support that?

A. The declarations that resulted from it as well as

Yanny and Armstrong both admitted it.

Q. In the declarations specifically, do you know

what declaration that is?

A. July 16th. I don't think they're attached.

Maybe they start later in the attachments, declarations of

Gerald Armstrong, July 16th, 1991.

Q. Do you know what those declarations were in

support of?

A. Mr. Yanny's opposition to our effort to seek

preliminary injunctive relief against him representing the

Aznarans because Mr. Yanny had been our former lawyer and

to do so violated his duties as our attorney. He was

subsequently disqualified from the Aznaran cases as their

lawyer, in any event.

 
84
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Would you recognize the Superior Court case

number if I showed it to you?

A. I'd recognize the case caption if you showed it

to me, certainly.

Q. I'll show it to you. I'll show it to your

lawyers first.

A. This isn't the one I'm referring to. This is

the previous case.

Q. Anything else about this first Cause of Action

other than the declarations in Yanny? Anything else he

did, Mr. Armstrong did that Scientology was aware of?

A. You only gave a part of my answer in that

question. Anything other than what I've said, that's what

I recall here.

Q. Let's move to the Second Cause of Action. The

Second Cause of Action references two declarations filed by

Yanny, executed by Armstrong filed by Yanny, paragraph 31 .

Are these the same two declarations that you referenced in

the First Cause of Action?

A. First Cause of Action doesn't reference the

declarations per se. This one references an aid he gave in

working as a paralegal in the preparation of them. This

Cause of Action concerns -- let me finish -- the

declarations, the disclosures in the declarations that

resulted. So to the degree, yeah, they're the same

 

 
85
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

declarations we're talking about.

Q. So if I understand, it's these same two

declarations that Mr. Armstrong gave Mr. Yanny, Mr.

Armstrong executed and that Mr. Yanny submitted to the

court, those same two declarations give rise to the

breaches that are claimed in the First Cause of Action and

the Second Cause of Action; is that right?

A. Not precisely. The First Cause of Action

concerns Armstrong's work for Yanny as a paralegal in

defense of that phase of the RTC v YANNY litigation. That

work not only encompassed the preparation of the

declarations, it's that assistance.

The declarations themselves, the disclosures of

information in the declarations themselves give rise to the

Second Cause of Action. We may be saying the same thing.

I want to make sure we're talking about different types of

conduct in the First and Second and there are actually

different claims for damages in the two Causes of

Action.

Q. Let me ask you, other than the two declarations

what other specific breaches is Scientology alleging that

Mr. Armstrong committed in the First Cause of Action?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

He already listed them for you. The declarations were part

of his answer.

 
86
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. WALTON: I'm trying to find out

specifically.

MS. BARTILSON: He already answered. I object.

THE WITNESS: What Mr. Yanny said was he was

working in Yanny's office helping Yanny prepare papers to

resist our effort to get him disqualified from

representing the Aznarans by way of an injunctive relief

in this case or through a disqualification motion in the

Aznaran case.

MR. WALTON: Q. Scientology considers that a

breach of the contract?

A. Yeah.

Q. Anything else specifically that you can think

of?

A. That's what I recall sitting here.

Q. Before I move on to number three, the Third

Cause of Action, in the Second Cause of Action is it fair

to say this 50,000-dollar liquidated damages refers to the

two declarations, result because of the two declarations

that Mr. Armstrong executed?

A. Yes, it's one breach for that sphere of activity

at that point.

Q. The Third Cause of Action, could you tell me

what the alleged breach is in the Third Cause of Action?

A. Yes.

 
87
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Please do.

A. This concerns Armstrong -- excuse me, the noise

is -- thanks, I was a little distracted.

MR. GREENE: My apologies. I will try to whisper

more softly.

THE WITNESS: This is when he hired on with Ford

Greene as a paralegal to work on the Aznaran case as a

paralegal, both Ford Greene and another lawyer, John

Elstead. These are the services he provided for them at

that time.

MR. WALTON: Q. What services did he provide?

A. Paralegal services, assisting in the preparation

of the case, that's how he has described it. That seems a

pretty ample description.

Q. "He" who?

A. Gerry.

Q. I don't mean to be light about this but things

like -- I'm still not sure exactly what it would be.

A. My understanding of it based on things Gerry has

said in his deposition and such is that a compilation of

documents for the case, assisting the lawyer, I would

imagine helping to prepare drafts because I know he did

that with Michael Flynn before the '86 settlement. I

couldn't imagine he wouldn't be. That isn't necessarily

something I know.

 
88
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. You refer to the Aznaran case. Do you know what

case that was? Is there a way to reference it so I can

find it?

MR. MOXON: It's cited in the Complaint. I can

point that out to you.

MS. BARTILSON: I would also add that part of our

document production included deposition transcripts from

the other action.

MR. WALTON: I didn't get a document production.

MS. BARTILSON: I understand that was your claim.

I checked and it was sent to your office. I will

be sure you get it again. It's a document production that

Mr. Armstrong testified to. At least perhaps a fairer

thing to do, a more fruitful way to gain the information

would be to depose Mr. Armstrong again, ask him what it

was.

MR. MOXON: Mr. Walton, the card you just gave us

is different from the address than what you put on the

Notice of Deposition. What is the formal address that you

wish to have documents served to you in this case? We got

a P.O. box on the Notice; you have an address on your

card. We have been sending things to what you have

designated.

MR. WALTON: I have never designated 707 Fawn

Drive and I have continually gotten service things there;

 
89
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in the middle of the night some guy on a motorcycle came

by, all kinds of things. Either the Post Office box or

Larkspur Landing will work.

MR. MOXON: We can't deliver to the Post Office.

MR. WALTON: The 700, everything to 700. It will

keep it clean.

MR. MOXON: Why don't you file it in the record?

MR. WALTON: If it does any good I will.

MR. MOXON: You are required to do that.

MR. WALTON: I have. It doesn't seem to have

helped so far. I don't want to argue about this. Let's

move on.

MR. MOXON: You have been served with that

material. We'll make another copy.

MR. WALTON: Where did you serve it? Do you have

a Proof of Service?

MS. BARTILSON: Not with me.

MR. MOXON: I'll get it. Obviously you got some

documents from Mr. Greene.

MR. WALTON: I did. I notice that there was a

document entitled Lis Pendens, was the last lis pendens

that indicated a service not only to myself and Mr. Greene

but a number of other attorneys, and, again, I didn't

receive anything nor did the declarations indicate that any

of the other attorneys did. All I'm suggesting, even

 
90
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

though you are sending things that maybe they're getting

lost, not only with me but other people, as well.

MR. MOXON: I dispute that, just for the record.

Go ahead with the deposition, we'll make sure you're

covered.

MR. WALTON: Q. So what was the last question?

A. What is the Aznaran case.

Q. You don't know the title?

A. Sure, page six lines 20 through 22 – actually 20

through 23, although it was subsequently transferred to

Texas and had a different case number.

MR. MOXON: The paragraph you just questioned the

witness about, Mr. Walton --

THE WITNESS: That's the title there.

MR. WALTON: Q. So all that other stuff aside,

is there anything else specifically that you know about

that Mr. Armstrong did for Mr. Greene, specific stuff that

he did?

A. That's covered in the Third Cause of Action, the

one you are asking me about?

Q. Yes.

A. My answer encompasses quite a lot. There are

specific acts that are complained of in subsequent Causes

of Action that concern this. Beyond that, that's what I

recall right now.

 
91
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. The Fourth Cause of Action.

A. Speaking of the devil, here's one of them.

Q. On page nine paragraph 40 it says: "In addition

to the paralegal services which Armstrong has provided to

Ford Greene and John Elstead on the Aznaran litigation,

Armstrong also provided Aznaran with a declaration dated

August 26, 1991 and filed in the Aznaran case."

Is the execution and filing of that declaration

what Scientology alleges gave rise to a 50,000 liquidated

damages?

A. Yes.

(Discussion off the record between
witness and his counsel.)

MR. MOXON: Mr. Benz, can we take a break for a

couple of seconds? I want to grab a copy of this

Complaint. I have a copy out in my car.

(Brief recess.)

MR. WALTON: Q. Let me just back track a

second. On the First Cause of Action the date is alleged

to be June 1991 and July 1991.

A. That's right.

Q. When was the actual breach?

A. Beginning in June 1991, or thereabouts. Probably if

you wanted to put a bright line on it, it was when Gerry

traveled to LA with Yanny, but that seems to be

 

 
92
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as good a bright line as any.

Q. Certainly traveling with somebody doesn't --

A. To LA to sign on as his paralegal and for the

reasons set forth in the Complaint.

Q. When was that?

A. July.

Q. July 1991?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. The Second Cause of Action seems to indicate the

date July 16th, 1991, no?

A. No, that's the date of the declaration; doesn't

say exactly when the hearings were that are referred to in

paragraph 31, but they were in the summer of '91.

Q. So that breach occurred in the summer of '91?

The Third Cause of Action?

A. And continuing for as long as he worked there

with Yanny, which I believe wasn't very long.

Q. Do you have any idea how long?

A. I think just the summer, but I'm not sure.

Q. The Third Cause of Action says on or about August

of 1991 Armstrong began work for Greene's offices as a

paralegal. That's the time that this Cause of Action

accrued?

A. That's when it began. It continued up through

the dismissal of the Aznaran case.

 
93
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. The Fourth Cause of Action, the date is August

26, 1991; is that right?

A. Yes, and its subsequent filing, which was at or

about that time, but it's the act of providing the

declaration that bears that date that was filed in the

case.

Q. So that's one breach?

A. That is correct.

Q. It says at paragraph 40: "In addition to the

paralegal services which Armstrong has provided Ford Greene

and John Elstead on the Aznaran litigation, Armstrong also

provided the Aznarans with a declaration dated August 26,

1991 and filed in the Aznaran case."

So Scientology is considering that outside

the paralegal services sort of definition as a separate

breach?

A. That being the declaration he filed?

Q. He didn't file it.

A. You are correct, executed it. Yes, the execution

of the declaration is separate from the activity of

providing paralegal services but aren't necessarily

exclusive of each other, but it's a separate activity.

Q. That gave rise to the 50,000-dollar liquidated

damages?

A. "That" being the declaration?

 
94
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. That filing of the declaration or execution of

the declaration?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any knowledge about what was

contained in that declaration, what kind of information?

A. I read it but as I sit here today, beyond the

description that's contained in this Complaint, I just

don't remember. I haven't read it recently.

Q. Continuing in the Fourth Cause of Action, page

ten line 20, it says: "In that declaration…" – referring

to the same declaration we were discussing the last three

or four minutes – " … Armstrong describes some of his

alleged experiences with an concerning plaintiff and

purports to authenticate copies of certain documents.

These actions and disclosures are violations of paragraph

7(G), 7(H), and 10 of the Agreement requiring Armstrong pay

to CSI 50,000 in liquidated damages."

A. That's an accurate reading.

Q. Do you have any idea what documents Mr. Armstrong

purported to authenticate?

A. I don't really remember as I sit here, but

they're attached to the declaration, so it's easy to look

at them.

Q. Do you know if the declaration was an attachment

to the Complaint?

 
95
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. It was not. The exhibits pick up with the next

Cause of Action. First one is the Settlement Agreement

itself, and the next exhibit picks up with the Fifth Cause

of Action.

Q. Page ten, Fifth Cause of Action, shows that the

Cause of Action accrued on or about March 19th, 1992.

A. Yes, that's what is says.

Q. Is that accurate?

MR. MOXON: Is the Complaint accurate?

MR. WALTON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Seems to be, give or take a day or

so.

MR. WALTON: Q. It indicates that "On or about

March 19th, 1993, Armstrong, acting through Ford Greene as

his agent, transmitted a press release to various members

of the media including Cable News Network, San Francisco

Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, and the Marin County

Independent Journal."

Is there any documentation as to the alleged fact

that Mr. Greene was Armstrong's agent at that time? Do you

know of any?

A. He appeared for him as an attorney. This concerns

the case we originally filed here in Marin County which

became the breach case in LA, and that was filed about

three weeks before that. In any event, by the next

 
96
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

day we knew because both of them were on CNN.

Q. Let me read further one more sentence, it might

be easier: "Said press release violated the Agreement in

that it constituted disclosures by Armstrong, through Ford

Greene as his agent, of his experiences with Scientology as

prohibited by paragraph two."

When I asked you about the agency aspect, I think

your response was at this time Ford Greene was his lawyer;

am I correct?

A. That's what I believe I said, yeah.

Q. So this is a document that was disseminated after

Mr. Armstrong was represented by Mr. Greene?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it was disseminated by Mr. Greene?

A. He's listed as one of the contact points on the

press release, and I saw that he did give an interview to

CNN. He wasn't really shying away from the media.

Q. This lawsuit you referenced is what lawsuit?

A. What became this one. If I can explain? On that

date -- well, I think it was the beginning of March, around

the first week of March we filed the breach action up here

because we had attempted to enforce the settlement

agreement in Los Angeles where the underlying case was

originally pending, and the judge who took Judge

Breckenridge's place was of the opinion that Marin County

 
97
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

had the jurisdiction over the dispute because that's where

Armstrong lives.

We came up here in March and filed the action up

here; got a TRO and then there was a motion to transfer

the case. It then got transferred down to LA. While the

litigation was pending Armstrong continued the course of

conduct he had embarked upon, which is basically ignoring

the Settlement Agreement which he didn't believe he was

bound by, for whatever reason. We won't go into that now.

Moving forward to April of this year, we

consolidated two lawsuits and that concerned all the

breaches into one Complaint which alleged them

chronologically so we have one clean package that will be

tried by the trial court. So even though we're now in the

fifth of 20 Causes of Action, it happened during the

course of this litigation.

Q. I'm sorry, when was that lawsuit filed, the first

one?

A. The first week of March, something like that,

March fourth.

MR. GREENE: February.

THE WITNESS: February '92.

THE WITNESS: All right, that makes sense,

February.

MR. WALTON: Q. February '92?

 
98
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. So February '92 Scientology filed a lawsuit

against Armstrong in Marin County?

A. That's right.

Q. In about March of '92, his lawyer disseminated a

press release?

A. It was the day before the hearing.

Q. And Scientology is asking $50,000 liquidated

damages for the dissemination of that press release?

A. For Armstrong's role in that, yeah.

Q. Moving on to the Sixth Cause of Action at page 12

paragraph 47, the dates of these allegations of March 19th

and 20th --

A. Yes, that's what is says.

Q. Is it accurate?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Q. So this is the same day and the day following the

issuance of the press release?

A. That's right.

Q. As it says: "On or about March 19th or 20th,

1992, Armstrong and Greene, acting as Armstrong's agent,

granted the media additional interviews which also violated

paragraph two to the Agreement."

A. That's what is says. It goes on to give a quote

from Armstrong in one of the interviews.

 
99
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. It says: "Armstrong stated: I'm an expert in

the misrepresentations Hubbard has made about himself

since the beginning of Dianetics until the day he died."

Is that the quote?

A. That's the quote.

Q. Is this quote part of the additional interviews

that the Church found actionable?

A. Certainly one of them. The entire interview,

the entire broadcast, the CNN broadcast which contains the

interviews is attached as Exhibit C.

Q. Does the Church -- I'm not asking you to draw

legal conclusions; if you can answer it, I would

appreciate it -- this is the second time I've seen

"Armstrong and Greene, acting as Armstrong's agent,

granted the media additional interviews which also

violated paragraph two."

Is the Church taking the position that something

that Mr: Armstrong's attorney might do is a breach of the

contract?

MR. MOXON: Objection, misstates what's

indicated.

MS. BARTILSON: And calls for a legal

conclusion.

THE WITNESS: Do I wait or do I answer?

Not necessarily, no.

 

 
100
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. WALTON: Q. I haven't seen anything in here

so far about Mr. Greene being Armstrong's lawyer. It may

be there.

A. He's not a defendant on this.

Q. What indication does the Church have that Mr.

Greene is Armstrong's agent other than being his attorney?

A. Assumes the two exclude each other.

Q. Does it?

A. Not necessarily.

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object. Again,

he's asking the witness to draw a legal conclusion about

what's agency and what's not.

MR. WALTON: I'm not asking about agency law.

MS. BARTILSON: Yes, you are, that's exactly

what you're asking about. I'm going to instruct him not

to answer unless I get some kind of cross-order on that

one.

MR. WALTON: He's already answered it. Let's go

on.

Q. So it's not, with respect to this Sixth Cause of

Action, it's not just the quote that Scientology finds

actionable, it's the entire process of granting media

additional interviews of which the quote was part; is that

fair?

MR. MOXON: I would like to raise a general

 
101
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

objection. If we're going to go through the Complaint

line by line just reading the Complaint, it seems

pointless and it's wasting everybody's time.

MR. WALTON: It's not wasting time as far as I'm

concerned.

MR. MOXON: You can read the Complaint but

everybody is paying for it.

MR. WALTON: But I want to ask questions about

it. I'm trying to find out if there's anything else going

on here.

MR. MOXON: If you want to ask that, fine.

MR. WALTON: Q. Is there anything else going on

here

A. You're asking me?

MR. MOXON: It says what it says. If you want

to ask if there's anything outside what's stated in the

Complaint why not ask that rather than reading the

Complaint. You are literally just wasting all our time. I

have been sitting here patiently; I'm not patient

anymore.

MR. BENZ: Let's go ahead with the questions.

MR. WALTON: Q. This action of Armstrong and

Greene granting additional interviews, that's a 50,000

dollar liquidated damages?

A. It's Armstrong granting the interview, doing it.

 
102
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Whether Greene facilitated in helping to set it up, or

whatever, I think that's what the lawyers intended when

they wrote paragraph seven. Greene didn't settle this,

Gerry did. That's the interview we objected to.

Q. What else did Mr. Armstrong say in this

interview that you're objecting to?

A. Everything is set forth in Exhibit C. We don't

have the outtakes from the interviews.

Q. I don't have Exhibit C, do I?

A. It looks thick enough that you probably should.

Q. Exhibit C is a copy of the interview?

A. Transcript of the interview, yes.

Q. This was considered one breach, $50,000. Okay.

Seventh Cause of Action on or about February 1992, how many

dates do we have in here?

A. Several.

Q. We have a 50,000-dollar liquidated damages claim

for?

A. Seventh is 250 for each of five disclosures which

violated the agreement, 50 for each of the five.

Q. The first alleged in this Seventh Cause of Action

is that in February Mr. Armstrong agreed to appear as an

expert witness in some litigation; is that accurate?

A. Yes.

MR. MOXON: I object. If you want to read the

 
103
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Complaint -- my objection is we're doing exactly what you

said you weren't going to do; you are reading the

Complaint, asking what is said in the Complaint is what is

said in the Complaint. It's been verified. If you want

to ask him anything other than what's in it, that's fine. I

want to move along. There's no point in sitting here

while you read the Complaint.

MR. WALTON: Is there an objection that needs to

be addressed?

MR. MOXON: Yes, I object. It's irrelevant.

MS. BARTILSON: And harassing.

MR. WALTON: What part is irrelevant? I'm going

through the Complaint like I was sort of --

MR. BENZ: You are also asking him "is that right"

as you read it. It's obviously right, it's there. If you

mean is that there, it is there.

MR. WALTON: Meaning if it is there is it correct

information.

THE WITNESS: Meaning did that happen or not? I

believe.

MR. MOXON: Maybe I can handle all this with one

question.

Mr. Farny, is there any part of that Complaint

that isn't correct to your knowledge? Is there any part of

the Complaint that isn't right?

 
104
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE WITNESS: Subject to anything that might

have been amplified through the discovery in the case for

which we have more precision now where we had just a

generality then, I would say no. I am still satisfied

with the Complaint as I was when I verified it. There's

been no discovery taken since April. Yes, I'm satisfied

with it.

MR. BENZ: If you want to use the Complaint as a

takeoff for further questions, that's fine.

MR. WALTON: I would like to find out which

50,000-dollar liquidated claims go with which alleged

breaches.

THE WITNESS: That's easily set up. If I can be

of help to you, beginning on page 29 it states which

Causes of Action we are seeking liquidated damages for,

which Causes of Action we're seeking some other form of

relief for. They are pretty succinctly set out here if

you understand the difference in the types of aid and

assistance to litigants, and there's disclosure of

information. The liquidated damages comes from disclosure

of information. So where you see a paragraph that alleges

disclosure of information, that is going to translate over

to page 29 and over into a liquidated damages claim. It's

really simple.

MR. WALTON: Q. Bear with me for one more Cause

 
105
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of Action and maybe I'll become more clear, and if I don't

then certainly I'll try another tact.

MR. MOXON: I'm certainly not trying to turn off

any questions. At the same time, your reading something in

the Complaint is unnecessary.

MR. WALTON: Q. Could you look at the Fourteenth

Cause of Action, and it starts on page 20 and it describes

a letter.

A. Yes.

Q. The sending of this letter Scientology has

alleged entitles it to $950,000 in liquidated damages.

Can you explain that to me?

A. Yes, I can. The letter which is attached to

the Complaint as an Exhibit E is nine pages long and

provides an extensive amount of information. Now each of

the individuals designated in paragraph 87 received a copy

of this letter, so it's the disclosure of information to

those individuals at $50,000 a pop which totals 950,000.

Q. Do you know if that is attached to this

Complaint?

A. It's Exhibit E.

Q. This is a letter dated December 22nd, 1992

addressed to David Miscavige care of Laurie Bartilson,

addressed to David Miscavige and all other individuals who

participate in the control of Scientology in care of

 
106
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Laurie Bartilson. Is that the letter?

A. Yes. Essentially, yes, that is the letter.

Q. I see there's an extensive cc list.

A. So do I.

Q. Is adding up those names and multiplying by

50,000, is that how Scientology got to 950,000?

MR. MOXON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: Yes, with allowances for

arithmetic inaccuracies, but I just looked through it and

it looked correct.

MR. WALTON: Q. Do you know if Mr. Armstrong

was represented by Mr. Greene on December 22, 1992?

A. I have no reason to doubt that he wasn't.

Did I do it right?

MS. BARTILSON: No. Try again.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I assume so.

MR. WALTON: Q. Scientology claims $50,000 in

damages from Mr. Armstrong for copying his attorney a

letter?

A. No, nor do we claim it for any of the cc's to us,

either.

MS. BARTILSON: The agreement talks about aid to

adverse litigants and their attorneys. Those disclosures

made to those individuals form the bulk of the cc list are

listed in paragraph 87, I believe it is, that Mr. Farny

 
107
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

testified about. They're listed in the Complaint.

MR. WALTON: Q. Mr. Greene's name appears in

paragraph 87?

A. Sure does.

Q. Maybe you can just tell me which names on this

list does Scientology claim there's a 50,000-dollar

breach?

A. I would like to have a short conference with my

attorney before I answer that.

Q. Please.

(Discussion off the record between
the witness and his counsel.)

THE WITNESS: I counted it three times. I can

only come up with 850. I think Greene and Morantz

were on there in error because they were counsel of

record, so there appears to be a typo.

MR. ARMSTRONG: You are doing good, Michael. Try

those two names.

MR. WALTON: Q. How about Ms. Plevin?

A. No way. She was Corydon's lawyer and it was a

breach to disclose it to her.

Q. She didn't represent Mr. Armstrong, to your

knowledge?

A. From time to time. She has on a couple of

occasions, but yeah.

 
108
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Who's Mr. Elstead?

A. Aznaran's lawyer.

Q. Did he ever represent Mr. Armstrong?

A. Not to my knowledge. He represented the

Aznarans and we're alleging Armstrong having worked for

him was a breach. So disclosures of information certainly

helped us out by putting the disclosures in writing, made

it easier to prove.

Got any other notes, Gerry?

Q. I'm going to ask you to look again. This may be

asked and answered. If it is, forgive me and we will go

right past it. But look very carefully at the dates of

this Complaint in terms of allegations and just confirm

them for me that they're all accurate.

A. All the dates of all the allegations in this

Complaint for this Cause of Action?

Q. The entire Complaint.

A. Very well. I believe we covered through seven.

MR. MOXON: Do you want to take a break while we

do that?

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. BENZ: Back on the record.

MR. GREENE: Just for the record, what

Mr. Farny, what you are going to do is first Mr. Walton is

going to withdraw the last question and you are going to

 
109
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

review the Complaint tonight and advise him tomorrow if

there are any dated on the Second Amended Verified

Complaint in LA that is inaccurate; is that right?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

MR. MOXON: And you are going to continue the

deposition and you are going to conclude your part before

Mr. Walton continues?

MR. GREENE: Sounds fine to me. No, this is not

a tag-team deposition.

---o0o---

EXAMINATION BY:

MR. GREENE: Q. My name is Ford Greene. As

you know, I represent Gerald Armstrong and The Gerald

Armstrong Corporation who are defendants in this matter.

Notwithstanding the fact that your deposition has

been taken dozens of times before and you have sat in on

many more than that, I would like to clarify with you that

if you don't understand the question that I ask you tell me

because if you answer it I'm going to assume you understood

the question that I'm asking. That sounds good to you,

doesn't it?

A. Sounds good to me, although I don't think I've

been deposed dozens of times. At least a dozen.

Q. It's Armstrong who's been deposed dozens of

times.

 
110
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

How old are you?

A. Thirty-eight.

Q. What is your birth date?

A. September 6th, 1955.

Q. When did you first become affiliated with any

organization related to the Scientology religion?

A. December 1976.

Q. Where?

A. Church of Scientology, Mission of Riverside.

Q. From that point on was your affiliation -- and

also, just for the record, I'm not going to adopt

Mr. Walton's use of the term "Scientology." I'm going to

use Scientology generically to refer to the Scientology

religion at large and have that be distinct and separate

from CSI or plaintiff, which is the actual litigant in

these proceedings. Does that work for you?

A. That works for me.

Q. So, then, starting in December '76 was your

affiliation with Scientology more or less continuous from

that point?

A. Yes.

Q. When you first became involved with Scientology

was that in consequence of taking a personality test?

MR. MOXON: Objection. Mr. Farny's religious

practices are not relevant. For the purposes for which

 
111
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Farny is capable and competent to represent CSI in this

deposition is relevant, but his personal religious

practices, what courses he's taken, about any religious

practice he's been involved in is not only irrelevant it's

protected.

MS. BARTILSON: By privacy.

MR. GREENE: I disagree with you.

MR. MOXON: Just as Mr. Walton's religious

beliefs wouldn't be an issue in this case.

MR. GREENE: I'm not asking Mr. Walton any

questions, Mr. Moxon, I'm asking Mr. Farny questions with

respect to the depth and extent of his involvement with

Scientology.

The reason -- please don't interrupt me; I didn't

interrupt you -- the reason that is relevant is that it goes

to his qualifications to serve, one, on the board as an

officer of CSI; and, two, it goes to his knowledge and

understanding of Scientology practices as certain matters

with respect to the Scientology practices of fair game and

other types of things have been alleged as being involved

in Armstrong's affirmative defense.

So for those reasons they're relevant. I'm not

seeking to inquire into the truth or validity of whatever

it is that Mr. Farny believes; that is clearly an area that

is impermissible. I'm not asking him about that. I

 
112
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

just want to know what he's done.

MR. MOXON: Sorry, Mr. Greene, but Mr. Farny's

specific religious practices which is exactly what you

asked are in fact protected. The issues you raised are

not issues in this lawsuit. There's no practice of fair

game in Scientology, nothwithstanding your allegations or

what Mr. Armstrong has alleged. You can't just allege and

turn this into a trial of the Scientology religion. This

is a fraudulent conveyance case. Whether or not Mr. Farny

has a belief or practice in Scientology doesn't matter.

It's completely irrelevant. And the extent to which he

has practiced Scientology is protected. So whether or not

you think it's relevant doesn't matter because it's

protected. So I object on constitutional grounds and

privacy grounds.

MR. BENZ: Can you tie it in?

MR. GREENE: I can and the offer is this:

Number one, the practice of fair game is alleged under the

unclean hands affirmative defense of Armstrong's Verified

Answer. The practice of fair game as ruled by the

California Court of Appeal in WOLLERSHEIM versus

SCIENTOLOGY is not a protected religious practice.

The information I am seeking to attain from this

witness is foundational with respect to what it is that he

understands about Scientology and what the basis is for

 
113
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

his understanding and it's tied directly to the --

MR. MOXON: Cross-complaint?

MR. GREENE: Answer.

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object.

MR. GREENE: Wait, wait, wait, I'm sorry. I'm

not going to go with what Mr. Walton did. There is one

witness here that's been designated by the Church of

Scientology International and I'm going to have one

lawyer, not two lawyers. --

MS. BARTILSON: Excuse me, you interrupted me.

MR. GREENE: And I would like a ruling, Mr. Benz,

because I believe that it's absolutely improper for two

lawyers to be representing one witness who in

response to Mr. Walton's generic "give me a witness for

CSI" has been produced. I want one lawyer objecting. I

don't want to get double-teamed and tag-teamed. It's

improper and it's not fair.

MR. BENZ: Let me rule on the lawyer situation

first. This is a designated witness and as such he is not

appearing personally, and as such --

MR. MOXON: May I respond before you rule?

MR. BENZ: That's my opinion. Then you may go

ahead and respond.

MR. MOXON: He does have personal rights here.

I am here representing him personally and as an agent for

 
114
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the Church. Mrs. Bartilson is representing the Church

itself and the Church's interests per se.

MR. BENZ: The Church has no interest per se. It's

not a party.

MS. BARTILSON: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

MR. BENZ: That is not the Church, that's the

corporation, CSI.

MS. BARTILSON: Church of Scientology

International is the --

MR. BENZ: It's the corporation.

MR. MOXON: We have not been double-teaming. This

is an important issue. There's no reason why we

can't both --

MR. BENZ: Let me ask this, then. One lawyer is

going to be representing CSI, the plaintiff. Now if there's

something that goes personally to the witness outside the

scope of that, then the other lawyer is representing him in

that; is that correct?

MR. MOXON: The objection here was of a privacy

claim.

MR. BENZ: Privacy objection would be proper for

his personal appearance attorney, but any objections that

the corporation plaintiff has are party objections and will

be handled by that party's lawyer; is that correct?

MR. GREENE: There's a problem here.

 
115
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BENZ: There's been a very mixed bag as to

who's objecting to what here.

MR. GREENE: Absolutely right, and I just know

that both of these lawyers are from Bowles & Moxon. It's

not like they're separate counsel. Both these people are

from the same law firm. And this witness was designated by

them to speak on behalf of the corporation and that's what

he's here to testify about.

There are matters that have been specifically

alleged in affirmative defenses which stand and that's what

I want to ask him about. I want to get from him what his

understanding and background is with respect to his

knowledge of the beliefs and practices of Scientology.

MS. BARTILSON: I would like to respond to that on

behalf of CSI. Mr. Greene filed a Second Amended

Cross-complaint on behalf of Mr. Armstrong on which he made

the allegations concerning fair game, and so on and so

forth, referring specifically to paragraph 70. That and

most of the other paragraphs in this Cross-complaint were

stricken by the court as irrelevant and not necessary to

the action on June 17th. I have a copy with the stricken

paragraphs marked for Your Honor.

MR. MOXON: One other thing. With respect to the

alleged double representation is Mr. Armstrong has sued

individuals as well simply because they are

 
116
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Scientologists, so he has no compunction whatsoever as to

suing individual members of the Church because of their

affiliation. Mr. Farny certainly has some rights here not

to be sued and not to be attacked by Mr. Armstrong.

MR. BENZ: We'll rule on that. Mr. Farny is not a

party to this suit; is that right?

MR. MOXON: That's right.

MR. BENZ: I'm ruling that he may have a personal

attorney and the plaintiff may have an attorney and the

objections will be made appropriately: If it's a personal

objection, it will be made by the personal attorney; if

it's a party objection, it will be made by the attorney for

the party.

MR. GREENE: Mr. Moxon is the personal attorney,

right?

MR. BENZ: That's my understanding.

MR. MOXON: That's correct.

MR. BENZ: Then on the question itself, you are

saying, Mr. Greene, that this has some basis in the unclean

hands defense?

MR. GREENE: Unclean hands as well, which is the

Sixth Affirmative Defense and also the Eleventh Affirmative

Defense of duress and undue influence.

MS. BARTILSON: It's the same issue. It has been

stricken, absolutely stricken by the judge. It's out

 
117
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of there.

MR. GREENE: I am talking about the Answer, Your

Honor. You have a copy of the Answer there. I have a copy

of the Answer here. The Answer stands.

MS. BARTILSON: Unclean hands can't be a defense

for fraudulent conveyance of property. I don't see it.

Anybody can allege it but that doesn't make it --

MR. MOXON: Maybe we can cut through this. The

question that gave rise to this whole debacle was asking

about what kind of Scientology tests Mr. Farny has taken.

That has absolutely nothing to do with these issues. That

is a personal matter of Mr. Farny and has nothing remotely

to do with even his allegation as to fair game

MR. GREENE: Wrong. My position is, as I said

it was before, that Mr. Farny's breath and extent of

involvement with Scientology is directly relevant to his

knowledge of its practices as has been alleged in the

Eleventh Affirmative Defense of duress and undue

influence. The practice of fair game is an issue in this

lawsuit. One who becomes affiliated with Scientology does

not become aware of fair game right away; one becomes

aware of fair game only after a certain amount of

involvement and I want to emphasize this individual also

is here as an official of CSI, and CSI claims to be the

Mother Church.

 
118
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BENZ: To the extent that you are going into

the religious beliefs, et cetera, I don't think that's too

relevant. I'm not ruling out fair play.

MR. GREENE: Fair game.

MR. BENZ: Fair game.

MR. GREENE: All the difference in the world.

MR. BENZ: I just thought of that having figured

out what fair game is supposed to be. I'm not ruling that

out. I don't think it's necessary to go into the detail on

the joining and the membership in the Church, and the

interest in that does not outweigh the right to privacy.

That's the ruling on that question.

MR. GREENE: Sorry, the interest in that?

MR. BENZ: The interest you may have in pursuing

his knowledge of Scientology does not outweigh the right

of privacy involved in that as to that particular question

when he joined and that type of thing.

If you want to get into the activities of fair game, then

we will look at that when we get there.

MR. GREENE: One thing I would request would be

that your ruling would be without prejudice subject to me

providing you with some written authorities and argument on

that.

MR. BENZ: That's fair enough.

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Farny:

 

 
119
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

How long was it from December of 1976 until the point that

you first became active in wearing some sort of legal hat

for Scientology?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: For any organization of Scientology?

MR. GREENE: Q. Right.

A. Around 1977 I was doing analysis of FOIA

documents, Freedom of Information Act. I think that's my

first involvement in legal affairs with the Church.

Q. Approximately when in 1977, first half or second

half?

A. Latter half of the year.

Q. What was the name of the entity for which you

were rendering those services?

A. Church of Scientology of California.

Q. How long did you do that analysis of Freedom of

Information Act documents on behalf of CSI?

A. Few months maybe, if that long.

Q. From that point forward have you consistently

been involved in one sort of legal capacity or another for

an entity, whatever its name may be, that's affiliated with

the Scientology religion?

A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with the particular meaning

 
120
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ascribed to the term, quote, "hat," close quote, by

Scientology?

A. I'm aware of a couple of different meanings.

Q. Would you define those for me?

A. One is a description of job duties, the duties

themselves or a compilation of material necessary to

translate those duties.

Q. What's the other?

A. I gave you both: It's the duties themselves, one;

and, two, the materials that train the person to do those

duties.

Q. So to put it in my language, is it fair for me

to say that one is basically a job description, one

definition of the term hat; and the other definition of

the term hat refers to the materials that are used to

train the person to do the job?

A. That's accurate, yes.

Q. After the few months during which you worked in

a legal capacity for CSI did you then move to a different

legal capacity in your affiliation with Scientology?

MR. MOXON: I object to the relevance and

privacy as to this.

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I track, sorry.

MR. MOXON: What's the relevance? You've gotten

all the background. With respect to his role, what he did

 
121
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and what his entire history is in the Church is not

relevant to the fraudulent conveyance in this case.

What's relevant is he's been proffered as a person who's

testified. He's been corporate secretary for a number of

years.

MR. BENZ: I'm going to overrule the objection as

being improper. I think if the objection is going to

be brought it's going to have to be brought by the party

plaintiff. You are not protecting him personally; you are

protecting or objecting to something in connection with

the party.

MR. MOXON: I object as to privacy. You are

getting into his whole background in the Church.

MR. BENZ: The question wasn't his connection

with his background with the Church; he is entitled to go

into this since it is this witness that verified the

underlying complaint in Los Angeles, or was it this one?

He verified one of these complaints.

MR. GREENE: He verified the Second Amended

Verified Complaint in Los Angeles.

MR. MOXON: My objection is as to privacy. This is

a period of over ten years prior to any incidents in this

case.

MR. BENZ: The objection is overruled.

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand your

 
122
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

question because you said -- you talked about some legal

capacity. Do you mean when is the next time I worked in a

legal area?

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me rephrase it and back up.

What was your hat, in the first sense of the

word, when you were doing the FOIA analysis?

A. Just that I was a volunteer. I was analyzing FOIA

documents.

Q. There was no special designation or hat given to

the services you performed at that time?

A. No, just working on that project. I was not an

employee of the Church or any Church at that time; I was

volunteering.

Q. What was the next job, whether you were a

volunteer or otherwise, that you performed in connection

with legal matters having to do with Scientology?

A. In 1979, the spring, I worked briefly for a few

weeks assisting the lawyers on a case involving some

individuals affiliated with the Church in collating and

analyzing documents.

Q. What type of case was it?

A. What do you mean?

Q. What kind of case?

A. What kind of case?

Q. Yes.

 

 
123
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. It was a criminal case.

Q. At this time were you -- Strike that.

Are you aware of a component that used to be

part of Scientology that was known as the Guardian's

Office?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the litigation on which you were working you

just made a reference to your second job, as it were,

involved with the criminal prosecution in Washington, D.C.

of Mary Sue Hubbard and Ann Kello (phonetic) and Duke

Synder and the rest of those people?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you worked with Mr. Moxon at that time, too,

didn't you?

A. No, he was in D.C. The lawyers I worked with were

out in LA.

MS. BARTILSON: Your Honor, I am going to raise

an objection for CSI. References to the Guardian's

Office, and so forth, were all made in the Second

Complaint and were all stricken by the court. We're very,

very far afield and it was long ago. The corporation,

that plaintiff, was not formed until 1981. None of the

action that is alleged in this Complaint occurred before

that. We're talking about what jobs Mr. Farny did as a

volunteer on other cases in 1979. I think it's

 
124
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

irrelevant.

MR. BENZ: Mr. Greene?

MR. GREENE: Again, this witness has been

proffered by CSI to speak on behalf of the corporation.

This witness verified the Complaint. I'm entitled to

inquire of this witness what his knowledge is of what in

the Answer we have alleged to be the practice of fair

game.

Fair game I can go into and will go into. The

relevance of Mr. Farny's Guardian Office activities is his

knowledge of practices engaged in by Scientology that know

no limit in terms of legal constraints or ethical

constraints that the rest of the country lives by, and I

am entitled to inquire of this witness specifically what

his knowledge of those matters is and that's what I'm

doing.

The particular litigation about which I am

asking him questions and regarding which he worked

resulted in guilty pleas to felony charges of obstruction

of justice, of burglarization of federal governmental

offices, and the stealing of documents, and for these

people to say that that kind of knowledge is not relevant

when one another affirmative defense asserted by Armstrong

is that the agreement that Armstrong is alleged to have

violated constitutes a violation of public policy because

 
125
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it's an obstruction of justice and seeks to suppress

evidence is all relevant to the approach of Scientology to

suppressing any kind of information that may be damaging

to it. And this witness has that kind of information and

as Armstrong's lawyer I'm entitled to get it.

MR. BENZ: You are going to have to tie it in

more closely to this lawsuit. I can see where it may be

relevant in LA, but whether or not there may be a --

MR. GREENE: But you see, the thing here is the

exact defenses that have been asserted in LA are asserted

here and that defense primarily is that that agreement or

44 affirmative defenses worth is a piece of garbage, and

one of the reasons why it's a piece of garbage is because

of the reasons I just stated. So the tie-in is already

there. If that agreement does not stand up, that

constitutes a complete defense for Armstrong here and now.

So it is relevant and it is not at all to be truncated on

the basis that Gee, that's in Los Angeles. What's in Los

Angeles is also in Marin County.

We sought to coordinate this action with the LA

action. That was opposed and CSI prevailed in this

opposition.

MR. BENZ: It's my understanding that the court

here ruled -- and maybe this can be clarified for me --

that the allegation of the indebtedness, the question of

 
126
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the indebtedness is being tried in LA. And this here is a

question of fraudulent conveyance, not the question of the

indebtedness or potential indebtedness; is that correct?

MR. GREENE: That's wrong. I'll get you the

Answer in Los Angeles and the Answer here. I drafted

them. They're the same Answers. The defense here is the

defense to the contract. There is no question that the

house was conveyed. The entitlement that CSI asserts to

even bring the fraudulent conveyance action is predicated

on having a claim. We say they don't have any claim

because the instrument upon which CSI relies to assert such

claim itself is void: That's what we're talking

about.

MS. BARTILSON: The Court of Appeals has already

discussed the very same issues about the validity of this

agreement. Mr. Greene raised all 44 defenses when he

appealed the injunction that we got in Los Angeles. The

Court of Appeals, second district, said the agreement did

not violate public policy and it upheld the injunction.

So to the extent he's driving in on this, he's

chasing a fairy tale. However, Judge Thomas said this is a

fraudulent conveyance action. You yourself limited my

discovery when I was asking for financial records with Mr.

Armstrong to 1990. That was the cutoff date, the

bright red letter line you imposed on my discovery. Now

 
127
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

he's trying to go back to 1977 to ask questions that are

about things that are in a Cross-complaint that Judge

Thomas has stricken.

MR. BENZ: The whole Complaint?

MR. GREENE: Absolutely not.

MS. BARTILSON: There are two sentences that he

included and they have nothing to do with anything he

alleged. What he included are the first sentence of

paragraph 69 and paragraph -- first part of 73. Here's the

order.

MR. MOXON: We made a copy of this for you in case

this certain thing came up with the parts of the Complaint

that were stricken.

MS. BARTILSON: All that remains are allegations

of a single declaration and discovery in this action and

that's it.

(Brief recess.)

MR. GREENE: Mr. Benz, we've talked and what we've

been talking about, and I'll run it by you, is maybe call

it a day for today, give you a chance to look at this a

little bit more because whatever your decision is is a very

important one.

MR. BENZ: I understand.

MR. GREENE: I know you understood.

MR. BENZ: Can I ask a question on this?

 
128
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Looking at this Cross-complaint, which has been redacted

or crossed out, et cetera, it appears that paragraph 55

that says that Cross-defendants, who I assume are CSI,

have abused the process of this court in a wrongful manner

to accomplish purposes, tah-dah, tah-dah, suppression of

evidence, retaliation, etc. 55 is still in, as I

understand it. 56 is in?

THE WITNESS: Is out.

MS. BARTILSON: I think nine through 58 was

stricken.

MR. MOXON: 55 has not been stricken.

MS. BARTILSON: The motion to strike was granted

as well as the demurrer. Nine through 54, those are

introductory allegations concerning abuse of process then

go to the specifics.

MR. BENZ: As I understand it, 55 is still in, 56

is still in, 57, 58 are still in. Then we go up --

MS. BARTILSON: That's my understandings, yes.

MR. BENZ: And 63, but that just recites -- 63

says Judge Thomas on March 25, 1994 issued an order in

Armstrong Corp. Is that us?

MR. GREENE: That's us.

MR. BENZ: Sustaining Plaintiff's demurrer.

Armstrong, that's this order here that we have?

MS. BARTILSON: A portion of 69 and a portion of

 
129
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73 is also stricken.

MR. MOXON: The error is on page 24. Half of 69

is in, half is out.

MR. BENZ: Which half is in?

MS. BARTILSON: The first half.

MR. MOXON: Page 24, part of paragraph on 69 page

24 is still in.

MR. BENZ: Which part?

MS. BARTILSON: Alleging the filing in the

district court action.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: While you are taking a look at it,

what I'm relying on is not limited, again, to the

Cross-complaint. It's a little diverted looking at the

Cross-complaint. What I'm relying on is the Answer and

the affirmative defenses as well as Judge Thomas's ruling

of March 25th, '94 wherein he indicates that with respect

to granting the demurrer as to the Cause of Action for

declaratory relief on the Cross-complaint he says that the

issues that we were seeking a declaration on would be

resolved in the underlying Complaint or in Los Angeles. So

he has not by any stretch of the imagination excluded from

his pervue the issues which we are raising here

today.

MR. BENZ: When you say "today" --

 
130
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: That's a different Minute Order.

The one I'm talking about is March 25, '94. And the one you

are looking at is 6-17-94.

MR. BENZ: Is that a writ proceeding on

preliminary?

MR. GREENE: Statutory appeal on preliminary

injunction.

MR. BENZ: You want me to read the whole thing or

see it?

MS. BARTILSON: Concerns an earlier

Cross-complaint to which a demurrer was sustained which

included a cause of action for declaratory relief.

MR. GREENE: Wanting to get a ruling from Judge

Thomas on the legality of the so-called --

MS. BARTILSON: Fraudulent conveyance action.

MR. MOXON: So-called?

MR. GREENE: So-called.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. BENZ: Anything else I should be thinking

about?

MR. GREENE: No.

We're going to close for today. This deposition is not

over. We'll resume tomorrow morning at ten.

MR. BENZ: Sounds good to me.

///

 
131
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(Whereupon the deposition was adjourned

at 4:58 p.m.)

---o0o---

 

 

 

____________________

LYNN ROBERT FARNY

 
132
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION OFFICER

I, PENNY L. GILMORE, duly authorized to

administer oaths pursuant to Section 8211 of the

California Code of Civil Procedure, do hereby certify

that LYNN ROBERT FARNY, the witness in the foregoing

deposition, was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the

whole truth and nothing but the truth in the

within-entitled cause; that said deposition was taken at

the time and place herein stated, that the testimony of

said witness was reported by me, a Certified Shorthand

Reporter and a disinterested person, and was thereafter

transcribed into computer-assisted transcription under my

direction.

I futher certify that I am not of counsel or

attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing

depositon and caption named, nor in any way interested in

the outcome of-the cause named in said caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

this 6th day of August 1994.

 

_______________________________
DEPOSITION OFFICER, CSR NO. 4724

I hereby certify this copy is a
true and exact copy of the
Original.

[signed Penny L. Gilmore]
DEPOSITION OFFICER, CSR NO. 4724

 

 
133

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