Gerry Armstrong--Deposition Lynn R. Farny Volume III 07-26-1994

§ 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

---o0o---

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

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG; MICHAEL
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

Tuesday, July 26, 1994

VOLUME III

Reported by:
SUSAN M. LYON
CSR N0. 5829

PENNY L. GILMORE & ASSOCIATES
DEPOSITION REPORTERS
P.O. BOX 862
ROSS, CALIFORNIA 94957
(415) 457-7899

289

I N D E X

EXAMINATION BY MR. GREENE	---o0o---	PAGE 292
DEFENDANTS FOR IDENTIFICATION
No. 14	Suppressive Person Declare, Gerry Armstrong, 18 February 1982 [ Revised04-22-1982]	292
No. 15	Executive Directive, dated 20 September 1984, headed Squirrels	292
No. 16	One-page memo, HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV, Penalties For Lower conditions	292
No. 17	One-page memo, HCO Policy Letter of 21 October 1968, Cancellation of Fair Game	292
No. 18	Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Author Services, Inc. in Corydon vs. Church of Scientology case	378
No. 19	HCO Policy Letter of 21 November 1972, Issue I, How to Handle Black Propaganda	448
No. 20	HCO Policy Letter of 11 May 1971, Issue III, Black PR	450
	---o0o---

290

BE IT REMEMBERED that on Tuesday, July 26,

1994, commencing at 9:55 a.m. thereof, at the Law Office

of William R. Benz, 900 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite

185, Larkspur, California, before me, SUSAN M. LYON,

Certified Shorthand Reporter #5829, personally appeared

LYNN R. FARNY,

called as a witness, who having been first duly sworn, was

examined and interrogated as hereinafter set forth.

A P P E A R A N C E S

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM R. BENZ, 900 Larkspur

Landing Circle, Suite 185, Larkspur, California, appeared

as the referee.

LAW OFFICES OF BOWLES and MOXON, 6255 Sunset

Boulevard, Suite 2000, Hollywood, California 90028,

represented by TIMOTHY BOWLES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared

as counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff Church of

Scientology.

LAW OFFICES OF FORD GREENE, 711 Sir Francis

Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California 94960,

represented by FORD GREENE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared as

counsel on behalf of the Defendants Gerald Armstrong,

291

et al.

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL WALTON, 700 Larkspur

Landing Circle, Larkspur, California 94939, represented by

MICHAEL WALTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared as counsel on

behalf of DEFENDANT MICHEAL WALTON.

ALSO PRESENT: Gerald Armstong.

---o0o---

292

Tuesday, July 26, 1994

9:55 a.m.

---o0o---

(Defendant's Exhibit Nos. 14-17 marked.)

RESUMED BY MR. GREENE

MR. GREENE: Q. Good morning, Mr. Farny.

A. Good morning.

Q. You are still under oath, you understand that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. I have previously marked a set of exhibits, and the

first one is marked as Exhibit No. 14, which is a SEA

Organization Flag Conditions Order 6664, dated 18 February

1982.

That's before you now, is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And would you describe what that is, please.

Well, actually, let me ask you, have you seen that

before?

A. I'm not certain I've seen this exact document

before. I've seen one or more documents bearing the title

Suppressive Person Declare Gerry Armstrong.

Q. And based on your knowledge, was a suppressive

person declare issued for Gerry Armstrong in and around

February 1982?

MR. BOWLES: Excuse me. Mr. Greene, I want to ask you now

what the purpose of this inquiry as it appears to

293

be part of the cross-complaint that you filed in this

action, which has already been stricken by the court.

MR. GREENE: No, this is -- we've been through this

before, last time, Mr. Bowles.

This is relevant to Mr. Armstrong's affirmative defense,

defenses of unclean hands, of defense based on

first amendment, based on duress, and undue influence.

MR. BOWLES: Paragraph 16 of the second amended

complained specifically alleged that Mr. Armstrong had two

suppressive person declares naming him as such, and goes

on from there to relate other events following that.

So, Mr. Benz, I want to make sure that we're not

going off into discovery in the other action, which

apparently has already encompassed such allegations.

MR. BENZ: Well, I haven't seen Exhibit 14, but

generally the line of objections here, we are allowing it

to progress on the cross-complaint, which is abuse of

process, which goes to malice, and also on the affirmative

defenses that Mr. Greene has mentioned.

MR. BOWLES: All right. Well, I would object to

any extensive discovery, then, it's obviously just going

to be used in another case.

MR. GREENE: Well --

MR. BENZ: Well, if it overlaps with this case,

we're going to do it here, too. To the extent it doesn't

294

overlap with this case, we have no interest in going into

the other case.

MR. BOWLES: All right.

MR. BENZ: But the allegations of the

cross-complaint and the affirmative defenses raised, in my

opinion, are sufficient to encompass this from a discovery

standpoint in this case.

MR. GREENE: Okay.

MR. BENZ: Did you want me to look at 14?

MR. GREENE: I think I have -- our side is

neglectful but I guess you should look at my copy here.

MR. BENZ: That's all right. I think that was a

general objection rather than specific.

MR. BOWLES: It was specific to this particular

document and any testimony regarding it.

MR. GREENE: Okay. So is the objection overruled?

MR. BENZ: Overruled.

MR. GREENE: Q. So, Mr. Farny, based on your

knowledge was a suppressive person declare issued for or

having to do with Gerald Armstrong in and around February

of 1982?

A. I couldn't tell you if it was February or not, but

I recall it being in 1982.

Q. And the document which is Exhibit 14, have you seen

a document that looks similar at least to that document

295

before?

A. How similar are you defining similar? I've seen

other suppressive person declares.

Q. You're familiar -- you're the litigation handling

officer for CSI; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you're familiar with CSI's litigation; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've been familiar with litigation having to

do with Gerald Armstrong since the Church of Scientology

of California originally sued him in 1982; right?

A. That's also correct.

Q. Okay.

A. But I don't happen to have whatever suppressive

declares that were issued on him memorized.

Q. I understand that.

A. I've given that as best as I can.

Q. And based on your testimony as you sit here now,

that appears to be a true and correct copy of the

suppressive person declare on Gerald Armstrong you see

before us now; right?

MR. BOWLES: Asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say one way or the other. I've

given you the best I can.

You know, if you want one or more of the other ones

295

that you've produced authenticated, I would guess the

normal procedure would be to send it to us to admit that

that's an authentic copy of it, then I could go check the

files, or whatever. But insofar as there was no

designation of subject matter here, and insofar as any

discussion of cross-complaints was stricken from the

cross-complaint, I have Mr. Benz's comments in mind, I am

answering your question, I didn't go back and look. It's

been many years since I've read one or the other, or both.

Q. All right. So you're familiar, then, with

suppressive person --

(Off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Let's go back on the record.

Q. Mr. Farny, did you participate in making the

decision that you were the person who was most appropriate

for CSI to put forward to testify about the matters

pertaining to the lawsuit against Gerald Armstrong that

we're here for that's been filed in Marin?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And were there any attorneys involved in that

decision insofar as you were concerned in your

participation?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, directing your attention again to Exhibit 14,

and going back to 1982, do you have any recollection as to

297

why a suppressive person declare was issued with respect

to Gerald Armstrong?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, assumes facts not in

evidence.

MR. GREENE: Which are?

MR BOWLES: Which are that he has any

knowledge whatsoever.

MR. GREENE: I don't think you listened to the

question, Mr. Bowles. The question was --

MR. BOWLES: Restate --

MR. GREENE: -- asking him whether or not he had

any recollection.

MR. BOWLES: Regarding?

MR. GREENE: That's a foundational question.

MR. BOWLES: Go ahead.

MR. GREENE: Do you have the question in mind,

Mr. Farny?

A. Yes, I do have a recollection.

Q. And included in your recollection was one of the

reasons why Armstrong was declared because he left

Scientology without going through the proper procedures?

A. Not that he left Scientology, that he left his

position in the SEA organization without going through the

proper procedures.

Q. Okay.

297

A. There's a difference.

Q. All right. That's fine.

And the proper procedure in the SEA organization is

designated by the term routing out; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Armstrong failed to route out of the SEA

organization; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And is it your recollection also that Armstrong was

declared a suppressive person because he spread

destructive rumors about senior Scientologists?

A. I have a recollection of destructive rumors being

spread.

Q. Okay.

A. I wouldn't be able to put myself in Mr. Laquerre's

mind.

Q. I understand that. But it was your knowledge at

the time that Armstrong had been reported, at least, to

have been spreading destructive rumors about senior

Scientologists; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, when Gerald Armstrong left Scientology it was

around Christmas time of 1981, wasn't it? Or rather,

excuse me, strike that.

When Gerald Armstrong left his SEA org post, it was

299

around December of 1981, wasn't it?

A. I believe it was in December.

Q. And thereafter he was reported to have made

statements that he no longer was a Scientologist; right?

A. That's my recollection.

Q. And that it was his belief that Scientology

technology did not work, as well; is that true?

A. I don't remember that one one way or the other.

Q. Based on your recollection of events in and around

the end of 1981 and beginning of 1982, is there anything

set forth in Exhibit 14 that you believe to be inaccurate?

A. Not that I recall one way or the other.

Q. And there is a particular file at the Office of

Special Affairs, is there not, wherein the suppressive

person declares relating to Gerald Armstrong are

maintained?

A. I would assume so.

Q. Okay.

A. I know we have copies.

Q. Do you know if you have the original?

A. I'm not sure one way or the other.

Q. Where would the original be, if it wasn't in your

file?

A.In international justice chief's files.

Q.Where is the physical location of that?

300

A. Same building.

Q. And where is that building?

A. Corner of Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles.

Q. And what's the address?

A. 6331 Hollywood Boulevard.

Q. I want to direct your attention now to Exhibit 15,

which is a two-page document entitled Executive Directive,

dated 20 September, 1984.

Now, at this point you were working, in 1984, you were

working in the legal division of CSI, weren't you?

A. That's right.

Q. And do you recognize this document, Exhibit 15?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. BOWLES:, Do you have a copy of that, Mr.

Greene?

MR. GREENE: I don't. I apologize.

Actually, I do. I've got a --

MR. BOWLES: Thanks.

MR. GREENE: -- shrunken copy.

Q. Would. you tell me what Exhibit 15 is, please.

A. It's an executive directive of office of Special

Affairs International purporting to be issued on or about

20 September, 1984.

Q. Now, have you seen this document or a copy thereof

301

before?

A. I've seen a copy of the office of Special Affairs

International executive directive 19 before, yes.

Q. And what is OSA Int executive directive 19?

MR. BOWLES: You want him to describe the document

or --

MR. GREENE: No, just what his --

Q. You say you've seen it before and you're familiar

with it. So if you would tell me what the meaning of the

document is.

A. It was a document that was issued in the fall, late

summer or early fall of 1984 to provide information for

Scientologists concerning the ecclesiastical status of

certain individuals discussed therein.

Q. And the ecclesiastical status with respect to the

individuals set forth in Exhibit 15 is that their actions

were destructive and aimed at the enslavement rather than

the freedom of man; right?

MR. BOWLES: Are you just reading from the document, Mr.

Greene or --

THE WITNESS: He is.

MR. BOWLES: That speaks for itself.

THE WITNESS: That's line two through four, three

and four.

MR. GREENE: Q. You can answer the question.

302

A. It would appear so. That's what the document says.

Q. All right. Now, based on your knowledge of matters

which transpired in the fall of 1984 within CSI, it's

true, is it not, that it was generally known that Gerald

Armstrong had been designated as a squirrel; right?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague. Generally known

where?

MR. GREENE: Within CSI.

THE WITNESS: I don't know how generally known it

was within CSI.

MR. GREENE: Q. It was known to you, wasn't it?

A. I'm not certain that Gerry did much active

squirreling. He was obviously included in this issue

because of his involvement with Lipkin and Ristuccia in

the plot that was revealed in Griffith Park.

Q. Okay.

A. It was -- actually around September was in the

process of being revealed, if I remember right. But it

was around that time period that that went down as well.

So I'm not certain how much active squirreling he

did, but he certainly earned inclusion in this with the

rest of these individuals through that activity.

Q. All right. And there's nothing, to your knowledge,

that's set forth in Exhibit 15 that's false, is there?

A. I'd have to read the whole thing.

303

Q. Okay.

A. Now, we're getting into real complicated issues,

opinion and purely ecclesiastical communications meant for

distribution only within a defined ecclesiastical

community and all sorts of things like that. But in any

event, within those parameters, I'm not aware of anything

within this that's --

Q. False?

A. -- either false or not based upon, you know, a good

faith belief and opinion on the part of the church.

Q. And, in fact, this is an ecclesiastical order, is

it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the upper

left-hand corner of Exhibit 15, at the three lines under

OSA INT ED 19 where is says, "All Scientologists Public

Notice Board and Staff Notice Board"; do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. All right. That refers to the distribution of this

particular document, does it not?

A. In a way. Obviously, all Scientologists would not

have been mailed a copy. That would have been a physical

impossibility.

But it meant that it was available for all

Scientologists to read. And the way public parishioners,

304

non-staff would read it, would be on the notice boards

designated for public parishioners of the church at their

local church. The staff would read it on the staff notice

boards.

Q. And the procedure would be that this executive

directive would be distributed to all Scientology

organizations for posting; right?

MR. BOWLES: You're asking him hypothetically or are you

asking him if he actually knows this document was

distributed in that way?

THE WITNESS: He's asking me hypothetically, and I don't

know, I don't know if this one was or not.

MR. GREENE: Q. I'm asking you about the

procedure.

A. I don't know the procedure with this document. I

can see what it says in the upper left-hand corner.

Q. Right.

A. I remember getting one, but I was a little closer

than all of the churches of Scientology.

Q. Right. You were right at the heart of the issuance

of this, right, because you were in CSI?

A. I was in CSI. Let's leave it at that.

Q. Let me ask you this. At that time you were posted

within CSI legal; right?

A. That's correct.

305

Q. And at that time CSI legal was, as it is now,

housed within the Office of Special Affairs; right?

A. That's also correct.

Q. And this was a directive that issued from the

Office of Special Affairs; right?

A. It appears to be, yeah.

Q. And so what I'm asking you about is when an

executive directive issued from the Office of Special

Affairs, to your knowledge, did OSA have a procedure for

the distribution of an executive directive which is

designated such as this?

A. I have to guess. I don't know.

Q. You have no recollection whether the Office of

Special Affairs had any type of procedure for the

distribution of a document that was labeled all

Scientologists, public notice board and staff notice

board; correct?

MR. BOWLES: Is that a question?

It's asked and answered. He just told you that.

MR. GREENE: No. He said, "I would have to guess."

He didn't answer the question, Mr. Bowles.

THE WITNESS: Certainly, I got one. Certainly one

was distributed within the office of Special Affairs I

International. As far as beyond that, I don't remember. I

really don't.

306

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me ask you currently, are

there executive directives which issue from OSA today from

time to time?

A. Yes, internal to the staff at the Office of Special

Affairs.

Q. Are there executive directives that issue from OSA

that are not -- today, currently, that are not limited in

the scope of distribution to the staff of OSA?

A. Perhaps to other units within Church of Scientology

International, but I'm not aware of any beyond that in

recent years.

Q. All right. So then based on your current

knowledge, when an executive directive issues from OSA

currently its distribution does not go beyond units within

CSI; is that what you're saying?

A. That's what I'm saying is my current understanding.

I'm trying to think of an instance in recent years where

it went beyond that and I can't think of one as I sit

here.

He dives for his folder. Perhaps he has one.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I said, "He dives for his folder. Perhaps

he has one."

Q. I don't know.

Well, I do. Mr. Bowles has got the exhibits from

307

before, although we don't have them yet from the other

court reporter.

Look at Exhibit 13.

Exhibit 13 is a suppressive persons in the

suppressive groups list that we looked at last time;

right?

A. Yes, it is. It's not issued by Office of Special

Affairs International.

Q. It's a flag order, though; right?

A. No, it's a flag executive directive.

Q. That's different, you're saying, from an OSA ED.

A. Certainly.

Q. So then where flag orders --

A. Flag --

Q. -- that issue from CSI --

(Discussion off the record.)

THE WITNESS: Hang on, let me just stop you because you're

talking about flag orders now rather than flag executive

directives.

MR. GREENE: Q. Excuse me. Thank you for calling

that to my attention.

A. I don't think you intended to do that.

Q. No, you're right, I didn't. And I appreciate your

calling that to my attention.

When you've got a flag ED, the distribution of such

308

is unlimited within the realm of Scientology, isn't it?

A. No, that's not the case.

The distribution would generally be noted in the

upper left-hand corner.

Q. Okay.

A. This one said it's to all ethics officers, all

organizations and missions.

Q. So that means that all ethics officers who are

placed in all organizations and missions would receive a

copy of a flag executive directive; right?

A. They would be authorized to receive a copy.

Whether as a matter of practicality and sheer logistics

and mechanics whether they would, one would hope so, but I

can't say that obviously.

Q. Okay, okay. But they would not violate any kind of

Scientology procedure by having access to such an order;

right?

A. No, of course not.

Q. And so, then, in contrast to Exhibit 13, Exhibit

15, which is an OSA International executive directive, the

distribution of an OSA International executive directive,

at least as to 1984, was much broader --

A. No.

Q. -- because --

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague.

309

THE WITNESS: Not as a general proposition. In

terms of this specific issue, it would seem so from what's

noted on the upper left-hand corner.

MR. GREENE: Q. Okay.

A. But we're back to my having to guess whether it was

actually effectuated that the public notice boards and

staff notice boards in the churches and missions all got a

copy.

I'm thinking back to the logistics lines as they

existed in 1984 and frankly, I would doubt it, but I'm not

here to guess. I'm just saying what my understanding is.

Q. Based on what your understanding in 1984 of the

distribution practices of OSA ED's, was there a procedure

in effect whereby there was accountability whether the

distribution was accomplished?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague. Can you explain

what you mean by accountability, please?

MR. GREENE: Yes, some way to track it.

THE WITNESS: Do you mean this one or posed to the

ED's generally, because as I said, they're mostly internal

documents and it would be very easy to see if they were

distributed in the Office of Special Affairs

International, which at that time occupied one floor of a

building, you could look and see if the -- however many

staff we had at the time --

310

MR. GREENE: Q. That's obvious.

A. -- had got a copy. That's obvious.

So insofar as that's concerned, yes, it was not

usual for an issue such as this from the Office of Special

Affairs to be issued with a designation public notice

board/staff notice boards. So I don't know what

procedures existed to make sure that they all got one, if

indeed there were such procedures.

Q. Well --

A. As you asked me earlier on this Exhibit 13, would

it have been a violation of any procedures for this to

have appeared on any staff notice boards, no, it would not

have.

I can answer it from that direction. I just can't

answer it from this direction that we've been going on for

some time about.

Q. Was the reason that Exhibit 15 was unusual because

the persons enumerated there were considered to be among

the worst enemies of Scientology?

A. No, because their acts were so destructive, we felt

it important for all church members to know what occurred.

Q. Okay.

A. I wouldn't characterize them the biggest enemies,

the most important enemies, no.

Q. They were nonetheless considered enemies; isn't

311

that right?

A. They were considered suppressive persons and

squirrels.

Q. Now, you are also familiar with the global

settlement which took place in 1986 with respect to a

number of clients who were represented by Michael Flynn;

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And among those individuals who were involved in

such settlement were included Kima Douglas; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And was included Laurel Sullivan; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, of course, Gerald Armstrong?

A. We thought so.

Q. Now, you worked closely with the lawyers in

developing and drafting those settlement agreements;

right?

A. As it happens, I did, yeah.

Q. And you are familiar with the terms of those

settlement agreements in consequence, aren't you?

A. Certainly am.

Q. With respect to Kima Douglas and Laurel Sullivan,

as to both of them, their settlement agreements included

non-assistance provisions; right?

312

A. Yes, they do.

Q. And they included provisions whereby they agreed

not to disclose any of their knowledge about Scientology,

its practices, or anything about its founder L. Ron

Hubbard; right?

MR. BOWLES: Hang on for a second. Let me have a

brief --

MR. GREENE: Sure.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you have the question in mind?

A. I've got the question in mind.

MR. BOWLES: I object. It's going into other

settlement agreements. Number one, it's irrelevant.

Number two, it may violate the terms of those agreements.

THE WITNESS: The terms are confidential. I may

have spoke out of turn by answering your first question.

I'm afraid I can't answer your second question because the

terms of the agreements are confidential.

MR. GREENE: I would request a direct to this

witness to answer the question and the reason is this.

One of the affirmative defenses alleged by Armstrong is

that the settlement agreement is a violation of public

policy.

And one of the reasons why it's a violation of public

policy is because it's not only Armstrong that

313

signed one of these agreements whereby former

knowledgeable, highly placed officials of Scientology

were, by virtue of provisions of the agreement, to

maintain silence with respect to their knowledge and were

required not to testify unless subject to service of

subpoena and were required not to make themselves

"amenable to the service of subpoena" in a spirit that was

contrary to the agreement.

Our position is that, looking at the whole

circumstance whereby it was not only Armstrong who was

required to keep his mouth shut and not help anybody who

had been hurt by Scientology, but other people as well,

that in total that that constitutes a violation of public

policy.

Therefore, the question with respect to the

existence of such provisions to this witness are relevant

to this lawsuit and would overcome any kind of concern

that they may be confidential.

That may be true that the terms of the agreements

may be confidential, but that does not mean that a court

is precluded from inquiring into whether or not such terms

exist, and that's why it's relevant.

MR. BOWLES: Mr. Benz, we take the opposite

position.

MR. GREENE: Additionally, there's a waiver.

314

MR. BOWLES: The material is irrelevant.He's gone

on for the morning so far into areas that are covered by

portions of the cross-complaint that have been stricken

from this case that are being litigated down in Los

Angeles. He's taking discovery in the other case at this

point.

Not only that, but now he's getting into areas of other

settlements which are clearly beyond even the scope

of that litigation.

But beyond that, this witness is just constrained

by the terms of the contract from discussing terms of the

other agreements.

MR. BENZ: So the objection, as I understand it, is

limited strictly to the particular terms of the settlement

agreements with Kima Douglas, and who else?

MR. GREENE: Laurel Sullivan.

MR. BOWLES: He also makes the argument about

public policy. That argument he's already lost in the

Court of Appeals by the decision that was issued last

month.

MR. GREENE: Well, that was a decision based on an

appeal of a preliminary injunction. And as you know, Mr.

Bowles, a preliminary injunction is, in fact, what it says

it is, preliminary.

MR. BOWLES: That's right.

315

MR. GREENE: Excuse me, Mr. Bowles, excuse me, I

don't interrupt you.

MR. BOWLES: I was speaking, you interrupted me.

The Court of Appeals has decided that the church

has a likelihood of success on the merits and that, of

course, upholds the soundness of the contract.

MR. BENZ: Well, I would disagree with counsel

about that. I don't think there's been a decision about

that.

My ruling on the particular objection is that I

think at this point the question as to the content of the

other settlement agreements is going beyond the scope of

where we are here, so I'll sustain the objection as to the

particular content of the agreement, of the other

settlement agreements --

MR. GREENE: Okay.

MR. BENZ: -- on the grounds of relevancy.

Now, let me ask one further question, if I may.

Are Kima Douglas or Laurel Sullivan engaged in any

present litigation --

MR. GREENE: Not to my knowledge.

THE WITNESS: No, they are not.

MR. BENZ: -- with Scientology?

MR. GREENE: No.

MR. BOWLES: No, they are not.

316

MR. GREENE: Q. Also included among the

individuals who entered into settlement agreements that

were represented by Flynn or in that group of individuals

was Edward Walters; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And also was Nancy Dincalci; right?

A. That's right.

Q. And not only were there of the group or block of

individuals in Los Angeles, but there was also a block of

individuals in Boston, as well, that were represented by

Flynn, the Garretys, they entered into settlement

agreements, didn't they?

A. Carol and Paul Garrety entered into a settlement

agreement.

I don't believe they lived in Boston, to my

recollection.

Q. There was litigation in Boston, wasn't there? That

was where the litigation was centered?

A. Garretys' case was in Los Angeles.

Q. That was in Los Angeles, okay.

Also involved in that group was an individual named

Peter Graves.

A. In that group, you mean the --

Q. The Garrety group.

A. -- the Flynn clients that settled?

317

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, he was a Flynn client that settled.

Q. And also a group in Florida; right?

A. Not as part of a December '86 settlement, no.

Q. No, but as part of the settlements that took place

in the calendar year 1986.

A. Yes, we settled cases in 1986 in Florida.

(Discussion off the record.)

THE WITNESS: In Florida.

Sorry. I'm getting quieter and quieter.

MR. GREENE: Q. And among those individuals were

included Marjorie Wakefield; right? --

A. That's correct.

Q. Nan McLean?

A. Yes.

Q. Gabriel Cazares; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Tanya Burdon?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there any of those people, to your knowledge,

who had not been declared suppressive persons in the --

referring to the Florida people that I just enumerated?

MR. BOWLES: Again, Mr. Greene, what is the

relevance of this? You're going off into other former

parishioners who have settled cases.

318

MR. GREENE: The relevance is --

MR. BOWLES: It's pretty remote.

MR. GREENE: -- they were all represented by the

same lawyer, it was all part of the same general plan to

eliminate from any kind of litigation and from the

marketplace of ideas in public persons who were familiar

with and willing to testify about what they saw as the

truth regarding the beliefs and practices of Scientology.

MR. BOWLES: Mr. Benz, I think we're going far afield here.

He's going to be asking questions about Wakefield, McLean,

Cazares and these others, what their experiences were with

the church, what they may have be-en doing outside and

since then.

Why don't we stick to the case at hand.

MR. GREENE: I'm not asking those questions. I'm

asking whether they were included also. He's jumping the

gun. I haven't gone there.

MR. BENZ: Again, obviously, I'm not ruling on

where you're going --

MR. GREENE: Good.

MR. BENZ: -- except to the standpoint you're

getting close to the edge.

MR. GREENE: I understand that, but I don't believe

I've gone over it.

MR. BENZ: Okay.

319

MR. BOWLES: You've asked him if they were declared

suppressive persons, and that signals to me that you're

going off into irrelevant areas.

MR. WALTON: Is that an objection?

THE WITNESS: It was, yes.

MR. WALTON: Well, you made it. Can we get going?

MR. GREENE: Q. Would you answer the question,

please.

A. Not without a ruling on the objection.

MR. BOWLES: The objection deals with a specific

question as to whether these people were declared

suppressive persons.

MR. BENZ: That objection is overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

MR. GREENE: Q. You have it within your ability to

find out, though, don't you?

MR. BOWLES: Just as much as you do, Mr. Greene.

MR. WALTON: Would you like to have your deposition

set, sir?

MR. BOWLES: I'm representing the witness. Why

don't you stop interrupting.

MR. WALTON: I believe you interrupted the witness.

MR. BENZ: Just hold it, please.

The questions will be asked. The witness will

answer, if he wishes. If there's an objection, please

320

make it in the form of an objection. We can rule on it.

MR. WALTON: I object to the witness's counsel

answering the questions for him.

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague.

MR. BENZ: Okay.

THE WITNESS: What's your question?

MR. BENZ: Understood, but let's go ahead.

MR. BOWLES: What's your question?

MR. GREENE: Q. The question was and is, you have

it within your ability to ascertain whether or not the

Florida settling individuals were declared suppressive

persons, don't you?

A. Probably.

Q. Now, in Los Angeles also one of the settling

individuals was Howard Schomer; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Also known as Homer; right?

A. Yeah.

Q. And Martin Samuels, as well; right?

A. I don't think he lived in Los Angeles.

Q. He was among those that were settled in the Los

Angeles global agreement; isn't that right?

MR. BOWLES: Objection. What do you mean by global

agreement, Mr. Greene? It's vague. That's your term.

Can you define it, please?

321

MR. GREENE: The witness knows what I'm talking

about.

THE WITNESS: Actually, I had a problem with the words

global agreement because it presupposes one agreement that

everybody signed on to one document. We settled with him in

December of 1986, yes.

MR. GREENE: Q. And that was in conjunction with a

number of other people, including Armstrong?

A. That's what we've been discussing, yes, of course.

Q. You don't have any problem knowing that that's what

we're talking about, do you?

A. No, I just want to make sure that things are clear

for the record. I'm not intentionally trying to be obtuse

with you.

Q. That's okay. We'll just both do our jobs.

Now, Michael Flynn also had pending litigation

against the Church of Scientology; right?

A. As a party?

Q. As a party.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And Flynn's litigation was settled in

conjunction with Armstrong and the others in L.A., as

well; right?

A. I don't like the phrase "in conjunction with."

Q. It was part of the settlements that were arrived

321

322

at, wasn't it?

A. Settled around the same time, yes.

Q. And the way that you went about settling it was

that you, meaning CSI, did not provide money separately to

Armstrong; right?

MR. BOWLES: Okay, objection.

THE WITNESS: We're getting awful close to specific

terms.

MR. BOWLES: That's right. That's my objection.

THE WITNESS: But I think it's been discussed in this

litigation on the record that what we did was provided a

pool and had the individual parties and Micheal Flynn

decide among themselves who got what part of that pool of

money.

MR. GREENE: Q. Right.

A. As long as that procedure was agreeable to all the

participants.

Q. Right.

A. And whatever they felt among themselves was fair

and equitable, they did, as opposed to us arbitrarily

putting a value on it.

Q. Right. And that pool of money was provided to

Flynn, was it not?

A. No, it was put in escrow.

Q. What was the amount?

323

A. That's absolutely confidential. You're not getting

it here.

MR. BOWLES: Objection. That's the basis of an

objection. It goes to the content of the settlement

agreements.

MR. BENZ: What's the ---

MR. GREENE: What's the relevance?

MR. BENZ: Yes.

MR. GREENE: One of the affirmative defense was

that Michael Flynn had a conflict of interest in representing

approximately 20 people, including himself, in one

settlement. And that that conflict of interest invalidates

the efficacy of his representation of Armstrong with

respect to the settlement and to the settlement itself.

It's directly relevant.

MR. BOWLES: It has no relevance. He's asking the

question, Mr. Benz, how much was the total settlement

amount given to Mr. Flynn.

MR. GREENE: That's right.

MR. BOWLES: That has nothing to do with whether

Mr. Flynn had a conflict of interest or not.

Beyond that, he's asking for, again, confidential

terms which, by contract, my client is constrained from

revealing. It's also irrelevant.

MR. GREENE: There is no basis -- courts contract

324

rights, do not and cannot supersede a judicial inquiry.

That is certainly within the purview of the court to issue

protective orders and we certainly would be willing to

enter into an appropriate protective order.

My client is entitled to defend himself against the lawsuit

that has been brought against him by Scientology. He

hasn't -raised the issue. That issue is joined. He is

entitled pursuant to discovery to get information that's

relevant to that issue.

And if Gerald Armstrong was one of 20 people who

were settled out by Michael Flynn including, Michael Flynn

himself, it sure as heck is relevant what the pool of

money was that was given to Flynn, which has been admitted

here, that that amount is relevant.

MR. BENZ: Well --

MR. BOWLES: He's taking issue with something that

Michael Flynn may have done. He might have just as well

sued Mr. Flynn if he wants the information.

But how much other people got or how much Mr. Flynn

decided to give others out of a total settlement and the

total amount are irrelevant to this matter. My client again

is constrained. That's our position.

MR. WALTON: It seems to me that Mr. Armstrong

should be considered a party to this contract that's

considered so confidential. And if he's a party to the

325

contract, then certainly telling him what the terms are

doesn't violate any confidentiality.

MR. BENZ: Well --

MR. BOWLES: That's a matter between Mr. Armstrong

and Mr. Flynn. And if Mr. Flynn, if he has a problem with

Mr. Flynn, he should sue Mr. Flynn.

MR. GREENE: That's not what is at issue here.

We're not talking about --

MR. BOWLES: Yes, it is. You're talking about a

conflict of interest. That's your position relative to

Mr. Flynn.

MR. GREENE: And we're talking about a conflict of

client that your client participated-in setting up, Mr.

Bowles, by setting up a procedure whereby Michael Flynn,

which your client knew represented 20 people, including

himself, was given a big pot of money, and he was told to

go settle the cases. That's relevant to whether or not

Flynn had a conflict of interest. And it's also relevant

to whether or not there's unclean hands here, both of

which have been asserted as affirmative defenses in this

case.

THE WITNESS: We are talking about whether Gerry

fraudulently conveyed his assets, are we not? Because we

haven't discussed it in, so far, the three days that I've

been being deposed.

326

MR. BOWLES: You're well afield already and now --

MR. BENZ: You want to hold it for just a second.

I just want to glance at this thing.

MR. GREENE: Sure.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. BENZ: I'm going to sustain the objection on the

grounds of relevance, primarily. We know the fact

that Mr. Flynn was involved in this. We know the fact

that he was representing others. And we know the fact

that he was representing Mr. Armstrong in this when the

agreement or whatever it was.

I don't see that at this point the particular

amounts and details would add anything to the defenses.

So I am going to sustain it.

As far as the confidentiality, I would prefer to

recognize that to the extent that it doesn't jeopardize

the parties' case here, but I will not hesitate to pierce

the confidentiality if it becomes otherwise important or

relevant.

MR. BOWLES: I just note for the record on that

point that this is a suit for fraudulent conveyance

alleging that Mr. Armstrong has given away his assets

defrauding my client. How the terms of a confidential

settlement agreement with other parties comes to play on

that is remote, at best.

327

MR. GREENE: Well --

MR. BOWLES: It's not only that, but it's -- all of

these specific allegations were stricken from his

cross-complaint already.

MR. WALTON: We've already gone through that. This

is the third time we've talked about the cross-complaint

and the affirmative defenses in Mr. Armstrong's complaint,

so let's move on with it.

MR. GREENE: For the record, the reason -- and I

take -- respectfully take exception to your ruling --

MR. BENZ: Sure.

MR. GREENE: -- and the reason is because the

amount of money, particularly that which would accrue to

the benefit of Michael Flynn is directly related and

directly relevant to the extent of the conflict.

And not only that, but also in this lawsuit

Scientology has represented that there was a lump sum and,

that was given to Flynn, that Flynn used to settle his and

other cases.

And it's unfair to allow for such a representation

to be made but not to allow any inquiry as to what that

amount is. So I respectfully disagree with your ruling

based on those grounds and the others stated.

MR. BENZ: Understood.

MR. GREENE: Q. All right. Let's go back here to

328

Exhibit 15.

A. All right.

Q. And you have made reference to Gerald Armstrong

engaging in some actions that were destructive and aimed

at the enslavement and not the freedom of man.

And I would ask you now to tell me specifically

what were those actions, to your knowledge?

A. You must be joking. You're asking me that

question?

Q. I am.

A. All right. To the best of my knowledge, making

misrepresentations concerning the background of Mr.

Hubbard, the founder of the religion; the actions he took

to -- in stealing the personal archive documents; his work

with agents of the criminal investigation division of the

IRS to subvert or to undermine the church, specifically,

those actions I referred to earlier. I would think that

they would all be encompassed within that.

It's the lies to try and destroy the church,

destroy the representation of the religion's founder.

That if one believes, as I do, that Scientology frees

people, the attempted destruction of that indicates an

intention to enslave people.

You asked for my opinion. That's my personal

opinion.

329

Q. Okay.

A. I assume you were referring to the second sentence

of this issue.

Q. Correct. I certainly was.

A. All right. So we're moving back in time to 1984 --

Q. That's right.

A. -- and the years immediately prior and subsequent

to that.

Q. That's right. And that's what your testimony just

referred to; right?

A. Yes. That's correct.

Q. As a matter of curiosity, you said that you believe

that Scientology was engaged in the freedom of man, or

freeing --

A. Something along those lines.

Q. -- something along those lines?

A. Yes, yes, absolutely.

Q. According to your opinion, are there any other

paths aside from that offered by Scientology that free

people?

A. Are you asking for my personal opinion or an

official church position?

Q. Let me ask you first, official church position.

A. Official church position is it is one of many paths

that is a workable solution.

330

Q. Now, were there incidences where Armstrong,

directing your attention on 15 to the second paragraph

under the list of names with Scientology, deliberately

held policy up to scorn that you recall?

A. I don't remember one way or the other.

Q. Do you recall whether he did, even if you don't

recall how he did?

A. Yes.

Q. And what's your recollection whether or not he did?

A. I don't remember how he did.

Q. Okay.

A. You asked me for, you know, if I had a general --

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. So that I'm clear, your

recollection is that Armstrong, in fact, did hold policy

up to scorn; right?

A. My recollection is that he did something that would

fit within this paragraph. What it is specifically a

decade later beyond the general categories of conduct that

I've articulated in response to a couple of questions ago,

I don't remember.

Q. All right. Would then, with respect to what you

enumerated on shortly ago, would it be the -- what you say

are the misrepresentations regarding Hubbard that would

fall within the scope of deliberately holding policy up to

331

scorn?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Okay.

A. They would be -- that would more fit under --

Q. That's okay. Let me ask you another question.

A. -- turning from ethical and moral Scientology

principles so.

Q. Do you have a general recollection about the manner

in which Armstrong deliberately held policy up to scorn?

A. My general recollection, yes, it's through the lies

that were in his declarations through this time period and

the lies that he used in order to obtain a judgment he

didn't even expect from Judge Breckenridge.

Q. Now, as part of the settlement negotiations with

Flynn regarding Armstrong, included in that was an

agreement if a reversal of Breckenridge's decision was

obtained, to limit damages upon retrial to $25,001; right?

A. There was an agreement at that time to limit the

damages to nominal damage, yes --

Q. Okay.

A. -- as we let the Court of Appeals know on the next

time around.

Q. And that amount of nominal damages was one dollar

more than the jurisdictional maximum that then existed for

superior court, right, of $25,000?

332

A. Yes, because the issues involved in the case were,

other than damages, were the more important issues.

Q. Right. The issues in the case that were most

important were Judge Breckenridge's characterizations of

Scientology; right?

A. Well, it was the ultimate resolution of the

injunctive relief that was sought.

Q. I'm sorry. You didn't answer my question.

A. No. I told you what was more important. You

asked, wasn't this the important thing. I told you what

was the important thing.

Certainly what you said was among them,

absolutely, without question. I'm not going to sit here

and tell you it wasn't.

But also the ultimate relief we have sought through

the judicial process was very important because that was

the relief we were seeking.

Q. And also included, in addition to that, what was

very important was, would be obtaining a reversal of Judge

Breckenridge's characterizations of L. Ron Hubbard; right?

A. Certainly.

Q. And in your view, Judge Breckenridge's

characterizations of Hubbard were mistaken and erroneously

based upon his crediting Armstrong's misrepresentations;

right?

333

A. Not just his, the others who wer there from the

Flynn dog and pony show, yes.

Q. The Flynn dog and pony show, which would include

Laurel Sullivan; right?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Edward Walters; right?

A. That's right.

Q. Homer Schomer; isn't that right?

A. I'm trying to think back what he said specifically,

but as a general proposition, sure.

Q. Okay. And Sullivan, you're familiar with the

litigation Wollersheim versus Church of Scientology;

right?

A. Certainly am.

Q. And witnesses for the plaintiffis in that case also

included Sullivan; right?

A. Not that ever met Wollersheim, no.

Q. No, but she testified on Wollersheim's behalf,

didn't she?

A. Sure, she took her act to his stage and said

generally bad things about the religion, but she had no

relevant testimony whatsoever to give to that case because

she had never met him, and that's part of the

misrepresentations that have been flying around here over

the years, is that witnesses to torts were removed from

334

the legal process. That's garbage and you know it.

This paid, hired gun people who would come in and

say bad things just because they were being paid to do so

were removed from the marketplace forcing you guys to deal

with facts, and that appears to be something you can't

tolerate, and that's why you got a problem with it, just

so we're clear.

Q. I really appreciate your expounding, Mr. Farny.

A. Hey, no problem.

Q. Also, Howard Schomer, Homer Schomer was a witness

in Wollersheim, wasn't he?

A. No, he was not allowed to testify. The court ruled

he had nothing relevant to say to any issue and forbade

him from opening his mouth in front of the jury.

Q. You testified in Wollersheim; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Edward Walters testified in Wollersheim as

well?

A. Same category as Sullivan, yes.

Q. And, in fact, he and Sullivan testified not on any

mistreatment of Wollersheim but on the manner in which

Scientology operated; right?

A. No. They made up their schtick and just, you know,

flapped their gums just like they were being paid to do.

Q. Okay. And then you include, with respect to the

334

335

characterization of them making up their schtick and

flapping their gums, you would apply the same type of

characterization to Gerald Armstrong, wouldn't you?

A. In what context?

Q. In the context of his participation in litigation

and his phony declarations?

A. Well, I'll stipulate that the declarations are

phony and that they contain lies.

Q. That's your view of them; right?

A. Certainly.

Q. And that Armstrong's -- he was lying about

Scientology and its founder, as was Sullivan and Walters;

right?

A. All three told things that were not true, that were

lies, yes.

Q. And so did Schomer, didn't he?

A. He even admitted to having lied.

Q. Now, the stipulation whereby if Breckenridge's

decision was reversed by Scientology's unopposed appeal

thereof --

A. Time out, I can't adopt your characterization of it

because the appeal at that stage had already been fully

briefed, there was no further need for an appeal brief --

now just let me finish.

Q. Go ahead.

336

A. As you know what occurred, the Court of Appeals

sent the case back because the cross-complaint, in their

view, hadn't been disposed of. In reality, it had been

disposed of by way of the settlement.

And because there was a change of circumstances

that Mr. Armstrong felt compelled to communicate to the

court, you'll notice he's not been sued for breaching the

settlement agreement -- by communicating to the court

concerning that appeal, because that was a change in

circumstance neither side anticipated. In fact, we've

gone out of our way to point that out on a number of

occasions and it keeps being raised.

Q. So then in your view -- strike that.

You're familiar with the fact then that Armstrong

sought permission from the Court of Appeal to participate

in the appeal of his own action; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in doing so, Armstrong provided the court of

appeal with a copy of the settlement agreement under seal;

right?

A. I believe it was under seal, that's correct.

Q. And that, so you're stating that you, CSI, does not

consider such action by Armstrong in any way to constitute

I a violation of the settlement agreement; is that right?

A. What I do consider and what I testified to was that

337

Armstrong, because of the change of circumstance seeking

leave from the court of appeals to file papers, merely

that fact, not necessarily anything he said in them or

public disclosures he may have made beyond that, but

seeking to participate in the appeal is not and was not

considered by CSI to be a breach that became part of the

Los Angeles action because of the change-in circumstance.

Q. Let me ask you this. Is it the position of CSI

that the manner in which Armstrong participated in the

appeal constituted a violation of the agreement?

A. Well, whether it is or isn't, my opinion, that's

not part of the Los Angeles action.

Q. I'm asking you whether or not the manner in which

Armstrong participated in his own appeal was or is

considered by CSI to be a breach of the agreement.

A. I don't know if CSI has formally articulated a

position on that.

Q. I'm asking you what CSI's position is now.

A. CST's position is that his having sought leave to

appeal, you know, to.participate in the appeal would not

be the subject of the breach action.

Q. All right. And that leave that Armstrong sought

was granted by the Court of Appeal; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And therefore subsequent to that grant, is it CSI's

338

position that Armstrong's participation in his own appeal

in any way constituted a violation of the agreement?

A. I haven't formulated a view on it because I haven't

needed to. It's not a subject that's under current

litigation.

So, I mean, I'd have to go back. As I recall, he also

sought to assist Bent Corydon's effort in unsealing the

court file, which I would have considered certainly not in

the spirit of how the settlement had been arrived at, or

the term -- or what resulted from it.

But that also isn't part of the -- isn't part of

the breach action. The precise reasons for it not being

part of the breach action, well, it's kind of difficult to

talk about because it goes into communications with

lawyers.

Q. Okay.

A. But I just, the point I was trying to make is that

such a big deal was made out of the agreement Gerry made

in December '86 not to further participate in the appeal

and what actually happened, because circumstances

changed --

Q. I understand.

A. -- based on not what we did, not what Gerry did,

but what the Court of Appeals did necessitating a slightly

different operating climate.

339

Q. Right. The stipulation for nominal damages, if

there was a retrial of Armstrong One was considered to be

part of the settlement with Gerald Armstrong, wasn't it?

A. Well, I don't know what you mean by -- well, I

don't want to phrase it that way. I don't know what

you're referring to when you say settlement. It is not

within the four corners of-the settlement agreement signed

between the churches and Gerry.

Q. I understand that.

A. It is part of a package of documents that went with

it at the same time.

Q. Now, also included in that package of documents was

an agreement whereby CSI agreed to indemnify Flynn in the

event that there was a judgment for $25,001 against

Armstrong; right?

A. I don't believe CSI is a signatory to that

document.

Q. There was another Scientology organization that was

a signatory if not CSI; is that right?

A. No, I believe it was one of the lawyers.

Q. It was Earl Cooley, wasn't it?

A. Either him or Heller.

Q. And both of whom were counsel for various

Scientology organizations from time to time; right?

A. Certainly.

340

Q. And that indemnification agreement was part of the

package; right --

A. That's right, just, what I said --

Q. -- that you were referring to?

A. -- when I was referring to nominal damages earlier,

I didn't mean $25,001, I meant $1.

Q. You mean zip.

A. No, $1.

The main activity and main intention was on the

injunctive claim.

Q. All right. And the injunctive claim was to keep

Armstrong silent; right?

A. No, it was to get the documents back and seal them.

Q. And during the course of the Armstrong litigation,

there had been a lot of litigation about restraining

Armstrong from talking about what he had claimed to be his

knowledge of Scientology; right?

A. What's a lot?

Q. That's a good question. There was litigation

involving that issue; right?

A. The question was litigated as part of the first

Armstrong case.

Q. Right. And part of the first Armstrong case, which

you worked on, didn't you?

A. Somewhat.

341

Q. And it's part of why you're well familiar with

Gerald Armstrong's circumstances;

A. That's true.

Q. Involved efforts by CSC to obtain court orders that

would prevent Armstrong from disclosing knowledge that he

obtained from the documents that he received from Omar

Garrison; isn't that right?

A. That he received from Omar Garrison?

Q. Let me back up.

A. Why don't you rewind a little bit.

Q. Sure. Let me rewind a tad here.

You're familiar with Omar Garrison; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Omar Garrison was an independent biographer who

was employed to write a biography about L. Ron Hubbard;

correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And Armstrong's role in the creation of the

biography --

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Armstrong's participation in

the --

A. You said role.

Q. I'll take a break.

Armstrong's role in the biography that Garrison was

342

employed to write about Hubbard was to act as an

archivist; right?

A. Generally, yes.

Q. And part of what Armstrong did was to

provide documents having to do with Mr. Hubbard's past to

Omar Garrison; right?

A. For Garrison to use in the biography.

Q. Correct.

A. That's right.

Q. And Armstrong did do that, to your knowledge, didn't

he?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when Armstrong blew, when he left without

routing out, he at some point thereafter went to Garrison

and obtained copies of those historical documents

regarding Mr. Hubbard; right?

A. Not exclusively.

Q. In part?

A. If my recollection is correct, he snatched them on

the way out, as well as obtaining some from Mr. -- that

Mr. Garrison was holding temporarily, but which were still

bound within the entire ambit of what the authorization of

possessing them was, which was for the creation of the

authorized biography.

Q. Now, those documents, which both Armstrong, and you

343

say, took and ones that he obtained from Garrison were

considered by CSC to be within the scope of the fiduciary

duty that Armstrong owed to CSC; right?

A. The duty to not disclose the contents in an

unauthorized manner --

Q. Okay.

A. -- was, certainly.

Q. Right.

And that was one area which CSC wanted Armstrong to

keep his mouth shut about; right?

A. In terms of the contents of the specific documents?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. However, the contents of those specific documents

were not the only area that CSC wanted Armstrong to keep

his mouth shut about; isn't that right?

A. At what time, when, under what circumstances?

Q. We're talking about in early 1982.

A. I don't think the issues had arisen yet in early

1982.

Q. How about shortly thereafter?

A. I don't know one way or the other. We're splitting

hairs.

Is there something specific that you're looking

for?

344

Q. What I'm trying to ask you is that not only did CSC

want Armstrong to keep his mouth shut about what was in

the Hubbard documents, but also with respect to his

knowledge of Scientology operations, generally speaking.

MR. BOWLES: Objection to form.

THE WITNESS: Well, if he told the truth, that's different

than spreading lies about the church. Of course, you're not

going to be interested in someone who continues to spread

lies about one. I mean, that's kind of natural.

MR. GREENE: Q. I agree with you: And just so I'm

clear about what we're talking about here in the lie

department, the lies that he spread were the same lies

that were erroneously, in, your view, adopted by

Breckenridge in his decision, in part -

A. In part --

Q. -- right?

A. -- because he doesn't think he developed his

so-called defense yet. So that took a few years to think

of.

Q. You're talking about Armstrong?

A. Um-hum, that he used in front of Breckenridge that

resulted in the Breckenridge decision, that's what we're

talking about.

Q. I just want to make sure we're on the same length.

345

A. I doubt it, but that's all right.

Q. You're a Scientologist and I'm not.

Now, therefore, as to the Hubbard documents and as

to Armstrong's what you said were lies, CSC made efforts

to obtain court orders keeping Armstrong silent; right?

MR. BOWLES: Asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure whether the initial

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction

covered anything beyond the documents themselves and their

contents.

MR. GREENE: Q. That is Judge Cole's order; right?

A. One of them. What was the other judge's name?

I've drawn a blank right now. Cole was one of them, yes.

So I just don't remember the precise terms of the order

that we sought and obtained.

Q. And also what you were seeking ultimately in the

lawsuit in terms of injunctive relief were the

continuation of such orders; right?

A. Generally, yeah.

Q And --

A. Well, with one large addendum to that. We wanted

the documents back.

Q. Not to mention that. Of course, of course.

A. Yeah. At that time they were impounded in the

court.

346

Waddington, that's the TRO judge, Waddington.

Q. Right, Waddington and then Cole?

A. That's correct.

Q. You wanted the documents back and you wanted the

injunctive relief compelling Armstrong to keep his mouth

shut about the contents of the documents to be permanent;

right?

A. Correct.

Q. You also wanted Armstrong to be enjoined from

continuing to utter lies about the church?

A. See, that's what I don't remember, if that was

included or not.

Q. All right.

A. I'm sorry, I just don't remember. Obviously, over

time, what has stuck with me as being the focus were the

documents themselves because, obviously, for the last

dozen years, the documents, of course, received further

attention in litigation.

Q. Going back for a moment to the component of the

package pertaining to nominal damages --

A. Right.

Q. -- Armstrong's signature was not either on the