|
§ 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---
DEPOSITION OF: LYNN R. FARNY Wednesday, July 27, 1994 VOLUME IV
|
|||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 N D E X
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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 |
1994, commencing at 9:47 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
Landing Circle, Suite 185, Larkspur, California, appeared as the referee.
Boulevard, Suite 2000, Hollywood, California 90028, represented by TIMOTHY BOWLES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared as counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff Church of Scientology.
Boulevard, San Anselmo, California 94960, represented by FORD GREENE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared as counsel on behalf of the Defendants Gerald Armstrong,
|
|
|
|
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 |
et al.
Landing Circle, Larkspur, California 94939, represented by MICHAEL WALTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared as counsel on behalf of DEFENDANT MICHEAL WALTON.
---o0o--- |
|
|||
|
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 |
---o0o---
EXAMINATION RESUMED BY MR. GREENE
designated Defendant's Exhibit No. 21, which is an HCO policy letter of 2 April, 1965. You've had a chance to look at that, haven't you?
HCO policy letter of 2 April, '65?
at that time; correct?
1965.
before, haven't you?
|
||
|
|
|
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 |
Let me ask you this. Do you know whether or not this policy letter has been rescinded --
organization executive course volumes.
volumes changes -- what changes it makes to this policy letter that's Exhibit 21?
rather than having the references in the 1965 policy letter of fair game and a note at the end to say to see the 1968 cancellation.
cancellation," that would refer to what's previously been marked as Exhibit 17; correct?
Exhibit 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 |
document, the cover or first page of which says "Magazine Articles on Level O Check Sheet by L. Ron Hubbard," and thereafter follows with photocopies of pages 50 through 55.
mid-sentence.
It purports to be an excerpt of a magazine article. Beyond that, I can't say.
has the title here "Dissemination of Material" was at any time published by L. Ron Hubbard?
experience as a Scientologist?
said, incomplete.
repeat myself. |
|
|
|
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 |
Aside from the incompletenesses which you have noted, does this appear to be the same as that which previously you have read?
material here that's different.
respect to the period of negotiations that resulted ultimately in the December '86 settlement agreement with Gerald Armstrong, were there any drafts of the settlement that went back and forth between your side and Flynn?
negotiations?
except for during the period of negotiations.
several drafts done. And I'm having a difficult time separating in my mind the changes that may have come back from the lawyers on our side and the charges that came |
|
|
|
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 |
back
from Flynn. I know that there were several of both.
saying is that there were drafts that went back and forth between your people and your lawyers on one hand; right?
on our side. It didn't break down between staff and lawyers.
from that group to Flynn and back.
drafts before it was finalized. I just couldn't tell you how many resulted from which. It's been so long.
the drafts that circulated in-house and those, if any, that went to Flynn?
going back and forth with Flynn, as well.
many those were as opposed to how many were internal circulations, I just remember there were several drafts, a lot of them.
|
|
|
|
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 |
process,
with a starting point of somewhere in the summer of 1986 proceeding through time up until December 1986, where in that spectrum approximately the first draft was submitted to Flynn?
beginning, the middle, or towards the end?
but not right at the beginning.
he -- strike that. Let me go back.
generic draft or were there different drafts for different people?
individual people. At the beginning, we had one draft that would form the model.
draft, that was submitted to Flynn; correct?
conversation he had had, or several conversations he had had with Micheal Hertzberg, and that a discussion draft based on the things that they had been discussing was put |
|
|
|
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 |
together --
the rough parameters of what would be involved and then those were translated into writing, as far as you know?
evolved and changed and different things over the next -- quite a few weeks.
a stop to the Flynn dog and pony show was in place from the outset?
cases was. As far as how it manifested itself in the agreements, I can't distinguish one draft from another right now.
just limited to settling cases because there were individuals who signed agreements that didn't have cases that were just witnesses; right?
them. Whether they had gone to litigation or not, some hadn't.
|
|
|
|
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
they had some sort of claim.
how often one wins a statute of limitations summary judgment in civil litigation. So those sort of questions are somewhat irrelevant.
that, I don't really care.
of your question.
Flynn, did it come back to you guys from Flynn?
changes or something on it or --
back verbal changes.
the verbal feedback you received from Flynn in response to the submission of the initial draft of the agreement?
|
|
|
|
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 |
did it include -- strike that.
outset Scientology's side had in mind non-assistance provisions, no testifying absent compulsion provisions. And I'm not trying to ask you the question twice --
question. We had the concepts in mind. And my recollection is somewhere towards the beginning of the drafting process, some sort of expression that reflected those concepts occurred. I just don't remember at which part of the process the words that we now have on the page --
silence provisions, that don't talk about Scientology provisions except to members of your immediate family?
at least two -- the primary objective with this was to stop the flow of false data from these professional witnesses, whether it be in litigation or otherwise; right?
|
|
|
|
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 |
generally, of feedback which you got from Flynn regarding the provisions that your side had propounded?
going back and forth constructing something, and it took quite a bit of time. Beyond that, I don't remember.
you don't have any recollection of what the sticking points were?
sticking point towards the end on the lack of mutuality on speaking about -- particularly with Gerry, he had a problem towards the end that -- or at least it was communicated to us towards the end -- that he couldn't say anything about us, but yet we were free to say things about him. And that was subsequently resolved, to my understanding.
accurate estimate to define that term towards the end to be within a week of the signing?
signing.
was about a week before that, is my sense. Shortly before |
|
|
|
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.
but about that there may be difficulty with it before Thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving '86 that there was difficulty with Armstrong accepting the provision that he could not speak but Scientology could, were there any other sticking points that you can recollect?
any particulars what those were, because none of those have been -- being talked about have been the subject of litigation for the past eight years. This one sticks in my mind because we've been talking about it for at least the past couple of years. So I remember that there were. I don't remember specifically what they were.
this process that started in the summer of '86 and ended in December of that year?
keeping track of the various drafts, but when I left, I turned them over to Tim. And there would -- in the usual course, drafts aren't kept beyond the time the final is arrived at. |
|
|
|
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 drafts, is namely that all of them have been destroyed, to your knowledge?
There would have been no reason whatsoever to keep drafts.
them?
didn't keep every single draft I was working on and the pile of notes. I kept the current working draft and maybe some of the earlier ones. I had a few when I left.
computer?
each generation was done from the earlier generation.
whatever number it was in a row on the drafting process? |
|
|
|
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 |
ones. I saved over the top of them.
negotiation process, and at the point where your side was formulating the concepts of what you wanted, what your objectives were, did you consider how you were going to be able to enforce the provisions were you successfully able to negotiate what you wanted?
enforcement?
own way. But if not, we needed to have some sort of procedure in the settlement agreement that would enable us to -- enable both sides, actually, to enforce the terms so that the agreement that was reached, whatever it became, because at that point it hadn't been yet, would be the agreement would remain in place.
considered for that purpose?
court that had the case to begin with, attorneys' fees provisions, the ability to get injunctive relief as to |
|
|
|
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 |
certain
paragraphs, and general damages for others.
provision was so that the court that was familiar with the litigation would be the one to enforce the settlement thereof?
how long in the future something like that would occur and whether the judge that was on the case was still on the case.
talking about, didn't want to go traipsing all over the country when the case was originally in Los Angeles. So it was simpler to have that court continue to have jurisdiction.
department where Armstrong's litigation had been tried, though; right?
definitely in that courtroom, certainly in that courthouse.
|
|
|
|
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 |
enforce the settlement agreement actually what happened
was a motion was brought in the department where Judge Breckenridge had before sat; right?
agreement says that specific department or it just says Los Angeles Superior Court. I think it just says Los Angeles Superior Court.
been able to file it in department one. We would have had to go to the judge that inherited his case load.
department or just Los Angeles Superior Court.
Here it just says Los Angeles Superior Court.
the page to the top of the next one.
Flynn regarding the provision whereby any enforcement would take place in L.A. Superior Court?
agreement with a fine-tooth comb. I don't have a specific conversation in mind where that paragraph was discussed, |
|
|
|
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 my general recollection is the whole thing was being
nitpicked quite severely.
the nitpicking was Hertzberg on your side and, of course, Flynn on the other?
the settlement of these cases?
was that Scientology had never had any kind of policy or practice that has been dubbed fair game; right?
that, then I misunderstood what you meant.
|
|
|
|
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 Scientology, to your knowledge?
which is Exhibit 16 ever been published within the Church of Scientology?
have. I have not seen this one outside of being handed it in litigation by the other side.
versus Church of Scientology; right?
court makes -- in the published appellate opinion, the court makes a finding that one of Scientology's policies is that of fair game as is stated in Exhibit 16, doesn't it?
gives it the same misinterpretation and false reading that you've been trying to give it.
have latched onto and used as what they think a ticket to |
|
|
|
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 |
big bucks in litigation. It's just a litigation ploy.
And that's one of the earlier cases concerning that.
that fair game, as defined by your side, was continuing to be in existence and be practiced in the 1970's.
as your side has defined it. So that was one of the cases where it started. And once it's published in opinion, and passed around and used by the next litigant that wants to create trouble by the church, create prejudice and ill will.
sense of the language that's used in Exhibit 16, has never existed as a policy or practice in Scientology and only is the origination of litigants adverse to the church who are trying to smear it?
term fair game was used in the church, which was '65 to '68, fair game meant that if you renounced the church, if you declare against it, even, you've abandoned any recourse you can seek to the church's internal justice procedures, that you're indeed fair game for whatever society hands you.
|
|
|
|
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 |
misinterpreted
as opponents to Scientology as an admonition to go out and mess with people's lives. It was never that. That's what I'm defining as that which never existed. It was never an admonition to go out and mess around with people's lives.
it was subject to that misinterpretation. That's what I'm talking about.
right?
Appeal in Wollersheim versus Church of Scientology, wasn't it?
Wollersheim and he used that to convince that court of the same thing, yes.
the Court of Appeal in the trial courts; right?
Supreme Court twice; right?
not? |
|
|
|
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 |
times.
of the judgment.
process.
according to your knowledge?
exploring the Wollersheim case.
question.
the Armstrong litigation before Judge Breckenridge false by the opponent to Scientology Gerald Armstrong?
used against the church for a long time.
that he was so-called in fear of his life and such that.
outlandish charges is because they know it's not true.
|
|
|
|
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 |
street making those kind of claims about the mafia because
those people really do kill people, and nobody would have the courage to say something like that because they know they'd start their car and it would blow up.
Scientology with reckless abandon because they know nothing is ever going to happen to them. And they're secure in that knowledge and can sit there and carp and yap, yap, yap, yap all they want because they know that nothing like that is ever going to happen because nothing like that has ever happened to anybody.
It's been very effective, obviously because of the things the guardian's office did.
just enabled people to make those sort of outlandish charges confident that they could start their car every day and not have a care in the world. Which is true, nobody would need to worry about anything like that.
conduct that would support people being in fear thusly; right?
stupid things. They broke into government offices. They, |
|
|
|
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 know, did some stupid things with people. And that's
why they were disbanded. But killing somebody, being in fear of their lives, to make them in fear of their lives was never even what those crazies did.
prosecution, does Scientology or any element of Scientology ever engage in conduct like that pursuant --
Breckenridge's finding that fair game was a practice carried out by Scientology, isn't it, as to Armstrong?
about some of the comments that Judge Breckenridge made on evidence that was supposed to have gone in for state of mind saying that Breckenridge's comments really didn't go to anything but that. And to a large degree these sort of electrifying but nonsensical statements went to and were allowed in on the basis of state of mind.
and used by people who have been in litigation with the church is not only limited to activity that might have the consequence of physical destruction, is it?
has been falsely and spuriously used against the church in |
|
|
|
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 |
litigation, included within the definition is lying to
people; right?
the definition of fair game. I don't know -- what's your question? Have people falsely claimed that they were lied to and that's fair game? Yeah, people have falsely claimed that, including him.
agreement, is to make sure he doesn't do that anymore; right?
subject, you know.
that's falsely used by people like Armstrong?
called fair game, you know. Were I on the other side right now, and were you a Scientology lawyer right now, the mere asking of questions, innocuous, relevant, completely fine questions I've heard described, "Oh, you're just fair gaming me because you responded to this discovery, because you propounded discovery designed to establish the elements of a claim that, you know, that you have." |
|
|
|
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 |
because it's so electrifying sounding, people think they can create prejudice with it. I've heard just about everything described as being fair game, including the phone being disconnected because you didn't pay the bill. "Oh, Scientology disconnected my phone. Fair game. Fair game."
whatever. Go on.
have falsely made statements about fair game as to Scientology really is a consequence of their own paranoia?
Scientology, they're just bigoted; right?
cynically as a ploy to manufacture some sort of litigation advantage.
get settled pretty easily. We're not unreasonable people.
settlement, gives it away to his friends and says that he doesn't have to abide by any of the terms of the |
|
|
|
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 |
settlement, but he gets to keep the money. That is
criminal. That's dishonest.
have. If he does, fine. But if he didn't, give the money back and we'll start over, that's perfectly okay, just give the money back.
get to keep what you gave me but I'm not bound, I have no honor. I'm not bound by anything I agreed with you.
Armstrong. It merely is some conduct he engaged.
this, like, "Oh, God, Gerry Armstrong, Gerry Armstrong." No, we have a dispute. If it's possible to resolve the dispute, I'm willing to do that.
to have him live his life and we'll live ours.
of conduct on his part, yes, he has engaged in that conduct, but that's not my total view of Gerry Armstong.
|
|
|
|
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 the question and thank you for calling that to my attention.
you view Armstrong is as you described somebody who took $800,000 and gave it away to his friends and said, I'm not going to honor the terms of the agreement, right, you're talking about Gerald Armstrong?
having done that. I mean, that's conduct he engaged in.
his conduct.
opinion. He has expressed it. He's expressed it similarly and differently. You know, It's not an opinion I have. It's just the conduct he engaged in. It's up to him to live with the conduct he's engaged in.
of engaging in such conduct is really that that's -- it's criminal in nature because it's so dishonest; isn't that right?
violates any criminal statutes that one would be able to |
|
|
|
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 |
get a prosecution concerning, but it certainly is
dishonest.
it's criminal as well, isn't it?
It is a dishonest act to have done that. The honest course of action would be -- would have been to ensure that he kept his word.
that church's position or the deponent's position?
him, please.
was?
well? |
|
|
|
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 feels about Mr. Armstrong's conduct insofar as the settlement, I think it's expressed in our causes of action that we've alleged seeking relief from his tortious action, well, actually, not tortious action, but his breach.
it's given in Exhibit 16, it's really Armstrong that's engaged in fair game because you feel that he's lied to you?
Yes, I feel he has lied to us.
you to go jump.
that such a possibility could occur, didn't you?
realm of possibility was the scenario that Armstrong could |
|
|
|
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 |
take
the money and spend it and then not keep the terms of
the agreement, that was within the spectrum of your thought, wasn't it?
considered it. I attempted, and other people I was working with attempted, to guard against that possibility by making the settlement document as complete as we could.
agreement, that agreement would remain in place because we had no doubts that both sides were entering into it with an honest desire to work out an agreement. But that doesn't mean that in the agreement that's worked out, you don't guard against all possibilities, even if you don't consider them necessarily realistic.
consider the scenario that brings us here to be realistic at the time, you saw it as a possibility, didn't you?
of a belt and suspenders approach.
possibilities, even though some may be remote just so as to insure there is a complete end to the hostilities.
suspenders, what you're talking about, if I understand |
|
|
|
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 |
correctly is, that if the objective of the settlement is
the functional equivalent of the pants, it's better to have both a belt and suspenders in order to keep the pants on and up; right?
that the belt is going to fail. You don't have a view in mind that the belt will fail.
bargained for, which is the pants staying up, will remain in place.
at are arrived at before the settlement agreement is signed.
everything is known and understood and agreed upon before you sign rather than afterwards.
so that if the belt fails, you got backup by suspenders; right? A. Well, both sides has the belt and suspenders.
with Armstrong, the pants was the contract itself, right, as you said? |
|
|
|
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 then belt and suspenders were enforcement by injunction; right?
extrapolate it to point where it becomes somewhat nonsense.
in terms of the protections to keep the pants of the agreement on, there was injunctive relief; right?
|
|
|
|
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 |
those are the enforcement provisions of the agreement that you bargained for and negotiated to be able to protect yourself in case the pants started to come off; right?
the settlement agreement to make sure we got all of them. I'm reciting it from memory as I sit here.
now talks about the content of his experiences in a knowledge of Scientology, it doesn't do any real harm to Scientology in the larger picture, does it?
who he's doing the talking to, in what form. Continuing to ferment litigation is a violation of the agreement.
certain hypothetical activity on his part would hypothetically damage the church in any way.
have alleged damages we have sustained on the basis of his breaches. I'd be happy to talk about those.
|
|
|
|
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 |
larger sense something he does doesn't damage the church,
it opens too much leeway for misinterpretation and I don't think you want to do that.
next question to you --
quote of Gerald Armstrong's that was published in Newsweek magazine?
here, Mr. Benz.
damage?
an improper disclosure that gives rise to the liquidated damages provision.
liquidated damages provision was put there because of the difficulty of assessing how much exact damage is for one statement or this statement or the other statement.
50 K. |
|
|
|
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 |
assessment?
hearted promise that if he said something like, that it would be 50 K. And excuse me if I'm wrong for having taken him at his word.
representation in the contract itself that the plaintiff acknowledged that the estimate would be $50,000?
mentioned.
the contract whereby it states, "Plaintiff acknowledges that $50,000 is a reasonable estimation of the damage," what other considerations, if any, went into arriving at that number?
|
|
|
|
|
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 instead.
side of the table; right?
don't remember which side originated the exact amount.
damages.
that the agreement had some teeth in it so that Armstrong would respect and keep the agreement; right?
difficult it would be to prove individual items of damage on individual disclosures. And it was a formulation based upon an estimate of how much it would cost us to fix them.
them, then you're not actually referring to damage that -- well, let me ask you, when you say how much it would cost us to fix them, is what you're referring to court costs and attorneys' fees?
not necessarily, but I don't mean to necessarily exclude that. |
|
|
|
|
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 spend to fix it. You know, the concept of liquidated damages presupposes, at least, what the contract says is there's a difficulty calculating the precise damages, attorneys' fees -- perhaps in terms of attorneys' fees in consultation to fix the disclosure with the source it was given to. I mean, the receive point, not the source.
Armstrong was going to go on the radio. And there was a letter from Bartilson threatening so sue the radio station if they let Armstrong on because that would be a violation of the settlement agreement, is that what you mean by consultation with lawyers. Would that be an accurate example?
would be a completely inaccurate example.
inaccurate example, as well; right?
exactly as it's put in the contract reflects the viewpoint of both sides of the contract, because both sides freely and voluntarily and willingly agreed to it. And a lot of |
|
|
|
|
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 things in the contract, there's a provision for
liquidated damages to avoid just the sort of word games that you're trying to play with me in terms of calculating damages.
of damages that you could calculate; right?
agreement and in that paragraph because the paragraph describes what factors go into liquidated damages, I mean, and the need for them there; that's the truth.
have arrived at which relates to a 7-D disclosure, is there, aside from what's in the actual body of the contract?
upon to be put in that contract for these improper disclosures was based on a reasonable calculation.
quantify that which is difficult to quantify. It is certainly not punitive in nature. It is the classic liquidated damages.
construction, Mr. Farny, but I'd like to get some direct answers from you. |
|
|
|
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 |
games and this and that. I'm sorry, sir, you're the one playing word games here.
engage in question and answer instead of personal comments.
maybe that admonishment can be given -- as to waiting until we're at this level -- maybe earlier on a lot of that stuff coming from that side of the table.
we want to return to the questions and answers.
this, but I will change it if necessary, and that is I don't insert into the deposition until such time there is an objection and a request for a ruling, since I prefer to allow leeway for the questioner to question and the answerer to answer. But if it does appear to be getting out of line, I will step in earlier. And if you want me to step in earlier and I haven't, please ask. |
|
|
|
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're going to take the morning -- this morning to wrap up. And so far I haven't heard any relevant questions yet. So why don't you proceed with something that actually has something to do with the fraudulent conveyance suit.
Bowles.
answer?
reasonable calculation to which in your last answer you made reference?
conclusion and it is irrelevant to the lawsuit in which we are engaged.
and forth with the attorney. And I think we've beaten this to death. And I think this had gone way off the track, so let's get on to a new subject.
|
|
|
|
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 |
point.
respond.
ahead. Mr. Greene first, then Mr. Walton.
your ruling is wrong is that the entire basis, as you know, and in fact the basis of the fraudulent conveyance action is the claim that's asserted in L.A.
L.A. in terms of monetary damages is predicated on the claimed entitlement to liquidated damages.
enforceability of that liquidated damages provision as reflected in the claims made in the L.A. lawsuit upon which the claim that the Marin lawsuit is based, I'm completely entitled to go into how it was that this figure was arrived at.
with respect to liquidated damages. And I'm, simply based on what those principles are, inquiring of this witness what is the basis of the calculation that the liquidated |
|
|
|
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 |
damages
should be $50,000 a pop. How was that arrived at.
some reasonable calculation, as Mr. Farny knows, those were the words that just came out of his mouth. And now that I'd asked him to explain -- and I think that it's a complete denial of Mr. Armstrong's right to obtain evidence that's relevant to defend himself in the Marin lawsuit because, as you know, the lion's share of the affirmative defenses in the Marin lawsuit are an attack on the agreement upon which the Marin lawsuit is based.
liquidated damages provision is not a reasonable calculation, but is a penalty. And your ruling, his answer, my question, the objection, my question -- his -- it's a denial of Armstrong's right to due process. It's a denial of Armstrong's right to obtain discovery on an issue that is so material.
witness's deposition, he admitted when Mr. Walton questioned him that just insofar as adding up the numbers of liquidated damages there was a mistake of $100,000. So when you take claims predicated on the entitlement to liquidated damages, that Scientology is saying, hey, this transaction was in -- and transfer was fraudulent and designed to gyp us and cynically deceive us out of that to |
|
|
|
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 |
which we are entitled, and they're standing on the
contract, I certainly have the right to find out how that term was arrived at on the contract. And I respect any submit that your ruling is incorrect.
on this when I was doing my brief stint, your Honor.
information regarding what these damages were, as you recall.
However, by alleging a conspiracy, plaintiff is trying to hold me responsible for whatever the damages are that they've alleged in this other lawsuit to which I'm not a party.
is that I am entitled to find out what is the damage. I mean, since I'm not -- I don't have any rights in this other lawsuit, but I need to know what the damages are and how the plaintiff came up with the damages in order to be able to get some sort of defense together to protect myself from this $3.8 million claim.
how they came about it. I look at the -- as we were sort of going through the complaint, and as you recall I was |
|
|
|
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 |
asking questions, sort of boring everybody, but I really
need to know what the particulars are in order to be able to defend myself.
ruling?
say anything.
on the liquidated damages clause already. This is a lawsuit today that involves Mr. Armstrong's fraudulent conveying assets of his own in order to go judge proof.
that issue related all day today.
were calculated in a proper manner, or the contract down in Los Angeles was at issue in Los Angeles was worded in a proper way, or the intention behind it was proper are matters for the Los Angeles court; they're not matters for this litigation. It doesn't matter a whit how much comes out of L.A. What matters in this case is whether or not |
|
|
|
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 gave away assets without adequate exchange
and for which the plaintiff, if it prevailed in Los Angeles, will have some access to satisfy a judgment.
his wheels and wasting all of our time by getting into minutia of another piece of litigation.
thing and that is that the issue as to the amount of damages is certainly critical because, if it turns out that Scientology, the plaintiff, has proven $12.80 worth of damages, then certainly Mr. Armstrong's conveyances are not -- they have no relevance because he can probably come up with the $12.80.
out as closely as we can what the damages are and how did the plaintiff get to this position where they're claiming $3.8 million. I submit.
beaten this issue to death.
basis for the liquidated damages was. So in addition to my prior objection, I think it's already asked and answered as well. We've already taken more than enough time in this area. |
|
|
|
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 |
says here, I would be satisfied if what the witness says, and I'll ask the question is if there were no other factors that went into the calculation of what liquidated damages should be aside from what he said, then we can move on.
says and, you know, give us a base line so that we know what we're dealing with, then I've got to find out. And it's an affirmative defense. The issue is joined. It's in this lawsuit.
complaint. The first two causes of action are fraudulent conveyance, which is no problem, I would be able to rule easily if the lawsuit were limited to that. However, the third cause of action, we have a conspiracy cause of action requesting $1.8 million in general damages and also requesting $3 million in punitive damages on the conspiracy count. Consequently -- and the question of whether punitive damages is --
proper or a penalty is raised by an affirmative defense, that it's still at issue. I'm going to allow some additional questioning on that issue on how they were |
|
|
|
|
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 |
arrived at to the extent the witness knows.
far with respect to how the $50,000 liquidated damages amount was arrived at, are there any other factors that went into that determination aside from the fact that in the agreement the reasonableness of that amount was acknowledged by plaintiff?
approximate what it would take to fix any, you know, any improper disclosure.
but it was an effort to calculate as best we could at that end of it what it would take to fix the results flowing from an improper disclosure --
trying to find out from you is what is the $50,000 in proportion to?
would cost us to fix.
that would be incurred to do --
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
other actual expenses that might go into it. I mean, it was an effort to quantify what it would take.
whatever that would have been.
that both sides engaged upon, at least insofar as Gerry's lawyer in arriving at an agreement that liquidated damages would be appropriate.
fix an improper disclosure in terms of correcting the information at the receipt point and the other factors I discussed.
believe it was May 6th, 1991 Time magazine article entitled "Scientology, the Cult of Greed"; right?
right?
|
|
|
|
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 |
out a series of full page ads over a number of days in USA
Today; right?
this.
talking about or that type of activity?
of activity that would fit within the considerations at the beginning before anything happened.
of staff time that you made?
combined, all the possible factors of what it would take were combined and an amount was arrived at that seemed to approximate what all those factors would be. But an arithmetical calculation of this much in staff time, this much in media time, this much in attorney time, no, it was just based on the experience in dealing with that sort of activity.
of activity that you relied on?
|
|
|
|
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 |
lawyers.
matrix.
I didn't quantify this much for staff time, this much for attorney time. It was, well, what would go into it? Well, we'd have staff time going into it, attorney time going into it, and other factors --
a fair number, and what was arrived at after negotiation was that this number would be the correct, the best number.
to address?
Mr. Benz. We're just going around in circles here. He's already answered the question, and Mr. Greene is now repeating himself. |
|
|
|
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 |
different from the standpoint he's asking whether -- not the amount of staff time or the quantification of staff time, but what it was --
correcting whatever resulted from an improper disclosure as opposed to the normal duties. That was the general consideration.
attorney time?
flowed from the improper disclosure.
a separate provision in the settlement agreement for collecting attorneys fees in prevailing in any enforcement action.
witness to answer the question directly rather than by giving me an evasive recitation back to the settlement agreement. |
|
|
|
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.
If you want to ask him another question.
there's an attorneys' fees provision in the contract, that attorneys' fees to rectify a 7-D violation are not included, or were not included in the assessment of the $50,000 as being a reasonable calculation?
what I'm saying, because there's different types of attorneys' fees for different types of activity the attorney would be engaged upon in rectifying a 7-D disclosure.
litigation necessary to correct a 7-D disclosure that Armstrong would not have been a party to, for example. And it wouldn't be a litigation designed for enforcement. And calling into play that provision of the settlement agreement. But it would be other --
consideration giving rise to liquidated damages is whether or not one would want to put directly at issue the attorneys' bills from the other litigation that may result |
|
|
|
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 |
from an improper disclosure.
that includes as a component part the best estimate possible of what might be the attorneys' fees, you know, that would have to be spent. Do you see what I'm saying?
excuse me.
other contracts?
confidential content of the other agreements.
witness yesterday testified at length about what we did with respect to them and the provisions in their contracts.
liquidated damages provision at issue here is a reasonable estimation or a penalty is directly the question of whether or not there were similar provisions for other people, and if so what the amounts of those provisions were, will provide relevant evidence directed at that issue. |
|
|
|
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 purpose of this liquidated damages provision is to act as a penalty, not as a reasonable assessment. And certainly one way of determining whether or not this liquidated damages provision is a penalty is what its amounts are in comparison to the other people who were all part of this universal settlement.
quite -- Could you read that question back again?
agreements. There has been no waiver. Yesterday's testimony dealt with initial considerations on the overall negotiation with Mr. Flynn. We've objected to the content of the other agreements. That objection has been sustained yesterday and this is no different.
this comment, that if plaintiff intends to defend on the grounds that this was the same provision in all of the contracts, or to respond to the affirmative defense that everybody in the whole world agreed to that, I mean, everybody in connection with the settlement agreed to a similar -- to a liquidated damages provision, and to a similar liquidated damages position, I will recommend that |
|
|
|
|
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 |
discovery be reopened and/or that the court prohibit
admission of that evidence if so offered by the plaintiff. Obviously, I can't rule on it. But with that in mind, I will sustain the objection.
inquire of the plaintiff whether or not that's going to be their position so that we can take the action that we need to to get the discovery we need, if we need it? I mean, if they're willing to enter into that stipulation, then that's fine. But if they're not, then we need to know that so that we can take the appropriate actions because trial is coming right up quick.
believe I have the power to ask them to so stipulate.
indicate that is part of their defense. I mean, excuse me, not a defense, but response to the affirmative defense. If they take that position, then my ruling would obviously be different and I would ask the trial judge to take that into consideration in ruling on the admissibility of whatever may be offered.
attorney time required to correct, as you say, a 7-D violation, are there any other factors that went into your |
|
|
|
|
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 |
calculus in consequence of which you arrived at the $50,000 liquidated damages figure?
other expenses that we would have to pay in order to fix the result of that, and I believe you introduced the concept of whether that could include payments for advertisements to fix it. And I agreed that that could include that.
consideration, which I've testified to more than the other specific components, which was a sense from the group discussing what to put in the agreement, what would be reasonable based on our experience of what it would take to fix some sort of improper disclosure. Those are the ones that I'm aware of as I sit here.
about advertisements, did you?
would be the sort of expense that would be within what we did consider.
be false information coming from Armstrong about Scientology; right?
to an assessment of whether what he says is true or false, |
|
|
|
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 that would be a factor.
what the amount of the liquidated damages would be?
first say, "Well, what we want is $100,000 per violation," and he came back and say, you know, 25?
Greene, about an hour ago.
and forth between your side and Flynn in consequence of which the $50,000 amount was arrived at?
I don't remember whether there were other numbers discussed. I just don't remember one way or the other.
and Richard Aznaran, are you not?
did they not, among other entities?
|
|
|
|
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 |
eight-page agreement entitled Mutual Release Agreement,
and then as 24 one with the same title, with 23 pertaining to Vicky Aznaran, 24 to Richard Aznaran.
behalf of CSI; right?
legal within CSI at the time this agreement was executed, weren't you?
this was during the time period when I was on the RPF.
you not?
Aznaran's settlement agreement, is it not?
don't know. |
|
|
|
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 number is Xeroxed off the bottom of page five, but otherwise it appears to be complete.
respect to Exhibit 24.
copy of Richard Aznaran's settlement agreement with CSI; does it not?
organization as the head of security worldwide, did he not?
it?
Scientology organization as head the head of security worldwide, did he not?
security for a time, a brief time, but I wouldn't describe his position as that.
designed the security in Gilman Hot Springs, didn't he?
|
|
|
|
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, aren't you?
Religious Technology Center; right?
whether she was or wasn't. I don't know what she considered herself. She was the president of Religious Technology Center and the inspector general, which was a senior position in that entity.
information having to do with day-to-day Scientology operations, wasn't she?
no idea.
damages provisions in Exhibits 23 and 24 is $10,000 per violation?
that led to these documents.
Richards and Vicky Aznaran left the Scientology organization in April of 1988, to your knowledge, didn't |
|
|
|
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 |
they?
staff was the execution of Exhibits 23 and 24; isn't that right?
off staff. It was a document, to my knowledge, that was signed so as to document the relationship with them at the time, but it wasn't necessarily a condition of their routing off staff. It happened to have been done, as you can see, because it's sitting on the table.
to pay for attorney time, staff time, expenses, is there any other component of loss which you included in your calculus that resulted in the $50,000 liquidated damage figure?
involved from our side in the group that resulted in the settlement. I could only speak from my point of view of |
|
|
|
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 |
what we discussed and what my recollection of that is and
what I had in my mind at the time.
any other component of the calculus aside from those which I just mentioned?
may flow from an improper disclosure.
be?
One of the factors it takes into account is what such an improper disclosure may cost us in some other way, you see --
That's why you make your best effort to figure out what would be fair .
Exhibit 20.
issue before, haven't you?
|
|
|
|
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 |
copy of what it says it is, namely, the HCO policy letter of 11 May '71; isn't that right?
whatever the underlines are there that that is not a true and correct copy of what it purports to be?
right size. It's not the right color. To be absolutely certain, I'd have to compare it to the original. As I sit here, it appears to be, although I can't be certain.
familiar with the concepts of intelligence on one hand and black PR in the other as discussed in Hubbard's writings, aren't you?
something that happens covertly; right?
policy letter.
|
|
|
|
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 |
overtly; right?
relations; right?
dissemination of false information, right, in part?
church, using lies and spreading them behind the scenes. This was written in an effort to enable people to deal with the effects of one such campaign if it's being waged against you.
source of black propaganda; right?
intelligence, is to ferret out the source of black propaganda; right?
discusses for dealing with a source of black propaganda is to dead agent the source; right?
|
|
|
|
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
source ceases to be a credible source, that's what is
meant by dead agent. I think we talked about this in the last round --
there's a discussion about how black propaganda is a cross between PR, which refers to public relations; right?
from the top.
that's what you've meant, isn't it?
necessarily differentiated whether the campaign is being waged against us covertly or overtly.
overt campaign to spread lies about us, but the more technical, precise definition would be the one expressed here.
have used the term black propaganda, that would include Gerald Armstrong, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
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 |
about it.
than the purely technical definition here.
definition.
the church?
officials who have been subjected to black propaganda campaigns, like Martin Luther King.
Gerald Armstrong.
black PR that you view him to have disseminated about the church?
question. Okay. |
|
|
|
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 |
think it's four kind of paragraphs down where it says "in the meantime, the dead agent caper is the best tool to counter it."
that the best way to counter black propaganda is to dead agent the source thereof?
here.
proving that the source of a false statement made a false statement.
makes is not credible.
So one way of countering a black propaganda campaign while one endeavors to find where the real source is is to meet with people who are forwarding it, knowingly |
|
|
|
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 |
or unknowingly, find out where they got the information
and show them that that which they're saying and the source of it isn't true.
And another method of dead agenting is showing simply that the source of the black propaganda intrinsically is not credible; isn't that right?
specific statement is also not cred- -- it's just a lie, is a lie.
to say that the person can't be believed without some sort of nexus to the lies he's spreading.
But generally, if somebody is flapping around about false statements, you can usually fairly quickly prove some at least to be false, enough so that you can put his having said this to the individual in proper prospective for them.
find other defects in the character of the source of the statements, those would assist the dead agenting effort as well, wouldn't they? |
|
|
|
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 what. Mario Andretti is a great race driver, but if he's speaking on a completely disrelated subject, who cares, or they don't relate.
three-year-old children, that would matter, wouldn't it?
afield, Mr. Benz.
you say, or when the statement says, the exhibit says, "A good policy when faced with a black propaganda campaign is to defend as best you can (dead agent and legal restraints) while you find out (intelligence) WHO," in capital letters, "is doing it, then confrontation can occur. Finding and suing false who's being make things much more involved." One of the ways that you have dealt with the black propaganda coming from Gerald Armstrong has been an effort to legally restrain him; right?
initially for stealing the documents from the Hubbard archives. And since then for breaching his settlement |
|
|
|
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 |
agreement and fraudulently conveying his assets. That's
what the suits were designed for recompense for.
injunctive relief to prevent him from talking about his knowledge regarding Scientology, didn't it?
stolen and improperly disclosed the materials he was entrusted not to steal and not to improperly disclose. Part of the injunctive relief sought was against verbal disclosures of the same materials. But it flows back to Armstrong having stolen them in the first place.
Armstrong based on the contract is to prevent Armstrong from disseminating black propaganda in part, isn't it?
which we bought and bargained for, solely and only, as to the L.A. suit.
freeze the fraudulent conveyances so that we're able to collect any damages as they may be awarded against us in the Los Angeles suit. It's apples and oranges.
dissemination of black propaganda, falsehoods about |
|
|
|
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 |
Scientology, from Armstrong; isn't that right?
Greene. The purpose of the lawsuit was to seek the legal remedies we seek in the lawsuits.
I'll restrain myself.
it true that the purpose of the settlement contract was to prevent the further dissemination of black propaganda, lies about the church, from Armstrong.
talking about --
What I thought you asked me was about the suit.
that?
and that's what I thought you were still asking me.
you've said many times here, is to end the then existing
|
|
|
|
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 |
disputes between the churches and Armstrong, that was the
purpose for the settlement agreement. So the answer to your question is no.
misleading.
some legal game you're going to play, but you just want to make sure the answer is complete. We settle the dispute then and that's what the settlement argument reflected.
it.
of Scientology, does it not?
you peruse that and tell me whether or not you've seen it before and whether it appears to be an accurate copy of what it purports to be, namely an HCO policy letter of 21 November, 1972.
one.
tenants of Scientology, does it not?
|
|
|
|
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 body of material that's ecclesiastical in nature,
certainly.
19 or 20, expresses tenants. Some illustrative examples and things like that. So it's ecclesiastical material, certainly.
constitute part of the body of its scripture; right?
Exhibit 25.
document entitled false report correction Breckenridge that's been produced in discovery, do you recognize this document?
that -- I do that almost every time.
you Tim's. I think you can have this one.
|
|
|
|
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 |
June of 1984. It
makes an effort
to deal with some of the
false statements in Judge Breckenridge's decision.
stamped, the last three numbers 357 through 370 in discovery produced by CSI.
think the date in front reflects the date the document was prepared. That reflects the date of the decision. This looks like it was prepared much later.
end to 1992, aren't there?
together sometime in or after 1992.
that you asked whether I participated in it. I know I didn't participate in putting any of this together in '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 |
I have to look at this again to see if I participated in
putting it together in the '90's --
wrong date.
here is similar to that which is in Exhibit 1 that I did assist on.
that regard.
relations bureau in doing so, didn't you?
I provided additional materials for it and sent it back to them, so I don't remember who it came from.
at the time this was put together?
Q. Do you how spell the last name? |
|
|
|
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 |
relations division generally of CSI, right, of OSA, within CSI?
Jacqueline Kevenaar, K-e-v-e-n-a-a-r, who is the deputy commanding officer for production.
originated?
full paragraph down from the top, would you read that paragraph into the record, please.
videotapes, at which point Sherman embarked on an effort to ascertain the full intend of Armstrong's intentions."
Gerald Armstrong endeavored to take over the Church of Scientology; right? |
|
|
|
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 videotape. Q. Right, I understand that, but that also refers to something broader, doesn't it, Mr. Farny, according to your knowledge?
that which you're talking about elsewhere on this page, but this sentence refers to something else.
Isn't it the view of Scientology that at one point Gerald Armstrong endeavored to take over the church?
over the church was by conspiring to plant false documents within the church?
cahoots with agents from the Internal Revenue Service?
the church and then the IRS would be tipped off as to their location and all of this would result in somehow a takeover of the church; right? |
|
|
|
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 makes reference to the police authorizing the investigation and videotapes, that's what the investigation and videotapes were all about as referred to in that paragraph; isn't that true?
was about.
Phillip Rodriguez ; correct?
wasn't it?
efforts by Eugene Ingram, was it not?
Rodriguez.
Scientology organization for many years; isn't that true? |
|
|
|
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 |
many years, yes.
Armstrong litigation, didn't he?
around the same time. First Armstrong litigation was in, I believe, August of '82, and he came on sometime in the early '80's, perhaps right around there.
Exhibit 26.
disseminated; is that right?
statements in Exhibit 25 that are made are true and correct statements, aren't they? |
|
|
|
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 |
read through the whole thing here? To the best of my knowledge they are, yes.
production of this document to ensure its truthfulness and accuracy because you were challenging the opinion of a superior court judge; right?
utterances.
document would be distributed?
distributed?
have such knowledge?
say. |
|
|
|
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 |
recognize that document?
for the investigation we've been talking about.
and correct copy?
approximately?
videotaping of Armstrong; right?
stated that the police have authorized the investigation and videotaping of Gerald Armstrong; correct?
that.
|
|
|
|
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 |
issue Exhibit 26, did he?
explain what happened, but that's false.
Exhibit 27.
question.
announcement by Daryl F. Gates, Chief of Police, Los Angeles, April 23, 1986.
the same time you saw Exhibit 26?
Police of Los Angeles of the purported authorization made to Eugene Ingram by Rodriguez, is it not?
Rodriguez was not authorized in his act, which Gates wrote after a couple of CID agents from the IRS paid him a visit and threatened him, and also stemming from his, what most |
|
|
|
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 |
charitably can be described as ill will against Eugene
Ingram. But that doesn't -- you know, rewriting history with this doesn't change the fact that at the time it was performed, the videotaping was properly authorized.
announcement ever been retracted?
visited him that caused him to disseminate Exhibit 27?
said something to the effect that the train is leaving the station, you better be on it with regards to not acknowledging the validity of the investigation that resulted in our finding out the attempt on the part of these two CID agent to infiltrate the church using Gerry as a pawn.
happen to be Freedom magazine or Freedom newspaper?
was.
is false?
that the videotaping was not properly authorized or that
|
|
|
|
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 authorization for the videotaping was not proper are
false.
respect to the loyalists to be criminal, did you not?
considered his intentions to be wrong. I don't have a particular criminal statute in mind in terms of his intentions. He was not of pure heart, no.
court in the initial Armstrong litigation, weren't they?
during the course of the litigation of the cross-complaint?
submitted. They were also put on a public record in other cases.
prosecuted for this alleged plot, didn't you?
was filed on that or not. If it was, it was. |
|
|
|
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 |
prosecuted criminally is filing some sort of complaint with law enforcement about specifically, you know, violations on Armstrong's part.
admonished, certainly, and got them to cease their improper activity.
CSI; right?
quickly as Exhibit 28.
13-page document. It's a letter dated April 25th, 1986 on a letterhead of the Office of the District Attorney, County of Los Angeles, to Reverend Ken Hoden, Kathleen Gorgon, Heber Jentzsch, John Peterson, David Butterworth, Church of Scientology.
|
|
|
|
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 |
DA's office to the charge that Armstrong had conspired with Flynn and others to engage in these acts that were videotaped that you said the videotaped showed proof of; right?
is a response to a criminal complaint on whether the district attorney's office is going to prosecute --
recollection that such a complaint was made.
Armstrong criminally prosecuted for the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice; right?
don't see that one listed with regards to Armstrong.
paragraph one.
Gates and IRS Agents Lipkin and Ristuccia.
I was looking at point three which lists the offenses, particularly with respect to Armstrong. |
|
|
|
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 |
All right, yes, the answer to your question is yes.
believe in your words, a pawn who conspired with Internal Revenue Agents Ristuccia and Lipkin to prepare false evidence; right?
false documentary evidence, yes.
right? A. Yes.
extortion?
and forgery also apply to solicitation of him.
such violations?
|
|
|
|
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 have Armstrong prosecuted for having violated; right?
videotapes.
prosecute --
And this letter is an explanation to the Scientology organization why they so declined; right?
if it explains why they declined.
that's Bates stamped pages 669 through 671, dated August 4, '91.
were aware of the Christofferson case in Portland; right?
sealed; right?
disseminated elsewhere. |
|
|
|
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 |
well; right?
regarding the videotapes as well, weren't you?
Armstrong concerning them --
Besides, the copies that went to Congress, the copies that went other places--certainly were not sealed.
Exhibit 29, do you recognize that document that's been produced in this litigation pursuant to discovery?
document with respect to Gerald Armstrong?
include an effort to dead agent Armstrong?
|
|
|
|
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 |
lies. If you want to use the characterization, you are
free to do what you wish.
characterization is a fair use.
things around to make it sound nefarious. I'm trying to clarify and just say what this is, which is an effort to communicate the truth. So no, I wouldn't say it's a fair use, Ford.
around similar to the way that Armstrong was cynical in signing the settlement agreements and giving away the proceeds?
about.
witness to answer my question rather than engage in an ad hominem attack on me in response.
unprofessional ad hominem attack on the witness. Therefore, I object. And you're badgering the witness. I would prefer and appreciate it if you would ask professional questions dealing with the issues in this |
|
|
|
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 |
case.
or not Exhibit 29 is fairly characterizable as an effort to dead agent Gerald Armstrong. What I got back was no, it's not because you're cynical and you're trying to twist things and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's not an answer.
again and will the witness answer it?
29 fairly characterizable as part of an effort to dead agent Gerald Armstrong?
characterization of what the document as a document is.
Armstrong's lies; right?
someone is is to confront or expose that person's lies, isn't it?
excuse me, going back to 29 just for a second.
|
|
|
|
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 |
Everything set forth in Exhibit 29 is accurate,
true and correct, isn't it?
disagreed with at the time.
OSA within CSI?
other.
either, do you?
of Exhibit 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 |
Armstrong.
disseminated by Gerald Armstrong?
the lies that were disseminated by Gerald Armstrong?
similar to Exhibit 1, so I think so.
five minutes, would you skim through the subject matter of 30, tell me whether or not there's anything in there that you see to be inaccurate or false?
say if there's any -- if you want me to say if there's any statement here that I can absolutely attest is true or false, I've got to read it.
I put into it. I don't want to waste your time |
|
|
|
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 |
reading every page.
do that.
it correct that what you mean is you were satisfied as to the truthfulness and veracity of the representations set forth in Exhibit 30?
wasn't.
drafted it?
PR. Again, a draft would have been sent to me that I would have edited.
couple of years, I would think.
of Exhibit 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 |
preparation?
preparing it?
over. Aside from that, no.
would not know who the source of that document was, would they?
would know who has handed it to them or who mailed it to them, if it was in the mail.
envelope without an address and without a cover letter, nobody would know who wrote it, would they?
be used. Usually something like this would be used to brief a staff member or sitting down in conversation with media and just walking them through this. So the source of the information here would be very much disclosed.
Exhibit 30 when they're distributed? |
|
|
|
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, our general practice would be to have a cover letter on it.
of it, as well, wouldn't it?
10-page false report correction, the intention of which is to cure the lies by Gerald Armstrong, not to mention the exhibits that go with it; that your practice would not be to keep any record of having done so?
this, that's what I'm saying, yes. The majority of the time this would be used in a one-on-one-meeting with somebody, and there would be no need necessarily to keep some sort of log or index of it.
track would have been kept of when or where or with whom such meetings transpired; is that right?
meetings would keep some sort of record of who they met with, although, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
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 |
involved with such meetings?
describing the general useage of a pack like this. So, hypothetically, I don't know.
who -- to whom it was distributed. Now, you've been challenging on it, that's your right. That's fine. I just said I don't know.
that the source of the distribution of this packet can remain secret?
Give me a break. What a stupid question.
(Defendant's Exhibit No. 31 marked.)
48 through 56. It's undated.
|
|
|
|
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 |
correction on Gerald Armstrong. I can't tell what the differences are between this one and one of the earlier exhibits.
document, is there?
church and not from Mr. Armstrong.
witness to directly answer the question. It's susceptible of a yes or no answer.
answer could be clearer, as could the question, and that is if the question is does the document state a particular source, I think the document speaks for itself. If the question is does the content of the document indicate its source, then the witness's answer is correct, I mean, has application.
objection to the first question? |
|
|
|
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.
document from whom it comes, is there?
from?
Special Affairs; right?
material in here I recognize from these other documents that I worked on.
documents such as Exhibit 31 without being told to do so by someone who is your senior? |
|
|
|
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 |
dissemination from a senior?
assist one of the public relations officer's for a meeting upcoming, I wouldn't necessarily get approval from that, you know, approval on that. I would assist them to put the pack together to use at the meeting. It wouldn't require anybody's approval.
review procedure before it is disseminated?
aide, in most instances. I don't know if she reviewed this one or not.
review?
individuals that requested the information for their own use in a meeting.
of information in a meeting, they would of course |
|
|
|
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 it before they used it in a meeting.
materials, is it your testimony that none of them were produced in response to a directive from one of your seniors?
testimony.
one of your seniors, would there be any written record of such an order?
Exhibit 32, which is entitled declaration of David Miscavige, which is 41 pages in length, and dated February 1994.
litigation to which CSI is a party, or was a party; right?
|
|
|
|
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 |
what you've seen before, isn't it?
them.
signature, aren't you?
doesn't it?
David Miscavige in the Scientology organization, is there?
report corrections were submitted to David Miscavige for review before their dissemination? A. I'm not aware that any were.
|
|
|
|
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 |
right?
declaration?
correct copy of the declaration of Kenneth Long, dated March 26th, '90, that you're familiar with?
you for review with respect to truth and veracity prior to its execution by Long?
different department within the legal bureau.
|
|
|
|
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 |
(Defendant's Exhibit No. 34 marked.)
entitled Affidavit of Gerald Armstrong that is dated December 6th, 1986.
included in, the settlement package wherein the agreement was executed; right?
document entitled Religious Technology Center Executive Directive No. 450, 16 September 1991.
afraid. Sorry.
Technology Center is David Miscavige; right?
|
|
|
|
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 |
correct?
Scientologists.
so they have plenty of them there to pass around to people.
under the portion that's headed attacks against Scientology, and directing your attention to the third and fourth paragraph, particularly the fourth, the reference that's made therein is to Armstrong's efforts to take over Scientology, that is the subject of the Exhibit 26, which is the authorization, 27, Gates' --
|
|
|
|
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 |
Exhibit 36.
Exhibit 36, this is a 24-page document entitled Affidavit of Helen Margaret Barlow.
your job title again, handler for legal affairs?
litigation handling officer?
having knowledge of some of the material she covers in here.
in this declaration that you felt was false?
litigation that occurred in the United States and those
|
|
|
|
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 |
things that I saw, I was fine with in the final signed
version of the affidavit.
videotaping of Armstrong?
made with respect thereto were true and correct; is that right?
37.
Exhibit 37, have you seen this document before?
or at any time prior to compiling the document production.
production.
letter that you considered to be false? |
|
|
|
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 |
referred to in the last paragraph was nude?
sitting behind a global that covers his crotch, so I can't tell behind that, but that is certainly what it appears to be, yes.
Armstrong has no relationship to art or artists as true as stated in Exhibit 37?
representation, that's his opinion.
think I disagree with Eber's opinion.
the shapes of E's, the letter E, but I don't, from what I've seen, consider it serious art in any fashion whatsoever.
did any of them go to Entertainment Television?
them even beyond this letter, and that the letter itself seems to indicate that there is some sort of documentation |
|
|
|
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 |
attached,
so it very well may have.
CNN at least in March of '92, but I'm not certain what may or may not have been given them at that time.
no record of the points to which any of those packets were directed?
sort of organized index or list or set of documents which would keep track of where they were sent as opposed to a random copy of a letter, so no. The way I understood your question was, do we keep records of where we've sent so that we can then tell somebody we've sent them here, here, here and here, no, I don't want to amend that at all.
which any of the false correction packets were sent?
showed me is one such that would fit under that.
Francisco Chronicle?
|
|
|
|
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 |
Incomm?
bank.
isn't it?
think I would describe it necessarily as absolutely state of the art, but within our means it's certainly as good a system as we could create.
searches, doesn't it?
departments within Scientology are components of Incomm; isn't that right?
|
|
|
|
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 |
search on Armstrong through the system and be able to come up with records that pertain to him; isn't that right? A. What records would be there, you could come up with them, certainly.
the computer, aren't they?
it's on that system or not, not necessarily.
as false report corrections of lies disseminated by Gerald Armstrong, that's something that would be kept on Incomm, isn't it?
originated on the Incomm system.
with Gerald Armstrong, are they transferred to the Incomm system?
|
|
|
|
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 |
couldn't print it, it would be transferred to the Incomm system to print.
Armstrong on the Incomm system?
are?
the docket of the cases is on there.
processing fonts, things that are not available on the Incomm system.
system. |
|
|
|
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 |
investigations?
and such, and of probably some of these documents as well.
for being patient with me.
lunch and I waive my appearance.
EXAMINATION RESUMED BY MR. WALTON |
|
|
|
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 Court of Appeal, the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division 7. And it's an appellate opinion in the Religious Technology Center v. Yanny.
read that into the record.
be an exhibit.
interpose an objection because this page is part of the document that was not adopted by the majority of the court. In fact, it's in a section that was specifically rejected by the majority and it's part of the dissent in an unpublished opinion in a case that doesn't involve Armstrong.
basis of relevance and the document speaks for itself.
objections, sir. It's your attorney who makes the |
|
|
|
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 |
objections.
I will do so.
to this conclusion. This appeal court and the trial court below was used as a means in Scientology's pursuit of the fair game policy of punishing those who leave Scientology without Scientology's approval. This appears to be a continuation of the fair games procedure of Scientology to discredit and to destroy and ruin an adversary by whatever means available, see Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, 1991, 232 Cal Ap 3d, 1060, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Allard v. Church of Scientology of California."
Church of Scientology v. Armstrong was wrong in its assessment of fair game?
And also what you read doesn't form the opinion of even that panel, because that specific passage was rejected by the majority later in the portions of the |
|
|
|
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 you have not read.
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California was wrong in its assessment of fair game?
Allard v. Church of Scientology of California was wrong in its assessment of fair game?
provided in this case by Mr. Armstrong and by myself in the form of depositions?
plaintiff.
ambiguous.
either.
in this case has looked at the depositions that its noticed and taken. |
|
|
|
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 |
quite sure that they can answer that way. If it's any person, officer or something of the corporation.
who would represent the corporation, somebody authorized. Obviously, a piece of paper can't review the thing, but somebody -- I'm asking if somebody that represented plaintiff looked at these depositions.
in May, I'm positive somebody has reviewed them, certainly. I've read some.
read the whole thing.
discovery in this case?
Armstrong?
interrogatories and I believe a request for admission. |
|
|
|
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 |
certain as I sit here whether there are still any outstanding responses due. There may still be some outstanding responses due.
other discovery requests that plaintiff has made in this case?
that's what I remember as I sit here.
they're depositions to be taken up here. They may be in the Los Angeles case, as I think about it.
because I'm not really asking about the Los Angeles case. I'm just interested in the discovery that's been obtained in this case.
discovery to be obtained. And if there's depositions noticed, there are. I just don't remember as I sit here |
|
|
|
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 |
which of the two Armstrong cases the upcoming depositions
have been noticed in. I think it's the Los Angeles case. I'm not certain.
discovery that plaintiff initiates in the organization?
organization have the responsibility of assisting counsel?
reviewing the discovery?
of us, but I don't know if all of us would at this stage prior to trial have read all of everything. But between the three of us, we will have, yes.
including Ms. Bartilson, but there are other attorneys in the case, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Moxon. I'm not certain what of the discovery Mr. Wilson has read or Mr. Moxon.
that are known to your attorneys through this discovery process that I'm talking about that plaintiff doesn't know yet, is that -- |
|
|
|
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 |
sense when you say corporation.
Let's say that in, specifically, Mr. Armstrong's deposition, you've only read part of, you said?
least most of that.
other than its attorneys that would have read the entire deposition?
have read everything, just depending on what stage.
counsel and people assisting counsel would have read all of the discovery. I don't know what stage.
responsibility for reading these things?
Gutfeld, G-u-t-f-e-l-d.
|
|
|
|
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 |
Armstrong testified under oath that God directed him to
divest himself of his worldly goods?
claim?
claim in the case that he divested himself of his assets with lack of consideration in order to avoid paying the judgment.
it an adequate response to the allegations we've raised.
God spoke to Mr. Armstrong?
considerate it an adequate justification for making himself judgment proof. I don't consider it meaningful at all. Q. Does the plaintiff reject the idea that it's a possibility?
ambiguous.
|
|
|
|
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 |
what the relevance of this is.
that Mr. Armstrong under oath has sworn that the reason he divested is he had a vision or conversation or communication with God, his God.
disregarded that in the testimony and continues to allege that Mr. Armstrong divested for other reasons. So I'm trying to find out if the reason that plaintiff has rejected Mr. Armstrong's sworn testimony is because they don't believe that it's possible that he would have spoken to God, or they believe it possible but he's just flat out lying about it.
determine in a secular court. So, and I don't think the court is going to determine it. So I will -- as far as I'm concerned, that's not relevant.
as the Douglases, such as perhaps even Salina, who is now |
|
|
|
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 named owner of the house, and then the other
individuals who received either cash payments or forgiveness of loans.
have occurred? Let me just ask it in a better way.
personal property or any other of his materials two months after the settlement -- two months after he received the money from the settlement, would those persons also be part of the conspiracy?
ascertain the members of the conspiracy?
to the beginning of 1990. Although, as background information, his creation of the Gerry Armstrong corporation in 1988 pertain to a certain degree, but the acts we've alleged go back into 1990.
in order to be understood, such as, for example, I don't recall as I sit here when the original construction of the Fawn Drive property was, but that's certainly a fact that would pertain to its ultimate disposition.
|
|
|
|
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 |
we sit here today, that Kima Douglas, Micheal Douglas,
Gerry Armstrong, Michael Walton, perhaps Salina Walton, Andrew Armstrong?
Because you asked on the one hand who we considered as part of the conspiracy as I sit here. And now it is being phrased in terms of who we are alleging.
named as a defendant and who we haven't, because at this point only yourself, Armstrong, his corporation and, I believe, Salina are the named defendants.
yes.
|
|
|
|
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 |
at his deposition taken that had received things.
Nancy Rhodes is a conspirator?
conspirators?
may be being imprecise in the way I'm using the word conspirators, in that they received part of the proceeds without compensation.
participation that they had, or what they knew ahead of time so as to give rise to a cause of action against them if one exists. We've only named the people we've named and conducted the discovery we've conducted.
your discovery with me.
|
|
|
|
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 |
co-conspirator with Armstrong?
arranging Armstrong fraudulently conveying the money and the house you received.
his direction but the two of you worked it out.
to hide the fact that he has those assets. He continued to live in the house for at least a year after that. There's documents produced in this case, correspondence between the two of you, where Armstrong is saying that, you know, even though he's divesting himself of these assets, nothing really is going to change.
intention to disregard the settlement agreement that gradually increased in intensity, I'd say, from around '88, '89, through the beginning of '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 |
him to breach with impunity, without fear of the consequences of us trying to collect on the liquidated damages.
some of those assets is what we're seeking to determine.
even though he had given up interest in the house, nothing changed, as he said in his document, and he indeed continue to live in it for a year.
facts does the plaintiff have that showed that they entered into this course of action with Mr. Armstrong?
transfer first to you, then to you and Salina jointly under her maiden name, then jointly under her married name, and then to her singularly, which we consider an effort to -- on your part not -- have an interest in the house when judgment time comes, but I don't think that will be of any effect whatsoever.
case showing how much money they received, with lack of consideration. |
|
|
|
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 |
over here.
conspiracy part and there's the fraudulent conveyance part.
received something for no value, that's what the proof is that they were involved in the fraudulent conveyance; is that right?
yes.
Mr. Armstrong's assets from Scientology?
correspondence I'm talking about. Insofar as any others that haven't been named as defendants, at this point it's merely the receipt of it that give rise to a belief on my part that they were part of it.
What facts does the plaintiff have?
case?
|
|
|
|
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 Armstrong's testimony concerning his -- how do I
complete unwillingness to abide by any of the terms in the settlement is a very significant portion. Obviously, Armstrong is the driving force behind this. Those are the facts that we have at present concerning the people who are not named as defendants in this action.
to me in which he said nothing has changed, and other than the deeds that transpired among the family -- my family, with my wife, et cetera, are there any other facts that the organization relies on that supports its claim that I was involved in conspiracy with Mr. Armstrong?
that conclusion. There's also the records of the funds that he got both before and after the transfer. I mean, I don't want to exclude those from it because it wasn't just the house. There was money before the house, approximately $25,000, but the documents speak for themselves in litigation. I don't mean to recharacterize them in any way.
which had about 35 to $40,000 in it at the time. |
|
|
|
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 |
consideration, with no consideration.
conveyance in the way that the law defines that term, but I'm now asking about the conspiracy aspects.
that were taken go a lot -- toward a decision ahead of those acts to take those acts.
on, man.
in your deposition where you excuse is you Armstrong was going to kill himself, so fine, you'll take the house ahead of time. That doesn't wash with me, doesn't ring true to me. And that fact indicates that you were withholding information.
deposition, but that bit of testimony didn't ring true to me. That's another fact that I had that indicates to me |
|
|
|
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 you were knowingly a part of the conspiracy with
further.
house free and clear. Apparently, you didn't ask any questions about that, at least according to your position. That doesn't ring true to me.
"Well, I thought he was going to kill himself," or words to that effect.
effort on my part to talk this individual out of killing himself, not just say, "Whoopee, I'm getting a $400,000. See you later, pal. Hope you have a nice death."
explanation. And the objective facts of the acts that took place indicate that there was some -- and the correspondence with Armstrong, indicates there was some discussion ahead of time concerning what was going to occur.
challenged didn't wash.
someone's characterization of the testimony? |
|
|
|
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 |
sections of the deposition. I didn't read all of it. I flipped through. There was some material in there that I didn't consider necessarily, you know, pertinent to the ultimate issues, background material and such.
house free and clear; is that correct?
didn't say the house was free and clear. It was a $400,000 house. I believe there was a mortgage on it. But he had a substantial portion. He had half ownership in the house.
house at the time of the transfer?
subsequent was 400. It was in the high 3's, if I remember.
not a matter of any mystery.
the market value of the house was at the time of the transfer?
|
|
|
|
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 |
Sorry, I think slightly less.
the time of the transfer?
Armstrong's down payment was well in the high one hundreds, something like that.
property, which he put into, at least most of it, maybe 130 some odd or 140, there's differing records which had somewhat inconsistent, which he put into the construction of the Fawn Drive property. And then -- you know, with another partnership. And then when the property values crashed, he reacquired the other partner's interest in it. He turned it from an investment property to something he owned.
maybe a couple hundred thousand of it was mortgage.
his interest in the house you got free and clear. That's what he I meant, like with nothing in exchange for it and no strings attached.
plaintiff know when the conspiracy was conceived?
|
|
|
|
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 answered.
sometime in the early '90 period or late '89 period.
Church of Scientology International how he personally knows?
is alleging, what the plaintiff -- what the plaintiff's position is.
plaintiff is a piece of paper and an abstract concept, but to the extent that it is an entity and he represents the entity, so I'm just interested in what the plaintiff organization's position is here.
prior to August '90.
how the organization -- how the plaintiff knows that? |
|
|
|
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 the transfers without adequate consideration?
this time period we've been talking about a considerable number of years that you'd rendered assistance in the past, worked with him in the past on several things.
street and said here's $100,000 and walked on, where there wouldn't be any prior contact with the individual to give rise to it being an agreement that the two of them worked
equation that -- the fact that you did have a previous relationship with him, wasn't just a stranger on the street and came up handed you money and walked off.
worked with him off and on for a number of years before '89 is evidence of the fact that there was a conspiracy conceived around late '89; is that your testimony?
material that adds to the picture. I think it's background material that's necessary to understand the |
|
|
|
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 |
whole picture. I don't think it by itself is evidence of
anything other than that you did know him.
organization have any other facts that would prove or tend to prove that this conspiracy was conceived in late 1989?
didn't say that the conspiracy was conceived in late '89. He said sometime before August '90.
testimony was.
he said sometime before August '90 or late '89, but let's use before August '90.
conspiracy was conceived other than to say before August '90?
cannot, not as I sit here.
mechanics goes of how to if effectuate the idea, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
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 |
Armstrong, certainly his idea.
giving different reasons for doing it.
about.
Everybody knows he got rid of assets.
about, the fact --
universe, which is getting rid of his assets. It's not a conspiracy in air somewhere.
gets rid of assets, he or she enters into a conspiracy?
maybe others entered into a conspiracy to make himself judgment proof, which allowed him the freedom to go breach the settlement agreement with impunity.
|
|
|
|
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 |
okay? Whose idea was it for Armstrong to talk to you about it? Whoever originated the conversation. I would think Armstrong's.
plaintiff organization have any facts to support the allegation that Armstrong initiated the idea of a conspiracy?
assets.
acts that took place are. There is, to my view, no conspiracy other than to do the acts that took place. So that's how I'm having to refer to this, was with reference to the acts that took place.
and forth.
Armstrong, where he says this changes nothing. |
|
|
|
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 |
ever met together?
once, who is the hub of this.
documents leads me to that conclusion.
sitting to be in the San Francisco area, generally.
work, how was it -- you've already said that Armstrong was going to give his assets to these people and he was not going to get consideration. And then what was going to happen?
|
|
|
|
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 |
inference that after prevailing in an action concerning
enforcement of the settlement Armstrong would somehow reacquire.
them without having title to them, such as his living in the house for a year, at least a year. I think until we pointed out in litigation, he was still living there.
about Fawn Drive now?
or co-conspirators? How was the conspiracy to work with respect to those things?
intended to hide there with those individuals so that there wouldn't be any with Armstrong when we came to collect for the settlement breaches.
may change with the original intended outcome on Armstrong's part was.
|
|
|
|
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 |
which is we sued him for the fraudulent conveyance. We took
his deposition in the breach action, found out he was doing this and filed a suit to stop it.
may have been different than had the suit not been present.
conspiracy initially were. I'm not really interested in what happened later. What was the conspiracy? What was it?
assets to make himself judgment proof, hide the assets with others. Nothing changes, as Armstrong said in his letter.
with repetitive questions in the same area. Can we move on to a different area?
we're reaching that point.
yet. MR. WALTON: Thank you. |
|
|
|
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 talk to you, why I was the only co-conspirator named and served, you answered basically because I got the lion's share.
because we've subsequently named a couple of the Does.
share.
he forgave approximately $100,000 debt to Michael and Kima Douglas?
this case.
several thousand dollar debt to Miss Lori Eaton, E-a-t-o-n?
debt of approximately $30,000 to the Dawsons in Massachusetts?
pendens against Fawn Drive?
|
|
|
|
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 |
against Fawn Drive?
refinancing of the house and put back on.
documents pursuant to his document request?
about this case.
were produced to Mr. Armstrong?
|
|
|
|
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 be.
see them all sitting together in one place, so I don't know. My sense is dozens, certainly. Which would also be, would also be hundreds because -- maybe, you know, this, maybe that much, maybe a little more.
but as exhibits today.
organization purposely not copy me those documents?
understood it last time we were here, plaintiff was to furnish, make certain that you got documents.
here has told me that I'm not entitled to them. Only as a -- by right, I'm only entitled to them as a courtesy.
supplemental production we made. |
|
|
|
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 initial production.
production goes to the party that has requested them. We gave them to Armstrong. As I understand it, Ms. Bartilson has made some commitments to Mr. Walton, so I'm checking those out.
record.
don't -- let's just get on with it. Next question.
other question.
documents to Ms. Bartilson and what she did with them she did with them. I gave them to her for the purpose of responding to the document request. I was also here last time when she said she would try to get you copies of them. |
|
|
|
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 a small enough universe of documents that my natural suspicion that for some reason you're not able to go the mile to Ford Greene's office to look at these documents seems to indicate -- it's just, okay, fine, you want one? It's a small enough universe of documents, fine, we'll give you a set.
you would still be contending you hadn't seen them since you're no more than a mile or two from Ford Greene's office where these documents have been sitting. If you'd really been interested in looking at them, you could have gone down the hill and looked at them. But there's no grand design to do you out of the documents, sir.
surprised that you haven't received them.
to have a copy of the lis pendens and I'm sure my wife would be very interested in having a copy of it too.
wasting time.
San Rafael and get it.
|
|
|
|
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 |
met in advance to formulate this plan, or did it sort of just formulate as it went along?
a co-conspirator, one single meeting. I'm aware of communication between you and Armstrong concerning the disposition of his assets, the hiding of his assets.
co-conspirators who may not be parties to this action did.
agents or employees or attorneys, ever investigated me or my family?
Fawn Drive property, so to that degree the answer is yes.
in investigating either me or any member of my family?
|
|
|
|
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 |
private investigators obtained the property records.
representatives maintain a file on me or any member of my family other than this litigation file?
would look over the verified second amended complaint.
sure that there are no other hundred thousand dollar or any other amount errors in it.
made in the -- I don't recall which cause of action it is right now, are there more than one errors, is there any more than one error in the document?
accurate? |
|
|
|
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 it was a day or so either way, to the best of our information and belief the dates are accurate, yes.
this complaint.
case?
another one.
amended complaint?
No. BC-052395. |
|
|
|
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 |
Did you say seventh cause of action?
it.
difficult for me to understand what the damages are. I see the number amount, the $250,000, but I don't understand what gave rise to the sum $250,000.
with respect to its damages in this case of action?
23, 1992, as indicated in paragraph 51 --
my answer?
for the moment?
paragraph 52; the March 12th disclosure in paragraph 54; and then the March 4 production of documents in paragraph 53. That's five.
|
|
|
|
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 |
about for the fifth one.
March, both of 1992.
session?
separate $50,000 liquidated damage injuries each of those days regardless of the fact that it was a single deposition?
regardless of the fact that each day had multiple, multiple, multiple disclosures, yes.
we are claiming that each day is a different violation. I'll just read out of the question the implication in it. |
|
|
|
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 |
separate breach?
to his testimony at the depositions. They were different acts. So I guess that means yes.
break?
action, page 14. The plaintiff is claiming $50,000 damages because Mr. Armstrong attached the settlement agreement to a deposition transcript; is that accurate?
that was already public in the public?
settlement agreement and he improperly disclosed it.
isn't that true, in the appeal matter?
Armstrong disclosed it more than once, yes, and each disclosure of that document gave rise to the liquidated |
|
|
|
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 |
damages.
Armstrong had attached a copy of the settlement agreement under seal to the Court of Appeal.
had not -- decided to call Armstrong's participation in the appeal a breach.
the circumstances in the appeal had changed from that at the time of the settlement in that they called for the appeal to be rebriefed. That's why we didn't include it in this case.
agreement had been included; had been provided to the Court of Appeal under seal?
think if you're really asking the question, that it might have been, but that would still mean it wasn't a public disclosure. It could have been attached under seal. This is not, this instance in the eighth cause of action wasn't under seal.
|
|
|
|
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 that plaintiff filed against Mr. Armstrong in
the Marin action?
What do you mean by the Marin action?
the L.A. action in terms of the breach action.
record sealed. I don't recall the outcome.
Armstrong appeal unsealed the settlement agreement?
that Mr. Armstrong providing a copy of this agreement on or about April 7th, 1992, if that providing was actionable because the document was still under seal?
settlement agreement for it to be confidential and we had not voluntarily disclosed that agreement and Armstrong was obligated to keep that agreement to not publish that |
|
|
|
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 |
agreement. So, yeah, that's what we're asking, that's
what this one concerns is his attaching it on an open public record like that.
earlier had unsealed the document and it was now in the public domain, if Scientology's position would still be the same with respect to Mr. Armstrong providing a document that was already in the public?
settlement agreement.
I could consider circumstances where we would be entitled to recovery under that.
exhibit to your Marin complaint, the original one that ended up down in L.A., would Scientology still claim damages for this eighth cause of action?
legal conclusion.
or --
time Armstrong makes a disclosure of that settlement agreement, there's still the contractual provision that |
|
|
|
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 bound not do that, so that would be our position.
not it was still hidden from the public, it turns on whether or not he did it, whether or not he produced the document?
a letter written by L. Ron Hubbard to the FBI." That's not to say that Armstrong failed to return the letter in -- to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but it apparently is a letter that Mr. Hubbard wrote to the FBI.
organization at the time.
that gave rise to the damages?
here in this cause of action is attaching them to his declaration in the Aznarak case.
document to that declaration; is that right?
that. You were talking about just the documents, certainly it's the declaration as well. |
|
|
|
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 |
return any documents -- well, it's hard for me to ask because it's incomplete.
to what entity was it to go, who was he supposed to return it to?
was supposed to return?
themselves that were impounded in the court at that time that were supposed to have been returned.
physically?
provided aid and advice to Bent Corydon and Corydon's attorney."
|
|
|
|
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 |
litigation in terms of information and documentary support.
case, how did they find out about this?
and Bend Corydon on a number of occasions, and through information that came up during the Corydon litigation.
during the Corydon litigation?
Corydon or Armstrong himself saying that he was helping on that case, Corydon's case, that's, what I recall right now.
such -- this is so vague that it's hard to ask specific questions without sounding vague.
speeches?
that.
objecting to any --
question here so --
|
|
|
|
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 courtroom and hands document to Ms. Plebin, is that giving aid and advice?
yes. He's acting in that capacity as her assistant, certainly that would be.
support, is that giving aid and advise?
hypothetical.
no discourse with her whatsoever, the courtrooms are public forums, he can show up wherever he wants.
helps them on the case, provides documents to her, hands her stuff, passing notes, giving arguments, that sort of general activity, I would say he's helping them. It's not something he is allowed to do under the settlement agreement.
the allegation in paragraph 67, he did those kinds of things?
|
|
|
|
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 |
documents?
that I said, yes.
court appearance that was at?
Corydon case.
haven't. Oh, yeah. Okay. Let's move onto the twelfth cause of action.
a specific amount, but I would like to know just about this substantial paralegal assistance to Mr. Greene in the Ed Roberts and Denise Canteen matters.
seven times --
time of the filing of this complaint; is that right?
where they took place. |
|
|
|
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 interviewed Roberts in November '91. I don't know where the other interviews took place.
many times he had interviewed Ed Roberts.
other information you have regarding the six other interviews?
well, concerning his work on the Ed Roberts case, which is also discussed elsewhere in this complaint.
the complaint --
50 people -- |
|
|
|
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 |
interrupt Mr. Greene like you're interrupting me.
sir.
50 people willingly and disclosed to them experiences."
damages?
liquidated damages here. Perhaps you can help he.
which is the videotaped interview to the programming specialist Jerry Witfield.
people other than Witfield and giving rise to a second.
Cult Awareness Convention in November 1992.
November 1992 Cult Awareness Network conference. |
|
|
|
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 |
at this convention; is that correct?
participating in discussions with some of the other attendees in front of the convention right in the registration area. And several Scientologists were allowed to attend on court order allowing them to attend.
claimed experiences, what he spoke about? What were these claimed experiences, do you know?
with Jerry Witfield when he talked about his experience in the church, his having left, a bit about the case, his first case.
disclosing his claimed experiences?
experiences, yes.
listed on line two, page 20?
experiences. I'm not sure I'm tracking with your question. |
|
|
|
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 |
We have the two videotape disseminations, gave videotape to two separate entities, that's $100,000.
the distribution of that interview and then Gerry's discussing his experiences all at the convention in November '92.
you know what he talked about specifically? What do you know what the experiences were he talked about?
archives. His opinions about the organization. Those are the things that I recall.
experience negative. It ended badly.
dissemination of the interview to other parties are two separate claims; is that correct? |
|
|
|
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 |
action, yes.
the same idea as thirteen, right, he was with the group and he talked about his experiences in Scientology?
present and Gerry talked about --
convention.
engaged in you're talking about?
people?
|
|
|
|
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 appearance at this event, does Scientology have any
other information regarding the event?
any information?
rather than the Los Angeles case.
evidence collected or documents produced in the case, or ask counsel for her witness that she has on this and reacquaint myself with this particular instance. I'm sure from that I would find the information and the name of the individual or individuals that would be called upon to be a witness for it at trial. I'm obviously not a witness for this case of action.
cause of action.
event the giving of the interview by Mr. Armstrong in Newsweek?
|
|
|
|
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 is prohibited under the settlement agreement, yeah.
If he merely gave an interview to Newsweek about art, for example, it wouldn't be, but it's because the interview is concerning a certain subject, yes.
that line, line five?
Scientology faith L. Ron Hubbard wanted rich Scientologists to buy huge quantities of The Way to Happiness," -- underlined, because it's a book, I guess -- "for distribution. He wanted to go down in history as a scientist or philosopher or both."
quote actionable?
negative comment?
because it was -- I'll just add in the end the answer with yes.
Scientology.
|
|
|
|
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 |
Hubbard's intention that he go down as a scientist or philosopher or both. From my knowledge of what Mr. Hubbard has written, he considered himself a writer, nothing more than a scientist.
The Way to Happiness is distributed, with rich Scientologists buying it.
governments, police forces, distribute them.
was an effort to somehow say there's something wrong with promulgating a non-religious moral code that's based on common sense that people can use to improve their lives regardless of whether they become Scientologists whatever, it's off on a different plane than that. And he seems to -- the context of this is that there's an implication that there's something wrong with this, there's something wrong with doing something like this. So to that degree it's misleading as well as inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
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 |
there were other -- that this is within a context of other
things?
sentence objectionable?
misleading. The implication here is that The Way to Happiness is some sort of money making thing, "Rich Scientologists to buy rich huge quantities of The Way to Happiness for distribution." And it's purely an effort to stop the decline of society enough so that people can maybe adopt some moral values that they don't otherwise have.
to a -- and my question is does it claim damages due to the -- no, let me strike that.
Entertainment Television. He gave the interview and gave the document as part of the interview. |
|
|
|
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 |
story of his experiences in Scientology --
There was about a page of it that was on the television. I don't remember if we've subsequently gotten it in discovery or not. There was litigation back and forth on whether we could have it.
detailed descriptions of Gerry's experiences in Scientology?
Other than the title page, there was the title page and one other page that was shown on the screen that you can read when you slow it down.
of the interview which included the provision of this manuscript concerning his experiences in the church.
bit that you did read, was it accurate?
|
|
|
|
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 that Scientology finds objectionable?
aired. There were several negative comments concerning Scientology that made it onto the air that would be reflected in the transcript of that interview, I mean, the transcript of the broadcast.
statements, yes.
All right. Well, I'm afraid I'm in the same position with the nineteenth cause of action. I can't quite pull out which is the part that is the actionable part, so perhaps you can help me. Which part is the actionable part, is it the authentication of the document?
Fishman litigation which contains disclosures.
some legal document?
minutes here, take five minutes. I'm almost done. Thank |
|
|
|
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 very much.
cases Scientology or any of its organizations have been involved in as plaintiff --
any of its -- I don't want to say guises, but any of its corporations or entities?
groups in the world. There are like 1400 to 1600 of them. I have no idea. Q. Well, a lot of this, I think you guys have covered.
ecclesiastical directive?
Back to Exhibit 1. We were talking about the fifth full paragraph.
|
|
|
|
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 |
first section?
this document has been disseminated. Do you know?
went back and forth and it was overruled. And I said I'd come back to it. So now I'm coming back to it.
referenced noted as a squiggle?
plaintiff have for making those allegations?
assets was an attorney named Micheal Walton."
to us by Armstrong in a deposition in the breach
|
|
|
|
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 |
case.
and the property records concerning the transfer of the house would also go toward that sentence.
church, Walton had advised Armstrong about the terms and the conditions of the agreement."
you were one of the people he talked to about the terms of the settlement agreement prior to signing it, in addition to Micheal Flynn. He testified that he sought advice from you.
the agreement and was thus fully aware of the fraudulent nature of the conveyance."
follows from all of the premises above. The first part of the sentence was, and I think that we covered this in my last deposition, but your presence in the March '90 hearing in the Yanny case where all that was discussed concerning his effort to appear there. That was there was a rather lengthy argument concerning Armstrong's intention to breach the settlement agreement and his activities in that regard, which you observed. I know we at least had that. |
|
|
|
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 |
agreement."
testimony. My attendance at the Yanny hearing -- at a Yanny hearing was what Scientology is saying is the evidence that I knew of Armstrong's intention to breach?
was devoted to Armstrong's avoidance of his obligations under the settlement agreement.
testimony that one goes and pulls out that lead to that conclusion as well. That happens to be one thing that I observed myself.
was in attendance at a Yanny hearing and observed those proceedings that I also was fully aware of the fraudulent nature of the conveyance?
part of the sentence. It's based on all of the facts in that paragraph that will lead to that.
there anything else that Scientology has concluded is |
|
|
|
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 |
factual basis for making that allegation?
bits and pieces of the disclosure -- of the assets transfers that we've talked about at length through the deposition, I have to say the sum total of all that.
you saw me in attendance at?
testify. And we argued that he shouldn't be allowed to, and to do so would violate a settlement agreement.
that with Vansickle where we were all standing around of why are you having, this guy come, it's a violation of the settlement agreement.
I don't remember whether Gerry and I did or not, I don't think so.
on the record of the trial.
it was?
itself was transcribed as part of the trial record.
|
|
|
|
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 |
call him as a witness and we objected to his testifying because, one, he didn't have anything relevant to say, and because of that to do so would violate a settlement agreement.
declined to allow Armstrong to testify. I mean, the reason I say that is because he didn't articulate the reason, he just declined to let him testify.
hearing.
broaching on ecclesiastical subjects that this witness is not going to answer questions on.
Zeno?
trying -- to have all these allegations and you're trying to deal with an entity that not only is protected by a series of corporate entities, but also claim of religious privilege, trying to get to the heart of some of these |
|
|
|
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 |
matters.
defendant who divested because he says that he was in contact with his God.
can't figure out. But we do have on the other side a plaintiff religious organization who has their own religious beliefs. And if their religious beliefs teach that others' religious beliefs and experiences are invalid, then I think I'm entitled to know that.
discounting Mr. Armstrong's sworn testimony is because they have factual information that he did something, that's one thing. If they rejected it because of their religious beliefs and then refuse to discuss their religious beliefs, that certainly puts me and any other potential defendant at a disadvantage.
beliefs as the basis of any cause of action.
action, fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy.
wrong -- who or what this is or isn't, or whether or not what their religious beliefs are have anything to do with the basic -- |
|
|
|
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 |
black PR and what a number of courts have called fair game.
not suggesting necessarily in this instance is the case, but certainly in a number of jurisdictions across this country courts have found that this organization does engage in fair game, that is to say, that it tries to get people through litigation.
subjected to some of this fair game activity. And I think I'm entitled to know if the reason that they're doing this, the reason that they're suggesting that Mr. Armstrong is lying, which is what they're saying, that he's lying under oath, is a religious as opposed to a non-religious reason.
exists, is an act. Fair game, if it does exist, and if it's a motivating force, has some relevance to the question of malice and abuse of process claim under the cross-complaint.
fair game is relevant. We've talked about that. |
|
|
|
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 as far as going behind fair game, which is an announced policy, as to what their religious belief may be, the answer is it's irrelevant.
done in the first two sections as to how the transcript will be dealt with and use the documentation of counsel at that time as a guide.
the first two sections of the deposition.
---o0o---
p.m.
|
|
|
|
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 for the State of California, do hereby certify: That the witness named in the foregoing deposition was present and duly sworn to testify the truth in the within-entitled action on the day and date and at the time and place therein specified;
me in shorthand and was thereafter transcribed under my direction into typewriting;
correct transcript of said deposition and of the proceedings which took place;
and, if necessary, correct said deposition and to subscribe the same;
action;
hand this 8th day of August 1994.
|
|
§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact § |