In Propria Persona

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

agreement, that Armstrong breached the agreement by providing a

videotaped interview to anti-Scientologists Sylvia "Spanky" Taylor

and Jerry Whitfield in which he discussed his claimed Scientology

knowledge and experiences, and that the Church is entitled to

liquidated damaged of $50,000.00 for this breach.

1. Gerald Armstrong

voluntarily entered into a

confidential Mutual Release of

All Claims and Settlement

Agreement (" Agreement") with

Church of Scientology

International ("the Church")

on December 6, 1986.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

1. Request for Judicial

Notice, Exhibit A, Verified

Second Amended Complaint

(hereinafter "Complaint"), ¶¶

1 and 2; Request for Judicial

Notice, Exhibit B, Answer of

Gerald Armstrong and the

Gerald Armstrong Corporation

to Amended Complaint

(hereinafter "Answer"), ¶¶ 1

and 2; Request for Judicial

1. Disputed.

A. Armstrong was the target

of Scientology's "fair game"

acts from the time he left

Scientology until the time he

signed the settlement

agreement. These fair game

acts included, but are not

limited to: publishing

"Suppressive Persons

Declares," spying on him,

assault, filing false charges

with Los Angeles DA, filing

false charges with FBI,

attempted entrapment, illegal

videotaping, battery by a car

driven by a hired agent,

attempting to involve him in a

freeway "accident,"filing

false declarations,

Notice, Exhibit C, Order

Granting Summary Adjudication

of the Fourth and Sixth Causes

of Action; Request for

Judicial Notice, Exhibit D,

Opinion of the Second District

Court of Appeal; Request for

Judicial Notice, Exhibit E,

Order Granting Summary

Adjudication of the Second and

Third Causes of Action of

Armstrong's cross-complaint;

Exhibit 1A, Mutual Release of

All Claims and Settlement

Agreement ("the Agreement"),

page 16; Exhibit 1B,

Declaration of Larry Heller,

¶¶4 and 5, Exhibit A thereto

and Exhibit B thereto, 1:19-2:10.

international dissemination of

publications falsely accusing

him of crimes ("black

propaganda"), filing false

contempt of court charges

against him, disseminating

"confidential" statements made

in pastoral "counseling

sessions."

Defendant's Evidence

Exhibit 1, Declaration of

Gerald Armstrong in Opposition

to Motions for Summary

Adjudication of 20th Cause of

Action; and 13th, 16th, 17th &

19th Causes of Action of

Second Amended Complaint,

Authenticating Deposition

Transcripts and Exhibits, 4:8-

6:19, Exhibit 1(G),

Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong in Opposition to

Scientology's Motion for

Preliminary Injunction,

executed March 16, 1992, and

Authenticating Exhibits, 4:26-

7:7; Exhibit 1(G)(C),

"Penalties for Lower

Conditions," Scientology

Policy Letter by L. Ron

Hubbard dated October 18,

1967; Exhibit 1(G)(L),

"Settlement Agreement" between

attorney Michael J. Flynn and

his clients in December, 1986,

at p. 4, (5); Exhibit 1(G)(M)

Letter from Phillip Rodriguez

dated November 7, 1984

purporting to authorize

eavesdropping on Gerry

Armstrong and Michael J.

Flynn; Exhibit 1(G)N, Public

Announcement of Los Angeles

Police Chief Daryl Gates dated

April 23, 1985; Exhibit

1(G)(O), Letter from Los

Angeles County Deputy District

Attorney Robert N. Jorgenson

to Scientology officials dated

April 25, 1986; Exhibit 1(H),

Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong, executed January

13, 1994, and Authenticating

Exhibits, pp. 2,3, ¶¶ 5,6; p.

14, ¶ 15; Exhibit, 1(H)(R)(C)

"Freedom" published by

Scientology April/May, 1985;

Exhibit 1(H) (CC), "Squirrels,"

Scientology Office of Special

Affairs Executive Directive

dated September 20, 1984;

Exhibit 1(B), Declaration of

Gerald Armstrong, executed

December 25, 1990, and

Authenticating Exhibits, p. 1,

¶ 2; Exhibit 1(B)(O)

Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong, executed October

11, 1986, pp. 3-9, ¶¶ 3-8;

Exhibit 1(B)(P), Declaration

of Gerald Armstrong, executed

November 1, 1986, 2:2-3:3,

6:4-7:5, 7:25-11: 12; Exhibit

pages to Ex. 1(B)(P) at 22:24-

26:8; Exhibit 1(I) Declaration

of Gerald Armstrong Executed

August 12, 1994, and

Authenticating Deposition

Transcripts And Exhibits,

Exhibit 1(I)(AA), Suppressive

Person Declare Gerry

Armstrong" dated February 18,

1982; Exhibit 1(I)(BB),

"Suppressive Person Declare

Gerry Armstrong" dated

February 18, 1982, Revised

April 22, 1982; Exhibit 1(A),

Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong, executed March 15,

1990, and Authenticating

Exhibits, p. 1, ¶ 1, Exhibit 1

(A)(A), Memorandum of

Decision dated June 20, 1984

in Scientology v. Armstrong,

LA Superior Court No. C

420153, at 5:3-19; 7:9-12:9;

Appendix thereto, pp. 1-15;

Exhibit 1(C), Opinion of

California Court of Appeal

dated July 29, 1991, 283

Cal.Rptr. 917, at 920, 921,

925; Exhibit 1(A)(L),

Affidavit of Gerald Armstrong,

executed March 7, 1986, at p.

5, ¶ 6; Exhibit 1(E)(E),

Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong Regarding Alleged

"Taint" of Joseph A. Yanny

executed September 3, 1991 and

filed in Aznaran v.

Scientology , US District

Court, Central District of

California, Case No. CV 88-

1786 JMI, pp. 3-5, ¶¶ 13-16;

Scientology's Request for

Judicial Notice in Support of

its Motion for Summary

Adjudication of the 13th

, 16th, 17th and 19th Causes of

Action of Second Amended

Complaint, Exhibit 1(S)

Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong executed February

22, 1994 and filed in

Scientology v. Steven Fishman,

et al., US District Court for

the Central District of

California, Case No. 91-6426

HLH (Tx), and exhibits

thereto; Scientology's

Evidence in Support of Motion

for Summary Adjudication of

the 20th Cause of Action of

Second Amended Complaint

Exhibit 1(A), Mutual Release

of All Claims and Settlement

Agreement; Ex. 1(H), pp. 7,8,

¶ 12.

B. Armstrong's attorney

Michael Flynn was the target

of Scientology's fair game

from 1979 through the time of

the signing of the settlement

agreements. Fair game acts

against Flynn included, but

are not limited to,

infiltrating his office,

paying known criminals to

testify falsely against him,

suing him and his office some

fifteen times, framing him

with the forgery of a

$2,000,000 check, and an

international "black

propaganda campaign."

Defendant's Evidence

Exhibit 10, Second Declaration

of Gerald Armstrong in

Opposition to Motion for

Summary Adjudication of 13th,

16th, 17th and 19th Causes of

Action of Scientology's Second

Amended Complaint executed

September 9, 1995, 8:18-9:14;

Ex. 1, 6:20-7:7; Ex. 1(G),

9:6-24; Ex. 1(B), p. 1, ¶ 2,

pp. 3,4, ¶8, pp. 5,5, ¶11; Ex.

1(B)(O), pp. 60-74; Ex. 1(H),

pp. 8,9, ¶ 12; Exhibit 7,

Declaration of Jonathan Atack

in Opposition to Motions for

Summary Adjudication of 20th

Cause of Action; and 13th,

16th, 17th & 19th Causes of

Action of Second Amended

Complaint, and Authenticating

Exhibits, executed April 9,

1995, p. 4, ¶16; Ex. 1(G)(L),

pp. 4,5, (5); Ex. 1(G)(M); Ex.

1(G)(N); Ex. 1(G)(O), Ex.

1(H)(R)(C).

C. Flynn told Armstrong that

if he didn't sign

Scientology's settlement

agreement he would be the

target of more fair game.

Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 1, 9:1-15; Ex. 1(G), 9:6-

12; Ex. 1(B), pp. 3,4, ¶ 8, p.

5, ¶ 11.

D. Flynn told Armstrong that

the other some fifteen people

involved in the "global

settlement" would continue to

be attacked by Scientology if

he didn't sign.

Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 1, pp. 8,9, ¶ 18; Ex.

1(G), 9:6-12, 10:21-11:28; Ex.

1(B), pp. 3,4, ¶ 8, p. 5, ¶

11.

E. Flynn had another client

yell at Armstrong when

Armstrong objected to the

language of the "agreement."

Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 1(G), 9:15-19; Ex. 1(B),

p. 4, ¶ 8.

F. Flynn stated in the

"settlement agreement" with

his clients, acknowledged by

all his clients, that "he or

his firms's members have been

required to defend

approximately 17 lawsuits

and/or civil/criminal contempt

actions instituted by the

Church of Scientology against

him, his associates and

clients, that he and his

family have been subjected to

intense and prolonged

harassment."

Defendant's Evidence

Exhibit 10, 7:11-8:17;

Plaintiff's Ex. 1(C)(B) at p.

5.

G. Scientology knew of all

of its acts of "fair game"

against Flynn, and its acts of

"fair game" against Armstrong.

Scientology also knew prior to

Armstrong's arrival in Los

Angeles to "sign" the

"settlement contract" that it

had obtained Flynn's agreement

to not represent or defend

Armstrong if it attacked him

after the "settlement."

Scientology knew of all of its

harassment of Flynn and its

judicially condemned "fair

game" policy and practices.

Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 8:18-9:9; Ex. 1, 4:8-

6:28; Ex. G, 4:26-7:14;Ex.

1(G)(L), pp.4,5, (5); Ex.

1(G)(M); Ex. 1(G)(N); Ex.

1(G)(O), Ex. 1(H)(R)(C); Ex.

H, pp. 2,3, ¶¶ 5,6; Exhibit

B, p. 1, ¶ 2; Ex. 1(B)(O), pp.

60-74 " Juggernaut Eval" re

Flynn; Ex. 1, 5:5-7:7; Ex. G,

p. 9, ¶ 14; Exhibit 2, p. 1, ¶

2, pp. 3,4,5 ¶8, ¶11; Exhibit

2-O, pp. 6, ¶ 6, 12; Ex. 7,

p. 4, ¶16; Ex. 1(H)CC);Ex.

1(A)(A), at 5:3-19; 7:9-12:9;

Appendix thereto, pp. 1-15;

Ex. 1(C); Exhibit 1(A)(L), at

p. 5, ¶ 6;.

H. Armstrong's careful

weighing of his options at the

time of the "settlement"

reflects the duress he was

under. It is not reflective

of an absence of duress.

Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 9:14-16.

2. Armstrong received a

portion of a total sum paid to

his attorney, Michael Flynn,

in settlement of all claims of

Mr. Flynn's clients.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

Complaint ¶13; Answer, ¶13;

Request for Judicial Notice,

Exhibit C, Order Granting

Summary Adjudication of the

Fourth and Sixth Causes of

Action; Exhibit 1A, Mutual

Release of All Claims and

Settlement Agreement, ¶3.

2. Disputed. The total sum

paid to Flynn was additionally

in consideration of settlement

of all of Flynn's personal

claims.

Defendant's Evidence

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1C(B).

3. Armstrong received

approximately $800,000.00 from

Michael Flynn as his portion

of the total settlement sum

paid by CSI to Mr. Flynn for

Flynn's settling clients.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

3. Exhibit 1C, Declaration

of Graham Berry, and Exhibit B

thereto; Exhibit 1D Marin

Independent Journal, November

11, 1992, article entitled,

"Is Money The Root of Our

Problems?"

3. Undisputed, but

irrelevant. Scientology did

not know how much Armstrong

was receiving. As far as

Scientology knew, it could

have been $0.00, it could have

been all of the funds

Scientology paid to Flynn, or

any monetary figure in

between.

Defendant's Evidence

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1A, p. 2,

¶3; Plaintiff's Exhibit 1C,

Exhibit B.

4. On January 27, 1995, this

Court found that Armstrong had

entered into the Agreement

voluntarily, without duress,

and that the liquidated

damages provision contained in

paragraph 7(d) of the

Agreement was valid.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

4. Request for Judicial

Notice, Exhibit C, Order

Granting Summary Adjudication

of the Fourth and Sixth Causes

of Action.

4. Disputed. On January 27

this Court stated as follows:

"As to all causes of action,

defendant fails to

raise a triable issue as to

whether the liquidated damages

provision is invalid.

Defendant relies on the law as

it existed prior to July 1,

1978. (See United Sav. & Loan

Assn. v. Reeder Dev. Corp.

(1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 282 and

earlier versions of Civ. Code

§;§;1670 and 1671.) The law

now presumes that liquidated

damages provisions are "valid

unless the party seeking to

invalidate the provision

establishes that the provision

was unreasonable under the

circumstances existing at the

time the contract was made."

Civ. Code, §; 1671, Subd.(b).)

Defendant's evidence is not

sufficient to raise a triable

issue in that regard.

Although defendant states in

his declaration that he was

not involved in negotiating

the provision (See D's Ex. 1,

¶12), he goes on to state that

he discussed the provision

with two attorneys before

signing the agreement. (Id.,

¶¶12-13.) Thus he clearly

knew of the provision yet

chose to sign it. He has not

shown that he had unequal

bargaining power or that he

made any efforts to bargain or

negotiate with respect to the

provision. (See H.S. Perlin

Co. v. Morse Signals Devices

(1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1289.)

Defendant next states that

plaintiff's actual damages are

zero. (D's Ex. 1, ¶12.)

However, "the amount of

damages actually suffered has

no bearing on the validity of

the liquidated damages

provision..." (See Law

Revision Commission comment to

§; 1671.) Finally defendant

points to the fact that other

settlement agreements contain

a $10,000 liquidated damages

provision. (See D's Exs. 2C

and 2D.) This alone is not

sufficient to raise a triable

issue in that defendant has

not shown that circumstances

did not change between 12/86

and 4/87 and that those

settling parties stand in the

same or similar position to

defendant (i.e., that they

were as high up in the

organization and could cause

as much damage by speaking out

against plaintiff or that they

have/had access to as much

information as defendant.)

"Defendant has not raised a

triable issue regarding

duress. Defendant's own

declaration shows that he

carefully weighed his options.

(See D's Ex. 1, ¶10.) It

certainly does not show that

he did something against his

will or had no reasonable

alternative to succumbing."

(See In Re Marriage of Baltins

(1989) 212 Cal. App. 3D 66,

84.) In addition, Defendant

is relying on the conduct of a

third party (Flynn) to

establish duress, yet he sets

forth no fact or evidence in

his separate statement showing

that plaintiff had reason to

know of the duress. See

Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53

Cal.2d 195, 206"

Defendant's Evidence

Plaintiff's Request for

Judicial Notice, Exhibit C.

5. On November 6, 1992,

Armstrong gave a videotaped

interview to Sylvia "Spanky"

Taylor and Jerry Whitfield, in

which he discussed his alleged

Scientology knowledge and

experiences for 95 minutes.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

5. Videotape, Exhibit 1TT to

Separate Statement in Support

of Motion for Summary

Adjudication of Twentieth

Cause of Action, separately

lodged; Transcript of Video,

Exhibit 1E.

6. The venue for Armstrong's

taped interview was a Los

Angeles hotel in which the

Cult Awareness Network ("CAN")

was holding its annual

meeting.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

6. Deposition of Gerald

Armstrong, Vol V, 598:6-

600:15, Exhibit 1F.

7. During the course of

Armstrong's 95 minutes

interview, Whitfield explained

his purpose in making the

videotape to be the following:

MR. WHITFIELD:
The reason I'm
saying this, it's
very difficult for
somebody in
Scientology to
conceive that the
great L. Ron
Hubbard, whom you
have never met but
have only heard
these wonderful
things about, to
even perceive or
comprehend that this
might have been --
this might have
occurred with this
man. How can this
man be human? And
he's not human.
He's L. Ron Hubbard.
So the reason that
we are doing this
interview is so that
other people can
know. It's very
easy for a non-
Scientologist to
understand those
things. It's very
difficult for a
Scientologist,
because
Scientologists don't
get the type of
information that
non-Scientologists
get.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

7. Videotape, Exhibit 1TT,

Separately lodged: Exhibit 1E,

p. 9.

8. During the interview,

Taylor and Armstrong had the

following exchange:

TAYLOR: We're
here with Gerry
Armstrong on the 6th
of November, 1992.
Hi, Gerry.

ARMSTRONG: Hi,
Spanky.

TAYLOR:
Basically , what
we're doing here is
I want to find out a
little bit about
your Scientology
experience, or, more
than a little bit --
as much as we can,
starting from when
you got involved.

ARMSTRONG:
O.K.

TAYLOR: So,
tell me about that
first.

TAYLOR: I got
involved in 1969 in
Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada.
And . . . I spent a
year and a half . . . .

Armstrong then proceeded to

describe his claimed

Scientology history in detail

for 95 minutes, breaking to

attend sessions of the CAN

convention which was

proceeding in the hotel

conference rooms.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

8. Videotape, Exhibit 1TT,

separately lodged; Transcript,

Exhibit 1E; deposition of

Sylvia Taylor, 152:9-155:19,

Exhibit U.

During the interview,

Armstrong stated:

They brought a
lawsuit to attempt
to enforce the
settlement
agreement. Out of
it . . . in May of
this last year,
there was a hearing
here in Los Angeles,
in Superior Court,
in front Judge
Sohigian. The
organization claims
that they got a
great big win out of
it and that I am
enjoined pursuant to
the settlement
agreement. Not
true! The judge
specifically said
that he would not
enforce the
settlement agreement
other than one very
narrow issue. The
very narrow issue is
that I cannot except
pursuant to a
subpoena, assist
someone intending to
file a claim or
pressing a claim
against the
organization. Now
then we are
appealing even that
narrow ruling,
because that's
unenforceable
because if you
construe that my . .
. .that this video
could possibly
indirectly help

someone in the
future, I can't do
this. . . . .

* * *

It's unenforceable
hence I feel that I
am completely at
liberty to associate
with whomever I
want, to talk to
whomever I want, and
I act in life that
way. And that is in
part why I am here
at this event now,
why I came to the
CAN conference.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

9. Videotape, Exhibit 1TT,

lodged separately; Transcript

Exhibit 1E.

9A. Armstrong attended the

1992 CAN Conference because

this is a group a people who

share a common experience with

him of either abuse by a

dangerous cult or having a

family member ensnared in or

abused by a dangerous cult.

He depends on people such as

CAN members for psychological

support and for defense.

Armstrong supports CAN in its

9A. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 11:5-12-1; Exhibit

10(A), videotape of Armstrong

taken by Ingram, lodged

separately.

purposes of educating the

public about dangerous cults

and in its defense from those

cults such as Scientology

which seek to keep the public

uneducated about their

destructive practices and

natures. When he arrived at

the conference he observed

Eugene Ingram and a bunch of

Scientologists harassing,

taunting and videotaping CAN

conferees. Armstrong observed

Scientologists agents verbally

abuse the conferees, calling

them, for example, kidnappers

and criminals. Ingram taunted

Armstrong, accused him of

having AIDS, said Armstrong

looked like he was dying of

AIDS, said someone in his

attorney Ford Greene's family

had AIDS, insinuating in his

statement that Mr. Greene and

Armstrong were involved in

homosexual sex. This is part

of Scientology's "black

propaganda" campaign discussed

by former Scientology

operative Garry Scarrf in his

declaration executed February

11, 1993 and filed in this

case. Armstrong was shocked

by Ingram's and Scientology's

attacks on him and on the

other innocent conferees, and

it was largely because of

these attacks that he

determined to do whatever he

could when called upon to

oppose and expose

Scientology's dangerous

practices and defend people

from those dangerous

practices. Thus he gave an

interview. Armstrong did not

come to the CAN Conference to

harass Ingram and Scientology;

they came to the conference to

harass him and his friends.

ISSUE NUMBER II:

Scientology's Claim: CSI is entitled to summary

adjudication of the Sixteenth Cause of Action because there is no

dispute that the parties entered into a written agreement, that

the Church performed all of its obligations pursuant to the

agreement, that Armstrong breached the agreement by providing

interviews to Charles Fleming, a reporter for Newsweek magazine,

in which he discussed his claimed Scientology knowledge and

experiences, and that the Church is entitled to liquidated damages

of $50,000.00 for this breach.

CSI Incorporates herein Undisputed Facts and Evidentiary

Support nos. 1 to 4, supra.

PLAINTIFF CSI'S MATERIAL FACTS

AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANT ARMSTRONG'S MATERIAL

FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

10. In June, 1993, Armstrong

gave an interview concerning

his claimed Scientology

knowledge and experiences to

Charles Fleming, a reporter

for Newsweek magazine.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

10. " Scientology in the

Schools," Newsweek, June 14,

1993, Exhibit 1G; Armstrong

Depo., Vol. VI, pp. 736-737,

Exhibit IH.

11. According to Mr.

Fleming's article, Armstrong

said, inter alia, that the

founder of the Scientology

religion, L. Ron Hubbard,

wanted "rich Scientologists to

buy huge quantities of this

book for distribution. He

wanted to go down in history

as a scientist or a

philosopher or both."

Plaintiff's Evidence:

11. Newsweek article, Exhibit

1G.

12. In or about June, 1993,

Armstrong spoke to Mr.

Fleming, about Larry

Wollersheim's case against the

Church of Scientology of

California, and attempted to

interest him in reporting on

that matter.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

12. Armstrong letter to

Goldowitz, June 30, 1993,

Exhibit 1I.

13. In or about August, 1993,

Armstrong sent Mr. Fleming a

letter to which he attached

several documents detailing

his claimed Scientology

knowledge and experiences,

urging Mr. Fleming to write

about Armstrong's litigation

13. Disputed. The documents

sent by Armstrong to Mr.

Fleming were Scientology's own

complaints against him. The

details of Armstrong's

knowledge and experiences

about Scientology in these

documents were written by

with CSI.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

13. Armstrong letter to

Fleming, August 20, 1993,

Exhibit 1J.

Scientology itself. The cases

in which Scientology has sued

Armstrong are in open court.

He is not barred from sending

any document filed in these

cases to anyone in the world.

He is not barred from talking

to the media about his cases.

Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, at 12:2-13;

Plaintiff's Evidence, Exhibit

1J, Armstrong letter to Fleming.

ADDITIONAL DISPUTED FACTS (RE SCIENTOLOGY'S ISSUE NO. II)

13A. All of what Armstrong

told Mr. Fleming of Newsweek

about the Wollersheim case he

learned after December, 1986.

Even by the "settlement

contract" Armstrong is not

barred from discussing any

knowledge he learned about

Scientology after the

"settlement."

13A. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 12:23-13: 2.

13B. Armstrong believes that

he is not and cannot be barred

13B. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 14:1-15: 6; Ex. 1,

from discussing broad and

important public issues

involving Scientology such as

its efforts to infiltrate L.

Ron Hubbard's booklet "The Way

to Happiness" into public

schools. Armstrong views

Scientology's efforts as

covert and dangerous and

should be opposed by anyone

who knows anything about this

organization. Armstrong knows

that inside Scientology "The

Way to Happiness" is part of

its " scriptures," its "mental

technology." Armstrong

knows that outside Scientology, the

organization calls the booklet

"non-religious." Armstrong

knows that it is used as a

vehicle to get people

interested in Scientology,

which claims to be a

"religion." Armstrong knows

that Scientology employs a

similar bait and switch with

his fellow Christians.

Scientology promotes that it

is compatible with

2:22-28, 25:15-26:24; Exhibit

2, Declaration of Hana

Whitfield in Opposition to

Motions for Summary

Adjudication of 20th Cause of

Action; and 13th, 16th, 17th &

19th Causes of Action of

Second Amended Complaint, and

Authenticating Exhibits,

executed April 6, 1995, 12:23-

16:21; Exhibit 2(B), "Routine

3 Heaven" Scientology Bulletin

by L. Ron Hubbard dated May

11, 1963; Exhibit 2(C),

"Resistive Cases Former

Therapy" Scientology Bulletin

by L. Ron Hubbard dated

September 23, 1968; Exhibit 3,

Declaration of Dennis Erlich

in Opposition to Motions for

Summary Adjudication of 20th

Cause of Action; and 13th,

16th, 17th & 19th Causes of

Action of Second Amended

Complaint, and Authenticating

Exhibits, executed April 6,

1995, 1:19-2:16; Exhibit 4,

Declaration of Margery

Wakefield in Opposition to

Christianity and

" Scientologists hold the Bible

as a holy work and have no

argument with the Christian

belief that Jesus Christ was

the Savior of Mankind and the

Son of God." In its core,

however, Scientology teaches

that Christ and God are

"implants, " false ideas

installed in humans millions

of years ago by pain and

electronics to enslave

mankind. Armstrong, a

Christian, views it as

completely unfair and

dishonest that Scientology's

" scriptures" (Way to

Happiness) are covertly

infiltrated into the public

schools as "non-religious," to

act as recruiting devices for

the anti-Christian Scientology

cult, whereas the scriptures

of openly religious Christians

are barred from public

classrooms. Religion in

public schools and the

separation of church and state

Motions for Summary

Adjudication of 20th Cause of

Action; and 13th, 16th, 17th &

19th Causes of Action of

Second Amended Complaint, and

Authenticating Exhibits,

executed April 7, 1995;

Exhibit 4 (A), Paper, "What

Christians Need to Know About

Scientology" by Margery

Wakefield.

are current and important

public issues, and Armstrong

believes he cannot be denied

the right to enter into

discussions, studies and

reports on such issues.

Armstrong has a duty as a

Christian and citizen to

oppose Scientology's

duplicitous efforts to subvert

the school system and ensnare

the country's youth.

Armstrong knows that

Scientology promotes that its

mental technology raises IQ a

point per hour of "auditing."

Armstrong sees that not only

does not, but it makes its

adherents actually less

intelligent, as well as more

aggressive and antisocial.

ISSUE NUMBER III:

Scientology's Claim: CSI is entitled to summary

adjudication of the Seventeenth Cause of Action because there is

no dispute that the parties entered into a written agreement, that

the Church performed all of its obligations pursuant to the

agreement, that Armstrong breached the agreement by providing

interviews and comments to E!TV, in which he discussed his claimed

Scientology knowledge and experiences, and that the Church is

entitled to liquidated damaged of $50,000.00 for this breach.

CSI Incorporates herein Undisputed Facts and Evidentiary

Support nos. 1 to 4, supra.

PLAINTIFF CSI'S MATERIAL FACTS

AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANT ARMSTRONG'S MATERIAL

FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

14. In August, 1993,

Armstrong was interviewed by

E! TV reporters concerning his

claimed Scientology knowledge

and experiences.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

14. Portions of E! TV

segment, Exhibit 1K; Portions

of Transcript of E! TV

segment, Exhibit 1L.

15. During the interview with

E! TV reporters, Armstrong

discussed his claimed

Scientology knowledge and

experiences, asserting that he

had difficulty leaving

Scientology, that the Church

had a policy called "fair

game," that the instant

lawsuit was improper, and the

Agreement was illegal.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

15. Portions of E! TV

segment, Exhibit 1K; Portions

of Transcript of E! TV

segments, Exhibit 1L.

16. Armstrong also gave E! TV

a copy of a manuscript

entitled " One Hell of A

Story." Armstrong claims that

this manuscript is a treatment

for a screenplay which details

his claimed Scientology

experiences.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

16. Portions of E! TV

segment, Exhibit 1K; Portions

of Transcript of E! TV

segments Exhibit 1L; Armstrong

letter to Wollersheim, Exhibit

1M; Armstrong Depo., Vol. VII,

875-876, Exhibit 1N.

ADDITIONAL DISPUTED FACTS (RE SCIENTOLOGY'S ISSUE NO. III)

16A. By August 1993, when

Armstrong was interviewed on

E!TV, Scientology had sued him

16A. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 16:4-17: 3.

three times based on false

allegations, including false

statements about his pre-

settlement history, and had

published and disseminated

"dead agent" packs about him

and his history, and "black

propaganda" (Hubbard's term

for lies intended to destroy

someone's reputation) about

him, which included false

and/or perverse ad hominem

attacks. These attacks

include, but are not limited

to, e.g., that Armstrong is an

agent provocateur of the US

government; that he committed

perjury; that he posed nude in

a newspaper; that his defense

in his 1984 trial was a sham

and a fraud; that the LAPD

authorized [Scientology's]

illegal videotaping of him;

that he wanted to plant

fabricated documents in

Scientology files and tell the

IRS to conduct a raid; that he

wanted to plunder Scientology;

that his motives in writing

attorney Eric Lieberman

regarding the Nothling case

were money and power; that he

was incompetent as a

researcher on the Hubbard

biography project; that he

wanted to orchestrate a coup

in which members of the US

Government would wrest control

of Scientology; that he was

formerly a heavy drug user;

that he was paid to provide

homosexual sex; and that he

had AIDS. None of these

charges relate to his alleged

breaching of Scientology's

evil " contract," but were

personal attacks on his

character and history, to

which he is not barred by the

" contract" from responding.

Scientology was also during

that period attempting to have

him jailed on false contempt

of court charges. Armstrong

wrote the treatment for a

movie to be done about his

Scientology history to clear

his name in the most profound

manner he could, and he agreed

to the E!TV interview for the

same purpose.

ISSUE NUMBER III:

Scientology's Claim: CSI is entitled to summary

adjudication of the Nineteenth Cause of Action because there is no

dispute that the parties entered into a written agreement, that

the Church performed all of its obligations pursuant to the

agreement, that Armstrong breached the agreement by providing

declarations to Graham Berry, counsel for Uwe Geertz, in which he

discussed his claimed Scientology knowledge and experiences, and

that the Church is entitled to liquidated damaged of $50,000.00

for this breach.

CSI Incorporates herein Undisputed Facts and Evidentiary

Support nos. 1 to 4, supra.

PLAINTIFF CSI'S MATERIAL FACTS

AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANT ARMSTRONG'S MATERIAL

FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Steven Fishman and Uwe

Geertz are defendants in an

action brought by the Church

of Scientology International

for defamation.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

17. Request for Judicial

Notice, Exhibit F, Complaint,

Church of Scientology

International v. Steven

Fishman, etc al., United

States District Court for the

Central District of

California, Case No. 91-6426

HLH (Tx).

18. In or about August 1992,

Armstrong agreed to be an

"expert" witness for Fishman

and Geertz concerning his

claimed Scientology knowledge

and experiences.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

18. Defendant's list of

Proposed Witnesses, Exhibit

10; Defendant Uwe Geertz,

Plaintiff's Brief Narrative

Statements Regarding Expected

Testimony of Expert Witnesses,

Exhibit 1P.

19. In or about January,

1994, Armstrong spoke multiple

times with Geertz's counsel,

Graham Berry, concerning his

claimed Scientology knowledge

and experiences.

19. Disputed.

Armstrong stated in the

deposition excerpt Scientology

cites: "I don't think beyond,

very generally, if at all,

that is, if it was discussed

Plaintiff's Evidence:

19. Armstrong Depo., Vol. VI-

A, 782-789, Vol. VIII, 1057-

1059, Exhibit 1Q.

at all, whether the specifics

of what I would testify to go

into, but I think that Mr.

Berry's understanding of my

history, and my present

involvement in litigation, and

what I've said about myself,

and my areas of expertise are

pretty well known and

accepted."

Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 18:10-20; Plaintiff's

Exhibit 1Q at 788:13-20.

20. Geertz attorney asked

Armstrong for help in

identifying other potential

witnesses interested in making

derogatory statements about

Scientology. Armstrong sent

Berry a letter describing the

claims made by several other

active anti-Scientologists.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

20. Armstrong Depo., Vol.

VIII, 1057-1059, Exhibit 1Q;

Armstrong letter to Graham

Berry, Exhibit 1R.

20. Disputed.

Nowhere in the deposition

excerpt Scientology cites is

there any mention by Armstrong

of being asked by anyone to

identify potential witnesses

interested in making

derogatory statements about

anything.

Defendant's Evidence

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1Q.

21. In 1994, Armstrong met

with Berry and a group of

other anti-Scientology

litigants and would-be

witnesses, at Berry's office,

wherein all discussed

Scientology, their claimed

knowledge and experiences, and

the Fishman case.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

21. Armstrong Depo., Vol. VI-

A, 782-789, Exhibit 1Q.

21. Disputed.

Armstrong met with no anti-

Scientology litigants and

would-be witnesses at Berry's

office. He met with three

anti-"fair game" individuals

who are honest-to-God

witnesses. Nowhere in the

deposition excerpt cited to by

Scientology is there any

statement that they discussed

their claimed knowledge and

experiences. Armstrong stated

in deposition that the

substance of the conversation

at Mr. Berry's office

" principally concerned the

Fishman case, and that around

that time Scientology had

either dismissed the case or

found something to dismiss the

case or it was in that stage

toward the end of the

litigation. And the

communications -- the only

ones which stand out were on

that subject....There was a

dismissal in progress .... and

my recollection was that we

communicated about that during

the brief time I was there for

lunch."

Defendant's Evidence

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1Q, 784:7-

785:13.

22. In February and April,

1994, Armstrong furnished

Berry with two declarations

describing his claimed

Scientology knowledge and

experiences, one of which was

filed in the Fishman case in

February, 1994.

Plaintiff's Evidence:

22. Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong dated February 22,

1994, Exhibit 1S; Declaration

of Gerald Armstrong dated

April 21, 1994, Exhibit 1T;

Armstrong Depo., Vol. VII,

798-801, Vol. III, 1045-1046,

Exhibit 1Q.

ADDITIONAL DISPUTED FACTS (RE SCIENTOLOGY'S ISSUE NO. IV)

23. Armstrong's being an

expert witness in the Fishman

23. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 17:18-18: 9;

case is allowed by the

preliminary injunction issued

by Judge Ronald Sohigian in

this case in May, 1992. Where

Scientology required by its

"contract" that Armstrong

avoid service of subpoenas,

Judge Sohigian permits him to

be reasonably available for

such service. Where

Scientology's "contract"

required that Armstrong not

assist or cooperate with any

person adverse to Scientology

in any proceeding and not

cooperate in any manner with

any organization aligned

against Scientology, Judge

Sohigian permitted him to

assist any organization in any

manner and any person

defending against Scientology

in any manner; and he required

only that Armstrong not assist

persons prosecuting or

intending to prosecute claims

against Scientology, unless

pursuant to subpoena. Steven

Fishman and Uwe Geertz were

Scientology's request for

judicial notice in support of

motion for summary

adjudication of the 20th cause

of action of plaintiff's

second amended complaint,

Exhibit P, Minute Order, at p.

2.

defendants against

Scientology, not claimants.

Armstrong would have made

himself available for service

of subpoena before he assisted

any claimant.

24. Graham Berry is a

specialist expert attorney in

Scientology litigation. He is

one of Scientology's major

"fair game" targets. He has

represented several people

against the Scientology

organization. He also

represented Joseph A. Yanny as

intervenor and amicus curiae

in this case.

24. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 18:20-25;

Scientology's Evidence Exhibit

1C, declaration of Graham E.

Berry to all evidence filed

herein May 7, 1992.

25. Graham Berry knows

Armstrong's history and areas

of Scientology expertise in

such detail Armstrong has not

had to tell him anything for

him to know what Armstrong

would testify about as an

expert; and Armstrong did not

personally provide Mr. Berry

25. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 18:28-19: 4;

Scientology's Exhibit 1P.

with any of the information he

included in his brief

narrative regarding

Armstrong's expected

testimony.

26. Armstrong's January 27,

1994 letter to Graham Berry,

contains none of his

experiences in Scientology or

knowledge gained in

Scientology.

27. Armstrong's declarations

of February 22, 1994 and April

24, 1994 are in direct

response to post-"settlement"

actions taken by Scientology

concerning him and his

history.

27. Defendant's Evidence
Ex. 10, 20:28-21:8; Exhibit

1(O), Declaration of David

Miscavige, executed February

8, 1994 and filed in

Scientology v. Steven Fishman,

supra at 31:22-32:14.

28. Armstrong's February 22,

1994 declaration was in direct

response to perjurious

statements made about his

history by Scientology supreme

commander David Miscavige in

Miscavige's declaration

executed February 8, 1994 and

28. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 21:21-26; Ex. 1(P),

31:22-32:14.

filed in Fishman.

29. Armstrong had not filed

anything or made any statement

in the Fishman case before

Miscavige made his statements

about Armstrong and his

history.

29. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 21:26-28.

30. Miscavige states in his

declaration that "In a police-

sanctioned investigation,

Gerry Armstrong was captured

on video tape acknowledging

his real motives, namely a

plot to overthrow the Church

leadership and gain control of

the Church."

30. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 21:28-22: 2; Ex. 1(P),

31:28-32:3.

31. There was no "police-

sanctioned investigation."

Miscavige's organization and

its head private investigator

Eugene Ingram, who works

directly for Miscavige, paid a

corrupted Los Angeles Police

Department officer to sign a

phony "authorization." When

the fact of the phony

31. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 22:3-27; Scientology's

Evidence, Exhibit S,

Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong executed February

22, 1994, and Exhibits

thereto: Ex. S(B), "Find a

Better Basket; "Ex. S(C),

"Authorization" to wiretap and

eavesdrop upon Gerry Armstrong

authorization and illegal

videotaping surfaced, LAPD

Chief Daryl Gates issued a

public announcement which

stated:

"It has come to my

attention that a

member of the

L.A.P.D. very

foolishly, without

proper authorization

and contrary to the

policy of this

Department, signed a

letter to Eugene M.

Ingram, believed to

have been drafted by

Ingram himself. The

letter purports to

authorize Ingram to

engage in electronic

eavesdropping. The

letter along with

all the purported

authorization, is

invalid and is NOT

from the Los Angeles

Police Department.

The Los Angeles

and Michael Flynn from LAPD

Officer Phillip Rodriguez to

Eugene Ingram; Ex. S(D),

Public Announcement of LAPD

Chief Daryl Gates.

Police Department

has not cooperated

with Eugene Ingram.

It will be a cold

day in hell when we

do.

I have directed an

official letter to

Ingram informing him

that the letter

signed by Officer

Phillip Rodriguez

dated November 7,

1984, and all other

letters of purported

authorizations

directed to him,

signed by any member

of the Los Angeles

Police Department

are invalid and

unauthorized."

 

32. Chief Gates' public

announcement has been filed in

many Scientology cases, all of

which Miscavige oversees and

directs.

32. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 22:28.

33. Miscavige's calling the

illegal videotape operation,

which he also oversaw and

directed, "police-sanctioned,"

is perjury. The rest of his

statements about Armstrong,

the Breckenridge decision and

Armstrong's history are

likewise false.

33. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 22:28-23: 3;

Scientology's Evidence, Ex. S,

Ex. S(B), Ex. S(C), Ex. S(D).

34. Armstrong had every right

to respond to Miscavige's

false statements because they

occurred after the 1986

"settlement," and Armstrong is

not barred from responding to

post-"settlement" statements.

34. Defendant's Evidence
Ex. 10, 23:3-6; Scientology's

Evidence, Exhibit A.

35. Armstrong also had every

right to respond because

Miscavige's statements are

perjurious and Armstrong is

specifically permitted by the

Sohigian order to report such

criminal activity.

35. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 23:6-9;

Scientology's request for

judicial notice in support of

motion for summary

adjudication of the 20th cause

of action of plaintiff's

second amended complaint,

exhibit P.

Miscavige considered his

statements about him so

indispensable in Miscavige's

prosecution of the Fishman

case that he was willing to

commit perjury to get them

before the Court. Armstrong

sees that his statements to

provide the truth correcting

Miscavige's perjury can be no

less indispensable in the

case. Armstrong views it as

unfair, unamerican and

obstructive of justice to bind

someone with a contract by

which he is unable to respond

to false charges made about

him in our courts of law.

Armstrong considers it an

outrage that the perjurer,

Miscavige, who operates all

Scientology litigation, now

presses this Court to rip

Armstrong for $50,000 for

telling the truth.

37. After Armstrong's

February 22, 1994 declaration

was filed in Fishman,

37. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 23:19-21;

Scientology's evidence, Ex. T.

Scientology sought to have the

declaration sealed. Thus

Armstrong wrote his April 24,

1994 declaration opposing the

sealing.

38. Armstrong sees the goals

of Scientology's efforts to

seal files and documents such

as his declarations are to

generate confusion, give

Scientology unwarranted

opportunities to bring charges

against its enemies, and to

rewrite its criminal and

antisocial history. Armstrong

sees that these goals add up

to obstruction of justice.

38. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 23:21-26; Exhibit

1(E), Gerald Armstrong's

Opposition to Motion to Seal

Record on Appeal, filed

October 15, 1991 in

Scientology v. Armstrong, Case

No. B 025920, B 038975, pp. 5-

25.

39. Armstrong believes that

he had a right to oppose

Scientology's effort to seal

his declaration for his own

defense; and that he had a

right, as permitted by the

Sohigian order, to report

Scientology's criminal

activities; i.e., its

obstruction of justice.

39. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 23:26-28;

Scientology's request for

judicial notice in support of

motion for summary

adjudication of the 20th cause

of action of plaintiff's

second amended complaint,

Exhibit P.

40. Armstrong sees that the

authority to whom such

activities should be reported

in that context was the

Federal Court Judge presiding

over the Fishman case; and

that is what Armstrong did

through his April 24, 1994

declaration.

40. Defendant's Evidence

Ex. 10, 23:28-24: 3.

ADDITIONAL DISPUTED FACTS (APPLICABLE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION)

Armstrong's Claim: Scientology is not entitled to summary

adjudication of the Thirteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth and

Nineteenth Causes of Action because: 1. The liquidated damages

provision was unreasonable under the circumstances existing at the

time the "contract" was made; 2. Scientology had a completely

overwhelming bargaining power at the time of the "settlement;" 3.

Scientology's calculation of the liquidated damages is

unfathomable; 4. Scientology obtained Armstrong's signature on the

subject settlement document by duress; 5. Scientology obtained

Armstrong's signature on the subject settlement document by fraud;

6. the settlement agreement is unfair, unreasonable,

unconscionable and cannot be specifically performed; 7.

Scientology's hands are unclean in this transaction and

Scientology is therefore barred from obtaining the relief it

seeks; 8. the settlement agreement and Scientology's enforcement

thereof are obstructive of justice; 9. all of Armstrong's

experiences concerning which Scientology seeks to silence him are

religious in nature and the silencing of the expression of such

experiences by court order is completely barred by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution; 10. all of

Armstrong's activities which Scientology claims are violations of

the subject agreement are religiously motivated and completely

protected by the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act of 1993; and, 11. before Armstrong made the video

at the CAN Convention in which he discussed his experiences,

before Armstrong communicated to Newsweek, before Armstrong was

interviewed on E!TV, and before he communicated with attorney

Graham Berry and anyone else about the Fishman case, Scientology

had subjected him to post-"settlement "fair game," attacked him,

put him in danger, and published its own version of his

experiences to which he was not barred in any way from responding.

ARMSTRONG'S ISSUE NO. I

Armstrong's Claim: The liquidated damages provision was

unreasonable under the circumstances existing at the time the

contract was made.

Armstrong incorporates herein his Disputed Facts, Additional

Facts and Evidentiary Support Nos. 1-40, supra.

41. Armstrong had been the

target of Scientology's "fair

game" attacks since 1982.

41. Ex. 1(A)(A)hibit 1-A,

Appendix pp. 13-15; Ex. 1(C)

at 920, 921, 925. Armstrong

specifically repeats and

includes herein his facts and

evidence in Nos. 1A-1H,

supra.

42. Armstrong had not

subjected Scientology to "fair

game," and did not have a

policy or practice of "fair

game."

43. Scientology had

contracted with Armstrong's

attorney, Michael Flynn, to

not represent him or defend

him in the event Scientology

continued to attack Armstrong;

which it did.

43. Ex. 10, 2:8-11; Exhibit

1(S), Ex parte application to

continue hearing on motions

for summary adjudication and

declaration thereto executed

April 7, 1995, at 4:26-6:23.

44. The liquidated damages

provision applied to over

seventeen years of Armstrong's

life, about which it was

impossible for him to be

silent. On its face the

"settlement contract," does

not " permit" Armstrong to

communicate his experiences to

a doctor, lawyer, girlfriend,

counselor, minister, or any

agency of the government; or

face a $50,000 penalty.

44. Ex. 10, 2:12-25;

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1A.