Gerry Armstrong--Transcript of Proceedings 10-06-1995

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

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

BEFORE THE HONORABLE GARY W. THOMAS

---ooo---

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL,

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

GERALD ARMSTRONG, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS

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

NO. 157680

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1995

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

ANDREW H. WILSON
WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO 115 SANSOME STREET
FOURTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

LAURIE J. BARTILSON
MOXON & BARTILSON
6255 SUNSET BOULEVARD
SUITE 2000
HOLLYWOOD, CA 90028

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

FORD GREENE
711 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
BOULEVARD
SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960

REPORTED BY:
ELAINE PASSARIS, C.S.R.
CERTIFICATE NO. 2948

---ooo---

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1995

MORNING SESSION

P R O C E E D I N G S

--000--

THE COURT: WE DO HAVE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

VERSUS GERALD ARMSTRONG.

MR. WILSON: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ANDREW

WILSON AND LAURIE BARTILSON ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF AND

MOVING PARTY, THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY.

MR. GREENE: AND FORD GREENE ON BEHALF OF

DEFENDANT, GERALD ARMSTRONG. IT WAS AT MY REQUEST THAT THIS

HEARING IS BEING HELD.

THE COURT: YES. MR. GREENE, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO

SAY?

MR. GREENE: FIRST, YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO

YOUR TENTATIVE RULING, I WANT TO DIRECT MY ARGUMENT TO YOUR

HOLDING THAT THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY ARMSTRONG DO NOT

ESTABLISH A MUTUAL CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENT.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COURT OF THE SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT AS REFLECTED BY THE TENTATIVE RULING WOULD HAVE

THE RESULT THAT SCIENTOLOGY COULD PUBLICLY ACCUSE

MR. ARMSTRONG OF BEING A LIAR, A PERJUROR AND AN AGENT

PROVOCATEUR OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THAT IF ARMSTRONG

TOOK ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE THAT THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT HE

WOULD VIOLATE THE PROPOSED PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND WOULD BE

SUBJECT TO BEING JAILED FOR CONTEMPT OF A COURT ORDER.

WHAT THE COURT HAS MISSED IN THE TENTATIVE RULING

IS THE EVIDENCE THAT ARMSTRONG HAS SUBMITTED FROM

SCIENTOLOGY'S OWN COUNSEL, LAWRENCE HELLER, WHO THE COURT

WILL RECALL WAS THE LAWYER WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE SIGNING OF

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND HELLER'S OWN SWORN TESTIMONY

AS SET FORTH IN SEPARATE FACTS 101 AND 102, WHICH THE COURT

DID NOT ADDRESS AND DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE TENTATIVE RULING,

STATES THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS WERE MUTUAL, THAT

THEY WERE INSISTED UPON BY ALL PARTIES, AND THAT THEY

PERTAINED NOT ONLY TO ANY INFORMATION THAT THE FORMER

SCIENTOLOGY OFFICIAL POSSESSED WITH RESPECT TO THAT

ORGANIZATION, BUT IT ALSO PERTAINED -- THE CONFIDENTIALITY

PROVISION PERTAINED WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION HELD BY

SCIENTOLOGY AS TO ITS FORMER PARISHIONER OR FORMER OFFICIAL.

THAT SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT UNDER

THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITH RESPECT TO A 437(C) MOTION TO

RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT.

WHAT THE COURT HAS DONE BASED ON THE TENTATIVE

RULING HAS BEEN SOLELY TO BASE ITS ANALYSIS ON THE FOUR

CORNERS OF THE DOCUMENT AND HAS NOT LOOKED AT ALL TO WHAT

THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE WHICH SURROUNDED THE PARTIES ENTERING

INTO THE AGREEMENT, AND ALSO HAS NOT LOOKED AT THE CONDUCT

OF THE PARTIES SUBSEQUENT TO THE AGREEMENT, AND THE

AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT IS -- THAT IS

AUTOMOBILE SALES VERSUS EAST BAY MOTOR CAR DEALERS, 10

CAL.APP.3RD 419.

BASICALLY WHAT THAT TALKS ABOUT IS EVEN IF THE

LANGUAGE IN A PARTICULAR AGREEMENT APPEARS ON ITS FACE

CLEAR, WHICH WE --

THE COURT: NOW, MR. GREENE, THE STATEMENT BY

ARMSTRONG IN HIS DECLARATION, FACT ONE-H, SAYING MY CAREFUL

WEIGHING OF MY OPTIONS, THIS IS HIS WORDS, IN FACT REFLECTS

THE DURESS I WAS UNDER TO SIGN AND IS NOT REFLECTIVE OF AN

ABSENCE OF DURESS --

MR. GREENE: THAT'S A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT.

THE COURT: -- DOUBLE SPEAK --

MR. GREENE: THAT'S A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. I'M

NOT ADDRESSING MYSELF TO THE DURESS ARGUMENT. I'M NOT

ADDRESSING MYSELF TO THE ARGUMENT OF ALL OF THE KINDS OF

CONDUCT THAT ARMSTRONG --

THE COURT: CAREFUL WEIGHING OF OPTIONS --

MR. GREENE: I UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: -- IS TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE

ABSENCE OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF WILL.

MR. GREENE: THAT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT. I'M TALKING

ABOUT THE MUTUALITY, BECAUSE IF THE AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO

ATTORNEY HELLER, WHO STATED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

REPRESENTING CSI WHO'S THE PARTY HERE IN A MOTION TO QUASH

ARMSTRONG'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN ANOTHER CASE BEFORE THIS

LAWSUIT WAS EVER FILED, BEFORE THERE WAS ANY DISPUTE ABOUT

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, HELLER SAYS THIS WAS MUTUAL, BOTH

PARTIES SOUGHT IT.

BOTH PARTIES WERE TO MAINTAIN SILENCE AND NOT SAY

A DOGGONE THING ABOUT ONE ANOTHER, AND THAT SPECIFIC

EVIDENCE IS FOUND AT ARMSTRONG'S EVIDENCE ONE-AD. THAT'S A

DECLARATION FROM THE VERY LAWYER WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE

SIGNING OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND WHO ALSO SAYS I WAS

PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

SO I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT DURESS. I'M NOT TALKING

ABOUT FRAUD YET. I'M TALKING ABOUT MUTUALITY, AND THAT I'M

TALKING ABOUT THE GOOSE AND GANDER RULE AND THAT WHAT WAS

GOOD FOR --

THE COURT: THERE'S NO SUCH RULE NOW.

MR. GREENE: WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOUR TENTATIVE

RULING --

THE COURT: THAT'S --

MR. GREENE: -- CLEARLY INDICATES.

THE COURT: -- OTHER PERSONS NOW.

MR. GREENE: JUDGE, YOU DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF

ALMOST DERAILING ME.

THE POINT IS THAT THE COURT DIDN'T LOOK AND

DIDN'T INCORPORATE THOSE FACTS AND THOSE FACTS ARE NOT

DISPUTED. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW

THAT THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT

IS VERY RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS WERE IN

ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT THE COURT HAS

TO DO FIRST IS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT WAS THE INTENTIONS OF THE

PARTIES, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT THE COURT'S GOT TO PUT

ITSELF IN THE SHOES OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE AGREEMENT

WAS ENTERED INTO, AND THAT LEADS ME TO THE SECOND SUPPORTING

ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE RECIPROCAL NATURE OF THE KEEP

QUIET PROVISIONS, AND THAT'S BASED ON CIVIL CODE SECTION

1647.

THE COURT: WELL, IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE

CONTRACT THAT'S SO DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN THAT HAS TO BE

EXPLAINED BY ACTIONS?

MR. GREENE: YES.

THE COURT: WHAT IS IT?

MR. GREENE: THERE IS.

THE COURT: BASICALLY KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. WE

GAVE YOU $800,000 DOLLARS.

MR. GREENE: AH, BUT SEE, THAT'S -- I KNOW THAT,

JUDGE, AND THAT'S BEEN THE STICKING POINT IN MY PERCEPTION

OF YOUR VIEW OF ARMSTRONG AND THIS CASE ALL THE WAY ALONG.

HE GOT $800,000 BUCKS SO HE DOGGONE WILL -- BETTER KEEP HIS

MOUTH SHUT.

THE COURT: AND IT'S IN THE AGREEMENT. IF YOU

OPEN YOUR MOUTH, YOU HAVE TO PAY BACK $50,000 EVERY TIME.

MR. GREENE: BUT -- WELL, THAT'S -- YET THE

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES?

THE COURT: HE OPENED HIS MOUTH AND NOW THEY WANT

$50,000 PER EACH TIME.

MR. GREENE: JUDGE --

THE COURT: THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF ACTS OF THE

CHURCH.

MR. GREENE: JUDGE, THE ADDITIONAL -- WHAT THE

COURT DIDN'T DO AND THE AUTHORITY IS PG&E VERSUS G.W. THOMAS

GRANGE --

THE COURT: YES, NO RELATION TO ME, ALTHOUGH I

LIKED SEEING THAT IN THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO YEARS AGO.

MR. GREENE: -- 69 CAL.2D, 33, DISCUSSES --

THE COURT: I ASKED MY FATHER, AND HE ADVISED ME

I WASN'T NAMED AFTER HIM EITHER.

MR. GREENE: -- DISCUSSES THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO

LOOK AT THE OBJECT NATURE AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTRACT

SO THAT IT CAN PLACE ITSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES.

AND WHAT IS BEFORE THE COURT IS THAT AS OF DECEMBER 6TH,

1986, ARMSTRONG HAD BEEN JUDICIALLY CREDITED BY JUDGE

BRECKENRIDGE (SIC) AS BEING TRUTHFUL AND AS BEING ACCURATE.

SCIENTOLOGY IN THE SAME DECISION HAD BEEN

JUDICIALLY FOUND TO BE FULLY CAPABLE OF INTIMIDATION OR

OTHER PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE IF IT SOUGHT -- IF IT

LED TO THE ENDS THAT THEY SOUGHT. JUDGE BRECKENRIDGE (SIC)

ALSO --

THE COURT: NOW, THE OTHER SIDE SAYS IN ESSENCE

IF ONE ACCEPTS YOUR ARGUMENT, ONE IS FACED WITH THE

UNESCAPABLE CONCLUSION, YOUR CLIENT, HE MADE A PROMISE

WITHOUT THE INTENTION OF PERFORMING IT.

MR. GREENE: SEE, THE PROBLEM IS, JUDGE, THAT

ARMSTRONG --

TTHE COURT: THEY DID PERFORM, THE OTHER SIDE,

BECAUSE THEY GAVE THE $800,000.

MR. GREENE: THE PROBLEM WITH THAT ARGUMENT AND

THAT VIEW IS THAT IT OCCLUDES ANY REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT

ARMSTRONG AT THE TIME OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAD A

PENDING CROSS-COMPLAINT AND THAT CROSS-COMPLAINT INCLUDED

BEING RUN OVER BY A CAR DRIVEN BY AGENTS OF SCIENTOLOGY,

INVOLVED IN FREEWAY ACCIDENTS IN VEHICLES DRIVEN BY

SCIENTOLOGY, SURVEILED, SPIED ON, AND HARASSED. IN LESS

THAN FIVE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE POINT THAT THIS CASE -- THAT

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO AND ARMSTRONG

AGREED TO DISMISS HIS CROSS-COMPLAINT THAT WAS BASED ON

CONDUCT OF THAT SORT, AN L.A. COUNTY JURY HAD AWARDED $30

MILLION DOLLARS ON BEHALF OF LARRY WASHORN (SIC) [WOLLERSHEIM] ON BEHALF

OF SCIENTOLOGY.

IT'S NOT THAT ARMSTRONG WAS PAID $800,000 DOLLARS

IN ORDER TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT. HE WAS PAID $800,000

DOLLARS TO DISMISS HIS CROSS-COMPLAINT, AND IT WAS

RECIPROCALLY AGREED BETWEEN SCIENTOLOGY AND ARMSTRONG THAT

BOTH OF THEM WOULD KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT, AND WHEN

SCIENTOLOGY DIDN'T, WHEN SCIENTOLOGY WAS OUT IN PUBLIC AND

IN COURT STAYING ARMSTRONG'S A LIAR, ARMSTRONG'S A PERJUROR,

ARMSTRONG'S A PROVOCATEUR, WAS INVOLVED IN SOME GOVERNMENTAL

CONSPIRACY TO TRY TO TAKE OVER THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY,

THEN AT THAT POINT, THE REQUIREMENT FOR HIM TO CONTINUE TO

ADHERE TO THE SILENCE PROVISIONS AS THEY PERTAINED TO HIM NO

LONGER EXISTED.

SO IT'S NOT NEARLY SO SIMPLE THAT GERALD

ARMSTRONG WAS JUST SORT OF OUT IN LIFE AND ACCEPTED ALMOST A

MILLION DOLLARS TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT. HE ACCEPTED -- AND

YOU LOOK ALSO, JUDGE, AT SCIENTOLOGY'S OWN EVIDENCE WHICH IS

THEIR OWN EVIDENCE AT EXHIBIT ONE-C AT PAGES FOUR AND FIVE,

AND THAT WAS THE VALUATION OF ALL OF MICHAEL FLYNN'S

CLIENTS, SOME TWENTY CLIENTS THAT WERE ENGAGED IN THIS

GLOBAL SETTLEMENT ALL OF WHICH --

THE COURT: NOW, MR. GREENE, OF COURSE, THE

PAPERS SUBMITTED HAS THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT ORDER.

YOU'VE REFERRED TO LOS ANGELES AND WHAT'S TAKEN PLACE THERE.

THE ORDER SAYS, THE QUOTE IS, THE AGREEMENT TERMS ARE CLEAR

AND UNAMBIGUOUS. THE CROSS-COMPLAINANT UNDERSTOOD, THAT'S

YOUR CLIENT, UNDERSTOOD THE TERMS AND SIGNED IT. THE

DUTIES, OBJECTIONS, OBLIGATIONS OF AGREEMENT ARE CLEARLY

STATED. MUTUALITY AND RECIPROCAL DUTIES CANNOT BE READ INTO

THE UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. THERE ARE NO

PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENT PROHIBITING THE CROSS-DEFENDANT

FROM REFERRING TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT WITH THE PRESS OR IN

LEGAL PLEADINGS OR DECLARATIONS.

MR. GREENE: WELL, JUDGE, IT'S NOT REALLY FAIR

FOR TO YOU RELY ON THAT, BECAUSE A GRANT OF A MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION --

THE COURT: WELL, NOW, I AGREE THAT THE RULING IS

NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE.

MR. GREENE: OKAY. YOU ALSO HAVE ANOTHER JUDGE

FROM THE SAME COURT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE MOST AMBIGUOUS

ONE-SIDED UNFAIR AGREEMENT HE'D EVER SEEN, AND IF IT HAD

BEEN SUBMITTED TO HIM HE WOULDN'T HAVE -- OR TO JUDGE

BRECKENRIDGE (SIC) THE ORIGINAL JUDGE WHO PRESIDED OVER THE

TRIAL WHERE SCIENTOLOGY ORIGINALLY SUED ARMSTRONG, HE

WOULDN'T HAVE ENFORCED ANY OF IT.

SO WE CERTAINLY HAVE ACCURACIES IN THE EYE OF THE

BEHOLDER, AND JUST BECAUSE ONE JUDGE SAYS THAT THIS IS

UNAMBIGUOUS DOESN'T MEAN ANOTHER JUDGE IS GOING TO DO IT,

AND YOU HAVE TO INDEPENDENTLY DECIDE, AND BASED ON YOUR

TENTATIVE RULING, YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT LAWRENCE HELLER'S

DECLARATION WHERE HE SAYS UNDER OATH REPRESENTING CSI THAT

IT WAS A MUTUAL PROVISION, AND THAT'S WHAT IS THE SINGLE

MOST GLARING OMISSION, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IN YOUR

TENTATIVE RULING, IS THAT YOU DON'T TAKE THAT INTO YOUR

EVALUATION AT ALL. YOU LOOK AT THE FOUR CORNERS, AND YOU

SAY THAT PROVISION SEVEN-I, THE CLEAN SLATE PROVISION, ONLY

APPLIES IF THERE'S LITIGATION AMONG THE PARTIES SO THERE'S

NO VIOLATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT ON SCIENTOLOGY'S SIDE, AND

THEN WITH RESPECT TO 18-D, DON'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT THE

EXISTENCE OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THAT WASN'T

VIOLATED EITHER.

I MEAN ARMSTRONG'S PUT IN THE POSITION WHERE HE

FINDS OUT THAT SCIENTOLOGY IS ACTIVELY CONDUCTING AN APPEAL

IN HIS OWN CASE THAT HE BY THIS AGREEMENT IS PROHIBITED FROM

OPPOSING, AND HE GOES TO THE COURT OF APPEAL AND HE SAYS

COURT OF APPEAL, THIS IS THE AGREEMENT, I'M GIVING IT TO YOU

UNDER SEAL, IT SAYS THAT I CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN MY OWN

APPEAL, BUT I WANT TO ANYWAY. THE COURT OF APPEAL SAYS YES,

YOU CAN. THAT IS NOT CLEAR.

THAT'S IN THE RECORD HERE. THAT WAS NOT

CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUMMARY

JUDGMENT IT'S TOO SOON AND IT'S TOO FAST, BECAUSE IT'S NOT

SO CLEAR CUT. AND JUDGE, GERHARDT (SIC) WHEN SCIENTOLOGY

FIRST SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THIS AGREEMENT UNDER THE RUBRIC OF

THE ORIGINAL SCIENTOLOGY LITIGATION, IT'S THAT ON THE RECORD

AND IT'S IN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT, HE SAID THIS

AGREEMENT --

THE COURT: YES, YOU'VE ARGUED THAT FOR A LONG

TIME NOW. SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY IN RESPONSE?

MR. WILSON: VERY BRIEFLY. WHAT'S REALLY

HAPPENED HERE IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL COURTS THAT

HAVE APPLIED THE GANDER RULE THAT TOOK A GANDER AT THE

AGREEMENT, REALIZED IT WASN'T AMBIGUOUS, AND HELD THAT IT

WAS ENFORCEABLE, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH MUTUALITY, THAT

THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS WENT ONE WAY, JUDGE HOHIGIN

(SIC) [SOHIGIAN] AWARDED US A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. THAT WAS

AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. JUDGE HORSICKS (SIC) [HOROWITZ] FROM

LOS ANGELES GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SEVERAL CAUSES OF

ACTION. YOU GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SEVERAL CAUSES OF

ACTION PREVIOUSLY IN, I BELIEVE, DECEMBER, AND NOW YOU

GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAIN WITH THE AGREEMENT IN

PROPERLY DECIDING THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT THE FOUR CORNERS AND

YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NO SUCH MUTUALITY PROVISION.

AS FAR AS THE HELLER DECLARATION IS CONCERNED,

MR. GREENE MISREPRESENTS WHAT'S IN THERE. IT DOESN'T SAY

THAT BOTH PARTIES WANTED THE MUTUALITY OF THE

CONFIDENTIALITY.

I THINK THAT THIS MATTER HAS BEEN ARGUED ENOUGH,

AND I REALLY DON'T THINK IT NEEDS ANY FURTHER ARGUMENT.

MR. GREENE: I'VE GOT HELLER'S PAPERS RIGHT HERE

IF THE COURT WANTS TO LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY, AND I'M

SORRY, MR. WILSON, YOU'RE WRONG. WITH RESPECT TO THE COURT

OF APPEALS REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, THE COURT

OF APPEAL SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY WITHHELD ANY

DETERMINATION OF THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE AGREEMENT. IT

ONLY LOOKED AT THE INJUNCTION. IT DID NOT EVALUATE AND MAKE

A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

SO I WILL ALSO -- IN ARMSTRONG CLEARLY SETS OUT --

JUDGE BRECKENRIDGE (SIC) IN HIS DECISION SAID ARMSTRONG AND

HIS LAWYER WERE FREE TO TALK ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY. THEY TRIED

TO SHUT HIM UP BEFORE, AND HE SAID THEY'RE FREE TO TALK

ABOUT ANY OF ARMSTRONG'S EXPERIENCES, ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS

THAT WERE IN EVIDENCE, THEY -- THERE'S NO RESTRICTION.

SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ARMSTRONG AT THAT POINT

IN HIS LIFE AFTER HAVING LITIGATED AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY FOR

FIVE YEARS AND THROUGH A THIRTY-DAY COURT TRIAL, COURT TRIAL

-- IT WASN'T A JURY TRIAL, WAS A COURT TRIAL -- WHERE THE

JUDGE SAYS YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT ABOUT YOUR FORMER

RELIGION, YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT TO, AND HE HAD A

CROSS-COMPLAINT THAT BY ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES LOOKED LIKE

IT WAS A BELL RINGER, IT WAS SET TO GO TO TRIAL WITHIN THREE

MONTHS, AND HE GETS $800,000 BUCKS. HE DIDN'T GET $800,000

BUCKS JUST TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT, GO AWAY INTO THE

FIRMAMENT AND SCIENTOLOGY CAN SAY YOU'RE A LIAR, YOU'RE A

PERJUROR, YOU'RE THIS AND YOU'RE THAT, AND IF YOU COME OUT

OF THE FIRMAMENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAMMER YOU AND GET AN

INJUNCTION AND PUT YOU IN JAIL IF YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH AGAIN.

HE DIDN'T AGREE TO THAT, AND IT'S NOT REASONABLE

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONCLUDE THAT HE HAD THAT INTENT

WHEN HE ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT, AND SCIENTOLOGY'S OWN

EVIDENCE, THEIR OWN EVIDENCE WHICH IS --

THE COURT: WELL, REALISTICALLY, MR. GREENE, FOR

THE ARMSTRONG POSITION, THEY SAY THERE'S A MUTUAL

CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENT. HE POINTS TO HIS BELIEFS, THE

PURPORTED BELIEFS OF HIS ATTORNEY, AND WE HAVE THE STATEMENT

MADE BY AN ATTORNEY FOR ONE OF THE SCIENTOLOGY

ORGANIZATIONS.

MR. GREENE: THE PLAINTIFF HERE --

THE COURT: YES, BUT THE FACTS, THOSE FACTS ARE

NOT RELEVANT, AND WHEN ONE READS WITKIN, AND YOU CAN READ

IT, ONE WITKIN SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA LAW, IT'S IN SECTION

84, PAGE 617, THE RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF WRITTEN

CONTRACTS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE MEANING OF

THE WORDS USED THEREIN. EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ADMITTED TO SHOW

INTENTION INDEPENDENT OF THE INSTRUMENT. THE WORDS ARE

CLEAR.

MR. GREENE: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS, JUDGE, WHEN

YOU LOOK AT --

THE COURT: SO WE HAVE -- THE FACT IS THAT

ARMSTRONG HASN'T RAISED A TRIABLE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE

PLAINTIFF BREACHED THE TERM OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

THE OTHER ARGUMENTS WITH REGARD TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

AND HIS RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT,

ET CETERA, WELL, THAT ITT CASE HAD DEALT WITH THAT.

MR. GREENE: NO, IT DIDN'T BECAUSE THE ITT

CASE --

THE COURT: IT'S POSSIBLE --

MR. GREENE: IT SAYS POSSIBLE, BUT FOR A WAIVER

TO BE EFFECTIVE --

THE COURT: IT'S POSSIBLE TO WAIVE EVEN FIRST

AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH --

MR. GREENE: FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.

THE COURT: . -- BY CONTRACT.

MR. GREENE: CORRECT. IT SAYS THAT, BUT IT ALSO

SAYS THAT IN ORDER FOR THE WAIVER TO BE EFFECTIVE, IT'S

ESSENTIALLY THE SAME STANDARD AS WHEN YOU ENTERED A GUILTY

PLEA IN A CRIMINAL CASE. IT'S GOT TO BE KNOWING,

INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY, AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO

EVIDENCE HERE THAT SUCH WAS A CASE, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF

HELLER'S DECLARATION, SCIENTOLOGY'S OWN COUNSEL, SAYS BOTH

PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO KEEPING THEIR MOUTH SHUT ABOUT THE

OTHERS.

MS. BARTILSON: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR, BUT I

HAVE TO JUST DIFFER WITH MR. GREENE'S CHARACTERIZATION OF NO

EVIDENCE. THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE OF THE SIGNING OF THE

AGREEMENT SHOWING MR. ARMSTRONG SIGNING IT VOLUNTARILY.

MR. ARMSTRONG HAS PUT IN DECLARATION AFTER DECLARATION

SAYING HE DISCUSSED IT WITH MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS BEFORE HE

SIGNED IT. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S -- THERE'S EVEN ANY

QUESTION OF FACT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE ENTERED INTO IT

VOLUNTARILY WITH FULL KNOWINGNESS OF THE PROVISIONS.

THE COURT: THERE'S NO REASON TO CHANGE MY

TENTATIVE RULING.

MR. GREENE: WELL, BEFORE YOU TELL ME I CAN'T

TALK ANYMORE, I WANT TO KEEP --

THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

MR. GREENE: I WANT TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER CASE,

JUDGE, WITH RESPECT TO THEIR OBJECTIONS TO HEARSAY AND YOUR

CHARACTERIZATION --

THE COURT: NO.

MR. GREENE: THE EXCEPTION --

THE COURT: NO.

MR. GREENE: -- IS 1241(A) CONTEMPORANEOUS

STATEMENT BY --

THE COURT: WE'LL GO ON TO BLACK POINT FOREST

PROJECT --

MR. GREENE: JUDGE, ALSO --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. GREENE.

MR. GREENE: JUDGE --

THE COURT: YOUR MATTER'S OVER.

MR. GREENE -- WITH RESPECT TO --

THE COURT: I'VE GIVEN YOU MORE THAN TWENTY

MINUTES. THIS IS A LAW AND MOTION MATTER. TIME IS UP.

MR. GREENE: I UNDERSTAND, JUDGE, BUT THE WAY

THAT THIS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS BROADER THAN THE

LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF. IT'S BROADER THAN THE

LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF.

THE COURT: BLACK POINT FOREST VERSUS THE CITY OF

NOVATO.

MR. GREENE: AND ALSO IT'S -- AND IT'S WAY

BROADER, AND IN ADDITION, IT TAKES MY FILE IN THIS CASE AND

YOUR ORDER IS ALSO WRONG BECAUSE YOU'VE STRICKEN --

THE COURT: I'LL HAVE YOU TAKEN AWAY, MR. GREENE.

MR. GREENE: -- YOU'VE STRICKEN HIS EVIDENCE AND

YOU'VE DENIED HIS ABILITY --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. GREENE.

MR. GREENE: -- TO EVEN APPEAL THIS --

THE COURT: YOU'RE INTERFERING WITH ANOTHER CASE.

MR. GREENE: -- GIVEN --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. GREENE.

MR. GREENE: THE BREADTH OF YOUR ORDER AND THE

EFFECT OF IT, JUDGE, IS THAT YOU'VE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR

ARMSTRONG TO EFFECTIVELY APPEAL. THE INCORRECT DECISION

THAT YOU'RE RENDERING NOW, BECAUSE YOU SAY THAT HIS EVIDENCE

IS IRRELEVANT AND HAS TO BE STRICKEN --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME.

(WHEREUPON, PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED)

---000---

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