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

   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Ford Greene, Esquire
California State Bar No. 107601
HUB LAW OFFICES
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

Attorney for Defendant
GERALD ARMSTRONG

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

 

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

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG; MICHAEL
WALTON; et al,

Defendants.


GERALD ARMSTRONG,

Cross-Complainant,

-vs-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California
Corporation.; DAVID MISCAVIGE;
DOES 1 to 100;

Cross-Defendant.


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

No. 157 680

VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT
FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS

27

28

 

Cross-Complainant GERALD ARMSTRONG alleges as follows:

  Page 1. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

PARTIES

1. Cross-Complainant GERALD ARMSTRONG, hereinafter,

"ARMSTRONG," is a resident of Marin County, California.

2. Cross-Defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL, hereinafter "CSI" is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of California, having

principal offices and places of business in California and doing

business within the State of California within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Cross-Defendant DAVID MISCAVIGE, hereinafter

"MISCAVIGE," is an individual domiciled in the State of

California.

4. At all times herein mentioned, each Cross-Defendant

was the agent, employee or coconspirator of each of the remaining

Cross-Defendants, and in doing the things herein mentioned, each

Cross-Defendant was acting within the course and scope of its

employment and authority as such agent and/or representative

and/or employee and/or coconspirator, and with the consent of the

remaining Cross-Defendants.

5. CSI is subject to a unity of control, and the

separate alleged corporate structures were created as an attempt

to avoid payment of taxes and civil judgments and to confuse

courts and those seeking redress for these Cross-Defendants' acts.

Due to the unity of personnel, commingling of assets, and

commonality of business objectives, these Cross-Defendants'

attempts at separation of these corporations should be

disregarded.

6. The designation of CSI as a "church" or religious

  Page 2. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

entity is a sham contrived to exploit the protection of the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution and to justify their

criminal, and tortious acts against ARMSTRONG and others. Cross-

Defendant corporation is part of an international, money-making,

politically motivated enterprise which subjugates and exploits its

employees and customers with coercive psychological techniques,

threat of violence and blackmail. CSI and other Scientology

corporate entities act as one organization.

7. David Miscavige controls and operates Scientology

and uses it to enforce his orders and carry out his attacks on

groups, agencies or individuals, including the acts against

ARMSTRONG alleged herein to the extent there is no separate

identity between Miscavige and CSI and any claim of such separate

identity should be disregarded.

8. Cross-Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are

sued herein under such fictitious names for the reason that the

true names and capacities of said Cross-Defendants are unknown to

ARMSTRONG at this time; that when the true names and capacities of

said Cross-Defendants are ascertained ARMSTRONG will ask leave of

Court to amend this Cross-Complaint to insert the true names and

capacities of said fictitiously named Cross-Defendants, together

with any additional allegations that may be necessary in regard

thereto; that each of said fictitiously named Cross-Defendants

claim that ARMSTRONG has a legal obligation to Cross-Defendants by

virtue of the facts set forth below; that each of said

fictitiously named Cross-Defendants is in some manner legally

responsible for the acts and occurrences hereinafter alleged.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

  Page 3. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

9. From 1969 through 1981 ARMSTRONG was a

Scientologist who devoted his life to Scientology founder, L. Ron

Hubbard, the ideals he proclaimed and the Scientology organization

he claimed to have built to promulgate those ideals. After

leaving Hubbard's and the organization's employ and control in

December 1981, ARMSTRONG was declared by Scientology to be

"Suppressive Person," or "SP," which designated him an "enemy,"

and became the target of Hubbard's policy of "Fair Game," which

states:

"ENEMY - SP Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of

property or injured by any means by any

Scientologist without any discipline of the

Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or

destroyed."

Scientology using its corporate component, Church of Scientology

of California ("CSC") as Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit, No. C 420153,

in the Los Angeles Superior Court against ARMSTRONG on August 2,

1982. ARMSTRONG filed a Cross-Complaint against CSC and L. RON

HUBBARD September 17, 1982. The Complaint and the Cross-Complaint

thereto, hereinafter referred to together as Armstrong I, were

bifurcated and the underlying Complaint was tried without a jury

in 1984. A Memorandum of Intended Decision was rendered by Judge

Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. June 20, 1984 and entered as a Judgment

August 10, 1984. Scientology appealed.

10. During the Armstrong I litigation Scientology

carried out a massive and international campaign of Fair Game

against ARMSTRONG and his lawyer, Michael J. Flynn of Boston,

Massachusetts, hereinafter "Flynn," who had been the prime mover

  Page 4. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

in much of the anti-Scientology-related litigation throughout the

United States. Acts against ARMSTRONG pursuant to Fair Game

included assault, an attempted staged highway accident, attempted

entrapment, theft of private papers and original artwork,

dissemination of information from his confidential "counseling"

records, filing false criminal charges on at least five occasions,

global defamation, threat of murder, and illegal electronic

surveillance. ARMSTRONG learned during the period he was

represented in the litigation by Flynn that Fair Game acts against

Flynn included attempted murder, theft of private papers, threats

against his family, defamation, thirteen frivolous lawsuits,

spurious bar complaints, and framing with the forgery of a

$2,000,000 check on a bank account of L. Ron Hubbard.

11. In the fall of 1986, while working as a paralegal

in the Flynn firm, ARMSTRONG was aware that settlement talks

involving all the Scientology-related cases in which Flynn was

either counsel or party were occurring in Los Angeles, California

between Flynn and Scientology. Such talks had occurred a number

of times over the prior four years. On December 5, 1986 ARMSTRONG

was flown to Los Angeles, as were several other of Flynn's clients

with claims against the organization, to participate in a "global

settlement." Prior to flying to Los Angeles, ARMSTRONG had

reached an agreement with Flynn on a monetary figure to settle

Armstrong I, but did not know any of the other conditions of

settlement.

12. After ARMSTRONG's arrival in Los Angeles, Flynn

showed him a copy of a document entitled "Mutual Release of All

Claims and Settlement Agreement, " hereinafter "the settlement

  Page 5. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

agreement," and some other documents including affidavits, and was

advised by Flynn that he was expected to sign them all. Upon

reading the settlement agreement ARMSTRONG was shocked and

heartsick. ARMSTRONG told Flynn that the condition of "strict

confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with"

Scientology, since it involved over seventeen years of his life

was impossible to perform. ARMSTRONG told Flynn that the

liquidated damages clause was outrageous: that pursuant to the

agreement ARMSTRONG would have to pay $50,000.00 if he told a

medical doctor or psychologist about his experiences from those

years, or if he put on a job resume what positions he had held

during his organization years. He told Flynn that the

requirements of non-amenability to service of process and non-

cooperation with persons or organizations adverse to Scientology

were obstructive of justice. He told Flynn that agreeing to leave

Scientology's appeal of the Breckenridge decision and not respond

to any subsequent appeals was unfair to the courts and all the

people who had been helped by the decision. ARMSTRONG told Flynn

that an affidavit Scientology was demanding that he sign was

false, that there had been no management change, that his private

preclear folders were still being culled, and that he had the same

disagreements with Scientology's Fair Game policies and actions,

which had continued without change up to that date. ARMSTRONG

told Flynn that he was being asked to betray everything and

everyone he had fought for against organization injustice.

13. In answer to ARMSTRONG's objections to the

settlement agreement Flynn said that the silence and liquidated

damages clauses, and anything which called for obstruction of

  Page 6. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

justice were "not worth the paper they [were] printed on." Flynn

stated that representation a number of times and in a number of

ways; e.g., that ARMSTRONG could. not contract away his

Constitutional rights; that the conditions were unenforceable.

Flynn stated that he had advised Scientology's lawyers that those

conditions in the settlement agreement were not worth the paper

they were printed on, but that Scientology, nevertheless, insisted

on their inclusion and would not agree to any changes. Flynn

pointed out to ARMSTRONG the clauses in the settlement agreement

concerning his release of his claims against Scientology and

Scientology's release of its claims against ARMSTRONG and stated

that they were the essential elements of the settlement and what

the organization was paying for.

14. Flynn stated to ARMSTRONG at that time that he was

sick of the litigation and the threats to him and his family, and

that he wanted to get out. Flynn stated that all the people

involved in his side of the Scientology-related litigation were

sick of it and wanted to get on with their lives. He said that as

a condition of settlement he and his co-counsels in the

Scientology-related litigation had agreed to not become involved

in that litigation in the future. Flynn conveyed to ARMSTRONG a

hopelessness concerning the inability of the courts of this

country to deal with Scientology, its lawyers and their

contemptuous abuse of the justice system. Flynn told ARMSTRONG

that if he didn't sign the documents all he had to look forward to

was more years of harassment and misery. When ARMSTRONG expressed

his continuing objections to the settlement agreement, Edward

Walters, whom Flynn had kept present in the room during this

  Page 7. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

discussion with ARMSTRONG, and who was another of Flynn's clients

and a participant in the settling of Flynn's Scientology-related

litigation, yelled at ARMSTRONG accusing him.of killing the

settlement for everyone, that everyone else had signed or would

sign, and that everyone else wanted the settlement. Flynn told

ARMSTRONG that Scientology would only settle with everyone

together; otherwise there would be no settlement. Flynn did agree

to ask Scientology to include a clause in ARMSTRONG's settlement

agreement allowing him to keep his creative works relating to L.

Ron Hubbard or the organization.

15. Flynn stated to ARMSTRONG that a major reason for

the settlement's "global" form was to give Scientology the

opportunity to change its combative attitude and behavior by

removing the threat he and his clients represented to it. He said

that Scientology wanted peace and unless ARMSTRONG signed

Scientology's documents there would be no peace. Flynn stated

that Scientology's attorneys had promised that the affidavit

ARMSTRONG considered false would only be used by Scientology if

ARMSTRONG began attacking it after the settlement. Since

ARMSTRONG had no intention of attacking Scientology, he understood

that the offensive affidavit would never see the light of day.

16. During ARMSTRONG's meeting with Flynn he found

himself facing a dilemma. If he refused to sign the settlement

agreement and affidavit all the other settling litigants, many of

whom had already been flown to Los Angeles in anticipation of a

settlement, would be disappointed and would continue to be

subjected to organization harassment for an unknown period of

time. ARMSTRONG had been positioned as a deal-breaker and led to

  Page 8. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

believe he would lose the support of some, if not all, of the

settling claimants, several of whom were key witnesses in his case

against Scientology. ARMSTRONG was led to believe that all the

lawyers involved in his case desperately wanted out of

Scientology-related litigation, and should he not sign the

settlement documents would become unhappy and unwilling in their

representation of him. ARMSTRONG reasoned that, on the other

hand, if he did sign the settlement documents all his co-

litigants, some of whom he knew to be in financial trouble, would

be happy, the stress they felt would be reduced and they could get

on with their lives. ARMSTRONG believed that Flynn and his other

lawyers would be happy and the threat to them and their families

removed. ARMSTRONG believed that Scientology would have the

opportunity its lawyers said it desired to clean up its act, and

start anew. Armed with Flynn's assurance that the conditions he

found so offensive in the settlement agreement were not worth the

paper they were printed on, and the knowledge that Scientology's

attorneys were also aware of that fact, ARMSTRONG put on a happy

face and on the following day went through the charade of a

videotaped signing.

17. On December 11, 1986, pursuant to stipulation,

Judge Breckenridge issued orders dismissing the Armstrong I Cross-

Complaint, directing that the settlement agreement be filed and

retained by the clerk under seal, releasing to Scientology all

trial exhibits and other documents which had been held by the

clerk of the Court, and sealing the entire Court file. Despite

the Court's specific order Scientology never filed the Settlement

Agreement.

  Page 9. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

18. On December 18, 1986 the California Court of

Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, issued an

unpublished opinion dismissing Scientology's appeal from the

Breckenridge decision on the ground that there would be no

appealable final judgment until after trial of the Armstrong I

Cross-Complaint.

19. Scientology filed a Petition for Rehearing of its

appeal in the Court of Appeal, which was denied January 15, 1987;

then a Petition for Review by the California Supreme Court which

was denied March 11, 1987. On January 30, 1987 Scientology filed

in the Los Angeles Superior Court an "Unopposed Motion to Withdraw

Memorandum of Intended Decision," which Judge Breckenridge denied

February 2, 1987. On February 9, 1987 Scientology filed a Notice

of Appeal from the orders issued pursuant to stipulation by Judge

Breckenridge on December 11, 1986.

20. Scientology did not desire peace from the December

1986 settlement with ARMSTRONG but an advantage wherein they could

continue to attack him without his being able to respond. They

removed his lawyers from defending him, and used his lead lawyer,

Flynn, as their agent to relay to ARMSTRONG threats of litigation

and to keep him from responding to their attacks. Immediately

following the settlement Scientology operatives contacted Beverly

Rutherford, one of ARMSTRONG's friends from his pre-Scientology

past, to try to get information from her concerning ARMSTRONG of a

personal and embarrassing nature to be used against him. Also

immediately following the settlement Scientology delivered a pack

of documents concerning and attacking ARMSTRONG to reporters

Robert Welkos and Joel Sappell of the Los Angeles Times.

  Page 10. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

Scientology has continued from the date of the settlement to

collect intelligence information on ARMSTRONG, to consider him an

enemy and to treat him as Fair Game. The settlement itself in

intention, form, and effect was an act of Fair Game.

21. Although contacted a number of times by the media

for statements concerning Scientology or Hubbard in the three

years following the settlement, ARMSTRONG did not make any public

statements during that period.

22. In the fall of 1987 ARMSTRONG received a document,

which had been created and circulated by Scientology to discredit

ARMSTRONG and writer Bent Corydon. In this document Scientology

accused ARMSTRONG of "numerous false claims and lies," of

"incompetence as a researcher," as having "stolen valuable

documents from [Scientology] archives," and of being part of "a

small cabal of thieves, perjurers and disreputable sources." Such

statements were themselves lies, known to Scientology to be lies,

malicious, and intended to destroy ARMSTRONG's reputation and

credibility. In this document as well Scientology describes

ARMSTRONG's experiences in the organization as Hubbard's archivist

and biographical researcher, and discusses aspects of the

Armstrong I litigation, all in violation of the letter and spirit

of the settlement.

23. In early 1988 ARMSTRONG received a number of

affidavits Scientology had filed in Scientology v. Miller in

London, England, which accuse ARMSTRONG of, inter alia, retaining

documents in violation of a Los Angeles Superior Court order,

providing documents to Russell Miller in violation of a court

order, and violating court sealing orders. The affidavits accuse

  Page 11. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

ARMSTRONG of being "an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S.

Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in

[Scientology] files which would then be "found" by Federal

officials in subsequent investigations as evidence of criminal

activity," and of intending to "plant forged documents within the

[Scientology] and then using the contents to get [Scientology]

raided. All of Scientology's accusations regarding ARMSTRONG in

the affidavits filed in Miller are false, known by Scientology to

be false, malicious and intended to destroy ARMSTRONG's

credibility. ARMSTRONG has proven repeatedly to Scientology that

its accusations are false, but Scientology has not corrected the

falsehoods wherever they have been uttered or written but has

continued to spread its lies about ARMSTRONG.

24. Scientology's affidavits filed in Miller also

contain descriptions of ARMSTRONG's experiences in the

organization and conditions of the settlement agreement. At the

same time Scientology demanded that ARMSTRONG not discuss his own

experiences or conditions of settlement on penalty of $50,000.00

an utterance. Scientology itself filed documents in the case

straight out of the sealed Armstrong I file. Such acts are

intended to bring about ARMSTRONG's mental disintegration and

total destruction, are conscious and premeditated acts by

Scientology of Fair Game, and have caused ARMSTRONG great anguish.

25. Also in October 1987 ARMSTRONG was contacted by a

reporter from the London Sunday Times who advised him that

Scientology had given the newspaper a pack of documents concerning

him. The reporter said that Scientology representatives were

claiming that ARMSTRONG was an agent provocateur who tried to

  Page 12. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

plant forged documents in the organization and wanted to destroy

the scientology religion. The reporter also said that Scientology

representatives had given the newspaper a videotape of ARMSTRONG

they claimed showed him conspiring to overthrow Scientology

management. ARMSTRONG told the reporter that although he

considered Scientology's attacks violated the settlement agreement

he would not respond to them.

26. On December 21, 1988 ARMSTRONG received a call from

Flynn who relayed a message from Michael Lee Hertzberg, one of the

organization's leading lawyers stating that he wanted ARMSTRONG to

file a pleading to keep the court file sealed in the face of

efforts by the plaintiff in Corydon v. CSI, Los Angeles Superior

Court case no. C 694401, who had filed a motion to unseal the

Armstrong I court file. Flynn stated that Hertzberg had

threatened that if ARMSTRONG failed to cooperate Hertzberg would

release a private and personal document belonging to ARMSTRONG

regarding one of his dreams specifically sealed by Judge

Breckenridge in Armstrong I.

27. On December 27, 1988 ARMSTRONG spoke again by phone

with Flynn, who advised ARMSTRONG that due to a court order

unsealing the file in Armstrong I, he was going to file a pleading

to say that the settlement documents should remain sealed.

ARMSTRONG disagreed and advised Flynn he did not want such a paper

filed, but on November 15, 1989 ARMSTRONG received notice that

Flynn had filed such a paper against his wishes.

28. On October 11, 1989 ARMSTRONG was served with a

deposition subpoena duces tecum which had been issued by Toby

Plevin, an attorney representing Corydon in his litigation against

  Page 13. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

Scientology.

29. On October 23, 1989 ARMSTRONG received a call from

Heller who stated that Scientology would seek a protective order

to prevent Armstrong's deposition in Corydon from going forward,

that Armstrong should be represented by a Scientology lawyer, that

to maintain the settlement agreement ARMSTRONG could only answer

questions by court order, that ARMSTRONG should refuse to answer

the deposition questions and force Corydon to get an order from

the court compelling ARMSTRONG to answer.

30. On October 25, 1989 Heller told ARMSTRONG that he

had a problem with ARMSTRONG responding to deposition questions

concerning such things as L. Ron Hubbard's misrepresentations or

ARMSTRONG's period as Hubbard's archivist in the organization,

that he wanted to have an attorney present to instruct ARMSTRONG

not to answer such questions so that Corydon would have to move to

compel an answer, and that if the court ordered sanctions for

ARMSTRONG'S refusal to answer, Scientology would indemnify him.

Heller further stated that ARMSTRONG had a contractual. obligation

to Scientology and that if ARMSTRONG did answer deposition

questions he would have breached the settlement agreement and may

be sued.

31. Based on Heller's threats, the earlier threats and

Scientology's post-settlement attacks described above, ARMSTRONG'S

understanding of his importance to and involvement with

Scientology, and his knowledge of Scientology, its fraud and Fair

Game, moved him at that time to protect himself by beginning to

assemble documentation and prepare a declaration to oppose these

Scientology abuses.

  Page 14. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

32. On November 1, 1989 Heller, on behalf of

Scientology entity Author Services Inc., a defendant in Corydon,

filed a motion "to Delay or Prevent the Taking of Certain Third

Party Depositions, " relating to the deposition of ARMSTRONG.

Heller stated in the motion:

"One of the key ingredients to completing these

settlement, insisted upon by all parties involved, was

strict confidentiality respecting: (1) the Scientology

parishioner or staff member's experiences within the

Church of Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by

the Scientology entities concerning those staff members

or parishioners; and (3) the terms and conditions of the

settlements themselves."

33. On November 18, 1989 ARMSTRONG received a copy of a

videotape edited from videotapes of him made in 1984 by

Scientology intelligence operatives and used thereafter against

him. This copy had been given to the London Sunday Times, along

with a package of documents concerning ARMSTRONG by Scientology

operatives. Taped to the video cassette was the business card of

Eugene M. Ingram, the Scientology's private detective who had set

up the videotaping.

34. On November 20, 1989 Heller contacted ARMSTRONG and

advised him that he wanted ARMSTRONG to execute Scientology a

declaration that ARMSTRONG had either no or minimal contact with

Corydon in the organization, and that subsequent to leaving he had

received no information about Corydon. ARMSTRONG told Heller

that he knew Corydon quite well and that he saw himself as a

relevant witness, and would go forward with the deposition.

  Page 15. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

Heller said to do so would be a mistake because only Scientology

would ever help him, that ARMSTRONG should assist Scientology

because it had honored its agreement, that Scientology had signed

a non-disclosure agreement as well and as far as he knew had lived

up to its agreement. When ARMSTRONG disagreed, Heller reiterated

at the end of the conversation that if ARMSTRONG started to

testify, for example about the Hubbard biography project, or

things he and Scientology considered irrelevant, he would be sued

for breach of contract.

35. On November 30, 1989 ARMSTRONG attended a hearing

in Corydon of Scientology's motion to prevent his deposition from

going forward where he was served with a subpoena duces tecum

ordering him to appear as a witness in the trial of Religious

Technology Center v. Joseph A. Yanny, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case no. C 690211.

36. On February 15, 1990 ARMSTRONG received a call

from one of Michael Flynn' partners, attorney Michael A. Tabb, who

said he had been called by Heller who told him that Scientology

considered ARMSTRONG had violated the settlement agreement by

being in the courthouse when he was served in Yanny, that they

intended to prove it, and that he would be sued.

37. On January 18, 1990 ARMSTRONG received a copy of

Appellants' Opening Brief which Scientology had filed December 21,

1989 in appeal No. B025920 in Division Three of the Second

Appellate District in the California Court of Appeal wherein

Scientology sought a reversal of the 1984 Breckenridge decision.

On January 30, 1990 ARMSTRONG received the Reply Brief of

Appellants and Response to Cross-Appeal filed in Division Four in

  Page 16. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

the Second Appellate District in an appeal entitled Church of

Scientology of California and Mary Sue Hubbard, Appellants,

against Gerald Armstrong, Defendant; Bent Corydon, Appellee, No.

B038975 in which Scientology sought a reversal of Judge

Geernaert's ruling unsealing the Armstrong I court file.

38. Because the settlement agreement prohibited

ARMSTRONG from opposing any of the appeals Scientology might take,

he filed a Petition for Permission to Respond in the B025920

Division Three appeal February 28, 1990, and in the B038975

Division Four appeal March 1, 1990. When his petitions were

granted, ARMSTRONG filed a Respondent's Briefs opposing

Scientology appeals.

39. ARMSTRONG's March 15, 1990 declaration that he had

filed in the Court of Appeal was used by Corydon as an exhibit

supporting a motion for an order directing non-interference with

witnesses. In its opposition thereto Scientology Heller

contradicted what he earlier had said to ARMSTRONG about the

agreement being reciprocal, now stating that Scientology was free to talk

about Armstrong, but that Armstrong was not free to talk

about it. Heller's lies to ARMSTRONG, his lies in sworn

declarations about the reciprocality of the settlement agreement,

the trap ARMSTRONG had been placed in by Scientology and his own

attorney, who, because of Scientology Fair Game tactics, had

deserted him, caused ARMSTRONG great distress and grief.

40. In his March 27 1990, declaration and in the

opposition to plaintiff's motion for non-interference with

witnesses in Corydon, Heller denied that the three telephone calls

with ARMSTRONG occurred, denied offering to have Scientology pay

  Page 17. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

for an attorney at ARMSTRONG's deposition in Corydon, denied

offering to indemnify ARMSTRONG for sanctions which might be

imposed by the court, and denied threatening ARMSTRONG with

litigation. These denials are lies.

41. In his March 26, 1990 declaration, Kenneth Long,

Scientology staff member who had executed a number of the

affidavits concerning ARMSTRONG which were filed in the Miller

case, stated:

"In January, 1987, following settlement of Scientology

(sic) of California ("CSC"), Armstrong turned over to

CSC all [Scientology]-related documents in his

possession. I personally inspected the documents turned

over by Armstrong, and found a number of copies of the

documents which Armstrong had previously sworn that he

had surrendered to the Clerk of the Court. [  ] Based on

my discovery of these documents, I concluded that

Armstrong had intentionally perjured himself on numerous

occasions, and had as well knowingly violated orders

issued by judges at all levels ranging from the Los

Angeles Superior Court to the Supreme Court of the

United States."

Long's statement is false, reckless and malicious. Long stated as

well that his affidavits attacking ARMSTRONG in Miller were

necessary "to detail the elements of the breach of confidence

against Miller and Penguin, and the claim could not have been

brought without explaining the underlying actions taken by

Armstrong."

42. On March 21, 1990 ARMSTRONG spoke by phone with

  Page 18. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

Michael Flynn, who said that he had been called by Lawrence Heller

two or three weeks before. Flynn said that Heller told him that

ARMSTRONG was right then sitting in the courtroom at the Yanny

trial and he asked Flynn to call ARMSTRONG and tell him that if he

testified in Yanny he would be in violation of the settlement

agreement and would be sued. ARMSTRONG had been present at the

Yanny trial March 5, 1990.

43. In early April, 1990 ARMSTRONG received a call from

Scientology lawyer Eric Lieberman who threatened dire consequences

if ARMSTRONG continued to speak out against Scientology in

violation of the settlement agreement. ARMSTRONG related to

Lieberman a list of Scientology's post-settlement attacks on

ARMSTRONG in violation itself of the agreement. Lieberman

dismissed ARMSTRONG's grievances as insignificant.

44. On July 8, 1988 the Internal Revenue Service issued

a document entitled "final adverse ruling" to a Scientology

corporate entity named Church of Spiritual Technology ("CST")

denying its application for tax exempt status. In that ruling the

IRS stated:

"In support of the protest (protest conference was held

in January 1987) to our initial adverse ruling, we were

supplied with copies of affidavits dated December 4,

1986, from Gerald Armstrong and Laurel Sullivan. Ms.

Sullivan was the person in charge of the MCCS project

(Scientology's "Mission Corporate Category Sort-out,"

the purpose of which was to devise a new organizational

structure to conceal L. Ron Hubbard's continued

control). The affidavits state that the new church

  Page 19. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

management 'seems to have returned to the basic and

lawful policies and procedures as laid out by the

founder of the religion, L. Ron Hubbard.' The

affidavits conclude as follows: 'Because of the

foregoing, I no longer have any conflict with the Church

of Scientology or individual members affiliated with the

Church. Accordingly I have executed a mutual release

agreement with the Church of Scientology and sign this

affidavit in order to signify that I have no quarrel

with the Church of Scientology or any of its members.'"

Scientology filed the ARMSTRONG affidavit in the COST case for the

purpose of destroying his credibility and in violation of the

representation Scientology had Flynn make to ARMSTRONG during

settlement that such affidavit would never be used unless

ARMSTRONG attacked Scientology after settlement. Scientology's

filing of the affidavit, its use of the courts, and the campaign

to destroy ARMSTRONG's reputation have caused ARMSTRONG great

emotional distress.

45. In August 1991 while in South Africa ARMSTRONG was

informed by Stuart Cutler, a lawyer for Malcolm Nothling,

litigant against Scientology, that Scientology had provided

ARMSTRONG's personal papers regarding the 1985 dream which had

been sealed in Armstrong I, to Scientology's South African legal

representatives for use against ARMSTRONG in the Nothling

litigation in which ARMSTRONG was expected to testify. The

dissemination of this document in South Africa caused ARMSTRONG

great embarrassment and emotional distress.

46. On August 12, 1991 Scientology filed a lawsuit

  Page 20. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

against 17 agents of the IRS, case no. 91-4301-SVW in United

States District Court, Central District of California for more

than $120,000,000.00. Scientology used therein a false rendition

of the 1984 illegal videotaping of ARMSTRONG, which videotape had

been sealed in the Armstrong I court file. Scientology stated in

its complaint:

"The infiltration of the [Scientology] was planned by

the LA CID along with former [Scientology] member Gerald

Armstrong, who planned to seed [Scientology] files with

forged documents which the IRS could then seize in a

raid. The CID actually planned to assist Armstrong in

taking over the [Scientology] hierarchy which would then

turn over all [Scientology] documents to the IRS for

their investigation."

Scientology knew that these accusations were false and knew that

ARMSTRONG knew they were false.

47. Upon his return to the United States from South

Africa, Armstrong visited the law office of Ford Greene who asked

for his help. Armstrong, who is a trained paralegal, and lived in

the same Marin County town as Greene, agreed to help him, and has

been working with him from that time until the present. The moment

he began working in Greene's office Scientology began to terrorize

him with constant surveillance by Scientology intelligence

operatives, videotaped him, embarrassed him, caused disturbances

in the neighborhood of Greene's law firm, and caused him great

fear. Scientology has a reputation of using its intelligence

operatives or private investigators to assault its perceived

enemies, frame them, entrap them, terrorize them, lie about them,

  Page 21. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

and steal from them. Judge Breckenridge in Armstrong I, had found

that:

"Defendant Armstrong was the subject of harassment,

including being followed and surveilled by individuals

who admitted employment by [Scientology]; being

assaulted by one of these individuals; being struck

bodily by a car driven by one of these individuals;

having two attempts made by said individuals apparently

to involve Defendant Armstrong in a freeway automobile

accident; having said individuals come onto Defendant

Armstrong's property, spy in his windows, create

disturbances, and upset his neighbors."

The August 1991 surveillance of ARMSTRONG by Scientology

operatives was intended to and caused ARMSTRONG severe shock and

emotional distress.

48. ARMSTRONG called and wrote to Scientology lawyer

Eric Lieberman on August 21 and 22, 1991 protesting the

surveillance, videotaping and Scientology terror tactics.

Lieberman never responded, but Scientology responded with renewed

attacks on ARMSTRONG, filing perjurious declarations about him in

Aznaran v. Scientology, U.S. District Court, Central District of

California, Case No. CV-88-1786-JMI(Ex) accusing him of, inter

alia, being in Greene's office (during the period when he had been

in South Africa), of being employed by Joseph Yanny while working

for Greene, and of being Yanny's extension in the Aznaran case.

Scientology used these lies in a series of attempts to have the

Aznaran case dismissed, and in further attempts to destroy

ARMSTRONG's credibility and his capacity to defend himself from

  Page 22. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

Scientology's attacks. Scientology also filed perjurious

declarations in Aznaran concerning the illegal 1984 Armstrong

operation, claiming, inter alia, that the operation was a police-

sanctioned investigation, that ARMSTRONG was plotting against

Scientology and seeking out staff members who would be willing to

assist him in overthrowing its leadership, and that ARMSTRONG's

theory of litigation against Scientology was to fabricate the

facts. These lies were used in a series of attempts to deny the

Aznarans justice and to attack ARMSTRONG's credibility and leave

him defenseless before Scientology's assault. Scientology

moreover used in these attempts transcripts of the illegal 1984

videotaping of ARMSTRONG which had been sealed in the Armstrong I

court file. Scientology knew its lies filed in the Aznaran case

regarding ARMSTRONG were lies, knew it was using sealed documents

to attack ARMSTRONG, knew that such caused ARMSTRONG great

emotional distress, and knew that its acts in Armstrong I had

caused him emotional distress for which it had paid ARMSTRONG a

significant sum of money. Scientology's statements filed in

Aznaran regarding ARMSTRONG were malicious and an abuse process.

ARMSTRONG filed a declaration in Aznaran dated September 3, 1991

detailing the lies Scientology had up to that time filed about him

in that case and stating the truth of the matters. On June 23,

1992, Judge Ideman, presiding in the Aznaran case denied all

Scientology's motions in which it had filed its attacks on

ARMSTRONG.

49. On October 3, 1991 Scientology, using CSC, CSI and

RTC as Plaintiffs, filed a motion in Los Angeles Superior Court in

the Armstrong I case to enforce the settlement agreement in which

  Page 23. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

it charged that ARMSTRONG's declaration in Aznaran which rebutted

Scientology's lies filed about him in that case was a violation of

the settlement agreement. That motion, in which Scientology

sought from ARMSTRONG $100,000.00 in damages for his responses to

Scientology attacks, was denied on December 23, 1991 by Judge

Geernaert, who stated during the hearing of that date:

" So my belief is Judge Breckenridge, being a very

careful judge, follows about the same practice and if he

had been presented that whole agreement and if he had

been asked to order its performance, he would have dug

his feet in because that is one of the [  ] most

ambiguous, one-sided agreements I have ever read. And I

would not have ordered the enforcement of hardly any of

the terms had I been asked to, even on the threat that,

okay the case is not settled.

I know we like to settle cases. But we don't want to

settle cases and, in effect, prostrate the court system

into making an order which is not fair or in the public

interest."

50. Heedless of Judge Geernaert's comments Scientology

on February 4, 1992 filed the underlying lawsuit, hereinafter

Armstrong II, this time seeking $1,700, 000.00 in damages. On

March 26, 1992 Scientology sought to have ARMSTRONG held in

contempt of court for communicating to the media about the

litigation after Scientology had itself given an interview to the

media and in response to Scientology's public comments about him.

Judge Dufficy of the Marin Superior Court, then presiding over the

Armstrong II litigation, refused to hear Scientology's effort to

  Page 24. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

have ARMSTRONG found in contempt. The effort, however,

demonstrates Scientology's intention: create a scenario in which

ARMSTRONG responds to Scientology attacks and then have him jailed

for his response. Then, pursuant to Scientology policy,

neutralize him.

51. On February 19, 1992 Ford Greene, ARMSTRONG's

attorney in Armstrong II, wrote Scientology attorney Laurie

Bartilson requesting that ARMSTRONG's former attorneys in

Armstrong I, Michael Flynn, Julia Dragojevic and Bruce Bunch, each

of whom were specifically prohibited by contract with Scientology

from giving ARMSTRONG a declaration to assist him in his defense

of Scientology's lawsuit to enforce the settlement agreement, be

released from that prohibition so they could provide him with

needed declarations. Scientology refused. On February 24, 1992

Greene wrote Bartilson requesting that the other individuals who

had entered into settlement agreements with Scientology,

negotiated by Scientology with Flynn in 1986, and who were

specifically prohibited from providing ARMSTRONG with a

declaration to assist him in his defense of Scientology's lawsuit

to enforce the settlement agreement, be released from that

prohibition so they could provide him with needed declarations.

Even though Scientology had used the fact of the other

individuals' settlement agreements being substantially similar to

the ARMSTRONG agreement, and cited to and relied on cases

involving those individuals' settlements in its lawsuit against

ARMSTRONG, Scientology refused to release them from their contract

not to assist ARMSTRONG.

52. On May 27, 1992 at a hearing on a motion

  Page 25. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

Scientology brought to obtain a preliminary injunction in this

case, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Sohigian stated:

"The information that's being suppressed in this case,

however, is information about extremely blameworthy

behavior of the [Scientology] which nobody owns; it is

information having to do with the behavior of a high

degree of offensiveness and behavior which is tortious

in the extreme. It involved abusing people who are weak.

It involves taking advantage of people who for one

reason or another get themselves enmeshed in this

extremist view in a way that makes them unable to resist

it apparently. There appears to be in the history of

[Scientology's] behavior a very, very substantial

deviation between [Scientology's] conduct and standards

of ordinary, courteous conduct and standards of ordinary

honest behavior. They're just way off in a different

firmament. [Scientology's] is the kind of behavior which

makes you sort of be sure you cut the deck and be sure

you've counted all the cards. If you're having a

friendly poker game you'd make sure to count all the

chips before you dealt any cards."

Despite these statements concerning Scientology and its practices,

and despite Scientology's knowledge of similar rulings and

judgments in Armstrong I, the case of Wollersheim v. Scientology,

the case of Allard v. Scientology, the case in England Re B & G

Wards, the cases of US v. Hubbard and US v. Kember, and of

articles in the Los Angeles Times in 1990 and Time magazine in

1991, Scientology continues to attack ARMSTRONG and its other

  Page 26. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

perceived enemies pursuant to its basic doctrine of Fair Game.

Scientology's refusal to change its posture toward ARMSTRONG in

the face of evidence of its nature causes ARMSTRONG severe

emotional distress. Judge Sohigian denied Scientology's motion to

enforce the settlement agreement in every aspect except for his

right to provide testimony in anti-Scientology litigation without

being first subpoenaed to provide such testimony. The Sohigian

ruling left ARMSTRONG free to speak and write about Scientology,

to provide information to government agencies without the need for

a subpoena and to continue to work as a paralegal.

53. ARMSTRONG has learned that MISCAVIGE possessed

ARMSTRONG's original artwork and manuscript after they were stolen

from ARMSTRONG's car in 1984. MISCAVIGE told Vicki Aznaran that

he had ARMSTRONG's artwork and manuscript, and he described

ARMSTRONG's works as weird poetry and letters to Hubbard.

Scientology lawyer John Peterson in 1984, in response to

ARMSTRONG's demand at that time for return of his works denied

that Scientology possessed them. Now ARMSTRONG has the proof and

he demands these works' return.

54. On July 8, 1993, Scientology filed another lawsuit

against ARMSTRONG styled Church of Scientology International v.

Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 084 642

(hereinafter "Armstrong III") in retaliation for ARMSTRONG's

continuing to publicly speak out in the news media on the subject

of Scientology and its practices and for filing a declaration on

behalf of a defendant, Lawrence Wollersheim, whom Scientology had

sued.

55. On July 23, 1993, Scientology filed the instant

  Page 27. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

lawsuit against ARMSTRONG (hereinafter Armstrong IV"). Said

lawsuit is without merit and is yet another part of the on-going

Fair Game activity that Scientology has historically directed

against ARMSTRONG which uses the legal system as an engine to

harass and to attempt to destroy and ruin ARMSTRONG.

56. Scientology has, for over a decade, waged a

campaign of hatred and psychological violence against ARMSTRONG.

This campaign has been observed and condemned by courts and the

media. In 1986 as an act of calculating Fair Game it used

ARMSTRONG's lawyer, himself a long time target of Fair Game, to

manipulate him into a settlement of his claims against Scientology

which was intended to leave him lawyer-less and defenseless so

that Scientology's Fair Game efforts against him could continue

unopposed. In consummate cynicism Scientology claims its purpose

in the settlement was to make peace. Scientology's acts against

ARMSTRONG have affected every aspect of his life, taken from him

the peace and seclusion he sought and threatened his health,

livelihood, friendships and his very existence. These acts must

stop.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Abuse Of Process Against All Defendants)

57. Cross-complainant ARMSTRONG realleges paragraphs 1

through 56, inclusive, and incorporates them by reference herein

as though fully set forth.

58. Defendants, and each of them, have abused the process of

this court in a wrongful manner, not proper in the regular conduct

of the proceedings in Armstrong I, Armstrong II, Armstrong III,

Armstrong IV and in other litigation, to accomplish a purpose for

  Page 28. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

which said proceedings were not designed, specifically, the

suppression of evidence, the obstruction of justice, the

assassination of cross-complainant's reputation, and retaliation

against said cross-complainant for prevailing at trial in

Armstrong I, and for continuing to publicly speak out on the

subject of Scientology, all so as to be able to attack cross-

complainant and prevent cross-complainant from being able to take

any effective action to protect himself.

59. Defendants, and each of them, acted with an ulterior

motive to suppress evidence, obstruct justice, assassinate cross-

complainant's reputation, suppress ARMSTRONG's First Amendment

rights, and to retaliate against cross-complainant in said

litigations.

60. That defendants, and each of them, have committed

willful acts of intimidation, threats, and submission of false and

confidential documents not authorized by the process of

litigation, and not proper in the regular conduct of litigation.

61. Cross-complainant has suffered damage, loss and harm,

including but not limited to his reputation, his emotional

tranquillity, and privacy.

62. That said damage, loss and harm was the proximate and

legal result of the use of such legal process.

///

///

///

///

///

///

  Page 29. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

WHEREFORE, cross-complainant seeks relief as is hereinafter

pleaded.

ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1. For general and compensatory damages according to proof.

2. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof.

3. For attorney's fees and costs of suit.

4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem

just and proper.

DATED: November 30, 1993

HUB LAW OFFICES

By: [signed] Ford Greene
FORD GREENE
Attorney for Defendant

 

  Page 30. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned, am the cross-complainant in the above

entitled action. I know the contents of the foregoing Amended

Cross-Complaint I certify that the same is true of my own

knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated upon

my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them

to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

and correct according to the laws of the State of California and

that this declaration was executed on the November 30, 1993 at San

Anselmo, California.

  By: [signed] G. Armstrong
GERALD ARMSTRONG

 

  Page 31. CROSS-COMPLAINT
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I

am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above

entitled action. My business address is 711 Sir Francis Drake

Boulevard, San Anselmo, California. I served the following

documents: VERIFIED AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR ABUSE OF
PROCESS

on the following person(s) on the date set forth below, by placing

a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage

thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at

San Anselmo, California:

Andrew Wilson, Esquire
WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 450
San Francisco, California 94104
LAURIE J. BARTILSON, ESQ.
Bowles & Moxon
6255 Sunset Boulevard
Suite 2000
Los Angeles, California 90028

MICHAEL WALTON
P.O. Box 751
San Anselmo, California 94960

 

 
[x] (By Mail)

I caused such envelope with postage thereon
fully prepaid to be placed in the United
States Mail at San Anselmo, California.

 

[x] (State)

I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.

 

DATED: November 30, 1993 [signed] Ford Greene

 

  Page 32. CROSS-COMPLAINT

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