AFFIDAVIT OF GERALD ARMSTRONG
I, Gerald Armstrong state and declare under the pains and penalties of
perjury as follows:
1. I was in Scientology from 1969 to 1981. I worked
personally for L. Ron Hubbard during much of that time, and
was personally appointed by Hubbard to be the researcher on
a proposed biography of his life. During my work on that bi-
ography I assembled many documents concerning almost all of
Hubbard's life, and discovered that he had extensively lied
about his education, credentials, past accomplishments, his
role in Scientology, and Scientology itself. When I tried
to work within the organization to make the truth known in a
manner which would least damage Scientology and Hubbard, organi-
zation officials claimed I was an enemy trying to destroy the
founder.
2. After I left the organization I was declared a
"suppressive person" and subjected to the "Fair Game" doctrine.
The organization began a "Black Propaganda Campaign" aimed at
destroying my reputation. They initiated a covert intelligence
operation against me, stole photos I had, and when I demanded
their return told me to get an attorney. Fearing I would be-
come the target of costly and harassive lawsuits, and believing
my life and my wife's life were in danger, and needing to defend
1
myself, I contacted attorney Michael Flynn. I obtained from
the author for whom I had done the biography research, copies
of some of the documents I had seen while working on the
biography project and I sent these documents to Mr. Flynn.
The documents proved that what I had been saying about Hubbard
was true and they showed a massive fraud on his part.
3. Scientology sued me, and after a five week trial
in the California Superior Court it was ultimately determined
that I was justified in sending the subject documents to my
attorney. The Court stated in its decision, a copy of which
is attached as Exhibit [D] to this opposition:
"...just as the plaintiffs have First Amendment
rights, the defendant has a constitutional right
to an attorney of his own choosing. In legal
contemplation the fact that defendant selected
Mr. Flynn rather than some other lawyer cannot
by itself be tortious. In determining whether
the defendant unreasonably invaded Mrs. Hubbard's
privacy, the court is satisfied the invasion was
slight, and the reasons and justification for
defendant's conduct manifest. Defendant was told
by Scientology to get an attorney. He was de-
clared an enemy by the Church. He believed,
reasonably, that he was subject to "fair game."
The only way he could defend himself, his in-
tegrity, and his wife was to take that which
was available to him and place it in a safe har-
bor, to wit, his lawyer's custody."2
4. The knowledge that I have and the documents that
I have seen are particularly damning to Hubbard and Scientology.
Based on them, in part, Judge Breckenridge in his opinion in
Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, C420 153,
found that "the Church or its minions is fully capable of in-
timidation or other physical or psychological abuse", it
"abuses its own members civil rights", "the organization over
the years with its 'Fair Game' doctrine has harassed and abused
those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies",
L. Ron Hubbard is "a man who has been virtually a pathological
liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements",
and Scientology's "practice of culling supposedly confidential
'PC folders or files' to obtain information for purposes of
intimidation and/or harassment is repugnant and outrageous."
All of these findings were made by Judge Breckenridge in the
case Scientology brought against me.
5. In order to compromise my effectiveness as a witness
and undo the Breckenridge judgment, Scientology created the
"Armstrong Operation". It was a Scientology setup from the
start. I was contacted in June of 1984 by an old friend of
mine who told me that a group of individuals called the
"Loyalists" were seeking to reform the organization, and end the
criminal and tortious activities and the Fair Game doctrine.
My friend said the "Loyalists" had existed for two years, they
had people on staff in the organization and many others who
supported their cause. The "Loyalists" wanted my help because
3
I had contacts among other individuals who opposed the organi-
zation's practices, and because I had been successful in
litigating against the organization. They wanted me to act
as their consultant.
6. I had several meetings with representatives of the
"Loyalists" and was even taken to meet an attorney whom they
said was going to file a lawsuit on their behalf to oust what
they called the "criminal management"of Scientology. Unknown
to me, these meetings were covertly and illegally videotaped.
The entire operation was a setup. The "Loyalists" had no
intention of ending the organization's illegal activities and
were not planning to file a lawsuit. They were a fictional
creation to make it look like I was conspiring to overthrow
Scientology.
7. The videotapes do not reveal all of my conversa-
tions with the "Loyalists". Scientology has chosen those
parts which it feels are most beneficial to them. Even the
videotapes they do use do not show what Scientology claims.
They simply reveal conversations about ideas proposed by the
"Loyalists" for their use in their struggle. Of course, since
the "Loyalists" never really existed, nothing was ever carried
out. In any event, the wild claims Scientology makes, that
I conspired to plant false documents, steal privileged informa-
tion, and set up some sort of sexual blackmail situation, are
ridiculous. Judge Londer, in the case of Christofferson v.
Scientology, et al, in Portland, Oregon recognized that the
4
tapes do not say what the organization says they say. He
stated, immediately after viewing the tapes on April 4, 1985:
"I think they are devastating. I think they are
devastating against the Church. We certainly
view them in a different way, Mr. Cooley, you and
I."..."it borders more on entrapment than it does
on anything else. How a sophisticated person,
which Mr. Armstrong purports to be, could go
for such an amateurish performance as I heard
on these tapes is beyond me. The questions were
being fed to him obviously; anytime he wanted to
make an explanation, it was promptly cut off.
There was no evidence of any attempt to commit
a crime that I saw."
In fact, on the tapes themselves, in response to a suggestion
by one of the "Loyalists", an operative named Mike Rinder , that
false documents be created, I reply, "I wouldn't touch it with
a barge pole."
8. Despite Scientology allegations to the contrary, I
was not acting as an agent of Michael Flynn, or various govern-
ment agencies when I met with the "Loyalists". I simply was
responding to the "Loyalists"' request for help from me, and
I accepted their offer to help me out. They actively en-
couraged me to request all sorts of things, claiming they could
get whatever I needed. Any requests I sent them I originated
on my own. Neither Michael Flynn nor the federal government
asked me to obtain any documents or information for them from
the "Loyalists". In fact, Michael Flynn cautioned me that
the "Loyalists" might be an operation created by Hubbard.
5
9. Under California law, an individual cannot be
videotaped without his consent. Scientology, at the
Christofferson trial, claimed that a private investigator
hired by them, Eugene Ingram, (who had been kicked off the
Los Angeles police force for various offenses) obtained an
authorization to secretly tape me from a police officer. In
an official statement released by the Los Angeles Police
Department, however, LAPD Chief Daryl Gates stated that the
officer had no authorization, and that it would be "a cold
day in hell" before the Los Angeles Police Department co-
operated with Eugene Ingram. A copy of this announcement is
attached hereto as Exhibit [A]. I have learned fromCommander
Booth of the LAPD that the officer involved, Phillip Rodriguez,
was suspended for six months due to his improper " authorization".
10. If this court has any doubts about this entire
illegal affair, I urge it to view the tapes themselves. They
will plainly show that the Scientology charges are ridiculous
and grossly inflated. It will also prove to the court that
Scientology engages in precisely the types of covert criminal
and tortious operations in violation of individuals' rights
which its critics have alleged it has committed for years.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this
1st day of November, 1985, in Boston, Massachusetts.
[signed]
GERALD ARMSTRONG
|
Suffolk, SS
|
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
|
11/1/85
|
Then
appeared before me the above named Gerald Armstrong
and acknowledged the aforegoing to be is true act and deed.
Before me,
[signed]
Lorna E. Doherty
Exhibit [A]
Los Angeles Police Chief Announcement 04-23-1985
Exhibit [B]
Exhibit [C]
Exhibit [D]
Breckenridge Decision