§  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

27

28

 

DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG

 

    I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

 

    1. I am making this declaration in support of an

opposition to plaintiff organization's motion for summary

adjudication.

 

    2. The organization's motion deals with a serious

issue, one which affects the life of potentially thousands of

individuals, and one which has become for me emotionally

devastating and mind-altering, in a manner which is illogical

and perverse. The realization that the people behind this

motion and behind all the pc file violations; that is, the

attorneys and the few who control organization money, will stop

at nothing, no lie, or perversion of reality, no act, to, as

Hubbard ordered, ruin me utterly, has some time ago gone far

beyond a passing thought.

 

    3. Mr. Peterson's argument in the summary adjudication

motion is that "by 1978 (I) knew, or reasonably should have

known" about the violations of my pc files, and that because my

cross-complaint was filed in September 1982; my causes of action

for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and

breach of contract as they relate to the organization's

violations of my pc files are barred by applicable statutes of

limitation. Mr. Peterson twists what I knew in 1978 with what I

knew in the fall of 1981 and what I learned subsequently. The

 

-1-

   

 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

 

whole statute of limitations argument is rendered ludicrous,

however, by the fact that the organization and its attorneys

have continued both the fraud of promised sanctity of pc files

and violation thereof right up to the present time. Attached

hereto as Exhibit [A] is a copy of the organization's "objection

to release of preclear files "dated July 3, 1986 filed with this

Court. At p. 2 of this document, organization attorney Donald

Randolph states: "only within the last few weeks have these

files been copied, indexed and reviewed by counsel." Mr.

Randolph included in the "objection" several pages of statements

he gloats were culled from my pc files. I have blacked out

these statements in the document copy attached.

 

    4. Attached hereto as Exhibit [B] is a copy of a

declaration dated December 18, 1983 which I wrote to support a

motion to get my pc files delivered to me. At p. 8 I state, "I

do not waive the (priest-penitent) privilege, and in fact I

insist upon it." In a demonstration of the organizations's

malevolent intent, Mr. Randolph asks this Court a p. 5 of the

" objection" to "require Armstrong and his counsel to provide a

waiver of the priest-penitent privilege." To veil the

organization's antisocial acts with an illusion of legitimacy,

Mr. Randolph states at p. 6 of the "objection" that if I even

obtain copies of my pc files (part of which I do now have) the

organization "will be forced against its wishes, to utilize the

same documentation in its defense as evidence of Armstrong's

character and perjurious statements." This is blackmail. And

it is the clearest proof of the sanctity fraud, the

 

-2-

   

 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

 

organization's actual policy regarding use of "confidential" pc

file information against the pc, and the basic fraud of Hubbard

and his creation.

 

    5. Attached hereto as Exhibit [C] is a declaration dated

July 14, 1985 written by Frank K. Flinn, B.D., Ph.D., the

organization's "religious expert." This declaration was filed

in this case along with the organization's "response," of July

30, 1985 to the Court's July 2, 1985 Discovery Order. At

pp. 18-20, Dr. Flinn compares Scientology's policies and

practices regarding the "sanctity" of pre-clear files with those

of other " religions."

"Another religious practice of the Church of

Scientology which has come under scrutiny is the issue

of the confidentiality exercised with respect to the

auditing records of members and especially of the

"pre-clear files" of upper-level church members. I

find the practice of the Church of Scientology in this

regard fully in keeping with the practices of other

religions.

 

In general, there are two fundamental reasons why

churches, including the Church of Scientology, seek

confidentiality with regard to unauthorized examination

of spiritual records. The first is to preserve the

sanctity of the spiritual privacy of the believer.

....

 

-3-

   

 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 regard to the first reason, the spiritual privacy

of the believer, Scientology is like every religion

known to me. The Roman Catholic Church protects the

priest-penitent relationship with the severest of

sanctions, including dismissal from priestly office and

expulsion from the Church itself. Upon ordination

priests take an oath of the "confessional seal" before

they are allowed to hear the confession of sins and

administer official spiritual counselling. My pastor,

a Monsignor in the Roman Catholic Church, has testified

to me that he would undergo imprisonment and death

before revealing the contents of any confession,

whether this revelation was demanded by the President

of the United States or by the Pope of Rome.

....

Abuse of the archive and unauthorized divulging of

information can bring severe penalties, including

demotion from office, penances and even

excommunication.

Most Protestant denominations have similar regulations

and penalties in their respective church polities.

Likewise Scientology has codes of conduct for auditors

and other officials regarding authorized files. The

Church does not allow any outsider access to a

parishioner's files as a matter of priest-pentient

privilege, as is the case with other churches.

Confidentiality of this type of material touches on the

nerve center of religion itself. The historical record

 

-4-

   

 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

 

shows that no church lightly suffers the intrusion into

such records by the government or any other outside

agency. The history of the Reign of Terror in France

reveals the great number of priests who went to the

guillotine rather than break the confessional seal."

 

    Neither the President, the Pope, this Court nor anyone

other than the organizations' leaders and attorneys ordered the

violations of the "sanctity" of my pc files. These leaders and

the attorneys reveal a radically different standard of conduct

and ethics from that of the ministers of "other religions" who

went to the guillotine rather than divulge the confessions of

their preclears.

 

    6. Attached hereto as Exhibit [D] is a declaration

signed by Reverend Ken Hoden, "president" of one of the new

" corporations" "divested" recently by the " California"

organization. This declaration was also filed in this case with

the " response" to the July 2, 1985 Discovery Order.

 

Mr. Hoden states at par. 3:

"Materials and information stored or recorded within

the confessional folders (PC folders) are confidential

and privileged. Our religious doctrine prohibits any

parishioner or person receiving pastoral counselling

(auditing) from viewing the contents of their folders.

Our religious doctrines also prohibit any external

dissemination of preclear folders. Even our attorneys

 

-5-

   

 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

 

are forbidden to review these folders. The only people

who are allowed to view the pastoral counselling

folders are authorized Church ministers.

Yet, my pc files were given to attorneys, culled and

used against me. Mr. Randolph even defines the statements he

culled from my "confidential" pc files "as admissions against

Armstrong's interest." It is clear that the defense the

organization's attorneys have desperately devised to their

inhuman and criminal actions is the threatened divulgence of the

materials culled from my pc files and my resultant hoped and

worked for emotional disintegration. The filing of the culled

statements " under seal" is a cheap attempt to give an appearance

of morality to the organization's perfidious act. Dozens of

organization attorneys, staff members, and attorney staff have

seen the culled statements. They were placed in front of the

Judge in this case, the individual who can most affect the

outcome of this case and the rest of my life. Several of the

incidents " culled" from my pc files as "admissions" never

happened. Mr. Randolph and whoever helped him, in their

ignorance of auditing and recklessness , have apparently culled

imaginary " past life" incidents or have created the incidents

out of whole cloth. For several other incidents, Mr. Randolph's

interpretation is twisted beyond recognition. When he states at

p. 2 that " the Church still maintains that the sanctity of the

confessional must be placed above all other concerns," he lays

to rest Mr. Peterson's statute of limitations argument because

he shows that the fraud is continuing. The organization

is still claiming out of one side of its mouth that

 

-6-

   

 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 sanctity of pc files is its paramount concern while out the

other side it spits its victims' innermost thoughts and secrets

and when these treacherously obtained and used thoughts and

secrets are not sufficiently juicy to achieve the organization's

black PR ends, it has someone fabricate them.

 

    7. At p. 8 of the summary adjudication motion Mr.

Peterson states:

"The only way Armstrong can avoid the bar of the

statute of limitations is by proving that he did not

and could not have discovered the events alleged in his

Cross Complaint any earlier than he did."

    As has already been shown the culling of my files

admitted to by the organization occurred in 1986 and I only

learned of this fact in July this year, almost four years after

the filing of the cross-complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit [E]

is a page from what the organization produced as my "B-1 time

track." The entry at April 7, 1980 is taken from my pc files

(in session). I only learned of this culling in March 1985 when

the organization produced some B-1 materials in the

Christofferson case in Oregon. Even using the organization's

date for the culled incident of April 7, 1980, this is two years

after the 1978 date Mr. Peterson would like the Court to use.

And when I learned of this culling is two and half years after

the filing of the cross-complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit [F]

is a document entitled "Gerry Armstrong Project" dated February

17, 1982. Step 2 reads:

"Go through his files and folders to extract the names

 

-7-

   

 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

 

of people who knew him and who are still well connected

up and completely trustworthy. Interview these people

to find out who Gerry's close friends were and to see

if he had any relatives in this area (we could then

follow up to see if he might be staying with them).

This is the use of my pc files for intelligence data to be used

against me. Attached hereto as Exhibit [G] is a "daily report

dated February 22, 1982, from Assistant Guardian for

Intelligence (AGI), Brad Ballentine to his organizational

seniors at GOUS. He states in the fourth paragraph:

"SU (Special Unit, the name for the Gilman Hotspring

compound) and Flag (the Clearwater, Florida base) have

sent us all their files on him (Armstrong)."

"Us" is the GO intelligence bureau. I only learned of

this transmission of my pc files to the organization's

intelligence bureau and this use to which they were then put in

March 1985, again two and half years after the filing of the

cross-complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit [H] is a declaration

dated May 7, 1985 written by me in support of efforts to obtain

my pc files from the organization, and prevent its continued

violations of them. In paragraphs 5 through 9 I describe an

organization intelligence operation involving the use of my pc

files to entrap me. Much of the operation occurred in 1984,

some six years after Mr. Peterson claims I should have known

about it. I only became aware of the operation in April 1985

when organization attorneys used its product to attack me in the

Christofferson case. It's perhaps unfortunate for the

organization that it gave my pc file the intelligence bureau

 

-8-

   

 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 culling and intelligence purposes in 1982, used

them to set up the illegal videotaping of me in 1984,

and again culled my files to concoct the "objection

to release of preclear files" in 1986, since in so

doing it lost any shot it may have had at obtaining a

summary adjudication based on the statutes of

limitations. The organization's misfortune cannot

begin, however, to compare with the pain and anguish

it subjected me to with these acts. If the

organization had acted decently, and not violated

either overtly or covertly, my pc files, the

situation today might be quite different.

 

    8.Even without considering the pc file violations

after I left the organization in 1981 or even back

into the 1970's, the summary adjudication motion

still falls because I had been rendered by the

organization and Hubbard, until I began to come to my

senses in late 1981, something different from "a

reasonably prudent person." Mr. Peterson has

selected statements from some of my response to

interrogatories as "admissions against (my) own

interest" to show that I learned of the culling in

the 1970's while in the organization. From the same

responses used by Mr. Peterson, attached to his

motion as Exhibit A, I have excerpted the following

three statements by me which show why a reasonably

///

 

-9-

   

 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

 

prudent person perceiving the same tip of the pc file violation

iceberg that I did in the 1970s would or should have fled in

disgust and filed suit for the fraud and related crimes and torts,

and why I could not.

P.6 "In 1976 while locked up and guarded by the

Guardian's Office on the orders of L. Ron Hubbard, I was

told that my auditing reports were being gone through by

GO staff. Had I protested this action, I would have

remained locked up indefinitely. I had no control of my

preclear folders, nor any control of those who had

access to them. My will was broken by this time, and I

was effectively controlled and manipulated by L. Ron

Hubbard and the organization.

    In 1976 through through December of 1977, I was

assigned to and kept on the RPF by L. Ron Hubbard and

those under his control. A system of control and

deprivation was exerted over me throughout this period

and a campaign of harassment and terror was directed

against me and the RPF as ordered by Hubbard.

....

P.9 "If I had known of the existence of this policy

(GO 121669) and the practice of disclosure of

" confidential" session information, I would never have

become involved with Scientology. I was brought along

as far as I went with the organization by the

systematic trickery and manipulation by L. Ron Hubbard

and the organization.

....

 

-10-

   

 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

 

P.23 "I spent from July 1, 1976 to December 1, 1977 on

the RPF on Hubbard's order. I was humiliated, degraded,

terrorized and defrauded by Hubbard during this period.

I underwent tremendous emotional trauma and lost self

respect and rationality.

The proof of the mind manipulation run by Hubbard and the

organization is that I stayed so long after so much degradation

and betrayal. Only in late 1981 when I spotted Hubbard as the

source of the fraud and the organization's antisocial conduct, and

after leaving the organization when the control mechanisms began

to fall away,did I become aware of the criminal significance of

pc file culling and the fraud which makes it possible.

 

     9. Hubbard also used the auditing process itself, by

which he claimed to be freeing people, to subtly program them to

not even think a critical thought about the deplorable conditions

in which they were kept, including a questioning of auditing or

the pc file violations which might be observed or heard about.

During any auditing session, if the preclear makes any critical

comment, the auditor will immediately demand of the preclear any

"overt", that is any misdeed, crime or intentionally harmful act,

he has committed. In Hubbard's system, any criticism meant that

the person making it had a hidden undisclosed crime. One of his

bulletins, " Session Must-nots," attached hereto as Exhibit [I],

states this point:

"When a pc is critical of the auditor, the organization

or any of the many things in life, this is always a

symptom of overts priorly committed by the pc.

 

- 11-

   

 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

 

....

This is a sweeping fully embracive statement - and a

true one. There are no criticisms in the absence of

overts committed earlier by the pc.

Very soon after some auditing in the Sea Organization I learned

that any criticism I had meant I had done something bad, and after

a while I even was stopped from thinking any thought critical

of Hubbard or the organization. In Hubbard's dictionary of

Scientology terms, a "critical thought" in fact is defined as "a

symptom of an overt act having been committed." The page from

the dictionary is attached hereto as Exhibit [J]. This concept,

although programmed into people in auditing, pervaded every part

or aspect of the organization. So the criticisms of a staff

member about Hubbard's or the GO's practices, and specifically

pc file violations, were not listened to; rather he would be

investigated or sec checked for his "crimes." By contrast,

however, it could never be thought that Hubbard, who was

constantly critical of doctors, judges, scientists, psychologists,

government, teachers, and especially Scientologists and Sea Org

members, had himself committed crimes or overts, because such a

thought about him was clearly "critical." Thus he achieved almost

absolute mind control.

 

    10. Beginning at page 10 of the summary adjudication

motion, Mr. Peterson makes a confusing argument that:

"Armstrong is barred by Statute of Limitations from

asserting Scientology's religious status, and auditing

benefits as "misrepresentations" as Armstrong had a

 

- 12-

   

 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

 

duty to investigate these "facts" more than 3 years

prior to date of cross-complaint.

Mr. Peterson further states at p. 14:

"Clearly, if Armstrong is to be believed, he was aware

of what he terms the scientific non-religious nature

of Scientology no later than 1975.

How that helps the organization's position is baffling. It is

the basis of the whole Hubbardian fraud. It was Hubbard's

scientific guarantees for auditing and Scientology which were the

lure into the organization. Even the promise of auditing

confidentiality was given in scientific terms and differentiated

from " religious confessions" which Hubbard claimed had

degenerated into "a kind of blackmail." In his bulletin of

January 21, 1960, attached hereto as Exhibit [K] he stated:

"Some churches used a mechanism of confession. This

was a limited effort to relieve a person of his overt

acts. Later the mechanism of confession was employed

as a kind of blackmail by which increased contribution

could be obtained from the person confessing. Factually

this is a limited mechanism to such an extent that it

can be extremely dangerous. Religious confession does

not carry with it any real stress of responsibility

for the individual but on the contrary seeks to lay

responsibility at the door of the Divinity -- a sort of

blasphemy in itself. I have no axe to grind here with

religion. Religion as religion is fairly natural. But

psychotherapy must be in itself a completed fact or, as

we all know, it can become a dangerous fact.

 

-13-

   

 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

 

Hubbard goes on in the same bulletin to ask auditors to "make

your pc write these overts and withholds down and sign them and

send them off to me." His motivation for this policy is not

altruistic, and it only became clear to me in 1981.

    The other part of Mr. Peterson's argument is that since

I had some doubts in my early Scientology years I had a duty from

that point to investigate. Mr. Peterson includes in the testimony

from the trial in the underlying case, however, at p. 15 of the

motion my statement of what happened when I did question the fact

that the auditing I had had did not resolve what I considered

the essential problem: "I was told after doing the auditing steps

that that would only happen at Clear." And "clear" only happened

around 1979, and that did not produce the promised results of

auditing, but I was told these would happen at another "higher

level" called OT III. In other words an aspect of the continuing

fraud was bait and switch.

    Attached hereto as Exhibit [L] is a policy written by

Hubbard dated February 25, 1966 entitled Attacks on Scientology"

wherein he orders:

"NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY

agree to an investigation of the attackers."

The investigation Mr. Peterson is seeking to convince the Court

I had a duty to make was impossible. In fact I did something

of an investigation in 1980 and 1981 when it was somewhat

possible and the results of the investigation were a major factor

in my leaving the organization and Hubbard.

    11. Mr. Peterson claims at p. 16 of the motion that the

intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action is

 

-14-

   

 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

 

barred by the statute of limitations in regards to the pc file

violations since I was emotionally distressed in 1976 and 1977

while I was locked up, in the RPF, and generally being manipulated

and degraded on a daily basis by the organization on Hubbard's

orders. Mr. Peterson's argument is hollow since culling or my

files occurred as well, as has been shown above, in the 1980s and

as recently as July this year. The emotional distress I have

experienced from the 1986 culling alone is beyond description.

Mr. Peterson's argument that I am barred by the statute of

limitations because of my knowledge in the 1970s that pc file

culling occurred is like telling a victim of years of abuse that

he or she cannot do anything about it because the abuse has gone

on so long.

     Interrogatory no. 16, the response to which Mr.

Peterson has quoted from at p. 17, states:

"With regard to the second cause of action of your first

amended cross-complaint for damages for alleged

intentional infliction of emotional distress against

cross-defendants Scientology and Hubbard, to the extent

you have not done so, in response to the above

interrogatory, provide the following factual basis for

such cause of action:

A. The specific and full factual basis--for all the

allegations contained in said cause of action.

Mr. Peterson's assumption that the date that I "first suffered

severe emotional distress as a consequence" of realizing the

organization had and would my innermost thoughts and secrets,

was "by 1978" is erroneous. And the conclusion, at p. 18 of the

 

-15-

   

 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

 

motion, that "Armstrong had knowledge of what he contends were all

the above referenced breaches of the so-called contract no later

than December 1, 1977," and at p. 8 that "(i)n reality,

Armstrong has not testified that he knew anything in the Fall of

1981 that he had not already known as of 1978, by the latest"

omit any reference to and attempt to slip by the whole biography

project, Hubbard's archives and the underlying case which the

organization brought.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of

the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Executed this first day of November, 1986 at Boston, Massachusetts.

[signed]
Gerald Armstrong

 

- 16-

   

    

Exhibit [A]
OBJECTION OF CROSS-DEFENEDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA TO RELEASE PRECLEAR FILES 07-03-1986

Exhibit [B]
Armstrong Declaration 12-18-19083

Exhibit [C]
Declaration of Frank K. Flinn 07-14- 1985

Exhibit [D]
Declaration of Ken Hoden 07-29-1985 [.pdf]

Exhibit [E]
Page from B-1's "time-track" on Armstrong
See more of OSA's file on Armstrong

Exhibit [F]
"The Gerry Armstrong Project " [.pdf]

Exhibit [G]
AGI "Daily report" 02-22-1982

Exhibit [H]
Armstrong Declaration 05-07-1985

Exhibit [I]
HCO Bulletin 24 August 1964 SESSION MUST-NOTS © 1964 L. Ron Hubbard

Exhibit [J]
Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary -- definition " critical thought" © L. Ron Hubbard

Exhibit [K]
HCO Bulletin 21 January AD10 [1960] JUSTIFICATION © 1960 L. Ron Hubbard

Exhibit [L]
HCO Policy Letter 25 Feburary 1966 ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY © 1966 L. Ron Hubbard

   

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