Reporters' Daily Transcript (May 30, 1984)
Armstrong 1SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE
| CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff, vs. GERALD ARMSTRONG, Defendant. MARY SUE HUBBARD, Intervenor. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
No. C 420153 |
REPORTERS’ DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Wednesday, May 30, 1984
VOLUME 21
Pages 3587 through 3774
| APPEARANCES: | |
(See Volume 15) |
| NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644 HERB CANNON, CSR #1923 |
I
INDEX FOR VOLUME 21 Pages 3587 - 3774, incl.
| DAY | DATE | PAGE | |
| Wednesday | May 30, 1984 | A.M. | 3587 |
| P.M. | 3671 |
WITNESSES
| DEFENSE: | DIRECT | CROSS | REDIRECT | VOIR DIRE |
| WALTERS, Edward | 3587-H | |||
| GARRISON, Omar(Resumed) | 3591 | 3629-L3658-H | 3666 | 3675-F |
| ARMSTRONG, Jocelyn | 3671 | 3685-L3699-H | 3708 |
EXHIBITS
| DEFENSE:: | IN EVIDENCE |
| (All of the following exhibits were previously marked for identification and described:) | |
| F- | 3701 |
| K- | 3710 |
| M- | 3711 |
| N, O- | 3705 |
| P- | 3706 |
| Q, R, S, T, T-1, U, V- | 3707 |
| X- | 3717 |
| Y, Z, AA, BB- | 3718 |
| II, JJ, KK, LL, MM- | 3720 |
| OO- | 3721 |
| PP, QQ, RR, SS- | 3722 |
| TT- | 3723 |
| UU- | 3725 |
| VV- | 3727 |
| WW, XX- | 3728 |
| YY- | 3729 |
II
INDEX FOR VOLUME 21 (Continued)
EXHIBITS
| DEFENSE: | IN EVIDENCE |
| ZZ- | 3730 |
| AAA, BBB- | 3731 |
| CCC- | 3732 |
| DDD- | 3733 |
| EEE- | 3734 |
| FFF- | 3735 |
| HHH- | 3736 |
| JJJ- | 3738 |
| KKK, LLL- | 3740 |
| MMM- | 3741 |
| NNN, OOO, PPP, QQQ, RRR- | 3742 |
| UUU - | 3743 |
| VVV, WWW- | 3744 |
| YYY- | 3747 |
| ZZZ- | 3748 |
| AAAA, BBBB, CCCC, DDDD- | 3749 |
| EEEE- | 3750 |
| PLAINTIFF’S: | |
| 23, 24, 25- | 3751 |
| 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31- | 3752 |
| 32, 33- | 3753 |
| 34, 35, 36- | 3754 |
| 38, 39, 40, 41, 42- | 3755 |
| 43, 44, 45, 46- | 3756 |
| 47- | 3757 |
| 48- | 3758 |
| 51- (Jointly received with defense) | 3758 |
| 52- | 3759 |
| 53, 54, 55, 56- | 3760 |
| 57, 58, 59- | 3761 |
| 60- | 3762 |
III
INDEX FOR VOLUME 21 (Continued)
EXHIBITS
| PLAINTIFF’S | IN EVIDENCE |
| 61, 62- | 3764 |
| 68- | 3767 |
| 71- | 3768 |
| 72- (Pages 34 and 35 only) | 3770 |
| 73, 74- | 3770 |
| 76, 77- | 3771 |
| 78, 79, 80, 81- | 3772 |
| 82, 83, 84, 85, 86- | 3773 |
| 87- | 3774 |
3587
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1984; 9:55 A.M.
ooOoo
THE COURT: All right, we are back in session. We will resume with the previous witness.
Would you please take the stand.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if I might just make a quick point. I have represented to the court yesterday that Nancy Dincalci was on our witness list and I was under that belief at the time. I had a list in which she does appear and I had understood that this list was the list that was given to the court, but apparently it is not.
THE COURT: Well, it is ancient history now, so let’s not worry about ancient history.
EDWARD WALTERS, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Would you please state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Edward Walters.
THE COURT: I gather since Mr. Litt doesn’t appear to be here, you are going to cross-examine, Mr. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor, just briefly.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Mr. Walters, when is the first time that you
3588
met Mr. Armstrong, the fellow over here?A A week ago when I came down here for two days.
3589
Q And prior to meeting him in person had you spoken to him before that?
A Wait. Hold it. No. When we were in Clearwater at the Clearwater hearings.
Q And that was in –
A He came –
Q Sorry.
A — he came to the hotel where Mike Flynn and I and other witnesses were staying. And I saw him in a room. He was in a room talking to Mike Flynn and stuff. That is the first time I ever saw him.
Q And that was in — do you recall when that was, May of ‘82?
A That would sound right, yes.
MR. HARRIS: No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN: Maybe just one question, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mr. Walters, you have been sued three times by THE Church of Scientology; is that correct?
MR. HARRIS: Objection, beyond the scope of cross, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
MR. FLYNN: I think there is some evidence of the Fair Game Doctrine, lie to, sue. He has been sued three times
3590
for conspiracy. Two have been dismissed; the third one is about to be dismissed; just to harass him.THE COURT: Is that correct, sir?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I was threatened just before I came down here.
THE COURT: That really is not responsive.
You were sued three times; is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. Yes, I was.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir. You are excused.
MR. FLYNN: Call Omar Garrison.
OMAR GARRISON, called as a witness by the defense, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Step around to the witness stand. Please, raise your right hand to be sworn.
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please, state your name and spell your name for the record.
THE WITNESS: My name is Omar, O-m-a-r, V., Garrison, G-a-r-r-i-s-o-n.
I reside — do you want my address as well?
THE CLERK: No, sir.
3591
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Where do you reside, Mr. Garrison?
A I reside in Cedar City, Utah.
Q And you maintain an apartment in Costa Mesa, California, also?
A From time to time.
Q What is your occupation, sir?
A I am an author and journalist.
Q And have you appeared here today in response to a subpoena?
A Yes, I have.
Q How long have you been an author and a journalist?
A All my working life since about 1940.
Q And have you published books?
A I have 14 books in print.
Q Have you published books that have related in a general sense to the Church of Scientology?
A Yes, there were three.
Q And what are those three books?
A The titles are and in the order of publication, “The Hidden Story of Scientology”; one which is peripherally concerned with the Church of Scientology called “Interpol”; and one called “Playing Dirty.”
Q Now, in connection with the publication of those books, were you provided any biographical materials relating to L. Ron Hubbard?
3592
A Well, with the first, “The Hidden Story” there were very few biographical details because that wasn’t the main thrust of the book’s theme. Naturally I reviewed everything I could get my hands on simply as background for the story. The theme was actually illegal acts by Federal Agencies against the church.
“Interpol” had to do with the international police, and there were a few biographical materials similarly with “Playing Dirty.”
Now, in other books I may have referred to him and given a biographical sketch.
Q At some point in time you were asked to do a biography on the life of L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?
A Yes, that is right.
Q And approximately when was that, Mr. Garrison?
A I would say the first time, and this is an approximation, would be in about 1978.
Q And prior to that and let me show you what has been marked as exhibit I, were you involved in any way in trying to obtain biographical information about L. Ron Hubbard for a potential biography?
A Not actively. I wasn’t seeking information. They had come to me and asked that I do a biography, and
I said I didn’t want to for certain reasons and they said, “Well, give us your thoughts on how it should be done.”
So I wrote up a memo, of which this appears to be a copy, saying what my viewpoints were of how a
3593
biography of L. Ron Hubbard should be written.Q And was that some time in the year 1977?
A Yes, late ‘77 perhaps.
Q Directing your attention to the first page of exhibit I in a subsequent contract that you entered into with respect to the preparation of the biography, did exhibit I become part of that contract?
A I believe it did, yes.
Q And exhibit I is the correspondence from L. Ron Hubbard in 1977 relative to a prospective biography; is that correct?
A That is correct, yes.
3594
Q In 1980 were you contacted by Mr. Armstrong with respect to doing a biography on L. Ron Hubbard?
A No.
Q Were you contacted by Laurel Sullivan?
A No.
Q At some point in time in 1980 were you contacted by Laurel Sullivan with respect to the biography?
A Laurel Sullivan came into the picture after the contact. And the oral agreement before we reached a written contract occurred prior to Laurel’s implication in it.
It was when I was in East Grinsted, Sussex and David Gaiman, who was then acting as Guardian Worldwide, I believe, discussed roughly the proposition of doing it and –
Q Now, did you consider at that time David Gaiman was working for the organization, Scientology organization?
A Yes, I did.
Q And at some point Laurel Sullivan came into the picture; is that correct?
A Very soon afterward.
Q And who did you consider Laurel Sullivan to be working for?
A Well, she was represented to me as the personal public relations official for — directly for L. Ron Hubbard.
Q And when you dealt with her at that time did you consider her to be the representative of L. Ron Hubbard as opposed to a representative from the organization?
3595
A Oh, yes.
MR. LITT: Objection. Irrelevant as to what he considered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you rely on the fact in any way in connection with subsequently entering into a contract that you were dealing with L. Ron Hubbard’s personal representative?
A I never had any doubt about it at that time.
Q The question is did you rely upon that fact?
A I did rely upon it, yes.
Q At some point in time you entered into a contract with an organization called PDK or AOSH Denmark; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Do you recall approximately when that was?
A Oh, 1980.
Q Now, when you entered into that contract, Mr. Garrison, were there certain points that you insisted on as being — as forming the basis of the contract?
A Yes, there were.
Q And what were those?
A The principle one was the one that had given us a great deal of difficulty from the outset and why I declined to do the biography for two years; chiefly, that I wouldn’t do a biography unless it was completely honest and forthcoming about the man’s life.
3596
In other words, I wasn’t prepared to write a eulogy for Mr. Hubbard; even though at that time I didn’t have in my possession much of the information, data, that later came out about Mr. Hubbard. But I felt that the church, who would form a great deal of the readership, regarded this man as sort of a world, maybe a universal redeemer. And it would be like trying to write a biography of Christ for a very fanatical Christian organization. They want you to speak of miracles, all the supernatural and so on that had elevated this man to status almost that was divine. And I had no intention and said so many, many times in every discussion I had, no intention of doing such work. So that was the principle — that was the principle reason that I didn’t do it up to that time. And eventually the reason I did was that they agreed that I can write it without any restriction.
Q Now, when you say “without any restriction,” do you mean that you could write a factual account based on documented evidence that could be produced?
MR. LITT: Objection. Leading.
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: With the proviso, which I thought was reasonable, since it was the man’s life, that he would have ultimately the choice, the option, of examining the finished work and that if he found some things that were objectionable, that we could negotiate them. But that ultimately if we didn’t come to an agreement, I could cancel the contract and
3597
be paid a penalty.Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, when you insisted on doing a factual account — strike that.
Let me ask you this: You testified you had previously rejected efforts to do the biography; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q What changed your mind in the fall of 1980 with regard to doing a factual account of the life of L. Ron Hubbard?
A What I have just testified; that they agreed to my ground rules with respect to freedom of the use of materials and to present an honest forthright account.
Q When you say “freedom of the use of materials,” were representations made to you that formed the basis of the contract that you would have access to all of the private documents of L. Ron Hubbard?
A No. This was never spelled out in those terms.
Q How was it spelled out?
A Simply that they had — this is when I first met Mr. Armstrong — that they had already an archivist and that he was collecting at that time materials. And I had understood in addition for using him as a biography, that they were going to build a museum and that was part of the work that was going on and that these materials would be made available to me.
Q And was that part of the reason that you changed your mind with regard to doing the biography?
3598
A That was the principle reason.
Q That you would have access to these materials?
A No; that I would have — yes, but that was merely secondary.
The principle reason, as I have said, was that I would be able to do my own work my own way.
3599
Q All right. Now did you understand at that time that Mr. Armstrong was in the process of collecting materials to be given to you for the biography?
A Not at the moment that we first met. I knew that he was collecting materials and that they would be made available to me.
I am not quite sure at what point, though it must have been almost immediately after the contract was signed, that Mr. Armstrong was then assigned to me exclusively to provide materials which he screened before he gave them to me for the biography.
Q Now, did you understand while Mr. Armstrong was giving you documents that he was acting as the personal representative of L. Ron Hubbard?
A That was my understanding, yes.
Q And were you wary of the fact that the organization would not give you full access to documents that you felt you needed to do the biography?
A Not at that point. I wasn’t at the beginning because they were quite cooperative, and as it turned out, there was an enormous amount of material that I had no idea existed. So, it became a matter of logistics really. When I saw all these files, I realized that I am not going to complete this work in one or two years; that it is going to take me time to study the documents.
Q At some point in time did you become wary of the fact that the organization would not give you full access to all the documents you needed?
3600
A I didn’t think they were going to give me, if I understand what you mean by full access, from the outset because they were all in locked files. I didn’t have free access to the files. Mr. Armstrong had the only key that I know of to the files, and he brought out what he thought would be useful to me. But at no time was I turned loose, as it were, in their files.
Q Now, they gave you an office in their building; is that correct?
A Briefly and temporarily, yes.
Q And did you use that office?
A I used it for a a short time after we first began the work and then later on I moved most of my work out to an apartment in Costa Mesa.
Q Now based upon the past biographical materials that had been given you when you undertook the preparation of the biography, did you have a certain picture of L. Ron Hubbard’s biographical background in your mind?
A In a general way, yes.
Q And were there things about him that you believed prior to gaining access to these materials that you believed to be true about his background?
A Yes, I accepted them, I think, chiefly on the basis that my dealings with the representatives of the Church of Scientology had been cordial and they had entrusted me with enormous amounts of material which normally I don’t think they would have disseminated to the general public.
Q Now over a period of approximately a year and
3601
a half or more Mr. Armstrong provided materials and documents to you; is that correct?A Yes.
Q And during that period of time, as I understand your testimony, you believed and understood that he was acting as a representative of L. Ron Hubbard?
A Yes.
Q During that period of time were you reviewing and digesting the contents of these materials?
A Yes.
Q And over that period of time did you begin to find inconsistencies in what had been previously represented to you as the biographical background of L. Hon Hubbard?
A Yes, I did.
Q And would you describe over that period of time how you found these inconsistencies and what they meant to you in connection with the preparation of the biography.
MR. LITT: I am going to object to this line of questioning. I don’t see that it has any relevance to Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind.
Are we now dealing with Mr. Garrison’s state of mind as well?
THE COURT: Well, I assume that is what tends to put everything in perspective from the defense standpoint.
MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor.
Q I will permit a limited inquiry of it.
THE WITNESS: May I have the question again?
3602
THE COURT: I will have the reporter read it back? (Record read.)
THE WITNESS: The inconsistencies were implicit in various documents which Mr. Armstrong provided me with respect to Mr. Hubbard’s curriculum vitae, with respect to his Navy career, with respect to almost every aspect of his life.
These undeniable and documented facts did not coincide with the official published biography that the church had promulgated.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, did you have conversations during this year and a half with Mr. Armstrong on a progressive basis about these inconsistencies that were found in the documents?
A Oh, yes, we discussed it extensively and frequently.
Q And did you observe a change in Mr. Armstrong’s mental state in connection with these discovered inconsistencies?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you observe?
A A gradual eroding of his very strong, shall I say, faith in Mr. Hubbard and in the organization.
3603
Q Did you and Mr. Armstrong make an agreement with regard to protecting him should he all of a sudden not be available where you couldn’t find him?
MR. LITT: What month?
MR. FLYNN: Between September and December, 1981, sometime in that time frame.
THE WITNESS: We didn’t make a formal written agreement or anything of that sort. It was an understanding that if Mr. Armstrong was suddenly sequestered or held, shall we say, prisoner by the Church of Scientology and they, naturally, wouldn’t inform me of the fact. If I rang and asked for him, we had, I believe, a code word which I have forgotten that would tip me off to the fact that he was being held against his will.
Q And during that period of time in your observation did that become a significant concern of Mr. Armstrong?
A Gradually, I think it did. It grew into almost an obsessive fear.
Q Taking you up now to — strike that.
Do you recall, Mr. Garrison, approximately the quantity of materials that Mr. Armstrong provided to you?
A This has been brought out and discussed many times.
The only way — I haven’t counted the words. The only kind of estimate I can give you is in the number of binders. This is an approximation as well. And some binders were very thin, obviously, and some would run two, three, four hundred pages. There were in the order of,
3604
I would say, about 380 binders.Q All right. Now, you gave a deposition in this matter; is that correct?
A I did.
Q And Mr. Litt represented to you in that deposition that 22 boxes of materials –
MR. LITT: Objection. Misstates the deposition.
If there is going to be a characterization from the deposition, the deposition can be read from.
MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.
Q During the deposition, Mr. Garrison, did you have an understanding as to how many boxes of materials Mr. Armstrong had turned over to my office or to the office of Contos and Bunch?
A I had an impression, yes.
Q What was that?
A That there were 22 boxes.
Q Did you have the impression that there were 22 boxes turned over to this court?
A Yes. That was my impression.
Q Where did you get that impression from?
A Originally it was published in, apparently, one of the misstatements. I still don’t know how many boxes are in the court. I have never been officially informed. I believe that figure was first published in the Los Angeles Times account and then repeated again by Mr. Litt during the course of our deposition.
Q And during your deposition was that your
3605
impression, that there were 22 boxes of materials in this court?A It was.
Q Now, to this day do you know the quantity or types of materials that are in court here?
A I haven’t a glue [clue].
Q Now, bringing you up to — staying in the time period from September to December, 1981, did you begin to question whether or not you would be able to write a biography of L. Ron Hubbard — be able to publish a biography?
A It wasn’t just a gradual assumption. It dated very specifically from a meeting I had.
Q And when was that, Mr. Garrison?
A It was in May, 1981, I think, or 2. I am not sure of the date.
But anyway, it was — I was guess it was May, 1981.
Q All right. Before we get to that meeting, having in mind before Mr. Armstrong left the organization in late 1981, having that in mind, did you have conversations with Mr. Armstrong prior to his leaving the organization as to whether or not a biography written by you would ever be published in light of the documents that you had researched and digested?
A I may have expressed some doubt about it. I don’t recall specifically that I did.
I would have had a growing doubt as the material
3606
came into my hands and I realized that, certainly, when the finished product was placed before Mr. Hubbard, he almost certainly would have censored it.Q Now, coming up to the period in the spring of 1982, do you recall an incident in which certain photographs were taken from Mr. Armstrong?
A I think I know the incident you are referring to, yes.
3607
Q Okay, and during that period of time did you go with Mr. Armstrong to a Scientology facility in connection with his trying to regain possession of the photographs?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you sit right outside a room where Mr. Armstrong was present in a meeting with officials from the Church of Scientology when he was trying to get photographs back?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you observe his state of mind at that time?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you observe?
A He was emotionally very disturbed, violently so I would say.
Q Now during that same period of time did you become concerned that the documents that you had collected for the biography were going to be stolen from you?
A Yes. I entertained such suspicions.
Q And what if anything did you do based on that concern, Mr. Garrison?
A Well, there were a number of things done over a period of time. First of all, I felt that I ought to get them out of the apartment. When I left, I left them there during the course of time I was working on them, but then I started loading them into a car and eventually into a pickup, and I was carrying them about with me, and I
3606
decided that even so, they could be stolen from the car as well. So we set about - - I asked Mr. Armstrong to help me to copy the documents so in the event the set that I had was stolen, I would have something to fall back on; namely, the copies.Q Now, did you hide those copies somewhere?
A I didn’t hide them in that sense. I took them to a friend of mine who is quite trustworthy and honorable and asked him if he would simply—if he would allow me to put them in the closet, wardrobe in his apartment, and I explained they were confidential documents and I wouldn’t like anyone to see them at all and left them there.
Q Now who at that time did you believe was going to steal the documents?
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. This is calling for the most outrageous speculation. I assume the documents weren’t stolen. I mean, this is really –
THE COURT: Goes to his state of mind. He said he had a suspicion they might be taken. I will overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: I think it is fairly obvious that I thought the Church of Scientology who had already told me they were very eager to get these documents back would, in the light of what I had learned about some of their operations in the past, not be reluctant to break and enter in order to get the documents.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, when you say had expressed
3609
an eagerness to get the documents back, when was that?A I don’t recall exactly the time that they first said they wanted them back.
Q Now at some point in May 1982 did you have a meeting with officials from the Church of Scientology with regard to the biography project?
A I think it was in 1981, but I am not quite sure of the date now. In any case, such a meeting occurred.
Q And what happened at that meeting?
A At that meeting, I was trying to get the contract. I had learned that in the original contract I had signed with the Denmark publisher, who I learned was in my opinion the alter ego of Mr. Hubbard, when I learned that I had been, as it were, led down the garden path with respect to certain details and arrangements for subsidiary rights in the contract, I had asked over the past year previous to this time that it be amended to bring it into line with a more equitable return with respect to royalties because a person of my experience wouldn’t certainly have signed a contract as I did with the royalties that were specified without some other consideration which had been represented to me, so I had gone to this meeting to talk about renegotiating the contract.
Q And when you say “led down the garden path,” what do you mean by that, Mr. Garrison?
A Well, I was told that Mr. Hubbard and I would sign — there would be a premium edition of the book and that Mr. Hubbard and I would sign it, autograph it and this book.
3610
this premium edition would sell for $1,000 and that there would be 1,000 copies printed, which means we are talking about a million dollars which was to be divided.Now, this was a more compelling, to me, a more compelling figure than simply the ordinary royalties, and for that reason I was willing to take a much smaller figure on straight royalties, in fact, a ridiculous figure because the revenue was to come from the previous edition.
3611
Then it was revealed to me later that no, Mr. Hubbard, because of some — I was told — because of some, I think, IRS case or something else, that the church was representing that no one had any contact with Mr. Hubbard; therefore, he couldn’t possibly sign any books; therefore, there couldn’t be any premium edition. And as this developed during the course of our meeting, the discussion, a Mr. Spurlock said, “Well, I am just trying to blackmail them.”
And when he said that, I said, “Well, in that event, I think we ought to talk to attorneys. Blackmail is a very serious charge.”
And that is where we officially parted ways.
Q Now, at some point in time did you begin to experience what you perceived to be harassive activities by representatives of Scientology organizations?
A I did.
MR. LITT: May I have a moment to take a look at this, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, this is an affidavit of Mr. Garrison. This is improper examination. If there are questions to be asked of Mr. Garrison, they should be asked. If Mr. Garrison can’t remember something and there is a question of refreshing his recollection, presumably, it can be presented to him to refresh his recollection.
THE COURT: Let’s not get exercised, Mr. Litt. Let’s
3612
let nature take its course. And if it is done improperly, we’ll sustain an objection.He submitted a document. Let’s go forward.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, when did the first harassive activities as you perceived it begin, Mr. Garrison?
A I can only say when it first came to my attention, which was –
THE COURT: Do you need this document to refresh your memory?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I was referring to it, Your Honor, because I had given the exact dates here in case you wanted them.
THE COURT: If you need to refer to it to refresh your memory, indicate that that is what you are doing and you may do so.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I am just looking for the dates here to be exact.
From or about November 22nd, 1982 to November 30, 1982.
MR. LITT: May I have the page and paragraph?
THE WITNESS: Yes; page 5 of the affidavit. And it is paragraph 10.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, during that period of time did you have rightful possession of the documents, in your mind, Mr. Garrison?
A My attorney and everyone, including, I believe, the attorneys for the Church have all said that I was in rightful possession of the documents at all times.
3613
Q And had a demand been made upon you at that time to return any of the documents?
A Yes. Mr. Litt rang me at one time –
Q When was that?
A It was prior to this. And I don’t recall the exact date.
Q Was it after the lawsuit was begun against Mr. Armstrong?
A Oh, yes. Yes.
Q And was it before or after, if you know, Mr. Litt became involved in the lawsuit?
A Well, Mr. Litt, when he contacted me, said he was representing Mrs. Hubbard who was an intervenor in Mr. Armstrong’s case.
Q Did Mr. Litt at that time ask for the return of the documents?
A I believe prior to that — let me go back.
My attorney received a formal demand from another firm of attorneys — I don’t recall who they were now — saying that if I did not return these, I would face a lawsuit. And that was prior to the time that Mr. Litt talked to me by telephone.
Q And then after that did these harassive activities begin?
A Yes.
Q And were you sued, Mr. Garrison?
A Yes; quite improperly.
I learned a great deal about –
3614
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain it.
MR. LITT: If we are going to go into it, it was a contempt proceeding for not appearing for a deposition.
We can spend time on this, but this is out of bounds, Your Honor, all of this activity.
THE COURT: I don’t know which bounds, in or out. But I’ll strike it as an observation of the witness. Let’s go on and get to the facts.
MR. FLYNN: I submit this is quite relevant, Your Honor.
Q Were you sued for the return of the documents?
A Not per se.
I was delivered a — in Utah a subpoena duces tecum to bring not only the documents, but in the broad language of the subpoena, to bring everything I ever possessed regarding — all my notes, materials regarding the Church of Scientology. And as this was out of state, I contacted my attorney here who was here in Los Angeles.
And he said in order for them to take my deposition out of state, that they would have to have some proper proceeding here.
Both he, and I believe one of his clerks, went through the register here and did not find any notice of deposition.
I believe that Mr. Armstrong’s attorneys weren’t given any notice of deposition. And he said –
3615
MR. LITT: I object as to what happened with Mr. Armstrong’s attorneys, Your Honor.
3616
THE COURT: All right. I will strike what he believed in that regard. He is talking now about information he got from his lawyers, state of mind.
THE WITNESS: So my lawyer told me to disregard it, that it was improper and that it was not enforceable. That Mr. Armstrong was never a resident in Utah. The Church of Scientology was not registered to bring any kind of suit there. They were not registered as a corporation, and so I did disregard it on his advice.
Then I was served with a subpoena to show cause why I should not be cited for contempt.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, when Mr. Litt made a demand on you to return the documents, did you return them?
A No, I told Mr. Litt, I said, “Look, I don’t enjoy having people’s private papers.”
At that time he said he was representing Mrs. Hubbard. I said, “I will be very happy to return Mrs. Hubbard’s letters to you because I have no intention of using her private correspondence in the book.”
And that was the last thing I said to Mr. Litt with regard — I said, “As far as the other documents no way.”
Then when they began their harassment of me up there, I said, “You get nothing back.”
Q And then refused to return even —
A I refused to return anything because I was not legally bound to do so.
Q Now when you had possession of the documents,
3617
was it your understanding that Mr. Hubbard had given you permission to have these documents?A Yes.
MR. LITT: Objection; calls for a conclusion and his understanding is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, did anybody ever say that to you in any way, shape or form?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Who told you?
THE WITNESS: I was told by Laurel Sullivan. I was told by Mr. Armstrong. I was told by David Gaiman. I was told by Sheila Gaiman and so on.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: That you had Mr. Hubbard’s permission to have all of the documents?
A Well, no. There was a general overall concept, not specifically of all the documents because clearly Mr. Hubbard didn’t know about all these documents I don’t think.
Q But you had no way of knowing that because no one could communicate with Mr. Hubbard?
A I had no way of knowing.
Q No connection with your requirement that the book be a factual account, did you rely on Mr. Armstrong to give you the documents to make it a factual account?
A Well, yes, I did.
Q So the basis of the contract as far as you were concerned, Mr. Garrison, was that Mr. Armstrong have access to documents which could make the biography a
3618
factual account; is that correct?MR. LITT: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: Well it is, but after four weeks we have got to end this some time.
MR. LITT: The problem is it puts words in the witness’ mouth and I just think, especially with this witness –
THE COURT: Well, I appreciate your concern. Proceed.
THE WITNESS: I think I can clarify it, Your Honor, by saying that the bulk of the documents were already virtually collected so far as I know inasmuch as there were all these files, and that Mr. Armstrong had, in fact, custody of these from the very outset from the time of the signing of the contract. It wasn’t that he went after the contract was signed, after we were working. He didn’t go and actively seek other documents, but rather took those that he had under his lock and key and screened them and reproduced them, bound them and turned over to me.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And that was the basis for you to do a factual account?
A It was, yes.
Q Now, in the spring of 1982 after this photograph incident, did you have conversations with Mr. Armstrong relative to his use of the documents to assist him in the legal arena relating to his legal problems with the Church of Scientology?
A In a brief way, yes. We didn’t have any elaborate discussions.
Q What discussions did you have?
3619
A Mr. Armstrong said that he was facing a legal battle. The Church of Scientology had extra legally declared him, whatever that is, and that also they were, I think, going to sue him for conversion or some— in any case they were bringing some action and that he needed, he would need documents to prove his case.
It was simply very loosely discussed.
Q And you gave him permission to use the documents?
A I don’t recall it being on that basis of my giving him permission because Mr. Armstrong had — he had access to the documents anyway. He didn’t come and say, “well, look, I want all these documents to use in this case.”
He merely said in passing that he would need some documents to prove his case.
3620
Q And you –
A I said why not. After all, he was the one that prescribed them to me.
Q You gave him permission or whatever permission you felt he needed?
A If that is permission, yes.
Q Now, did you know in the spring of 1982 whose photographs Mr. Armstrong had that he was trying to sell?
A No, I did not.
Q Did the names James and Nancy Dincalci or Kima and Michael Douglas come up at all in the spring of 1982 in connection with these photographs if you recall?
A I believe in connection with the Douglases, I saw some of the photographs that later it became apparent Mr. Armstrong had. But at that time I didn’t know — I merely saw them in the hands of the Douglases.
Q Now, do you recall Mr. Armstrong giving you an inventory of the materials that he was using in the legal arena?
A No; only on one occasion.
Q Did he give you an inventory?
A He did. He did give me an inventory of the binders that he was taking at that time. But that is the only — I never had an overall inventory of what Mr. Armstrong took.
Q Did you place any restriction on Mr. Armstrong with regard to the quantity of materials that he would need for his case?
3621
A He categorically, I did, yes.
Q What was that?
A It was a stipulation that he take documents that were absolutely essential to his legal defense, but not just documents of a biographical nature that another writer might have use for.
Q Was it your concern that the information or the documents themselves would be leaked to other writers and your story would be scooped?
A That’s right. I was.
Q So that was the restriction; is that correct?
MR. LITT: Objection. Asked and answered.
He stated the restriction, Your Honor. And it is a leading question.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Nobody is going to put any words in Mr. Garrison’s mouth.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was the restriction, in your mind, only related to the fact that you didn’t want another writer to write the book?
A This was part of it. This was the — my main concern, but there was always the added concern as well that, again, there were some very sensitive documents that I didn’t want to — I felt that had come into my possession that I didn’t want to be a party to their dissemination to the general public.
Q Now, did you tell that to Mr. Armstrong?
A Repeatedly.
3622
Q And did you place any restriction on the quantity?
A The quantity was never discussed.
Q So the answer is you did not place any restrictions on the quantity; is that correct?
MR. LITT: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: It isn’t that it has been asked and answered.
I’ll overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: I didn’t put any quantitative restriction upon any material.
Q BY MR. FLYNNi Did you continue to write the biography throughout the year 1982?
A Sporadically, yes.
Q Did you intend to publish it?
A Yes.
Q Did you intend to publish it without Mr. Hubbard’s permission?
A Yes.
Q Did you believe that you had the legal right to publish it without Mr. Hubbard’s permission at that time?
MR. LITT: Objection. His belief is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you believe you had the right to use the contents of the documents to publish the book?
A Yes.
Q What was that belief predicated on, Mr. Garrison?
3623
A The Constitution of the United States.
Q Had you been told that no communications could be sent to Mr. Hubbard?
A Yes.
Q Was that a factor?
A Was it a factor –
Q With regard to your intent.
A Well, it was a factor up until the time of our meeting in which I terminated all connection with the PUBS DK of Denmark.
Q When was that?
A After that my attorney told me the contract, since it was fraudulent, was null and void.
And I went from that point on to the assumption that I could write what I chose.
MR. LITT: I assume that statement is for his state of mind, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You believed you could use the documents to publish the book; is that correct?
A I did.
Q When did you first believe that the contract was null and void?
MR. LITT: I’ll object at this time, Your Honor.
Are we going to litigate the validity of this contract?
THE COURT: All he did was ask him a question. He can tell us when he first believed that. He can tell us that.
3624
There is no big deal.
THE WITNESS: I don’t recall the question.
THE COURT: Do you know when you first came to this belief that the contract was invalid?
THE WITNESS: I first came to the belief — without specifying a date — when I learned through several sources within the Church of Scientology that Mr. Hubbard would not be available; that other features of the contract were in fact obtained under misrepresentation and fraud.
THE COURT: All I’m asking is the date. Do you have a time frame range of time?
THE WITNESS: I don’t have an exact — well, May — possibly early, 1981 — 1980 — 1981.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: It was after Mr. Armstrong left; is that correct?
A It was after Mr. Armstrong left.
Q So if I suggest to you that Mr. Armstrong left in December, 1981 does it refresh your memory at all? Does it refresh your memory if I suggest to you that the meeting was in May of 1982?
A I’m not quite sure whether it was ‘81 or ‘82.
Q But you are sure it was after Mr. Armstrong left?
A No. I am not sure that it was, but I assume it must have been, yes.
Q Okay. Now, how long did you continue to prepare the book for publication, Mr. Garrison?
A Right up to the moment of the settlement.
3625
Q And when was the settlement?
A The settlement was in June, 1983.
3626
Q Now at that time in June 1983 were you intending to publish the book based on the documents that had been provided to you?
A I was.
Q And you had possession of the documents; is that correct?
A I did.
Q And in June 1983 it was your belief that you had rightful possession of the documents; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q At that time when you entered into the settlement which is part of the settlement that you return the documents?
A The settlement itself lays down certain proscriptions with regard to reviewing what is in it, and as I am not represented here by counsel, I don’t know whether I should divulge what is in the settlement.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I have no –
THE WITNESS; If the court directs me to answer –
MR. LITT: There is a document which is in evidence from Mr. Garrison’s deposition which is the public statement of his settlement. It has certain statements in it which I believe includes the fact that the documents were returned. Perhaps that can be provided to Mr. Garrison.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I don’t intend to go into it.
THE COURT: Well you can answer the question. They were returned; is that right?
THE WITNESS: They were returned.
3627
MR. FLYNN: Again on that point, it has always been my belief, as the court knows, that this settlement agreement is a critical part of this case, and what I have been given is a public version of it and to this data I don’t know what is in it, which I think in view of our overall defense that Mr. Garrison was in rightful possession of the documents in our view until June 1983, which gave Mr. Armstrong at least until the suit was brought the right to possess the documents, as just testified through the witness, we believe we should have access to that settlement agreement.
But in any event, I think at some point, Your Honor, that settlement agreement should be marked as at least an exhibit for identification in this case.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know. Are you making some kind of a motion?
MR. FLYNN: I have moved before. Your Honor, and I’d move again that this settlement agreement be produced, even if it is produced under seal and marked as an exhibit under seal. I think to protect the record in the case that that is what should be done.
THE COURT: I don’t really see that it would shed any light upon the lawsuit here, whatever the terms and conditions were of that settlement, I don’t see how they can change the facts. The witness has testified. Everybody has testified in this case.
At this point 1 just don’t see the relevancy of it.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In any event, that was the first
3628
occasion, Mr. Garrison, that you returned any documents?A No it was not.
Q Had you previously returned documents?
A I had previously returned the copy of “Excalibur” which I believe was in two or three binders.
Q When did you return that?
A I returned that in 1980 — I an guessing now as to the month, but I would think about July of 1982.
Q Has that before or after this suit was brought against Mr. Armstrong if you know?
A It was after.
Q You returned it after the suit was brought?
A Yes.
Q Now other than “Excalibur,” were there any other documents that were returned?
A No. I did provide them with the first two chapters of the book as it was written at that time. That was on the suggestion of my attorney. In fact, he provided them with the first two chapters.
Q Now, are you prohibited from writing a biography on the life of L. Ron Hubbard?
THE COURT: You may answer that.
THE WITNESS: Well it depends on what you mean by “prohibited.” You mean have I agreed not to? Yes, I think that is in the public statement that I am not to.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Litt, you may cross–examine.
3629
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Mr. Garrison, you indicated that there came some point in the fall of 1981 when Mr. Armstrong seemed to be becoming upset and I think you used the phrase “losing his faith” or something like that?
A I didn’t say he was obsessed.
Q Upset, not obsessed.
A Oh, sorry. Yes, I observed a steady erosion of what had been a very stout conviction.
Q When did you begin to observe that? Was that at the time that he came — took a trip through the Mid-West including, I believe, stopping to see you in probably the late summer?
A Yes, about that time.
Q And you had discussions with him about the fact that he was becoming increasingly upset and disillusioned with Scientology?
A No, we had no such discussion. It was merely my observation.
Q Now was this also at a period of time, I am speaking now of the late summer or early fall, was this also at a period of time when there were efforts on your part to have certain terms of your contract changed?
A Yes.
Q So that began also in the late summer or was that a little later?
A I think earlier. First of all, my first attempt
3630
to have the contract renegotiated was merely to bring it to the attention of people, including Mr. Armstrong and Laurel Sullivan, that some sort of amendment would have to be made.3631
Q And from what you were able to determine over the next period of time and into the fall of 1981 there were various discussions within the Church and also between you and people involved in the Church on this subject; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And as I understand it, Mr. Armstrong sent you a series of materials which were internal Church discussions of issues related to the biography contract; is that right?
A I don’t recall that he sent me anything. He brought me a memorandum, I remember specifically, that Mr. Vaughn had written –
Q Vaughn Young that you are referring to?
A Yes — had written based upon his analysis of the situation in which they had required — I think the Church had asked him to do and in which Mr. Young said that he felt renegotiation was really recommended.
Q When you say he brought that to you personally, do you know where he brought that to you?
A Yes, in Costa Mesa.
Q Do you recall any other materials?
A Not specifically. I believe there were some.
Q And you had had discussions with Mr. Armstrong concerning the question of renegotiating the biography?
A Yes, I had.
MR. LITT: Can exhibit JJ be placed in front of the witness?
Q This document, exhibit JJ, Mr. Garrison, have you
3632
seen that before?A Yes, I have.
Q Is this the document that you were referring to written by Mr. Young?
A Yes, it is.
Q And this was given to you, as best you recall it, shortly after it was written?
A Yes.
Q So we’re talking about slightly after November 18, of 198l?
A Yes.
Q And did Mr. Armstrong come to you at some point and ask you for copies of these and other materials specifically that you had?
A Mr. Armstrong never came to me and asked me for copies of anything.
When he was working with me, he had access to the documents.
Q Well, taking as an example this exhibit JJ, did there come a time when — and I’m referring now to after this lawsuit had already begun, sometime after, late summer or afterwards of 1982 — did Mr. Armstrong come to you and ask you to make copies or provide him with copies, for instance, of exhibit JJ?
A I don’t recall that he ever asked me to make copies of anything. He might have done so, but I am not sure.
Q Do you recall whether you gave him any such
3633
copies?A I could have, but I don’t recall specifically doing so.
Q Do you recall whether among the materials that Mr. Armstrong had that you say he really didn’t need to go to you for because he already was holding copies, were these internal correspondence among those?
A Those were. As a matter of fact, I kept everything together at that time.
Q Now, let’s talk about this situation for a moment because I am still having a little difficulty with it.
At some point you made a duplicate set of a large amount of materials; correct?
A Yes.
Q And now did you do that, or did Mr. Armstrong do that?
A Mr. Armstrong did it for me.
Q This was after Mr. Armstrong had left the Church?
A Yes.
Q Did you leave that duplicate set of materials with Mr. Crago?
A The major portion of it, I did, yes.
3634
Q Were also some of those duplicate materials with Mr. Armstrong?
A I don’t know whether they were or not.
Q Well, what was your understanding of where this duplicate set of materials was supposed to be kept?
A It wasn’t a matter of designating a definite place for everything. It was — everything wasn’t in hand on one date. There were several trips to Mr. Crago’s in which documents were added because there was a huge volume and they were duplicated over a period of time.
Q But your arrangement with Mr. Armstrong, as I understand it, was that materials were to be copied and taken to Mr. Crago’s for safe keeping; correct?
A I believe they brought them to me and I took them to Mr. Crago because Mr. Crago didn’t know Mr. Armstrong.
Q And then at some point you took the set of materials that Mr. Armstrong had back with you to Utah; right?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?
A It was just after the meeting we referred to in which I tried to negotiate the contract.
Q Which is May –
A May — I know it was in the month of May, so it must have been May ‘82.
Q I don’t have any quarrel with Mr. Flynn’s statement that it was 1982.
3635
Shortly after this meeting, you and actually Mr. Armstrong with you went up to Utah, right, and brought all of the materials?
A No, I took them up by myself, I think. I am not quite sure whether Mr. Armstrong accompanied me or not.
Q And at that point there was a act of Materials with you and a duplicate set of materials with Mr. Crago? correct?
A It is partially correct. It was not a complete set of duplicates with Mr. Crago. There were only — with Mr. Crago there were selective documents that I felt in the event the complete was stolen, these were documents that were indispensable for a biography.
In other words, I am not quite sure, for example, that I had duplicate copies of Mrs. Hubbard’s letters because I had no intention of using them.
Q But whatever this duplicate set was, which we will discuss a little more in a minute, it was given to Mr. Crago for safe keeping?
A No it was not given to Mr. Crago. I took it in myself and put it in his wardrobe and closed the door, and Mr. Crago never had the documents in his hands, so far as I know.
Q So it was put in his house someplace?
A Yes.
Q And he agreed to that; correct?
A Yes.
3636
Q Now, Mr. Armstrong took a trip, I believe, at some point and had this discussion with you that you have described about his wanting to use some of the documents in his defense; correct?
A Yes.
Q Because he was going to be sued; is that right?
Now, you had a discussion with him at that time in which he made particular requests of you for specific documents; correct?
A No.
Q Weren’t there a few documents that on that time when he was there he said to you he wanted?
A Not specifically. I don’t recall Mr. Armstrong ever came to me and said, “I want this document and this document” by name and by title.
Only on one occasion he took about 12 binders and he said, “Here is a list of what I have taken.”
Q Now, is that the only occasion that you remember him taking documents from you?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Armstrong at some point went to Mr. Crago’s house, did he not, and picked up the materials that you had left there?
A No I removed the materials myself. Mr. Armstrong could have gone and taken certain documents which he felt be needed, but the bulk of the documents I removed from Mr. Crago’s myself.
Q When was that?
3637
A It was in the, I think, the early part — let’s say February 1983.
Q All right. I an going back much earlier than February 1983.
You learned, did you not, that Mr. Armstrong had made trips to Mr. Crago’s house to get something?
A Yes. Mr. Crago called me, rang me up and said that Mr. Armstrong wanted to take some copies. I said all right because I had left them more or less in Mr. Crago’s custody.
Q Some of it you learned about actually after it happened? That telephone call was not the first time that Mr. Armstrong had come; isn’t that right?
A I think if I recall correctly, Mr. Armstrong made two trips.
THE COURT: We will take a 10-minute recess.
3638
THE COURT: All right. We are back in session. The witness has retaken the stand. State your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: I understand.
THE COURT: State your name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Omar V. Garrison.
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Mr. Garrison, you stated that at some point while Mr. Armstrong was still in the Church he developed an obsessive fear of what might happen to him; is that right?
A No, that is not right. I didn’t — my statement was not that he developed an obsessive fear when he was in the Church. I said he developed an obsessive fear after he left the Church and they began to harass him.
Q You said something about some code word arrangement that you had with Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes. But I didn’t use the phraseology “obsessive fear” at that point.
What I said was that we felt that he might — I felt that he might be locked up. And I — he would be cut off from communication with me; therefore, I wanted some sort of code word that would tip me off if he had been incarcerated.
Q And it is your testimony that — it is your statement that you did not testify that at around that time Mr. Armstrong developed an almost obsessive fear?
3639
A That was not my intention.
My intention was to say that he developed the obsessive fear after he was — after he left the Church.
Q After he left the Church when did you next have personal contact with him?
A Well, immediately afterward.
Q And did he begin to manifest this obsessive fear at that time?
A Shortly afterward, after a man approached him in the post office and gave him a threatening letter from an attorney.
Also, I believe about that time he was issued a — he was not issued the document, but a document was issued called a Declare.
Q So your belief is that this obsessive fear developed after he received some letter?
A Not only received letters, but as all of this has been laid out in his affidavit that he submitted to Judge Cole in which he tells of the development, he even made photographs and so on.
Q Now, let’s talk about this incident with the photographs; okay? And by this, I mean these photographs that Mr. Armstrong had been intending to sell; do you know what I am referring to?
A Yes. I understand.
Q Now, you testified that you were present when Mr. Armstrong went over to the Cedars Complex?
A Yes, I was.
3640
Q And you were present when he went to see Virgil Wilhite?
A Yes, I was.
Q Was your wife also present at that time?
A She was as well.
Q Mr. Armstrong’s wife was also present at that time?
A She was as well.
Q Were you present for the discussions between Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Wilhite?
A Yes, I was.
Q And you saw Mr. Armstrong have his photos, his set of photos returned to him at that time; is that correct?
A No, they were not returned to him at that time.
Q His photographs were not returned to him?
A You are referring to his wedding photographs?
Q Yes.
A No. I don’t believe they were returned at that time.
They were returned — I believe — this is my recollection. It could be inaccurate, but I recall — I think that they were returned just a short time later at Cedars. It could be that — it could be that Mr. Wilhite returned them, I am not quite sure. I know they were returned to him.
Q Did you and your wife drive to Mr. Wilhite’s house with Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes, we did.
3641
Q Prior to his discussions with Mr. Wilhite?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Armstrong was quite upset on the drive over; is that right?
A He was upset, but increasingly so as the evening went on and complications developed.
3642
Q And after the discussion with Mr. Wilhite, Mr. Armstrong was even more upset; is that right?
A Yes.
Q He was extremely upset?
A He became extremely upset when we reached the Cedars Complex and he went into the CMO building and began to demand that his photographs be returned.
Q In addition to demanding that the photographs be returned, he was also making various comments about the church and Mr. Hubbard in the course of that conversation; is that right?
A Yes.
Q He called Mr. Hubbard an asshole; do you remember that?
A Mr. Armstrong at that point became virtually incoherent, so there was a whole string of –
Q He was swearing?
A Yes.
Q He was yelling?
A Yes.
Q And he continued in that tone throughout the whole of the incident at the Cedars Complex; is that right?
A Yes.
Q In fact, I think your description for him at one point was that he was maniacal; do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q And how long did this incident last; do you recall?
3643
A Oh, I should have thought about 25 minutes.
Q And you weren’t actually in the room where the conversation was taking place?
A No, we didn’t take any part in it. We sat outside in the passage.
Q Now you also have testified that you yourself was subject to some harassment; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And this harassment that you are referring to occurred in late 1982?
A Around Thanksgiving of 1982.
Q And this harassment that you are talking about had to do with the service of a subpoena to testify at a deposition on you; is that right?
A I don’t know what it had to do with.
Q Well you were served at around that time?
A I was served around that time.
Q And you were served by a private investigator as you understood it?
A No I was served by the sheriff.
Q By a process server?
A I was served by the sheriff.
Q And after you were served, you did not appear for that deposition; is that correct?
A My attorney directed me not to appear and I didn’t appear.
Q And your attorney had contact not with me, I wasn’t involved, but with an attorney for the church; is that right?
3644
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: He told me that he had.
Q BY MR. LITT: And you continued to take the position that you would not appear for deposition; is that right?
A No it is not right. My contention was that I would appear on a proper, if I were properly subpoenaed.
In point of fact, I accepted the first subpoena quite willingly. The sheriff came to my house and he said, “Look, there is a subpoena,” I wasn’t there. My wife was there. I didn’t have to make myself available at all, but we told him, “Come back at a later time and I will receive the subpoena,” which indeed l did.
It didn’t have an affidavit attached to it. All it was was one signed by the County Clerk there saying it was a subpoena duces tecum, that I was to bring everything I owned and appear on a certain date.
Q In any event, your attorney and the attorney for the church were not able to work out an agreement as to when you were able to appear?
A I don’t know what passed between them.
Q And so there was then a proceeding with respect to whether you should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena; is that right?
A What eventuated was this, as we found out, that the Church of Scientology had gone to Utah, and in order to serve me with a subpoena had brought suit against Mr. Armstrong, who has never been a resident of Utah, and
3645
under the guise of suing him in Utah, cited me for contempt for not showing up on the subpoena.Q Do you know anything about the legal procedures with respect to obtaining out of state commissions?
A I only know my attorney told me it was highly improper and I was preparing a suit against them for abuse of legal process.
Q Yes, but in the meantime, you were held in contempt; were you not?
A Yes, I was.
Q For not complying with the subpoena?
A Yes, by the judge who was the father-in-law of the church’s attorney.
Q And it is these incidents that we have been discussing that you feel constituted harassment of you; is that right?
A No. The harassment came when private detectives came to Cedar City, Utah and were parking in various places around my house, unknown to me, alarming my neighbors who didn’t know who they were, and eventually the neighbors came out and confronted them and they said, “We are watching this man’s house up here.”
I live in a Mormon community where to point the finger of suspicion at me as a non-Mormon was a rather serious matter, that I took seriously anyway, and then after I learned of this, the private detectives began to follow me very closely, bumper to bumper until I went around to the police station and registered a complaint.
3646
And as they had no license to operate in Utah at all, I think the police took care of it from that point on.
Q All right.
A In addition to which I might add, just to clarify, my attorney called them and told them — called the Church attorney and informed him that if they didn’t knock it off forthwith, we would bring a suit, which we were prepared to do.
Q Okay. Your relations with the Church at this time were not very friendly; is that right?
A That characterization is the understatement of the year, I think.
Q In fact, you had the — it would be fair to say that at least since May of 1982 you did not feel very friendly toward the Church after this meeting that you have described?
A I think, yes.
Q And then subsequently at some point through your attorneys there was renewed discussions and eventually this settlement that you have talked about; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Now, when you were working on this biography, Mr. Armstrong, was he the main person providing you the materials to be used for the biography?
A He was the principal one because that was his assignment, yes.
Q And in addition to — he was providing you mainly
3647
documents; correct?A Yes.
Q And in addition to providing you with documents, he was also providing you some leads on interviews; is that correct, potential interviews with people who knew Mr. Hubbard?
A Yes.
Q Those were mainly people who knew Mr. Hubbard from his Scientology years?
A Yes. Mr. Armstrong arranged interviews for me.
Q And then there were also a few interviews, I think a couple of interviews, with some relations of some sorts of Mr. Hubbard’s?
A Yes.
Q But principally, as I understand it, what Mr. Armstrong did for you was to get you these documents which were the foundation of your material; right?
A Yes — well, Mr. Armstrong already had custody of the documents. His principal function at that point was to duplicate them, bind them, and turn them over to me.
Q And these documents that he provided to you, as you understood it, were they documents that had essentially been available through various information that existed either from Church areas or places where people had had materials of Mr. Hubbard’s and that essentially Mr. Armstrong had gathered these materials up?
A I had no idea of the source of the documents. It never entered my mind.
3648
I wasn’t concerned with it; only with the documents themselves.
Q And you relied on the materials provided to you by Mr. Armstrong; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you relied upon the fact that he had done a thorough job of researching the various issues and gathering all of these materials in various areas; is that correct?
A An extraordinary job, a very competent job.
Q And so, for instance, with respect to Mr, Hubbard’s war record, you relied upon the fact that Mr. Armstrong had done all that could be done to gather up information concerning Mr. Hubbard’s war record; is that right?
A It didn’t enter my mind one way or another.
Q What you had on Mr. Hubbard’s war record was what was provided to you by Mr. Armstrong; right?
A In part. I had also access to documents and notes of my own in that regard.
Q Were these from other materials that had been given to you?
A From other materials and also inquiries that I had conducted myself.
Q For instance, did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Armstrong concerning the question of whether or not there had been any submarine incident in which Mr. Hubbard was involved? Do you recall that?
A I think so. Yes.
3649
Q And did Mr. Armstrong tell you that he couldn’t find any documentation related to that? Is that right?
A I don’t recall that at all. We may not be talking about the same incident.
I was concerned in the documents which I had about an incident during the time that they made the shake down cruise.
Mr. Hubbard was in charge down the coast. And there was some report, I believe, of a submarine sighted and so on.
So I merely asked Mr. Armstrong if he could pinpoint that or get me information regarding it.
3650
Q And was he able to find any information on that?
A Specifically I am not sure. It turned up, if I recall, and I may be wrong again in the Board of Investigation that the Navy held.
MR. LITT: Could exhibit 60 be placed before the witness?
THE COURT: All right, exhibit 60.
Q BY MR. LITT: Can you take a quick look at this document and tell me if you have ever seen it before?
A I can say categorically I haven’t because I don’t recall ever having seen a document that had formerly been classified secret. So, in answer to your question I do not recall ever having seen this document before.
Q All right. So, with respect to any information that you had, for instance, concerning Mr. Hubbard’s war record or a submarine incident, that particular document was not anything that had ever been provided to you or whose existence you knew of; is that right?
A I don’t recall that it ever was.
Q And Mr. Armstrong had told you, hadn’t he, that he could find nothing showing that Mr. Hubbard had been involved in any submarine incident?
A No.
MR. FLYNN: Objection; asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: No he didn’t ever state that to me.
Q BY MR. LITT: You indicated that you had some materials of your own that you also used?
A Yes, they were destroyed following our
3651
settlement.Q Were those research materials on Mr. Hubbard’s life or were they other types of materials?
A They were all types of materials, but specifically regarding Mr. Hubbard.
Q And without saying what they were, were those documents or were they interview notes?
A They were in part reports that had been submitted to various government agencies.
Q Were many of these materials that you had gathered in the course of other books that you had worked on?
A Part of them were and part of them were fresh that I had done in connection with the biography.
Q And you were looking at those mainly to find the information concerning, shall we say, from the other side’s point of view if I can use that phrase, from the government’s point of view, what it had to say about Mr. Hubbard or Scientology at various times?
A No. I never trusted, quite frankly, government documents or reports. These reports that I referred to in correspondence were from private individuals to government agencies, and they had come into the files of the agency. They were not reports by government agents.
Q Okay. I understand.
Now, you have testified some about Mr. Armstrong’s discussions with you about materials to use and about the amount of materials.
Do you know what a set of materials called
3652
the Affirmations are?A I do because I was the one that gave it that designation. The word “Affirmation” doesn’t appear on any of it.
Q You considered this particular set of materials called the Affirmations particularly sensitive and private; is that correct?
A I did.
3653
Q Did Mr. Armstrong ever tell you that among the materials he was taking were the affirmations?
A I don’t believe he did.
But he didn’t — he never told me, I have taken this or that other than on the one occasion. He left a list of the particular binders he had taken on that occasion.
Q By the way, your understanding and the permission that you gave Mr. Armstrong was for materials for use in his own case only; is that right?
A Yes.
Q If you can answer this question — you may not be able to — had Mr. Armstrong asked you for permission to use the affirmations, would you have given it to him?
A Again, we come back to “permission” which has come up a number of times.
There was no formal permission given to Mr. Armstrong because I didn’t feel that he needed permission inasmuch as he provided me the documents. He had all the information himself. So it was never a question of Mr. Armstrong coming to me and saying may I use this.
There was at the outset when he first retained counsel the discussion that he was — he was going to or would like to use the documents in his defense.
At that time I cautioned him and I cautioned him repeatedly thereafter that he could take the documents he actually needed.
Now, if that is permission, all right. But that I would prefer he not take anything that was going to be
3654
disseminated to other writers.Q Let’s suppose for purposes of this question that he did need your permission — whether he did or not, we don’t have to resolve at this time — that he had come to you — if you can answer this question — had he come to you and asked you for permission to take those documents, would you have given them to him?
MR. FLYNN: Objection. Asked and answered, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: It was not answered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: I object to it because it is a broad hypothetical question.
It would depend upon what circumstances he gave to me.
THE COURT: If he said he needed them for the defense of his lawsuit.
THE WITNESS: I would then, in light of the very sensitivity of the documents, I would have then reviewed it in that specific context and therefore I can’t say just off the top of my head whether I would have agreed or not.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, in giving Mr. Armstrong permission, for instance — strike that.
Let me ask the question differently. Did you understand that part of what Mr. Armstrong would do with these materials would be to show them to former Scientologists?
A Never.
3655
Q For instance, did you understand that by the arrangements you had with Mr. Armstrong, that he would show to Mike and Kima Douglas the affirmations?
A Never.
Q Did you understand that –
A I an not aware that he did, by the way.
Q I understand.
Did you understand that by this arrangement with Mr. Armstrong that he would show the affirmations to Jim and Nancy Dincalci?
A No.
Q Now, by the way, are you familiar with — you may not be familiar with it — are you familiar with a private letter from Mrs. Hubbard to Mr. Hubbard in the early 1950’s? I don’t want you to talk about what is in it. I just want to know whether you are aware of it. If you don’t know what I am talking about, that is fine.
A I haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about.
Q Do you remember Mr. Armstrong ever showing to you a letter that he pointed out that was from Mary Sue Hubbard to L. Ron Hubbard from the early 1950’s?
A I don’t recall specifically any such incident.
Q Now, it was your understanding, was it not, that Mr. Armstrong was going to take only documents that were absolutely necessary for his defense; that was the only materials he would take?
A I said that repeatedly, yes.
3656
MR. LITT: May we have exhibits 1 through 50, the sealed exhibits 1 through 50?
THE COURT: 500-1 through -50. All right.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if this is going to take some time, I have a rather unusual request, a two-minute voir dire of the witness before he leaves for the lunch break with regard to exhibit JJ.
THE COURT: Well, it hardly sounds like voir dire. It sounds more like cross-examination.
Do you have any objection to him asking him a couple of questions about JJ, Mr. Litt, this document that the witness has previously –
3657
MR. LITT: If there is some reason that it has to be done now. Otherwise, I would assume it would wait for redirect. That seems the normal procedure.
MR. FLYNN: I’d prefer if it could be done before the lunch break. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, ask your question right now.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mr. Garrison –
THE COURT: This is JJ, so you will know what he is talking about.
MR. FLYNN: Yes, thank you.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: After your settlement, did you give permission to Mr. Armstrong to go to your attorney’s office and pick up a file regarding documents — filled with documents such as exhibit JJ?
A I did.
Q And to your knowledge is that when Mr. Armstrong got in his possession exhibit JJ?
A I don’t know it for certain, but it could have been.
Q And that was after June 1983; is that correct, during the pendency of this lawsuit?
A Yes.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: I still don’t quite understand why that was a voir dire.
3657
THE COURT: I don’t either, but maybe it will all come to light in due course. Let’s not anticipate problems.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. LITT:
Q Now, Mr. Garrison, I am going to show you some materials that are among the materials under seal that have been marked. This first document which is 500-1, I am not going to go through all of them, but just some. This appears to be a letter from Mr. Hubbard to Mrs. Hubbard in the middle of 1966: is that correct?
A July, yes.
Q Now in this duplicate set of materials that you made that you have talked about or that Mr. Armstrong made at your request, you indicated that you copied large numbers of letters that were from Mr. Hubbard to Mrs. Hubbard; is that right?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Now did you understand that that whole set of letters that you had copied was necessary for Mr. Armstrong’s defense?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor. The witness has already testified that he had no knowledge.
THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objection. His legal opinion would be totally irrelevant.
MR. LITT: I am not asking him for his legal opinion. I am asking for his understanding of the scope of materials that would be taken by Mr. Armstrong.
3659
THE COURT: Well I am going to sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. LITT: Well, let me ask the question this way: Were you aware that among the materials that Mr. Armstrong would need for his defense were this whole sot of letters from Mr. Hubbard to Mrs. Hubbard in that time period, 1966/1967?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. Were you aware?
THE WITNESS: I don’t quite understand the question, but I will answer it to the best of my ability.
Again I did not know and still do not know, I was never privy to the legal strategy that Mr. Armstrong’s attorneys had with respect to his case. Therefore I never analyzed anything to see whether it was pertinent or not pertinent, and furthermore I didn’t know which material and I don’t know yet which materials he had and which he did not.
THE COURT: That is certainly an all-inclusive answer.
MR. LITT: Yes, it is.
Q Well, let me ask you about — there was correspondence that you are aware between Mr. Hubbard and his parents that was among what you had made duplicate copies of; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Some of those were also between Mrs. Hubbard and Mr. Hubbard’s parents; is that right?
A Which Mrs. Hubbard?
Q Mary Sue Hubbard.
3660
A I don’t recall any letter offhand from Mary Sue Hubbard to Mr. Hubbard’s parents.
Q But there were letters from Mr. Hubbard’s parents to both of them?
A Oh, yes, yes.
Q Well, let me first ask you this: In making this arrangement with Mr. Armstrong, it was your understanding, was it not, that he would be selective in the materials that he would choose?
A I made no arrangement with Mr. Armstrong at all.
Q All right. Leaving aside whether you made an arrangement with him, your understanding of what he needed was that he would make a selective choice of materials; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And he would not take whole binders of materials unless he had analyzed each of them and determined that all of them were necessary?
A No I had no such understanding at all.
Q Well did you understand from the discussion with him that, for instance, all of the letters between Mr. Hubbard and his first wife would be wholesale provided?
A The question never arose one way or the other.
Q Showing you exhibit 500-9, this is a document. It is a document from L. Ron Hubbard to his son when he is still a child.
Have you ever seen that before?
3661
A I could have seen — I don’t recall specifically having seen this letter, but I have seen similar letters from Mr. Hubbard to his Bon.
3662
Q And did you have — were you aware that materials of this type were part of what was Mr. Armstrong’s selective process of taking materials for his defense?
MR. FLYNN: Objection. He said he wasn’t aware as to what –
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. He has already testified about that.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, if I — well, may I have a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q BY MR. LITT: When did you become aware, Mr. Garrison, that Mr. Armstrong was planning on leaving Scientology?
A If by becoming aware, you mean did Mr. Armstrong tell me he was going to leave the Church of Scientology, he never did actually up until the time he left.
I was aware of his growing — as I have testified before — his growing disillusionment. And I assumed, without discussing it with him, that he was going to leave the Church of Scientology. And I began to wonder myself what he would do and how I could help him when he left.
Q Now, you took on this task in October, 1980; is that right?
A Formally, yes.
Q And Mr. Armstrong had provided you with large amounts of material over the course of the next year; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, you indicated that — well, strike that.
3663
After having reviewed the materials and working on this biography for some time and after Mr. Armstrong had left, you had a meeting with Vaughn Young; is that right, at some point?
A Yes.
Q And you knew Mr. Young to be someone who was working on — who had, one, been working on trying to sort out this contract situation with you and, two, when Mr. Armstrong left, at least for a period he was kind of working with the archives to some extent?
A That is correct.
Q In 1982 you had a discussion concerning your approach to the biography that you were writing; is that right?
A Had a discussion with whom?
Q Mr. Young. I am sorry.
A I don’t recall. But I could have had.
Q Do you recall having any discussion with him in which this — this was after Mr. Armstrong had left and you were trying to sort of re-establish how things would work and in your working relationship in connection with the biography — and among other things, you met with Mr. Young on one occasion in order to — where you had a discussion concerning your view of Mr. Hubbard and your view of the biography and how it would be portrayed?
A I don’t recall specifically the discussion you are referring to.
I think by way of explanation, we ought to say
3664
that Mr. Young had been named to replace Mr. Armstrong as an archivist. And it was in that connection that I met with him.Q Right. I understand.
Do you recall having any discussions with Mr. Young in 1982, early 1982, in which you expressed the view that L. Ron Hubbard was a legitimate genius or words to that effect?
A I have always said that Mr. Hubbard was a genius. So I probably did.
Q And in which you expressed a view that his greatest contribution would be Scientology and the development of Dianetics and Scientology?
A The interview you are talking about occurred, I believe, earlier and was taped. And it had a purpose.
It was an interview that at that time — this was prior. The interview that you are referring to was one that was developed at a restaurant in Hollywood and was recorded on tape and later transcribed with a view to publishing it.
The reason it wasn’t published, in all probability, was that shortly after that was when what I refer to as the infamous meeting and parting of the ways occurred. And so it never appeared.
Q So the comments that you made that I have been referring to –
A I’m really pointing out that they were earlier than, apparently, you thought in the particular –
3665
Q I am just trying to get the sequence of events.
A This was before; in other words –
3666
Q Mr. Armstrong had already gone?
A No, he had not gone. Mr. Armstrong, I believe, was present at this particular interview.
Q Well, would it refresh your recollection, and it may not, if I suggested to you that, the interview was in February 1982?
A I don’t recall specifically a date. I recall it in relation to — in other words, it had to have occurred before the falling out I had with the organization.
Q Right. That was in May.
A Okay, and considerable time before that, I mean, months before that probably. So, whether or not it was before or after Mr. Armstrong left, I don’t know. To me it was a matter of no consequence.
MR. LITT: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: Just a couple, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mr. Garrison, were you going to use the letters from L. Ron Hubbard to Mary Sue Hubbard in the biography?
A Yes.
Q And were you not going to use the letters from Mary Sue Hubbard to L. Ron Hubbard because of the potential for being sued by Mary Sue Hubbard?
A Correct.
Q In your research for preparation of the
3567
biography, you read the letters from both parties back and forth; is that correct?A No it is not correct. I early on decided that it would be impolitic for me to publish any of the letters of Mary Sue to Mr. Hubbard. I read some of them earlier on to clarify certain occurrences in London, but then I abandoned the idea because the letters from Mary Sue to Mr. Hubbard are quite copious. They go on and on. There are several volumes and they are quite prolix as well and full of all sorts of detail that was of no interest to me at all, so I did not read all the collection of letters from Mary Sue to her husband.
Q Well do you presently have an understanding that the bulk of those letters that are under seal –
A I don’t know what is under seal, Mr. Flynn.
Q Well, let me ask you this: –
A I have no idea what is under seal.
Q With regard to the letters that you did read, are you aware that those letters deal for the most part with financial matters between L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard and the Church of Scientology?
MR. LITT: Objection; assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: He asked if the ones that he read.
MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: The ones that I read could have had a whole variety of things, including a lot of what I would regard as rather confidential financial matters.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Relating to the Church of Scientology?
3668
A Relating to the Church of Scientology of Scientology?
Q Now with regard to testimony that Mr. Armstrong had access to the documents as freely as you did –
A Well, even more so I would say because he was the one that was cataloguing, and after he left the church, one of the reasons I asked him to continue with me was that he had an extraordinary recall of what was in every binder, and when I needed information, I often asked Mr. Armstrong where it could be found.
3669
Q That was because the free access related to the fact that you were paying half the rent on his office; is that correct?
A No. It had no relation to that at all.
Q Were you paying half the rent?
A I was paying half the rent — I was not personally paying half the rent, no.
Q A corporation, Ralston Pilot?
A A corporation was because Mr. Armstrong was answering the telephone and doing a few things of that sort.
He never received any personal remuneration of any kind for that service or for his services to me.
Q And he did not know, did he, that he had ever been made a director of Ralston Pilot?
A He never knew it.
The reason he didn’t know it was because we were looking ahead long before he left the Church. And I saw his state of mind and I knew that he eventually would leave the Church. And the question in our minds, my wife and I discussed it, was what would this boy do when and if he left the Church because he didn’t have money. And getting employment nowadays is not all that easy, especially when you come from the Church of Scientology after 11 years.
So at a — in the minutes of the corporation we named him a director, looking forward to the time that possibly we would take him into the corporation. And that was the extent of it.
Q You never told him about it?
3670
A He never knew it.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. LITT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir. You are excused.
We’ll take a recess until 1:30.
(At 12:00 p.m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
3671
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1984; 1:30 P.M.
oOo
THE COURT: All right, in the case on trial let the record reflect that counsel are present.
You may call your next witness.
MR. FLYNN: My last witness, Jocelyn Armstrong, please.
MR. HARRIS: Did I hear last witness?
MR. FLYNN: Last witness.
JOCELYN ARMSTRONG, called as a witness in behalf of the defense was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Will you be seated, please. State and spell your name.
THE WITNESS: Jocelyn Armstrong, J-o-c-e-l-y-n A-r-m-s-t-r-o-n-g.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY FLYNN:
Q Mrs. Armstrong, you are the wife of Gerald Armstrong?
A Yes.
3672
Q And when were you married?
A December, ‘81 — ‘80.
Q December, 1980?
A Yes.
Q You were involved with the Sea Organization at some point in time?
A Yes, I was.
Q What years were you involved with that organization?
A August, 1975 through December, 1981.
Q Now, directing your attention to the period in November and December of 1981 were you living with your husband at that time?
A Yes.
Q And where were you living?
A We lived in the Cedars Complex.
Q Now, at that time did you have the opportunity to observe your husband’s state of mind with regard to the Church of Scientology?
A The organization, yes.
Excuse me. Is this from 1980 through –
Q No; just in November and December of 1981.
A Okay.
Q All right. Now, you do recall when the two of
you left the organization; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A Early to mid-December, 1981.
3673
Q Now, prior to the time that you left were you aware of the policy of the organization requiring knowledge reports to be written by a husband and wife with respect to the activities and thoughts of the other?
A Yes. You — it was policy of the organization to write knowledge reports about anyone, including husband and wife, yes.
Q Now, during that period of time were you and your husband fearful of discussing with one another the possibility of leaving the organization?
A Yes.
Q And why is that?
A Well, mainly because — this is November and December, 1981?
3674
Q This is before the time that you actually openly discussed it?
A Okay, yes, because I thought that he would — if I expressed any of my concern and questions that I began to have in my mind about the organization, the purposes and intention of the organization, the contradictions that I had seen, and I hadn’t been able to fully sort them in my own mind, but if I had expressed that to Gerry, I was afraid that he would feel obligated for the policy to report me to ethics.
Q Now how long prior to the time when you actually began discussing these things did you have any question about inconsistencies or conduct of the organization as you saw it?
A I’d say for — from about June 1980 on.
Q From June 1980 or June 1981?
A June 1980 I began to question. I was being pushed heavily for gross income and to make money starting of at that point. I got sort/ in that kind of area of the organization, and I was very confused about what was this heavy push for money when I thought we were helping people.
Q What was your position at that time?
A I was in charge of the Scientology Missions International Organization.
Q Now, you were in charge of the organization that oversaw missions throughout the world?
A Yes, franchises.
Q And so at that time you began to have questions
3675
in your mind; is that correct?A Yes.
Q And you were reluctant, to discuss these things with your husband because you were fearful that he would write a report on you?
A At that time I was not married to Gerald Armstrong.
Q But after you became married, you continued to have these feelings?
A When I married — I am confused.
Q After you married Mr. Armstrong, after you married Gerry, you became concerned about confiding in him the feelings you had about the organization?
A Oh, yes, definitely.
Q And that was ongoing, this concern you had was ongoing until when?
A It was a gradual process of I began to test the waters and it was safe, which took from like July ‘81 to December ‘81.
Q So it was a gradual thing?
A Yes.
Q Now in the fall of 1981 did you have conversations with Gerry in which you turned the radio volume up in your room loud for fear that you were being tape-recorded?
A Yes.
Q And how often did you do that?
A For fear that someone was sitting outside my door or something. For how long did we do that?
Q Correct.
3676
A I guess when I began to really open up and ask Gerry questions was when 1 went to work with him in the archives, October of ‘81.
Q So it was during that period of time that you began to turn the radio volume up when you would talk in your room?
A I believe so, around then.
Q Did you observe Gerry’s state of mind before he actually, just before he actually left the organization?
A Yes.
Q And what did you observe?
A Frustration, confusion, betrayal. He was very concerned — he was finding out the real facts about L. Ron Hubbard and he was trying to get the organization to quit promulgating the falsities that had been promoted and he was sincerely trying to get those corrected and sincerely get the whole thing honest and straight.
3677
Q All right.
Now, after he left the organization, with regard to his state of mind about preventing any conflict between he and the organization, did you observe him at that time?
A After we left — I’m sorry. Could you repeat that?
Q After he left the organization what was Gerry’s state of mind with regard to avoiding any conflict with the organization?
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I have been allowing these state of mind questions about what she observed, but I think I’ll object at this point.
THE COURT: What is your basis?
MR. HARRIS: It calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Were you living with him at this time?
THE WITNESS: I was.
THE COURT: I assume you had some opportunity to observe him during a 24-hour period? You can describe him, the way he appeared to you, what his mental state was?
THE WITNESS: What period?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: After he left the organization, but before the incident with the photographs.
A Okay. Gerry and I wanted to walk away from the organization and try to start our lives fresh. And knowing that we didn’t have any profession that we could go out to the world with and provide for ourselves, we were going to make some attempt.
We sincerely wanted to walk away from the
3678
organization and have nothing to do with then.But in the back of our minds, after I had been exposed to some things regarding the Guardian’s Office and having read what they did in “Playing Dirty” I knew that the possibility of being harassed, especially Gerry, having the knowledge that he had, was always in the back of our minds if not in the foreground.
So there was — two things were going on: one, we wanted to walk away and start living anew and,two, we were afraid that we were being followed. We didn’t know what they would do.
I was very distrustful of the organization at that point as regards what they might do to us. So that was there. And I saw that in Gerry very much. And he spoke of that with me.
Q Okay. Now, do you recall the incident with the photographs?
A Yes.
Q And at that time of the incident did you have a conversation with Virgil Wilhite with regard to whether or not a Declare had been issued stating that Gerry had stolen materials from the organization?
A Virgil Wilhite said that to Gerry. And that is why he felt justified in turning over the photographs to Lyman Spurlock.
Q Did you hear Lyman Spurlock say that?
A Yes.
Q And this was when, Mrs. Armstrong?
3679
A April, ‘82.
Q Was this when you and Gerry went to Mr. Wilhite’s to try to get the photographs back?
A Yes. That is when Gerry asked me to come and asked Omar and Alana Garrison to come with us and go down and collect the photographs from Virgil Wilhite because Virgil had been entrusted with the photographs as the guy who was going to make the sale, the connection for Gerry.
Q Just so we are clear on this, you have a specific memory of hearing Virgil Wilhite say that; is that correct?
A Gerry was very upset. So Gerry was saying to Virgil and Virgil said back, you know, “I was shown this Declare and you are a thief.”
That is what I — I can’t — I will not swear that those are the specific words, but I was surprised because we had seen one Declare out on Gerry. And it didn’t say — a return of one, I think, I had seen at that point. And it didn’t say specifically “thief” that I recall.
Virgil Wilhite had more details than was issued in the first Declare.
Q You specifically remember him using the word “thief”; that the Declare said Gerry was a thief?
A I believe so.
Q Now, after this occurred, this incident with the photographs where they were refused — the photographs were not returned to you, do you recall what you did that evening or the way you were, Gerry’s state of mind, on that evening?
A Well, subsequent to speaking with Virgil, we had
3680
left and went to the organization, to the CMO building. And then that incident occurred.And I think we were in terror after that. Of course, Gerry was very upset, but they were just being very obstinate. And like, “Gerry, you should understand that you can’t have those photos back. They are not authorized L. Ron Hubbard photos.”
Well, we weren’t under any obligation to worry about whether they were authorized L. Ron Hubbard photos or not. They were personal property.
So there were these things going on. And then Terry Gamboa came down and said, “Get out.”
And Gerry said, “I want my photographs back. I am responsible for those photographs.”
She said, “Get out and go get an attorney or get yourself an attorney.”
And then I just was in complete shock when I saw that, when I looked at her and she said that to him that way because in my mind — and I know in Gerry’s mind at that point, we didn’t — it was just dawning on us that they were pulling Fair Game on us for real. He had suspicions. We were worried about it. But this was for real. And now they are talking lawsuits.
So that night when we went home, we kept like — it is a funny thing, like my mind tries to protect itself and not look.
We are talking about something serious here.
3681
So Gerry and I — I just kept looking at Gerry and I said, “Gerry, they’re serious. They are really going to pull something on us now.”
And Gerry said, “You are right. It is time to get out of the sandbox.”
And so we were up all night long just in fear.
Q Did you sleep at all that night?
A Not at all. It sounds silly, I know, trying to describe it, but it was total terror.
Q And what were Gerry’s sleep habits from that point to the time he came to Clearwater to see me if you remember?
A Gerry had a — sort of freaked me out a bit because he had a knife by the bed, and if there was any noise at all, he’d be out, up in a flash and creeping around the house and checking for someone coming in or sneaking around outside. And if I heard something, I’d sort of just reach over and tug his hair a little bit without making any noise, and he would sit up quietly, listen. I mean, it was nightmarish.
Q Now do you recall when Gerry came to see me in Clearwater?
A Yes, I stayed at Omar and Alana Garrison’s apartment that night.
Q Do you know a person named Marilyn Brewer?
A Yes I knew her very well.
Q And you are aware that her husband died at some
3682
point?A June ‘82.
Q Did you have a conversation with Marilyn Brewer relating to the Declare, that second Declare prior to the time when Gerry came to meet me in the hotel Bonaventure?
A I believe so.
Q And what was said in that conversation?
A Marilyn was surprised. She said, “There’s another issue out on Gerry, a revised Declare, and this one goes into much more detail and mentions theft and financial crimes and even mentions something about Timothy Leary.”
Q Now are you certain, do you recall when you had that conversation?
A In May. I don’t know specifically, but it was in May 1982.
Q And you are certain it was before Gerry met me at the Bonaventure?
A I believe so.
Q Now when did you first realize that you were being followed?
A We suspected it for some time so we were alert, but one time in May when we came home, there was a man in a trench coat hanging out in front — we lived in an apartment in a trailer park at that time and our apartment, you could see straight out the driveway into the main boulevard, and there was a man right there on the corner of the driveway on the boulevard, and it was obvious that he
3683
was — it was 2:OO in the morning, so here he is just standing out there.Q And he actually had a trench coat on?
A Yes.
Q And you believed this was in May 1982?
A I am sure it was.
Q All right. Now –
A And then we got out of the car, went up the stairs to the apartment, I sensed being watched. I looked and yes, there he still was. Then when we got inside, I looked out the window and he was gone. To me that was significant.
Q The fact that he was then gone?
A Yes.
Q Why was it significant to you?
A Maybe he went to report back that we had gotten home, but I mean, it was significant that suddenly he was gone. He was there, watched us come in, pull up in the driveway, park the car, go up the stairs, and then when I got in the house and we had the lights off and I looked out, he was gone.
Q Did you feel the organization wanted you to know that you were being followed?
A I don’t think I felt that at the time.
Q Now between May and August of 1982 you were living with your husband Gerry; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And would you describe his state of mind during
3684
that period of time?A Increasing fear. It is hard to describe. It went up and down. There were times when the fear just peaked. I mean, we wouldn’t sleep again. He’s got the knife again, but I think then the harassment started.
It is difficult for me to say, but it was definitely increasing fear and I observed, I personally believe and witnessed, at least prior to that, I think Gerry’s mind was crippled by that organization and this just continued to put pressure on him and his mental state.
3685
Q Now, at some point in time did you have private investigators in very close proximity come up to you and leer at you?
A Yes. That was when they were obviously following us around and harassing us.
At one point I went to — we went to the laundromat. Gerry went out to the car to get something and I was in putting the clothes in the machine.
Two of the men — I knew they were the ones that were hired to follow us because I had seen quite a great deal of them over the weeks previous. They stood outside the window of the laundromat while I am putting in my clothes and looking me up and down and leering at me. And it was sick. That is how I felt. That I was –
Q During that period of time did you and Gerry feel like you were in a state of siege with regard to these people following you?
A I’m not sure I fully understand “siege.”
Q Did you feel like you couldn’t go anywhere or do anything without being watched?
A Oh, definitely. I did not just feel that way. It was very apparent. It was happening.
Q In summation, Mrs. Armstrong, how would you describe your husband Gerry’s and your state of mind throughout the period of time that this took place between May and September, 1982?
A Terror, for the most part.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
3686
THE COURT: You may cross-examine, Mr. Litt, Mr. Harris.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Mrs. Armstrong, when did you and Mr. Armstrong first openly discuss the idea of leaving the Church?
A I don’t recall specifically. It was some — the end of November, early December, 1981. That is a vague recollection. I don’t know.
Q And you believe that is the first time you and he ever discussed the idea of doing that?
A I believe so.
Oh, I take that back. When we got married we made this agreement that if either one wanted to leave the organization, that would be it on the marriage. We discussed it then.
Q Aside from that discussion when you got married, your answer related to other than that discussion; right?
A What do you mean?
Q After that discussion that you described that you agreed that the marriage would end if either of you left, the next time you discussed this was early — was late November, early December; the next time that you discussed leaving; is that right?
A That I recall.
Q When you say that you were testing the waters beginning in July, I take it then that you were discussing
3687
reservations that you had, but weren’t discussing leaving; is that what it comes down to?A Yes, I was asked to do illegal things by SMI, Scientology Missions International, I was very concerned about that. I was even afraid to mention that to Gerry for fear that it would be considered questioning the organization or L. Ron Hubbard.
So I threw out hints, hoping to open up a communication there.
3688
Q And this was the precursor of Mr. Armstrong asking you to be assigned to him in the archives post?
A Part of it.
Q Now you said that just before he left Mr. Armstrong was frustrated, confused and felt betrayed. When would you say that that state of mind set in on Mr. Armstrong?
A I think it was a gradual increasing state of mind. I personally witnessed him, I believe it was in November 1981, trying to show Norman Starky some things in L. Ron Hubbard’s own handwriting which showed that L. Ron Hubbard had promoted the lies himself, and Norman Starky just refused to believe that could possibly be true. I saw frustration in Gerry at that time.
Q Were you present at this conversation?
A I certainly was.
Q And was that the first time that Mr. Armstrong felt frustrated or betrayed?
A Well I don’t know that was the time. I recall another instance where he was trying to get Julia Watson to change some promotion that she was going to be putting out, and she was very resistive toward correcting the lies. I saw that. I don’t know which of those instances came first, and there were others.
Q Well, how far back did these others go?
In October 1981 did Mr. Armstrong feel frustrated end betrayed?
A Okay. I could put it like this: When I got
3689
down into the archives area with Gerry, which was the end of, around the middle to the end of October 1981, that is when I really began to observe frustration. It would be from that point to the point we left, somewhere in there is what I mean by that.I think Gerry was frustrated with my experience on the legal mission in Scientology Missions International and was very frustrated that Mary Sue and the other so-called crims had been disassociated from the organization, and that I was untrained in legal and was being asked to do things that were not legal and I was innocent on the subject until I began to question and ask questions. Otherwise, I didn’t know they were necessarily illegal.
Q Well you still don’t know.
A Yes, I do know now. Yes, I have got advice on that.
Q From Mr. Flynn?
A No, I got it from Bill Duckhorn in the organization who advised me, “Definitely do not do anymore backdating of board minutes and corporate documents.”
Q All right now, after you left, did you and Mr. Armstrong associate with other persons who had formerly been Scientologists?
A After we left the organization?
Q Yes.
A Did we associate with persons who had formerly been Scientologists?
3690
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q Who were some of the people that you had contact with who had once been in the church and no longer were?
A Mike and Kima Douglas were in the organization.
Q Okay, who else?
A Jim and Nancy Dincalci.
Q Anybody else?
A Do you mean in the Sea Organization or just involved with Scientology?
Q Involved in Scientology.
A Gerry’s brother.
Q Anybody else you can think of?
A My brother and sister-in–law.
Q Anybody else?
A Is this from then to current like today, me sitting on the stand?
Q No, let’s take from the time you left which is, I guess, December 12 through April or so.
A I can’t think of anybody else.
Q And Mr. Armstrong hod numerous conversations with people during this time period, the people you have mentioned and others about what the documents supposedly showed about Mr. Hubbard; is that right?
MR. FLYNN: During what time frame?
Q BY MR. LITT: Same time frame, December 12 through the end of April.
3691
A He had numerous — with numerous people or the same people over and over?
3692
Q Well, let’s forget how many different people. He had several conversations that you are aware of with various people; is that right, on this subject?
A Yes. I know he spoke with Vaughn Young.
These are people inside –
Q Let’s stick –
A — and Barbara DeCelle.
Q Let’s stick for the moment with people outside.
A Yes.
He spoke with Omar a great deal. He spoke with some — a little bit with Mike and Kima Douglas about how confused he was. He felt that what had happened to our minds in there and the control of the mind and trying to deprogram ourselves. And he spoke some with Jim and Nancy Dincalci.
Q In fact, in the period after you left from December 12 through January, February, and March, probably the biggest issue to Mr. Armstrong was his experiences in Scientology and his feelings about Scientology and Mr. Hubbard; isn’t that right?
A He was very crippled, I feel, mentally. And he was so crippled in his mind that he couldn’t even get a job mentally.
I supported us. But he was also tied in with Omar, helping Omar, feeling sorry for Omar and helping him with Ralston Pilot.
But aside from that, he felt so degraded and so confused and so mixed up in his mind about what had been
3693
done to his mind over the last 13 years that it was a great deal on his mind, yes.A And accordingly, he talked to people about this a lot; it was a way for him to try to talk it through; isn’t that right?
A He spoke with me a lot about it, yes.
Q And he spoke with — when you went out with Marilyn and Ed Brewer, he talked about it then; is that right?
A What is this with Marilyn and Ed Brewer?
Q I might be wrong. I thought your husband testified that you and he had had some social engagement with the Brewers at one point in January, February, March.
A I recall Marilyn calling. I remember seeing Marilyn alone. We had lunch together, Gerry and I and Marilyn.
Is that what you are referring to?
Q I am not sure. I’ll have to check. That’s all right. It is not that important.
Now, you went to see Mr. Wilhite; Gerry was already upset and the conversation with Mr. Wilhite, at least, on Gerry’s part involved yelling; is that right?
A I believe both parts.
Q And Mr. Wilhite, in the course of that conversation, said something about Mr. Armstrong having stolen things, or having been a thief, or something like that?
A Yes. I recall that.
3694-96
Q And you don’t know at this point whether he said that was in the Declare or he had heard that or whatever; isn’t that right? You just remember that phrase?
A I remember him saying that he was shown a Declare by Lyman Spurlock and that that was what the Declare said.
Q You remember something about him being a thief; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Is it your testimony that you know that Mr. Wilhite said that the Declare said that?
MR. FLYNN: Asked and answered. Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. LITT: Tell me what you are certain that Mr. Wilhite said that the Declare said; only limiting it to what the Declare said that he said. Tell me what you are certain were his statements,
A I just answered that.
Q Okay.
Now, these documents that Mr. Armstrong had throughout this period of time, who, besides Jim and Nancy Dincalci and Mike and Kima Douglas and the people at the Bonaventure meeting were shown copies of these documents before the end of May, 1982?
3697
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor. It is compound. The people at the Bonaventure meeting were the Dincalcis and the Douglases.
MR. LITT: And others.
MR. FLYNN: Number one. Number two –
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LITT: May I be heard for a moment? It is not compound.
THE COURT: Just ask your next question.
Q BY MR. LITT: Excluding from my question the Douglases and the Dincalcis and Mr. Flynn, can you tell any people who were shown any of these documents before the end of May 1982?
A Omar Garrison.
Q Besides Mr. Garrison?
A Myself. I saw them.
Q Did you read through them at some length?
A I did when I was working in the archives project.
Q After you left?
A No.
Q But you did look at them occasionally when Gerry would say something to you about one thing or another?
A I don’t think so. I was disinterested. I was trying to get away from all that.
Q Aside from Mr. Garrison and yourself, do you know of anyone else?
A No, not for sure, no.
Q When you say not for sure, you think that there
3698
might have been other people but you are not certain?A I know that Gerry and my brother discussed things and my brother had been in Scientology and very much into the technical aspects of it, and they exchanged ideas and papers and things they had. I didn’t know specifically what it was, so that is what I meant by for sure.
Q But you know that Gerry gave documents to your brother and you are not sure what those documents were?
A No he did not give documents to my brother.
Q Showed documents to your brother?
A Uh-huh.
Q And you are not certain what those documents were?
A That is right.
Q Now, with respect to the second Declare, do you know when your husband received a copy of that?
A No, I don’t recall specifically. It was May or June, ‘82.
Q Do you know whether he went over the church at some point to pick up a copy of that?
A I don’t have a specific recollection of that.
Q Does it ring a bell?
A I remember going there once to see Marilyn Brewer and I think on that occasion we got the first Declare, but I can’t even say for sure on that. I remember seeing Marilyn Brewer. I remember going into the organization. I remember Gerry being with me.
Q Now you also indicated that one evening, I
3699
guess in May, you arrived home and saw a man in a trench coat and you went in your house, and then you looked outside and the man was gone?A That’s correct.
Q Is that the only occasion on which you saw that man?
A That I could say for sure, that man. It was very dark.
Q As far as you know?
A Yes.
Q And did you look in your window as soon as you arrived to see whether he was still there?
A Yes.
MR. LITT: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, any questions?
MR. HARRIS: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Prior to becoming the person in charge of Scientology Missions International, what was your post?
A I was in Australia and I was in charge of Scientology in Australia and New Zealand.
Q So you have occupied executive positions within Scientology over the years?
A In retrospect, they are figurehead positions, but yes.
Q Well, the Australia and New Zealand is a
3700
Continental office of Scientology; isn’t that right?A Yes.
Q And you were the executive director or commanding officer of that whole area?
A Yes, I was on a Flag mission there to do that job.
Q And was your post commanding officer of Scientology Missions International?
A It was called Commodore’s Staff Aide for Scientology Missions International.
Q In any event, as far as your position, nobody was higher than you in Scientology Missions International; is that correct?
A Sue Mithoff was in the CMO and any task that was above her, and she got her orders from Mark Yeager and David Miscavige and those people, so I would disagree.
3701
Q Well, let me understand this: Sue Mithoff was in Scientology Missions International?
A Sue Mithoff started Scientology Missions International and put me on the job as Commodore staff aide and continued to issue me orders continuously over my whole tenure as Commodore staff aide for Scientology Missions International.
Q And what was her post at that time?
A I don’t recall a specific title. She was in Commodore Messenger’s Org, over Scientology Missions International.
Q Was she physically located in the space that Scientology Missions International –
A Frequently.
Q She had a desk in there?
A Yes.
Q And as far as being a Scientology Missions International staff member, did you understand her to be a Scientology Missions International staff member?
A That was another shore story sort of operation.
She was a — she was in the CMO in the Sea Org.
Q And you were in the Sea Org?
A That is correct.
Q Did you sign a staff contract with Scientology Missions International?
A No.
Q And Mr. Duckhorn, what was he?
A He was in the legal branch at GO WW.
3702
Q Is that in England?
A That is correct.
Q And he came to Scientology Missions International?
A He was — how do I word this in regular language? I still have difficulty with Scientologese. He was in the legal area; responsible for Scientology Missions International. In other words, he was a Guardian’s Office Worldwide person, to my knowledge, and he was in the legal branch. And he was the one that worked with Ed Brewer, the legal setup of SMI and continued to work with Scientology Missions International.
Q Did he –
A He briefed me. I need to clarify it a little more.
When I went to England, they called me to England –
Q “They” meaning who called you to England?
A CMO ordered me to England.
Q Who specifically in CMO?
A Sue Mithoff; to be briefed under Ed Brewer on the legal setup on Scientology Missions International and what we were going to pull off in regards to cleaning up the corporate records of the existing franchises before they would be allowed to phase over to Scientology Missions International so that there was no connection between the Church of Scientology of California and SMI.
So that is what I was briefed on by Ed Brewer and Bill Duckhorn.
3703
Q When was that briefing?
A That was in 19 — I had several briefings from Ed Brewer.
Q When you were in England, when was that?
A Ed Brewer was back and forth. In England, that was that August, I believe, 1981.
Q And then Mr. Brewer and Mr. Duckhorn came over to the United States?
A At some point subsequent, yes.
Q At what point subsequent?
A I know — I can’t remember Bill Duckhorn, but specifically, Ed Brewer came in to take over Martin Samuels — handle Martin Samuels and take over his missions.
Q When did he come over?
A I believe — okay. That was some time in October.
Q ‘81?
A Yes. He was — I don’t know. I want to make sure I have this clarified.
He would travel back and forth. Often he was in the United States and then to the UK. I wanted to make that clear.
Q And specifically what was it that you were doing that was illegal according to Mr. Duckhorn? What were you doing?
A Having the franchise holders sign backdated documents.
Q You would go to a franchise holder and have that
3704
person sign this backdated document?A I would send the document to them or have them into my office in Los Angeles.
Q And specifically, the backdated documents that you would have them sign is what?
A Board minutes, resignations.
I remember we had to really track one guy down in Illinois because he had failed to sign.
Q A resignation?
A Some board minutes to — which were going to set up the next thing that they wanted to — planned to make it look proper in the board book. So we really — I just remember that specifically. I remember having another mission holder in my office signing.
Q Who was that?
A Steve Surrey.
Q And he signed something that was backdated?
A Yes, he did.
Q And you did this backdating?
A Ed Brewer would send me the documents and I was to either send them to the mission holder if they lived far away or if they weren’t going to be in town or call the local ones into my office and have them sign, yes.
Q So it was Mr. Brewer who prepared the documents and then you would send it to the mission holder or have them come into your office to sign it; is that correct?
A Ed Brewer was working with Bill Duckhorn in the UK creating the board minutes. I was the relay point.
3705
He would send them to me and I was to get the franchise holders to sign then by whatever means.
MR. HARRIS: No further questions.
3706
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: Just one, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mrs. Armstrong, do you recall whether the second Declare was mailed to you and your husband?
A I believe it was.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything further, gentlemen?
MR. LITT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, you may step down.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, we have what, in effect, is a petition/affidavit of numerous Scientologists who, as stated in the document next to their signature or above their signature, believe that they have a right or should have the opportunity to see the documents under seal.
I would like to offer this as an exhibit and I believe a brief is going to be prepared and submitted in support of it by someone who is representing them as a group. If need be, I can put the individual on the witness stand who, in part, collected the signatures. I would like to have it made part of the record in the case or at least marked.
THE COURT: You have got about half a dozen copies or something. I don’t think you intended to give me all of these. I got what appears to be four replications of the same thing.
3707
MR. FLYNN: I think they are different people with different signatures.
THE COURT: I didn’t look at the names. Well, the first two are the same.
MR. FLYNN: Well, maybe they weren’t collated, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The third one is identical. The fourth one is identical.
MR. FLYNN: I had thought that they had been collated, Your Honor. I have to collate them. There are four separate –
THE COURT: Well, you can lodge them with the clerk and we will deal with them in due course. They are not competent as evidence in this case.
The court has, of course, equitable jurisdiction under the declaratory relief cause of action, whatever. I suppose it is something that is available.
MR. FLYNN: At this point, Your Honor, I’d like to move into evidence –
THE COURT: I think you have only got about 2- or 300 exhibits so far marked.
Does plaintiff have any objection to any of these?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor, most assuredly.
THE COURT: You have got some, also.
Do you have any rebuttal witnesses here? Do you have any other evidence?
MR. FLYNN: No other evidence, Your Honor.
3708
THE COURT: I’d just as soon if you have any witnesses here, we can take the testimony and then deal with these exhibits in due course or is there going to be any?
MR. HARRIS: Yes. There will be some rebuttal but it will probably take 20 minutes to get a witness
here.
THE COURT: Well we are going to have to take a recess anyway for 15 minutes.
We can go over exhibits this afternoon and have your witnesses come in in the morning. It is certainly going to take an hour to go over these exhibits.
MR. FLYNN: Can I get some idea as to how long the rebuttal is expected to last?
MR. HARRIS: It is in process, Your Honor, as we weren’t aware that the defense would rest so soon and we were aware of other people who had been subpoenaed and the like. I can’t tell you at this point. I don’t think it is going to be too long.
THE COURT: Well, we will take 15 minutes and then we will go through exhibits. (Recess.)
3709
THE COURT: All right. Counsel are all present.
Exhibit A is a grant deed.
Are you offering this into evidence?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Does the Plaintiff want it in evidence?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: B is in evidence.
C is in evidence.
D is in evidence.
E is in evidence.
F is a copy of a petition.
Are you offering this into evidence?
MR. FLYNN: I am, your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
By the way, may I make objections on behalf of both? We have been doing that throughout the trial.
THE COURT: Sure. I would appreciate it.
3710
THE COURT: I would appreciate it, one or the other.
F will be in evidence. G is already in evidence.
What is H?
MR. FLYNN: H is sealed, Your Honor. It is the biography of 1960. It is under seal.
THE COURT: We will defer that until later. I am not going to get into the sealed until I go through all this group being here.
I is in evidence. J is in evidence.
Are you offering K? K is the Commodore’s Messenger –
MR. FLYNN: — Policy; we are.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, I’d object to that, Your Honor, as hearsay, First Amendment and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well it purports to be an order from Mr. Hubbard, the missing Mr. Hubbard in 15 September, 1978 concerning Commodore’s Messenger. I realize he is not a party to this action. It appears to the court certainly to be admissible, so the objection will be overruled; exhibit K.
How about L?
MR. FLYNN: That is sealed, prenuptial agreement.
THE COURT: Suppressive Person Declare, Gerry Armstrong revised 22/4/82. Are you offering that in evidence?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
3711
MR. HARRIS: Same objection; First Amendment, hearsay and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, not irrelevant. I will withdraw that. Objections are overruled.
Exhibit N is a PRO News Volume 2, No. 4, April 1970. Are you offering that in evidence?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: Yes; First Amendment, hearsay. Again I don’t know if these are being offered for the truth of the matter or in support of Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind, Your Honor, so that is why I am making the hearsay objection.
3712
MR. HARRIS: First Amendment; hearsay and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, there was testimony referring to these matters. And the testimony of the witness had to do with “Maxim 38, proof of the act, time, place, form, and event.” And there are other matters in here that he testified about, relied upon.
The objection will be overruled.
It will be received.
I have exhibit O which is “my philosophy” by L. Ron Hubbard.
Are you offering that into evidence?
MR. FLYNN: I think that is Q, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Maybe I got it out of order.
MR. FLYNN: With regard to the two books, what we would like to do is Xerox the biographical sketches and offer those, not the books themselves.
THE COURT: Well, that is okay with me. All you want is the –
MR. FLYNN: The biographical sketch of Mr. Hubbard.
THE COURT: Does that appear on the jacket? Is that it?
MR. FLYNN: In the book Your Honor has in your hand, it is in the last few pages of the book.
THE COURT: I see, pages 158 and 159?
MR. FLYNN: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I’ll order that the exhibit be released to you; you can Xerox pages 158 and 159 and maybe something to show the title of it.
3713
Is there any objection to that exhibit or to the procedure?
MR. HARRIS: I have no objection to the procedure, Your Honor, but I do have an objection to the exhibit, several, which is First Amendment, hearsay, and irrelevant.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule those objections.
I have exhibit No. P, “All about radiation.”
MR. FLYNN: We would like to Xerox, Your Honor, the first few pages and the cover “By a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.”
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, on that one, I think the entirety should be read because the text makes clear what the jacket doesn’t.
MR. FLYNN: We’ll offer the entire book.
THE COURT: I have to read this whole book before I decide this case? I don’t know when I would get around to reading it.
MR. FLYNN: The only reason we are offering it is to show, Your Honor, that he was held out as a nuclear physicist. There is at least a serious ambiguity about whether he is being held out as a medical doctor.
MR. HARRIS: That is why I think the whole thing has to come in.
THE COURT: I’ll receive the whole thing. It will be received in its entirety.
Q, “my philosophy”; are you offering that?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
3714
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be received.
R, “Successes of Scientology,” a magazine; are you offering that?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: If it is — well, First Amendment, hearsay, and irrelevant, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think a lot of it is probably irrelevant.
MR. FLYNN: It is just the bio sketch that we are interested in.
MR. HARRIS: If the bio goes in, the whole of it should go in.
THE COURT: I’ll receive it.
S, “Scientology, the field staff member” magazine.
MR. FLYNN: We would offer a Xerox copy of the sketch, the outline of Mr. Hubbard’s background.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: First Amendment, hearsay, irrelevant.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objections. It will be received. T, “Advance 7,” are you offering that?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor. With regard to the page that says “operation effort” on it with regard to the solicitation to join the Sea Org.
THE COURT: T-l?
MR. HARRIS: I would object on the same ground, that
3715
it is First Amendment, hearsay, and irrelevant, Your Honor.But if you are going to allow exhibit T-l in, then I want the entirety of it in.
THE COURT: All right. We’ll receive T and T-l.
U is the nondisclosure and release bond.
MR. FLYNN: We are offering it, Your Honor.
THE COURT [Mr. Harris]: I think it is irrelevant, Your Honor.
There is no claim in respect to a breach of such bond.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule it. It will be received. Exhibit V deals with a couple of W-2 forms, I guess.
MR. FLYNN: They are being offered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection to these, counsel?
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT: They will be received.
Exhibit W is “Vetting Hat Write-up” 9 March, ‘75.
MR. HARRIS: That was not identified by the witness as authentic, Your Honor, and –
THE COURT: Are you offering it, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor. The witness testified that –
THE COURT: Which witness?
MR. FLYNN: Mr. Armstrong; that he saw similar vetting hat write-ups, but he did not see that specific one.
I showed it to him and he identified it as being the type of vetting, illustrating the type of vetting procedures that he followed with regard to the shredding
3716
operation in 1980.MR. HARRIS: The exact testimony of the witness, Your Honor, which appears on page 1486, it was marked by Mr. Flynn and then he asked, “Have you seen this particular vetting policy, Mr. Armstrong?
“A Not while in the organization.
“Q Did you see a vetting policy similar to that?
“A Yes.”
I don’t think that is –
3717
THE COURT: What is the next question?
MR. HARRIS: (Reading:)
“Q In what way did the two differ?
“A This is more extensive. It is longer. The other one was only a single sheet of paper. The instructions on the other one dealt mainly with L. Ron Hubbard in connection to the Guardian’s office, the mentions of the criminal activities were not made in the vetting writeup which I saw.”
So–
THE COURT: Oh, I will sustain the objection. There’s been testimony about what vetting is, so it is no secret.
Exhibit X, are you offering that? It is a security check, HCO bulletin of 3 February, 1960.
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: That is a conglomeration of things. There would be an objection; First Amendment, hearsay, irrelevant, also quite misleading in the fashion it is put together.
THE COURT: Well, there’s been testimony of what is part of what and what is not part of what, so it is illustrative of the testimony. Overruled; it will be received, X.
Y is an undecipherable — “This sounds like an excellent idea with” — something — “To be replaced properly, of course.”
MR. FLYNN: That, Your Honor, was the copy that they gave us, the response of L. Ron Hubbard approving the petition.
3718
If there is a better copy or if the original is available –
THE COURT: Don’t you have a better copy attached to your exhibits which you attached to some of your motions? There was something which was very legible. Maybe that is Z.
MR. HARRIS: Apparently we don’t have anything more legible. If they have, it is okay to substitute.
THE COURT: All right. I will receive Y in evidence. What about Z, are you offering Z?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection to Z?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Be received.
So much for the first alphabet. Well, we are dealing solely in double now, so double A is –
MR. FLYNN: Being offered.
MR. HARRIS: I don’t think I ever got a copy of it, Your Honor, so let me take a look at it.
THE COURT: It is to blank from Senior R Pers PRO Research, 3 February, 1980, nonexistence post.
MR. FLYNN: That was produced during the trial, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, okay, no objection.
THE COURT: All right, double A will be received.
Double E is a letter by Miss Brice, personal secretary.
MR. FLYNN: Yes, I have no reason to believe that Mrs. Brice did not prepare such, Your Honor, so no objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received, double B.
3719
Double C — well, this is illustrative of Mr. Armstrong’s testimony concerning the creation of LRH’s schematic chart. Are you offering that?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, no objection, it will be received.
Double E is already in. Double F is already in.
MR. FLYNN: Double D is under seal.
THE COURT: Double D is underground, did you say?
THE CLERK: Under seal.
THE COURT: GG is in.
Now, double H, letter to “Dear Gail, CO CMO.”
MR. FLYNN: We are offering that, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. It will be received.
3720
THE COURT: II is “Dear Cirrus”; 25 November.
MR. FLYNN: Offering that.
MR. HARRIS: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Be received.
JJ is “Dear Sue” of 18 November, 1981.
Are you offering that?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received.
RR is “Dear Sue; Love Gerry”; are you — KK. I’m sorry.
MR. FLYNN: We are offering KK, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be received.
LL, “Re Biography, 28 November, 1981.”
MR. FLYNN: We are offering that.
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT: Okay. It will be received.
MM is “Declaration of religious commitment and mission of participation, Church of Scientology International of California.”
MR. FLYNN: We are offering that, particularly with regard to the releases at the back.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. It will be received.
3721
NN is “Intelligence Specialist Training Routine TRL.”
MR. FLYNN: We are offering that, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: May I have just a second, Your Honor? I don’t believe that it was authenticated by the witness.
THE COURT: Did we have any testimony about this?
MR. HARRIS: I was just looking to see where it was marked. It was marked, but then there was nothing asked about it.
MR. FLYNN: I believe, Your Honor, there was testimony, not identifying that particular document, but with regard to in general the training with regard to the shore stories, training to lie.
MR. HARRIS: That does not make it either authentic or relevant, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
OO, “Dear Gerry.”
MR, FLYNN: We are offering that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: I’m not — I don’t think so, Your Honor. No.
THE COURT: It will be received.
PP is suppressive Person Declare, 18 February, 1981.
MR. HARRIS: Yes; First Amendment, hearsay.
MR. FLYNN: We are offering it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
3722
It will be received.
QQ is “Dear Vaughn”; 2-24-82. Any objection to that?
MR. HARRIS: I don’t recognize it, Your Honor, but I assume it is authentic or was identified in some fashion. No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
RR is the HCO policy letter of 18 October, 1967.
MR. HARRIS: Yes; First Amendment, hearsay.
THE COURT: Are you offering this?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: And irrelevant. All three, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objections. It will be received.
SS, they are a couple of pictures with comments. I already indicated I won’t receive the comments because they are Mr. Armstrong’s personal notes.
MR. FLYNN: We would offer the photos without the comments, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT; They will be received. I’ll ask the –
MR. HARRIS: I don’t have a copy, but I assume they look like human beings and so on in there.
THE COURT: The clerk can put something over the typing there on this outer sheet.
MR. HARRIS: I don’t think that is necessary, Your Honor, as long as you ignore the writing.
THE COURT: TT is “Project Bio Debug Personnel
3723
Vaughn Young,” 30 October, ‘81.MR. FLYNN: Yes.
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
3724
THE COURT: Double U is list of services Church of Scientology of California, the Flag land base, page 2 book.
MR. HARRIS: There would be an objection to it as irrelevant.
THE COURT: (Reading:)
“Attention credit card users. Put it on your Master or Visa Card.”
Are you offering this. Counsel?
MR. FLYNN: We are offering it.
THE COURT: I have forgotten. What was the testimony regarding this?
MR. HARRIS: Oh, Your Honor –
MR. FLYNN: It relates, Your Honor, in general to the operation of the organization as a business and specifically testimony related to the fact that there were charges for courses that were specific charges in large amounts.
MR. HARRIS: The document, Your Honor, was marked after this testimony:
“Q Had you seen price lists?
“A Yes.
“Q Let me show you this price list. Have you seen a price list of that type?
“A Yes.”
MR. FLYNN: There was prior testimony.
MR. HARRIS: I object to it as irrelevant end I can’t guarantee the authenticity of it or the period of time to which it relates.
THE COURT: Well, it speaks in terms of “all donations
3725
for January 1980.”MR. HARRIS: Well, then, I guess that speaks to the date.
THE COURT: And then there is a reference to, “LRH ED 284/5 International, 8 May, 1979 in effect. FSM’s can now get a 40 percent discount from the Flag bookstore for purchases of 25 books or 10 meters or more.”
MR. HARRIS: The method by which the church funds itself, Your Honor, it seems to me is clearly beyond the parameters of this particular proceeding and I would suggest that it is irrelevant as well as authentic problems.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the testimony was extensive with regard to whether or not Mr. Hubbard had held himself out as not receiving any moneys from courses or fees of people who paid money to the Church of Scientology, and the evidence was also extensive that he, in fact, held himself out as not receiving such. He was.
This exhibit reflects the fee schedules by which people were paying the moneys that Mr. Hubbard claimed he wasn’t receiving when, in fact, he was. It is relevant for that purpose.
MR. HARRIS: Well that is quite a jump in logic. Same objection.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection for whatever value it may have. It is interesting here we have a note per LRH ED, 284/5 International, “All bookstore items increase 10 percent in cost on the 1st of each month.”
I would think they would be completely priceless
3726
by now if that is true. Each month it gets 10 percent store expensive?MR. HARRIS: If that were so, it would probably be in the trillions compounded.
THE COURT: I would think so.
All right, we have VV, this is a list of misrepresentations.
MR. HARRIS: That just appears to be a summary, and not even an accurate one of what Mr. Armstrong said, Your Honor, in all of his testimony and I’d object to it. It is a compilation. It is not accurate insofar as the testimony is concerned, and I don’t even know if the witness ever even identified it.
THE COURT: Let me just take a quick look.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I believe he did state that it was a compilation of misrepresentations that he had found.
3727
THE COURT: Well, I am going to receive it, but it will be received as part of the witness’ direct examination that was subject to cross-examination; in other words, it is as though he repeated these words in response to a question.
So it will be received for that limited purpose, as though the witness had so testified on direct examination.
MR. HARRIS: May we have just a second on that one, Your Honor?
There seems to be a bit of difficulty. I am not sure that he adopted that as a — whatever, the Court has received it.
THE COURT: He can be put back on the stand. I am sure that is what he would say if he didn’t say so.
MR. HARRIS: I wouldn’t want to waste the Court’s time like that.
THE COURT: WW is something from the Department of the Navy to Mr. William Hess.
MR. FLYNN: The witness identified this as identical to a document that is not under seal, but was in the archives that he testified shows the chronological summary of Mr. Hubbard’s Naval career.
THE COURT: I think this is part of the documents that are under seal or a copy.
MR. FLYNN: There is a shorter one under seal, Your Honor, I believe. It is similar, but shorter.
THE COURT: Any objection, counsel?
MR. HARRIS: I would object to it on privacy grounds,
3728
Your Honor, and also First Amendment — not First Amendment, but hearsay and irrelevant.THE COURT: It is sent by the Department of the Navy to Mr. William Hess, who I don’t have the slightest idea who he is. Apparently, the Navy didn’t consider it so private.
I’ll overrule the objections. There has been testimony about it.
We have XX.
MR. FLYNN: We also are offering that, Your Honor. That is a document that is also in the archives that Mr. Armstrong relied upon and testified extensively about with regard to Mr. Hubbard leaving the ALGOL before the ALGOL –
MR. HARRIS: That’s right. Mr. Armstrong said that Mr. Hubbard had never left port.
I have no objection to that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
Let’s go on. Let’s not quibble. You’ll have time to argue the case.
Exhibit YY appears to be a special orthopedic examination, a page of a report, 8 something ‘51.
MR. HARRIS; I will object to that, Your Honor, if it is being offered, as incomplete, privacy protected, and irrelevant.
MR. FLYNN: We are offering, Your Honor — that is a document that Mr. Armstrong identified as the same document that is in the archives, but it is not under seal; but that
3729
he, in connection with his — his discovery of inconsistencies about Mr. Hubbard’s background, relied on that document as it existed in the archives.THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection. It will be received.
ZZ is “What your fees buy.”
MR. FLYNN: We are offering that, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: That, Your Honor, appears to be in some organization other than the Church of Scientology of California. I am not totally certain. Maybe it says it on your copy.
THE COURT: It says “Copyright 1976 by L. Ron Hubbard. All rights reserved Church of Scientology of Florida, nonprofit corporation.”
MR. HARRIS: Right.
MR. FLYNN: There was extensive testimony about that document, Your Honor, from Laurel Sullivan and from Gerald Armstrong with regard to that document or a document of that type being widely disseminated throughout the world in connection with the representations by Mr. Hubbard as to “What your fees buy.”
THE COURT: Well, I’ll overrule the objection. It will be received.
This would be scripture because it was written by Mr. Hubbard.
MR. HARRIS: That could be –
THE COURT: You have a First Amendment objection?
MR. HARRIS: I started to state my objection, Your Honor,
3730
but you preempted me.So let me state them: First Amendment and hearsay and irrelevant. And most particularly irrelevant and unauthenticated in respect to any of the Plaintiffs in this action.
THE COURT: Well, I assume there is only one L. Ron Hubbard.
MR. HARRIS: Yes. That’s true as far as I know.
THE COURT: So it will be received.
Let’s get to triple Alphabet now.
Triple A is Guardian’s Order 12-16-’69, internal security.
MR. FLYNN: We are offering that.
Mary Sue Hubbard testified about it; Mr. Armstrong testified about it. That is the policy where Mrs. Hubbard said that processing was not auditing.
3731
THE COURT: She said she put this together; didn’t she?
MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: She identified it as being written by her, Your Honor, so I guess we have no real objection other than First Amendment grounds and relevance.
MR. FLYNN: It is the policy to cull files.
THE COURT: Yes. This will be received in evidence; triple A in evidence.
Triple B is HCO policy letter of 20 February, 1972. Comes from the Guardian’s office apparently approved by Mary Sue Hubbard, the controller for L. Ron Hubbard, founder.
MR. FLYNN: We are offering it, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Objection; First Amendment, hearsay and irrelevant.
THE COURT: There was testimony about black propaganda, intelligence; overruled. It will be received. We have exhibit triple C which is “Science of Survival” dedicated to Alexis Valerie Hubbard.
MR. FLYNN: There was testimony that Mr. Armstrong had recalled a book in which L. Ron Hubbard dedicated it to Alexis Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard had testified that Alexis was not L. Ron Hubbard’s daughter, and Mr. Armstrong testified at length at one of the more significant inconsistencies he found was L. Ron Hubbard denying that she was his daughter.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: Yes; objection insofar as it is — well,
3732
as to the whole of the thing, Your Honor. Hearsay if it is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and irrelevant.MR. FLYNN: We had the book in the courtroom, Your Honor, and we just Xeroxed this page out of it per stipulation.
MR. HARRIS: I understand that.
THE COURT: Well, the truth of it. I don’t know how sincere he was when he dedicated it to Alexis, if that is what you are meaning, so I won’t receive it as evidence that he was sincere or necessarily truthful when he dedicated it, but received as a fact that that is what it says. Exhibit triple D is a photograph of Mr. Hubbard purportedly in New York, Queens, according to some evidence, when he was in hiding; other evidence he was not in hiding. At any rate are you offering that?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: Other than relevance, Your Honor, no.
THE COURT: I will receive it. Overruled.
Triple E; subject: Flynn, Michael J.
MR. HARRIS: That was not identified by the witness as anything he saw within the organization. He purported to characterize what some aspects of it were such as Narconon being an enemy and other sorts of things, and I had to object to it as not authentic and hearsay and irrelevant.
MR. FLYNN: There was extensive testimony, Your Honor, that the witness saw many CIC cross mark sheets of which this is a particular type — of which this is one. The
3733
witness did not see this particular document, but he saww [saw] many like this and he testified at length with regard to what CIC meant, “Combat Information Center.” What cross mark sheet meant, and what the — probably most importantly what the categories meant with regard to E, T, and D with respect to the implementation of the Fair Game Doctrine against enemies, particularly enemies who had never been affiliated with the Church of Scientology.3734
MR. FLYNN: This is evidence of the implementation of the Fair Game Doctrine against non Scientologists who were never part of the Ethics and Justice System of the Church.
MR. HARRIS: It has to first be authenticated, Your Honor, before it can be used in that fashion.
THE COURT: Well, of course it can be authenticated circumstantially. It does not have to be direct evidence. It doesn’t have to be I saw this; I published it. This is the type of circumstantial evidence which would tend to support the conclusion that this is authentic.
I don’t — it is illustrative of the witness’ testimony. It goes to his state of mind, what he was relying upon, considering.
I’ll overrule the objection. It will be received.
MR. HARRIS: I just wanted to indicate, Your Honor, that the witness did not indicate that he saw this item while he was in the Church at all. So –
THE COURT: I believe he testified he saw similar items.
MR. HARRIS: All right.
THE COURT: Then we have the letter to triple FFF to Mrs. Hubbard from Mr. Armstrong dated 8-14-82 purportedly in which he attempted to send the letter to Mrs. Hubbard.
MR. HARRIS: We have no objection to the envelope, Your Honor. It is supportive of his testimony.
THE COURT: All right.
Are you offering this, counsel?
3735
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The envelope and its contents other than the letter that was returned to Mrs. Hubbard will be received.
Triple G, these are his notes.
MR. HARRIS: I am without one.
May I look at Your Honor’s?
THE COURT: Well, it is notes of his –
MR. FLYNN: We gave you that.
THE COURT: A diary sort of.
Are you offering this into evidence?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: I object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain it. It can only be used to refresh his memory.
Triple H, “Information Pull Hat Guardian’s Office.”
MR. FLYNN: We are offering it, Your Honor. There was extensive testimony from Mr. Armstrong authenticating it.
The last page contains drills for Guardian Program, order to cull files.
MR. HARRIS: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Surely.
MR. HARRIS: Hearsay and irrelevant, Your Honor.
His actual testimony in respect to it, which appears at 2719, “I have seen this or very similar. I believe it is this while in the Intelligence Bureau and aboard the ship.”
3736
THE COURT: All right. Then I’ll receive it.
I’ll overrule the objection.
Triple I is “Operations Definitions Button Survey.”
MR. HARRIS: That is the item, Your Honor, that I don’t believe the witness identified.
Just let me get the exact –
2728, “Mr. Armstrong, the document that is before you that is exhibit triple I, prior to December 1981 had you ever seen that document?
“A No.”
MR. FLYNN: I believe he testified at length about the Buttons and Button Surveys and whether that document is of a similar type to the ones he did see with regard to Button Surveys, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: That does not, however, make the document admissible, Your Honor. It is hearsay; unauthenticated.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objections. The testimony will stand as it relates to Buttons.
Triple J is the “Dear Ruth” and signed “Chuck.”
MR. HARRIS: Same objection, Your Honor, unauthenticated; there are also other privacy interests involved, apparently, in this one if it is authentic. And the witness couldn’t identify it as anything he had seen.
MR. FLYNN: Well –
MR. HARRIS: And Mary Sue Hubbard couldn’t identify it.
3737
MR. FLYNN: Mary Sue Hubbard identified this and the next several exhibits on a question by Mr. Litt as to whether she recognized this document and the next one as being seized by the FBI from the Church premises.
MR. LITT: That is not correct. I asked her if she recognized it as having an FBI marking on it. If he wants to get into that, Your Honor, whether Mrs. Hubbard was able to say whether that was actually on Church premises, that is a different question. She could identify the number indicating that Mr. Flynn had, apparently, gotten it from the FBI’s documents. That is all.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I believe –
THE COURT: Well, as indicated before, a document’s authenticity can be established by circumstantial evidence. Apparently this was a document obtained by the FBI from Scientology. And certainly, it appears to have all of the earmarks of documents that we have seen other places, routing, internal security US, Deputy Guardian Int, US; Deputy Guardian US, et cetera.
It appears to be a letter relating to what was gotten from this PC folder. And it appears to be what might be expected to be obtained from culling some individual’s PC folder.
It is not to be received for the truth of what is therein stated, but also since this does relate to some innocent person who is not involved in this lawsuit, I’ll order that it be separately sealed. And it is only offered as illustrative — received as illustrative of the type of
3738
response that would be obtained in this type of a process, but certainly, that has no relevancy otherwise in this lawsuit except as illustrative of what was done.So triple J will be received, but ordered sealed and not to be opened except upon further order of this Court or some other Court.
3739
Triple K.
MR. HARRIS: Same objection. Your Honor. It wasn’t authenticated by any witness.
THE COURT: What about this one, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: All these were identified by Mary Sue Hubbard and they all fall into the same category as the last one.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, may I clarify one thing? Mrs. Hubbard testified with respect to all of these that she had never seen these before, she also testified that she had no personal knowledge that any of this type of activity was going on within the Guardian’s office, if it was.
The only thing that she said is that she could tell that there was a number on there that appeared to her to be a number that was a renumbering system that the FBI used. There are substantial questions, Your Honor, which I don’t think we want to get into here as to what documents came from where under what circumstances and whether they are accurate, whether there are additions. There’s been extensive litigation about that.
So I just think that Mrs. Hubbard’s testimony clearly does not authenticate in any way this document. In fact, to the extent that her testimony speaks to it, it is just that she as the controller within Scientology had no knowledge of these documents, had never seen these documents and had no information relating to the these activities.
3740
If they are to be authenticated, It would appear that they would have to be authenticated through some other witness under those circumstances, so I just wanted to make that clear and that was her testimony with respect to all of these related documents that I guess are in order here.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I don’t have the transcript in front of me, but I believe that the question was whether or not Mrs. Hubbard could identify these documents and the next series as being documents seized from the premises of the Church of Scientology by the FBI.
THE COURT: Oh, I think on this exhibit KKX, again it appears obviously to have been a document that is in the same category as triple J. I will receive it and it will also be sealed, and we have triple L. Same situation. I don’t recall what was said about this.
MR. HARRIS: Same thing.
THE COURT: Something about Jane Kember, Herbie Parkhouse and Fred Hare. I have heard those people mentioned in this lawsuit, and I will overrule the objection. But it will be received for the limited purpose and ordered sealed.
Triple M re Kermit Miller. This appears to be very similar to exhibit triple K. I will deem the same objections made.
MR. HARRIS: Just so it is clear as to each of these, Your Honor, I did object on authenticity grounds, but there is also hearsay grounds and relevance grounds as to each of the items Your Honor has –
3741
THE COURT: So they will be overruled and received as triple M.
This NNN, is this also in the same category?
MR. FLYNN: It is, Your Honor, as is OOO and all the way up to RRR are all in the same category.
3742
THE COURT: What about SSS, “Operation Freakout”; is that part of it too?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Then I assume that counsel is making the same objection to these other matters?
MR. HARRIS: Yes.
THE COURT: They appear all to have come from — they all seem to fit in the same pattern. They seem to be virtually identical in character and nature. And they’ll be received for that limited purpose, that there were such documents available; apparently, such practice was engaged in, at least in as many instances as there are reports here. And they will be ordered sealed, not to be released or revealed to anyone except on order of Court.
SSS, that was — what is this all about? I have forgotten this.
MR. FLYNN: This is a frame up of — we’re not offering it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Does the Plaintiff want to offer it?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Triple T.
MR. HARRIS: I think that came from Mr. Flynn’s files. I don’t know if Mr. Armstrong identified it or didn’t, Your Honor.
I will object on privacy, First Amendment, relevancy, and 352.
THE COURT: I am inclined to sustain. This goes to
3743
the collector’s item. There is the name of Hoover on here and also Mr. Hubbard. So two persons that are of varying degrees of note. I’ll sustain the objection.We have triple U which is HCO Policy Letter of 1 March, ‘66, office of the Guardian.
This is when he purportedly resigned and then the office of the Guardian was created and Mary Sue Hubbard was installed as the first Guardian.
MR. LITT: The resignation came after this, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: In any event, there would be an objection, First Amendment, hearsay, and irrelevant, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection. It will be received.
We have triple V.
MR. HARRIS: The witness did not identify triple V. It is hearsay, unauthenticated and irrelevant.
MR. FLYNN: It was authenticated, Your Honor. The witness testified he saw it in the port captain’s office, part of the B-1 Bureau Hat Pack; relevant to Mr. Armstrong’s fear that the documents in his possession would be stolen because this particular document relates to the theft of files.
I believe the pages are out of order in the Court’s copy. The middle two pages should be reversed.
MR. HARRIS: Is this triple Z, Your Honor?
THE COURT: No; triple V as in Victor.
MR. HARRIS: Yes.
THE COURT: “Successful and unsuccessful actions.”
3744
MR. FLYNN: The middle two pages need to be reversed, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection.
I’ll receive it for the same purpose.
We have triple W which is the glossary of terms defining processing.
I think you had a dictionary or book here that this was Xeroxed from; is that correct?
MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: First Amendment, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t see that. It might go to the credibility of Mrs. Hubbard, but I’ll overrule the objection.
Triple X is a nondisclosure and release bond Tonya Burden.
3745
MR. FLYNN: We are not offering that. Your Honor. I was going to bring Miss Burden in.
THE COURT: That would be a burden on the court.
Triple Y is “Confidential, Intelligence Sheets.”
MR. FLYNN: This was offered with regard to Mr. Armstrong identified it in part with regard — under duties, 4 “Combat Information Center.”
Mr. Harris had introduced a document attempting to show that CIC meant control information center.
THE COURT: Well I assumed when I first heard it was back to his Navy days and CIC had one meaning in the Navy.
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I didn’t offer any documents about control. I asked the witness about it and he testified that yes, indeed, it did mean that from time to time.
As far as triple Z –
THE COURT: I am up to Y. We are only on triple Y.
MR. HARRIS: I am sorry.
THE COURT: I assume it has a very limited purpose.
MR. FLYNN: It is offered for that reason, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Well, I’d object to it, Your Honor. As I see the testimony now, he said he was not sure he had ever seen this exhibit and I am referring to page 2964:
“We had GO memos like that in the port captain’s office in the intelligence hat, but I cannot say with certainty that this was among
3746
them.”I will object. It is unauthenticated hearsay and irrelevant.
MR. FLYNN: It is relevant to support his testimony as to what CIC is.
THE COURT: Well it very relevant, but is there any indication that this witness ever relied upon this or something substantially similar to this?
MR. FLYNN: There was. Your Honor. He said he saw documents of this type or very similar to this. He couldn’t say for certain he saw this document, but he testified he saw documents of this type with regard to his knowledge that CIC meant Combat Information Information Center, and that the intelligence unit of the organization which he’s testified that the organization in itself was an intelligence operation. That was one of the reasons he left, and that was one of the reasons he was fearful the organization would attack him and he authenticated this document on the point that the Combat Information Center was what CIC meant as CIC has set forth in its other documents that have already been admitted into evidence where only the initials CIC were used.
MR. HARRIS: Well, first of all, Your Honor, the document unless authenticated can’t be used in respect to the truth of the matter asserted, and also I look at it and I am looking around and I don’t see Combat Information Center on it. I see CIC files, and the witness has already testified that sometimes it was Controller Information Center;
3747
sometimes Combat Information Center et cetera. So I don’t think it is relevant to that.MR. FLYNN: It is paragraph No. 4, Your Honor, about three–fourths of the way down the page in parentheses.
MR. HARRIS: Well I must have something different from you. What are you referring to?
THE COURT: “Confidential, Intelligence Sheet.”
I guess it is a hat pack for the intelligence sheet.
MR. FLYNN: That is what it is.
MR. HARRIS: I have something entirely different than you have, Mr. Flynn.
THE COURT: (Reading):
“… to ruthlessly prosecute all traitors damaging Scientology Orgs, Scientologists and Scientology to the end product of successful legal actions; to detect and handle the Suppressive exterior to Scientology Orgs and Scientologists who uses his power and position or the power and position of authorities to attempt to stop the forward progress of Scientologists and Scientology.”
I will overrule the objection. Be received.
We have triple ZZZ, 1 September, ‘81.
MR. HARRIS: I have no objection. The defendant wrote that.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
Let’s go onto to quadruple A. We are on the four A’s; Cancellation of Fair Game, HCO policy letter of
3748
21 October, ‘68.MR. HARRIS: First Amendment, hearsay, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled; be received.
Quadruple B is from the 1972 Advance. This has to do with the Sea Org.
MR. FLYNN: That was authenticated by Laurel Sullivan, Your Honor, “Join Ron’s Personal Organization.” We are offering it.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: First Amendment, hearsay and irrelevant.
MR. FLYNN: That came from a publication soliciting people to join Ron’s personal organization.
THE COURT: I don’t see that language in here.
MR. FLYNN: Right at the top.
THE COURT: Obviously. It is such a big headline, I didn’t see it. Quadruple B will be received. Quadruple C, the photograph aboard ship, are you offering that?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: I have no objection to the photograph.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
Quadruple D is “Rush” at the top re “Final Biography Contract Negotiations. I think OVG is getting a good deal.”
MR. FLYNN: That was authenticated by Laurel Sullivan.
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received.
Quadruple E is “The flow up the bridge,”
3749
U.S. mission holders conference in San Francisco of 1982.I guess this was used in the cross-examination of Mr. Spurlock.
3750
MR. HARRIS: It was rather extensively gone into, Your Honor.
No objection.
THE COURT: Very well. It will be received.
Quadruple F is the policy on sources of trouble.
MR. FLYNN: We are offering that, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: First Amendment, hearsay, and irrelevant.
MR. FLYNN: We find –
MR. HARRIS: That shows, Your Honor, I guess by Mr. Flynn that you are not supposed to cooperate with courts and other people who are inquiring into Scientology.
MR. FLYNN: Specifically with regard to paragraph J, witnesses are supposed to answer “I don’t know.”
MR. HARRIS: That shows the problem with the hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t really think this contributes much.
It was Mr. Spurlock’s position that the courts did not have a right to inquire into the truthfullness of the religious dogma. I think that is what the cases all seem to indicate. So I think that is what he was referring to.
Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology.
I don’t think that is what this case is all about. It has to do with specific issues and perhaps practices of certain people who are Scientologists and what they do when they effectuate some of these policies; also, the right to those documents.
3751
I’ll sustain the objection.
What about Plaintiff’s exhibits that have been marked? Do we have those, stepping aside now from the sealed documents?
This is the first one that hasn’t been received, 23.
MR. HARRIS: I would move it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Let’s see. 23 is the book.
Are you offering that, counsel?
MR. HARRIS; Yes, I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection to the book?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received.
24 is the LRH Biography Plan 17 August, 1980.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: Are you offering it?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
25 is the letter to Mr. Garrison.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: And Sheila.
Are you offering that, counsel?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
26 is the — well, this is the letter of Mr. Armstrong to see if it has corrections on it.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: Are you offering it?
3752
MR. HARKIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
27 is a communication of 25 May, ‘80 from Gerry to Rick.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: Are you offering it?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
28 is “Dear Laurel.” It is 15 June, ‘81.
MR. HARRIS: We are offering it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
No. 29 is Gerry Armstrong from Martha Swanson. It has to do with CSI.
MR. HARRIS: Yes; we would offer it.
MR. FLYNN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
30 is 12 December, ‘81, “Dear Barbara, re post,” signed “Gerry.”
MR. HARRIS: Yes; offered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The letter of resignation.
MR. FLYNN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
31 is “Dear Cirrus” signed “Gerry.”
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received. 32 is a letter –
3753
I assume that you are offering all of these?
MR. HARRIS: I am not sure until I take a look. If it had –
THE COURT: 32 is a letter from Gerry to Gale, 14 May, ‘80.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
MR. HARRIS: It is offered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
33 is a letter from Gerry to Ted, re photos; 13 October, 1980.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
MR. HARRIS: We are offering it.
THE COURT: It will be received.
3754
34 is cancelled check to Virgil Wilhite for 65 bills. Any objection? Be received.35 is Sea Org Flag order 1960 R re archives. Are you offering that, Counsel?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor. We are not offering it.
THE COURT: Are you offering it, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: We will offer it.
THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: No.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
Exhibit 36 is a handwritten document, 2/2/80.
MR. HARRIS: We are offering it.
THE COURT: R valve [Val] doc security.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
37 is a Sea Org contract of employment.
MR. HARRIS: The witness, I believe, testified that his was different, Your Honor, and subsequently, I think, we brought in one that was closer to what he signed.
THE COURT: You are not offering it then?
MR. HARRIS: No.
THE COURT: You want it, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: No.
THE COURT: Remain for identification.
No. 38 is ” Sea Organization stories told.” Signed L. Ron Hubbard, Commodore.
MR. FLYNN: We have no objection.
3755
MR. HARRIS: I am not offering it. Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: We will offer it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
39, “Sea organization regulations and laws,” 27 October,‘73.
MR. HARRIS: We will offer it.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received. 40.
MR. HARRIS: That is the one identified as the form that Mr. Armstrong signed, so we’d offer that.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
41 is a Sea Org volume 4, Number 120.
MR. HARRIS: We’d offer it.
THE COURT: Any objection? “Cereal, French toast, eggs and tomatoes.”
MR. FLYNN: I don’t have any real serious objection. It is just that it seems to be irrelevant.
THE COURT: I will receive it.
42 is another one.
MR. FLYNN: Same category.
MR. HARRIS: Offered.
THE COURT: This is the one where somebody was sick. All right, be received.
43 is disbursement vouchers, I guess.
MR. HARRIS: Yes; offer it.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
3756
THE COURT: Be received.
44 is a Republic of Panama. MR. HARRIS: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that the registry?
MR. HARRIS: Articles of Incorporation.
THE COURT: Articles of Incorporation.
MR. FLYNN: Vie have no objection.
THE COURT: Are you offering it?
MR. HARRIS: We will offer it.
THE COURT: Very well, be received.
45 is –
MR. HARRIS: Collectively is stock book and register, Your Honor. I’d offer it.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
46 is student examination routing form. MR. HARRIS: Right.
THE COURT: Are you offering these?
MR. HARRIS: Yes.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Be received.
47 is –
MR. FLYNN: I was going to interpose the first amendment as an objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: — “understanding corporate integrity.” Are you offering that?
3757
MR. HARRIS: Yes, offered.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
3758
THE COURT: 48, “Affidavit of Gerry Armstrong”; are you offering that?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
49 is the E-meter operation with a diagram attached.
MR. HARRIS: Did Your Honor let in exhibit X?
THE COURT: Yes. It came in.
MR. HARRIS: Then I would offer that.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
50 is the Armstrong Sea Org list of courses, apparently.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: “Bullbaited”; I don’t know what that is.
MR. HARRIS: Well –
THE COURT: It will be received.
What is 51? 51 is an auditor’s code.
Are you offering that?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: We’ll offer it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. It will be received.
MR. HARRIS: I’ll jointly offer it.
THE COURT: Very well.
52 is “success” by Mr. Armstrong.
MR. HARRIS: Right. We would offer it, Your Honor.
3759
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
3760
THE COURT: All right, be received.
53 “Success Story RPF Completion.”
MR. HARRIS: Offered.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
Collection of receipts, I gather, for bonuses, staff allowance.
MR. HARRIS: Right, offered.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
55 is policy letter of 21 January, ‘81, “Conditions, Awards and Penances.”
MR. HARRIS: Right. Since Your Honor received exhibit RR, I move that.
THE COURT: All right. Any objection, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
56 is “The Devil’s Argument” by Thomas Esterbrook.
MR. HARRIS: Yes.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
MR. HARRIS: Offered.
THE COURT: Be received.
3761
THE COURT: 57 is the Background and Ceremonies of the Church Worldwide, “Funeral for Homo Sapiens” by Tom Esterbrook.
Are you offering that?
MR. HARRIS: Yes.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: Relevancy, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Only as to the testimony about Tom Esterbrook being a front.
THE COURT: I’ll receive it.
The objection is overruled.
I have exhibit 58 which is something from the auditor.
MR. HARRIS: Right. That also is the Tom Esterbrook aspect, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I see it, the second page.
Is there any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
59 is “The Auditor.”
MR. HARRIS: It should be identical, but have L. Ron Hubbard’s name.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HARRIS: That is all it is being offered for.
THE COURT: It will be received.
Exhibit 60 is an action report, anti-submarine action.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
3762
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
3763
61 is a log book.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, that is being offered.
THE COURT: Of the Algol. Any objection, Counsel?
MR. FLYNN: I believe this is the YP 422, not the Algol, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It says USS Algol, aka 54, cargo ship.
MR. FLYNN: Oh, wait a minute. Which number do you have, Your Honor?
THE COURT: It says 61.
MR. FLYNN: I don’t believe, Your Honor, —
I am not sure what the court is referring to.
THE COURT: I think I looked through this at the time and I didn’t think there was much in here except there was a little bit relating to — I think they got some records mixed up. There is a YP 422 attached.
MR. HARRIS: That is correct. There should have been copies given to Mr. Flynn. If not, I will certain arrange it.
3764
THE COURT: There is a log book of the USS YP 422.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor. I have that, but I don’t know what is on the first few pages.
THE COURT: Well, now, there are some log books that are signed by “L. Ron Hubbard, navigator.”
MR. HARRIS: Those are not being offered. It is the YP 422 that is being offered, Your Honor. It all came in the same package.
THE COURT: Well, we might as well receive the whole thing rather than tear the exhibit apart. I’ll receive it.
62, property of Ronald Hubbard, Helena, Montana, June 30th.
This is a diary of sorts.
MR. HARRIS: Oh, yes. That is offered.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: it will be received.
Exhibit 63 is the LRH journal, October, 1980; are you offering that? I guess this was a typed copy of the written; is that it?
MR. HARRIS: These are all — let me go back just a minute, Your Honor. I think I am going to not offer that unless some of the sealed documents in respect to that come in because that is material out of the archives. And I am now referring to the handwritten Asia diaries and also the typed portion. So I withdraw the offer.
3765
MR. FLYNN: We’d offer both, Your Honor.
We are particularly concerned about the last page of exhibit 63. It is page 25, Your Honor, the order that we have it in.
MR. HARRIS: You are referring to exhibit 61, Counsel?
MR. FLYNN: The handwritten notes of L. Ron Hubbard and we are referring to page 25. In our copy it is the last page.
THE COURT: On this copy it is the first page.
MR. FLYNN: Compare it to the other pages, those go from page 25 through 29.
THE COURT: Well, we will have an operation sort out when we get around to the exhibits under seal, and I will deal with these at the same time. 62 and 63, they will be passed.
3766
THE COURT: 64 is a copy of an operator’s license from Guam.
Are you offering that?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor. It is the same status.
THE COURT: Are you offering it?
MR. FLYNN: Well –
THE COURT: Maybe I should put it along with the others to be sorted out in due course.
65 is aboard the USS Goldstar, another diary.
MR. HARRIS: The same problem, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We’ll defer ruling on that.
MR. HARRIS: And the same with exhibit 66.
THE COURT: What about 67, Dear Ronald from mother?
MR. HARRIS: Same thing.
THE COURT: 68, something from L. Ron Hubbard.
MR. HARRIS: Right; it is offered.
THE COURT: It is a biography of sorts.
MR. HARRIS: Correct.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: The witness testified he has never seen it.
MR. HARRIS: Okay. Then I withdraw it.
THE COURT: Consistency is a virtue.
It appears to have been copyrighted 1981 by The Church of Scientology, produced by the Public Affairs Bureau.
MR. FLYNN: We have no real objection, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Then we’ll offer it.
3767
THE COURT: It will be received.
We have as exhibit 69 conveyance of property.
Are you offering it?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor, not until we see the outcome of the sealed items.
THE COURT: I’ll defer ruling.
3768
THE COURT: I will defer ruling on it. How about “The Gambler”?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: They made a movie called “The Gambler.” Any objection to “The Gambler”?
MR. HARRIS: I am not offering it.
MR. FLYNN: I think it supports the witness’ testimony. We will offer it.
MR. HARRIS: First Amendment objection.
THE COURT: Oh, overruled. Be received.
Exhibit 71 is to Lisa from G. Are you offering that?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, I am offering it.
MR. FLYNN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, be received. “The Phoenix Lectures of 72.”
MR. HARRIS: Yes, I am offering it.
THE COURT: What part are you offering? I am not going to read this, I can assure you.
MR. HARRIS: The first three chapters, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I am not going to read the first three chapters. There was some cross-examination with reference to a particular page.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, the witness said he read it prior to coming into Scientology and there was a reference to a specific page. It was the last page of the third chapter, as I recall, but I can point it out to Your Honor. If you want I can make a Xerox of the page and substitute it if you are
3769
not going to receive it.THE COURT: Well, there is a limit to how many books I am going to read in connection with this case, and I have just reached it.
3770
MR. HARRIS: Yes. It is pages 34 and 35, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We’ll receive into evidence pages 34 and 35 only.
The clerk will mark it. If you want to make copies, you can provide the Court with copies in lieu thereof.
Exhibit 73 is an affidavit of Mr. Armstrong.
MR. HARRIS: Offered, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
74 is “The Auditor. Dianetics versus Scientology.”
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor let in the other “What your fees buy”; so therefore, I would have to move exhibit 74. THE COURT: It will be received.
75 is the “EC Network Disbanded.”
MR. HARRIS: Not offering it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you offering it?
MR. FLYNN: No, I guess not, Your Honor. I’m not even sure what is in it.
THE COURT: Okay.
Exhibit 76 is the OT Personnel Questionnaire for Laurel Watson.
Are you offering this?
MR. HARRIS: 76, the Sea Project Application? Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is OT Activity Volunteer, OT Personnel Questionnaire.
3771
MR. HARRIS: Yes; we would offer it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No, I guess not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
MR. HARRIS: The same with 77; we would offer it.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. PLYNN: No.
THE COURT: It will be received.
3772
MR. HARRIS: And 78.
THE COURT: Copy of this Sea Org newsletter; exhibit 78, any objection? Are you offering it?
MR. HARRIS: Yes.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: Only that it would clutter the record, Your Honor. Other than that, no objection.
THE COURT: All right be received. The record is sufficiently cluttered.
79 is the Flag ship Apollo ship’s complement.
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Be received.
80 is the Sea Org LRH personal pro hat Flag order 2367; are you offering this?
MR. HARRIS: Offered.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No, I guess not.
THE COURT: Be received.
81 is a new post nonexistence formula LRH Senior Personal Pro.
MR. HARRIS: Offered.
MR. FLYNN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Be received.
3773
THE COURT: 82 is the certificate of fictitious business name statement.
MR. HARRIS: It is offered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: I’ll object, Your Honor. It has not been authenticated, identified, or anything.
THE COURT: I have a certified copy.
MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it, then. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Apparently filed March 12, 1980.
83 is –
MR. HARRIS: Is it received, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes; it will be received.
“Dear Gerry and Jocelyn, Love Laurel” letter.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
MR. HARRIS: We’ll offer it.
THE COURT: It will be received.
84 is the organization chart.
MR. HARRIS: We’ll offer it, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
85 is the ecclesiastical structure.
MR. HARRIS: It is offered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
86 is the confidentiality of PC folders dated 28 April, ‘82.
MR. HARRIS: It is offered, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
3774
87 is the “Bridge to Freedom.”
MR. HARRIS: Offered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
We’ll take our recess until Thursday, at 9 o’clock. And we can defer the sealed business until after you put on your witnesses and take whatever witnesses are here.
MR. HARRIS: Very well.
(At 4:05 p.m., an adjournment was taken until Thursday, May 31, 1984; at 9:00 a.m.)
