Reporters' Daily Transcript (May 17, 1984)

Armstrong 1




No. C 420153


Thursday, May 17, 1984

(See Appearances Page)
Pages 2174-2344, incl.
Official Reporters

For the Plaintiff: PETERSON & BRYNAN|
8530 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 407
Beverly Hills, California 90211
(213) 659-9965
The Oviatt Building
617 South Olive Street
Suite 915
Los Angeles, California 90014
(213) 623-7511
For the Intervenor: LITT & STORMER
Paramount Plaza
3550 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90010
(213) 386-4303
The Oviatt Building
617 South Olive Street
Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90014
(213) 623-7511
For the Defendant: CONTOS & BUNCH
- and-
5855 Topanga Canyon Boulevard
Suite 400
Woodland Hills, California 91367
(213) 716-9400
10951 West Pico Boulevard
Suite 300
Los Angeles, California 90064
(213) 474-6020

Pages 2174-2344, incl.

Thursday May 17, 1984 A.M. 2174
      P.M. 2263


(resumed)     2178-L
(resumed)     2269-L


24 - 3-page document 8-17-80 "LRH Biography Plan"
25- 3-page letter 6-16-80 from Sheila to Omar
26 - 7-page letter 10-30-80 & 3-page document 11-2-80
27 - 1-page letter 5-25-80 Gerry to Rick
28 - l-page letter 6-15-81 to Laurel from Gerry
29 - 8-page document 12-10-81, staff contract
30 - 2-page letter 12-12-81 Gerry to Barbara
31 - 2-page letter 5-7-80 Gerry to "Dear Sirs"
32 - 2 letters 5-14-80 & 5-7-80, 4 pages
33 - 1-page letter 10-13-80 Gerry to Ted
34 - front & back copy of cancelled check #854
35 - 1-page document 4-27-69 Flag Order 196OR
36 - 5-page handwritten document 2-22-80 & copy of 2 handwritten letters



THE COURT: All right, in the case on trial let the record reflect that counsel are present.

GERALD ARMSTRONG, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: The witness has retaken the stand. Please state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Litt.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

Your Honor, before we proceed, perhaps we could finish up the matter of the discovery of the materials
that were going to be given to us.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Flynn?


MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the chronology was sent to me. And it is attorney-client privileged. I am getting it from my office.

I don’t think we have any objection to it anyway, but I want to read it first.

The notes, we have collected and Mr. Armstrong has brought them in here this morning. I haven’t had a chance to look them over.

Financial bills, I have got to get from my office and they are on their way. I’ll estimate by tomorrow
morning we’ll have it here and we’ll have everything sorted out.

THE COURT: You are getting them from Boston?

MR. FLYNN: Federal Express, Your Honor.

I have piles and piles of files here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Miles of piles of files?

MR. LITT: With respect to what Mr. Flynn referred to as "the notes," can we have an agreement that they will be reviewed by the end of the lunch hour? I mean –

MR. FLYNN: I would think so.

MR. LITT: We are in cross-examination. If we are going to make use of them, we have to get them.

MR. FLYNN: I’ll get that to you.

THE COURT: He’ll try to accommodate you.

MR. LITT: The other matter was there was something that Mr. Armstrong had written, a story, that we had discussed, that was on the subject of Scientology. I think it was,


but not using the name which you didn’t make reference to, Mr. Flynn.

I was curious about the status of that.

MR. FLYNN: I have the records of experiences with the private investigators which we are going to Xerox; the chronology of positions; that is what he sent to me. And notes on his state of mind.

Is that what you are referring to?

MR. LITT: No. I thought –

THE COURT: What was it that you had made reference to in general relating to what Mr. Litt is asking?


THE WITNESS: Your Honor, in May 1982 I started to write down what was going on in my mind regarding the paranoia and the steps that I was going through at that time, and that is what it is.

I gave it some time ago to Miss Dragojevic and it is in her office somewhere, and I think she hasn’t been able to locate it as yet, but that is the one we are talking about, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: Apparently Miss Dragojevic does have that, Your Honor. We will seek to locate that.

THE COURT: Was there something else about a book that you were writing?

THE WITNESS: No, I wasn’t writing a book.

MR. LITT: I asked him — my recollection is I asked a question whether he had written anything that was possibly for publication, whether it had been published or not, and I thought he said that he had.

Is that the thing that he gave to Miss Dragojevic?

THE WITNESS: I mentioned there was a short thing which I never completed. So, I never completed it. I never intended it for publication.

MR. LITT: But it was, whether by name or not, dealing with your view of your experience in Scientology?

THE WITNESS: It was the part that I had written at that time I recall was only dealing with what was going on at that time in my mind.

THE COURT: This is the same thing that you were talking about that Miss Dragojevic has?



MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I will look for it, Your Honor.


MR. LITT: Are we ready to proceed?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.


Q Mr. Armstrong, with respect to, I’m not sure of the exhibit number, but the last exhibit, the book "Scientology, A World Religion Emerges in the Space Age," I don’t recall for sure whether you actually had a chance to a look at the book before we broke yesterday.

THE COURT: It is exhibit 23.

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.

Q BY MR. LITT: Can you take a look at that and just tell me if that is the book that you had reviewed and had given to your parents and to the chief of police in your home town?

A This is the book that I gave to them.

Q That is fine. You don’t have to read it at the moment. I just wanted to confirm that that was the book.

Now, Mr. Armstrong, as I understand it, it is your testimony that you worked directly for L. Ron Hubbard during all of your years in Scientology; is that right?

A Basically that is correct. He was the –

Q That is all.


A Well, let me explain it more so that you get it in the proper context.

Q Okay.

A You may be using "directly" in the sense that there was nobody between him and me. I am using in the sense that he was the person who could order anyone above me. No one could order him.

There were times in which there were people between us, but he was — he was my senior, yes.

Q Well, perhaps I am confused. I thought your testimony was more than that he was your senior. I thought your testimony was that you worked for him and not the church; isn’t that right?

MR. FLYNN: Well –

THE COURT: You are talking about 13 years, counsel.

MR. LITT: Well, I think his testimony was that that was the case throughout all the 13 years. That is what I am trying clarify.

THE COURT: Your use of the word "directly" is ambiguous. That is the problem.


MR. LITT: Well, I’ll rephrase the question.

Q Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Armstrong, but is it your view that you worked for Mr. Hubbard as opposed to working for the church throughout all your years in Scientology?

THE COURT: The Church of California, do you mean, or an amorphous body of the church?

MR. LITT: Any Church of Scientology.


Q BY MR. LITT: So as far as you were aware, you were never employed by any church; correct?

A What I knew regarding the employment was that there were certain steps necessary in order to cover up the fact of Mr. Hubbard’s control. So I played along with that. But I knew at all times that I was working for him and that he controlled and that I — the same as the Scottish Highland Club; I really did not work for them, although on paper you could say I did. A similar situation was what you called "The Church."

Q So as far as you knew, in reality you never worked for the church; correct?

A I worked for Mr. Hubbard; correct.

Q Now, let’s take your first working experience after leaving Canada which was the ship; as far as you knew did the ship have any relationship to the Church of Scientology of California or any other church?

A The only connection that I knew throughout the time that I was on board was that we were in the Sea


organization and that all Scientology was controlled from on board the ship.

I did not know at that point of the subsequent plan to make the ship a mission of the Church of Scientology of California. I only learned of that connection in 1982.

Q Okay. So at some subsequent point you learned information about the connection, but at the time your
testimony is that you didn’t know about the connection?

A That is correct.

Q All right. Now, when you petitioned Mr. Hubbard in January, 1980, can you take a look at exhibit F.

MR. FLYNN: Do you want me to use our copies of the exhibits, or do you want to get each one out as we go through it?

THE COURT: We can find it.

Here is exhibit F.

Are there any other exhibits you are going to refer to so that the clerk can pull them?

MR. LITT: In the next sequence it would be exhibit f, exhibit Y, exhibit AA.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: now, this petition is addressed to Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And was it your intention at the time that you wrote this petition to enter into a personal employment contract with L. Ron Hubbard?

MR. FLYNN: I’ll object, Your Honor.


THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. It is ambiguous. Personal employment contract? I am not sure. Like when you’re in the movies and you have a personal employment contract or what?


Was it your intention in writing this petition to ask that Mr. Hubbard hire you personally to engage in this activity?

A I never articulated it like that in my mind.

The way I perceived it was that I was requesting to be able to do certain things which required his agreement. And he was to do certain things.

I never articulated, as I said, that it was a personal employment contract, but that I expected to do those things if my petition was approved.

Q Well, what things did you say in your petition to him that he was supposed to do other than to approve your doing what you asked?

A That he was to be the line for verification of data and approvals.

Q That was his obligation under this agreement that you entered into with him?

A Yes.

And as he later stated in later communications, "I did pursue that for awhile and I did send him information; however he dropped out of sight and we could not then admit to a line of communications. So it did not continue."

MR. LITT: I move to strike as nonresponsive.


THE COURT: The letter is stricken as nonresponsive.

Q BY MR. LITT: In the second paragraph you say to Mr. Hubbard, ". . .I feel it warrants a petition to you because it entails research of your personal time track and the person doing such would have to have your trust."

I take it from that that there are other things that you did in your 13 years that didn’t require such a petition to Mr. Hubbard personally; is that right?

A Well, as I stated in here, this is the first time that I had petitioned for a position, that I petitioned Mr. Hubbard for anything. I did a number of things from my first time on board the ship. I drove his cars and I assumed that I –

MR. LITT: Move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE WITNESS: Well, I didn’t petition any other time.

Q BY MR. LITT: That was not my question, Mr. Armstrong.

A I am sorry.


Q My question is I take it from the way that you phrased that "I feel it warrants a petition to you," that there were a variety of other things that you did that did not require any petition to Mr. Hubbard in your prior 11 years prior to writing this petition; right?

A That’s correct.

Q And they didn’t require Mr. Hubbard’s trust; correct?

A No, that is not correct.

Q Well, here, you say, don’t you, that "The person doing this would have to have your trust"?

A As opposed to, for example, someone who did not already have Hr. Hubbard’s trust.

Q Well, did you already not have his trust?

A I did have it.

Q Now on page 3 of the petition you say, "I am requesting your approval on creating this post"; right?

A Yes.

Q Now isn’t it a fact that all you were doing was writing within Scientology to Mr. Hubbard getting his approval for something that you wanted to do because it affected him and that is all this petition was about?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, object to "within Scientology."

I think it is ambiguous.

THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection.

I assume the letter speaks for itself.

MR. LITT: We are going to his state of mind. He’s testified, Your Honor –


THE COURT: Now, you don’t need to argue with me.

If you want to read a clause, that is what he wrote. That is there in black and white.

Q BY MR. LITT: All right. Now the response that you got to this petition, Mr. Armstrong, basically said, "This sounds like an excellent idea. Get with your senior."

Did you at the time interpret this response to be a contract between you — to form a contract between you and Mr. Hubbard; is that how you viewed it at the time?

A I never used in my mind that word, but I knew in my mind that he had agreed to the points which I had laid out.


Q Yes, but you didn’t think, did you, that you had entered into a contract with him at the time?

MR. FLYNN: I am going to object. Calls for a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Argumentative; sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. LITT: Exhibit double A, Mr. Armstrong, this is a document which if I recall your testimony correctly referred to the fact that — I am sorry, you were going to send this document to a whole number of people, correct, and that is why the two parts at the beginning is blank?

A Yes.

Q And it discusses your new position; correct?

A Yes.

Q Did you send it to a variety of people?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall who you sent it to?

A I… Sue Anderson in Clearwater, Ken Urquhart in Clearwater, Jim Isaacson in Los Angeles. Sue Anderson was the LRH pers PRO international. Ken Urquhart was the former personal communicator. Jim Isaacson was then pers sec US — or pers sec PAC, the Pacific area.

I sent it to, I believe, David Gaiman and Sheila Gaiman who were the Guardian Worldwide and the Deputy Guardian for public relations worldwide.

There were a number of other people whose names and posts I don’t recall at this time.

Q First let me ask you a question. Guardian


Worldwide, was the Guardian Worldwide an employee of Mr. Hubbard’s, too, as you understood it?

A When you say "employee of Mr. Hubbard’s," do you mean was he working as I was working specifically for Mr. Hubbard and directly working for him personally?

Q Is that what you mean when you say that you were an employee of Mr. Hubbard?

A Right. I tried to explain this.

Q Well, then, –

A During –

Q Was the Guardian Worldwide an employee of Mr. Hubbard?

A I would say less than I was.

Q But also the Guardian Worldwide was an employee of Mr. Hubbard as you understood it?

A The Guardian Worldwide was under Mr. Hubbard, subject to his orders.

Q And therefore in your mind as you see it, an employee of Mr. Hubbard but not as direct an employee as you?

A Right, ultimately, yes.

Q And the Deputy Guardian of Public Relations Worldwide, he was also an employee?

A Ultimately –

Q She, Mr. Harris says she. I am not sure, but whatever.

A They considered themselves employed by, I don’t know. They were subject to his orders.


Q But you considered them. We are going to know how you understand this. As you understand it, they were employees of Mr. Hubbard?

A I understand that there was a distinct differentiation between the degree of employment and the fact that I was working on his personal matters.


A I was not having anything whatsoever to do with the organization. I used organizational communication lines just like Mr. Hubbard did, but I worked only for him and only on his personal matters.

So there was in my mind a differentiation between the types of duties that I had when I was in his household unit and when I was in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard as opposed to the types of duties that a Guardian’s office personnel may have who didn’t even see Mr. Hubbard.

Q Was everybody who was in the Sea organization an employee of Mr. Hubbard?

MR. FLYNN: When, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Well, I assume at the time they were in Sea Orgs.

MR. LITT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Do you mean were they subject to his orders? Did they work for him? Did they think they were working for him? Then, yes.

Q BY MR. LITT: So it is your testimony that everybody that was in the Sea Org thought that they were employees of Mr. Hubbard, at least as you understood it?

A Again, there are degrees of this. And there are degrees of the whole fraud.

But those who are closest to Mr. Hubbard, obviously, were his employees; those who were further away, I don’t know what they thought. They were subject to his orders; they thought they worked for him.

Q They didn’t think they worked for any church,


any of these people, as far as in your experience; right?

A They may have also thought that. But no one was senior to L. Ron Hubbard within what you call the church.

If Mr. Hubbard was not a part of the church and they took orders from him, then they worked for L. Ron Hubbard.

Q Do you have something that says that L. Ron Hubbard is not connected to the Church of Scientology? Were you told that L. Ron Hubbard had no connection to the church?

A No. I was –

Q You have answered my question.

Now, at some point, Mr. Armstrong, while you were holding your archivist position you worked on something called a "LRH biography plan"; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And this was something to be issued that would describe this plan and what it was to do; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And it was to be issued as an executive directive or, at least, that was the plan; that it would be issued as an executive directive from the central office of LRH?

A Yes.

Q And did you draft the initial version of that petition — I’m sorry — that directive?

A My recollection is that I had some input into it.

Laurel also was a major contributor to that executive directive.


Q It was written by you and Laurel jointly?

A Yes.

Q In that directive you set some targets; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And these were targets as to what the biography plan was supposed to do; is that right?

A At least part of it, yes.

Q I’m trying to get a copy so I can show it to Mr. Armstrong. But we seem to be having some difficulty here.

MR. FLYNN: I was going to mark this and I overlooked it.

MR. HARRIS: Good. Then it served everybody’s purpose.


MR. FLYNN: That is our only copy, too.

MR. LITT: That is what, Mr. Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: Apparently what you gave me in the middle of the examination.

MR. LITT: Let me just make sure that is a copy of that. Let me make sure you are getting the right thing.

May this be marked as plaintiff’s next in order?

THE COURT: 24 for identification.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Armstrong, the worthwhile purpose that is listed on this document which is on the first page under primary targets to is, "To bring about greatly increased acceptances of LRH and demand for  his products and create goodwill with all LRH, GO and Scientology publications"; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now that was a target that was primarily aimed at Scientology; isn’t that right?

A This — the whole document here is — what was written and included the various parts of the Scientology network who would be involved, and all the targets directly concerned these people in addition to the LRH personnel who were involved.

The other part of this thing, of the whole overall project did not have to be included because here we are issuing targets to people within the whole Scientology network.

Q Well, the Scientology network, as you say,


that is the various churches and other Scientology organizations; correct?

A Right.

Q And this document sets up targets for and activities for a variety of Church of Scientology posts as to what they should be doing with respect to this biography claim; correct?

A That is correct.

Q And it makes reference to the — on page 2 in discussing who has responsibility for what, makes reference to the LRH pers PRO International. That is Laurel; is that correct?

A No.

Q That was somebody under Laurel?

A Yes.

Q And that person’s job, according to this, was "to coordinate source missions and PR exploitation to staff."

Is that Scientology staff, Church of Scientology staff?

A I think — did you leave out an earlier part; "coordinate source missions and PR exploitations to staff"?

Q No, I read that, but I am asking you about the word "staff."

A Right.

Q That is Church of Scientology staff; right?

A Probably is Church of Scientology.

Q Okay.


A Church of Scientology staff, Scientology Missions International staff, missions staff, Guardian’s office staff, that sort of thing.

Q And "to reach Scientologists in general"; right?

A That is what comes after "staff," yes.

Q And "new public" meaning new people to be attracted to Scientology; correct?

A It could mean that. It could mean Mr. Hubbard’s public. Within the LRH pers PRO International Bureau, there was a pers PRO for staff. In other words, the person who represented Mr. Hubbard to the staff of Scientology organizations and they — that person was in charge of coordinating the source missions. Source missions were briefings on Mr. Hubbard. Those were continually given and that would be the action in the use of the book to staff.

Mr. Hubbard would be PR’d through this new biography to staff and Scientologists.

Q And it was always considered within Scientology that whatever promoted Mr. Hubbard’s public image, promoted Scientology; is that correct?

A I guess — the two were continually linked, so, yes.

Q Now, this document that you drafted, I don’t notice that it has Mr. Hubbard’s name on it at the end; can you look at the last page?

A Yes.

Q It says "Senior Pers PRO Researcher and Senior


Pers PRO"; that is you and Laurel; right?

A Yes.

Q "Authorized by AVC INT."

A Yes.

Q And AVC INT, what is that?

A AVC INT was — my recollection is that that was Julia Watson at that time.

A I am not asking who it is. What does it stand for first?

A It is Authorizations and Verifications, and I am not sure what the C is, but in any case they were Authorization and Verification Unit, and were in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard, and I believe then it was Julia Watson but I am not sure.


Q And then the Watch Dog Committee, was that in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?

A Well, the Watch Dog Committee was in the –

Q You didn’t answer my question.

Right now I am just asking you if it was in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard.

A I need to explain the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard for you to realize that there are two separate sections to it. And it is — I can’t answer it with a yes or no.

Q Are the boards of directors of the Churches of Scientology in California that is the last at the bottom of this document, are they part of the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?

MR. FLYNN: Does this call for a legal conclusion?

MR. LITT: I’m asking him his understanding.


THE COURT: He has answered.

Q BY MR. LITT: So this was a document written ultimately on behalf of various boards of directors of the Churches of Scientology; is that what you understood it to be? Is that correct?

A No.

Q But you and Laurel did write it up this way for the boards of directors of the Churches of Scientology, did you?

A When you say "for the boards of directors," it is likely that we put this in here that we wrote for the


boards of directors for the Churches of Scientology.

If you mean did we write it for the boards, no.

These documents did not go to any boards of directors anywhere.

We all knew that this was a standard step which went to the bottom, standard statement to remove –

Q Go on.

A — the control from Mr. Hubbard. The document was, in fact, approved by Mary Sue Hubbard because it involved the Guardian’s office and it was approved by WDC, Watch Dog Committee.

Watch Dog Committee was the body who acted for Mr. Hubbard and who had been in control of Scientology under Mr. Hubbard since 1978.

Q Okay. Now, in carrying out your post of researcher — that is what it was called at this time, right, researcher?

A It was called at various times various things, archivist, researcher. Those were the main two designations.

Q When you sent your February 3rd letter to the controller, do you recall that? That is already into evidence.

A Yes.

Q That is addressed — the controller was a Scientology post; is that correct?

A She was a Scientologist. She had control of Scientology organizations. You could call it a Scientology post.


Q So were all of the people who worked in the Guardian’s office, as you understood it, Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard’s employees?

A I think that you have to go back to what I said before. And it depended to the degree they were their employees, the degree that they worked directly for them.

Ultimately, yes, they were.

Q So the people, all of the people who –

There was a Controller’s office; right? Do you know anything about that?

A Yes.

Q And there were various Controller assistants for different areas; correct?

A Yes.

Q And those — there were communicators and secretaries and the Controller assistants had aides; correct?

A Yes.

Q And all of these people were the — as you understood it, were the personal employees of L. Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard or just Mary Sue Hubbard?

A Let me explain. Ultimately they were the employees of L. Ron Hubbard.

The further you got away from L. Ron Hubbard, the less they became the personal employees; how far those people were removed from that, I don’t know; how far they were in their own minds, I don’t know.

Q Now, in your capacity as a researcher did you have contact with a variety of people who were, as you


understood it, Church of Scientology staff as opposed to what you say you were?

A I had contact with Scientologists on all levels in many, many organizations.

Q Okay. Did you have any contact with the Guardian’s office at Worldwide in connection with the biography?

A Yes.

Q And showing you –

May this be marked next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. 25.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, for the record, we had requested the production of all correspondence with Omar Garrison. This was never produced.

MR. LITT: This was not between Mr. Armstrong and Omar Garrison.

THE COURT: Let’s go forward.


Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize this document?

A It could be one that I received from — a copy of it, at least, I received from Sheila Gaiman. If this is not it, I received something which contained similar information.

Q Okay. Now, on page 2 — this is a letter between Sheila Gaiman — what post did she hold?

A I believe she was a deputy guardian or at least the temporary deputy guardian for PR Worldwide at that time in the Guardian’s office.

Q And this is a letter between — well, from her to Mr. Garrison in reference to he biography; correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, Ms. Gaiman was — she had a Church of Scientology of California position at that time; right?

A I didn’t think of her in terms of Church of Scientology of California.

Q Well, you thought of her in terms of Church of Scientology Worldwide?

A I thought of her in terms of the Guardian’s office Worldwide.

Q Well, you thought that the Guardian’s office was a part of one church or another; didn’t you?

A I thought it was part of the overall network of Scientology. Some years later I learned that they were a part corporately of the Church of Scientology of California, but then I had no idea.


Q In April 1980 you had no idea?

A Right.

Q June 1980.

Now, on page 2 in discussing with Mr. Garrison how he will receive research materials she says, "There is a particular research terminal assigned to this biography." That is you; right?

A Okay.

Q Is that right? Was that your understanding of what she meant?

A Yes, uh-huh.

Q And, in fact, she said that she would arrange for Garrison to meet you; isn’t that right, on page 3?

A Yes.

Q So your first meeting with Mr. Garrison was arranged and coordinated by Sheila Gaiman, Deputy Guardian of Public Relations Worldwide; correct? That is how it came about?

A Well, I don’t quite understand what you mean by that, that overall picture.

Sheila never made any arrangements for me.

Sheila knew Garrison. Garrison was going to be there at a certain time.

I made all the arrangements at my end. I sent a communication to Mary Sue and had the CMO on SU approve all the money. Sheila never made those arrangements.

Q Sheila was the one who was dealing at that point with Mr. Garrison and she arranged — she was the one who


said to Mr. Garrison, "I will arrange for you to meet with this research terminal"; right?

A I guess she wrote it in the letter.

Q All right, that’s all.

Now, let’s take a look at the agreement, exhibit G.

MR. FLYNN: Was that marked, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, 25.

MR. LITT: This is your exhibit — that one is marked 25.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, you recognize this document.

This is an agreement between Mr. Garrison and HUBS-DK; correct?

A Yes.

Q And at paragraph 10-B, take a look at that. That is on page 3.

A Okay.

Q It says, "The publisher shall use its best efforts to provide author with an office, an office assistant and/or research assistant" et cetera; correct?

A Yes.

Q Were you as you understood it the research assistant to be provided by the publisher?

THE COURT: Well, are you asking him now or are you asking if he knew at that time or if he had any knowledge about what this contract was at that time?

Q BY MR. LITT: Well, you saw this contract at the time; didn’t you?


A Yes.

Q And you were the archivist at the time; right?

A Yes.

Q And did you review the contract at the time?

A I believe that I saw it at the time. I did not at that point have a copy and I did not read it over in depth.

Q Well, was there ever any in the year 1980 other research assistant for Mr. Garrison provided to Mr. Garrison in connection with the biography project other than you?

A No.

Q All right, and was it your understanding that this contract which had been entered into called for the fact that Mr. Garrison would be given research help and you were that research help?

A Well, what my understanding was was that there was a second contract and the second contract was between PDK and Mr. Hubbard.


MR. LITT: I object and move to strike. This is completely nonresponsive.

Q I’m asking you about your understanding.

THE COURT: He is explaining what his understanding is.

Let’s have the question read back.

(The question was read.)

THE COURT: Well, it is a compound question. I guess that is the problem; it is a compound question.

Q BY MR. LITT: Was it your understanding that under this contract Mr. Garrison was to get an assistant in researching the biography?

MR. FLYNN: This contract, or the overall contractual picture?

THE COURT: Exhibit G.

Did you have such an understanding at the time?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the understanding that I had was that this was a part of it and that there’s another contract and another set of agreements between PDK and Mr. Hubbard which include the provision of the researcher which I was. And that this referred to that. But that there was going to be a second agreement; that is what I understood from Laurel and Mr. Wertheimer at that time.

Q BY MR. LITT: You understood there were some proposals for a second agreement; is that correct?

A I understood –

Q You didn’t think that there had been any signed


second agreement when you saw this agreement, did you?

A Well, I knew there couldn’t be because we couldn’t admit to any communications with Mr. Hubbard. So I had been the researcher even prior to this contract. I had been performing the same function.

In fact, prior to the signing of the contract I had already prepared an office for Mr. Garrison.

Q I know, I’m just — really, I’m just — Did you understand that the contract, this contract, called for providing research help to Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, it has also been our contention that this contract," to use Mr. Litt’s language, includes within it the contractual proposals that are set forth in the Wertheimer letter and that Mr. Hubbard was the most essential party to that contract.

THE COURT: It is obvious that this person had no direct communications with PDK or whatever. We all know contracts which say things that are not necessarily accurate.

The document speaks for itself, for whatever it is worth.

Q BY MR. LITT: And you were to — and you in fact were the researcher who assisted Mr. Garrison; correct?

A Up to a particular point at which time there was another person who became involved.

Q When was that?

A In the fall of 1981.

Q Okay. So up to the fall of 1981 you were the


person; correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, did –

Could the witness be handed exhibits 7 and 8?

THE COURT: Very well.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, this document, exhibit No. 7, Mr. Armstrong, at page 2 it discusses the fact that CSC is willing to provide certain things to Mr. Garrison including an office space for him to work in the Cedars Complex; complete access to archives and records of Mr. Hubbard and an assistant to assist Mr. Garrison; do you see those references?

A Okay.

Q Now, all of those things were done; is that correct?

Mr. Garrison was provided an office in the Cedars Complex?

A Yes, up to a certain point he had an office.

After a particular point, he no longer had one.

Q And a variety of archival materials and records were provided to Mr. Garrison?

A No. This isn’t quite true.

The CSC archives and records on LRH were not provided and some were provided sometime later.

Mr. Vaughn Young was able to obtain access to those, but the CSC archives were never made available. I
did not have access to them; Mr. Garrison did not have access to them. And we were able to obtain a small bit of


information which included the FOI documents mentioned here from Vaughn Young.

Q We’ll come back to more discussion of that.

An assistant, you, was provided to Mr. Garrison?

A It mentions an assistant. I never received or was told about this communication or plan.

I knew about the other information which was that Mr. Hubbard was to provide research help.

Q All right. But, again, there was no other assistant provided other than you; is that right?

A Mr. Young was provided in the fall of 1981.

Q All right. And this board minute, which is exhibit No. 8, which –

A You left off No. 4.

Q That’s all right. I’m not asking you any questions about No. 4 at the moment. It is not relevant to what I’m asking about.

A Okay.

Q And this board minute, adopting it, you never saw that or, did you see that?

A I never saw it at the time. I saw it sometime later.

It was produced in a deposition by the organization.

Q Now, let’s turn to exhibit J.

Do you recognize this document?

A Yes.

Q This is this October 15, 1980 communication


addressed to Controller that you have testified about before?

A Yes.

Q And the copy, again, that you had, you obtained that from Mr. Garrison?

A I am not sure. My recollection is that it was produced by the organization at a deposition, but –

Q We have checked our records and that appears not to be the case.

Does that help to refresh your recollection?

A Okay. If that is not the case, then, it was amongst the materials given to me by Mr. Garrison.


Q All right, and when would you have given this to Mr. Garrison at the time?

A Sometime in — probably in 1981, later in the year 1981.

Q At some point in 1981 did you copy up a whole set of your files that were International files and give them to Mr. Garrison?

A No, just when the subject — we were trying to sort out the biography contract and the problems that we were having because we ran into a real bug, you’d call it, when we found out that PUBS-DK, with whom I was in communication, did not know of the existence of the contract, and I couldn’t find anyone who knew anything about it who was on what you call "on-line" at that time because the people had been — the hierarchy of the Guardian’s office had been removed by the CMO in the summer of 1981, and we ran into a great deal of problem.

So, in trying to sort this out, in trying to assist Mr. Garrison to prepare the contract and even to get him the money which was owed him at that time, $2,500, I gave him a lot of materials so that we could understand what had gone on through that period.

Q All right, and this document is the document that you –

A That which?

Q This is the one that you say that you sent on October 15, 1980; is that correct?

A Yes.


Q And you said you got an answer but you don’t have the answer; was that your testimony?

A Yes. My recollection is that I got an answer and I don’t believe it was very long. It was just an acknowledgement of it. It certainly would have registered in my mind if I had not gotten an answer. I would have written again and asked her again if she had received it because it was such a massive letter and contained so many things. I am very positive that I got an answer.

Q Now in this document on page 4 it says, you are discussing the fact that you have been traveling around, finding various materials and actually you start the discussion on page 3.

You say, "Situation A. It appears the various churches around are either doing nothing about it or are giving away their valuable artifacts."

Do you see that on page 3?

A Yes.

Q And then you have a long discussion that goes through page 4. Aren’t these proposals that you are making about the church and what the churches should do with respect to these materials?

A Yes.

Q And you are making a variety of recommendations about how the various church organizations should handle these materials; correct?

A Okay.

Q And you are making them to Mrs. Hubbard who was


the controller, but you are making them actually to the controller post; right? It wasn’t a personal communication to Mary Sue; right? It was a communication to her post?

A Well, I think you will find that part of the communication could only have been made to her. If it had been  to someone else and not her on the post, I think I wouldn’t have written what I did, especially in the beginning.

Q Okay, but in this section you would have written it; wouldn’t you?

A Perhaps. I’d have to really think of that one.

While I was traveling around doing the biography project, I came across other situations which I alerted people within the organization about, and this was part of it. There is no way that I could from where I was take care of all the situations in the organization, but at least at that point had become aware of the existence of some of this early material which I considered then had historical value, and I tried to inform the proper people of that.

Additionally, I picked up materials which I did not need for the biography, but which in liaison with Tom Vorm, who had possession of the technical or policy materials and the tapes which were technical materials, I picked those up.

It was because I was there. It wasn’t because it was my job.

Q In any event, you were writing about various churches should do; correct?


A Yes.

Q And let me just go back to clear up one thing.

Do you have any idea when you would have received a response to this communication? I take it it would have been somewhat close to the date?

A It would have been, yes, shortly after that.

Q Let me show you a document –

Your Honor, I’m going to use the original on this and then ask to substitute.

I have a document here which seems to be an identical copy of this exhibit except that it is dated October 31. It has white-out on it. It has some other white-out on it.

Do you recognize that document, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.


Q It is — comparing it –

Could this be marked next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: 26 for identification.

Q BY MR. LITT: Comparing it to exhibit 26 — I’m sorry — comparing exhibit 26 to exhibit J, there is white out at the top of the first paragraph; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And there is white out next to the date after the 15; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And could you look at the back? Can you see a 15?

A Yes.

Q On the back?

A Yes.

Q Mr. Armstrong, did you do this white out?

A Probably did.

Q Okay.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, for the record, this was never produced either. And it was requested; nor was it listed on the exhibit list.

MR. LITT: Exhibits in examination don’t have to be listed, Mr. Flynn.

THE COURT: What was the comment?

MR. LITT: Well, Mr. Armstrong is still examining it.

THE COURT: No; your comment that something doesn’t have to be listed.

MR. LITT: Exhibits that may have to come up in the


cross-examination of defense, we don’t know what we may have to use until the testimony is in.

THE COURT: What is this document anyway?

MR. LITT: This is a document that was an identical copy that was recently located in the files after Mr. Armstrong had testified about this October 15th letter.

That is an identical copy of that, apparently, an original that was still in his file with a changed — different date than this copy. And it appears that it remained in his file.

THE COURT: Well, let’s go ahead and see what happens.

Q BY MR. LITT: You made this change, is that correct, Mr. Armstrong?

A My recollection that this was sent to Laurel; whatever date. And Laurel requested that I put these materials in.

The reason — this is something that I often did was — I did not have a correcting typewriter. And my copies were often very messy like this. So I wouldn’t have sent –

Down here you can see by the back thing here, which in fact it is a paste-up. And I would not have sent Mrs. Hubbard this sort of a paste-up. I would have Xeroxed this and sent her a good Xeroxed copy.

Q So you would have sent this to her –

Is it now your testimony that it is the October 31 version that you sent to her?

A Now I am more positive than ever that I did get


a response and that this, at the beginning — I sent this; Laurel sent it back to me.

THE COURT: You say "I sent this"; refer to the letter or number, please.

Q BY MR. LITT: This is No. 26 –

THE COURT: He also has an exhibit J?

MR. LITT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is routed –

THE COURT: Not "this."

THE WITNESS: — Exhibit J is routed by the Senior Pers PRO.

Laurel asked me to change it and say why I was sending it. Hence, I added these — I changed the introduction at Laurel’s request.

This doesn’t have –

Q BY MR. LITT: "This" being what?

A Exhibit J does not have on the back of it this proposed archives issue which I was proposing. And by the state of it, I would not have sent this this way because it was a paste-up. I would have made a good Xerox and sent it in in that manner.

Q So it is now your testimony that this October 15th document which is exhibit J was sent on October 15th to Laurel who sent it back to you and said, "Redo it"?

A That is correct. That is my best recollection.

I am very positive.

Q And you took the original of that, correct?

Because this is, presumably, the original, "this" being


exhibit 26, since it has the whited out 15 that you can see on the back and is now dated 31 October?

A Yes.


Q You took the original and you changed it after Laurel returned it to you?

A Yes.

Q Correct?

A Yes, and then I Xeroxed that and sent her the Xerox which would be nice and neat and not a whited-out

Q And it is now your testimony that it is to the October 31, document that you got a response?

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if there are any more documents that haven’t been produced, you are dealing with
years of documentation in this organization and obviously transfer of documents and command lines in the organization, if there are any such documents that Mr. Litt intends to use in this examination, I think he  should produce them.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, with respect to production, there was a lot of discovery back and forth in this case. There were things produced. There were things that the church took the position were not relevant to the case if there were not motions to compel made and rulings that they should be produced.

I mean you can’t say as an abstract, "Produce." There is no order of this court with respect to discovery what was not obeyed. I was not involved in most of that because I was not representing the church at that time, and we have tried to find what we can after hearing Mr. Armstrong’s testimony. I don’t see that there is


anything the least bit wrong with what is going on. We have received a lot of things that we had no idea that Mr. Armstrong had that were not on the exhibit list and that we had no idea of.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, the court has tried to permit both parties to have the benefit of in-trial discovery production, so you can produce whatever else you have got, Mr. Litt and Mr. Harris, too, of what you are going to use and that is the order of the court.

MR. LITT: I just want to understand the order.

Is this anything that we are presently planning –

THE COURT: Yes, in the cross-examination of this witness.

MR. LITT: Okay. We can get that together at the break.

THE COURT: All right. We will take a break now for 15 minutes.



THE COURT: We are back in session.

MR. HARRIS: Could I address the court before the witness resumes the stand, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. HARRIS: As you know from my belated appearance, I don’t have a great familiarity with the files; however, I did check the discovery requests briefly.

On September 8, 1983, at least the date that is stamped at the top the defendant and cross-complainant request for production of documents item No. 20 — I don’t know if I want to read it all, but, essentially, it asks for originals and copies of any and all correspondence concerning the biography project and/or the L.  Ron Hubbard archives to or from any of the following individuals, and then there is a whole list of people, apparently:

Then counsel objected which is Mr. Peterson on a date, 8 November, 1983 to No. 20:

"Object. This request is overly broad, burdensome, and to a great extent irrelevant; however, plaintiff has located and is prepared to provide for inspection certain materials which are relevant to the suit and would constitute correspondence of the nature requested."


There was no inspection by the other side. However, we will have Mr. Peterson here at 1:30 if the court desires.

THE COURT: No. All I want to do is see that they get these exhibits so they can prepare. We don’t have to spend a lot of time spinning our wheels and wasting time so we can go forward.

I have been here a couple of weeks already. As I indicated yesterday, I am not going to spend the rest of my  life on this case. In fact, I don’t expect to spend that much more time although you are going to have an adequate time to cross-examine, and I don’t know how many more witnesses the defense will present. But the point is I don’t see any reason to get bogged down in things which are going to come out anyway, and that is the purpose of the trial is to determine, try to find out what the truth was or is, and not a game, and that is my approach to this.

MR. HARRIS: That is mine as well, Your Honor.

We will do all that we can.

THE COURT: Okay, fine. Let’s continue with Mr. Armstrong.

Please retake the stand, sir.

MR. LITT: While Mr. Armstrong is taking the stand, we have provided a set of documents to Mr. Flynn. I am not yet certain because I didn’t have a chance to go through everything that it is everything, but we will at the lunch break try to continue a review and bring additional materials.


THE COURT: Fine. I appreciate that, Mr. Litt.

Please state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Armstrong, when you were in Scientology, was it considered a matter of prestige to be connected to Mr. Hubbard?

A I think that it probably depended on the individual, the degree, but I think that it was an asset being connected with him, yes.

Q In fact, people would, if anything, tend to use his name in a variety of contexts as sort of authority because his name carried a great deal of weight; correct?

A If you mean would they say that they had orders from him when they didn’t or he had told them something when he hadn’t, I think not because to fake an order was a very serious offense in Scientology and to later be found out by Mr. Hubbard would be deemed to be a serious offense.

I can’t recall someone faking such a thing other than pursuant to Mr. Hubbard’s orders.

Q I am not asking you about faking a thing. All I am asking you is people would, where the conditions allowed, use his name because if it was associated with Mr. Hubbard, it would get done faster and people would sort of snap to, so to speak; right?

THE COURT: If you know.

THE WITNESS: Right. By association, where I was in the organization –


Q BY MR. LITT: I am not asking about you in particular. I am just asking about your general impression overall.

A Right. I am trying to explain that.

By association was not enough. An order from Mr. Hubbard was sufficient to get something done on a very
speedy basis, but not just by saying that you were associated in some way. I hope that answers it.


Q Well, you got a lot of things done because of the post that you held that dealt with Mr. Hubbard’s archives; right?

A Well, I was able to do what I did throughout those two years because of the approval of Mr. Hubbard of my petition.

Q Well, how many people in the organization had seen to that? Did all of the people that you have sent all of these communications to, had they seen that, or did they just know that you were a researcher collecting LRH materials and that was important? Wasn’t that what you understood what their knowledge pretty much was?

A Each person who was in a position of power that I had to deal with knew that Mr. Hubbard had approved the position.

Q I’m not talking about just positions of power.

THE COURT: The whole thing is a compound question the way you have phrased it. You can get any kind of an answer.

MR. LITT: I’ll rephrase it, Your Honor.

Q You had communications throughout the organization; correct?

A Yes.

Q At many different levels where you needed to get something, needed help with something in the course of these two years; right?

A Yes.

Q And many of these people, as far as you knew, hadn’t been sent a copy of your petition or directly informed


of your petition; right?

A I –

MR. FLYNN: Again, Your Honor, it is compound, but I hate to keep making needless objections.

THE COURT: Well, if the witness can answer it, he may do so.

THE WITNESS: I’m trying to think of any particular person who would be in a position like that with whom I had communications who I would not have had to tell that sort of thing.

When I was dealing with, for example, the people who assisted in the setting up of the office for Mr. Garrison, there I liaised with organization people doing — who installed the carpet and painted the walls, that sort of thing. And I was able to do that simply because of the altitude that I had as a result of working for Mr. Hubbard. I never had to explain that he had approved my petition.

Q Okay. Fine. Now, in doing your work did you get a car at some point?

A I did get a car at some point.

Q When you say in doing my work, it is not quite that way. I was able to obtain the car not directly in connection with the biography project, but as a result of Mr. Hubbard’s order regarding the Nobel Prize project; that unlimited Scientology funds were to be allocated for that project.

It was on the basis of that order from Mr. Hubbard


that I submitted a proposal for the purchase of the car which was also used on the biography project which was used by MCCS.

But the initial order which paved the way for the purchase of the car was the unlimited funds allocated to get the Nobel Prize. I was also working on that project at the time. So that is how I got the car.

Q Now, the car that you used in connection with the biography work, had that been paid for by the Church of Scientology of California as far as you knew?

A I don’t know. It came from — the way I understood the finances worked, was the special unit, which then was in Gilman Hot Springs, received a lump sum per month from what it called SOR, Sea Org Reserves. And it was from those Sea Org Reserves monies that I obtained the car.

Q And the Sea org Reserves monies, did you know what they were? Did you know whether they were Church of Scientology of California, or Mr. Hubbard’s, or something else’s?

A My understanding was Sea Org Reserves contained the monies from all Scientology sources internationally except for those that were designated RRF or except for those that were maintained in the local organizations’ accounts.

So they had operating expenses. There was — this was GO accounts in addition to Sea Org Reserves. Sea Org Reserves was the biggest.

Q Did you think Sea Org Reserves was Mr. Hubbard’s personal money?


A Well –

MR. FLYNN: At what point in time, Your Honor?

MR. LITT: During the archives period.

THE COURT: What is meant by "personal money"?

MR. LITT: Did he think it was Mr. Hubbard’s money as opposed to money that belonged to one or another church.

THE WITNESS: My understanding was that Mr. Hubbard could order whatever he wanted done with that money; whether or not that made it his personal money, that is really hard to say.

I think that he acted as if it was his personal money. It probably wasn’t his personal money.


Q And the funds that came to set up your archives project you knew came from Sea Org Reserves?

A Yes. Well, let me say that was my understanding. Sea Org Reserves simply sent an amount of money monthly to the Special Unit which was controlled by WDC, Watchdog Committee, which was the committee under Mr. Hubbard who controlled Scientology internationally.

The disbursements at the outset of the biography project simply came to me from the treasury in what was  called the HKU, the Housekeeping Unit, and the person who disbursed them was Gary Press, and Gary — and the Housekeeping Unit was the service unit attached to the CMO International CMO International, then the smaller body within CMO International, WDC, was the group which under Hubbard controlled Scientology.

Later on I was asked to shift the –

Q I am going to — you are not answering my question, Mr. Armstrong.

A Well, you asked me about Sea Org Reserve.

Q There is no question pending.

A I don’t know if I completely answered your question, Mr. Litt.

Q That’s all right.

Now, did you know or did you believe at the time that Sea Org Reserves belonged to the Church of Scientology of California?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the last question was similar to this one with regard to what the witness believed and he


was not permitted to give the completion to his answer as to what he believed, so if the question is going to be this broad, then I would submit that Mr. Armstrong should be allowed to complete it.

THE COURT: Well, it is a compound question. Did you know or did you believe. There are two different ideas involved.

You can ask him what his belief was. You can ask him what he knew. We are talking about what he knew of
his own personal knowledge.

MR. LITT: Right. The question was "belief." I am sorry.

Q Did you belief that Sea Org Reserves belonged to the Church of Scientology of California?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I believe if I can interject here just so the court will know in the future, I believe this is going to become a major issue on MCCS. If Mr. Litt is now waiving any –

THE COURT: When does MCCS go into effect? When was the date on that?

MR. LITT: Begins in early 1980.

MR. FLYNN: And runs throughout the period of the biography project, and the purpose of MCCS –

THE COURT: You have made your point.

Do you want to ask your question?

MR. LITT: No, if it came during MCCS, no.

THE COURT: You were asking about his belief.

Did your belief or knowledge come from what you


learned through MCCS?

THE WITNESS: Part of MCCS, and part outside of MCCS.

My understanding of Sea Org Reserves –

MR. LITT: That is all right. I will withdraw the question.

THE COURT: It is withdrawn.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, the moneys — you traveled around and purchased a variety of materials while you were in the archives post; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And do you remember some of the things you purchased? You purchased a set of Helen O’Brien letters;

A Yes.

Q And did you purchase any John Campbell letters?

A I don’t believe so.

Q You obtained them and made copies of them?

A Correct.

Q And what other things did you purchase, just roughly?

A I purchased a number of tapes, a number of early publications. I purchased a number of letters and
correspondence. This would be from Barbara Snader.

Those are principally — well, there was another group of materials from A. E. Van Vogt that I also purchased around that time. It included tapes and early publications.

Q And were the moneys for all of those from the Sea Org Reserves?


A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: I consider that to be the same type of question, Your Honor, with regard to MCCS.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FLYNN: As Your Honor is going to find out from the testimony of Laurel Sullivan.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what I am going to find out or what I am not going to find out, but counsel is asking the questions. He’s answered and in due course we will get around to something else.

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, can you take a look at exhibit II?

THE COURT: That is from aboard ship, obviously.

Q BY MR. LITT: This is your letter to Cirrus of November 25, 1981 that you have already testified about; right?

A Yes.

Q On page 5 the bottom paragraph, second sentence says:

"If this" referring to how you are performing your duty — "is unsatisfactory and I should not be on the project with this viewpoint, please let me know right away."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Now, Cirrus worked in the CMO; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q I take it from this that it was your


understanding when you wrote this letter that the CMO had the power to determine whether or not you should be on the project?

A Well, in a sense, yes. In a sense, no, but in a sense, yes.

Q Well, you said that if Cirrus or whoever worked with Cirrus didn’t consider your work satisfactory, then you should be told so that a replacement can be arranged; right?

A Yes.


Q So they could have made the determination that your work wasn’t satisfactory; right?

A Yes.

Q And they could have told you you shouldn’t continue on this project; right?

A They could do that.

Q And if they had done that, you would not have continued on this project; right?

A Without all the support needed, it would have been virtually impossible.

I had no line of communication to L. Ron Hubbard at that time. They were acting for him.

Q So if they had said you are gone, you would have been gone?

A I would have been RPF’d or dead, if they said that.

Q And you would have been removed from post if they had so determined?

A If that had been the decision from upstairs, yes.

MR. LITT: I have some documents to have marked, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. LITT: The documents in front of the witness are no longer needed.

Q Mr. Armstrong, I am showing you a document here –

Can we have this marked next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Plaintiff’s 27.


Q BY MR. LITT; — can you take a look at that and tell me if you recognize that document?

MR. FLYNN: Which one is that, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: That is the 25 May, 1980 document.


Q BY MR. LITT: Did you write that document?

A I believe so.

Q Now, this is a document that is addressed to somebody named Rick.

It says, "Re INS Cycle." And in the second paragraph it says, "There’s one action which I could use some help on. And that is the letter of employment from the church."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Now, this was written while you were on the archives post; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you were asking for a letter of employment from the church?

A This was not for me. This was for Dick and Laurel Sullivan.

This is the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I was then handling that for Laurel Sullivan. She was — did not have a Green Card at the time and there were a number of problems. And the way they got around this was these letters of employment.

Part of the cycle was a letter of employment with


the organization. And the GO provided these letters or they provided whatever kind of documentation was needed for the foreign people to work in the States. And it was for Laurel Sullivan that I was requesting this  letter of employment.

MR. FLYNN: If Your Honor will note, this is MCCS correspondence also.

MR. LITT: This is not MCCS correspondence.

THE COURT: The exhibit speaks for itself. If it comes into evidence, it will, again, speak for itself. There may be other evidence relating to it. I don’t know.

MR. LITT: Next in order is plaintiff’s No. 28, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, will you take a look at that and see if you recognize that document.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, on this document, I would ask that the same notation be made in the record all on the issue of waiver, Your Honor.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, this is written in his position as archivist.

MR. FLYNN: he starts off, "a determination" –

THE COURT: Let’s not argue about it now, It may be something you might want to argue about later.

He is simply letting you know, Mr. Litt, his position.

MR. LITT: All right.

Q Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize this document?

A Yes.


Q This is a document that says, "With the termination of MCCS, can you tell me where the archives trust plan is?"

And Laurel’s answer to you — and she talks about the archives trust and how what might happen with that and then she says, ". . .right now it doesn’t affect what you are doing. You are working for the CSC and supported by SOC, belonging to CSC"; is that correct?

A Okay.

Q And then says, ". . .when the new corp gets set up, you’ll be paid by the new corp, by very likely will receive your project funds by CSC"; correct?

A That is what she says, yes.

Q ". . .but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it."

Okay. Now, this letter was written 15 June, 1980; is that right?

A Yes.

Q So on 13 June, 1981 Laurel Sullivan advised you that you were working for the Church of Scientology of California; is that correct, in this letter?

A That is who ostensibly I had — was working for.


Q All right, so you understood that ostensibly you were working for the Church of Scientology of California?

A I knew that there was a separate corporation which there was two parts to it. One was the archives trust which Mr. Hubbard was to control and the other one was F and P Consultants was to be a profit corporation which was to be over top of all Scientology corporations through which Mr. Hubbard could at arm’s length control Scientology corporations. This later became Author Services, Incorporated or ASI.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to move to strike as nonresponsive. My question was real simple.

THE COURT: Okay, I will strike it. We will start with the question and see what the question is again. Read it back, please.

(Record read.)

THE COURT: That can be answered yes or no, you don’t know.

THE WITNESS: Ostensibly that is what we said.

Q BY MR. LITT: And that is what Laurel said to you in this internal communication; correct?

A Right. The complete understanding was –

THE COURT: Well, that is not the question. Your attorney can ask you that later. We will see what happens at that time.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I have a document that I am not


certain whether it’s been marked as an exhibit or not so I am checking. It is the document "Staff Contract for Employment by Church of Scientology International." I believe Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Armstrong — I believe it is double-M, Your Honor.

THE COURT: "Declaration of Religious Commitment and Application for Active Participation on Church Staff." Is that what you have reference to?

MR. LITT: No, that is a different document.

All right, then, we will mark this next in order.

THE COURT: All right, 29 for identification.

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize the document that’s been placed before you, plaintiff’s 29?

A Yes.

Q This document says — this copy is addressed to you; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you remember getting it at the time?

A Yes.

Q And it advised you that as of December 10th a new corporation, the Church of Scientology International, begins operation; that it affects several staff members who are part of the following; correct, and it lists several things?

A Yes.

Q And one of the things it list is PDOI; correct?

A Yes.


Q And what was PDOI?

A That had formerly been called the Personal Office of L. Ron Hubbard and this had to do with, I think it was called "Product Development" at that point.

Q So you were in PDOI at that point in the latter part of 1981. What had formerly been the Personal Office was now Project Development office; correct?

A Yes.

Q All right, and this document advised you that you should look at the changes because they are changes that will occur in the Church of Scientology of California as well as the new churches that will be formed; right?

A That is what it says.

Q And it advised you that you will be part of the new CSI; correct?

A Yes.


Q Now, on the back of that page, on the back of that document is a chart; do you see that chart?

A Yes.

Q Did you see the chart at the time?

A Yes.

Q And the chart has a heading that says "current." And then it says "CFS of C" and then it lists several things, different — it has initials next in little boxes; do you see that?

A Yes.

Q And those initials refer to various Scientology subdivisions; correct?

A Yes.

Q And this chart is listing out what prior to the reorganization was within the Church of Scientology of California; correct?

A Yes.

Q And the PDOI, the Product Development Office which you were in which was formerly the personal office was listed there as being under the Church of Scientology of California; correct?

A That is what it shows.

Q And across from it is HU; that is Household Unit?

A Yes.

Q And now Household Unit was — you had worked in, according to your testimony, prior to the time you petitioned to become an archivist; is that correct?

A Yes.


Q And that lists that the HU, being the Household Unit, is part of the Church of Scientology of California; is that correct?

A That is what is shown here, yes.

Q And then it shows HKU; also listed there as being under the Church of Scientology of California; what is the Housekeeping Unit?

A The Housekeeping Unit was the service unit which served only the WCD and CMO Int.

Q And the Household Unit had to do with the Hubbards, specifically Mr. Hubbard?

A That is correct.

Q How, also within CFS of C is listed this CMO Int. Those are the people that could have removed you that you talked about before; correct?

A Well, some of them could have. And it depended on the situation. If they had removed me, they would have removed me.

Q And WDC,that is the Watch Dog Committee, also listed there under the Church of Scientology of California; right?

A Yes.

Q And this proposed reorganization shows that several of these things are going into a new corporation called Church of Scientology International; right?

A Yes.

Q And that included CMO Int; right?

A Yes.


Q And the Product and Development Office, formerly the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard and the Household Unit as being now moved into the Church of Scientology International; is that right?

A That is what it shows, yes.

Q Mr. Armstrong, you signed a security pledge at some point which I’m having trouble finding and I’ll keep looking for.

When you signed that document — if I can find it — do you remember when that was? I think in deposition  you testified that you signed such a document in 1979.

A I’m sorry. I signed many of those documents, probably 30 throughout my history in the Sea Org.

Q I recall in your testimony in deposition at one point saying that you had signed one in 1979; right?

A Actually, the attorney referred to that document at that time. And so he had it in his possession at that time because he referred to it. I didn’t recall it as well as he did because I did not possess it.

Q I’ll have to see if I can find it. We’ll let that go until a little later.

Now, when you received this document that we have just marked which is plaintiff’s exhibit 29, you decided that you didn’t want to — this was right around the time you had already decided to leave Scientology; right?

A Yes. I received it not on the 10th of December as noted here, but some days prior to that.

This thing was prepared as if it was on the


10th of December. But it wasn’t. I got it a few days prior to that.

Q Okay. So you never did in fact become part of the Church of Scientology International?

A No.

Q As far as you know.

And you wrote a letter of resignation at the time that you left; is that right, December 12th?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: May we have this marked as next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Exhibit 30.

BY MR. LITT: And in your letter of resignation you say that you are resigning from the archives post and the Sea Org; correct?

A Yes.

Q Did you say anything about resigning from your employment or contract with Hr. L. Ron Hubbard in that whole document?

A Not specifically. But that is what it was. And both things refer to entities in which I worked directly for Mr. Hubbard. That is what we’re talking about.


Q Okay. Did you ask in here anyplace that Mr. Hubbard be advised that you would no longer be working for him?

A Well, I would have sent something to Mr. Hubbard at the time, but as I have said many times, no communications went to Mr. Hubbard and certainly no communications from an SP would go to Mr. Hubbard, and I think that it would have been rather futile at that time.

Q Okay. By the way, all of these purchases that you made that we.were talking about before, was that made with Church of Scientology of California money?

THE COURT: If you know.

Q BY MR. LITT: If you know.

A My recollection, all but one, one purchase from Virgil Wilhite I made with L. Ron Hubbard money, and the reason for that was that it was an effort to make the books look right so that Mr. Hubbard could retain control or retain ownership of the archives because there was a question which we were handling in MCCS –

Q Just a moment. It is all right. You have answered the question. I don’t want you to go into MCCS. I didn’t ask you a question about MCCS.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the entire issue with the corporate restructuring which Mr. Litt has gone into at length is the essence of MCCS, so the court will be aware when Miss Sullivan testifies.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: But other than this one purchase,


you were aware that the Church of Scientology of California was paying for your other purchases?

A I was aware that Sea Org Reserves was paying for them, whether or not that is the same thing and it is all CSC money, I really don’t know.

MR. LITT: If I may have just a moment, Your Honor.

May exhibit 9 be placed before the witness?

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Armstrong, within exhibit 9 is a purchase order dated 6 September 1981 asking for money in the amount of $1,500; is that signed by you?

A Yes.

Q And at the top of that particular document does it say "The Church of Scientology of California Purchase Order"?

A Yes.

Q So I take it you knew that whatever you purchased with these moneys, which were the Helen O’Brien letters; is that right?

A Yes.

Q Was from money held by the Church of Scientology of California?

A No.

Q Well, you knew that you were requesting it from the Church of Scientology of California. That is what the purchase order did; right?

A No. The purchase order is just a purchase order, and we out in Los Angeles — I was out in L.A., I


believe, at the time, and I simply did not have the same purchase orders as everyone else did. I just grabbed — it didn’t matter what it had on the top. The information was the same in every organization or corporation. The OTC purchase orders were identical to these things. It just happened to be what was there at the time.

Who was paying, I knew it came from SOR. There wasn’t an SOR –

Q There was no Sea Org Reserve purchase order?

A Right. Here is a different one which is — doesn’t have any title on it.

Q I understand.

There were several of your purchase orders, in fact, that said at least Church of Scientology of California; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, let’s go to the period of time when you were first — just before you went into the archives project.

You have testified that you were working in the Household Unit and that there was some shredding that was going on and that Brenda Black brought you a box of these materials; correct?

A Yes.


Q Now, Brenda Black asked you what should be done with these materials; is that correct?

A That is basically correct.

Q And you were above her at the time?

A Yes.

Q And you reviewed these materials; you took a look at them; right?

A Yes.

Q And you made the determination that they should not be shredded; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you went to Laurel Sullivan and told her about this and she concurred that they should not be shredded; that they should be preserved; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you then left these materials, this box of materials with Miss Sullivan who held them; right?

A Yes, for a short time.

Q Right.

A There was a period of time in which they were put underneath someone’s bed because they were still deemed as security documents. But also at that time they were copied. And copies of them were sent off by Laurel Sullivan.

Q Okay. And it was shortly thereafter that you sent off this petition to gather up various materials; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And the petition called for preserving all of


the materials relating to Mr. Hubbard, right, gathering them, preserving them, maintaining them; right?

A Yes.

Q Now, did anybody ever inquire of you why they hadn’t been shredded pursuant to the purported orders that they should have been shredded under according to your testimony?

Do you understand my question?

A Yes. Only — I think only — only after leaving the organization.

Q Okay. But when you sent this petition up, nobody came back to you and said why didn’t you shred these; isn’t that right?

A That is correct. No one asked that.

Q And, in fact, everyone that you had communications with said that these were valuable materials that should be preserved and saved; isn’t that correct?

A Well, that is what I was saying. I don’t know that anyone would have repeated it back.

But no one told me that my concept was wrong.

Q Okay. And I believe you testified in the course of your direct examination that these materials should have been shredded, but weren’t, or words to that effect; do you recall that testimony?

A Well, according to the criteria set down for shredding, they certainly could have been.

Q All right. Do you recall — just a moment. Didn’t you say in your previous testimony that


under the criteria these were supposed to be shredded?

A Something to that effect.

I say they certainly could have been. I don’t think anyone could have been hit for obeying that particular order. No one would have even known about it, for one thing. But they could have been.

Q So now it is your testimony that it is possible that these materials would have come within that order?

A Well, they did come within the order.

What I am saying, they could have been shredded; that would have been an acceptable action.

Q Now, when you took this action, when you made the determination that these were not the types of materials to be shredded, you were on the premises as a Scientology staff member; is that correct?

A I was a Scientologist and I worked for Mr. Hubbard, So I was a Scientology staff member in that sense, yes.

Q You had a — what you understood at the time to be a Scientology post; right?

A There are degrees of Scientology posts.

Q I know that. But you understood that you had a Scientology post?

A My understanding was that I was working for L. Ron Hubbard.

Q You didn’t understand that you had a Scientology post?

A It had nothing to do with Scientology.


If Scientology means that — and it is supposedly a philosophy of science and if what it means is that you build houses, then it was a Scientology post.

But I had nothing whatsoever to do with — at that time the subject of Scientology.

Q So it is your testimony that your work had nothing to do with Scientology?

A I was a Scientologist.

Q But other than that, what you did had nothing to do with Scientology?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, maybe we should define Scientology.

THE COURT: Well, the idea of nothing to do with it is rather vague.

MR. LITT: Those were his words, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is still very vague, even if they are his words.

MR. LITT: All right.

Q Now, after you had this petition granted, you set about collecting up the archive materials; right, or what became the archive materials?

A Yes. I had — yes. Right around that time, sure.


Q And the first thing you did was gather up the materials from the Hotel Del Sol; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And when did you move them to the Cedars complex?

A It would have been somewhere around the end of February 1980.

Q All right, and is that when you also moved and you were now working out of the Cedars complex?

A Yes.

Q Now, aside from the Del Sol materials, you began collecting up materials from a variety or at least trying to collect materials from a variety or at least trying to collect materials from a variety of other sources within various churches; correct?

A Yes.

Q And did you at any point meet any resistance with respect to some of that?

A Yes.

Q Where did you meet resistance from?

A From the Guardian’s office. I think that is the main point of resistance.

Q What about any of the Pers Sec files?

A No, they were all sent to me.

Q Well, within the Flag, there was a Pers Sec office at Flag; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you tried to get — in approximately May


1980 if you recall you tried to get some materials from the Flag Pers Sec office; is that right?

A Well, I was in Clearwater in approximately that time, maybe June, and I did obtain materials from Pers Sec and from the Pers PRO Bureau at that time.

Subsequently, this would be the end of 1980 or sometime in 1981, I was sent virtually all the Pers Sec files except for what they would call a current file, the most up-to-date correspondence, but I ended up with everything, virtually.

Q Okay. Let me show you a document which will be plaintiff’s next in order.

THE COURT: 31, I believe.

BY MR. LITT: Do you recognize that document?

A Yes.

Q Now, in that document there is — this is a letter written by you; correct?

A This document is?

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q And it was written by you on May 7, 1980?

A Yes.

Q And it is written to a variety of posts and it is asking for some help, apparently, on trying to get some materials from the Pers Sec offices at, I gather, at Flag; is that what this was about?

A Well, it is about four distinct areas; Pers Comm, Pers Sec, R Compilation, SO #1 Unit.


Q And it says you have "Run into some reluctance from Pers Sec to send me certain data and slows and no comms from SO #1 Units."


A Yes.

Q And it says, "A briefing of each of these areas is needed and an authorization to get the file data I need."


A Yes.

Q So essentially you were concerned about getting some help to have things move along more quickly because people were rather reluctant, at least some people that you were trying to get materials from, were  reluctant to provide them to you; is that correct?

A I note here some reluctance from Pers Sec. I don’t recall exactly what, but I knew that from each of the other units it simply was a matter of manpower and money.

Q Now, I have here a set of documents which maybe you can tell me about because I am not clear how they  go.

This will be plaintiff’s No. 31.

THE COURT: We just did 31.

MR. LITT: Oh, I am sorry, 32.

Q Do you recognize this set of materials?

A Yes.

Q The top one is a letter of May 14, 1980, and it has to do with SO #1, basically saying why do you need materials from the SO #1 files; right?

A Yes.


Q And the So #1 files are — in general, the SO #1 files are correspondence to Mr. Hubbard — general correspondence?

A Yes.

Q From Scientologists, and then within the SO #1 files was also maintained some family correspondence;
correct, I gather from this document?

A Yes.

Q All right, now, in the document you state that "Pers Sec was very reluctant to give me any data from these files on family members, specifically they didn’t want me to see correspondence between Katie and LRH"; right?

A Yes.


Q And you wanted help, right, in jarring that loose, more or less; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And so in the attached documents — and I’m not sure what the relationship exactly of this 7, May, 1980 document is to this set of correspondence — but in there, on page 2 of this thing that says "LRH biography documentation from CW," do you see what I am referring to?

A Yes.

Q On page 4 it says — and this is referring to the LRH Pers Sec Flag, I believe — you can correct me if I’m wrong — it says, ". . .give her the list of names whose SO number one files we need; assure her as to the confidentiality these files are given."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Now, I take it what you were doing here is that in order to be able to obtain these files, you were giving assurances within the church that they would be maintained confidential; is that right?

A Well, I was giving an assurance to Pers Sec Flag.

That was Pat Bryce.

I don’t know if by that time — I said up there that I would brief her on the biography. I possibly had not sent her the needed and wanted which I distributed rather broadly.

So maybe she was not aware at that time of the biography project or what exactly I was doing.


So anyway, this was intended for her, yes.

Q And you were assuring her that she needn’t be concerned about giving up these private and confidential files because they would be maintained confidential; correct?

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may the record note that this, again, refers to the MCCS Mission.

MR. LITT: That is a mistake. There is a document in there that shouldn’t be there. It doesn’t involve it. I’ll take it out.

Mr. Armstrong says he can leave that position without it being a problem.

I would ask the Court’s permission to remove it.

I haven’t asked any questions on it.

MR. FLYNN: The whole thing relates to the MCCS Mission, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, gentlemen, you prepared this exhibit or you put it together, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor. This got in by mistake.

Unfortunately, these things happen.

THE COURT: You may remove it.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, what was the Action Chief CMO, Mr. Armstrong?

A The Action Chief was the person in the CMO or in various other units, but what it meant was the person in charge of the firing of missions.

Q This is a document addressed to someone named


Ted, dated October 13, 1980; do you recognize that document?

MR. FLYNN: Are these all part of 32, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: No. This is a new document that will in a moment be 33.

MR. FLYNN: The last one you referred to about the assurance of confidentiality, was that part of 32?

MR. LITT: Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Now the top page of that is not now part of 32, of what you gave me? The one that says MCCS, is that –

MR. LITT: That is correct. It was stapled by me by mistake.

MR. FLYNN: That is now not part of 32?

MR. LITT: Correct.

Q Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize this document?

A Yes.

Q Did you write that document in October, 1980?

A Yes.

Q And I gather –

THE COURT: Before you go on — oh, go ahead. I misunderstood something. Go ahead.

Q BY MR: LITT: I gather that this document was written in connection with providing — gathering up some photographs and providing them to Mr. Garrison; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And although one can’t tell for sure, it seems that there was some concern about providing these materials


to Mr. Garrison; is that correct, or is that incorrect?

A No. There had been no concern from Ted, if that’s what you mean.

Q Well, no. I’m not sure what I mean because I don’t know. So just –

A Well, the date of this is 13 October, 1980. This predates, I believe, the biography contract.

Garrison had not been contracted at that time.

But I said, "I expect he’ll begin in the next week or two.


Q Okay.

A We had already discussed if you are referring to paragraph, the third from the bottom, Laurel and I and everyone had discussed the fact that Mr. Hubbard had the — he was in control of the whole thing, so that is why I said there is no problem in what Garrison chooses or says.

Q Well, let’s discuss that a little bit.

That paragraph is talking in reality, not just about the photos, but about the whole question of what is going to be provided to Mr. Garrison; correct?

When you say there is no problem in what he chooses or says, you are referring not just to photos, of course, but to all of the materials that are going to be provided to him in the course of his work on the biography?

A Yes.

Q And you in this document were advising people that whatever was given to Mr. Garrison would remain private because of the way that the contract was being set up with Mr. Hubbard having the final approval of anything that would go in it; right?

A That at that time, 13 October, that was what we were discussing. That was the arrangement with — which  we discussed with Laurel Sullivan.

Mr. Hubbard had, he had control. He had control of the whole thing, and he was going to be the final checker of the manuscript.

Q And therefore what goes to Mr. Garrison one needn’t worry about because Mr. Hubbard could review it to


protect the privacy of anything he wanted or whatever; correct? That is what you meant when you made this comment?

A Basically, yes.

Q Okay, and throughout the period of time that materials were provided to Mr. Garrison, that was your understanding and everybody else’s understanding of the — that there was a fundamental check on the privacy of the materials because Mr. Hubbard would review what was ultimately done with them; right?

MR. FLYNN: By Mr. Hubbard.

THE COURT: I am sorry. Was that an objection or what?

MR. FLYNN: I object. As long — I think there is some confusion in the question.

THE COURT: Do you want to read the question back.

(Record read.)

MR. FLYNN: It is a compound question. I don’t object to the compound question as long as it is clear that the ultimate check which came earlier in the first part of the question was by Mr. Hubbard.

THE COURT: I think that was the gist of the question; wasn’t it?

MR. LITT: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. You may answer it, sir.

THE WITNESS: Well, that was our understanding at the outset, but very soon we realized that such a thing was, in


fact, impossible because no one could communicate to Mr. Hubbard.


So I continued on with the project. But the fact of a check, in fact, the possibility of having the manuscript ever approved diminished because there was no line of communication to Mr. Hubbard.

Q But the fact is that it was always to be the case, that this book and any of the materials that were given to Mr. Garrison in connection with the book would not be used in any way without his prior approval?

A That was never discussed.

Q That was your understanding?

A My understanding was that Mr. Hubbard had final approval of the manuscript.

As far as use without his approval is concerned, that was not the way it was. In fact, I used the biography materials. And, in fact, Mr. Garrison was to — in advance of the book, was to do a video and was to handle all the rumors regarding Mr. Hubbard with those documents.

Q Well, let me ask you something: your statement in this letter of October 13, are you telling me now that you had the discretion to take whatever you wanted and use them in whatever way or you and laurel did and you didn’t have to — is that your testimony, that you could have taken any private material you wanted and used it?

A No. I think you are misstating what I have said.

I did take materials and I did publish them in the — during the time when I was doing the biography project.

Mr. Garrison was to as well in advance of even


writing the biography.

THE COURT: We are going to take a recess at this time.

We’ll reconvene at 1:30.

(At 11:59 a.m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)




THE COURT: Counsel is apparently here to move to quash a subpoena duces tecum; is that correct?

MR. BERKE: Yes, Your Honor. Robert Berke for the record representing Dr. Gene Denk.

THE COURT: Very well, I have read the motion and the declaration based upon a variety of points that are involved.

Whatever happened to that proof of service that I had? Was that part of the file?

THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is Ms. Dragojevic the one that is handling this, Mr. Flynn?


MR. FLYNN: I’ll have to handle it, Your Honor.

We have been trying to get ahold of the process server.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Excuse me, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That’s all right.

Have you had a chance to review the motions, the declarations that have been submitted, Miss Dragojevic?

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Yes, I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The contention is made by declaration that the process server didn’t serve the doctor, but served his wife, apparently, on his behalf.

The declaration doesn’t so indicate one way or the other.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I did manage to get in touch with the process server and what is described in Mrs. Denk’s declaration is essentially what, apparently, did occur.

He was advised –

THE COURT: I think you had better get another process server.

The motion is granted.

MR. FLYNN: If I could just be heard briefly, Your Honor, we did serve him the day before in hand; however, the day before when we served him in hand, apparently, the date that he was to appear was the same date as the subpoena. And we had –

THE COURT: How does that help us or change the situation?

MR. FLYNN: We did get them in hand.


THE COURT: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; is that the point?

MR. FLYNN: We did get him in hand with one subpoena and went back the next day to give him a day’s notice and, apparently, Mrs. Denk was served.

One of the primary reasons we need Dr. Denk is that Mrs. Hubbard testified that she knows of no one who is in communication with her husband.

The evidence would be that Dr. Denk saw L. Ron Hubbard in October, 1983; met with two of Mr. Hubbard’s
children, Arthur and Diana and had conversations with Mrs. Hubbard at that time about just having seen her husband.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I would like to add, Your Honor, that the process server indicated that at the time he left the subpoena on the doorstep, he was apparently advised by Mrs. Denk that Dr. Denk was in the house; that he did not wish him to be on the premises and that at that point he, apparently, yelled into the house that he was going to serve the subpoena and that he was leaving it on the doorstep.

And Mrs. Denk was present when that communication was relayed into the house.


MR. FLYNN: And we have a further problem, Your Honor. We have been in communication with someone who is the receptionist for Dr. Denk, and Dr. Denk left a note that this person has seen that said, "I will be gone for the next two or three weeks. Someone else is taking care of my practice and get rid of all reporters" or something like that.

MR. BERKE: Your Honor, if I can be heard briefly as to this.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BERKE: First of all in the Sternbeck case we indicate in the points and authorities service was made within a hundred feet of the person. The wife accepted service for the person served. The husband was out of view but on the premises, and the court ruled that service must be pursuant to Section 1985 et seq, be personal service.

Now, according to Mr. Flynn, just the day before, Dr. Denk was personally served and if he was personally served with a subpoena that was later withdrawn, it seems to me as if counsel is in poor position to say that they were not able to serve him with this subpoena.

Furthermore, regardless of what the materiality of the testimony is that is dated to this court, Section 1987 clearly provides that the declaration contain statements of materiality, not some statement of counsel.

The other point I’d like to raise is that counsel’s representations here as to what other people told him would be hearsay if there was testimony to that effect.


They are not placed in declarations. We have no witnesses and it is undisputed that the service was made outside of the presence of the doctor. The service was made not on the wife. The service was made by leaving the subpoena out of the view of the doctor on the doorstep. No personal service was made, despite the fact that there was a declaration indicating that there had been personal service from the process server or indicating something to that effect, and I would submit that the remedy there is to simply locate the witness and effectuate service.

Section 1987 allows no exceptions such as the fact that the process server yelled something in the window, and allows no statement from counsel to be a substitute for sworn and dated declarations, nor do the cases so provide.

THE COURT: Well, I have a problem with the whole thing because it seems to me like the whole matter is an exercise in futility. Almost anything that would be communicated to the doctor would be privileged and –

MR. BERKE: That is correct and he intends to claim the privilege.

THE COURT: Whether he wants to or not, he’s got an obligation, and I just think that we have got enough problems getting this case through as it is without getting involved in these side events which I don’t really see are going to get anywhere.

If the last time he saw him was in October of ‘83, just assuming for the sake of discussion that that was true, I don’t see how that is going to help anybody get him


at this time because this is May 17th of 1984, and in seven months or eight months a person can manage to go around the world a few times, probably into space a few times or other planets if that was his intention or within his capability.


It seems like we are spinning our wheels over something that is not going to add up to anything in the long run, frankly.

I’ll grant the motion to quash.

MR. BERKE: That is as to the subpoena and the subpoena duces tecum, Your Honor?


The witness has retaken the stand. State your name again for the record. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

GERALD ARMSTRONG, the witness on the stand at the time of recess, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Litt.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.


Q Mr. Armstrong, was Laurel Sullivan, as you understood it, like you, an employee of Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And you indicated in your testimony this morning that you had made some purchases by the church and you made one purchase by — on behalf of Mr. Hubbard or something to that effect; is that right?

A Yes.


Q And the purchase on behalf of Mr. Hubbard was from Virgil Wilhite; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And was that for some substantial amount of materials?

A No.

Q You did make a purchase from Mr. Wilhite in the amount of — did you make any purchases from Mr. Wilhite for the church?

A I got Mr. Wilhite in touch with some people in Clearwater — I believe it was in Clearwater. And then finally the approval, to my recollection, came from SOR or WDC. I don’t know exactly what the conditions of the purchase were.

But I did assist him in making that arrangement with someone in Clearwater, I believe.

Q And do you know what those materials were?

A That was a collection of materials which Mr. Wilhite had, publications, pulp magazines which included stories by Mr. Hubbard and a collection of Mr. Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology writings front the ’50’s and onwards.

Q And was that a purchase — where did that material go? Did that go to you?

A Yes, it did.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I had asked that these materials be provided to me in advance; they are being provided to me as the witness is being questioned.


MR. LITT: I said over lunch, Your Honor, we would try to get together. But we have been unable to get together. Your Honor, may this be marked next in order?


MR. FLYNN: Is that the check to Wilhite?

MR. LITT: Yes.

Q Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize that check?

A No.

Q The check indicates that it is from the Church of Scientology of California for a purchase in the amount of $65,O00 of a collection of published works.

Was that the collection that was, after being purchased, placed with you?

A That is correct.

Q That was the purchase price as you understood?

A Well, my understanding of it is that in part of the arrangement, Mr. Wilhite was to buy a bunch of auditings and training statements and that isn’t reflected in this check or receipt.

Q That’s all right.

Anyway, the published materials that you got from Mr. Wilhite, as you understood it, the notation on there, that is the only collection of published materials that you received from Mr. Wilhite?

A Yes.


Q With respect to these various materials that you gathered up, did you gain some — let me ask the question this way: How much money was expended to purchase materials for the archives while you were the archivist that you are aware of?

A When we are talking here about archives, do you mean for Mr. Hubbard’s archives, materials which he personally owned?

Q No, that were put under your care. In other words, like these collected published works. They were put under your care in the archives; right?

A Yes.

Q Materials that were purchased while you were the archivist that were then delivered to the archives under your care, do you have a ballpark figure of how much money was expended by the church while you were the archivist for such purchases?

A In addition to the $65,000, probably $6,000 more.

Q And you had a discussion with Mr. Wilhite or spent some time with him in which you and he went through, I guess, an inventory or a partial inventory of what was in the archives or in some form tried to get a valuation of them; is that correct?

A I never went through the archives with him. I was in communication at that time with LRH accounts who throughout that period — two people, first Mike Smith and I believe the original authorization came from Mike Smith to


pay Mr. Wilhite to do the inventory. I did not assist him in the inventory other than show him where the materials were and point him and give him time in the archives. I did not go through the materials at that time with him or assist him.

Q And when was this done?

A It would have been in the summer of 1981 — 1980, I am sorry.

Q And generally at that time you had in the archives the materials from Del Sol; correct?

A Yes.

Q Those were the main materials that you had?

Well, I guess and you had the Pers Sec files that you had gathered?

A At which time?

Q When you were dealing with Mr. Wilhite, when he came in to look at the materials?

A To do the first inventory?

Q Were there two?

A Well, we worked on another one for controller archives.

Q Okay. Leaving aside controller archives for the moment, you did one prior to the time that you had had access to the controller archives?

A Yes.

Q And at that time you had the Del Sol materials?

A Principally the Del Sol materials.

Q Were those mostly original materials that you


had in there?

A Yes.

Q And about how many pages of original materials were there?

A Total probably of one hundred, two hundred thousand pages.

Q And those were valued, you said, by Mr. Wilhite at approximately $5 million?

A I believe the inventory which he did at that time was — came up to $5 million. That was one figure. That inventory was scrapped because he was to provide two figures, a minimum and a maximum.

Q And the $5 million figure, do you know whether that was a minimum or a maximum?

A My understanding was it was a maximum.

Q And did you have discussions with Mr. Wilhite about how he made determinations of value of various materials?

A No, he seemed to understand what this type of materials sold for.

Q Okay. Now, either through your contact with Mr. Wilhite or through other means did you get any experience in valuing, say, a three-page letter of Mr. Hubbard’s just by way of example; did you purchase any letters that had been handwritten by Mr. Hubbard?

A I purchased collections which contained some handwritten letters. One of these was from Barbara Snader. One of these was from Helen O’Brien.


Q And the Helen O’Brien collection, about how many pages of handwritten materials of Mr. Hubbard did that have?

A I recall there was one long letter of probably eight or ten pages, and there was another few shorter letters, and then there was about 60 or 100 pages of typewritten materials.

Q That had been typed by Mr. Hubbard as opposed to handwritten or typewritten by Miss O’Brien or both?

A My recollection is that at least the majority of them were from Mr. Hubbard if not all of them.


Q And you paid $1,500, is my memory correct, for that collection?

A That is correct.

Q And the Barbara Schnader collection, how much did you pay for that?

A I recall $4,000. But I really — I could be wrong in that.

Q And what was in — what was in the — in that collection, the Barbara Schnader collection?

A Well, there was a couple of letters, I recall.

The thing which was most important was a chart, the original chart of human evaluation which first appeared in the book called "Science of Survival." Mr. Hubbard had written that while living with Barbara Schnader in Palm Springs, 1951. And it was this document which was most valued. And it was that that made up the — in terms of dollar value the bulk of the $4,000.

A lot of what she had was just early newspaper articles and materials of that sort.

Q How many pages of originals was it? Was it just this chart, or were there other original materials?

A No. There was another several pages of originals.

Q You paid how much for that collection?

A My recollection is it was $4,000. But I could wildly off on it.

Q Okay, Now, could –

May we have exhibit 15 placed before the witness?


This is the list of sealed exhibits.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, this is a list of exhibits under seal prepared by you or you and your counsel that you are using. Ignore the writings on the left-hand side which are by Mrs. Hubbard, but rather than try to go through each set of materials, let’s talk some about what of these exhibits are originals.

On page 1 do any of the files on page 1 contain original materials?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I think that question may be a little unfair without looking at the –

MR. LITT: I am just trying to save time. We can pull them all out if the witness can’t answer.

MR. FLYNN: My recollection is it is kind of an administrative publication. It is something like a carbon copy that could be deemed to be an original.

THE COURT: Is it that critical at the moment? Maybe the witness can look at them during a recess or something.

MR. LITT: We can handle it that way.

I am just trying to get a sense of the amount of original material that he has chosen.

Let’s try it this way:

Q Mr. Armstrong, while I haven’t reviewed all of the exhibits that have been identified by you and your counsel completely, there seem to be a large number of originals; do you have any estimate of what the total number of original materials are that have been identified by you?

THE COURT: As a defense exhibit in this proceeding?


MR. LITT: At this point, just as defense exhibits.

THE WITNESS: My best guess is 200 pages.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, I notice that there were several original handwritten letters of Mr. Hubbard that your counsel questioned you about; I think some of them had to do, for instance, with HEC or something like that.

Do you recall those? There were a couple of files that were filled with original writings that you were going through?

A Yes.

Q Based on your experience of buying materials, do you have any original L. Ron Hubbard materials? Do you have any estimate of what those could have been sold for?

MR. FLYNN: Presently, Your Honor? A present estimate, or an estimate in 1981 or an estimate after the truth of L. Ron Hubbard comes out?

MR. HARRIS: Apparently none could be sold, since they are in Your Honor’s possession. So we can eliminate that.

THE COURT: If you can pry them loose from the court.

Q BY MR. LITT: We’ll go to December, 1981 when you left; do you have any estimate of what any of those materials –

THE COURT: I don’t know if this witness is qualified relative to giving an opinion on this subject. It may be that as part of the overall picture of selling this kind of material that some materials can be sold because of their content and have value and some can be sold just because they are written by an individual person. And I don’t


know whether that weighs in the balance here or not, but I am not real sure that this witness can — but maybe he can.


MR. LITT: I am not sure he can either, Your Honor. I am just trying to see.

THE COURT: We had a case one time we tried here involving a family bible of Samuel Colt. It was inscribed by Samuel Colt and we had wide variation of opinions as to what that particular bible was worth and all for the inscriptions that were in it. It was a rather interesting case.

That is neither here nor there, but it reminds me of it. Go ahead.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, this is Mr. Armstrong’s opinion.

MR. LITT: If he can form one. If he can’t, that is fine.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: An original 10-page — let’s say hypothetical-like, an original 10-page, handwritten letter of L. Ron Hubbard that comes from the period of the Apollo; do you have any estimate, and it discusses Scientology matters of one type or another, do you have any estimate of what that might sell for, such a document, roughly?

MR. FLYNN: Well, that is a different question. What it would sell for in December 1980 or what he thinks it is worth. He may think it is worth zero and it might sell for –

THE COURT: I suppose if you want to ask him what the fair market value is; what a reasonable seller might sell and what a reasonable buyer might pay and all those other


parameters that go with it, neither under any compulsion.

Q BY MR. LITT: Fair market value, if you can make an estimate as to what its fair market value would have been in December 1980.

A I think within certain circles, it is a very small circle of collectors to whom these things have any value whatsoever, but within the small circle of very wealthy devotes of Mr. Hubbard, I would say a couple thousand dollars.

Q Now, the practice with respect to original archive materials throughout Scientology was that the original archive materials were considered very valuable; is that a fair statement?

A Yes.

Q And they were to be kept in a stored, locked condition?

A By which you mean Del Sol was like that?

Q No, no. I am talking about once things were put into an archive type of situation.

A Right. This thing had never happened before I created it. I took the documents out of a very poor condition and established them in a condition which made them relatively more safe.

I always treated them that way. I never destroyed, altered any documents.

Q No, I understand, and have you seen this document before?

May this be marked plaintiff’s next in order?


Is that 35 or 36?


MR. FLYNN: What is that, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: That is the document entitled "Flag Order Archives."

Q You have seen that document before; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And that is a document speaking to handling of organizational archives; right?

A Of Dianetics and Scientology.

Q Uh-huh.

A Yes.

Q And this document says that any originals should only go out for 24 hours; is that correct?

A This document refers to other archives under the control of the controller. They were not the documents which I had. I don’t believe I ever saw this until you produced it in a deposition and in any case, it did not apply to the archives which I had. I did not have organizational archives.

Q Uh-huh.

A Or Guardian originals as they are called here.

Q But in general, you would agree, wouldn’t you, that this document reflected the approach to original archive materials concerning Mr. Hubbard or — well, just leave the question at that.

A This was generally the approach which I took.


Q And you were not to remove originals from the archives; right? You were to keep the originals there; isn’t that correct?

A No one ever said such a thing or implied such a thing.

They were under my control and when I delivered to Mr. Garrison the originals which I did –

Q Mr. Armstrong –

MR. FLYNN: Could he finish the answer?

MR. LITT: Could you direct the witness –

THE COURT: Well, I think the answer ended with nobody ever expressly or impliedly stated to him, and let the answer stand. The rest can be stricken.

MR. FLYNN: An ambiguity is created by the prior question.

THE COURT: We don’t need to worry about that at this point. Let’s go on to the next question.

Q BY MR. LITT: Regardless of whether somebody told you, it was, in fact, your understanding that originals weren’t to be removed; isn’t that right?

A You thought that these original materials could be taken various places?

A Well, they were taken various places, and in order to expedite the ends of the biography, Mr. Garrison was supposed to at that point have a manuscript produced by May 1982. It was getting on. It was November 1981. There simply was too big a mass for me to copy, for him to go through, and I had to make the judgment to give him the


originals so that he could sort out what he was going to quote from.

Q All right, now, these originals were mostly from what you had taken from the controller archives after Mrs. Hubbard had left that post; is that right, that you gave Mr. Garrison?

A I would say the majority of them are from controller archives, yes.

Q And when did you get those materials, again?

Was it October?

A Probably October, November, in that period.

Q 1981?

A That’s correct.

Q Now, up until that time how much material had been given to Mr. Garrison?

A Probably half of what he ended up with.

Q "Half" being how many pages of materials?

A Maybe 50,000.

2284 [sic]

Q And you gave him 50,000 more in the next six weeks?

A Something like that.

Q Okay. And of those 50,000 more, I take it that some 45,000 of them were copies of materials?

A No. There was a great number of originals which were given to Mr. Garrison.

Q How many thousands of pages of materials did you give Mr. Garrison?

A A guess is 100,000.

Q Of original materials?

A Are we talking only about originals?

Q Yes. Right now my questions are about originals.

A When you said up to that point how many pages had I given to Mr. Garrison, were you talking about originals?

Q No. But my later question — we’ll start again.

A Okay.

Q You gave Mr. Garrison from — I guess from November until December 12 some 50,000 pages of materials; correct?

A Probably, yes.

Q Of those 50,000 pages of materials, how many were originals?

A Maybe half.

Q And those mostly came from the Controller archives?

A Yes; either that or from the Pers Sec, Pers Com,


or Pers Sec WW files.

Q All right. Now, and was this after your wife — when you were giving these 50,000 pages, was that after your wife had come to work with you in the archives area?

A Yes.

Q And you and she were copying large numbers of materials to get to Mr. Garrison; right?

A Yes.

Q And you were trying to copy as many materials as you could to get to Mr. Garrison; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And I gather you accomplished copying some 25,000 pages of materials in that period of time; right?

You said you gave Mr. Garrison 25,000 pages of copies; so these copies were made during that period of time?

A Yes.

Q And upon — when did you give Mr. Garrison this other 25,000 pages of original materials? Do you remember precisely when or –

A No. It would be in November, December.

Q All right. And during this whole period of time was the period of time when you and your wife were discussing leaving the church; is that correct?

A No. Our discussions about leaving the organization began sometime around the beginning of December.

Q In fact, you had decided to leave by the beginning


of December; hadn’t you?

A Something like that: right around that period.

Q But you also decided that prior to leaving you were going to make sure that Mr. Garrison got all of the materials that you wanted him to get; is that right?

A Basically all the materials that Mr. Garrison requested, all that I deemed that he would need for the biography.

Q The biography that you supposedly thought was never going to be written at that point; is that right?

A We had very large –

Q I’m talking about you, not "we."

A I had considerable doubts about it. I was still very much dedicated to the project and to the possibility of having the truth about L. Ron Hubbard known and having the facts about the organization and knocking off the sham and facade and the fraud.

I was very much dedicated to that project at that time. So I tried in my own way to get him whatever I could.

Q Yes. Because you felt, didn’t you, that you wanted to use this material to expose, as you viewed it, the organization and Mr. Hubbard; isn’t that right? Is that what you thought this material would do?

A I never thought in terms of exposing Mr. Hubbard until I was attacked by his organization.

Q Well, I thought — Mr. Armstrong –

A I wanted the truth out. Pursuant to Scientology


policies, the truth will set you free.

Q The truth as you viewed it; right, at that time?

A The truth as shown by an extensive study of hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation from all periods of Mr. Hubbard’s life.

Q That when you were giving them to Mr. Garrison, you thought showed that scientology was a sham; is that right?

A There was an increasing awareness throughout that period — I think if you go back and look at my communications through that period, I was very concerned about the unethical practices; I was very concerned about the fraud of Mr. Hubbard, of the misrepresentations in his life. And it was that which I sought to correct.

Q And you wanted to make sure that Omar Garrison got all the materials that you thought showed that?

A I wanted Mr. Garrison to have all of the material necessary for him to do an honest biography.

I felt very much committed to Mr. Garrison. I had been the initial person to go and contact him. I had given him a faulty bill of goods which had conned him into doing this biography. He was trapped into it. I wanted to help him in every way I could.

Q In fact, by November 25th, after this experience with Mr. Starsky, you had made the decision that you were going to get out of the church; isn’t that right?

A sometime around that period it became very apparent to me that there was no way that I could make any


changes in the organization; that Mr. Hubbard would ever admit to his indecent acts, to his control of the organization, to his theft from me of years of my life, to his control of my mind; there was no way. And it was at that point when I suddenly came to my senses, that I left. It was after writing the communication to Cirrus Slevin.


Q And after you came to your senses, as you say, you and your wife worked day and night just to get as much material out of the archives and into Mr. Garrison’s hands as you could; didn’t you?

A I don’t believe that we worked day and night, as you say it. I copied whatever I could. My wife worked with me on it.

I was very committed to Mr. Garrison and I was committed to the truth getting out. I did not have any vendetta. I did not feel any ill will toward Mr. Hubbard. I wanted to get out what I felt would help him, and help all Scientologists, help me and help the world.

Q And most of the originals that you gave Mr. Garrison were given after that period of time when you came to your senses; weren’t they?

A I copied whatever I could and I copied a great deal of the material from the controller archives.

Q And what you couldn’t copy, you then just took the originals and gave it to Mr. Garrison?

A That is correct. I told Barbara Decelle.

Q And, Mr. Armstrong, during that period of time did you have any relationship with an organization — let me ask a question this way: What is an organization called Ralston Pilot?

A Ralston Pilot is a corporation, I believe, owned by — of which Omar Garrison is at least a major, was a major shareholder, and it was — it had published a couple of books and it was also a signer on the contract, I


believe, or Omar Garrison for Ralston Pilot.

Q And it was a signer on the contract concerning the biography of Mr. Hubbard?

A I believe, yes.

Q And it was the vehicle through which Mr. Garrison contracted a lot of his writing business or publishing business; correct?

A I believe I have seen that name on "Playing Dirty." What exactly he did with Ralston Pilot, I really don’t know in detail.

I filled orders for Ralston Pilot throughout 1982 and ‘83, or at least up to the fall of ‘83, whenever they came in. I had some Ralston books in the apartment where I lived and I filled orders.

Q And in the fall of 1981 you became a director of Ralston Pilot; is that correct?

A I have been told this before. I was asked about being a director of Ralston Pilot in another deposition. I don’t know anything about being a director of Ralston Pilot.

When I left the organization –

Q No, my question goes strictly to before December 12th.

Q Was I a director?

Q Yes.

A I have never heard this until this instant.

Q Now, you indicated in your direct examination that you and Mr. Garrison had had some discussions about how this biography would never see the light of day; do you


recall saying that you had discussed that?

A My recollection is he used the phrase "light of print," but the same meaning.

Q And you had that discussion with Mr. Garrison after your July trip through the Midwest; is that right?

A He used that phrase a number of times. He may have mentioned it earlier, but certainly during discussions after the Midwest trip, yes. Probably before.

Q So when you made all of these copies of materials that you gave to Mr. Garrison, it was after these discussions?

A When you say these copies of materials –

Q This large volume of materials made in November and December.

A Yes.

MR. LITT: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. LITT: This is, I believe, plaintiff’s 36.


MR. LITT: This is the document, Mr. Flynn, dated 22 February 1980 in handwriting.

MR. FLYNN: The one you just handed me just before this, Mr. Litt, that you never produced before?

MR. HARRIS: I thought we had been through this, Your Honor. If Mr. Flynn wants to point out specifically in the discovery, I will get Mr. Peterson and we can have a fight about it.

THE COURT: If you want to fight, go outside and


fight. Let’s go on with the trial, gentlemen.

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, do you recognize that document?

A Yes.

Q That is a document dated February 22, 1980; is that right?

A Yes.

Q Did you write it, the original of that?

A Yes, it looks like my handwriting.

Q Did you write it at the time that you had just begun work on the archives project?

A Yes.

Q And did it discuss in general the various measures you are talking about to protect the security of the archives?

A Yes.


Q You can hand it to the Court. I don’t have any further questions on it.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may the record note that we consider this another part of the documents relating to MCCS?

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Armstrong, I believe you testified on your direct examination that you had not been the person to obtain the materials concerning Quentin Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q You had, in fact, requested Vaughn Young to obtain them for Mr. Garrison; is that right?

A I don’t believe that I requested him exactly like that.

I knew that B-1 had them. Once Vaughn Young was assigned, there was a list of items which I had not been able to obtain. That was included among those items.

Q You made a list for Mr. Young of materials that you had not been able to obtain to date?

A Right. I believe I gave it to him verbally. He made a bunch of notes regarding this type of material.

Q So you asked him to get that and various other things and he did?

A Yes. And he also provided a bunch of other material himself.

Q Now, on December 12 when you left your position, had you been — up until that time had you resided on church premises? Did you and your wife have a room?

MR. FLYNN: When is this?


MR. LITT: Prior to December 12, 1981.

MR. FLYNN: How much prior? Including Gilman Hot Springs?

MR. LITT: Say, the last few months prior to that.

THE WITNESS: I lived in the Cedars Complex.

BY MR. LITT: Did you and your wife have a room in the Cedars Complex?

A Yes.

Q And did you empty out the materials from your room at the Cedars Complex?

A Yes.

Q And did you do that over a several day period?

A Yes.

Q And did you tell anybody you were doing it?

A No.

Q And you didn’t tell anybody you were doing it because you didn’t want anybody to know you were doing it; correct?

A Run that by me again?

Q The reason you didn’t tell anybody was because you didn’t want anybody to know; right?

A The reason I didn’t tell anyone was because I didn’t want to be locked up.

Q You didn’t want them to know you were moving your materials out?

A I didn’t want to be locked up.

Q And while you were moving your things out of your room is the same period of time when you were copying all


of these things that we have discussed for Mr. Garrison; those two events were simultaneous?

A That is correct.

Q Now, when you left on December 12, where did you go?

A To Omar Garrison’s place in Costa Mesa.

Q Was Mr. Garrison there?

A Yes.

Q And you and your wife spent the night with Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q And then the following day did you and your wife drive up to Mr. Garrison’s home in Utah?

A Yes.

Q And this was without Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q And did you have with you at that time — did you transport from Mr. Garrison any materials that were from the Archives?

A Yes.

Q And on December 12 when you went to Mr. Garrison’s, in fact, you delivered with you on that very day a whole set of materials; isn’t that right?

A Yes.

Q So you delivered them to him and then you got them back from him and took them to Utah?

A Well, whatever went into the truck at that point.

I don’t know. I don’t recall if they were the same. There


were probably different materials.

I took all of my stuff, my wife’s and my personal stuff. My recollection is that the majority of the Archives materials stayed in Costa Mesa. Some probably went because up in Utah I built shelves for Mr. Garrison to put the materials into a logical order. But there would not have been room because we had all of our personal stuff we took at that time.

I was intending at that point to go to Canada.

Q And did you go to Canada?

A Yes.

Q A few days later?

A When I say go to Canada, I mean I was intending to stay in Canada at that time.


Q But from Utah did you go to Canada?

A Yes.

Q And did you call Vaughn Young at some point within a period of time after you left your position?

A I received a letter from Vaughn Young and upon receipt of the letter, within a day or so after that, I called.

Q And that was the first discussion you had had with anyone about the archives post or the fact that you had left; is that right?

A No.

Q Well, I’m sorry, I should correct that.

With anyone within the church or within Scientology?

MR. FLYNN: From what date; Mr. Litt?

THE COURT: From the time he left, I gather, December 12.

Q BY MR. LITT: From December 12.

A No.

Q Did you also have a discussion was Barbara De Celle?

A Yes.

Q And that was in connection with the resignation letter you had sent her?

A Well, in the discussion with Barbara De Celle, I told her, I explained to her why I left. I told her what the state of the project was. I told her that I still had one more thing which I had to do which only I could do, and that was to identify a bunch of slides which I had taken on


a couple of trips.

So, I told her that I would do that when I would get to it, and that I would then send them to her. That was mainly what our conversation was about.

Q And how long did you stay in Canada?

A Roughly until — from approximately maybe the 18th of December through perhaps the 27th or 28th of December.

Q And did you then come back to Los Angeles?

A Well, I came back to Utah, and while I was in Utah in December Mr. Garrison had offered me a job working  for Ralston Pilot, and I — it sounded like a very good job and I made the choice while up in Canada to accept it.

So I came back down and told Mr. Garrison.

This would be at New Year’s. We spent New Year’s in Utah, and then a short time after that, perhaps around the 8th or so of January, 8th or 10th of January, came back down and got an apartment and set up an office for Mr. Garrison.

So I arrived back in the Los Angeles area, actually down in Orange County in Costa Mesa approximately the 12th or so of January.

Q So at that point you were on the payroll of Ralston Pilot?

A Well it never really worked out. I worked for him and he paid $200 a month for, I believe, three, maybe four months, and this was just to pay part of the rent and the job never worked out, so I — some time in March I went to work at a law firm.

Q Now you mentioned earlier that there was some


question about whether — about renegotiating Mr. Garrison’s contract with PUBS DK; is that correct? I’m going back now to before you left.

A Yes.

Q And it was in the context of there being these questions in which you sent Mr. Garrison all these internal materials that you identified yesterday; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you felt that this contract had been renegotiated; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you felt that Mr. Garrison should get different terms; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you felt that he should — and Mr. Garrison both felt that he should get more favorable terms; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And you were not at all sure during this period of time whether that would be agreed to; is that right?

MR. FLYNN: Agreed to by whom?

MR. LITT: By whoever it was that Mr. Garrison was trying to renegotiate this contract with.

MR. FLYNN: That is what the case is all about.

THE COURT: Well, let’s go back and have the question.

(Record read.)

THE WITNESS: I assume by whoever Mr. Garrison was contracting with. I was not sure.


MR. LITT: Okay.

Q And, in fact, you weren’t sure whether or not in light of this contract dispute, shall we call it, Mr. Garrison was ever going to write a book pursuant to that contract; isn’t that right?

A At what time?

Q In this period of time. October, November, December, 1981.

A No. I felt that Mr. Garrison was, in talking to him, that he was going to continue to write the book. He hoped that these things could be taken care of. We couldn’t even find anyone in PDK who knew of the existence of the contract to even handle the problems with — so there were lots of difficulties. And I really didn’t know if we could surmount them.

But I don’t think that throughout that period Mr. Garrison changed his — the plan at all. He kept saying, "I am writing a book." And he kept on writing at it and he kept on writing. I don’t think that that occurred at that time at all.

Q In fact, you had discussions with Mr. Garrison, at least later, didn’t you, in which he said that if that contract couldn’t be settled agreeably, he was going to go ahead and publish a book some other way; isn’t that right?

A He did attempt later — my understanding is that he did attempt to secure a publisher who could publish the book.

Q Using the archives materials?


MR. FLYNN: Could we have a date?

Q BY MR. LITT: Is that your understanding?

A This is in 1982 or ‘83.

Q BY MR. LITT: And the book that he was writing was using the archives materials that you had given him; right?

A Yes.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, in a deposition that was taken in a case called Cooper versus Church of Scientology taken on January 10, 1984 you were asked the question when you worked for Ralston Pilot Publishing Company did you receive any checks from them; do you recall that?

A Yes.

Q And you answered yes; do you recall that?

A Yes.

Q Now, I am a little confused. I thought you had testified just now that you hadn’t received checks from Ralston Pilot, or did I just misunderstand?

A You must have misunderstood.

Q So you did get checks?

A I told you I was given, I believe, three checks.

It might have been four. But in any case, Mr. Garrison paid the rent or he paid one-half of the rent which was $200 on three different times. So I possibly got three checks.

Q Okay.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, just for the future, apparently we are now into Mr. — Mr. Litt has just used a deposition from another case. I have no idea who was present.


MR. LITT: That is just to refresh his recollection.

Miss Dragojevic was present.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I would like to add for the record that the name of that case is Church of Scientology versus Cooper. Mrs. Cooper has a counterclaim.

MR. LITT: I’m sorry. That is correct.

Q Going back to January, 1982 when you returned to Los Angeles, did you have any discussions with any people who were still Church of Scientology staff in the month of January?

A When you say "Church of Scientology staff," do you mean RTF and ASI or Church of Scientology organizations?

Q No.

A Then it is difficult for me to answer.

Q All right. Then we’ll use the term "current Scientologists." All right. How is that? Do you understand that term?

A Okay.

THE COURT: I am not sure I do, but I don’t count.

Q BY MR. LITT: Did you in the month of January talk to anybody who was still part of the church or still a Scientologist? You no longer considered yourself a Scientologist; is that right?

MR. FLYNN: Part of what church, Your Honor?

MR. LITT: Any Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: If the witness understands, he can answer.

THE WITNESS: Which question?

THE COURT: Mr. Litt’s.


THE WITNESS: He asked me two questions.

Q BY MR. LITT: You no longer considered yourself a Scientologist at that point; is that right?

A That is a real difficult question to answer.

You would have to define that term.

I did not feel at that point that I — that I had any allegiance to the organization in that I would from then on continue to lie and cheat and steal.

But did I understand that the definition of a Scientologist which is someone who is trying to better conditions, was I one of those people then? Yes; I was no longer a part of any Scientology organization.

I hope that answers –

Q All right. And you considered that there were many people who were still part of Scientology, what you called the organization; that is the phrase you used generally; right?

A Yes.

Q So if I use the phrase "the organization," you understand that phrase to mean people who were still connected to Mr. Hubbard and to various Scientology organizations, right, including RTF and ASI?


Q I will substitute the phrase, where you use the term "the organization," I will use the phrase "current Scientologists" so we will be clear.

All right, so that is what I mean, current Scientologists, when I use that phrase. You understand that now?

A Current Scientologists –

Q Whatever you mean by "the organization."

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I think he should use the witness’s term then.

THE COURT: I assume what you mean is sometimes people refer to a church as being an organized church as distinguished from what a person might on his own personal level treat in a religious fashion. I assume you are dealing with people who might be part of this organized church as Scientologists as it may exist in the world today.

MR. LITT: That is correct.

Q Now, did you have any contact with current Scientologists in January 1982?

A Yes.

Q When was your first contact after you came back from Canada, back to the States?

A I think the first was a meeting with Barbara De Celle and Vaughn Young.

Q And do you know when that was?

A Some time probably in January.

Q Did you have any discussions prior to that with anybody, telephone discussions?


A I believe I had one with Barbara, maybe one or two with Barbara to set up the meeting.

Q Did you have any discussions with Marilyn Brewer?

Do you know who Marilyn Brewer is?

A Yes.

Q She was a friend of yours and your wife who was then a Scientologist; right?

A Yes. I don’t know. I don’t know if we saw Marilyn during this period. We may have. May have talked to her. My recollection talking to her was some time later, but that may be –

Q Did you some time around or prior to meeting with Barbara De Celle and Vaughn Young, did you go to ASHO?

A ASHO? I don’t believe so.

Q Where did you meet Mr. Young and Barbara De Celle?

A In a restaurant on Sunset Boulevard called the Grinder.

Q And that is near the Cedars Complex?

A Yes.

Q And were both you and your wife present?

A Yes.

Q And how long did you and Mr. Young and Miss De Celle spend talking?

A Probably an hour.

Q And in the course of that discussion did you make comments about your attitude toward Scientology at that time?

A I probably did. I think that my attitude would


probably have been more toward L. Ron Hubbard than what he had done rather than Scientology at that point.

Q So you made without getting into the susbtance of them, you made, shall we call them critical comments concerning Mr. Hubbard?

A By critical, do you mean truth?

Q No, by critical, was it true or false which we won’t get into. We will deal with that later. I mean

A I think that during that conversation I explained my position regarding Mr. Hubbard and the fact that I felt cheated. I felt the guy had lied to me. I felt that he had betrayed me, so I went on probably at some length on that subject.

If those are what your reports are regarding critical comments, then those are what I said. Those are the comments I made.

Q And do you recall whether you made a statement that the only way anyone can help you is to leave Scientology?

A The only way anyone can help me?

Q Yes.

A Help me?

Q Yes, or words to that — you had discussions with Miss De Celle and Mr. Young about sort of — they wanted to know what your feeling was about Scientology and see whether any/of the concerns or problems you had could be worked out or whatever. That was part of what was the topic of discussion; right?


A Well they may have brought something like that up. They were willing to listen to some degree, but I don’t think either of them expressed any willingness to help.

Q I am not asking whether anyone expressed a willingness to help.

Didn’t you make the comment in response to a discussion about whether any of your problems with Scientology could be resolved or anything, that basically the only thing that can deal with that is for people to leave Scientology; do you remember anything like that?


A No. I made a comment — and this probably should have been in one of the earlier reports — I made the comment while in the –

A I don’t have any reports. I have interview notes, if that is all right.

Go on.

A — that I felt that the organization had become little more than an intelligence operation and that in my opinion the only thing decent that got done by Scientology were the decent acts by the individuals and that the best thing that Scientology could do and the best thing that we could do for Mr. L. Ron Hubbard was to leave the organization and go out in the world and do what we can do that is decent because the organization was not involved in anything decent at all.

So maybe there are misconstrued times.

THE COURT: We’ll take a 15-minute recess.


MR. LITT: Your Honor, I think we have some difficulties on how we are going to handle some of this discovery matter.

THE COURT: First, let me say on the record that all counsel are present; the witness has retaken the stand. State your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: Now, what kind of problem, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: I spoke with Mr. Flynn over the break


concerning providing the materials that we discussed asking to be produced to us. And so far we don’t have them. Apparently, the notes concerning the private investigators, which were requested yesterday, Mr. Flynn has. He doesn’t have a copy for us. We would like to have that and we would like to have it over the evening and, if some arrangements can be made to have a copy –

He offered to make some trade which is, frankly, not clear to me which included MCCS material which is unsatisfactory.

At this point the bottom line is that we have so far not received any of the materials we have asked for. And we are coming to these things in cross-examination and don’t have the materials to review beforehand.

MR. FLYNN: The situation is this, Your Honor: the detailed descriptions of what happened with the private investigators were prepared for us. So theoretically, they are attorney-client privileged; however, we are prepared to give them to Mr. Litt.

THE COURT: Do you want to swap a waiver for his waiver?

Is that it?

MR. FLYNN: What I would really like from Mr. Litt, I’m informed by Mr. Armstrong that there are numerous documents relating to the biography project in papers that were prepared in his handwriting and things like that that have never been produced for us, most of which would put the whole thing in very proper perspective.

I would like those from Mr. Litt, documents


pertaining to the biography project that this witness was involved in between 1980 and 1981, I would like those produced.


THE COURT: Well, you know, I think we are going to have to call a halt somewhere. This case has been going along. We are in, I think, the 13th day of trial testimony, and I am not going to order them to go out and start researching things that could have been developed months ago through notices to produce and motions to compel production and so forth, the normal discovery routine that is followed.

At the same time, if there’s been representations the thing would be made available, that is all I am really interested in. Is there something you are claiming the privilege on or not claiming the privilege on or what?

MR. FLYNN: We are going to give this to them. I just thought in fairness there was a motion apparently deferred to Your Honor as the trial judge which Ms. Dragojevic can tell you about.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I had requested production of the MCCS documents and they were objected to. I did end up filing a motion to compel. It was set for hearing shortly before this trial and Judge Shimer decided to defer ruling on it to the trial court, and we just never brought it up until this point, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well that has to do with all this matter of whether these things are privileged, I assume; is that right?

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Yes. That was the main objection to the materials at the time that the response was given, so we did request production and I did file a motion, and the law and motion judge it should be decided here at some point.


THE COURT: Well, are there certain documents that you have in mind? Are they attached to your motion? I have got 13 files now.

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: No, Your Honor, We didn’t attach anything to our motion because we didn’t have the documents. We just requested production of them and had nothing. All I had is what Mr. Armstrong might be able to tell us about and that is about it. They have got possession of all the documents.

MR. FLYNN: What we would like, Your Honor, is the mission programs, targets and operations and –

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I am prepared to produce some of that to you in camera, as I was prepared to do before without waiving the privilege, but I am not about to give them to Mr. Flynn.

THE COURT: Well, that’s okay. We are going to have to deal with this problem sooner or later.

I know you have got some memorandums here.

Do you have any declaration in support of your memorandum, so we have some starting point?

MR. HARRIS: There is a Lisa Britowich is the name on the declaration.

MR. LITT: That was submitted as an exhibit to the motion in limine, and that mainly concerned but not exclusively concerned the tapes and then in the document itself there is reference also to the deposition testimony in the memorandum of Miss Sullivan which also shows the nature of this.

Miss Britowich’s declaration establishes prima


facie that the MCCS mission was an attorney-client privileged activity of which the tapes were a part, the tapes specifically being a record of an attorney-client conference.


THE COURT: Well, I think from everything that has been said, it is obvious that we’re going to have to deal with this in some way when and if Laurel Sullivan is called to testify. And that may be the best way to deal with that at that time.

MR. FLYNN: That is fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If the Court concludes then that there is no privilege, the Court can then order production or it can review the specific documents at that time in camera and we should probably defer that aspect of it until then. What about this deal? Are you going to give that to Mr. Litt?

MR. FLYNN: I’m having it Xeroxed now, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there any other problem? Are you waiting for your Federal Express to get here from Boston, or did it arrive?

MR. FLYNN: That is the chronology, Your Honor. It is purely attorney-client privileged. I haven’t read it in probably two years.

It was sent to me by Mr. Armstrong and by his wife where they each wrote up their entire chronology inside the church.

THE COURT: If you claim the privilege, I’ll sustain the privilege.

MR. FLYNN: My inclination is I will assert the privilege on that.

With regard to these notes, Miss Dragojevic has to get them from her office. We have those that Mr. Armstrong


brought in. These all relate to the 1983-1984 period which relates to his state of mind during that period of time about a wide variety of events. I don’t see any relevance, materiality.

I believe the Court’s order was notes regarding his state of mind about matters he has testified about.

I am perfectly content to have the court look at these and conclude that they don’t have anything to do with what he has testified about, but they are just Mr. Armstrong’s notes about what he thinks about the whole trial, the whole litigation process, basically that he has been caught up in.

THE COURT: Are you asserting a privacy interest there and desire them to be placed under seal?

MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor. I just don’t think they are relevant or material to anything. I think they are mostly just pertaining to the case, such as "look for the truth, the truth." Things like that, Your Honor.

And as I say, they are of recent vintage. These notes that relate to May, 1982, they apparently in Mrs. Dragojevic’s office.

THE COURT: You can have those by tomorrow?

MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you serious about having the Court examine this collection of things, Mr. Litt?

MR. LITT: If it is represented that they are not any things that relate to Scientology, Your Honor, that is satisfactory.


THE COURT: It depends on how you interpret them.

MR. FLYNN: I think they relate to Scientology. I think they relate more to this case and a view toward the process that Mr. Armstrong has been subjected to in discovery and how much discovery he has obtained and how much he has had to give.

MR. HARRIS: If that is what they are, Your Honor, we are certainly not interested in them. I don’t think we need to subject you to it, if that is the representation of Mr. Flynn.

MR. FLYNN: That is basically what they relate to.

THE COURT: Very well. Let’s proceed on course.


MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: One optimistic word, Your Honor. I think I have cut down the 10-day estimate.

THE COURT: Well, I won’t ask you to what extent; nine and a half days.

MR. FLYNN: There is a ray of hope.

THE COURT: Okay, let’s go ahead.

Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong, I think we had finished up what we were talking about this meeting that you had at the Grinder restaurant with Vaughn Young and Barbara De Celle.

At the time that you left Barbara De Celle had been your immediate senior; is that correct?

A In a way, yes.

Q She was the one that you wrote the resignation letter to?

A That is correct.

Q And Vaughn Young had been working at least part-time with you on the archives project?

A Yes.

Q When was the next time that you had any discussions or meetings with any current Scientologists?

A Vaughn asked me at that time to meet with someone from the organization. The person he wanted to meet with was named Peter Alvet. I declined because I knew Peter Alvet was an intelligence officer in the organization.

He then — Vaughn then said, "Well, you meet with Terry Gamboa?" That was my former wife and I said okay,


I’d meet with her, and I met with her also in the Grinder, and my recollection is some days, maybe a week or two after the meeting with Vaughn and Barbara.

Q All right, and you had a discussion with Terry Gamboa about why you left?

A Yes.

Q And did you have any discussions with her concerning your view of Scientology?

A Probably a little bit. I was most concerned with her about operations at that time. Friends of mine had been contacted by someone by the name of Brad Ballentine who I knew was an intelligence officer, and Brad Ballentine had tried and had gotten information about me from these people. I knew also that my parents had been contacted and there was something else which I communicated at the time, but I don’t recall, but it was another indication of an intelligence operation and I asked Terry, I said to call off the dogs.

She said that she didn’t know of any such thing going on, but if it was she would look into it.

I spoke to her some time later by phone and she indicated at that time that if I didn’t do anything, everything would be okay.

Q Now, did you also have any meetings or discussions with Marilyn Brewer during this same time period? We are talking about January.

A Right. I probably did meet with Marilyn and maybe also with Ed Brewer, her husband, and Bill Duckhorn.


During that period we may have gone out to dinner. I don’t recall if it was then or prior to leaving, but we met, my wife and I met with Marilyn, I think, twice, maybe three times in the early part of 1982.

Q By early part, you mean January and February?

A January, February, March, April.

Q And Marilyn Brewer and her husband were current Scientologists when you met with them?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall where the first meeting was?

A My recollection is that it was a restaurant called Sarno’s, but — and the next meeting was in a different place and I don’t recall the name of the restaurant, but it was on Fountain Avenue.

Q Now these various meetings that you have described with Vaughn and Barbara, with Terry and Marilyn, I guess we have discussed at least three so far during January, was the place where you were going to meet them prearranged? Had you and they agreed on you will meet at such and such a place or whatever?

A I think so. I don’t know if that was the case with Marilyn. We may have met Marilyn and gone somewhere, it is my recollection.

Q When you say met her, you mean met her at the church or met her someplace else?

A I am not exactly sure. I remember driving with her in the car, but I don’t recall if we picked her up at a certain place or went by the organization to meet her.


Q Now, at some point did you go and meet with Vaughn Young at the Archives, in the Archives area?

A Yes.

Q And do you recall when that was?

A My best recollection is it was probably February, 1982. I don’t recall a date or even if it was in the beginning or end. It seems to me it would have been early February.

Q And did you and Mr. Young discuss at that time some matters relating to the Archives and he had various questions for you about different things?

A Yes.

Q And do you recall having a discussion about a particular letter of Mrs. Hubbard’s that Mr. Young asked you about?

A I believe Barbara DeCelle had asked me about the letter.

Q And either Barbara DeCelle or Vaughn Young told you that there was one particular very personal letter of Mrs. Hubbard that they hadn’t been able to locate; is that correct?

A I don’t know if they said that or not. Barbara asked me about the letter because I went into the organization to take out a box of mine. And I had at one — this is a big wooden box on wheels — and I had within there all my financial records which I took at that time.

Vaughn was there and I told him I was taking them.


And Barbara asked me at the same time was the letter in there because earlier I had the letter in there because I was holding it when I was trying to send it to Mary Sue. And I said no, it was with Omar.

Q So you told them that Omar had the letter?

A Yes.

Q That you had given this letter to Omar to review?

A That is my best recollection of what I told them. I don’t recall much about the letter coming up, but it is probably what I would have said at that point.

Q This is the letter that you subsequently took to Mr. Flynn on your first meeting with him; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And how long on that occasion did you spend meeting with Mr. Flynn and — was only Mr. Young there, or Barbara DeCelle also came in at some point, I think?

A I think Barbara was there briefly and she may have been there more than Vaughn. And Vaughn’s wife Stacy was in and out.

Q And how long did that meeting take?

A I was probably there a total of half an hour.

Q Now, when was your next contact, as best you can recall? I guess we are into February by now; when was your next contact with a current Scientologist?

A my guess is somewhere around — sometime in March, maybe April. When we — my wife and I met with Marilyn Brewer.

Q Did you have any written communications with


Mr. Young, further communications about the Archives?

A I wrote him a letter. I think it has been — it is an exhibit, I believe. And the purpose of that was to explain a particular binder of materials which he said he couldn’t locate. And I thought that it may be in a couple of places and explained to him in that letter where it would be.

I got that he could not locate it from Omar Garrison.

So to assist — because I was pretty sure that the binder must still be in the Archives or it would be in one of the locations that I laid out in the letter that I wrote to Vaughn Young.

Q Now, you said that you had gone to a meeting at the Archives on one occasion; did you go on a second occasion at some point?

A I don’t believe so.

Q Your recollection is that you were only there one time?

A Yes.

Q Now, let me go to a period a little later on; did you in the month of May meet with any current Scientologists?

A You are talking about the meeting with Marilyn Brewer?


Q Well did you meet with Miss Brewer in May?

A No, probably in April. I met with a number of people in April.

Q All right. Well, leaving aside the photographs incident which we will discuss in a bit, what other meetings did you have with current Scientologists in April?

A There was one with Marilyn Brewer and one with or one or two or three with Virgil Wilhite.

In fact, just recalling now there were some other meetings with Virgil probably in January or February.
I was in touch with him a number of times, and out of those meetings grew the idea to sell him my photographs, the ones taken on board the ship.

Q All right. So your recollection is aside from the photographs incident which we will discuss later that you met with Virgil Wilhite and Marilyn Brewer in April?

A Yes. The meetings with Virgil in April were to do with the photos.

Q I don’t want to go into that right now. I am just trying to get a chronology of some other things, and in May did you meet with anyone?

A My recollection is that there was just — in Clearwater I met with a number of people. I don’t know if you would call them current Scientologists, and I saw them just briefly.

Q I am not — aside from Clearwater, anything else?

A Then around the middle of May I believe it was


I met with Andre Clavel.

Q And did you contact Mr. Clavel or did he contact you?

A I contacted him.

Q And where did you meet with him?

A In a restaurant on Vermont street and I think it is called George’s Cafe.

Q And had you set up to meet there in your telephone call that that is where you were going to meet?

A Yes.

Q And had you set up the time?

A Yes.

Q Was that a prearranged time?

A Yes.

Q George’s is right across the street from the church complex at Cedar’s; is that correct, from the Cedar’s Complex?

A No.

Q Well maybe I have my geography — is it on Vermont?

A Yes.

Q Vermont near Fountain?

A No.

Q Near what cross street?

A North of Hollywood, north of Sunset.

Q So it is about two or three blocks from the complex?

A Three or four.


Q And at this meeting did you have a purpose for this meeting?

A Yes.

Q And that purpose had to do with the 32 slides that had been taken during your July 1981 trip?

A Thirty-two pages of slides.

Q Sorry, 32 pages of slides?

A Yes.

Q And you contacted Mr. Clavel to arrange to meet with him to return these 32 slide sheets; is that right?

A Yes.

Q And at your meeting you returned them to him; is that correct?

A I gave him a note to give to Barbara De Celle with an explanation of where they came from, and I gave them to him to give to Barbara.

Q And did you have any discussion with him other than discussions about the return of these materials?

A Undoubtedly I did.

Q Nothing sticks out in your mind?

A No.

Q Now when was the next occasion on which you had pre-arranged meeting with a current scientologist?

A I believe some time in 1984.

Q And who was that with?

A This was — I was called by the same intelligence personnel, Bradley Ballentine, and he told me that the organization wanted to talk to me.


So I said, "okay." And he arranged — he gave me the number of the guy who was supposed to talk to me, a guy by the name of Marty Rathbun. And my wife and I met with Marty and Tom Vorm in a restaurant. I think  it may be called Googles, something like that, down on — near your old office.

Q In the downtown area?

A Yes.

Q And did — and you called Marty Rathbun after having spoken with Mr. Ballentine?

A Well, Brad Ballentine told me that Marty wanted to get in touch with me. And so I followed up on it.

Q And did you have a series of discussions with Mr. Rathbun over a period of time, a few discussions?

A Well, there may have been three, but there was definitely two.

The second one was about two months ago when he came to my house.

Q Now, in any of the discussions that you had with Mr. Rathbun — and I’m not referring now to when he came to your house — did you have discussions with him about the fact of how to resolve this case?

A Well, Mr. Rathbun and I began the conversation with the agreement that — and he agreed to this — that neither of us would use any of the subject matter, the contents or anything said in our conversation to attack the other.

Q Okay.


A So I took that to mean that the — I am not unwilling to talk about it, but I consider that Mr. Rathbun is in violation of that agreement.

Q Just one other question on this: did you discuss — did you understand that when your counsel and I met and had settlement discussions, that they were also confidential and weren’t to be used except in the context of the discussions?

A I wasn’t involved with those discussions.

Q But your counsel was involved in those discussions; was that your understandincg of the nature of the discussions, or didn’t you have any understanding?

A I’m not sure.

Are you referring to what you brought up in a deposition some time ago?

Q No. I am referring to the fact that you testified here about what position you had taken in settlement discussions.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor our view is that that is not a position in settlement discussions. Our view is that that was a formal offer that had nothing to do with settlement. We simply made a formal offer when we learned of the Garrison settlement to return originals for copies. It is that simple. It had nothing to do with settlement.

The issue is we made that because we believed that the basis of our position then, as is now, that the rightful possessor of the documents was Omar Garrison until such time that he was no longer the rightful possessor; when

[Missing 2328]


in that company.

I worked in the accounting department and took care of the trust funds in the trust account for the last year of my employment there.

Q And how did you come to get this particular job?

A My wife was employed at the job at that firm.

One of the — the person who preceded me in the position that I held, which was at the beginning just a clerical kind of job, quit. There was an opening; they needed someone.

My wife asked the person in charge of the division that we worked for if I could try.

I went in and they hired me.

Q How did your wife get the job?

A She was interviewed for it.

Q Isn’t it a fact that these attorneys were friends or acquaintances of Mr. Garrison?

A One of the woman who worked in the firm was a friend of Mr. and Mrs. Garrison. And through them we learned of the opening in the firm which my wife applied for, interviewed for, and was hired for.


Q And did Mr. or Mrs. Garrison make any recommendation to the firm in support of your wife’s application?

A Well I believe that the Garrisons talked to the person that I am referring to, Barbara Murray. I don’t believe that they talked to any of the attorneys of the firm or the partners, and there was no formal recommendation in the sense of a letter or anything like that.

Q But they did put in a plug for you, so to speak?

A They put in a plug for my wife.

Q And later when you applied, they put in a plug for you?

A I don’t know if they knew that I was going to apply.

Q All right now let’s go to the period of your discussions with Virgil Wilhite.

You had a set of photographs that were taken on board the Apollo; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And this set of photographs had to do with the wedding ceremony of you and your then wife, Terri?

A Yes.

Q And was Mr. Hubbard portrayed in many of these photographs?

A He was in some of them, yes.

Q How many photographs did you have in this album?

A Probably 30 or 40.


Q And had Mr. Hubbard taken many of the photographs?

A He had taken probably three or four.

Q And had the remainder of the photographs been taken by his personal photographer, one Chris Potter?

A I don’t know.

Q Now the photographs, do you remember what percentage of them had Mr. Hubbard portrayed?

A About 30 percent.

Q And when you and your wife Terri broke up, I take it that you maintained or kept the photographs; is that right?

A No, actually when we broke up she took all the photographs.

Q But later on you got them back?

A No, this was an album which we had given to my parents and I wanted to sell them because when I got out–

Q I am not asking you about selling them at the moment. I am just asking you about where they are from.

A That is where they came from.

Q In January or February of 1982 you had some discussions with Virgil Wilhite about the fact that you had these photographs?

A Yes.

Q And you had some discussions about the fact that they portrayed, many of then portrayed Mr. Hubbard in an informal setting?

A You mean a wedding?


Q Well, they weren’t — most of the photographs of Mr. Hubbard that are published are photographs that are taken for publication; right? Published photographs of Mr. Hubbard in your experience are photographs that are taken and sat up specifically for publication purposes; right?

THE COURT: Posed; is that what you mean?

Q BY MR. LITT: Posed.

A All of the photographs of Mr. Hubbard which have been published by the organization are poses.

Q Now these photographs were not taken for publication; correct? They were taken to be pictures of your wedding ceremony?

A I never spoke to any of the photographers regarding publication or not.

Q Well at the time you didn’t understand them to be taken for publication; did you?

A No.

Q You understood them to be pictures of your wedding?

A Yes.

Q Now when you met with Mr. Wilhite, you explained to him the nature of the photographs; is that right?

A Yes.

Q That you had and you explained to him the circumstances under which they had been taken?

A Yes.

Q And you explained to him that some of them had been taken by Mr. Hubbard; right?


A Yes.

Q And that others of them portrayed Mr. Hubbard?

A Right.

Q And that these were pictures from the yacht, the Apollo?

A Yes.

Q Let me put it like this: Mr. Wilhite told you that they probably had a substantial market value among collectors; is that right?

A Yes.

Q Now in the discussions that you had with Mr. Wilhite, I take it that at a certain point you decided that you wanted to sell this set of photos?

A Yes.

Q They were no longer of particular importance to you?

A Yes.


Q And then you had a meeting with Jim and Nancy Dincalci at some point?

A Yes.

Q And in that meeting you advised then about your discussions with Mr. Wilhite and the fact that these photos had a substantial economic value?

A It came up during those talks.

Q And in the course of those talks it came up that they had candid photos of Mr. Hubbard also; is that right?

A Yes.

Q So you had a discussion about the fact that your photos and their photos could potentially be sold through Mr. Wilhite; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And did you have a similar such discussion with Mike and Kima Douglas?

A Yes.

Q And then at some point you talked further with Mr. Wilhite and described to him the pictures that you had and that the Douglases and the Dincalcis had; is that right?

A Yes.

Q Now, do you know what period of time the Douglas photographs were from?

A I believe the beginning of 1980 and sometime on board the ship. I believe it would around March, 1974.

Q So they were from two periods?

A Yes.


Q And the Dincalcis’ photographs, do you know what period of time they were from?

A They were from 1973.

Q Taken in New York?

A Yes.

Q How many photographs did the Dincalcis have?

A When you say "how many," do you mean how many were they going to include in the sale?

Q Yes.

A Fifteen.

Q And how many were the Douglases going to include in the sale?

A Fifteen.

Q And how many were you going to include in the sale?

A The whole album.

Q And they were put together in an album form, each of the sets of photographs; is that right?

A The sequence of events was Virgil called my home on April 22nd and he left a message on my answering machine saying that they were sold; get them to me.

And the next day or thereabouts, I went, first of all, to the Douglases; they lived in Palm Desert.

And I picked up — they had negatives and prints, 15 total. Some of what they had were just prints. A lot of what they had were negatives.

I went to the Dincalcis; Jim had all negatives.

And he had some contact print that went with them. And I


got — I bought an album and I typed up a statement — I interviewed both people on laying out what each one was, when it was taken, what it concerned so that there was a record so it was an identifiable photograph.

Then I put all of this stuff, the two write-ups and the negatives and the prints, whenever they were available, into an album. And within a few days of that, somewhere around, maybe, the 25th, 27th of April, I delivered both albums, my album and the album I had made up of the others to Mr. Wilhite.

Q Enough, enough, enough. I’m not asking for a 20-minute recitation here.

Prior to all of these events occurring, you had had discussions with Mr. Wilhite and explored with him the possibility of selling these photographs; is that right?

A Prior to all this?

Q Prior to these events that you have described where you got this call from him and then you went and got all of these things together and typed what they were?

A Yes. Mr. Wilhite told me that he was in touch with someone in Clearwater who was very much interested and he was talking about a price of $6,000 for the totality of it.

And Mr. Wilhite was to get a percentage on top of that. Whatever he made over that was his. He was getting a commission. I has no idea what it was, but he seemed to be happy about it.

Q And the value of these photographs was that they


portrayed Mr. Hubbard in these various settings; is that correct?

A The value was that there were collectors who were willing to pay this for them.

Q Because they had pictures of Mr. Hubbard; they weren’t going to pay for pictures of you, were they?

A That is correct.


Q And then you delivered to Mr. Wilhite these three sets of photo albums; correct?

A There was two albums, three sets of photos.

Q And the notes that you wrote up on each of these sets of photos gave background on the pictures and where they were taken and their relationship to Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q All right now the sequence of events after that I find a little confusing.

At some point shortly thereafter you talked to Mr. Wilhite and he told you that someone named Lyman Spurlock had taken the photographs; is that what happened?

A Some days later — Mr. Wilhite was supposed to call me within a couple of days of my delivery. He said he was going to air freight them off to Clearwater the same day, so he was going to package them up and air freight them to Clearwater.

Three or four days went by. I didn’t hear back from them so I called him, at which time he said that he had been contacted by a Scientology attorney or he said — I forget if he used the words "organization attorney" or something, but at in any case an attorney, Lyman Spurlock, and that he had given all the photos to Lyman Spurlock.

I was quite incensed and I said, "Do you have the money?"

He said, "No." I said, "Well, I want the photos back."


He said, "Well, you will have to contact the attorneys."

I said which attorneys? Lyman spurlock isn’t an attorney."

He said, "Well, he told me he is an attorney."

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to move –

THE COURT: You said you were a little confused about it and he is relating it, so I will deny the motion. Conversation with Mr. Wilhite.

Q BY MR. LITT: All right.

Now when you talked to Mr. Wilhite, did he still have your set of photos?

A Well, first I am talking first about the telephone communication. That is what I am talking about right now when I called him up and he told me this. He said he had been shown a Declare on me and that — and that Mr. Spurlock or Lyman Spurlock, he called him, had taken the photos.

At this point I said — this was after work.

I had just gotten home from work and I called him and had this conversation. I said I was driving up right away to Los Angeles. I was coming to his home and I wanted the photos or the money.

So I got a hold of Omar Garrison and his wife and my wife, and the four of us went to Mr. Wilhite’s place, at which time I had another conversation with Mr. Wilhite.

Q Now, at Mr. Wilhite’s place did you go in and


have a further conversation with him concerning the photos?

A Well, Mr. Wilhite met me –

Q I am just asking whether you had a further conversation at this point.

A You began that by saying did I go in. I was about to explain that we had a conversation in the street.

Q Okay. Did Mr. Wilhite have any of these photos with him at that time?

A Yes, he had my photo album.

Q This was the album that was of your wedding that had been — you had been trying to sell?

A That is correct.

Q And did he return to you at that point the photo album of your wedding?

A Yes.


Q And did he tell you that it took two photo albums which were –

THE COURT: There is only one.

MR. LITT: You are right.

THE COURT: There are two sets.

Q BY MR. LITT: The other photo album with the two sets were — had been taken by Mr. Spurlock?

A That is correct.

Q And within his possession or somebody’s possession that he didn’t know of?

A He told me at that time that they were with attorneys. He thought that Lyman Spurlock was an attorney, but that — but he pluralized that and said, "They are with attorneys."

Q So your photos were returned to you within a day after you –

Was this actually the same day, I gather, that you learned about Mr. Spurlock’s contact with Mr. Wilhite?

Is that right?

A Yes.

Q And then you and Mr. Garrison went over to the Commodore’s Messengers building at the Cedars Complex; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And that building is on Fountain Avenue; is that right?

A Yes. I went with Mr. Garrison, Mr. Garrison’s wife and my wife.


Q And you went in and demanded to see someone; is that correct?

A Yes. I wanted to first see Lyman Spurlock.

Q And you were told that Lyman Spurlock wasn’t there?

A I believe that is what I was told.

Q And then you demanded to see somebody to discuss the photographs?

A Yes. I believe I requested to see Vaughn Young at that point.

Q And were you told he wasn’t available?

A That’s right.

Q And then you ended up speaking with a couple of people whose names are, I think you said, one was Steve Marlowe; am I right about that?

A Yes.

Q And was another Peter Alvet?

A No. John Alesio.

There is a third person whose name I do not recall.

Q And you were quite upset at this point; is that right?

A Very.

Q And quite emotional?

A Yes.

Q And you were demanding that these photographs be returned to you; is that correct?

A Yes.


All I needed was an acknowledgement that they would be returned.

Q When you were told they wouldn’t be returned to you, you got increasingly upset; is that correct?

A I was upset. I was very upset.

Q You were shouting; is that right?

A I think I raised my voice; in fact, I swore several times.

Q And do you recall Mr. Garrison’s description of you as maniacal?

A When I left?

Q By the time you left.

A I was not maniacal when I left. There were points when I could have been termed maniacal during my conversation with these three gentlemen.

Q And the three gentlemen told you that they would not give you back the photographs that were those of the Douglases and the Dincalcis; is that right?

A They told me they would not tell me which attorneys had them.

They told me they were with attorneys, but they would not tell me who the attorneys were. And they told me they would not give me back the photos.

Q And at some point Terry Gamboa, your former wife, came down and you had been yelling quite loudly at that point; is that correct?

A I had been loud. I wouldn’t say that I was yelling loudly throughout or at that point.


Q In the course of the conversation you had been yelling loudly; is that correct?

A I don’t think I was yelling loudly.

Q You were yelling?

A Not even yelling.

Q Well you could be heard beyond your own room; isn’t that right?

A I have no doubt of that.

Q All right, and Mr. Garrison and his wife and your wife Joyce were out in a hallway area while you were in having this conversation?

A During most of it, yes.

Q And Miss Gamboa came down at some point and said to you, "You are not going to get the photographs back"; right?

A She said something like that.

Q And she or someone said, "Tell the Douglases or the Dincalcis to talk to us directly"; isn’t that right?

A No.

Q And when you continued to yell, she told you to leave; isn’t that right?

A She came down immediately and told me to leave.

Q Immediately when the conversation began?

A When she arrived. Immediately she said, "Get out."

Q And you continued to yell when she said, "Get out"?

A No, I didn’t.


Q You continued to demand the photographs didn’t you?

A I asked her at that point, "I want the photographs back."

Q And it is in the context of that conversation that she said to you words to the effect, "If you want them back, get an attorney."

A She didn’t say "If you want then back." She just said, "Get an attorney."

Q In response to your demand for the photographs?

A It followed on the heels of my demand.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, this may be — it is a couple minutes early, but I’m about to begin another topic which will take some time, so this may be a good time to break.

THE COURT: Did you get all your pictures back?

THE WITNESS: I got mine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Including the ones of Mr. Hubbard?


THE COURT: Okay. We will take a recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

(At 3:58 p.m., the proceedings were adjourned until Friday, May 18, 1984 at 9:00 a.m.)