Reporters' Daily Transcript (May 14, 1984)

Armstrong 1





No. C 420153


Monday, May 14, 1984


(See Appearances page.)

Pages 1740-1895
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
5855 Topanga Canyon Boulevard
Suite 400
Woodland Hills, California 91367
(213) 716-9400
INDEX FOR VOLUME 11 Pages 1740 -
Monday May 14, 1984 A.M. 1740
     P.M. 1820
(Resumed) 1746         
(Resumed) 1820         


TT 1762
UU 1787
500- 1808
500-H 1808
500-L 1813
500-O 1813
500-M 1813
500-N 1813
500-P 1815
50-BB 1833
WW 1834
500-CC 1841
500-DD 1841
500-FF 1845
500-GG 1845
500-II 1846
500-KK 1848
500-LL 1849
XX - Deck log 1858
500-MMM 1879
500-NNN 1879
500-OOO 1879
500-PPP 1880




THE COURT: Good morning, Counsel.

MR. FLYNN: Good morning.

MR. LITT: Good morning, Your Honor.

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

The witness has retaken the stand.

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 CLERK: Just state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: You may continue.

MR. LITT: May I raise one preliminary matter before we proceed?


MR. LITT: Your Honor, I have in my hand an article from the Clearwater Sun which I can provide a copy of to the court in which Mr. Armstrong is quoted as describing the particular contents and quoting from the contents of documents that remain under seal at this time, and we would ask that the order of the court, to the extent it is not clear which we thought it was, that these materials remain sealed means that.


The contents of them are not to be discussed, particularly contents that have now been reviewed in preparation for this trial.


It is just improper. These are not general statements by Mr. Armstrong.

I can provide the court the quote, but he purports to be quoting specifically from sealed documents. I can give the court — I have bracketed in red the section that I’m specifically referring to.

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Flynn.

MR. FLYNN: Our view, Your Honor, is that this issue was extensively litigated during the year and a half this case has been proceeding. And it has come up in the context of two contempt actions against myself and Ms. Dragojevic.

Judge Cole specifically addressed it. There is a transcript in which Judge Cole specifically said that he is not placing any restrictions on Mr. Armstrong’s First Amendment rights to discuss whatever is in the documents.

The preliminary injunction only prohibits the dissemination of the documents themselves.

I have not read the article. I would like to see a copy of what Mr. Litt is referring to.

Is there a particular area, Mr. Litt, that you are concerned about?

MR. LITT: Yes. If you give it to me, Mr. Flynn, I’ll bracket it for you.

MR. FLYNN: But this issue was addressed at length over the last year and a half. And we believe that the Supreme Court cases make it abundantly clear that no restriction can be placed on Mr. Armstrong’s First Amendment Rights to discuss


what he learned inside the organization.

THE COURT: Well, I am inclined to agree with that.

I don’t know what the clear and present danger is of that happening. There is no prior restraint. In the absence of some clear and present danger, some serious harm being involved now that we are trying this case, I don’t know what is going to come into evidence, And I don’t know what is not going to come into evidence.

I would think that Mr. Armstrong would be well advised at this point to refrain from discussing the matter until the case is completed. I think once the case is completed, then we know what is in evidence; we know what is not in evidence.

I don’t want to get sidetracked at this point.

And I’m going to have to deal with some of these problems later on anyway.

Let’s go forward.

What is it you want me to do?


MR. LITT: I would like, Your Honor, that it be clear that the sealed order of the court means that documents that are under seal may not be quoted publicly. That is what a seal means.

The defendant has notes and probably large numbers of verbatim copies. Can they walk out and memorize
them and from memory say this says this and this says that?

This article purports to quote from the documents which at this time are under seal.

THE COURT: Is there any existing order relating to Mr. Armstrong, any kind of a gag order?

MR. LITT: There is an order that says –

THE COURT: A gag order, we have such a thing as a gag order when there is a clear and present danger of
somebody not getting a fair trial. I don’t see any problem in that regard here.

MR. LITT: That is not what I am referring to. There is a preliminary injunction.

Mr. Flynn says that this issue has been resolved.

This issue has not been resolved. The preliminary injunction requires that the documents be under seal and that they be used, the materials be used only for purposes of this case.

Going through the documents and then walking out into the hallway or to the hallway or to the — some hotel –

THE COURT: As I understand it, there are procedures set forth whereby other litigants in other cases may have access to the documents.

MR. LITT: They must go through a special master


procedure with a document-by-document review where there is determination of what is discoverable. There is also a balance of the privacy. They must establish revelancy. They must establish no privilege.

There is a judicial procedure designed specifically to protect the privacy and other privileged aspects of these materials. When Mr. Armstrong walks out after having had the opportunity to/go through the documents and quotes from them, that judicial oversight is gone.

THE COURT: I have a little trouble with the whole concept. Here is a man who, according to his testimony, lived within the organization for over 10 years. He’s got a vivid memory. It is obvious, abundantly clear that this particular individual is blessed with a vivid memory. He remembers things and he remembers things in detail, and I don’t see how anybody can order him not to talk about things
that he underwent or claims he underwent during — he is subject to civil process for libel or slander if he does slander the organization or individuals within it, but I don’t know that I can — it seems to me we are getting side-tracked. Let’s go ahead and try the case and resolve these matters.

I don’t see how his statements to some reporter–

I don’t know when they were made or what the context was.

MR. LITT: According to the article they were made sipping a martini at a hotel.


MR. HARRIS: Sounds good.


MR. LITT: Well, I just want to make it clear, Your Honor, our position is that the preliminary injunction presently in effect prohibits this. That there is ample authority that while the case goes forward that the specific contents — I am not talking about what is in his memory from what he remembers when he was there in 1980 or ‘81, but going back through the documents and then coming out and quoting from them or purporting to quote from them and utilizing the fact of continued access because he is a defendant in this case, we would just like to make it clear we don’t think that is permissible. We think it is improper.

The documents that he is referring to when the court sees them are the most single set of private materials in the whole of the 10,000 pages, and it is no coincidence that it is those that they choose to make reference to.

THE COURT: I think the witness would be well advised to refrain from such comments during the pendency of the trial. If he is in violation or apparent violation of an order, you can seek some OSC re contempt, but at the same time I feel we may be getting sidetracked here and let’s go ahead and try the case.

Mr. Flynn, you may continue.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor. We will abide by the court’s advise.



Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, before we get into the


documents, I’d like to clarify a few areas of your testimony last Friday.

First of all with regard to the documents that you sent to me and the documents you sent to Contos & Bunch, would you describe to this court the circumstances under which you possessed those documents at the time you sent them to me and to Contos & Bunch?

A Somewhere around March or April of 1982 Omar Garrison again asked me to assist him in the research
on the biography.


The reason that he expressed for this was because he was not getting the desired assistance from the man who had, I suppose, replaced me at the — on the biography project or doing the research.

Q That was who, Mr. Armstrong?

A Vaughn Young.

So I agreed with Mr. Garrison. There was a period of time around this time when I was not employed at the law firm and it was just prior — I worked at the law firm for a while. And I continued on helping Mr. Garrison for a bit.

Previous to that I had only been assisting Mr. Garrison with his other books. I was obtaining printers’ quotes having to do with another book which he was publishing at that time.

So during March and April two things happened. First of all, he was in some fear that the organization was going to steal the materials which he had for the biography at that time. So he had me copy a great deal of those materials, particularly materials which he intended to use in the biography which he felt he would have to quote from extensively. So those materials, I copied for him over a period of probably a month. I did them a bit at a time as I was able to. There was quite — I don’t know, maybe ten, fifteen, twenty thousand pages. So there was quite a lot of material. And it costs quite a bit of money.

I was maintaining for him at that time an office in Costa Mesa. He was paying half the rent on that office.


And the office was, in fact, the place, the apartment, where I lived with my wife and –

Q You say he was paying half the rent; was there a company that he had that paid half the rent on the apartment?

A Yes. It was the publishing company, a company called Ralston Pilot, Incorporated. And Ralston paid the rent and, I guess, in a way I was working for Ralston. He did not pay me anything during that time; in fact, he didn’t pay for the copies that I had made. The reason for this was because he was, apparently, broke at the time or did not have a lot of money. So he was in a bit of a bind.

He also gave me during that time a great quantity of originals, the unsorted originals which I had given him some months previously.

Q Before you left the organization?

A Yes.

He had not been able to go through these things. And he wanted them sorted out as well as I could. So I was doing both of these things as best I could. I transcribed a series of tapes for him during that period and I arranged from interviews for him during that period. And I continued to work with the biographical materials which I maintained in the place in Costa Mesa.

In the end of May Mr. Garrison drove up to Utah. In fact, I went with him at that time. And it was around that period, around the end of May, when I obtained from


Mr. Garrison specific binders which I thought had relevance in the legal battle which I felt was going to begin at that point. And he gave me virtually everything that I asked for. And I had in the apartment a great deal more material. And it was this material which finally ended up with your office and the office of Contos  & Bunch.

Q Now, referring to this letter that you had in your possession when you came to see me, did you seek advice as to what should be done with that letter?

A Basically, I had the letter in my briefcase. And I had been carrying it around for a while and I took the opportunity while I was seeing you to show you the letter and to ask you about it.

I had not been able to get it to Mrs. Hubbard who, at that time, I thought was victimized.

And we discussed, you and I, the letter briefly at that time.

Q Now, without saying what is in the letter, was your state of mind at the time that — was there matter in the letter that was personal and private to Mrs. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And was there another whole area of the letter that you thought was of immense public interest to members of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes.

Q And without saying what is in the letter, did the immense public-interest factor, did that relate to L. Ron Hubbard’s public image and character?


A Yes.

Q Would you describe the sequence under which you tried to return the letter to Mrs. Hubbard and the sequence under which it was placed under seal in this court, the dates, as best you can recall.

A Okay. Late in the fall of 1981 I attempted a number of times to communicate to Mrs. Hubbard; my correspondence was opened.

I sent it in sealed envelopes because that had been the security custom at the time regarding communications to her so that they weren’t just put on an open communication line within the organization.


I sent them sealed. And two of them were opened and sent back to me. They were held for a while and then they were sent back to me. And I was communicated to at that time by two of the people who were in the Special Project, which was Mr. Hubbard’s legal unit, people who took care of his legal and business affairs. One was Terry Gamboa and the other was Julia Watson, both of whom told me at that time that there could be no — there was no correspondence, no communicating to Mary Sue.

Q That was October of 1981?

A Approximately October, November.

At the end of December I had a number of discussions on that subject. I felt like she was being — that communications were being directly withheld from her.

It was expressed to me as, well, we couldn’t admit to a communication line to her because someone will try to effect service in one of the civil cases. And to me at that time that didn’t make a lot of sense. I felt that there was communications being directly withheld for another reason. It had to do with control of the organization.

So I attempted it during that period.

And then when I left the organization some months later, I learned from Laurel Sullivan that she was in
communication with Mary Sue Hubbard and had an address.

I then asked Laurel and she confirmed that the address that she had was still good. And this brought us into the summer of 1982.

Shortly after that and after the — after this


case had begun, I sent this particular letter to Mary Sue.

Q Was that before the restraining order was issued?

A Yes. It was before, I believe, anything was issued in the case.


Q But had the case begun?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Go ahead.

A So I sent a letter to her to the mailbox, and I received — that would have been sometime in August, and I received back the letter sometime in December. It had gone to the address and then had been — then was returned some months later, some probably five months later, four or five months later I received back the same envelopes and then we had a deposition coming up in the beginning of January, the next year, January 1983, and we just produced it for Mr. Litt at that time with the intention that he could give it to Mary Sue or do whatever was proper with it at that time.

Q So it was returned to you by the postal service in December ‘82?

A Right.

Q Now, the original letter or envelope that it was returned in, did you give that to Mr. Litt?

A Yes, the whole thing.

Q And the date stamp that it was mailed by you in August ‘82 was on the envelope?

A Yes.

Q And was there handwriting on the envelope of someone other than yourself?

A Yes.

Q And did you recognize that handwriting?

A I believe it to be the handwriting or printing


of David Miscavige.

Q Now, when you were collecting the documents for the biography project, Mr. Armstrong, what was your state of mind with regard to what documents were pertinent to the biography and what were not?

A Well, I considered, and Mr. Garrison considered, virtually anything pertinent to the biography. He said, he used the phrase, "Everything is grist for the mill."

He wanted to see virtually everything. He did not want to see materials which were what we would call technical materials or policy materials. He was not interested in doing a work on Dianetics or Scientology. He was doing a work specifically on the personal life of L. Ron Hubbard.

You could not extricate Mr. Hubbard, of course, from Dianetics and Scientology, but that was the thrust of Mr. Garrison’s work, and he wanted virtually anything which showed where Mr. Hubbard was at a particular time, who he was in communication with, letters of all descriptions.

He used to use the phrase "Even a laundry list was grist for the mill." So he wanted virtually everything.

Q Why did you give him originals?

A Well, the situation with originals came up in November and December of 1981, and it came up simply because there was a considerable bulk of them. There was no way I was going to be able to copy them all for him. It didn’t make sense to copy them all for him. Mr. Garrison did not at that point have an office in the building. He had not had an


office for several months in the Cedars building. He didn’t have a desk there anymore.

So, in order for him to sort out what he considered usable biographically or what he would get from this mass of materials, there was not going to be a great deal selected from it, but he wanted to see it.

Mr. Garrison ended up doing the biography chronologically, and so the materials which I — the original materials were principally from 1966 or so onward. There was very few original materials which predated that.

I had been providing materials as chronologically as possible. I did the early days first because I thought that he would want them in that order and that’s how we discussed him. These were later materials and there simply was no way, no time to copy them all, and it would have been a very burdensome job because out of those materials there was relatively little that he would quote from.

Q Now, in November and December of 1981, was it your understanding or state of mind that you were working for L. Ron Hubbard and it was L. Ron Hubbard that had the ownership and possession of these materials?

A Right.

Q And was it your state of mind that he had given permission for those to go to Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q Now, prior to that point in time, had you ever given originals to Mr. Garrison?

A He may have had some. I don’t recall if it


ever came up at that point. There were books which I provided him which were definitely originals. Again, this would come up if it was too burdensome to copy, so complete books I provided him in that way.

Q Now, why did some of the materials end up being sent to me and some of the materials end up being sent to Contos & Bunch?

A Well, initially everything that I sent was sent to you and at least part of the reason for that was that I had not been able to obtain a West Coast attorney at that point. This didn’t happen until sometime in July or August, at which point I simply delivered to them the bulk of whatever I had.

I sent it to you as I was able either to obtain it or copy it or box it up and send it. That is really how it occurred. There was no more logic to it than that until the end when I finally just took whatever I had,  cleaned out my house completely, and sent that material to Contos & Bunch, and that is a relatively random assortment of stuff which I referred to as junk, but it is a very random assortment of materials.

Q Why did you retain me as your lawyer?

A Well, I think a lot had to do with — there was really a number of reasons.

I had no one inside the organization or I had heard your name inside the organization, and all I knew was that you were an SP of the first kind, a very evil person, and then I had contradictory material from Jim Dincalci,


whose opinion I appreciated, and he had gone out, both he and his wife had seen you a couple of weeks I think prior to my decision to go see you. They came back and told me that you had an extremely good understanding of Scientology, of the Scientology mind, of our experiences, of what we had gone through, of what we could expect, and that contrary to what the organization had said, you were not dedicated to the destruction of Scientology but were trying in your way and according to your business to represent your clients who you felt had been wronged and deserved redress of those wrongs.


And so it was that and it was also the idea that I was at that point deprogramming myself, shall we say; going through the steps of confronting what the organization and Mr. Hubbard had represented to me for years as being evil and confronting those things which I had been taught or drilled were evil and learning that they were not, indeed, evil.

There was another factor — and this is probably a very important one, and that is to obtain an attorney to represent one in a battle with the Scientologists, which I knew was coming, is a very difficult task. And it was very difficult with Contos & Bunch.

I think you put a lot of work into it. And they were extremely reluctant to get involved because of how wearing the subject is, how esoteric it is and how difficult it is to even brief an attorney on what an attorney can expect in the ins and outs and intricacies and the mental madness that you are dealing with. So that is why –

Q Now, before you left the organization did you see a document called "The Clearwater Report"?

A Yes.

Q And when did you see that, Mr. Armstrong?

A I saw that, I think it would be, some time in the fall — was — it was the same date, whenever the thing was — day or two prior to whenever it was submitted to the Clearwater City Commission.

Q It was prior to the time it was submitted to the Clearwater Commission?

A Yes.


Q Do you know where it came from?

A I don’t know specifically. I was told that — I was shown it in the PR Bureau, GOUS in the Gardian’s Office and that they had someone in close to you and that they had obtained it. It looked like it was an assembled copy taken from either trash or rough drafts of the report.

Q Now, do you know there are approximately six or seven attorneys that authored that report? Was that on the materials that you saw?

A I don’t recall that.

Q Do you recall approximately how long it was?

A What I saw at the time was a pack of material that would have been about maybe half an inch thick. It was a lot of materials which I recognized which I had seen earlier had come from Michael Shannon.

The final Clearwater report which I saw was probably total of two inches thick.

Q Were the materials in there relating to L. Ron Hubbard; namely, in this half-inch pile of materials that you saw while you were inside the organization?

A Yes. That is the material that I was — I was actually called to view those materials. The PR people — and I can’t recall who it was, the DGPR US at that time, but I spoke with him at length. And there was another couple of PR people in the DGPR office, the Deputy Guardian for Public Relations in U.S. And he showed this report to me and asked my opinion about it at that time.

The thing that he was asking particularly about


had to do with the black magic allegations.

And I said that well, from what I had learned to understand — from what I understood from information that I had, the claims which were being made were in fact true and that we could not continue on — you could not refute them with simply Hubbard’s statements or denial because there was too much evidence to the contrary.

So they then began to develop a different tact for the combatting of that particular report. They were not going to try and deny or refute those things.

That is what I got from the conversations at that point. I had nothing further to do with the Clearwater report at that time.

Q Now, when you say "black magic" that Mr. Hubbard was involved in, was that in the late 1940’s?

A Yes, 1945, ‘46.

Q Was that with reference to a cult called the OTO?

A Yes.


MR. FLYNN: I think I only have one copy of this, Your Honor.

Q Mr. Armstrong, in October, November 1981, did you see that document?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What are we up to?

THE CLERK: Double-T.

THE COURT: Okay. Mark that as double-T, counsel.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q Now, in the first paragraph there is a notation and that was by Vaughn Young; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And he was in the Guardian’s Office at the time?

A He had two roles at the time. One was in the Guardian’s Office, and one was sort of a liaison working in the personal office. He had not moved completely over into the personal office at that time, although my understanding was he was on his way at that time.

Q Now, the first paragraph states, "We have a situation of en theta being presented around L. Ron Hubbard that would be DA’d very specifically by producing an interview with Omar that covers what he is discovering in his research on the man."

What does en theta mean?

A En theta is a contraction of enturbulated.

Q What does that mean, Mr. Armstrong?

A Scientologists and Mr. Hubbard view en theta


as derogatory comments. Comments viewed as derogatory are termed en theta, particularly in the press, and that would be the en theta being spread about there.

Q What does the term "DA’d" mean?

A DA is a dead agent.

Q What does that mean?

A It refers to an agent who is spreading lies about someone or about a group. The way you handle that agent and the way you handle the lies is to document the truth about that, showing that what he is saying is, in fact, a lie. Then you show the truth, the documented truth, to the people to whom the agent has been communicating, and thereafter he will no longer be believed and he is dead. He is dead as an agent or dead.

Q Now, it says, "An interview with Omar that covers what he is discovering in his research on the man." To your knowledge, at that time was Omar Garrison discovering material that conformed to the Clearwater report that you read or was contradictory to the Clearwater report?

MR. LITT: Objection as to what Mr. Garrison was discovering.

THE COURT: Well, I think it is probably overly broad.

I will sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, at the time you were providing materials to Omar Garrison; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And this document is dated right about the time that you saw the Clearwater report?


A Yes.

Q And at that time, Mr. Armstrong, were you discovering materials that were confirming the truth of the contents of the Clearwater report about Mr. Hubbard or contradicting what was in the Clearwater report?

MR. LITT: Same objection; vague.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, it then goes on to say, "This would be produced in both a video form and a written form for broad usage on media lines and that additional material would be given from the current state of things in the legal arena."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Now, at that time did you have any conversations with Vaughn Young about getting additional materials
to Mr. Garrison about Mr. Hubbard?

A Yeah. We discussed this at great length since one of the reasons that Vaughn became involved with this project was because I did not have access to the Guardian’s Office Archives.


What I had was LRH’s archives. And these archives did not contain what they call the historical context materials. Some of that was provided by Vaughn Young. And it was necessary because I didn’t have access.

Q Now, so thereafter did Vaughn Young provide you with materials from Guardian’s Office Archives to dead agent N-Theta being spread about Mr. Hubbard?

A I think that that — at least to some level that was done. It was done, really, to dead agent the spreader. I guess that they considered — they considered that you were one of the sources who were spreading the N-Theta. So there was a document provided to Mr. Garrison which indicated that you were a very big enemy, connected you in with psychiatric groups who were considered the real enemy.

And I would perceive that as an attempt to dead agent you.

Q Now, did you find any material at that time and forward in your research that you gave to Mr. Garrison that disproved any fact that was in the Clearwater report about L. Ron Hubbard?

MR. LITT: Objection. The question is overly broad.

This report is apparently — I have never read it, but it is apparently rather long, two inches thick, according to Mr. Armstrong. We are now having some conclusory statement made about a two-inch report, about its accuracy.

THE COURT: Read the pending question, please.

(The question was read.)

THE COURT: That you were aware of as being in the


report; you may answer.

THE WITNESS: There is only one which comes to mind that I suppose is a rather miniscule fact. And it had to do with Mr. Hubbard going down to Puerto Rico and how he went down to Puerto Rico.

And in the materials that Michael Shannon had provided, it showed that he hadn’t gone down to do a mineralogical survey; he had gone down as part of a Red Cross Mission into Puerto Rico as a result of the hurricane which occurred on the island sometime before and that somehow Mr. Shannon had found out that Mr. Hubbard’s passage had been booked on board a particular line for that reason and had some documents to that effect.

But I knew that this was not the case; that in fact he had gone down — Mr. Hubbard had gone to Puerto Rico looking for gold, looking for other minerals and that the reason for booking the passage appeared to be what was fraudulent.

So that it was the — Mr. Shannon had stumbled onto something, but he hadn’t correctly interpreted the facts. And that was what I recalled.

I think it was the only fact at the time which stuck out in my mind.

THE COURT: On this Exhibit double-T, it is entitled "Project Biography Debug"; what would the terminology "debug" mean in this context, if you know?

THE WITNESS: A bug is a problem. And to debug it is to get rid of the bug in the works or in the ointment, I guess.


And so he was in charge of debugging the biography project. The project had a number of bugs, one of
which was I did not have access to these materials.

Another one was that Garrison was at that point asking for his — asking for a contract to be reevaluated and some of the clauses rewritten, some of the conditions changed. Those were bugs or problems.

And Mr. Young was assigned to handle those things.

THE COURT: All right.

You may continue.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: when you say "these materials," in your last response, you meant Guardian Office materials?

A Right.

Q For the purpose of dead agenting, the N-Theta being spread about L. Ron Hubbard?

A Well, this was that, but there was also information which I was not able then to get ahold of. For example, the Quentin materials.

The Quentin Hubbard death has considerable interest among Scientologists and non-Scientrologists. I did not have any information on it and I was not able to within archives get any. But I knew that the B-1 had that material. And Mr. Young was able to get it.

So it was not just dead agenting. It was also to provide biographical information which I did not have.

Q Now, in the summer of 1982, did you prepare several legal declarations for the Tonja Burden case?


A Yes.

Q And were those declarations prepared prior to the inception of the lawsuit?

A I believe at least one of them, maybe two.

Q Now, what was your understanding at that point in time, Mr. Armstrong, with regard to the restrictions that Omar Garrison had placed on your use of the documents?

A Only that they not be allowed out of the legal arena.

His one concern was that he not be scooped, that some other author — that the materials find their way to someone else who would quickly get the book out before he was able to. That was his concern. And that is what I honored in my dealings with everyone.

Q What was your state of mind and purpose for filing declarations in the Tonja Burden case?

A Well, I had taken the position by this point that I could not back down from the organization. I thought that I was being terrorized. And I made the conscious decision along with my wife to take a stand.

I felt, particularly regarding Tonja, that –

I had a great deal of responsibility in the Tonja matter.

Tonja was a young girl on board the ship. She had been for a period of time my junior when we were working in the LRH External Calm Unit at Dunedin.


I have been her guardian along with my first wife. We had been appointed sort of a quasi-legal guardian of some sort, and I felt that she had gone through a very, very rough experience and she deserved my support and my help at that point, and I wanted to do whatever I could to rectify the wrongs which I perceived that the organization was involved in and which I had helped over my 11 or 12 years inside.

Q Now, at that point in time, were you being followed during the sumer of 1982?

THE COURT: Well, did you believe you were being followed?


Q BY MR. FLYNN: And when you made this decision to not back down from the organization, were you contacted by various people in the media during the summer of 1982?

A The initial contact was, I guess, in the end of May, beginning of June, and that was the producer from "20/20," and I agreed at that point to be interviewed on "20/20." And I also made the conscious choice, along with my wife, to assume a high profile and to be willing to be interviewed and to be willing to speak out and say what I perceived was the truth of the matter simply because I felt that there was a higher degree of protection in doing that, and that the facts needed to come out, the other side of the story needed to be told, and that I had an obligation after all that had gone on, so that was the choice.

Thereafter, the press — there was no further


contact for a while, and then I was contacted almost on a daily basis throughout several months after the case got started.

Q When you say a "higher degree of protection," do you mean protection to yourself?

A Myself and my wife.

Q And what did you feel with regard to having a high profile, as you put it, in connection with protecting yourself?

A Well, the information about the organization was — a lot of it was contained in my mind, a lot of it was contained in the documents, and I felt that the — I would alleviate to a degree the threat that I might do something by doing it, and also that by being known, by being willing to speak out and by being recognized, if anything did happen or rather the organization would be more reluctant to do anything of a very serious nature because I was known to the press and because I was a known individual at that point.

Q Now, at that point in time, how many people had you known that had actually been physically locked up by the organization?

A I knew of probably several dozen. I don’t know that I could name all of those people, but I knew that it was a regular pattern of conduct, so there is a great number throughout all that time.

Q And in November 1981, did you know that Bill Franks, the supposedly highest ranking official in the world of the Church of Scientology, had been physically locked up


in Gilman Hot springs?

MR. LITT: Objection; leading. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the latter objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What if anything did you know about Bill Franks in November, December 1981 being physically restrained at Gilman Hot Springs?

A I was out at Gilman Hot Springs during that period and I was told that by two people, actually one was Harvey Haber, and one was a guard on the property.

Q And did you know what Bill Franks’ position was at that time?

A Well, the last position I knew he was holding before the lockup was the executive director international.

Q What was your understanding as to at least on paper the rank that that position held in the Church of

A That he was the top official.

Q And did you know at that time the circumstances — was that shortly before you left the organization,
Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q Now, in your years of research had you come across various deaths that had occurred that you felt were unexplained inside the Church of Scientology?

MR. LITT: Your Honor, this is unbelievable.

THE COURT: Is that an objection?

MR. LITT: Yes, it is an objection.


At this point are we going to allow as relevant evidence in this case any evidence or things that Mr. Armstrong ever heard about any unexplained death in 13 years that he knows nothing about, that he has no personal knowledge of as part of scene vague state of mind?

MR. FLYNN: I will restrict it a little more.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Armstrong, at this point in time, in November 1981, up until the summer of 1982, what was your state of mind with regard to your fear that the organization would kill you?

A Well, I viewed it as a real probability. It was there practically at all times. I never went outside a door without thinking that it could happen right now. I altered my times when I went places so that my schedule was always varying. I was acting like a person who believed that he was going to be blown away. It went on for months, probably for a couple of years.

Q Prior to this trial beginning, did you have that fear?

A I get it occasionally even during the trial.

Q Now, had you been exposed to any Guardian’s Office documentation of operations against people prior to leaving the organization?

A Yes.

Q And how much?

A Not — really not very much in the big scope of things.


Q After you left the organization, were you exposed to Guardian’s Office materials about operations against people?

A Some.

Q And where did that material come from?

A At least the majority of it came from you.

Q And did you have an understanding as to where I received it from?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Purely hearsay, Your Honor. What is the relevance?

THE COURT: All he did was ask him if he had an understanding, and he said yes.

The next question may be something you want to object to. Let’s wait and see what it is.

MR. HARRIS: My objection would be relevant. After he sees Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Flynn gives him a lot of materials, what possible relevance could that have to this lawsuit?


THE COURT: Well, it certainly might go to the witness’ state of mind as to whether or not it is force-fed or whatever it is. That is something else. It goes to the weight to be given to it.

MR. FLYNN: Did you see documents that had been seized by the FBI in July of 1977?

A Yes.

Q And did you know when you left the organization that the FBI had conducted a raid against the Church of Scientology?

A Yes.

Q What was your understanding as to how much documentation had been seized by the FBI, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. HARRIS: Objection as irrelevant.

THE COURT: Well, I’ll overrule the objection.

THE WITNESS: I don’t have pages, but I knew that it was a tremendous mass of documents.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Having seen those materials after you left the organization, did that affect your state of mind?

MR. LITT: Objection.

MR. HARRIS: Irrelevant.

He has now got the documents in Mr. Flynn’s hands, Your Honor. His state of mind after that is irrelevant.

THE COURT: I suppose so. I’ll sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: In the summer of 1982 when you felt like you were being followed, did you know you were


being followed by private investigators?

A I was told that by them and by the police.

Q When were you told that?

A In August of 1982.

Q Now, at that point you had been followed for several months; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Who did you think was following you before that?

A I didn’t know; although I knew that I was accosted outside the Post Office in, I believe, the beginning of June and someone had come up who obviously knew me and he had thrust a letter inside my shirt. So I knew at that point that I had been under surveillance; that they must have known where my PO box was, what car I drove, what I looked like.

So I assumed that this was a process server, not a Scientologist. And I assumed throughout that period that I was under surveillance by both Scientologists and hired private investigators.

Q Now, in 1982 did a woman named Nancy Dincalci assist you in fleeing from the surveillance of the private investigators?

A Yes.

Q Would you describe what happened at that time.

A Well, my wife and I were living in the trailer park. And we were –

MR. LITT: Can we have a time frame on this?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When was this, Mr. Armstrong?


A September 1982.

Q What happened?

A We had been followed at that point night and day, 24 hours a day. They were watching us or following us wherever we went. And it had gone on for a couple of weeks and we had not been able to leave. And we were under a lot of pressure and we were going a little mad at the time.

So I made arrangements with Nancy for her to come and pick us up on the property, thinking there was no way we could drive off the property because they had two cars on us the whole time. So we would have been followed. And we wanted to get away for a little while.

So Nancy drove in and she put on a wig and a bunch of lipstick and looked funny and was able to actually drive onto the property.

We hid in a laundry room in another part of the whole complex and then we got down on the floor of her car and she was able to get away.

So we spent that evening and the next day with her away from the whole private investigator scene.

Q Now, just prior to your leaving the organization you were asked to sign a contract with Church of Scientology International, which has been marked as exhibit double-M; do you recall that?

A Yes.

Q And just again, how much prior to your leaving was it, Mr. Armstrong?

A I received this about maybe a week or 10 days


prior to leaving.

I was told that this new organization was going to start on December 10th and that it had to be signed by then.

Q Prior to that and for the previous several months had you been working in the MCCS mission?

A I had been working in MCCS in the year previously for a couple of months and then just sometime in 1981. I did relatively little work, just mostly the couriering to or from attorneys.

Q Now, when you were working on the MCCS mission did you understand that the purpose of the MCCS mission was to conceal L. Ron Hubbard’s control over Scientology moneys?

MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that as calling for a conclusion of the witness or else based upon attorney-client privileged information learned while couriering items to the attorney, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Armstrong, just restricting –

Who was in charge of the MCCS mission?

A David Miscavige.

Q And who was your senior?

A Laurel Sullivan.

Q And did you have communications with Laurel Sullivan about Hubbard’s relationship to church funds without an attorney being present?


A Yes.

Q And what were those conversations?

MR. HARRIS: Objection, Your Honor, as attorney-client privileged.

He is part of the mission; she is part of the mission; David Miscavige is part of the mission according to this witness’ testimony. Any disclosure made about those items is attorney-client privilege. It is the organization’s means of communicating back and forth between the people who are in the organization and the attorneys.


THE COURT: Well, one of the problems, of course, is that there is — the attorney-client privilege, of course,  is a very important, significant privilege; and, of course, when you are dealing with an entity which is rather amorphous, it has various forms at different times, and personalities come and go and offices change. But communications are prepared obviously for submission to counsel and vice versa. So I am not really clear.

Another problem, of course, is that there is an exception to the attorney-client privilege if it deals with anything which might relate to fraud or a crime.

MR. HARRIS: That is correct, Your Honor, but there must be first extrinsic evidence of same.

MR. FLYNN: I will see if I can do that, Your Honor.

Q Mr. Armstrong, when Exhibit double-M was placed in front of you and you read the portion, "That neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard are officers or directors of the Church and that neither of them are in any manner responsible for actions of the Church . . ." and that neither had received "any compensation or remuneration from training or processing by the Church . . ."

Now, at that time in December 1981, when you read that, did you have specific knowledge that that was false?

A Yes.

Q And did you know that everyone in the organization was being asked to sign that document?

A Yes.


Q And did you know at that time that funds were being specifically funded to L. Ron Hubbard through a corporation called Religious Research Corporation?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: This corporation, Your Honor, is Church of Scientology International by its heading. Unless the witness knows that Church of Scientology International was funneling money and knows it from personal knowledge, it is not okay to say it was false.

THE COURT: Just relax. Let me see it a minute.

Well, I will overrule the objection. He can certainly testify as to his state of mind with reference to what he knew. If this was something that he was being asked to sign that appeared to him to be untrue, he can so state.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, if I may add, what is happening or what is about to happen in this line of questioning is that the purported knowledge that Mr. Armstrong has is knowledge obtained that is privileged.

Now, then, he is — and the process is going like this. Document is presented.

Did you know this to be false? Yes, which it is not because this is after his knowledge, so he doesn’t know it to be false as to what the present situation is.

He purportedly knows it to be false at some point in the past.

Then, well, how did you know? Privileged information, and then the allegation of crime or fraud. Now, if we are going to get into this, then I


would suggest to the Court that these be a full-blown hearing where the ground rules are set as to what can be talked about before the privilege is abrogated or not. We can establish, and the Court has to make a preliminary fact determination that all of the communications that Mr. Armstrong learned about and all of the information that he learned about was privileged. That it was not in furtherance of a crime or a fraud and that no privileged information may be used in testimony. And when the question is asked did you know X fact, it should be on that day whether he knew, not something that he learned in preparing and communicating with attorneys about how to sort out inner relations among a variety of Scientology Corporations and the founder of Scientology, which is what is about to happen.

It is a back door way to try to use the privileged information to supposedly show that it is not privileged and it is privileged and we can establish that it is privileged, and we can bring in all the attorneys involved, if that is what the Court wants. But this is not right, and that is the position that we are in here. That is what is happening.

THE COURT: I don’t know. You said that you knew something that he had received funds through some religious — how did you obtain that information?

THE WITNESS: During the MCCS briefings.

THE COURT: Who was conducting the briefings?

THE WITNESS: Well, the people who were present were Laurel, Laurel Sullivan, myself, Mike Smith, who was the LRH


accounts at the time in charge of Mr. Hubbard’s accounts, and we were at that time discussing payment which had been made to Mr. Hubbard of two point some odd million dollars from RRF; and then the subject of how RRF got its funds and what, in fact, those funds were came up, and it was during those conversations.

I had known about the existence of RRF for some years, but how exactly it worked I did not know until I was in communication with Laurel dealing with this exact thing.

MR. LITT: But, Your Honor, may I pose some questions?

THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess and come back to it.



MR. HARRIS: I have a suggestion for Your Honor which you might find beneficial or might not.

The court has the inherent power to control the order of proof.

My suggestion that — I assume Mr. Armstrong is going to be on at least the remainder of today — that we have an in camera determination tomorrow morning about this subject matter.

We would be prepared to disclose to Your Honor information in order to determine the privilege under the circumstances. And I think that is probably the only way we can do it, including letters from lawyers and the like.

THE COURT: That would be agreeable with me.

Is there any problem with the defense to work around this subject?

MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor, as long as it is understood — the scope of this evidence gets greatly expanded with the testimony of Laurel Sullivan. As long as it is understood that we can — that I can recall Mr. Armstrong after Laurel Sullivan testifies.


MR. FLYNN: But I would like to put in the record at this point a couple of questions that won’t get into the context of any MCCS material.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you familiar with the document, Mr. Armstrong, entitled "What Your Fees Buy"?

A Yes.


Q And what is that?

A It is a brief document by Mr. Hubbard in which he says that he is not paid. It is the standard thing which is shown to public people when they are buying Scientology services.

Q And is that broadly disseminated within Scientology?

A Yes.

Q And does it relate to the fact that Mr. Hubbard claims that he has not received any funds from the church and he has forgiven millions of dollars in debt?

A Yes.

Q Prior to 1980 did you believe that?

A Yes.

Q And was it represented to the public prior to 1980 that Mr. Hubbard didn’t control any Church of Scientology corporations?

MR. LITT: Objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: If you know.

MR. LITT: By whom, when, what?

THE COURT: Well, that doesn’t contribute anything when you say, "by whom, when, and what." He is not required to do that. If there is an objection –

MR. LITT: The objection is that the question as framed is overly vague and ambiguous.

THE COURT: If you are aware whether or not the church ever held out to the public such a matter, you may so state. If you don’t, you can so state.


THE WITNESS: That picture was held out to the public, but it was not the picture which was given to those of us on the inside at a certain level.


Q Now, when you say to the public, what is a public Scientologist?

A A public Scientologist is a person who is not on any staff anywhere and who is simply paying for the series which he takes.

Q And just briefly with regard to paying for series, would you describe how the payment procedure worked based on your 11 years of observations inside the organization?

A One talked to a registrar, was sold a particular service or product and paid for it.

Q And were there price lists for these products?

A Yes.

Q And could Master Charge and Visa be used?

A I never came across that.

Q What was the price range of many of these services?

MR. LITT: Objection; vague as to time.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: In the 1978-79 area, what was the price range for the services?

A I don’t recall any service particularly, but we are talking about several thousand dollars in a case; $10,000 for a Flag executive briefing course, a few thousand dollars for an OT level. It is a considerable amount of money, but I don’t recall exact figures on any particular service.

Q Had you seen price lists?

A Yes.

Q Let me show you that price list. Have you seen


a price list of that type?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Have you seen this, counsel?



MR. FLYNN: This is the only one I have with me, Your Honor.

Q While that is being reviewed, did you know of any Scientology services that were given out without the necessity of a fee being paid?

A Yes. There were certain cases when people, and here particularly comes to mind celebrities, would be awarded. There were occasions when people not on staff, but who would be called public were awarded for some contribution of some sort, but they would not have to pay. They would be awarded their next level or a particular service.

These were quite rare. Those of us who were on staff were, as long as we were on staff, we did not have to pay directly for those services which we took.

Q Do you recall whether some of the courses went up to as much as $42,000?

A I don’t recall that particular figure at all.

I know that there were some very big figures, but I don’t recall that figure.

MR. FLYNN: May this be marked as next in order?

THE COURT: Okay. Double-U.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you knew in general, did you not, that millions of dollars were being paid by public


Scientologists to the organization during the period you were involved?

A Yes.

Q And you saw this document "What Your Fees Buy" during the period that you were involved?

A Yes.

Q And when was the first time that you saw that document, if you recall?

A I recall at least that phrase very early. It may even have been when I was in Vancouver. It may have been sometime on the ship, but I definitely recall the phrase. It was a well-known Scientdlogy phrase.

Q Prior to 1980, did you rely on the fact that L. Ron Hubbard was not receiving any Church funds and had forgiven millions of dollars to continue your work for Mr. Hubbard?


A I put a great deal of reliance in that fact. I believe it contributed to my undergoing all the time I did in the RPF and in making the type of wages that I did make throughout that period.

I had no idea at that point about what kind of money he was making.

Q And did you subsequently learn that in 1980, 1981 when you were working on the biography project?

A Yes.

Q And Laurel Sullivan was in charge of both the biography project and in charge of MCCS; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q What was Hubbard called inside the organization at the level that you were working on with him?

A It depended; either LRH, R, The Boss.

From 197- — from the point when we went off the ship onward in Dunedin, he was always referred to as "The Boss." And that carried on into La Quinta and Gilman Hot Springs.

Q Now, is there any aspect of the workings of Scientology organizations that you observed over a period of 11 years that you did not see Mr. Hubbard supervise or manage?

A That is an interesting question. There were — things which got done, obviously, without his knowledge because he was not everywhere. But he controlled every aspect. And he managed every aspect. And everything that I saw was done pursuant to his orders.


Q And were those orders issued and obeyed in a command line that was similar to a military command line?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever hear the word "ecclesiastical" when you were inside the organization?

A Nothing to do with Scientology or as used here, a differentiation between ecclesiastical and temporal matters. Such a thing never existed when I was involved.

Q Now, with regard to the Nobel Prize project, did you see any orders from L. Ron Hubbard with regard to the use of Scientology funds to obtain Mr. Hubbard the Nobel Prize?

A Yes.

Q What did you see?

A It was — there was a series of communications, orders from him regarding obtaining a Nobel Prize. And one of them and the one which laid out what he wanted, he stated that unlimited funds were allocated for this project, the project of getting him a Nobel Prize.

Q Unlimited Scientology funds?

A Yes.

Q And you saw that order?

A Yes.


Q And since 1982 have you had conversations, just yes or no, with officials of the Canadian government?

A Yes.

Q And an a result of these conversations, was a declaration of yours used to secure a search warrant by the Canadian government?

MR. LITT: Objection; calls for a conclusion.

MR. HARRIS: Also irrelevant; ‘83.

THE COURT: What is the relevance, counsel?

MR. FLYNN: It goes to the MCCS Mission, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: I thought we had an agreement that this was going to be handled tomorrow morning, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: I am going to leave it with just this.

THE COURT: Well, all right. 0verruled.

The question really is did you submit a declaration that was utilized by Canadian authorities for some legal purpose.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, and it was a different sequence from what you had mentioned there.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What was the sequence?

A The sequence was they used the declaration, and the declaration was used, from what I was told by the Canadian officials, my affidavit or declaration was used as part of the evidence in obtaining a search warrant. And I spoke to them after that fact and after the search had been carried out.

Q And did that declaration relate to Religious Research Foundation and MCCS in the funneling of Church funds?


MR. HARRIS: Objection; irrelevant, Your Honor. The timing, and also I thought again we had this agreement.

MR. FLYNN: That is going to be the last question, Your Honor, just so Your Honor will know that the witness has filed declarations with respect to MCCS.

THE COURT: Well, of course, the fact that he might have disclosed something that we might conclude is privileged here in some other proceeding wouldn’t make it non-privileged here.

MR. FLYNN: No, it wouldn’t, Your Honor. But the fact that there is an ongoing criminal investigation with regard to future fraudulent activity of the Church might be something –

THE COURT: I can’t — this certainly wouldn’t be evidence. It would be hearsay; and all we know is that he gave a declaration. Everything else would be hearsay, and what their purpose was, getting into all kinds of collateral issues. I will sustain the objection.

MR. FLYNN: Fine, Your Honor.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, during the period of time that you were involved in the Church of Scientology and were working with Mr. Hubbard, did you hear him make thousands of statements?

A Yes.

Q And in connection with your duties as the biographer for L. Ron Hubbard in possessing his materials, did you attempt to select for Mr. Garrison and review with Mr. Garrison representations made by Mr. Hubbard in writing


that you felt were the most significant in terms of their being publicly disseminated and relied upon by Scientologists and the public?

MR. HARRIS: It is really a compound question, Your Honor, and I object.

THE COURT: Well, it probably is. I will sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you attempt to address representations made by Mr. Hubbard in writing that you felt were the most significant?

A Yes. I discussed that sort of thing in those representations with Mr. Garrison many times.

Q And what was the basis for your selecting representations that you were dealing with Mr. Garrison on in the biography project, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. HARRIS: I certainly didn’t understand the question. I hope Your Honor did. it is vague and ambiguous.

THE COURT: Well, maybe in the way you phrased it, it is vague and ambiguous to you; is that what you are saying?

MR. HARRIS: That is what I am saying.

THE COURT: You are asking me whether it is also vague and ambiguous to me?

MR. HARRIS: I think so. I am soliciting a ruling, if I can have one.

MR. FLYNN: I may be too close to it. I will withdraw it.

Q Were there particular factors, Mr. Armstrong, that you relied upon in selecting areas of Mr. Hubbard’s life


that you felt were pertinent for the biography?

A Well, in selecting areas, the guidelines on which I had to work were what had been published up to date about his life, so the guidelines initially, at least, that I worked is was looking for supporting documentation for those facts.

There were some facts which were more important in my mind; the way that I perceived L. Ron Hubbard, the way I thought of him and what I thought to be the truth at that time about his business and what was most significant in my mind, but generally, at least until I had assembled a fairly comprehensive chronology of the man’s life, I followed the stories that had been published by him up to that time.


Q Now, when you were collecting documents, did you collect various biographical sketches that had been issued over the years about Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And the documents that are currently under seal, did you select out some of the biographical sketches that were available to you in 1982 that you sent to me?

A Yes.

Q Now, at that time what — let me ask you this: What percentage of the documents presently under seal comprises the total amount of documents that you collected for the biography project.

MR. LITT: Objection. Unintelliglble, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is 2 percent; isn’t it?

MR. FLYNN: I am not sure it is on the record.

THE COURT: I think it has been about three times.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q Is it about 2 percent?

A That is a pretty good figure.

Q Are there many biographical sketches of Mr. Hubbard that you saw that are not under seal?

A Yes.

Q Now, with regard to exhibit A on the defendant’s list of documents under seal –

THE COURT: I already marked that double-V. We’ll mark it double-V for identification.

MR. LITT: Is that this document?

MR. HARRIS: There is a document that has not been


marked which is called "List of Misrepresentations Made Publicly by L. Ron Hubbard."

THE COURT: We have just marked it double-V for identification.

MR. HARRIS: I think Mr. Flynn is referring to some other document at this point.

THE COURT: I think he was referring to the sub-heading A, "Naval Period." He referred to A. I don’t know why. But be that as it may –

MR. FLYNN: The list of Misrepresentations Made Publicly by L. Ron Hubbard is now double-V.

THE COURT: Double-V as in "Victor/Victoria."

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are there documents under seal, Mr. Armstrong, which contain biographical sketches of L. Ron Hubbard relating to his Naval background?

A Yes.

Q As set forth in double-V?

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: For the record, the defendant’s list of exhibits from documents under seal is exhibit 15, Your Honor.

The first item on exhibit 15 is a brief biography of L. Ron Hubbard, four pages which has also been marked as part of exhibit 8 of the defendant; may we have that first exhibit, Your Honor?

And while we are doing it, I would say all the way in the defendant’s list of exhibit A through –

THE COURT: We have our court exhibits now which have


been marked up to double-V. If you are referring to under seal exhibits, perhaps you should say specifically  "under seal exhibits" such-and-such, if that is what you are asking for.

MR. FLYNN: That is correct, Your Honor.

May we have exhibits A through U that are under seal?

I think, Your Honor, because of the fact that we only have one set that there is going to be somewhat of a laborious process.

THE COURT: I suspect so.


THE COURT: Well, the clerk has these now. What do you propose to do with them?

MR. FLYNN: I’d like to put them in front of the witness.

Apparently A has already been marked, Your Honor, as Exhibit H.

THE COURT: Here is Exhibit H.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, when you were preparing a collection of documents for the biography of L. Ron Hubbard, did you find Exhibit A, which is Exhibit A under seal, which has been marked Defendant’s Exhibit H?

A Yes.

Q And at that time did you intend to document the representations that had been made about L. Ron Hubbard in Exhibit A under seal, Defendant’s Exhibit H?

A Yes.

Q Starting with the first line under "Hubbard, Lafayette Ronald, BS in Civil Engineering, George Washington University"; did you attempt to document that?

A Yes.

Q And what did you find?

A I found within his naval records a number of statements which proved that there was no Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering.

Q And were his transcripts among the naval records?

A Yes.


MR. FLYNN: One of the problems with the naval records is they are extremely voluminous and they go all over the place as to what I am going to try to do first is go through this and go back and select out portions that I’d like to have marked.

THE COURT: I think before we do that, we probably ought to determine what we are doing with this evidence in the sense that, as I understand, the defense is that there is basically, there is a privilege which relates to the documents that were submitted to you or to Contos & Bunch that had to do with his lawsuit or his fear of being sued.

Now, it seems to me if that is the thrust of this evidence, the thrust is then why did he take certain documents? How did it relate to his belief that this would be necessary to defend himself in this lawsuit with the Scientology people as distinguished from whether something is true or not true in the abstract, if you follow what I am saying.

MR. FLYNN: I do, Your Honor.

Q Mr. Armstrong, when the Suppressive Person Declare was issued on you, you were accused of defaming Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And when you were ordered to be sec checked by Mr. Starsky, the issue was that you had made misrepresentations about Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And when you sent me the documents that you did,


what was your purpose?

A To be able to defend myself in the attack that I knew that was going to begin to prove the falsity of the Declare which had been brought on about me; to seek legal advice as to what exactly I could do, how exactly to go about my legal defense.

Q And for that reason, you sent documents that you believed would prove that what you had been saying about L. Ron Hubbard was true?

A Yes.

Q So, therefore, did you send me documents relating to Mr. Hubbard’s educational background?

A Yes.

THE COURT: I don’t know. Maybe in the two days the witness has been on the stand he’s testified to so many things, but what is it that you were saying that you were being told was untrue? Who were you saying it to? What were you saying?


THE COURT: Maybe I missed some of this. You have a lot of exhibits.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: For example, you sent a letter to Cirrus Slevin which has been marked double-I in which you were telling the organization that Mr. Hubbard had not graduated from Columbia College; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And did you find documents under seal which proved that he didn’t graduate from Columbia College?

A The documents which I found are now under seal, at least some of them, yes.

Q And did you find documents under seal which related to the Caribbean motion picture expedition of 1933?

A Yes.

Q And to the West Indies minerals of 1934?

A Yes.

Q And the Columbia Pictures, 1935?

A You are asking me are these under seal?

Q Are these under seal?

A I don’t believe there is anything on that.

Q On Columbia Pictures?

A Not specifically, no.

Q But are there documents that are in the possession of the organization –

A Yes.

Q — that relate to that?

A Yes.


Q And with regard to his many screen credits, are there documents under seal that relate to that?

A Yes.

Q For example, "Dive Bomber"?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to his being the Provost Marshal of Korea in 1945, are there documents under seal relating to that?

A Yes.

Q And whether he was a Hollywood director, are there documents under seal that relate to that?

A I believe so, yes.

Q And with regard to L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., are there documents under seal that relate to Guardian’s Office activities against L. Ron Hubbard’s son?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to Omar Garrison discovering that previous biographical sketches of L. Ron Hubbard are false, are there documents under seal that prove that?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to Commander Thompson, Mr. Hubbard’s relationship to Commander Thompson, are there documents under seal that relate to that?

A I don’t know if there is anything specifically on that, but at least by inference.

Q Are there documents in the possession of the organization that specifically relate to Commander Thompson?

A Yes.


Q That are not under seal?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to Hubbard’s activities between 1925 and 1929, are there documents under seal that relate to that?

A Yes.

Q And are there many inconsistent statements by Mr. Hubbard in documents under seal relating to what his activities were between 1925 and 1929 when he claimed he was studying in Asia?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to the fact that L. Ron Hubbard owned a cattle ranch in Montana, are there documents under seal relating to that?

A The story was L. Ron Hubbard’s grandfather owning the cattle ranch. I don’t know if there is anything specifically on that under seal.

Q But in the course of your research did you find documents that are in the possession of the organization relating to that subject?

A Yes.

Q And did his grandfather ever own a cattle ranch?

MR. LITT: Objection. It calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are those among the things that you were telling the organization that those facts about L. Ron Hubbard were untrue?

A Yes.


Q And did you have conversations with Vaughn Young during that period of tine about many facts relating to L. Ron Hubbard’s background?

A Yes.

Q And are many of those facts relating to his background set forth in exhibit double-V?

MR. HARRIS: Objection. Vague and ambiguous at this point.

There is no referent, just general conversations, many of those.

THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection, the form of the question.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to exhibit double-V, Mr. Armstrong, taking the naval period, ". . . fought in five theaters," did you find documents under seal that disproved that Mr. Hubbard had fought in five theaters that you were bringing to the attention of the organization?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that, Your Honor, as calling for a conclusion. It is not in any exhibit which was read by Mr. Flynn. I am still not sure exactly what we are getting at at this point either.

The self-serving documents sent to Cirrus Slevin set forth, at least, some areas where Mr. Armstrong purportedly found or didn’t find information in respect to certain claims that were made. But at this point I think he has been through just about every conceivable item that, in his mind, at least, either wasn’t proved or was different than what the


representations were in certain biographies.

I think that is pretty well established by this witness’s testimony. But where do we go from here?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I submit that what the defense feels should be done is that the exhibits that disprove the representations about L. Ron Hubbard that became the entire focus of Mr. Armstrong’s difficulties with the organization and, really, the reason for this lawsuit, we believe the basic reason this case is in court is because this witness found out that the representations made about this man over a period of 30 years were false.

THE COURT: It seems to me that all that is fine. But what we are dealing with is what his explanation is for taking certain documents and submitting them to you.

It seems to me more logical to have him look at a document, an exhibit, a list; this is something I took; this is why I took it; this is how it relates to why I wanted you to have it rather than, you know, I don’t — we are not here to in the abstract prove the truth or falsity of certain things. We are here to determine if he took them, why he took them; whether there is a legal breach as distinguished from other aspects of whether he had consent to have them in the first place or whether there is a breach of any duty or other reasons.


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Starting with Exhibit A, Mr. Armstrong, did you send me Exhibit A under seal?

A Yes.

Q And why did you send me that?

A Because that document contained a number of the representations in which I had relied and which I had discovered to be untrue-daring the course of my research; and to me it was an essential part of the evidence of the fraud which had been committed.

Q And what representations? Would you run through Exhibit A and state which representations you had relied upon which you found to be fraudulent?

A His study in the Far East, in China and India under Llama priests; his educational background, that he was an engineer; his excelling at his classes; the claim that he was, by all these facts, a war hero.

Q And what facts were you specifically referring to?

A Well, that he was the first casualty from the Far East; that he was the individual on whom the book and story "Mr. Roberts" had been written; that he commanded a squadron of, I believe it was Corvettes, but here they are antisubmarine war vessels; and that he in this particular document, the often repeated claim that he had combined his scientific abilities and studies with the philosophy of the East that he had studied in such depth.

Those are mainly the facts that I can glean quickly from this thing.


Q Did you at one point undertake to establish almost a line-by-line verification of statements that are made, for example, is Exhibit A when you were doing the project?

A Yes. I did not do it for this particular document, but I did it for other biographical sketches or dust jacket material that had bean published at that point or was being published. I did it in relationship to the newer materials which had been published on Mr. Hubbard.

Q Now, with respect to Exhibit H entitled "Facts About L. Ron Hubbard, Things You Should Know," Flag divisional directive.

THE COURT: I am sorry, counsel. H?

MR. FLYNN: H under seal.

THE COURT: What we had was A under seal, which is H in our trial. Now you have another document here. It is getting rather difficult.

What is it under seal known as H?

MR. FLYNN: H under seal, which has not been marked.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want it marked for identification?

MR. FLYNN: Perhaps the easiest way to do it would be to mark it as H under seal rather than to remark all of these.

THE COURT: Do you have any problem with that?

THE CLERK: I don’t have the space to write on the tag.

If you can put something in front of it or after it.

THE COURT: We could possibly mark the — it is kind of late now — the documents that are up here in court under


seal collectively as some number like 500, and then this could be 500-H.

MR. FLYNN: That is agreeable.

MR. LITT: That is fine, or you could do it with a letter.

THE COURT: Why don’t we mark this collectively, the documents up here in court will be Exhibit 500 for identification only, and then this one can be marked 500-H.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Why did you send me 500-H, Mr. Armstrong?

A Because it was a public relations product from the LRH office of public relations and laid out a number of the statements which were being made about Mr. Hubbard by PR’s at that time.

Q And what type of statements specifically?

A Well, they were — do you want me to run down the things from this?

Q Just quickly, just some of the representations from 500-H.

A Again, here is the — between 1925 and 1929, he journeyed throughout Asia. He was in Peking and Manchuria, studied under Llamas.


Again, graduated from Columbia College, George Washington.

Q That is dated 1974?

A Yes.

Here he is replaced, relieved — at the beginning — in the South Pacific he was relieved by 15 officers of rank and rushed home to take part in the 1942 battle against German submarines as commanding officer of the Corvet, Commodore of a Corvet squadron in 1944; received 12 medals in Palms; 1944, severely wounded and crippled and blinded. Received an extensive education in the field of human mind from Commander Thompson of the Medical Corps; personal student of Sigmund Freud.

Those were the main points from this that were often repeated and which I initially relied upon in getting involved.

Q And with respect to 500-I, what is 500-I?

A 500-I is a transcript of Mr. Hubbard’s autobiographical notes from Peter Tomkins.

Q Who is Peter Tomkins?

A Peter Tomkins was an author who, in the earlier seventies was going to do a biography of Mr. Hubbard.  And in response to some questions from Mr. Tomkins, Mr. Hubbard dictated the information which makes up his autobiographical notes.

Q How do you know Mr. Hubbard dictated it?

A Well, I saw the transcription when I was inside and saw the notes from Lynn Moore, later Lynn Visk, who was


the transcriptionist. She was the LRH transcriber at that time. She was in SO-1 Unit at that time.

Q Were there various representations made by Mr. Hubbard in exhibit 500-I that you found to be inaccurate?

A Yes.

Q And is that why you sent it to me?

A Yes. It had some — a great deal of significance to me because it was proof, at least, that the source of the misrepresentations was Mr. Hubbard himself and not just the organization acting independently of him which was something which was a problem that I ran into with Norman Starsky in which he stated that, yes, but Mr. Hubbard isn’t saying these things.

And I showed him that in fact the source of all of these representations about Mr. Hubbard was Mr. Hubbard himself.

And so that is why I sent — that is why this had some significance.

Q Without running through the representations, were there many in there that you found of a similar type that had been made in the other exhibits?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to 500-J, why did you send me that?

A Well, this was after similar things — although we don’t have the fact that this was done by Mr. Hubbard, the organization has that information. And just that in this public statement, even for nonscientologists, there are misrepresentations about what exactly he had done, especially


his war career.

Q What is 500-J from?

A "Two Thousand Men of Achievement, 1971."

Q Did you see that publication?

A Yes.

Q And is that now in the possession of the organization?

A Yes.

Q And were among the representations that Mr. Hubbard was a postgraduate of Princeton University?

A Yes.

Q And among the representations that he was in the office of the Provost Marshal of Korea?

A Yes.

Q Together with various expeditions and academic claims?

A Yes.

Q And 500-K, what is that, Mr. Armstrong?

A This was just some biographical facts which were put together. It is like a data sheet which was in the PR bureau when I was there. And it was part of the materials assembled for Mr. Garrison and part of the outline which I followed at the beginning of the biography project.

Q And were there line-by-line representations made about Mr. Hubbard in this data sheet?

A Yes.

Q And in connection with your duties for Mr. Hubbard, did you try to document these?


A Yes.

Q And did you find that they were almost universally false?

MR. LITT: Objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What did you find?

A I found that a great number of them were false.


Q Now, is that why you sent them to me?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to 500-L, what I, 500-L?

A 500-L, I believe, is a policy letter. I think this may even be published. That is broadly in what they call the green volumes, but I am not sure right now.

In any case, it was a standard policy letter in the organization.

Q And did it contain representations about L. Ron Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And did you find some of the representations in 500-L to be false?

A Yes.

Q And is that why you sent it to me?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to 500-0, are there more — with regard to 500-M, what is 500-M, Mr. Armstrong?

A 500-M is a questionnaire from the Explorers Club from 1947, and it was filled out by Mr. Hubbard in response to the Explorers Club questionnaire.

Q And is 500-N an application?

MR. LITT: Is that M or N?

MR.FLYNN: M was what the witness just testified about.

Now we are referring to 500-N.

MR. LITT: Okay.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was that an application for the Explorers Club that accompanied 500-M?


A They were not directly connected. There is a number of years between them. The questionnaire is 1947.
The application is 1939-1940.

Q Are there representations made both on 500-M and 500-N about Mr. Hubbard’s background?

A Yes.

Q And did you find representations on those two exhibits to be false?

A Some of them, yes.

Q Now, with regard to 500-O, what is 500-O?

A 500-O is a SEA Organization Executive Directive Flag dated 28 May 1975, and it is a mimeo issue which is put out at Flag which was on the 20th of May we were on board the ship.

This had to do with a survey which was done for the LRH image and a survey of personality traits, and I felt that in sending it to you that it was important in that it showed what Scientologists as a group, in fact, were looking for, what they considered as important personality traits.

Q And what was the most important?

A Under vital traits, 66 percent was "honest." Other big ones are "allow others to be themselves, truthful, trustworthy."

Q Do you know how this image survey was conducted?

A It was laid out here. I don’t recall exactly, but it would give how the tabulations were done, on how many people it was done.

Q And who was it done on?


A It was done on 175 field and on-board Scientologists — oh, wait, 275.

Q And from what areas of the world?

A From West U.S., which is here; East U.S., which is the East Coast; UK and Anzo, which is Australia-New Zealand.

Q This survey, do you know why it was done? Was it ordered by L. Ron Hubbard?

A It says that it is, yes.

Q And do you know why it was done?

A Surveys were done in order to establish buttons which were then used for sales or PR purposes to — if the public sought honesty, if they felt like this was a very desirable trait, then honesty was something which you would include in pieces — public relations statements or when selling products connected with Mr. Hubbard in this case, so honesty would be something that would be included as an observable part of any PR or sales campaign.

Q Now, with regard to Exhibit P, what is Exhibit P?


MR. FLYNN: 500-P.

THE WITNESS: 500-P is another SEA Organization Executive Directive. It is dated 19 September 1975, and this is a survey which was done regarding the LRH biography.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to information that people wanted to know about L. Ron Hubbard?

A Right. They were first of all looking to see whether or not an LRH biography was a product which


Scientologists wanted and then to narrow that done to establish what aspects of his life or of a biography would appeal to them.

Q And what was the percentage of Scientologists who wanted a biography?

A 89 percent.


Q Now, what is exhibit 500-Q?

A 500-Q is a flagship order which is a type of order which was issued aboard the ship. And it is dated 8 January 1975. And it is entitled "Facts About L. Ron Hubbard."

Q Was this distributed on board the ship, if you recall?

A Yes, it was.

Q And among these various exhibits that contain biographical sketches, are there misrepresentations from one biographical sketch to another?

A Do you mean is there something common or some contradiction between them?

Q Are there contradictions between them?

A Yes, there are.

Q And with regard to 500-R, what is 500-R?

A 500-R is an executive directive from L. Ron Hubbard.

It is dated July l2, 1968.

Q Why did you send me that document?

A It has to do with the Pers Sec position. And it has to do with LRH finances. And it has to do with the claim that he had resigned from control in 1968. And this, to me, evidences some control over finances subsequent to 19 — did I ‘68? ‘66.

Q And with regard to Pers Sec, why did you send it to me in connection with the duties of the Pers Sec?

A Because the Pers Sec was — Pers Sec later came to mean a number of things. But there was a Pers Sec in the UK who was a nonscientologist. I thought that this had some


bearing on the fact that nonscientologists were performing functions within the scientology network and that the same kinds of rules applied. She is handling accounts for him and –

Q Is there reference with regard to 10 percent of the moneys that go to L. Ron Hubbard’s accounts that were collected by World Wide?

A Yes.

Q What does "WW" mean?

A World Wide was the — it was the office in the UK which was at that time ostensibly to be in control of scientology.

Q And this was two years after L. Ron Hubbard supposedly resigned; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Was this contrary to the representations made in the document "What Your Fees Buy" that L. Ron Hubbard was not getting any money from the church?

A I saw that it was a part of the evidence which would show conclusively that he in fact did have control and was receiving moneys.

Q And is that why you sent it to me?

A Yes.

Q And was some of the materials in here contrary to what was being told scientologists throughout the period you were involved?

A I believe so. I believe that they show that that document and the same one in his handwriting shows that he was issuing orders and was in control at that point.


Q Now, the attachment to 500-R is the same document, only in the handwriting of L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you recognise that to be the handwriting of L. Ron Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q That showed that L. Ron Hubbard had issued this executive directive?

A Yes.

Q And is that why you sent it to me?

A Yes.

THE COURT: We’ll take a recess at this time. We’ll reconvene at 1:30.

(At 11:58 a.m. a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)




THE COURT: Very well, we are back in session.

Counsel are present.

GERALD ARMSTRONG, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: The witness has retaken the stand.

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

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: Okay, you may continue, counsel.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.


Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, referring again to exhibit 500-P entitled "LRH Biography Survey"; were there items contained on pages 2 and 3 that you thought were significant in connection with sending that document to myself and Mr. Bunch?

A Yes. I considered that the answers to the survey questions especially which related to — directly to the biography and directly to Mr. Hubbard’s attainments, and some of the answers indicated that people were expecting a particular thing and they were not getting it.

The question, "What makes people feel closest to



The answer, the largest survey response was, "Communication from LRH."

Included in that was personal letters from him, and people were not getting personal letters. They were getting false letters. They were being led to believe they were getting personal letters from him.

And the question, "What do people admire most about Ron?" 30 percent, which was the largest response said, "The volume of his attainments, especially Scientology and Dianetics Tech."

The second biggest response was "His persistence, courage, purpose, certainty."


Q And with regard to Item No. 9 on page 3, what was the largest percentage that — what factor represented the largest percentage of things that people wanted to hear Ron talk about?

A His own experiences and activities.

Q Now, with regard to exhibit R, 500-R, which is in the handwriting of L. Ron Hubbard, did that relate to or have reference to the fact that the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard handled his personal affairs?

A Yes.

Q And in 1980-1981, were you in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?

A That is correct.

Q Now, why did you send exhibit 500-S to my office or to Contos & Bunch?

A This document entitled "Executive Directive See Organizational Executive Directive, 18 February 1976," shows that the personal — the Pers PRO Bureau, called the Office of LRH Personal PRO International is in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard and goes on to describe it as Ron’s personal or own personal organization to serve him directly or to assist him in his many activities.

This document describes the post of LRH Personal PRO International which was part of the PR Bureau of which I was a part.

Q And that document is dated when, Mr. Armstrong?

A 18 February 1976.

Q And did part of exhibit 500-S show the command


lines in the personal office?

A Yes. This is actually a different document. And we stapled it together, I believe, during our examination of the documents. And it is a flag bureau data letter. And the flag bureau is where the organization was at this time in Clearwater or on board the ship. And they had to do with the international management of all scientology and peripheral organizations.

And this contains — this is dated 8 December 1975. And it contains a little sketch which shows how the personal PRO’s are underneath L. Ron Hubbard.

Q And exhibit 500-T, which has been marked as Defense Exhibit DD, is the documents.

Why did you send me that, Mr. Armstrong?

A That had particular significance which I mentioned to you earlier; that it began the research project; that it was the first instance in which I noted contradictions between what Mr. Hubbard had said publicly in various places. And this contained a number of these contradictions. And I considered it very significant from that viewpoint.

Q And that, again, was dated February 1980; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Relating back to an incident that occurred before and then after the war; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q How many contradictions in a single piece of paper did you find in connection with Mr. Hubbard’s background?


A There is about four or five fairly clear contradictions.

Q What are they?

A First of all, that he had written the screen play for "Dive Bomber" for Warner Brothers.

Secondly, the posh Riverside Drive apartment, the fact that he said, "Mail a check"; that the check was to go to the Explorers Club; that there was a holiday in the Caribbean at the end of the war; that they didn’t have movies where Mr. Hubbard went during the war.


Q Now, with regard to the posh New York office which he closed just before shipping out for the South Pacific, are there documents among the Naval documents that relate to his financial position and creditors chasing him for the first few years of the war?

A Yes.

Q With regard to document 500-U, why was that sent to Mr. Bunch or to myself?

A I think this relates to a –

Q Make that Ms. Dragojevic. She wants to get inculpated, Your Honor. So this relates to an around-the-world trip, I recall, and it was in Mr. Hubbard’s handwriting, and it is simply — I don’t have a date on it, but it would have been in the ’60s and he is first of all referring to himself as Dr. Hubbard, and secondly he is writing it as if to be from someone else, and he is talking about an around-the-world flight, and I only thought that it might have some significance because to me it evidenced the same sort of mentality and the same hyperbole that he had been putting out about himself for so many years, and here he is an adult of 50-some-odd years old and he still is producing the same sort of — I don’t know, braggadocio or something like that.

Q When you say he wrote this as if someone else was writing it, what do you mean by that? You mean he was producing it as a PR or propaganda tool as if written by someone else when he, in fact, wrote it?

A Right, that’s correct.


MR. HARRIS: I will object to that, Your Honor.

Leading, calling for a conclusion.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. It seems to me — maybe there is something he can read from that that — from which he drew certain conclusions.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: How does it start off, Mr. Armstrong, under Dr. Hubbard?

A (Reading:)

"Dr. L. Ron Hubbard of Saint Hill Manor has just returned to East Grinstead from a jet flight around the world in 32 days."

Q And who was it sent to?

THE COURT: If it was.

THE WITNESS: Well, the instructions are to type and send at once to East Grinstead Observer. Someone named "Norma" then in the Hubbard communications office Worldwide was to get this — was to type it.

MR. FLYNN: May I have the next batch in order, please?

Q Did that end up with "S" or "T"?

A This is "U".

THE COURT: Why don’t you hand me the collection and I can return them to the clerk.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, directing your attention to exhibit 500-V, Mr. Armstrong, which bears at the top "To Rhona; Write letter to Daily Sketch as follows:"

Why did you sent that to me?

A There were a number of documents which showed


that Mr. Hubbard had authored correspondence to the press, correspondence to authorities, to the police and so on, and then had someone else sign his or her name to it or an organizational post to it, and I sent them because it indicated this pattern of having other people in the organization front for him.

In this particular one he threatened — there is a suit against the Daily Sketch, and that is the reason. It indicated as well a pattern of using the law and threatening use of the law on a continual basis.

Q Now, where in this document, exhibit 500-V, did it indicate that the document was being written or — strike that.

The document is in L. Ron Hubbard’s handwriting; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And under the instructions he was advising that someone else issue it under someone else’s name?

A Yes, the person "Rhona" was to type it. One document was to be signed by the secretary of the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International. Another was to be signed by Jack P. secretary.

There was a Jack Parkhouse involved at that time who was an officer in one of the corporations.


Mr. Hubbard claims at this point that, apparently, the person who wrote it, the man "Scott," is a known mental patient. And this struck me because it is the sort of wild allegation which he has made in attacking anyone who he perceived as attacking him and then using someone else to sign and to front for him.

Q Now, what, if anything, did he show you with regard to Hubbard’s use of corporations to do his personal business?

A Well, I can’t tell you at this time because my recollection — I believe this is written during a time in which he was the — actually, was a director. I considered it important just to show the fact that he did use throughout that period other people to front for him which practice continues to this day.

Q Now, in that document did he claim that he was an author and not a medical practitioner?

A No. It was a mental practitioner.

Q A mental practitioner?

A Right.

Q Did you find other documents where he claimed to be a mental practitioner?

A Yes. There are.

Q In this one he was claiming that he was not, but he was an author; is that correct?

A That is another reason why I sent the documents that I did send, because even between the documents there are contradictions as to what Mr. Hubbard was claiming at


various times. And the pattern which emerged for me was one of opportunism. Depending on the particular situation, he would claim to be a — at one point a mental practitioner; at another point, deny it; at one point to say that he is a scientist; at another point to claim that he is a religious leader. And there were contradictions which ran throughout the documentation, depending on the situation.

Q Now, why did you send exhibit 500-W, the data sheet?

A That is because it is in Mr. Hubbard’s writing and contains in his own writing the claim that he was — that he had a Bachelor of Science; also, in here he claims that Scientology is a branch of psychology. In other places he attacks psychology and psychologists, claiming that they don’t know anything and that Scientology is a religion.

So he changed his story from time to time, depending on the situation.

Q Now, why did you send me exhibit 500-X?

A This is one of the biographies which I believe has already been — we have already gone over this one.

This is the same document as the four-page brief biography of L. Ron Hubbard that I believe is HR — and so, for the same reasons, this is just another example of it. This is a publication which I saw, one of the first documents, in getting into Scientology.

Q Now, do you know whether this particular exhibit was widely disseminated in the late 1960s when you got involved with the organizations, Mr. Armstrong?


A I really can’t say how widely. I saw this publication very early. I really have no way of knowing. I have seen this same thing written in different manners, in different formats.

My best estimate is that it was very widely published and distributed.

Q Does this contain the same contradictions and misrepresentations you found with regard to Mr. Hubbard’s biographical background that you found in earlier biographical sketches?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: Objection; vague.

What same?

THE WITNESS: Oh, well –

MR. HARRIS: We get the picture, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I’ll Overrule the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: 500-Y, Mr. Armstrong, why did you send my office that?

A This is a transcript of a lecture given by Mr. Hubbard. The lecture is a broadly published and sold lecture. And it is called "The Story of Dianetics and Scientology."

The initial reason why I had this had to do with the fact that in here is information on The Dive Bomber incident. And also, there is information in here on the — on Commander Thompson.

For me, it was a research tool. But ultimately it indicate where throughout this lecture Mr. Hubbard had


indicated a number of things which were untrue.

Q And did you hear the lecture with L. Ron Hubbard’s voice?

A Yes.

Q Of which that is a tape transcription; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q What specifically was in there in reference to The Dive Bomber?

A There is — he has got about — there is just about a minute, maybe more or less, devoted to The Dive Bomber.

This is, again, one of the things that set me off, where he says "I had sold a movie Dive Bomber. You may have seen the thing. Wallace Beery" and so forth way back.

I checked the credits and so forth. And Wallace Beery was not in the movie Dive Bomber. So that also set me off because one of the conclusions that I came to throughout all of this was that Mr. Hubbard’s memory probably is very faulty on what exactly he had done and who exactly he had worked with in various things because the contradictions were so voluminous that there probably is no way that he could have kept them straight after a while.

The contradictions just between this and the other story itself, without knowing everything else about the man, are considerable.

In here there is — he said, "I had never told any of my relatives about it, about the money. And I popped


$10,000 in $1,000 bills into it and closed the lock tight." In the other one, he was having a check sent to the Explorer’s Club.

MR. LITT: Can we have the page number?

MR. FLYNN: Page 17.

THE WITNESS: He said, "Well, I got out of the war; I didn’t take that for finances. I must confess to you that this subject, study in finance in advance was not really by the sweat of my brow. I took that and bought a yacht and went to cruise in the West Indies at the end of the war."

Then there is another thing here about collecting the treasury checks. And that was, again, a part of it because, "I had a nice big thick sheaf of treasury checks," but in other documents, he was flat broke and requesting a few dollars a month from the VA. So this was one of the initial things which I got at the very outset of the research. And it amounted to a great number of contradictions.

Q And 500-Z, Mr. Armstrong; why did you send that to my office?

A I sent this because it is in Mr. Hubbard’s handwriting. It had to do with his writing his own biographical materials to appear in a book "Who’s Who In California." And this is done in ‘67 and contained then some of the lies and hyperbole which I came to recognize as Mr. Hubbard’s.


The main thing was that it was in his own writing, and the war record here was important, service in five theaters 1940 to -46, 21 medals and palms, resigned 1950.

Q Now, with regard to 500-double B, and for the record 500-double A I can’t find, Your Honor, which is a summary of his naval career.

THE COURT: Is there something indicating it is not –

THE CLERK: The asterisk.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Let me ask you this: In going through the sealed documents several weeks ago, do you recall a shortened version of the summary of Mr. Hubbard’s naval career?

A Yes.

Q That was in the sealed documents?

A Yes.

Q And when you ware conducting your research –

MR. LITT: Can we take a look at that?

MR. FLYNN: I have another copy for you.

Q When you were conducting your research, did you get a longer version of the summary of Mr. Hubbard’s naval career?

A I had not — among the Hubbard materials, I had something which is very similar to this document here.

I also had a copy of this document, and I also had a chronology composed of the documents which were from Mr. Hubbard’s archives which showed where he was practically on a day-to-day, if not week-to-week, basis.


Q Now, with regard to the daily chronology, where was that left, Mr. Armstrong?

A Well, it was — Mr. Garrison was provided with such a set of documents, the overall chronology. Another copy was made, and it was left in the Hubbard archives, although the originals were left in the Hubbard archives.

Q How, how did you reconstruct the daily chronology?

A Well, I went through all the naval records which I could find from the various sources. The majority of them came from the Dal Sol materials, and I put them all into chronological order so that they were by binder by year. So, I had a binder of materials for each year of the war, although the final binder covered 1945 through, I guess, 1950.

Q Now, this exhibit which I have shown you which, Your Honor, may it be marked next in order in Defendant’s Exhibits?

THE COURT: WW, double-W.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Just briefly, what did you conclude was the, in summary form, was the chronology of Mr. Hubbard’s activities during his naval career during World War II?

A It was not at all how it had been represented in the biographical material published up to that time on Mr. Hubbard. He was not a hero. He had not seen combat. He was not crippled and blinded. He was not wounded. He had never commanded a squadron of Corvettes. He was given


command of two vessels. He lost command of the first one before it had ever put to sea, and he lost command of the second one on a shakedown cruise when he fired on the Mexican Coast.

There was a recurring pattern of malingering, of fainting, medical problems, and of false reporting to his superiors.

Q Now, with regard to –

MR. HARRIS: I am confused, Your Honor, as to whether this is supposed to be Exhibit double-A under seal or whether this is a document which should be under seal and isn’t or what exactly the source of this is.



MR. FLYNN: I believe I clarified that with a question, but I will ask it again.

Q Mr. Armstrong, who is Mr. Hess?

A William Hess is a person that, although I never met, I knew the name also as Michael Linn Shannon, and Hess or Shannon was someone who I learned in 1981 was himself doing extensive research into the past and credentials and background of Mr. Hubbard. And I obtained a copy of this document at the time and I really don’t know if it came from someone by the name of Perry Chapdelaine, an old Dianeticist who obtained information from Hess or Shannon, if it came from the Clearwater report, because I also had a copy of that, or also documents collected by Hess or Shannon were provided by Vaughn Young because he had access to them from


the Guardian’s office and he picked up whatever there was at one point, which was even more extensive than the materials I had from Shannon at that point.

So the copy I had or copies could have come from a number of sources outside the organization. This is
not something which was included in Mr. Hubbard’s archives at that time.

MR. LITT: But obtained while he was an employee and before he left the Church?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I will represent to the Court that that particular document, WW, comes from my files which I have had for years.

Now, what we found in the naval files was a shortened version of that chronology in the archives which we thought marked double-A. It could have been our error when we marked these documents and that may explain why there is no double-A, but I believe that there is a shortened version of Exhibit WW under seal.

Q Is that correct, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes, it is.


THE COURT: All right.


MR. HARRIS: I assume, therefore, that this document was not sent to Mr. Flynn in some defense; since Mr. Flynn now claims that it was his document; that he has had it for years; is that right?

THE COURT: Do you have any recollection of sending a copy of this to Mr. Flynn and Contos & Bunch?

THE WITNESS: No, I don’t, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That is exhibit WW, Mr. Armstrong?


Q BY MR. FLYNN: However, there is in your memory a shorter version of exhibit WW under seal; is that correct?

A Yes. There is something that is right along the lines which explain the chronology, something which explains the medals earned during the war.

Q Now, with regard to exhibit 500-BB, why did you send that to my office?

A Well, I sent you a great number of medical records or military records, rather, Naval records. And the reason that I sent all of the Naval records was because that was a period in Mr. Hubbard’s life which resulted in a great number of lies and misrepresentations. And it was that period which I relied on. And it was a period in which the stories which were told, you know, caused in me a great deal of reverence in which I held the man.

Q Was that your understanding with — what was your understanding with regard to the period out of which


Dianetics was born?

A that Dianetics came out of his necessity to confront his blindness and his lameness and to use what he knew of the mind and of atomic physics, of the wisdom of the East in order to synthesize the subject, the science of Dianetics.

Q Now, is there something significant to the date of exhibit 500-BB?

A I think the significance to me, what I noted, the date of this examination, this is a report of physical examination for appointment as an officer. And it is dated 4-18-41.

What struck me was that the vision, the eyes, the test for his eyes indicated a — on one hand, a 17-20 vision on the right eye, 17-20, and on the left, 15-20. And this was prior to the war. And his vision at the end of the war was not very different from this in the various eye tests that he took. And this is at the end of the war. You know, sometime later he was claiming that he was blinded.
And I saw no evidence whatsoever of his ever having been blinded; in fact, the vision pre-war and post-war was quite similar.

Q And, again, that was in April of 1941?

A Yes.

Q And do you recall from your recollection when L. Ron Hubbard received his orders to go to Australia?

A I don’t have any exact date, but I would think sometime in December 1941.


Q And do you recall when he arrived in Australia?

A Sometime in January ‘42.

Q And do you recall how long he remained in Australia?

A Not real close, but my recollection is he left in either February or March 1942.

Q So it would be less than 60 days; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you know whether Mr. Hubbard subsequently made a claim for defective vision from tropical sunlight?

A Yes.

Q Is that among the records we are going to get to?

A Yes.

Q Why did you send my office –

Incidentally, when Mr. Hubbard left Australia, under what circumstances we he ordered back to the United States?

A He had apparently caused a problem with his superiors in Australia. And there was a letter — it wasn’t exactly a letter of admonition, but it was definitely not a recommendation, which preceded him back to the U.S. He had — it appears he had been hard to control or he wouldn’t follow orders or something to that effect. But in any case, he did not leave Australia in good graces.

Q Now, in your research did you determine what the


situation was with regard to Naval forces in the battle of the Philippines that was going on at the time and the need for America to have men in the battle for the Philippines during the early part of 1942?

A No. I never got into it at that time.

Q With regard to exhibit 500-CC, why did you send that to me, Mr. Armstrong?

A This had to do with the necessity of time-tracking — a Scientology word, building a chronology regarding Mr. Hubbard’s activities and where he was at certain times. Because the — all of the claims that Mr. Hubbard has made regarding his Naval career and the heroism and the medals and the theaters of war in which he participated can only be shown in the mass of the documents which show on a very day-to-day basis where he was. This has to do with the end of the war.


Q Do you recall an endorsement on documents that Mr. Hubbard was found to be physically qualified for release from active duty on 5 December 1945?

A That is included in there.

Q And what if anything significant did you place on the claim of Mr. Hubbard that he was crippled and blinded at the end of World War II with regard to Exhibit double-C, Mr. Armstrong?

A I think that that and also indicating the movement of where he was at the time in conjunction with the other documents shows conclusively that he was not crippled and blinded.

Q Now, with regard to Exhibit double-D, Mr. Armstrong, why did you send that to my office?

THE COURT: Well, I think probably it should be noted that on Exhibit CC the bottom appears to be an affidavit signed by Mr. Hubbard signifying that the information was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and ability, 5 December 1945.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Why did you send me Exhibit double-D, Mr. Armstrong?

A It is entitled "A Record of Proceedings in the Naval Medical Survey Review Board" convened at the Navy Department by order of the Secretary of the Navy. It is dated June 11, 1948.

This document, in conjunction with other documents, shows that Mr. Hubbard was not crippled and blinded. Additionally, that he was making claims throughout


this period for particular ailments and later was to write he had cured himself completely during this period. I sent it because to me it indicated the — was part of the fraud which was being perpetrated on the Navy, the Veterans Administration and later on all Scientologists and potential Scientologists.

Q Now, with regard to page No. 2 on Exhibit double-D, did you find that there was — when you sent this document to me, that there was a notation accompanying Mr. Hubbard’s petition for veterans pension that he had claimed that he spent the ensuing year in a civilian hospital at his own expense?

A Yes.

Q And then the notation that he was asked to provide information to support the claim that he spent a year in a civilian hospital after World War II, and the notation was made that he did not produce any documentation; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, in fact, in other documents that are coming up, were you able to pretty much trace Mr. Hubbard’s
chronology during the year after World War II?

A Yes.

Q And among other things in the summer of 1942, did he marry Sarah Northrup bigamously?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: Your Honor –

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.


Q BY HR. FLYNN: Were you able to find whether Mr. Hubbard had spent any time in a civilian hospital after World War II?

A No.

Q Now, with regard to Exhibit 500-double E, in directing your attention to the parts that are paper clipped, why did you send these documents to my office, Mr. Armstrong?

A All of these documents refer to medical reports, naval records, medical surveys, all either at the end of the war or during a few years thereafter.

There are some earlier ones in here as well.

Taken altogether, they show that the claims made by Mr. Hubbard regarding his military career are not true. That he had lied regarding being crippled and blinded and being lame at the end of the rear and curing himself of blindness and injury.

Q And does the first paper clipped document indicate that Mr. Hubbard suffered from duodenal ulcers at the end of the war?

A Yes.

Q And do the records in general relate to various representations that were made by Mr. Hubbard before the Naval Retirement Board?

A There is information on that as well.

Q That contain representations about his activities during World War II?

A Yes.

Q And did you find those representations to be



A I can’t recall the specifics right now, but there is — it is possible to show that the representations from point to point vary, and some of them at least are false.


MR. LITT: Your Honor, I assume that all of these statements that are reportedly factual statements are coming in solely for Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind; I mean, he is making statements –

THE COURT: Conclusions that he has derived from the exhibits that he has reviewed. Obviously, he wasn’t there and he is not a doctor; he is making certain conclusions.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, with regard to 500-FF, why did you send me that documents, Mr. Armstrong?

A This has to do with his being given a commission as a Lieutenant JG, I believe. In there, there are two things noted: The first, that the physical defect, they are waiving the physical defect. And the physical defects that were noted on his examination were the eyesight, the imperfect vision. And there is another one noted, and that is the deficiency of his academic educational background because it was noted at that point in his application that he had not graduated from college. He had completed one year of college.

Q And did you find out whether his father, L. Ron Hubbard’s father, was a naval officer?

A Yes, sir.

Q And with regard to double-G which relates to Mr. Hubbard’s vision at the time of his commission dated
June 11, 1941, which is the day after the Exhibit 500-double F dated June 10, 1941, did you find a notation with regard to Mr. Hubbard’s vision?

A Yes. Here again, it is noted, defective vision


right eye, 17/20; left eye, 15/20; each corrected to 20/20.

Q Now, did you yourself, Mr. Armstrong, place a great deal of significance to the claim that Mr. Armstrong was crippled and blinded?

A I would say extreme amount of significance.

Q Did you believe that Dianetics was what cured the fact that he had been crippled and blinded?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to 500-double H, why did you send that to my office?

A This is part of the naval records. And it was Mr. Hubbard’s explanation of why he had done what he had done when he was in the National Guard.

The years 1926 and 1927, he said here he enlisted in the Montana National Guard.

Q This was supposedly when he was over in the Far East between 1925 and 1929?

A Yes. That had some interest for me for that reason; the fact that he had lied about his age had a small bit of significance to me.

Q He had lied about his age to get into the National Guard?

A Yes.

Q Did you find evidence at that point in time that Mr. Hubbard had left or flunked out of two high schools?

A I recall one high school. I have heard about the second, and I never did confirm that one way or another. But definitely Helena High School, Helena, Montana.


Q Now, in 1928 and ‘27, how old would Mr. Hubbard have been if he was born in –

A 15 or 16.

Q Now, with regard to Exhibit double-I, 500-double I, why did you send that to me, Mr. Armstrong?

A This has to do with the traveling time of Mr. Hubbard to and from Brisbane, Australia, the day he left U.S., the day he arrived in Australia.

Q What are those dates?

A Arrived in Australia January 11, 1942; sailed from the U.S. December 17, 1942.

Q 1941?

A 1941. I am sorry.

Arrived back in the U.S. March 23rd, 1942.

Q Now, do you recall whether December 17, 1941 was approximately ten days after Pearl Harbor?

THE COURT: We can take judicial notice of that.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, with regard to Exhibit double-J, Mr. Armstrong, why did you send me that?

A That is a telegram, a communication, from Australia from the naval attache in Melbourne regarding Mr. Hubbard being returned unsatisfactory for any available assignment. This thing is dated 17 February, 1942.


Q So Mr. Hubbard had been in Australia for approximately a month; is that correct?

A Yes. It also is of some interest to me because here he is ordered returned by Chaumont, and the Chaumont was a ship; and in one of his biographical sketches Mr. Hubbard claims to have been returned as the first casualty in the Far East in the Secretary of the Navy’s private plane, and it just wasn’t the case. He was returned on a ship of some sort.

Q And did you find any indication that when he was relieved of duty, he was relieved by 15 officers of rank?

A No.

Q And with regard to Exhibit double-K, why did you send me that, Mr. Armstrong?

A This is a letter from the Naval attache dated 14 February 1942, and it concerns the same incident of being, Mr. Hubbard’s being ordered back to the U.S.

One of the points indicates that he is not satisfactory for independent duty assignment. He is garrulous and tries to give impressions of his importance, and it goes on beyond that.

Q From then until the end of the war, in reviewing all of Mr. Hubbard’s naval records, did you ever find any period of time that he ever left the United States again?

A Yes. He left — he was on a ship at least in 1943 and sailed down the coast on a shakedown cruise. This was when he fired on the Coronado Islands.

Q Sailed from where to where, Mr. Armstrong?


A He was in the Albina Shipyard outside Portland, Oregon.

Q And then he sailed down to Los Angeles?

A Down south, yes.

Q Now, with regard to Exhibit double-L, why did you send me that?

A This has to do — it is from the Office of the — Office of Censorship dated April 22, 1942, and it shows where Mr. Hubbard was next assigned, and it takes note of the letter from the naval attache in Australia.

Q Now, do you recall finding notations in the biographical sketch that Mr. Hubbard was ordered back into the war against German submarines immediately upon returning to the United States?

A Yes.

Q And did you find naval records that indicated where Mr. Hubbard went when he came back from Australia?

A Well, there is two things that happened around that time. There was a time he spent in a hospital.

MR. LITT: Can we have what time we are talking about now?

THE WITNESS: This is the spring of 1942, and he spent some time, as it says here, in the Office of Naval Censorship or Office of Censorship.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, when he spent the time in the hospital, do you know what his claimed illness was?

A My recollection is duodenal ulcer, but I don’t recall right now exactly what it was.


Q And where did Mr. Hubbard go next?

A After a brief period in time, he was assigned to a small vessel which was being outfitted, I think it was a YP 422, and that was on the East Coast.

Q Do you remember whether it was in the Boston Naval Shipyards?

A Yes, it was.

Q And why did you send me double-M, Mr. Armstrong?

A This has to do with Mr. Hubbard’s removal from command of that vessel or his supervision in the refit of that vessel.

Q And do you know how long he was in command of that vessel while it was in the Boston Naval Shipyard?

A No. It was not very long. I don’t recall the exact date. It was not very long, and the vessel was being, I believe, converted from one thing to another, and they were mounting a deck gun on it.

In any case, he was removed from command and that communication refers to that removal.

Q That he was unqualified to command the vessel?

A That is how it was deemed by his superior officers, yes.

Q Now, with regard to Exhibit double-N, why did you send that to me, Mr. Armstrong?

A This is just — that is called a report of compliance with orders. It has to do with transfer from one point within the navy to another, and it indicates that he was detached from the YP 422.


Q And with regard the Exhibit double-O, does Exhibit double-O refer to the same period where he was being detached and sent to a new post or or new duty?

A Yes. This refers to the same removal.

[missing pages 1852-1853]

firing on the Coronado Islands, Mexican territory that he disregarded orders; that there would have been more drastic disciplinary action if it was under normal peace-time conditions.

This is a letter of admonition. I considered it a pretty important document in Mr. Hubbard’s war-time

Q And with regard to exhibit double S, why did you send me that?

A I think this is a duplication of the one we already have. This is a better copy. It is easier to read. This section at the bottom, section No. 9, it appears to be a duplicate of that other one.

MR. LITT: Is "that other one" referring to 500 QQ?

THE WITNESS: The other fitness report.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And with regard –

THE COURT: It appears to be a blow-up of QQ. It is SS, a blow-up of QQ.

MR. LITT: Thank you.

THE COURT: It appears that way.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to exhibit 500 double T, why did you send me that, Mr. Armstrong?

A This is — they call it "Annual Qualifications Questionnaire." It has some significance because it is dated October 17, 1948. And this was during a period of time or at a point where he had, in his Scientology and connected publications, cured himself completely. And — but here he is claiming that, "annual salary is low and uncertain due to


service connected disability."

And here he mentions that he is awarded a 50 percent disability. That was mainly the significance
of that.

Q In 1948 was that when he wrote Dianetics, the original thesis?

A That is when it is claimed that he wrote it.

MR. FLYNN: Is Your Honor going to take the break now?

THE COURT: Yes. We’ll take a break; take 15 minutes.



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

The witnsss has retaken the stand. Just state your name again for the record, sir.

You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: You may continue, counsel.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And, Mr. Armstrong, Exhibit 500-U, why did you send me that document?

MR. LITT: Is that U or W?

MR. FLYNN: 500-double U.

MR. LITT: Two U’s.

THE WITNESS: It has to do — it is another fitness report and has to do with the period of 8 July 1943 through 11 October 1943.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: This was after he was on the PC 815; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And up to a period when he went on the U.S.S. Algol?

A If not, it is shortly after that that he went to the Algol. It may be in ‘44. This has to do with — he was undergoing treatment at this point in the U. S. Naval Hospital, San Diego. This followed the incident of firing the shots on the Mexican Coast.

Q And do you recall what he was undergoing treatment for?

A I don’t see it on this document, but I believe


it again is the duodenal ulcer; and at this time there may be a claim of a hip injury, something like that where he had — he stated at one point he had fallen down a ladder at the beginning of the war, and I don’t know if this is the time. He was in the hospital a number of times, and I don’t recall if at this point he was claiming that or not.

Q And did you see documents after the war which indicated that he had faked the hip injury?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to Exhibit double V — with regard to Exhibit 500-double V, why did you send that to me, Mr. Armstrong?

A This is another fitness report, and it concerns the period from 28 September 1944 through January 27, 1945.


And this is the period or, at least, part of it when he was under instruction at the United States Naval School in Princeton, New Jersey.

Q Now, this was after he left his — he was ordered off his post on the USS Algol; is that correct, or
at the time of –

A I don’t know if he was ordered off that post or not.

He did apply for training or schooling or this particular school, my recollection. And I don’t know
if he was ordered off the Algol or simply transferred off or what it was.

My recollection is that it was a requested transfer.

Q Now, when you were collecting documents did you collect this document which is not under seal, but which you collected during the biography project?

MR. LITT: Can we know what "this document" is?

MR. FLYNN: May this be marked as defendant’s exhibit next in order, Your Honor?



Q BY MR. FLYNN: What is exhibit double X, Mr. Armstrong?

A It is two pages of the deck log from the Algol on which Mr. Hubbard was the navigating officer. And they are dated 27 September, and 28 September, 1944.

Q And with regard to the deck log dated 27 September


1944, did Mr. Hubbard sign it?

A Yes.

Q And the commanding officer was Axton Jones?

A Yes.

Q Who is Axton Jones?

A Well, Axton Jones was the captain of the Algol. And he is in another placed referred to as the captain in the story Mr. Roberts. And he is a somewhat infamous character, I guess, from that movie and book.

Q Based on your research was this before the Algol went to the South Pacific for duty, namely, this period relating to the ship’s log?

A My understanding is that it is — that the vessel sailed the day following this entry in the log and that Mr. Hubbard left the ship, I guess, on the 28th of September, ‘44.

Q Now, with regard to the first page of exhibit double X, there is a notation that the navigating officer reported to the OOD that an attempted sabotage had been made some time between 1530 and 1600 hours and the navigating officer was Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And a Coke bottle filled with gasoline and a cloth wick inserted had been concealed among the cargo which had been hoisted aboard and discovered in No. 1 hold. It had been discovered before being taken aboard. And the office of Naval Intelligence, the FBI and other authorities were called; did you possess this document during your period


of working on the biography?

A Yes.

Q And the next day after the FBI and the Naval Intelligence was called in when this Coke bottle was found in the hold filled with gasoline, did you note that the very next day Mr. Hubbard was transferred for further duty and instruction to the University of Princeton?

A Yes.

Q Now, did you research what connection the Navy had to Princeton during World War II?

THE COURT: This VV appears to begin on September 28, ‘44 when he left the ship. So I would think this entry preceeds VV which you have just discussed.

MR. FLYNN: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you going back to VV now?

There is a reference on what he was doing at Princeton. He was going to a military government course.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you find out what the affiliation between the Navy and Princeton was during World
War II?

A Well the Navy had a school of military government, at least, for a time on the Princeton grounds.


Q And do you know whether during World War II that is where officers went for 90 days just prior to their commission for instruction?

A I had heard that. I never came up with any documentation on that subject.

Q Now did you find out whether or not the School of Military Government run by the Navy at Princeton formed any part of the Princeton University curriculum, post-graduate or under-graduate?

A No, it would not have been considered post-graduate studies.

MR. LITT: Objection; nonresponsive.

THE WITNESS: Or under-graduate studies.

THE COURT: Well I will let it stand.

MR. FLYNN: I am going to need some more exhibits, Your Honor.


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now with regard to 500 Double X, Mr. Armstrong, would you look quickly through the portions of 500 Double X that are paperclipped and explain to the court why you sent me these documents.

MR. HARRIS: While the witness is looking, could I clarify exhibit XX, Your Honor?

Is this something that is also from Mr. Flynn’s files from years ago or should it be under seal?

THE COURT: I am not sure.

MR. FLYNN: Well, this document is under seal. I can also say –


THE COURT: He is talking about the one that was double X, not the sealed XX that you are just referring to, but the two page –

MR. FLYNN: That document, as I understand it, is not under seal.

Q But it is among the documents that you collected, Mr. Armstrong; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q You did not send me that document; is that correct?

A That is correct.

THE COURT: Presumably it was returned by Mr. Garrison to the church. Was it in his possession at one time?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, there was a copy, at least a couple of copies left in the archives and Mr. Garrison had one.

MR. FLYNN: I have it, Your Honor, from third sources.


MR. FLYNN: I have many of these Naval records from third sources, and I had them well in advance of the
Clearwater report being written in September 1941 — I mean September 1981.

THE COURT: Let’s don’t get sidetracked. Counsel just wanted to know where that one record came from.

MR. HARRIS: That’s right, and I understand from what I gather that this was obtained by Mr. Armstrong before he left the church and that it is not under seal. That is what I got out of it.


THE COURT: That is correct.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: It is not under seal, but you did collect it during the biography project and give it to Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q And do you recall whether in the Clearwater report there is specific notations to the USS Algol incident?

A Yes.

Q There are?

A Yes.

Q Now with regard to exhibit double X, why did you send me that, Mr. Armstrong?

THE COURT: This is 500?

MR. FLYNN: 500 double X.

THE WITNESS: These documents mainly concern Mr. Hubbard’s claims for disability at the end of the war,
physical examinations which he underwent at the end of the war and through a period up to, I guess, 1949. They refer to various claims, different claims which he was making at different times.

Q And in the period up to 1949, that was long after he had supposedly cured himself with Dianetics; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And there were extensive records relating to his claimed physical problems at that time?

A Yes.

Q And of what significance was that to you,


Mr. Armstrong?

A Well, the records showed to me that his claims that he had cured himself were false and also these documents, viewed alongside of the documents in which he claimed that even these problems were false led me to an overall conclusion that the man had been misrepresenting himself to virtually everyone for decades.


Q Now, among the medical records after the war were there records relating to his — to his vision?

A Yes.

Q And did those records show that his vision was about the same after the war as it was before if you

A Yes. There are — there are eye test results there. I don’t recall exactly what they were. The results were they would vary between 12-20 and 15-20.

Q Were those eye tests results taken for a period of years during World War II?

A There are a number of eye tests throughout the war and it appeared following the war.

Q And did you find information in these documents with regard to Mr. Hubbard’s medical history that he had given to medical officers at various times during World War II?

A Yes. And within those documents there are differences from report to report in his own claims from time to time and different periods.

Q And with regard to exhibit double Y, why did you send me that?

MR. LITT: Is this 500 double Y?

MR. FLYNN: 500 double Y.

THE WITNESS: This is a letter from the Navy provided to William F. Hess, 12 May, 1978. And it shows the medals which were earned by Mr. Hubbard during his Naval career.

Q And how many medals are there?

A Four.


Q And did you research what those medals were?

A Just roughly. I checked with a person who knew — who was himself a former Naval officer. And what those those were regular service or campaign medals which were issued to virtually everyone involved in the service at that time or in that particular zone either in the U.S. or outside the U.S. They were standard military medals.

Q Now, with regard to exhibit 500 WW, would you look at the paperclipped portions of that exhibit and explain why you sent them to me?

A The first one is a letter from Mr. Hubbard to the chief of Naval personnel, Washington, DC.

He at that point had been assigned to the office of censorship after being returned from Australia. And
this had to do with his request for a — to be reassigned to another — for patrol torpedo boats in the Caribbean. And it indicated his qualifications for — or what he considered his qualifications at that point.


Q Now, did his qualifications relate in part to his experience in navigation and commanding expedition
vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Alaskan waters?

A Yes.

Q And are there other documents under seal that relate to the commanding of those expeditions?

A I believe there is something there on the subject of the Alaskan trip. I don’t know of anything to do
with the Caribbean trip.

Q With regard to the Caribbean trip, did you collect documents relating to the Caribbean trip?

A Yes.

Q And where are those documents?

A In the archives.

Q And do they relate to the supposed Caribbean expedition that are in the archives?

A Yes. There was a Caribbean expedition.

Q And what was it?

A It was in the summer of 1932, and Mr. Hubbard, along with other young men, chartered a sailing vessel, a four master, and they sold shares or tickets to other college students and people to go on this Caribbean cruise, and it was not completed. They ran out of money and they ran out of water, and it was not a successful cruise or an expedition.

Q Did some of the college students make claims against Mr. Hubbard’s family as a result of that?

A Yes. Following the return of the vessel, and even before, I believe, a lot of people, students on board


left the ship in Bermuda, came home. Mr. Hubbard left the ship himself early, and there were a number of claims which exist in Mr. Hubbard’s archives, claims of people who requested money back, money that they had put into the expedition which did not then materialize.

Q Do you know who actually sailed the ship and commanded the expedition?

A Well, there was a professional captain and crew who came with the vessel.

Q So it was a group of college students on a summer cruise?

MR. HARRIS: Well, objection, Your Honor, characterization and conclusion.

THE COURT: All right. Sustained.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And there are documents with regard to the Alaskan waters trip?

A I don’t believe there is anything under seal, but there is a file or two files of information which I collected on the Alaskan trip.

Q Well, there are some — Mrs. Hubbard, the first wife, accompanied Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And there are letters between the two of them relating to that trip; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And some of those are under seal?

A Yes.

Q Now, what was this Alaskan trip?


A Actually, it was not really an Alaskan trip.

It was called the Alaskan Radio Experimental Expedition, but it did not turn out to be that. They took, I believe, a 27-foot ketch.

Q "They," being who?

A Mr. Hubbard and his wife; up the Inland Passage, up the coast of British Columbia to the southern end of the Alaskan Panhandle, and that was the area which, if anything was charted, it had to do with the coast of British Columbia. The information which was provided to the U.S. Hydrographic Officer, and there was some provided, although not of the magnitude indicated by Mr. Hubbard, he has claimed that he rewrote the "Alaska Pilot."

Q What is the "Alaska Pilot"?

A The Alaska Pilot is a book of navigational information, and I guess it would have small charts, but mainly navigational things to look for, lights, buoys, that sort of thing, coast water flows, and he did supply some information having to do with the coast of British Columbia but not the coast of Alaska.

Q But this 27-foot sailing yacht went up the inland waterway; is that your testimony?

A Yes.

Q And Mr. Hubbard used that in part to show his experience with regard to marine expeditions?

A Yes.

Q Now, what is the significance of this paper clipped portion of Exhibit 500-WW dated June 5, 1942,


Mr. Armstrong, and the documents inside the paper clip?

A It had to do with Mr. Hubbard’s purchase of some uniforms while in Australia and his apparent non-payment of the bill for those uniforms; and then the company from whom he bought the uniforms made a claim against the Navy, and there is various documents from the Navy and his response to their claim.

Q Now, this was in 1942 when he claimed that he had $10,000 in a safe deposit box?

A Yes.


Q And with regard to this next paper-clipped area, do those documents relate to the same thing?

A Yes.

Q Claims of creditors?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to –

MR. LITT: Is there a date on this next, whatever?

MR. FLYNN: April 1942.

Q And are there other documents relating to the same claims from creditors, Mr. Armstrong, in exhibit WW?


MR. FLYNN: 500-WW.

THE WITNESS: I don’t recall if the other claims are in this or not.

There is another that I know of from the — an Alaskan Bank. I don’t know if it is included in this. It is somewhere in these documents. It may be.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: The claim for the Alaskan Bank, did that emanate before World War II, or afterwards?

A The bill was apparently during the time when Mr. Hubbard was in Ketchikan in 1940. And the bill finally caught up with him, I believe, in 1942 or 1943 during which time he was in the navy.

Q Now, there are other documents in here relating to his medical condition; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q At various points during World War II?

A Yes.


Q And why did you send me all of these documents, Mr. Armstrong?

A Because the complete body of documents, official and unofficial documents from Mr. Hubbard’s period of service in the navy indicate that he subsequently completely misrepresented his period in the navy to scientologists and to nonscientologists.

Q Now, in some of the documents on exhibit WW, did they assist you in recreating the chronology of Mr. Hubbard’s activities during World War II?

A Yes.

Q And all the documents that you sent me relating to the period in the navy, did you use those to reconstruct Mr. Hubbard’s chronology?

A Yes.

Q Now, exhibit double-Z, what is that, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. HARRIS: May I approach so I can read over the witness’s shoulder, Your Honor?


THE WITNESS: This is a document from Admiral Braisted.

And it indicates that Mr. Hubbard’s removal from the PC 815 reporting for temporary duty at — I can’t read that point, but in any case, it is right at the time following the incident in which the shots were fired off the Mexican Coast.


Q And with regard to 500-triple A, why did you send me that?

A This is the 3rd of October 1945 up to October 17, 1945, and Mr. Hubbard — this is the end of the war. He never saw any further combat duty, but he — here is the recommendation of the board. I can’t read what board it is, but in any case it is a naval board and they said, "This officer is considered physically qualified to perform duty ashore preferably within the continental United States."

Q What is the date of that?

A 3 October ‘45. This is a date in which Mr. Hubbard claimed to have been a supposedly helpless cripple, crippled and blinded; and here they are saying that he is qualified to perform duty ashore.

Q And with regard to Exhibit 500-triple B and -triple C, did those relate to the chronology of Mr. Hubbard’s activities in the Navy and his compliance with orders?

A Yes.

Q And is that why you sent them to me?

A Yes. They fill in part of the chronology.

Q With regard to 500-triple D, did you send that to me because of representations made by Mr. Hubbard and signed by him with regard to his qualifications for certain duty?

A Yes. This is when Mr. Hubbard was on board the Algol, and it is a request for him to appointment to the School of Military Government.

Q And this is before the Algol sailed into the


south pacific and into combat; is that correct?

A I understand that. I have never seen any documentation to confirm that one way or the other.

Q Did you ever find any documentation that Mr. Hubbard ever went into the South Pacific and into combat?

A No.

Q Among the representations made by Mr. Hubbard was that he was educated as a civil engineer; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And conversant with a wide variety of languages; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And that he was widely traveled in the Far East; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And experienced in handling natives, all classes in all parts of the world; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And are those documents under seal, Mr. Armstrong, which show Mr. Hubbard at the time was seeking to use this to get an appointment to the School of Military Government; is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And is that why you sent it to me?

A Yes.

Q And are there documents under seal which show that what Mr. Hubbard’s activities in the Far East had been


prior to his service in the Navy?

A There are documents which show at least to some degree what they were and indicated the limited amount of travel in the Far East.

Q And what do those documents show?

A That the trip in which he actually was in Peking was a trip sponsored by the YMCA.

Q And how long did it last?

A I don’t have the exact time, but it was a brief trip, perhaps on a train a week or two weeks total.

Q And the documents with regard to that trip reveal what, Mr. Armstrong?

A That indeed he did encounter some Llama priests, but that the knowledge which he imbibed at that time was that they sounded like bullfrogs.

Q Is that what he noted in his diary?

A Yes.

Q And was that the extent of the diary entries with regard to the Llama priests during his two weeks on the YMCA trip?

A That diary was from 1928, and there is no indication of any time after that where he was ever in the East again.

Q Now, prior to that had he been in Guam for part of a summer with his father who was a naval officer?

A Yes.


Q And was this after he had flunked out of high school?

A Yes.

Q And how long was he in Guam, Mr. Armstrong?

A I don’t have the exact date, but it appears from travel records that it was at least a couple of months.

Q And are there — is there any document under seal which is a letter from his father to George Washington University trying to gain admission for Mr. Hubbard relating to his Guam experience?

A Yes.

Q Now, exhibit 500-EEE, why did you send me that?

A These documents refer to the Board of Investigation which was convened on Mr. Hubbard because of the shots fired from the ship which he commanded at that time.

Q And does that Board of Investigation generally indicate that Mr. Hubbard was not a war hero?

A Well, what it indicates is that — this was the last vessel that he had command of during the war. And he was not successful in command of that vessel and he did not in fact act as a commander of a squadron of Corvets.

Q Now, is exhibit triple-F essentially a better copy of some of the materials that have already been marked regarding Mr. Hubbard being relieved of the command of the YP 422?

A Yes. I don’t recall the number, but we have already seen this one. This is the one in which the — it states, " . . the opinion of the commandant he is not tempermentally fitted for independent command."


They have three documents, actually, here. One of them refers to his being sent hone from Australia aboard the CHEAUMONT and this one refers to his removal from the YP YP 422.

Q Now, with regard to triple-G, does triple-G contain representations by Mr. Hubbard with regard to some of his background and experience?

A Yes. This is a request for orders; requested that he be given orders to landing vessels such as LST’s and lays out at that point his chronology to date in the navy. And this document is dated 19 October 1943.

Q And with regard to exhibit triple-H, are these the documents you were referring to with regard to the Bank of Alaska chasing Mr. Hubbard as a creditor?

A Yes.

Q Is that why you sent them to me?

A Yes. They are making a claim against him of $265.

And his response is that he is at this time broke or that he is not making enough now to pay back the $265.

Q Is that a letter that he sent dated October 28, 1944, signed by him?

A 1942, yes.

Q 1942. That he was broke?

A Well, that he was not making enough to be able to pay the $265 bill.

Q And did you send that to me because you felt that it contradicted his claim that he had $10,000 in the bank or


in a safe deposit box?

A That was a part of it.

I think just the fact that these form part of his naval career dossier which showed that it is completely different from what it has been represented.

Q Exhibit triple-I, triple-J and triple-K, do those relate to general to his naval career, his claims, creditor claims against him and chronology? They include triple-L in that also.

A Yes.


Q And is that why you sent them to me?

A Yes.

Q Now, with regard to Exhibit triple-M, does that show his grades from George Washington University?

A Yes.

Q Now, is there significance with regard to some of the courses that he took at George Washington University as reflected on that exhibit in terms of his claims about being a nuclear physicist, atomic physicist, having excelled in certain grades and having taken the first course in atomic physics in the United States?

A Yes.

Q And is that why you sent it to me?

A Yes.

Q Of what significance is it in that connection, Mr. Armstrong?

A Well, to me this showed that the man had completely lied about his academic credentials, about being an atomic physicist, about even having attended the first course in atomic physics.

Q And what did he get for a grade in a course in Modern Physical Phenomena?

A An F.

Q And do triple-N and triple-0 relate to — what if any significance do they have, Mr. Armstrong?

A This has to do with — this predates the war, dated September 5, 1941. It is from the Hydrographic
Office in Washington, D. C. It is a request for the services


of Lieutenant Hubbard, Mr. Hubbard, and this is a mention of what Mr. Hubbard did on the trip through the Inland Passage of British Columbia, and it indicates where Mr. Hubbard was working at that time, the fact that he was — says he is at present attached to the Washington Navy Yard doing publicity work in the Naval Recruiting Bureau in September 1941.

This document No. triple-O indicates the dates, at least, when Mr. Hubbard was involved with the Montana — it here doesn’t call it the Montana National Guard, but the Regimental Headquarters Company in 1927 and 1928, and the attached letter from Mr. Hubbard refers to this period of time, and a discrepancy which we earlier noted regarding his age at that particular time.

Q Now, with regard to the file which has been marked Exhibit 500-triple P, would you look through that file quickly and explain to the court what the significance of that file is, particularly in reference to the knowledge of the Church of Scientology about Mr. Hubbard’s naval background when it obtained his naval records from the Freedom of Information Act?

A Well, there is a great amount of correspondence here between both people in the internal office of L. Ron Hubbard and the Guardian’s Office referring to the naval records obtained by the organization under the Freedom of Information Act; and there is a long list of individuals who were aware of the existence of these facts and a number of individuals who would have seen the — all the materials which have been, or most of the materials at least which


have been shown to the Court today from Mr. Hubbard’s naval records.

Q And during what period of time is that, Mr. Armstrong, that these documents were being collected by the personal office of L. Hon Hubbard or the Church?

A Through the 1970’s and up at least until 1981.

The last thing here noted is 29 October 1981. Most of these are from the ’70s.


Q Do a lot of those documents relate to the period in 1975?

A Yes.

Q And was that when the biography was being prepared and written by or to be written by Peter Tomkins on Mr. Hubbard?

A No. I think that the Tomkins biography predated that probably by a couple of years. At least that is my understanding of it.

The autobiographical notes from Mr. Hubbard were done in 1971 or 1972. And they would have been delivered to Tomkins during that time.

So I don’t think that there was anything actually being done at that time.

There was a biographical sketch which was put out at that time by the PR bureau. And my understanding is that this was the biographical sketch which was approved by Mr. Hubbard to be the biographical sketch. But I don’t know that a full-length biography was being worked on at that time.

Q Now, did the biography get written by Mr. Tomkins?

A Mr. Tomkins submitted manuscript or a partial manuscript. And it was deemed by the Guardian’s Office personnel, who were involved with the project at that time, specifically, David Gaiman — and there were other people who were going to be involved in the project as well. I believe the name Artie Merrin is involved and perhaps someone else.

But in any case, the manuscript was deemed to be unacceptable. And they turned Tomkins off from further involvement in the project.


Q When you sent those documents to me, what, if any, significance did it have in your mind as to whether the organization knew, at least in the mid-1970’s, about L. Ron Hubbard’s naval background?

A Well, when I obtained these things — and this is quite late along in my research. And they came from Vaughn Young — from the B-1 area, at that point I realized that the organization hierarchy certainly did know of Mr. Hubbard’s naval career. They provided to Mr. Garrison the Board of Investigation of PC 815 and had all the FY materials.

And I became aware that the people at the top of the organization did know and were aware of the misrepresentations.

I had not been up to that time because I didn’t have access to those things, but only had Mr. Hubbard’s naval records.

Q Now, what is the significance of exhibit triple-X, 500-XXX, and why did you send it to me?

A This has to do with correspondence from Mr. Hubbard to the Veterans Administration. And this is dated 14 November ‘46.

At this time he was claiming that he needed the money from the VA; that he needed it very badly. This seemed to be in contradiction to the other claims that he had been — that he has made that in 1946 he was  a Hollywood director. This is in November 1946.

And throughout this period there are recurring contradictions between his claimed physical and mental


condition and what he later claimed between the amount of — you know, between his financial condition and what he later claimed and what he was doing at certain periods and what he later claimed.

Q And with regard to 500-WWW, does he state in there on 21 November that he is both ill and broke?

MR. LITT: What date is on that?

MR. FLYNN: November 21st, 1946.

THE WITNESS: Yes. He said here, "I was unable to report for further examination because I was both ill and broke."

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And this is supposedly when he was a Hollywood director; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And he is requesting a pension?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to triple-V dated 8 December ‘46, what is the significance of that?

A Here, he again is writing to the Veterans Administration and states that he very badly needs a boost in his pension. He is requesting a reexamination because his pension is — he deemed it inadequate.


MR. LITT: Is there a date on that document?

MR. FLYNN: 8 December ‘46.

THE WITNESS: I have to restate that. They had asked him, the Veterans Administration medical people wanted to reexamine him, and he is expressing his disappointment at this saying that they went over me so thoroughly last time, I don’t know what is left to be found out.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, does he state that he is very badly in need of a boost in his pension?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to exibit triple-U dated October 15, 1947, what is the significance of that, Mr. Armstrong?

A In this letter he states, "That after trying and failing for two years to regain my equilibrium in civil life, I am utterly unable to approach anything like my old competence."

Q Does he state that he is suicidal?

A He goes on, "I cannot account for nor rise above long periods of moroseness and suicidal inclinations."

Q And was there a period when he was claiming that his disability resulted from war wounds and not from any mental illness?

A That’s correct.

Q And was this document of particular significance to you?

A Yes.

Q And why is that?

A Because this was during a time when he had claimed that within two years of the end of the war he had cured himself


completely of blindness, of lameness, and he also stated that he had done this all when he was blind. He goes on later about — he was reclassified for combat duty and this seemed absolutely 180 degrees different from the condition that he is in when he is writing this.

MR. FLYNN: This may be a good place to break.

THE COURT: All right, we will take a recess until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, may we raise one matter before we do that?

THE COURT: Let me look at this letter first.

MR. LITT: Okay.



MR. LITT: Your Honor, we are approaching here what are on the defendant’s list of sealed exhibits marked 4-F through 4- — actually — I’m sorry — 4-D, 4-E, 4-F and 4-G. And, apparently. the intention of the defendant is to testify about conclusions he reached from portions of these materials.

Before that occurs, we would ask that the court make a review of the total documents for two reasons: First, this particular document is, at least, of everything that I have reviewed that is under seal, far and away the most private and personal document probably that I have ever read by anybody. And the document and what Mr. Hubbard is doing in the document cannot be understood except by review of the total documents. To put it in terms that would be traditional terms, what they really constitute are a form of self-therapy, notes which constitute very early self-research by Mr. Hubbard in which he is addressing things to himself.

We would ask that before there be any testimony concerning this, that the court does have the opportunity to review the file of those materials so that the court can determine, one, the context and the particular personal and private nature of the materials that are being dealt with.

And we are going to ask that under 352 — and we think the court will agree after the court reads it — that any purported conclusions that Mr. Armstrong wishes to testify to from those documents are outweighed both by the privacy interests involved, but also by the fact that they do not


constitute a reasonable reading of the documents taken in context.

We have indicated our general concern about all of these materials; the idea already that we are dealing with  an individual’s personal Naval records over years and medical records and everything else. What this particular document, we really do ask that the court make a review of before there be testimony concerning it.


THE COURT: Which document is it?

MR. HARRIS: It is D-4, E-4, F and G-4, Your Honor.

MR. LITT: We don’t know whether the defendant has pulled out sections or has paperclipped the total documents, Your Honor.

MR. HARRIS: There is another part of the entirety of the document which is not in here under which it only makes sense.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if I could just briefly, I will not state what is in the documents. I will tell you this: What is in the documents, at least for everything that is up to 1946, pretty such conclusively proves in L. Ron Hubbard’s handwriting that the claims he made before 1946 are admittedly false.

There is one very significant couple of sentences relating to his claim for a veteran’s pension which he holds to the present time, and the basis for the veteran’s pension and his alleged war wounds which he admits are false.

There is another portion which — we agree with Mr. Litt that this in probably one of the most significant exhibits in the entire case because a Scientologist, if a Scientologist read these documents, someone who has paid money for 20 years, it they read these documents, they would realize where Scientology came from and they would realize the mind that they were dealing with that is the origin of Dianetics, and most Scientologists, I submit, if they read these documents would leave the organization five minutes after they read them.


Now, there are specific notations that relate to Mr. Hubbard’s desire to control all mankind is which he goes on at some length in these documents and his brainwashing techniques which we think are of great significance to the public.

There are other areas that relate to his sexual problems and some of the diseases that he suffers from which we think perhaps could be held under seal for purposes of Mr. Armstrong’s counterclaim because we think in the context of the overall evidence about the claims made by L. Ron Hubbard, they are of great significance.

However, with regard to some of the notations, we have no objection to the court reviewing them. We think the court should in advance; however, there are some notations in these records which we believe, based on 30 years of claims by Mr. Hubbard and on my part, five years of studying the subject and what Scientologists believed about this man are of great significance to these people, particularly with regard to where Mr. Hubbard was coming from psychologically when he developed Dianetics.

So for that reason we feel the court should review them. If the ocurt deems that some parts are highly personal, we would like to be able to excerpt portions that are more appropriately part of a public record and for those portions that the court might deem are highly personal, we have no objection to them being placed under seal in this litigation for purposes of whatever the court eventually decides.


THE COURT: Mr. Harris, you indicated there was something else that went with those?

MR. HARRIS: There is, Your Honor. The problem is there are like four portions of it in handwriting. There is one –

THE COURT: The clerk has already handed me what has been marked 4-D, 4-E and 4-F and 4-G.

MR. HARRIS: That is correct. And I think there is one more portion of it which is not marked on the defendant’s exhibit list.

THE COURT: Maybe Mr. Armstrong knows what you are talking about.

MR. FLYNN: I think I know, Your Honor. I think what we tried to do, we tried to exclude that portion.

You see, we think everything we have got in there should be in the public record. But we tried to exclude that portion that dealt with some of Mr. Hubbard’s more unusual sexual practices. And we — we tried to exclude that from the documents that we are offering.

If the plaintiff and the intervenor wish to make that part of it, we have no objection.


THE COURT: No, I don’t think — he wanted me to read it to understand it.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor, and also more importantly, there are a set of problems to be handled which are not included which these appear to be in response to.

THE COURT: All you have to do is identify them for me, Counsel.

HARRIS: That is what I am trying to do.

MR. LITT: The problem is they may not have been brought up because it appears that the defendant did not identify them and therefore did not have them brought up, so perhaps the first question that can be answered by Mr. Flynn is: Is the full set of those materials up here? That is question one.

Question two is: If they are not, is what the court has excerpts that move from place to place, that were pulled out or what?

Without talking about the contents.

MR. FLYNN: There are many documents in Mr. Hubbard’s handwriting. What we made an effort to do, and what’s been brought up and what hasn’t I am not sure because our basic view in culling out these  documents for the purposes of this case is as follows: We think that all of the documents under seal and all of the documents Mr. Armstrong collected tell the whole story. However, for the purposes of practicality in this proceeding of introducing limited portions to give the court an indication of what Mr. Hubbard was like throughout his life, we selected out of the documents under seal isolated


portions because otherwise we’d have every document up here because we think they are all relevant. At the end of the case we are going to ask that all the documents certain relief be given to, but with regard to Mr. Litt’s specific question, I really don’t know. What we did is we took specific portions –

MR. LITT: Let me clarify it, as Mr. Armstrong knows, does the court have all of the affirmations?

Mr. Armstrong, do you know what the affirmations are?



MR. LITT: Has the full set of the affirmations, including the book been brought up here and the introductory part to it which is about 30 pages?

MR. ARMSTRONG: Let me give you some numbers; okay?

I’ll give you some — it is 4-D, 4-E, 4-F, 4-G, 4-H, 4-I. That is it. 4-I fits in that category. It is not part of that particular set of documents, but –

MR. LITT: Do those things together constitute the totality of the affirmations?

MR. ARMSTRONG: As far as I know, it does.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, could we take a look for a moment just to determine for ourselves?


MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if it doesn’t we have no objection –

MR. LITT: We just want to know what the court has.

MR. FLYNN: — to the plaintiff bringing up whatever they want to bring up.

Our feeling, Your Honor, is all the records –

THE COURT: I know what your feeling is.

MR. FLYNN: — are relevant.

THE COURT: I have heard it.

Well, We are in recess until 9 o’clock.

MR. HARRIS: Very well.

MR. LITT: If Mr. Armstrong could come here for a moment and tell me what document goes with what, I think we can put then in proper order for the court.

MR. FLYNN: We want them it that order, Mr. Litt, for a very specific reason.

MR. LIT: But the order that they appear in is not the order that they were in in the original binders, so I would like for the court’s review for them to be in the order that they were in in the original binder.

Thank you, Mr. Flynn.

MR. FLYNN: The original binder was created by Mr. Armstrong.

MR. LITT: I am quite aware of this.

THE COURT: Okay, okay, just relax.


MR. LITT: Your Honor, we’ll put them in the order that we feel that they can be best understood and then give them to the court.

I don’t think the court has to stay here for this unless you want to.

THE COURT: No, I don’t really want to stay.

(At 4:15 p.m. an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, May 15, 1984 at 9:00 a.m.)