Reporters' Daily Transcript (May 11, 1984)

Armstrong 1





No. C 420153


Friday, May 11, 1984


(See Appearances page.)

Pages 1564-1739, incl.
Official Reporters

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

INDEX FOR VOLUME 10 Pages 1564 - 1739, incl.
Day Date   




(resumed) 1565
(resumed) 1658


DD - Document re Dive Bomber, 2-11-80 1579
EE - 3-page letter, Wertheimer to Brennan, 11-17-80  
FF - 2-page letter, Wertheimer to Brennan, 12-2-8  
GG - 1-page letter, Brennan to Wertheimer, 1-2-81 1633
HH - 4-page letter, 10-23-81 & 1 page, 10-23-81 1653
II - 6-page letter, Gerry to Cirrus, 11-25-81 1654
JJ - 9-page letter, Young to Sue, 11-18-81 1666
KK - 1-page handwritten letter, to Sue, 11-28-81 1672
LL - 1-page letter, vaughn to Karin, 11-28-81 1676
MM - 6-page document  
NN - 1-page document  
OO - Letter, 12-16 1697
PP - Document, 2-18-82 1698
QQ - letter, 2-24-82 1702
RR - HCO policy letter, 10-18-67 1704
SS - Two color photographs 1730




THE COURT: All right, in the case on trial, let the record reflect that counsel is present. Mr. Armstrong, you may retake 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 COURT: Just have a seat. State your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you have something, Mr. Harris?

MR. HARRIS: I just have a brief item, Your Honor. I checked. There were two items requested yesterday. In any event, we checked.

There is the COLED 824 LRH biography plan which

we think probably was produced to the defense previously, but in any event here it is.

THE COURT: All right.


MR. HARRIS: With respect to the alleged letter to the founder, Mr. Hubbard, of the non-existence formula by this witness, there is no such thing. We were not able to find it. And we have access to all the materials, as far as we can tell, that he had in his area.

THE COURT: All right.


BY MR. FLYNN: Q Mr. Armstrong, do you recall that your testimony that when you boarded the Apollo and prior to joining Sea Org it was represented to you that Mr. Hubbard had resigned from all managerial or supervisory posts of the Church of Scientology in 1966?

MR. HARRIS: I do not believe that was his testimony.

THE COURT: I don’t recall anything like that.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Were any representations made to you about Mr. Hubbard’s position, first, within the Church of Scientology prior to your joining the Sea Organization?

A The only — the only thing that comes to mind was the fact that he was the — the Sea Org worked directly for Ron.

Q After you joined the organization and boarded the Apollo were representations made to you that he had
resigned from any position, manager, or director or officer of any Scientology organization?

A No.

I did read what is called, I believe, the


Guardian policy letter. And I don’t recall the date of it, but it would have been in 1966 in which something to that effect was written. But it was completely obvious to me and to everyone else on board that Mr. Hubbard was completely engaged in management on a day-to-day basis. So nothing like that ever came up.

MR. LITT: That is his opinion, I take it, Your Honor?

We certainly don’t have a foundation.

THE COURT: It is nonresponsive; everything after he saw some Guardian policy memoranda, I’ll strike everything else.


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now after you became the ship’s representative, were questions asked of you as to what Mr. Hubbard’s position was in relationship to the Church of Scientology?

A I don’t believe that I ever fielded that question. I was drilled on that subject.

Q All right, and how were you drilled on that subject?

A The answer was that Mr. Hubbard had resigned as a director in 1966 and was no longer engaged in the management of Scientology organizations.

Q And will you explain the circumstances under which that was drilled?

A There were a number of questions and areas which were included in briefing packs of materials to do with the ship, to do with Scientology, to do with Mr. Hubbard, and that was included in that pack of materials as an answer to the question on his control.

Q Now, were those briefing packs given to everyone who came on board the ship?

A Not necessarily that — the complete briefing pack.

Q Was a briefing to the effect that L. Ron Hubbard had resigned all managerial roles in the Church of Scientology given to everyone who came on board the ship?

A No.

Q Under what circumstances were those briefings given?


A You mean to do with the subject of –

Q Of L. Ron Hubbard’s status in relationship to the Church of Scientology.

A Well, those on board, and I can definitely speak for myself, knew that he controled the operation on
board and outside the — in other organizations around the world, and it would be ridiculous for me to be briefed that he was not.

The briefing that I am referring to is what I would brief to inform others. I was in the particular position of dealing with a lot of local officials, a lot of local press, and with people who might show up at the ship from other organizations without being invited in, people who sought to talk to Mr. Hubbard, for example.

So, it was in the context of drilling to be able to handle those sorts of public that I would state the story that he had resigned as a director.

Q Now, during the period that you were on the Apollo did you have the opportunity to observe Mr. Hubbard’s position in relationship to the Church of Scientology?

A Yes.

Q And what did you observe?

A That he controlled it.

Q And in what –

MR. HARRIS: May that be stricken as a conclusion, Your Honor, without an adequate foundation?

THE COURT: Well, I will have to strike that.

Q BY MR. FLYNN:what specific activities did you


observe that Mr. Hubbard was engaged in with respect to his relationship with the Church of Scientology?

A There were two aspects to it. The first was an on-board aspect, and the second was a managerial aspect of outer Scientology organizations.

On board he was in control of every aspect.

His messengers ran messages from him and ran orders into the galley, into the engine room, into the port captain’s office, into the legal bureau, into the ship’s operation when we were at sea, when we were in port. I observed the messengers running those messages.


I received orders from Mr. Hubbard throughout the four-plus years that I was on board. And I saw on an
international basis, I saw evaluations which were done by Mr. Hubbard, orders which were issued by Mr. Hubbard, telexes from Mr. Hubbard to organizations internationally.

I saw the mail which arrived to and from Mr. Hubbard. And from, that I was able to draw a fairly good conclusion that he was in control.

Q Now, when you went on board the Apollo do you recall your testimony that you were working for a corporation called Operation Transport Corporation?

A Yes.

Q Between the time that you worked for Operation Transport Corporation up until the time that you began collecting the personal documents of L. Ron Hubbard for the biography project, was there any change in your relationship with Mr. Hubbard; specifically, with regard to working for him?

A Yes. There was a series of changes.

Q And what were those changes?

A From the time when I was on the ship, although I was working for him, I was not working on his — for him on an individual or personal basis. I was not dealing with his personal matters, but rather, matters for the whole ship’s company which included him.

In Dunedin I was working for him. I was in the LRH External Com Bureau. And when I moved from there to
Astra, which was the staging area appartments in Culver City,


I was working directly for him. I was, again, in the LRH External Com Bureau. And I was in a very small group of people, all of them in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard and all living with him. And I was taking care — I was solely taking care of his needs.

When I went to the RPF, then, again, I was more distant. And I was not at that point in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard.

When I again rejoined Mr. Hubbard at the end of 1977, I was working with him personally in making movies.

When I began to work on his house in the Household Unit, which are the group of people who serve his very  personal needs, I was working directly for him. I had nothing whatsoever to do with what you would call church affairs or church personnel or anything like that.

That continued when I remained in the personal office and worked for him assembling his personal archives for the biography to be done on him.

Q Now, you mentioned the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard; what is that?

A The personal office of L. Ron Hubbard is the group of people who perform various functions which are personal for Mr. Hubbard.

Q Was there various divisions within the LRH personal office?

A When I was a part of that office, there were a number, yes.


Q What are they?

A There was the LRH PR Bureau; LRH Artists; LRH Compilations Unit; LRH Accounts Unit; there was the personal secretary, LRH’s personal secretary. There was the LRH Assembly Unit and Authorization end Verification Unit.

Q And was there the LRH Household Unit?

A Yes. That is another section.

Q What did the LRH Compilation Unit do?

A The Compilations Unit took materials which had been published in one form or another, writings by Mr. Hubbard, and compiled them into various packs or orders or books or pamphlets or magazines and — for publication, republication, and sale.

Q To your knowledge was that a profit-making operation?

A Well, it certainly did make profit for Mr. Hubbard.

Q Were all of the units that you just described all profit-making divisions of the LRH personal office for L. Ron Hubbard.

MR. HARRIS: May we have an objection to this as calling for a conclusion of the witness without adequate foundation.

I move to strike the book, et cetera, Compilations Unit as certainly making profit for Mr. Hubbard, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is a little late, but I’ll strike it.

You have to lay some kind of foundation as to the basis of his knowledge.


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Were you in any of these units other than the Household Unit?

A I was in the PR Bureau.

Q And when did you join the PR Bureau?

A 1980.

Q Now with regard to the Household Unit, did the Household Unit perform any services for the Church of Scientology or any of its divisions to your knowledge of any nature or description?

A No.

Q Did all of its services relate to personal services of Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And you described the personal services that you worked on yesterday; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q With regard to the LRH PR Bureau, did you become familiar during the period that you were on the biography project with the operation of that bureau?

A Yes.

Q And the head of that bureau was who?

A During most of the period in which I was in the bureau it was Laurel Sullivan.

Q Were there meetings between you and Laurel Sullivan with regard to the purpose of the LRH PR Bureau,
particularly with regard to the project that you were working on?

A I don’t think it was ever discussed, the


purpose of the PR Bureau in that context. There was a purpose of the biography project.

Q And what was that purpose?

A There were a number of purposes. One was increased acceptance of L. Ron Hubbard and his products. One was money to L. Ron Hubbard. One was increased PR for Mr. Hubbard.

Q Now, when you say that money to L. Ron Hubbard, did you participate in meetings in which the question of whether Mr. Hubbard would receive royalties on the book to be written by Omar Garrison was discussed?

A Yes.

Q And who participated in such meetings?

A There was a number of such meetings. Laurel and I discussed it at some time and, in fact, I made some grids of the — which involved the splitting of royalties between Omar Garrison and how much they would make on a given amount of sales of books, and the subject was also discussed at some length with Laurel Sullivan and Alan Wertheimer.

Q And were you present in those meetings?

A I was present at least at some of the meetings.

Q To your knowledge was it always the intended purpose of the biography project in which you were working that Mr. Hubbard derive income from the sales of the book to be written by Omar Garrison?

A That was definitely a large part of it.

Q With regard to the LRH Accounts Unit, do you have a general familiarity with what the purpose of that unit



A Yes.

Q And what is the basis for your understanding of what the purpose of that unit was?

A From talking to the people who were the LRH Acounts through time and from my dealings with them.

Q And who were these people?

A The first one that I recall was someone called Vicky Polimeni; later Vicky Livingston, and there was Mike Smith and then Jim Isaacson.

Q And did you have the opportunity to observe them in connection with their duties in the LRH Accounts Unit?

A Not a lot but some.

Q What did you observe?

A I knew that they handled the accounts of Mr. Hubbard, his bank and his sources of income, and that they were very much involved with the sale of his book and his income from various sources.

Q For the moment I am going to digress from this subject and then we are going to come back to it.

Now, I’d like to take you back, Mr. Armstrong, to the beginning of the biography project in February 1980. At that time do you recall a program relating to the Safe Environment Fund?

A Yes.

Q And what was that program?

A Well, the Safe Environment Fund was an organization which was established of Scientologists which was established


of Scientologists and principally GO personnel to raise money for the defense of the 11 people involved in the Federal criminal case.

Q And at some point in time did you become involved in part of that project?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A Some time in February 1980, the beginning of February.

Q And describe the circumstances under which you became involved?

A One of the Safe Environment Fund personnel by the name of Jerry McNeely who was then in the Guardian’s  Office, having read that Mr. Hubbard wrote the screenplay for the movie "Dive Bomber" created an idea of renting the movie "Dive Bomber" — it was a 1940 Warner Brothers movie — and showing it to some Scientologists in public and obtaining through the sale of tickets to that movie and through the promotion of the movie as L. Ron Hubbard’s movie income for the Safe Environment Fund.


I became involved because Laurel was asked — and I had moved by that time into the P.R. Bureau — Laurel was asked by Jerry McNeely to give a talk, a L.R.H. talk at the event, at the movie showing. So she agreed.

I, at that point, saw some of the promotional materials which the Safe Environment Fund was distributing. And they had posters made up and glossy promotional items. L. Ron Hubbard was noted as the man behind the scenes.

They had obtained a poster from the Dive Bomber movie and then reprinted it with some text underneath it concerning L. Ron Hubbard and his part in the movie.

At that point I had obtained from Del Sol a great amount of materials. And I had within those materials information concerning Mr. Hubbard’s involvement in the screen plays, screen writing in Hollywood.

So I tried to assemble documentation at that time, thinking that I would support the — you know, add some color to it, perhaps some anecdotal material that Laurel could include in her speech.

And in going through the material, I couldn’t find anything to do with Dive Bomber.

I obtained a copy of the short story which Mr. Hubbard had written and had been produced in a pulp magazine in, I believe, 1936. And I checked the screen — I read through the story and then I went to the Academy of the Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences here in Los Angeles — I was then in Gilman Hot Springs — and I obtained a copy


just for reading of the screen play or, at least, a synopsis or a treatment. And I realized that the two were completely different.

And I also saw that Mr. Hubbard’s name was not noted in the credits. And I believe there were a couple of writers noted.

In any case, I checked their names against other records in the Academy Library and confirmed that they couldn’t have been him because they were writing on several other movies which he could not possibly have been involved with. So they weren’t pseudonyms that he was using.

So then I sent to Mr. Hubbard some of the information which I had obtained on the movie. Up to that point because I had also contacted — thinking at that point that perhaps there was some error, maybe he did not write Dive Bomber, I didn’t want to have the Safe Environment Fund promoting this thing if he had not in fact done it. It would have been embarrassing if someone had, said, "where is your name" and his name wasn’t on it.

People had paid money. So I thought perhaps I could come up with something else that could be a substitute.

So I tried to get ahold of one which I knew he had written called The Secrets of Treasure Island which was a 15-part Saturday afternoon serial. He wrote that for Columbia, at least he worked on the screen plays.

I couldn’t find that with Columbia. So I wrote to Mr. Hubbard and let him know what I had found to date in the research that I had done. And he didn’t answer me.


But he sent down a dispatch to the Safe Environment Fund and a copy to Laurel which I had at that time.

And in that document he said that there was no credit for the movie, but that he had in fact written it.

And he — sounded like he was going to create some trouble for the studio. And it was just before the war. And one day the PR representative for the studio called him up and said — was very apologetic because he could have been sued for, I believe it was, a dollar per foot.

And so he gave Mr. Hubbard a certified check which Mr. Hubbard stuck in a safety deposit box until the end of the war, at which time he went on a Caribbean cruise.

Q That is what the document said?

A To my recollection, Yes.

Q Do you know whether that document is under seal?

A Yes, it is.

MR. FLYNN: May we have that, Your honor? That is T.

Q Is this the document received from Mr. Hubbard that you just testified about?

A Yes.

Q Now, in the — May this be marked as defendant’s next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. DD.

MR. FLYNN: Should I mark that and give it –

THE COURT: Just put "double D" on it.

MR. FLYNN: in Massachusettes, Your Honor, the lawyer is not allowed to mark an exhibit.

THE COURT: You are here with the Court’s permission.


Q Now, what is the date of exhibit double D?

THE COURT: What we will do is we will put DD, and then in parenthesis we will put T; DD(T).

MR. FLYNN: It may be just as devastating, Your Honor.

Q What is the date of double D, Mr. Armstrong?

A 11 February, 1980.

Q Now do recall when you sent your dispatch to Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And did you put a routing formula on the dispatch that you sent?

A Yes.

Q And what was it?

A It would have been through Laurel to the messenger on duty to R.

Q And when you say "Laurel", it would have had her post title?

A Yes, Senior Pers Bureau.

Q And was Mrs. Hubbard one of the 11 defendants in the criminal cases you mentioned?

A Yes.

Q Now, when you received this back, I note the name Fred Ulan, MC. Who was he?

A Fred Ulan, I believe, was the head of the Safe Environment Fund. What the "MC" is, I am not sure.

Q Incidentally, do you know what the tickets were selling for for the showing of this movie?

A No, I don’t recall.


Q Do you know approximately how many people showed up for the showing of the movie?

A My recollection there was a thousand or more.

Q Do you know whether Laurel Sullivan is aware of how much the tickets were selling for?

A I don’t know.

MR. FLYNN: May I read this into the record, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Any objection?


MR. LITT: We object to reading any of the documents under seal into the record, and there is no reason to read it into the record. There is nothing exceptional about it, but what is the reason for reading it into the record? He has testified about what he has to nay about it.

MR. HARRIS: The court can read it.

MR. FLYNN: It lays the foundation for his state of mind for a lot of events that are going to take place over the next year and a half, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Oh, I will permit the reading. I don’t see anything any different in this and any of the other communications that we have had here.

MR. FLYNN: Exhibit Double D:

"11 February, ‘80.

"Committee for a safe environment.

"CC Fred Ulan, MC.


"CC: F


"Re: Dive Bomber.

"You may get a question from the audience or someone as I don’t think my name is on the sub-titles of credits for story. The reason for this is that Warner Bros. shot the whole story and got it in the can before somebody had noticed they had forgotten to contract with me and pay me for it. They hastily made up for this omission but after the film was released.

"There is an amusing anecdote connected with this: It was just before I was shipped out for the South Pacific as a naval officer. I was closing up my New York, Riverside Drive, posh apartment. The phone rang and the head of Legal Department of the studio’s New York office announced himself. He was very worried and stammeringly informed cue that they wanted to see me down at their office right away. Having my hands full of gear I was packing, I demanded to know what it was all about and murder outed. The studio could have been hit for a $ a foot in damages. They made me a very reasonable offer and I said, ‘Sure, great, mail the check to the Explorer’s Club,’ and he said, ‘Well, don’t you want to come down and sign the contract,’ and I said, ‘Mail it to the Explorer’s Club with the check’ and he said, ‘Wouldn’t you like to come down right now and have lunch?’ He was feeling very


expansive and relieved and I said, ‘No, just mail the check and contract to the Explorer’s Club, I’m busy.’ And I was and the war lasted for 4 1/2 years.

"When it was over, I used the check to take a holiday in the Caribbean. And that’s the story of ‘Dive Bomber’.

"The audience will have the advantage of me; I’ve never seen it. They didn’t have movies where I went."

MR. LITT: There was a mistake made in the reading.

The word "it" was just before I shipped out.

MR. FLYNN: I might have included the word "was."

MR. HARRIS: No, you included the word "the.°

I think the best way is for Your Honor to read it.

THE COURT: Well, it’s been read now and I don’t want to read it again.

MR. HARRIS: But I mean in future.

THE COURT: Well, let’s deal with it, on a situation-by-situation basis.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And for the record it was signed "L. Ron Hubbard" at the bottom; is that correct, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q Now, whether items of significance in that communication from Mr. Hubbard that you then pursued in connection with investigating some of the statements that were made?


A Yes, there was a number of points.

Q And what are they?

A I noted here that he had sent the check — that it was a check and that it had gone to the Explorer’s

An earlier tape which Mr. Hubbard made, I believe it is called "The Story of Dianetics and Scientology" or "The History" or something like that, I had a copy of the transcript at that time and it showed that the amount that he received was $10,000 in thousand dollar bills and that he had put it into a safe deposit box.


Q That is what was said on this tape?

A Right. And that he had used the money to finance the research for Dianetics.

Additionally, I was struck by the fact that here he was going on a — the war was over and he used the check to take a holiday in the Caribbean.

And my understanding was, from what I had read, that he was cripled and blinded and studying when he was blind at that period and that he was broke at the war’s end and was deserted by his family and friends.

So I had on my hands a number of contradictions.

Q Now, subsequent –

Your Honor, at this point we are not going to try to go through all the records of ‘45 and ‘50 which we have, but we intend to bring out the pertinent ones at a later time. But in order to keep some continuity in the system by which we are going to go through the records, I’m going to leave the records that we are going to use to address this particular issue, leave that to a later time; just so the court will know.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you, however, Mr. Armstrong, go through all of Mr. Hubbard’s records that you could  find for the period after World War II?

A Yes. I went through what I could find right away to see if I could answer the contradictions.

Then throughout the next almost two years, I went through a great deal more masses of documents and kept that


in mind throughout as something which remained unanswered.

Q Now, did you examine Mr. Hubbard’s Naval and Veterans Administration records with respect to his physical and financial condition after World War II?

A Yes,

Q And what did you find?

A He was claiming throughout the postwar period to the Veterans Administration that he was broke or penniless.

And he was also claiming throughout that period that he had various illnesses, particularly an ulcer and diminished eyesight.

Q Did you find a record in the Naval records in which he said that he was hospitalized for one year in a civilian hospital after the war ended?

A Yes.

Q And did you find any records to indicate that he had ever been hospitalized in a civilian hospital for one year?

A No.

Q Did you find other Naval records that indicated that he stated that he had not been hospitalized for one year in a civilian hospital after the war?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: Can we not have leading questions, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Well, these are leading, counsel.

MR. FLYNN: I’ll make them more direct, Your Honor.

Q Did you find any records that indicated that Mr. Hubbard went on a Caribbean cruise after World War II?


A There was –

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to object to the form of the question as another leading question.

He should ask Mr. Armstrong what it is he discovered in this relationship.

THE COURT: He doesn’t have to ask it that way to be nonleading. The question doesn’t indicate he has to give any particular answer. Either he did or he didn’t.

Let’s go ahead.

THE WITNESS: There was a story of a ship which was purchased in 1946. Mr. Hubbard purchased the ship as part of a corporation or a company called Allied Services or something along with John W. Parsons and that the money which went into it was Parsons’ money.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, is all the Parsons’ material among the documents under seal?

A Not all of it, but there is a portion of it.

Q Now, were there any records relating to any Caribbean cruise?

A No.

Q When you say, "a ship," what type of a ship are you talking about that Mr. Parsons purchased?

A It was a fairly substantial ship. It may have been 35 feet, maybe a little longer.


Q A 35-foot sailboat?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now did that situation with Mr. Parsons end up in litigation?

A Yes.

Q And are those litigation records under seal?

A Yes.

Q Now were there other records that you found under seal that indicated Mr. Hubbard’s physical condition up until 1949?

A There is a great number of records on that subject.

Q Okay. Now after you found that these contradictions existed, what did you do?

A Well, right at this time or shortly thereafter Laurel was signed to a mission, a mission which is called MCCS, Mission Corporate Category Sort-Out, and she was going to be having extensive dealings with Mr. Hubbard’s attorney, Alan Wertheimer, and his tax attorney at that time, Jim Murphy, both of whom had offices in Beverly Hills. So we were at that time in Gilman Hot Springs and it was decided that it would make more sense if we moved into Los Angeles.

Laurel was to move. I was at some point asked to be her second on the mission. There was a mission in charge, and if there is more mission personnel, they are designated second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth et cetera, and I was to be the mission second.

Q And this was what they called the MCCS mission?


A Right.

In addition, all the top personnel of the CMO at that point also moved into Los Angeles, and they moved all the international management personnel from Gilman Hot Springs into Los Angeles, so it made more sense because we would be dealing with those personnel and dealing with attorneys to move into Los Angeles. So I moved at that point along with Laurel, and I moved in all the materials which were from archives, the archives which I was establishing at that point. I principally had only the materials from Del Sol, so I moved into Los Angeles.

Q And the purpose of the move was because of the MCCS Mission?

A Right.

Q Now, did the MCCS Mission become inter-related to the biography project over the next year and a half?

A Yes.

Q And did it become an integral part of the biography project?

A Well they were connected. I wouldn’t say that MCCS was a part of the biography project. Maybe the biography project was part of MCCS.

MCCS dealt with a number of subjects, one of which was the biography contract and the biography project.

Q Now, what was the purpose of the MCCS Mission?

MR. HARRIS: I will object, Your Honor; no foundation.

THE COURT: Well if you know.

THE WITNESS: The purpose of the MCCS Mission was to


allow or set up the legal procedures or steps or mechanisms by which Mr. Hubbard could retain control but not be responsible for the organization.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: How do you know that, Mr. Armstrong?

A Because I was involved in the initial briefing and in the correspondence from Mr. Hubbard which were given to Laurel and myself at the outset.

I also was involved in a number of meetings, discussions with Laurel Sullivan and similar discussions with Alan Wertheimer.

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, at this point I will move to strike as a conclusion of the witness based upon hearsay, or if not, attorney-privileged communication which he is disclosing at this point.

The MCCS Mission, the subject of the corporate sort-out, involved many attorneys and involved church personnel who were in liaison with such attorneys in respect to church matters and sorting out corporate church matters as well as the relationship of the founders of the church, and on that basis I’d move to exclude any further testimony in respect to that.

MR. LITT: Furthermore, Your Honor, the church can provide documents that show what the purpose of this is.

This implication — there is no foundation for his statement statement of what he recalls.

If the court wants, we can provide in camera to the court whatever documents are necessary to show that this whole activity was directed by attorneys for the purpose of


determining the various inter-relationships between a number of different church organizations and the founder of Scientology.

This whole subject matter is wrong. The characterization that has been given, there is no foundation for. It is inaccurate and it cannot be used as an excuse to not begin to probe into this area.

We are very concerned about this question.

We are prepared to provide the court whatever materials are needed. We are prepared to bring the attorneys involved.

We have some memoranda which can be submitted to the court by this afternoon on this area, and we just don’t think it can be gotten into. This is just improper. Everything that was done on this mission, this was a mission to regain attorneys, gather facts for attorneys, provide those facts to attorneys, get advice from those attorneys about how to solve a variety of problems concerning these inter-relationships.

This man was an employee of the church at the time when all of this occurred, and to the extent he has any such knowledge, he may not divulge it. He may not characterize it.

MR. FLYNN: If I could be heard, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. FLYNN: At this point, I have in my preparation of the examination restricted it to the briefing with Laurel Sullivan which was just described to the court laying a foundation for what is going to become readily apparent to


be a very important issue in this lawsuit for the following reasons:

The MCCS Mission worked together with the biography project because the biography project in the collection of the documentation, particularly documents relating to the Hubbard Explorational Company Operation Transport Corporation, OTS, and a corporation called Religious Research Foundation, all of which documents or most of which documents Mr. Armstrong collected, basically revealed that from –

MR. LITT: Your Honor –

THE COURT: Let counsel finish.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am afraid — if we can have an in-camera thing on this. This has happened before. He cannot refer to contents of any privileged conversations.

MR. FLYNN: I won’t, Your Honor.

MR. LITT: Okay.

MR. FLYNN: I won’t refer to any privileged communications. The sealed documents in part, together with the other 98 percent of documents that are in the Armstrong Archives which are not here, basically reveal that throughout the period of time that Mr. Armstrong was working for Mr. Hubbard, as he has testified to, and he believed that Mr. Hubbard was only making $35,000 per year from the church, as he has testified to, and as he testified was represented to everyone — everyone that he knew have related to the Church of Scientology.


The documents basically reveal that over $200,000,000 was paid to Mr. Hubbard from church funds through
Hubbard Explorational Company initially at 15,000 pounds per week set forth in the documents under seal; then to the Operation Transport Corporation; then beginning in 1972, to a corporation called Religious Research Foundation. And the funds were transferred into Swiss bank accounts initially and then later on into Liechtenstein bank accounts.

Mr. Armstrong, together with Miss Sullivan during the period of time that they were sorting all of this out, basically realized that every Scientologist including themselves, had been grossly misrepresented to relative to the facts of L. Ron Hubbard’s control over the Scientology organization, L. Ron Hubbard’s participation in these profit- making corporations which received monies from Scientology organizations and whether or not L. Ron Hubbard had even been receiving funds from Scientology organizations aside from the issue of control.

The individuals like Mr. Armstrong, for a period of ten years, worked at $4.20 per week, 100 hours per week on personal services of L. Ron Hubbard such as renovating his homes and collecting his documents and –

There will be extensive testimony about the biography contract with regard to what Mr. Hubbard was going to get for it. In fact, hundreds of millions of dollars have been transferred to Hubbard in the liechtenstein bank accounts.

What happens is the following: the purpose of


the MCCS Mission, which Mr. Armstrong initially learned about in conversations with Laurel Sullivan, completely shifted in midstream to conceal what I just told the court.

Two of the tapes that are under seal –

THE COURT: We are not going to talk about what is on the tapes.

MR. FLYNN: — relate to that subject.

So we are in a position of knowing the individuals involved who were involved in the intentional future concealment, the concealment in the future of the facts that have just been taking place over the last ten years and facts that relate to the biography project.

Mr. Garrison, Miss Sullivan, and Mr. Armstrong discover all of these facts, the tapes and the later activities of MCCS — and we have a memorandum already prepared on the subject — go to the future concealment of the past fraud.

THE COURT: Well, of course, this is going a little bit beyond the particular subject we were talking about here.

And it seems to me that at this stage of the proceedings I don’t really see that there is anything that involves any attorney-client privilege.

He was asked about what he had been briefed on.

I can’t see how he was briefed on — assuming it was from somebody else within the Scientology group or the Sea Organization or whatever, could be attorney-client privileged. And it may be that you’ll get to something that might be privileged, but we haven’t got to that yet.

When the time comes, you can make an objection.


The fact that there may be something written down doesn’t mean that the other side is bound by it. The fact that the plaintiff may have something in writing which purports to indicate one thing does not mean that the defense is bound by it. The other evidence which the defendant has to produce which can contradict it, present it in conflict, we have to deal with that as we go along.

I don’t remember what the last question was, but clearly, he can testify as to what he was briefed upon.

MR. HARRIS: If he was briefed, as he claims as MCCS second, that is, the second person in charge of this  mission which was to sort out all of the corporation relationships and so on, in respect to the attorneys and their advice –

THE COURT: We haven’t got to that yet.

MR. HARRIS: He has also conclusorily stated what the purpose was.

THE COURT: If he was told what the purpose was, he is certainly entitled to testify to that. He wasn’t told by some attorney, I presume.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Armstrong, the testimony you just gave about the briefings that you received regarding the MCCS Mission, who did you receive that briefing from?

A The initial briefing was by Laurel.

Q Was there any attorney present in that initial briefing?

A No. We — for the first few days, there was Laurel, myself, and another man by the name of Rick Klingler, joined MCCS at that time.


After the first — after we moved to Los Angeles, then began a series of meetings with Alan Wertheimer. And during some of those meetings another attorney, Jim Murphy, was present.

Q Just yes or no; did some of those meetings relate to MCCS with Mr. Wertheimer and some relate to the biography project?

A Initially all of then related to MCCS.

When the — we proceeded in the biography project, then Mr. Wertheimer became very involved in that as well.

Q All right. Now, leaving that subject there for the moment, after you learned of the contradictions in respect to the Dive Bomber presentation, you indicated to Laurel Sullivan what those contradictions were; is that your testimony?

A Yes. I told Laurel at that time what I had come up with.

Laurel was not very willing to accept my information and she believed that what Mr. Hubbard had said in the letter was true. And she in fact read that letter at the showing of the film Dive Bomber.


Q And was the movie shown?

A Yes.

Q And thousands of people attended.

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, that misstates –

THE COURT: He said a thousand. I don’t know about thousands.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know how many people attended?

MR. HARRIS: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether or not the people who attended paid money?

A Yes. It was advertised and there was an admission, the purpose of which was to raise money for the Safe Environment Fund.

Q Now, when you found these contradictions, what was your state of mind at the time with respect to your duties and the biography project when you found those contradictions?

A Well, I — at that time and thereafter, for a long time I remained convinced that the man would not lie and that there was some other explanation for the contradictions. I could not resolve them in my mind at the time and they remained as contradictions, but that didn’t sway me as far as my dedication to the project and in trying to get to what the real facts were.

Q Now, approximately when did you move to Los Angeles from the Gilman Hot Springs property?

A My recollection, it was — would have been


somewhere in the last week of february.

Q Of 1980?

A Yes.

Q Now, at that time did you and Laurel Sullivan have discussions relative to appraising the contents of the archives that you had found?

A No. The idea of the appraisal came sometime later. that would have been perhaps in the summer, late spring, summer, of that year.

Q And what occurred in connection with the appraisal?

A The idea was originated that these things — when I say "these things," we are talking about the Hubbard originals and the Hubbard archives together with the controller archives; at that time were noted by the L.R.H. accounts who at that time was Mike Smith as having an immense amount of value.

His function or the statistics of the L.R.H. accounts post was income to L.R.H., L. Ron Hubbard. And one of the plans that he devised was the possibility of the establishment of a trust. And the intricacies of that thing, I don’t know. But one of the purposes of it was to have Mr. Hubbard donate these things into a trust of some sort and be able to take the value as a tax write off of some description.

There was a program which was written by Mike Smith at that time. And it has been referred to in some of the documents which have been produced in this case, I believe particularly something from Tom Vorm here. He refers to the


R accounts, the R originals program. And that was originated by Mike Smith.

Mike Smith at that time was thinking particularly of the controller archives.

But when I discovered the Del Sol Archives, then those were also included in the overall plan. Sometime around that period Mike Smith left. He left suddenly. And Jim Isaacson took over the L.R.H. accounts.

For my part in that, I had Virgil Wilhite, who was a collector come in and with his professional expertise, appraise the documents which I then had in my possession. And he was to come up with a figure which was  then given to Mr. Hubbard’s tax attorney, Jim Murphy.

Then came back another order that Mr. Wilhite was to come up with two figures; one was a maximum; one was a minimum. And this had some bearing, apparently, on the way that the documents were ultimately going to be used in a — for the establishment of an archives trust.

The subject of an archives trust came up a number of times during that period. It involved both myself and  involved MCCS personnel.

I also mentioned the archives trust in communications to Mary Sue. So she was also aware of the plan at that point for the establishment of it.

One of the purposes was, of course, to gain income for Mr. Hubbard.

Q When Mr. Wilhite did this appraisal, was it in


the summer of 1980?

A Yes,

Q And that was before you sent the letter of October 15, 1980 to Mary Sue Hubbard; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, at some point in time you had collected approximately 22 boxes from the Del Sol Hotel?

A Yes.

Q Approximately how many documents were shredded from the Del Sol Hotel during the shredding in January, 1980?

MR. LITT: From the Del Sol Hotel?

MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw that.

Q Approximately how many documents that were shredded in January, 1980 in the shredding project came from the Del Sol Hotel, if you recall?

A I couldn’t give you a very accurate figure, but there was a great deal of material which came from there which was shredded.

Q Would the number be in the thousands?

A Yes.

Q Now, were there documents shredded from the upper floor of the Del Sol Hotel?

A Yes.


Q And approximately what percent of the documents that are presently under seal were headed for the shredder when you rescued them, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. LITT: Objection. The characterization of "rescued." He’s testified what he did. Rescue is argument at best.

THE COURT: I suppose so, but it is in the eyes of the beholder.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Aproximately what percentage of the documents that are presently under seal were brought to you to determine whether they should be shredded?

A Probably a very small percentage.

Q And what is your best memory as to what percentage it is?

A I couldn’t say. If you include the total amount which would have — if we had allowed the first box to be shredded –

MR. LITT: Objection; this is not responsive.

THE COURT: Well he is getting up to an answer.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am trying to give you a percentage.

Then the other boxes would have followed suit, the other boxes which were in Del Sol at the time, so I would say 50 percent of the documents under seal come from the Del Sol materials which potentially all could have been shredded during that shredding campaign.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And under the criteria that was established should they have been shredded?

MR. LITT: Objection; this has been asked and answered and is a conclusion.


THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, during the period of time in the summer of 1980 when Mr. Wilhite was appraising the documents that you had collected, did you become concerned about the fact that documents were being lost, shredded or destroyed from sources other than Del Sol that you had not yet reached in connection with your duties?

A Yes.

Q And in what way did you become concerned, Mr. Armstrong?

A Well, I had at that point gone to Clearwater and some time in May of 1980 I had seen materials at Clearwater, I knew that — I talked to John McGinley who was in the LRH Pers Com Flag. He informed me that B-1 personnel had gone through the Pers Com files and had taken out anything which they considered sensitive at that time.

I also knew that he had taken the totality of the Pers Com files out of the organization offices and had them hidden off the property in a cleaning closet in one of the buildings which was used for housing and berthing by organization personnel.

I had by that time gone through the basement of the building known as ASHO, American Saint Hill Organization, and had discovered materials down there which was very early Dianetics–Scientology materials which were being destroyed, and just from those sources alone by the summer, I knew that there was a problem.

In August I traveled up the coast and visited


the Seattle organization and the Portland organization and met with a number of early Dianetics and Dianeticists and Scientologists and determined that in those locations there were materials which were not being cared for.

So I thought it as a problem of some magnitude at that point.

Q And did you learn that materials had been left at the LA organization in an area which flooded really and those materials had been completely ruined?

A Yes, those are the ones that I am referring to.

I went to the L.A. organization and those materials were being destroyed.

MR. LITT: Destroyed or ruined?

THE COURT: You can cross-examine later.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Ruined, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes, ruined.

Q And you learned at that period of time that documents pursuant to these shredding procedures were being destroyed throughout the United States; is that correct?

A I knew of that from 1977 because I was involved even in 1977 on the destruction of, you know, what could have been records of what I considered then historical significance.

Q And prior to your undertaking the duties that you are undertook in collecting the documents, to your knowledge was there any organized efforts by Mr. Hubbard or anyone else in the Scientology organization to prevent the destruction of documents of historical interest?


A I think that Mr. Vorm had also around that period, probably in part because of communications with me because I was trveling around a great deal and finding these materials, he also became aware of the problem and within his organization sought to bring the problem to light and take steps to correct it.

Q Now in your correspondence of October 15, 1980 which, for the record, is exhibit J, of seven pages in length, did you communicate these problems of destruction or ruination of materials to Mrs. Hubbard?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Well, to the extent that the words "To Mrs. Hubbard" are in there, Your Honor, the document speaks for itself and is now in evidence. There has been testimony that she didn’t receive it. He communicated in a letter.

THE COURT: All right. Should be more specific, I suppose.

It was communicated in this communication; is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Ask the next question.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And you sent that to the controller?

A Yes.

Q And the controller at that time was who?

A Mary Sue Hubbard.

Q Now did you find, you mentioned the Pers Com Flag files, did that same situation exist with other sources


that you were sending materials from; namely, the destruction or ruination of materials?

A Well, the one that comes to mind is, and I may have mentioned it, GO PRWW where they were being totally uncared for and a lot of the materials which I went through were mildewed in the building in which they were housed in St. Hill.


Q To your knowledge prior to your collection of these documents in one place, had a complete collection attempt ever been made together with an appraisal of the documents collected in that process?

MR. LITT: Collection attempts of what?

MR. FLYNN: Of the biographical materials of L. Ron Hubbard.

MR. HARRIS: That is a compound question, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether an appraisal had ever been done before of Mr. Hubbard’s biographical materials?

A I don’t know of any.

Q In your initial petition to Mr. Hubbard did you recite that this is basically what needed to be done; that the materials all needed to be collected for his benefit?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: Objection. The document speaks for iself.

BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to –

THE COURT: The document says, "…one of the historians of the company."

What are the historians of the company?

THE WITNESS: That was — the historians of the company were to be the people who collected up the — what they call the PR archives at WW.

There was — there had been something written on that subject. And I took that — the note "historians


of the company" from whatever documents I had referred to.

THE COURT: All right. You may continue, counsel.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you meet anyone who fell into the category of being an historian of the company?

A I guess I was possibly the closest thing to it.

Q Now, prior to the discussions of the contract with Omar Garrison and PDK, did you conduct interviews with people relating to the biography project?

A Yes.

Q And who did you interview?

A This is up to the point of meeting Omar Garrison; is that correct?

Q Prior to the contract being executed.

A Okay. I had met a number of people in Seattle and Portland areas who were early Dianeticists.

I had met Mr. Hubbard’s cousin who lived in Bremerton, Washington.

I met two of his cousins at that point. I met another cousin in Bellingham, Washington and his living aunt in Bellingham, Washington.

I interviewed an old woman who had lived beside him in Port Orchard, Washington and another couple of people who knew little bits of information up in the Port Orchard area.

There was a person who worked with me, Francis Schier was his name; he was just sort of a volunteer. And he interviewed a number of people throughout that period. Those were people who were principally at that time working


in one or another Scientology organization.

Q Now, what was your understanding as to where the money came from to finance those trips, Mr. rmstrong?

A From — all of it ultimately came, I believe, from Sea Org reserves.

Q What is Sea Org reserves?

A Sea Org reserves is the money which is collected by the sea Organization from other organizations or from their own organizations which is over and above operating expenses and which is put into reserve bank accounts.

Q And did you know where the bank accounts were located for Sea Org reserves in 1980 and ‘81?

A I can’t say for sure. I was told Luxemborg at that point.

MR. LITT: I object to what he was told.

THE COURT: By whom were you told?

THE WITNESS: By Laurel Sullivan, Your Honor. And in communications with finance personnel, someone by the name of Tinglenberg.

THE COURT: People in the Sea Org?


THE COURT: I’ll deny the motion.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know an individual named Bill Franks?

A Yes.

Q In 1980, ‘81 what was his position?

A Throughout at least some of that period he was called the executive director international.


Q And what is that post, Mr. Armstrong?

A That was the post which was originally held by Mr. Hubbard up until he supposedly resigned in 1966. And the post was recreated and Mr. Franks assumed that post sometime, I believe, in 1980 or 1981.

It was to be the supreme head of all of Scientology.

Q Now, did the post of executive director international have superior authority to the post of controller?

A That was my understanding of it at that time.

Q Prior to the creation of the post or placing Mr. Franks in the post of executive director international, did you have any understanding that there was any higher authority above the post of controller other than what actual authority Mr. Hubbard exercised?

A Under Mr. Hubbard and under the messengers who acted for Mr. Hubbard, the controller was the top post.


Q Now, at some point in time was there a group called the Watchdog Committee that came into existence?

A Yes.

Q And what is the Watchdog Committee?

A The Watchdog Committee was a group of senior messengers who as a committee oversaw and managed all Scientology and other activities within the complete network of Scientology related activities.

Q And who did they answer to?

A Mr. Hubbard.

MR. HARRIS: Excuse me, Your Honor. I will move to strike that as a conclusion of the witness unless he was there.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you have the opportunity in 1979 to 1981 to observe the activities of the Watchdog

A I never saw them meet directly as a committee.

Maybe I saw them when I walked into their office once or twice, but never to actually observe them acting as a committee.

Q Did you see orders that emanated from them as a committee?

A Yes.

Q How many such orders?

A Oh, boy, I really don’t know, probably 20 or 30.

Q And do you know whether Mr. Franks had any supervisory control or authority over Sea Org reserves in


1980 or 1981?

A I don’t know that.

Q Do you know whether Mr. Franks signed an undated resignation in advance of assuming his position as
executive director international in 1980-1981?

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, he could only know by hearsay unless he is present. Could we please have a foundation?

THE COURT: Well, if you have personal knowledge that you have seen something like this, you may answer. If you don’t, you could so state.

THE WITNESS: I haven’t seen such a thing.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know what the practice was with regard to officers and directors of corporations of Scientology between 1970 and 1981 with regard to resignations, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. HARRIS: Same objection. He’s already testified, I think, Your Honor, that he wasn’t an officer or a director of any such organizations?

THE COURT: Well it is conceivable he might have personal knowledge. If you have personal knowledge, you can tell us. If you don’t, you can so state.

THE WITNESS: I don’t have any, personal knowledge.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When you collected the documents under seal, did you find records relating to undated letters of resignation?

A Yes.

Q For what corporations, Mr. Armstrong?

A For various Scientology corporations.


Q And when you were collecting the documents under seal, did you make inquiries as to what the practice
was of Scientology organizations with respect to having undated letters of resignation signed by officers and directors of Scientology corporations?

A No. By the time I came across these things, I was already aware of such a practice and so I understood what it was at that time.

Q And where did you —

MR. HARRIS: May everything be stricken after "No" as nonresponsive to the question, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Well, if I did, that would be the next question so I will let it stand.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: How did you become aware, Mr. Armstrong?

THE COURT: Of the practice.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

I had had communications with various people throughout that period. I had been involved in the OTS, the back-dating procedure and in dealing with Kima Douglas who was then the legal officer what was called the Flag Bureau at that time. I had discussions with her regarding the possession of undated resignations and the holding of them.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know where Kima Douglas was an officer or director of any Scientology organizations?

A I don’t know.

Q Do you know of any other individuals who were


officers or directors of Scientology organizations?

A I have known several throughout the years.

Q And who are they?

A Sue Pomeroy, Jimmie Mulligan, Bill Fosdick. Those are the names that I recall right now.

Q Do you recall whether Bill Franks was?

A Well he was the ED International, so I would assume that is an officer at least.

MR. LITT: Objection.

THE COURT: All right, what he would assume would be stricken.

We will take a 15 minute break.



THE COURT: In the case on trial let the record reflect that counsel are present; 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: Mr. Flynn, you may continue.

MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q Mr. Armstrong, prior to the contract being entered into between PDK and Omar Garrison, did you participate in negotiations relative to that contract between Omar Garrison, yourself, and Laurel Sullivan?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A We had a number of discussions between the time that he arrived back from Europe — which would sometime in October — up to the point of his arrival in Los Angeles which would be sometime in late October.

Q Now, you mentioned Europe; had you met him over in Europe?

A Yes.

Q When was that?

A In September, 1980.

Q And what was the purpose of your meeting him in Europe?

A It was to sell him on the idea of undertaking the writing of the biography.

Q And whose idea was it to try to have Mr. Garrison write the biography?


A I think there were a number of people who were involved in that decision.

I corresponded with Shelia Gaiman for a couple of months and a number of times prior to actually going to England to meet Mr. Garrison.

I was in favor of it; I had the memo from Mr. Hubbard from 1977 where he had basically approved of Mr. Garrison’s work points in which he had created a — not on the line of the book so much as a method or a style of writing it.

Q Now, when you say "work points," are you referring to what I think has been marked in two places as exhibit I for the defense?

Your Honor, I think it was attached to the contract by Mr. Litt.

MR. LITT: We just used what was already there; so it is exhibit I and it is attached, I think, to exhibit G.

THE COURT: I remember.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Exhibit I is dated March 16, 1977; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q To your knowledge what role had Mr. Garrison played prior to the time that you became involved with him in connection with the biography?

A The only thing that I know about that he had done relating to the biography was to write what he called his work points.

He did that not in anticipation of himself doing


the biography, but just as an idea on how it could be approached.


Q And do you know who asked him to do that?

A I don’t know.

Q Do you know the circumstances under which exhibit I was created?

MR. LITT: Is this personal knowledge that is being asked for, Your Honor?

THE WITNESS: I don’t have any personal knowledge of it, only what I have been told.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, when the contract was created, did exhibit I come into your possession?

A I had exhibit I prior to the creation of the contract. Exhibit I, both parts of it existed in the PR Bureau files at that time.

Q Had you found that when you were collecting documents on the biography?

A Yes.

Q Now, did you notice in exhibit I there is a letter from Mr. Hubbard regarding the biographical work points;  is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And did you know in there Mr. Hubbard records that his own records were stolen in 1953 relative to his personal records that existed prior to 1953?

A Yes.

Q And did you find that to be true?

A No.

Q And, in fact, you found his records in the Del Sol; is that correct?


A Yes.

Q Now when you met with Mr. Garrison, did you have any discussion with him prior to entering into the contract about the fact that the internal records of Mr. Hubbard prior to 1953 did exist?

A Yes.

Q And what did you tell him?

A I told him in considerable detail what I had found and the conditions under which they were found, and I provided him at that point with a copy of the Virgil Wilhite inventory. Wilhite by that point had done a rough inventory of the documents which I had located in Del Solt and I took off the monetary amounts from the copy that I made and provided that to Mr. Garrison along with explaining to him what the mass of the materials was and roughly the contents or description of the — what types of materials they were.

Q Now, did you have any discussion with Mr. Garrison about the fact that he would not undertake the biography contract unless these materials were given to him?

A That was my understanding right from the start. It was a point which he demanded.

Q Namely, access to these personal materials?

A That is right.

Q Now after meeting with Mr. Garrison in England, when did you see him again?

A Right around the time of the biography contract negotiations.

Q And when was that, Mr. Armstrong?


A Probably a few days prior to the actual signing.

Might have been the 28th of October.

Q And who was present at that time?

A Laurel and I and Mr. Garrison.

Q Was there an attorney present who represented Mr. Garrison?

A No.

Q Did he represent himself?

A Yes.

Q Was there an attorney present representing Mrs. Hubbard?

A No.

Q Was there an attorney present representing Mr. Hubbard?

A No.

Q Was there any attorney present?

A No.

Q And what was said in that meeting?

A Laurel showed him — we both showed him the space which had at that point been renovated for him and
which — and he was shown primarily by Laurel the files of archives which I had which were to be made available to him. That was principally it at that point. It was another selling point.

We sort of had arrived at the conclusion at that point that he would do it. He had agreed to do it. The final points of the contract had to be worked out so that they were agreeable to him, but he was at that point willing


to go ahead.

Q Now were you present at any meetings when the final points of the contract were worked out?

A No, aside from — no, I really wasn’t.

Q And were you present when the contract was signed?

A Yes.

Q And who was present then?

A Laurel, myself, Omar, Larry Brennan. I believe also Alan Wertheimer was there. At least for the finalization, if not for the signing of it.

Q Going back to the prior meeting had you had any conversations with Mr. Garrison about who was representing Mr. Hubbard, particularly in connection with who Mr. Garrison would deal with from the Church of Scientology?

A Well right at the outset I told him that I represented Mr. Hubbard, that Laurel represented Mr. Hubbard, and that we would be the people that he would be working with.

He was quite adamant that he would not work with what he considered church personnel. He stated that he had run into some difficulties in doing the prior book "Playing Dirty" and that for that reason, that reason he would not or did not wish to deal with them.


He was insistent on dealing with Mr. Hubbard’s representatives.

Q And was always understood by you when you dealt with Mr. Garrison that you were dealing with him as
Mr. Hubbard’s representative?

A Yes.

Q When the contract was signed did you and Laurel Sullivan represent the interests of Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And whose interests did Mr. Wertheimer represent?

A Mr. Hubbard.

Q Who did Mr. Brennan represent?

A The publisher, AOSH DK.

Q Was there an attorney there present who was representing Mr. Garrison?

A No.

Q Was there any discussion relative to — as at the meeting when the contract was signed or at a prior meeting — relative to what, if any, control Mr. Hubbard would have over the biography project?

A Yes. The whole thing was actually under his control. And the final approval of the biography was to be his.

Q Was there any discussion relative to monies that he would receive as income from the biography project?

A That was discussed at some length, principally between Laurel and myself.

Q What was that discussion?


A Well, she asked me to make a number of grids which would reflect the amount of income to Mr. Hubbard and to Mr. Garrison, given different percentages and different royalties and given different numbers of books sold and at different prices. And these, I did at her request.

Q Were these basically financial projections of what the earnings would be?

A Right.

Q What was your projection for Mr. Hubbard?

A Well, there were various of them. It depended on the amounts of books sold.

We were talking about — they ran between 200,000, 500,000, and over a million.

Q Now, were there discussions relative to the values of the materials collected, aside from income from the book, the biography itself?

A These were at different times, but there were discussions on that subject.

Q And were values placed in these discussions on the materials collected by you?

A Here we are talking about the materials I had located in Del Sol and that sort of –

Q All of the materials that were going to be collected for the biography project that belonged to Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes. We had discussions on that.

Q And what values were discussed for those materials?

MR. HARRIS: I’m not sure I know the referent "we,"


Your Honor, as to who was present during these discussions.

BY MR. FLYNN: How many discussions were there, Mr. Armstrong, relative to the value of the materials collected?

A Probably ten.

Q And who was present in these meetings?

A They were principally between Laurel and myself.

Later there were conversations with the — with Mr. Hubbard’s attorney Alan Wertheimer and other discussions with another attorney, Jim Murphy.

We also discussed it, Laurel and I, discussed it with Virgil Wilhite. And we discussed how to pay Virgil for his professional services.

Q With regard to discussions between you and Laurel were you acting as Mr. Hubbard’s representatives at that time?

A Yes.

Q And what values were placed on the materials when you and Laurel had the discussions as Mr. Hubbard’s

A The value placed, rough value, as I recall, placed on the materials which I had at that time — and this was  in the summer of 1980; so I had at that time only accumulated a portion of what I finally ended up with.

I believe the total came to $5 million as appraised by Mr. Wilhite.

Q Now, was there value placed on the controller archives that were under Mr. Vorm with respect to technical items?


A To my knowledge, a full appraisal was not done. I made arrangements to get Mr. Wilhite access to the controller archives. And I was successful in doing that. I don’t recall the reason that it was not done at that time. Perhaps it was because Mr. Wilhite moved away for a period of time.

We tossed around figures, given the amount of volume that Mr. Vorm said was there.

Mr. Vorm and Mr. Wilhite and I met and discussed it a number of times.

Q And what were the figures that were mentioned?

A $50 million.

Q Now, when these meetings took place between you, Mr. Vorm, and Mr. Wilhite, were you acting as Mr. Hubbard’s representative?

A Yes.

Q Who was Mr. Wilhite acting on behalf of?

A Mr. Wilhite was paid by Hr. Hubbard’s accounts personnel to do the initial appraisal of the materials which I had.

He was also to be paid for the final appraisal.

A distinct differentiation had to made regarding who paid Mr. Wilhite because — so that no future problem would be run into.

I would assume, then — here is an assumption — that given –

MR. FLYNN: Don’t give us that.

You mentioned future problems; were there


continuing discussions between you and Laurel Sullivan about who you worked for with respect to the biography project and legal problems that could result therefrom for Mr. Hubbard?

A We discussed that subject a number of times.

Q What were those discussions?

A In that the biography was going to be making a great deal of profit for Mr. Hubbard, in that I was working with his personal archives, it would not be possible for me to continue to be paid by Sea Org, but I was to be paid directly by Mr. Hubbard a standard wage. And the reason for that was so that we would not run into an inurement problem sometime later.

Q Now, with regard to this standard wage, was it your understanding at that point in time that it was always Mr. Hubbard who controlled all aspects of your employment?

A Yes.

Q And when these issues were being discussed did you understand them to be discussed in the context of legal problems that were then related to the MCCS Mission?

A Yes.

Q And did an attorney participate in those discussions?

A An attorney did not participate in the discussions that I had directed with Laurel. But there were similar discussions with an attorney during that period.

Q And was that Alan Wertheimer?

A Yes.

Q To your knowledge were there discussions between –


were these communications between Mr. Wertheimer and Larry Brennan of PUBS DK relative to some of these problems?

A Did you say discussions?

Q Communications.

A Yes, there were.

Q And the problems being specifically who owned the archives; was that one of the issues, Mr. Armstrong?

A I don’t know if it was addressed as an issue in which there was any dispute. I think it was assumed.

It was definitely a part of the correspondence between them.

Q And with regard to your job in collecting the materials, was that a part of the correspondence between them?

A Yes.

Q Now, have you seen that correspondence?

A Yes at least some of it. Yes.

Q Under what circumstances was it given to you?

A It was given to me by Laurel who received it from Mr. Wertheimer.

Q And at that time was she acting as Mr. Hubbard’s representative?

A Yes.

Q And were you acting as Mr. Hubbard’s representative?

A Yes.

Q And was the correspondence given to Omar Garrison?

A Yes.


Q Now, let me show you a letter — I believe you already have that — dated November 17, 1980.

When the contract was signed was it Mr. Garrison’s understanding, based on the meetings you had with him, Laurel Sullivan, and Alan Wertheimer that L. Ron Hubbard was going to get 50 percent of the royalties of the biography?


MR. LITT: Wait, was it whose understanding?

MR. FLYNN: Was it the witness’s?

MR. HARRIS: Excuse me –

THE COURT: I think you asked whether it was Mr. Garrison’s understanding.

MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor.

Q Was it your understanding, Mr. Armstrong, that Mr. Garrison was going to get 50 percent of the royalties and Mr. Hubbard was going to get 50 percent of the royalties?

A Yes.

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

THE COURT: Double E.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know who hired Alan Wertheimer, retained him?

A Only what I have been told.

Q Who told you?

A Laurel.

Q Now directing your attention to sub-paragraph, or paragraph 3, did you see that correspondence at the time, Mr. Armstrong, that it was prepared or shortly thereafter?

A Yes.

Q And did that comport with your understanding that the records that you were collecting were the personal records of L. Ron Hubbard and did not belong to any Scientology organization?

A Yes.

Q And, in fact, Mr. Wertheimer so stated; is that



MR. HARRIS: Well that is a conclusion, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I will sustain the objection. The letter speaks for itself.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, was it your understanding that the materials you were collecting were coming from his personal files and that was also understood by Mr. Wertheimer, Mr. Hubbard’s lawyer?

MR. HARRIS: Objection; compound.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, there is a reference on the second page who was salaries paid by Mr. Hubbard in out of pocket expenses in connection with the collection and compilation of the personal records and the biographical materials; do you see that, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q At the time that was written was it your understanding that you were the one who was collecting the
materials that was to receive a salary?

A Yes.

Q And what was your understanding with regard to who was going to pay the salary?

A Mr. Hubbard.

Q And was it your understanding that Mr. Wertheimer was representing Mr. Hubbard’s interests when he stated that Mr. Hubbard was to receive 50 percent of the royalties under the contract?

A Yes.


Q So it was your understanding then that the project you were engaged in was a profit-making project for Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?

MR. LITT: Objection; leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And was it your understanding that Mr. Hubbard would have final approval for the contract as set forth in exhibit double E?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Well, just a second, Your Honor. May I move to strike the answer to interpose an objection?

That is a characterization by Mr. Flynn of the contract which Your Honor has, which we have no objection moving into evidence, and then the witness’s understanding is brought in. So the problem with the question is it is both ambiguous and assumes facts not in evidence.

MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it.

THE COURT: Well, the only problem, I am looking at the last paragraph, and, of course, Mr. Wertheimer says, "In connection with the foregoing however, it must be understood that Mr. Hubbard must have final approval over the manuscript."

MR. HARRIS: The manuscript, not the contract as Mr. Flynn indicates.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, was it your understanding that Mr. Hubbard had final approval of the manuscript,


Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q Now, let me show you a letter dated December 2, 1980 from Mr. Wertheimer. May that be marked double F?

THE COURT: All right, double F.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Have you seen this letter before?

A Yes.

Q And what are the circumstances under which you first saw this letters Mr. Armstrong?

A I was given it by Laurel Sullivan.

Q And when was that?

A Right shortly after the date of that letter.

Q And turning to the second page in the first sentence of the second paragraph, directing your attention to the sentence:

"Mr. Hubbard already has ownership and possession of the Archives. If he were inclined to do so, Mr, Hubbard could, for relatively little money, engage an author directly and then own all rights to his own ‘authorized biography.’"

A Yes.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Did that comport with your understanding that in your capacity as Mr. Hubbard’s representative he owned the documents you were collecting?

A Yes.


Q Now those letters are written to a Larry Brennan; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Who was Larry Brennan?

A Larry Brennan was at that time in the legal bureau WW. I believe his title was Branch I Director Legal WW, and he also apparently represented AOSH DK for I don’t know what broader, in what broader sense than for the biography, but he apparently represented ADSH DK at the same time.

Q When you say Branch I WW, is that the Guardian’s Office?

A Yes.

Q And did you understand that the Guardian’s Office controlled PDK?

MR. LITT: Objection. What does his understanding of that have to do with anything?

THE COURT: Sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. LITT: At some point in time, Mr. Armstrong, did you learn that PDK after the contract with Mr. Garrison was entered into knew nothing about the contract?


MR. LITT: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.


Q BY MR. FLYNN: And when did that occur?

A That occurred in the summer and fall of 1981. I attempted — Omar Garrison was supposed to receive another, I believe, $2,500 in expense money. He had been paid a certain amount up to that point.

So I attempted to communicate with AOSH DK, thinking that they would the people to know about this and to forward the $2,500.

I received communications back from AOSH DK indicating that they were not going to pay and that they didn’t know anything about the biography contract.

One communication came from the CO or the commanding officer of AOSH DK.

Q And who was that?

A I forget the name right now. But we have one communication with the person named. It was — I believe it was a Danish name. I really don’t recall.

Q Now, exhibit EE and FF set forth various proposals by Mr. Wertheimer to PDK in connection with Mr. Hubbard’s participation in the biography project; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And also with respect to the ownership of the archives; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And also with respect to the position that you


had in Mr. Hubbard’s employ; is that correct?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: Objection. The documents all speak for themselves. These are characterizations. There is specifically no mention of Mr. Armstrong by name in any of them. So –

THE COURT: They do speak for themselves.

MR. FLYNN: May this be marked next in order, Your Honor?


BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Armstrong, what is exhibit GG?

A This is a letter from Larry Brennan to Alan Wertheimer regarding the LRH biography.

Q And did you receive that in connection with your capacity as Mr. Hubbard’s representative?

A Yes.

Q And was it your understanding as set forth in exhibit GG that proposals 1, 3, and 4 of the prior letters of Mr. Wertheimer were agreed to by Mr. Brennan on behalf of PDK?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: His understanding is irrelevant, Your Honor.

The document speaks for itself.

MR. FLYNN: I submit it is relevant, Your Honor, because of the continuation of his duties thereafter.

THE COURT: All right. Rephrase your question.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: After you saw all of this correspondence, Mr. Armstrong and after you had these dealings with Laurel Sullivan and Alan Wertheimer and Omar


Garrison, was it your understanding that the materials you were collecting were owned by L. Ron Hubbard?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: Objection. Asked and answered about four times.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: After you received these communications did you continue to have the understanding and rely on the fact that the materials you were collecting were owned by L. Ron Hubbard?

MR. LITT: Objection. Leading.

Your Honor, this is — I mean the witness only has to answer yes or no at this point. If he is going to testify to state of mind, he should be asked state of mind.

He shouldn’t be asked questions –

MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What is your state of mind, Mr. Armstrong, with respect to who owned the biographical materials that you were collecting after you received this correspondence?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

Q What was your state of mind with regard to who you were working for after you received this correspondence?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

Q And for how long did you continue in that capacity of collecting materials?

A At least until I left the organization in


December, 1981.

Q Now, at some point in time did Mr. Garrison move into the quarters that were provided to him in the Cedars complex?

A He never really moved in. In the sense of working there, he came there sometimes and would work there. He never did any writing of the manuscript there. He used it as an office, but it was irregularly and for brief periods whenever he did come.

Q And at some point in time did he move out almost entirely or not occupy the premises at all?

A Yes.

Q When was that?

A That would have been probably the spring of 1981.

Q Now, when you provided materials to Mr. Garrison after the contract was written and before the spring of 1981, describe the circumstances under which you generally gave him the materials, where and when.

A Mr. Garrison and I were in very close communication throughout that period until December of ‘81. And so we would make arrangements for meetings. Either he would come into the office — at first he came into his office and the office where I worked more regularly than later on. But either he would come in or I would meet him somewhere, you know, for lunch, that sort of thing, or I would deliver materials to him at his Costa Mesa project.

He also had a home throughout that period in Utah. And there was once in which I drove up to Utah; there


were four of us that went. We went there for New Year’s. I took materials at that time.

But generally it was either he came into the office at which time I gave to him whatever I had prepared in the interim since the last time I had seen him, or I went to his place in Costa Mesa.


Q All right, now, were any restrictions ever placed on you by anyone as to what materials you could or could not give to Omar Garrison?

A No.

Q And what was your understanding, Mr. Armstrong, as to what you could give to Omar Garrison with regard to the materials you collected?

A I could give him virtually anything, anything which I deemed had biographical use.

Q Did Mr. Hubbard ever communicate to you any restrictions?

A No.

Q Did Mrs. Hubbard ever communicate to you any restrictions?

A No.

Q Between the time of the contract and the spring of 1981 approximately how many times did you deliver materials to Mr. Garrison at his Costa Mesa apartment?

A Six or seven.

Q And up to the spring of 1981 what volume of materials do you estimate you had given to Mr. Garrison at that point in time?

A Maybe 10,000 pages.

Q Now were those copies or originals?

A Copies.

Q And who did the copying?

A I did.

Q Were you provided any support staff during that


period of time to do copying?

A No.

Q And other than your duties copying and giving materials to Mr. Garrison, prior to the spring of 1981 had you done anything else in connection with the biography project other than what you have already testified  about with regard to trips?

A The first date — since the inception — since the signing of the contract?

Q Right.

A There was one trip which you could call a trip which was done and that was to the Special Unit, to Gilman Not Springs, and I set up a number of interviews for Omar. He stayed off the property. He stayed there about a week, I believe, total, and I went with him and to the La Quinta property along with another man by the name of Leo Johnson, and then he interviewed a number of people on the Gilman Hot Springs property, and all this took place over a period of a week or so so that was during that time.

Q Now, after — in the spring of 1981 did you begin to take some trips with respect to your duties collecting documents and conducting interviews on behalf of Mr. Hubbard?

A There was another trip which I did with Omar and his wife, and it took, I recall, probably two, maybe a little over two weeks and we drove up to Washington State and then to Montana, and through that trip we interviewed a number of people who had known Mr. Hubbard in the early days.


When I say "early" we mean pre-Dianetics days, and family members and I went through a number of records in Helena, Montana, and Bremmerton and Port Orchard, Washington at that time.

Q Who paid Mr. Garrison’s expenses if you know?

A It came form AOSH DK. I don’t know where it ultimately care from because the checks, in fact, came from World Wide, but I don’t know. I don’t know what bank accounts or who it ultimately or whose money it was ultimately.

Q How do you know the checks came from Worldwide?

This is GOWW?

A Right.

Q How do you know that?

A I saw the initial and the second check.

Q Now, who paid your expenses?

A Sea Org reserves.

Q And after that trip, was there a trip to the Mid-West in July of ‘81?

A Yes.

Q And how long did that trip last?

A About five weeks.

Q And who went on it?

A I drove a car and then Joscelyn joined me in Iowa.

Q Joscelyn is your wife?

A Yes.

Q And where did you go on that trip?

A Went to Nebraska, Iowa, Canada and then down


through Oklahoma, Wichita, Phoenix. There was a number of other points along the way, but those were the principal ones which had historical interest.

Q And why did they have historical interest?

A I was at that time tracing the geneology of Mr. Hubbard and his family had come from there.

Q Who paid for that trip?

A Sea Org reserves.

Q And did you conduct that trip as the representative of Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q For purposes of the biography project?

A Yes.

Q Now, throughout this period of time did you have ongoing conversations with Omar Garrison about the materials you were collecting?

A Yes.

Q And what was the nature of these conversations, Mr. Armstrong?

A Well, them was the factual setting of the conversation, what information I had copied for him, what he needed, what area he was particularly interested in at the time, and my attempt to provide him whatever information that would fit into the period or the subject in which he was then looking.

Additionally there was a great number of our conversations which dealt with the many misrepresentations which we were uncovering throughout that period and the


differences between the documentation which I was discovering and copying and providing to him, those differences between those materials and the PR biographical sketches and the information which had been  provided about Mr. Hubbard in dust jacket material and about-the-author sections and that sort of thing.


Q How often did these conversations take place?

A After the initial couple of meetings with Mr. Garrison, they took place — something in the nature was discussed — almost in every conversation with him. Something like that would cone up in almost every conversation.

Q How quickly after the contract was signed did you begin bringing documents to Mr.Garrison?

A The same day.

Q And from that point on you and he discussed differences between what was in the documents and what had previously been represented about Mr. Hubbard?

A No. It actually took a few days. I didn’t say anything initially to Mr. Garrison about any discrepancies.

It initially came up when I provided Mr. Garrison a number of letters between Mr. Hubbard and his first wife. And that would have been perhaps a week after the beginning of our contractual relationship together.

Q And from there to the time you left the organization in december, 1981, can you estimate how many
conversations you had with Mr. Garrison about the discrepancies between what was in the documents and what had previously been represented about Mr. Hubbard?

A I would say that during that period there would have been a hundred such meetings and conversations, either by telephone or in person.

Q Now, did Mr. Garrison during these conversations begin to discuss with you the probability of the biography ever being approved?


A Yes.

Q And when did that subject first arise?

A It began to arise sometime probably in early 1981.

Q And what was said at that time?

A There were — there were a couple of anticipated problems, one of which was the fact that there was no way in which the biography could apparently be approved because there was no line of communication to Hr. Hubbard at that time or no line which, at least, could be admitted to.

So that was one of the problems which he faced.

Another one was the fact that he was — together we were uncovering this drastic difference between what the PR had been up to that time and what the facts actually were.

And he felt that Scientology and, more particularly, Mr. Hubbard could not stand to see the facts about the man. And he was in the position of wanting to do an honest biography and not wanting to write what he called a puff. And he felt that as a result, he was going to continue on, but he felt that ultimately, as he said many times, the book would never see the light of print.

Q And did he use a term to describe that, the fact that there were misrepresentations and for that reason the book would never see the light of print?

MR. LITT: Your Honor, these are all hearsay statements.

I don’t understand what they have to do with.

THE COURT: They are all part of the sequence of events that led up to the ultimate situation, state of mind, circumstances, background.


You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I’m not quite sure what you mean by a particular word.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was there a term ‘coperphilia" used?

MR. LITT: Should I bother suggesting that that was leading, Your Honor?

THE WITNESS: I knew the word, but I just didn’t know how admissible that — such a thing would be.

Yes, there was. He referred to the followers of Mr. Hubbard as coperphiliacs.

Q Did these discussions continue right up to the time you left the organization?

A Yes.

Q Now, at some point in time did discussions begin about the fact that you and Mr.Armstrong — you and
Mr. Garrison could be subject to attack by the organization for finding out the truth about Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes. We had many discussions like that.

Q And when did those discussions begin?

A They began in the fall of 1981.


Q And do you recall the first such discussion?

A There was a point at which — yes, I do.

Q And when was that?

A It followed an incident where I was called to SU as a result of Norman Starsky who I knew at that point to be the second in charge of Mr. Hubbard’s legal missions, to be called — I was called to SU to be sec checked regarding what material I had provided to Mr. Garrison.

Q Now at that point in time what was your understanding as to Mr. Starsky’s authority to act on behalf of anyone in the Church of Scientology?

A I never considered him in relation to the Church of Scientology. I understood at that point that he was in charge of the LRH legal mission, that he was in the CMO or was a CMO Missionaire and at that point he was involved in dealings with new attorneys which had been retained to handle Mr. Hubbard’s legal problems.

MCCS at that point had been disbanded.

Laurel Sullivan had been pulled out to SU to pull weeds and a new mission had been established, and part of this new mission, the second in charge of the new mission was Norman Starsky. So I asssumed that he was performing basically the same functions as Laurel Sullivan and that he was Mr. Hubbard’s legal mission.

Q Now at that point in time when was the last time you had a communication from Mr. Hubbard?

A The last one I got, which was alleged to be from Mr. Hubbard, was some time in the late spring, early


summer of 1980, and I received a message which had come, a messenger had delivered to Laurel Sullivan asking for a copy of the "Excalibur" manuscript to be sent to him, so I made a copy at that point and wrote a letter to Mr. Hubbard and sent it to him.

Q Now between the time you assumed your duties on the project and this period in the fall of 1981, did you have any knowledge of where L. Ron Hubbard was?

A From the point I began the project?

Q Correct.

A At that point I knew that he was in Hemet.

Thereafter I did not know where he was.

Q Did you have any knowledge as to who was with him?

A Yes.

Q And who was with him to your knowledge?

A Pat and Annie Broeker.

Q Who are Pat and Annie Broeker?

MR. LITT: Is this personal knowledge or was he told this, too?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Where did you get this knowledge from, Mr. Armstrong?

A From Laurel and it was generally known among those of us who were at that level in the organization, and it could also be arrived at simply by two methods, by who was missing and by the fact that in late 1980 or early 1981 Mr. Hubbard sent down a manuscript which later was published as a book "Battlefield Earth."


And there was a proof, an initial proofreading and notes which were done, and they were in Pat Broeker’s handwriting.

Q And did you see those?

A Yes.

Q And do you know Pat Broeker?

A Yes.

Q And at that point in time how long had you know him?

A For about nine years.

Q And were you familiar with his handwriting?

A Yes.

Q And during that nine-year period did you become familiar with the posts that he had held for Mr. Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And what was your understanding at that time what post Pat Broeker held?

A That he held or up to that point?

Q Up to that point in time.

A When I knew him on the ship, he was in the accounting, either as an FBO; that is, a Flag Banking Officer or someone who dealt with organization moneys.

When we moved to Clearwater in Dunedin, he was on an ALR Missan along with his wife at the time, Trudy Broeker, and they were in charge under Hubbard of a particular aspect dealing with the move into Clearwater.

Thereafter, he was with Mr. Hubbard in La Quinta and performed — he was at that time appointed as a messenger.


Some time during that period he married Annie, formerly Annie Tidman, Annie Rush, and the two of them were considered high level messengers. There is various echelons within the Commodore’s Messenger organization, and they were up near the top.

From 1978 Pat was involved as a messenger with the movie production, and he would accompany Mr. Hubbard to the set and carry out or have Mr. Hubbard’s orders carried out on the film production set.

In 1979 he was with Mr. Hubbard in Hemet and in 1980 also he arrived with Mr. Hubbard a number of times, so I saw him several times in 1978 when he would arrive with Mr. Hubbard in a van. Mr. Hubbard arrived at the property in a van and I would see Pat with him at that time.


In 1980 Pat and Ann Broeker and Mr. Hubbard went into hiding.

Q Now, after 1980 up to the time you left the organization, December, 1981 did you become familiar with
the command lines at the top of the organization from L. Ron Hubbard to Laurel to you?

A Yes.

Q And what were those command lines?

A From Mr. Hubbard via the people who were with him, Pat and Ann Broeker via David Miscavige down in the CMO or into the personal office.

Q Who is David Miscavige?

A David Miscavige was a messenger who, after Mr. Hubbard left in 1980, took over under Mr. Hubbard, the
command or control of personal office CMO and all of the Scientology network.

Q How old was David Miscavige at the time?

A I don’t know. He was quite young.

Q Between — throughout the period of time that you were on the biography project did messages from
Mr. Hubbard come through Pat Broeker and David Miscavige to Laurel Sullivan?

A I don’t know about Pat Broeker.

All I was told about Pat Broeker — but I knew they came via David Miscavige.

Q Was that the routine command lines for communications from Mr. Hubbard throughout 1980 and 1981?

A Yes.


Q And was there an understanding at your level in the organization in 1980, 1981 as to who was with Mr. Hubbard at that time?

A Yes.

Q And who was that?

A Pat Nanenbroeker –

MR. LITT: Objection. He is not now speaking of his own understanding; he is speaking of a collection of

THE COURT: It is more or less the reputation of the organization. I’ll let it stand.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know Mr. Starsky worked for?

A Yes.

Q Who did he work for?

A At that time the chain of command to Norman Starsky ran from Norman, who was the second in charge of the special — what was called special projects up to his senior, Terry Gamboa to David Miscavige and then on up to Hubbard.

Q Terry Gamboa is your ex-wife?

A Yes.

Q In october, 1981 before your meeting with Mr. Starsky did you write a request to the commanding officer of the CMO relative to certain events that were taking place in connection with your wife Jocelyn?

A Yes.

Q And at that time who was the commanding officer of the Commodore’s messenger organization?


A Gale Irwin.

Q And do you know where Gale is today?

A I have been told that she is in San Diego.

MR. LITT: Objection.

THE COURT: It is his state of mind, It is not evidence that she is there. It is his state of mind.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Why did you write to Gale Irwin the commanding officer of the Commodore’s messengers?

A Because at that time my wife Jocelyn, who was then known as Joyce, she was in charge of a legal mission dealing with a new Scientology entity which had been created by Mr. Hubbard called Scientology Missions International, SMI.

Q Had she been receiving communications from Mr. Hubbard regarding SMI?

A I don’t –

MR. LITT: Objection. Is this personal knowledge now, or what his wife told him?

MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. FLYNN: Go ahead, Mr. Armstrong.

MR. LITT: I thought you withdrew the question.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to why you sent the letter to Gale Irwin.

A We were talking throughout that period and she informed me that she was very concerned because she was being asked to do things which, in her opinion, were illegal and that was the back dating of various legal documents, board


minutes, so on.

She was not trained in legal and she had asked people who should have that type of information and she
received two different answers: one, that it was okay and one, that it was absolutely illegal.

She was very concerned about this. And part of her concern — she expressed it to me — was that when the so-called — the 11, the criminal 11, were indicted and then convicted, just prior to this, there was a PR campaign within the organization to discredit these people and to make it look like they were acting on their own when in fact they were being made scapegoats. and this was in her opinion and
it was in my opinion.

She felt the same thing could happen to her; that she was doing things which were illegal and that if it ever came down to it, the organization would not stand behind her and they would say she acted on her own and was doing these illegal things.

So she was very concerned. And I, because of my position and because of the fact that I was doing what
I was doing and had some organizational altitude and was working for Mr. Hubbard, I wrote to the COCMO, Gale, who was actually over the Scientology Missions International setup and requested that Jocelyn come to work for me.

And finally, Gale did approve it and my wife did come and work in the PR bureau specifically on the biography project.


Q Now to that point in time had you had any assistance copying materials that you were giving to Omar Garrison?

A No.

Q And what duties did your wife undertake at that time with regard to copying materials to give to Omar Garrison?

A Well she really took over the totality of the copying and because she was doing that, I was freed up to do other things and she did mountains of copying.

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

THE COURT: All right, double G — are we up to double H?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When did she actually begin working copying materials, Mr.Armstrong?

A It would have been the last week of October 1981.

Q Up to that point in time taking the total amount of materials that finally ended up in the hand of Mr. Garrison before your wife Joyce started working, what percentage of materials had you already given to Mr. Garrison of the total amount?

A Of the total amount that I would give him?

Q Right, the total amount that was eventually given, up to the time that your wife started work, how much had you given him to that point in time?

A Probably half.

Q Now, when she started working, did she begin copying documents and giving them to Mr. Garrison


A Yes.

Q And for how long did she do that?

A Aside for a week or — I am not exactly sure, somewhere around a week, five days or a week, when we took a trip up to Carson City, Nevada which would have been in November, she copied throughout that period from the end of October to the time we left in December.

Q Did you take the materials to Mr. Garrison during that period of time or did she?

A To my recollection I always went. Sometimes she went with me, but I think that I always delivered them.

Q And how long before the meeting with Mr. Starsky did that take place?

A Probably a couple of weeks before I actually — the first time I spoke to him in relation to the biography.

Q Now when you first spoke to Mr. Starsky, did he demand to know at that time what documents you had given to Mr. Garrison?

A No.

Q When did he first make that demand?

A That was in a communication which he wrote to the CMO at SCU in which he ordered that I be sec checked.

Q Now, a "sec check" is again what, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. LITT: Objection; it has already been testified to.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: That is a security check?

A Yes.

Q As a result of that request by Mr. Starsky to come and be sec checked, what did you do?


A Well, I showed up at Gilman Hot Springs and I met with the person who had called me out there, Cirrus Slevin who was then in the Hubbard communications office within the CM0. She was what you call an ethics person within the CMO, ethics in a Scientological sense.

Q What does that mean?

A The person in charge of discipline or punishment.

Q And did you meet with her?

A Yes.

Q And did you have a conversation with her?

A Yes.

Q And what was that conversation?

A During that conversation she showed me Norman Starsky’s letter which he had written to her and which he had ordered the sec check. I talked to her and explained what I had said in the conversation with Norman Starsky and that I had simply done what I had done in providing whatever I had provided to Mr. Garrison, and that Mr. Garrison was capable of reading the materials which I had provided and making a rational decision, and that I did not agree with Mr. Starsky’s claim that I was speaking out in favor of L. Ron Hubbard’s son against the organization or that I felt that L. Ron Hubbard’s son was correct and Cirrus Slevin at that point accepted by explanation, and I said that I would put — I would write her a report and I would get together with Mr. Starsky to sort out any problems that there might be.

Q Now did you have — was part of that conversation


about the discrepancies that had arisen about Mr. Hubbard’s background?

A Yes.

Q And did you write a report?

A Yes.

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

THE COURT: Double I.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: How long after your meeting with Cirrus Slevin did you write the report?

A This would have been within a day.

Q And what was the purpose of writing the report, Mr. Armstrong?

A The purpose was to make it very clear that contrary to what Mr. Starsky had said, I was not seeking to attack Mr. Hubbard.


That I was simply seeking to have whatever truth we could find brought out and to not continue to promulgate false information about the man which ultimately would come back to harm him.

And I sought to let her know of what I had found, at least in part, and the problem that I was running into in the hopes that a bigger view of the whole situation would be taken than what I considered sort of a myopic view which Mr. Starsky had taken.

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.)


Los Angeles, California; Friday, May 11, 1984; 1:33 p.m.


THE COURT: In the case on trial, let the record reflect that counsel are present; the witness has retaken the stand.

State your name again for the record, sir.

You are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: You may continue, counsel.

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


Q Exhibit II dated November 25th, 1981, Mr. Armstrong, you were testifying about; how was that delivered to Cirrus Slevin, if you know, by hand, or by mail?

A I have got there "care of CECP."

Our mail, that is, the mail which I had to go out to the special unit, I dropped in an office called CECP. That was Commodore’s external COM PAC. And that was the — what before was the LRH external COM Bureau.

Q Now, this is sent to HCO COPE Int?

A HCO is the Hubbard Communications Office which is a division within the CMO. The COPE officer was a position


which handled kind of random items which came up and which required someone to cope with them.


Q And where was that post located?

A At that time it was at Gilman Hot Springs.

Q Now, you refer to Norman Starsky’s report in exhibit doubt I; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And how long before you wrote exhibit double I did you see Norman Starsky’s report?

A Within a day of that.

Q And Norman Starsky again was in the Guardian’s office?

A No. Norman Starsky was — I have noted here he was special project second NS. Special Project was the
project which at that time was taking care of L. Ron Hubbard’s legal affairs.

Q Approximately how long was Norman Starsky’s report if you recall?

A I believe it was two pages?

Q And essentially what did it say?

A He ordered that I be sec checked because — to find out what documents I had given to Omar Garrison.
He mentioned that I appeared to be — that I was in favor of or siding with Nibs.

Nibs was L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. or Ron De Wolfe.

In any case, he was L. Ron Hubbard’s first son, and Starsky also mentioned something about my claim that L. Ron Hubbard was stating that he was an atomic physicist.

Q And did he indicate that you were claiming that L. Ron Hubbard was not an atomic physicist, contrary to


what L. Ron Hubbard was stating?

A No. The situation I ran into with Norman was that I was saying that Hubbard wasn’t an atomic physicist and he said, "Well, he never ever claimed to be."

And I showed him a book in Hubbard’s own handwriting in which he claimed to be an atomic physicist, and that is what he mentioned in his dispatch to Cirrus.

Q Now, about this time did an individual named Vaughn Young begin to come into the picture?

A I believe some time prior to this Vaughn had actually become involved with the biography project.

Q And how much before this?

A Possibly a month.

Q And what was Vaughn Young’s position at the time?

A He was in the Guardian’s Office public relations bureau.

Q Now, referring you to the fifth paragraph on the first page of exhibit double I, you note some materials prepared by an enemy researcher Michael Shannon; what does that mean?

A some time prior to this but still in 1981, possibly in the summer or earlier, maybe even in the spring of 1981, I had learned first of all through an old Dianeticist from Tennessee with whom I was in contact, his name was Perry Chandelan of the existence of this person, Michael Shannon, who was assembling information on L. Ron Hubbard, and Perry Chandelan sent me a pack of materials which had been prepared by Shannon.


That was the first time I knew of Shannon. I learned more about Shannon throughout 1981.

Q You say that much of Shannon’s material is accurate; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, in the next paragraph what do you mean when you say that the facts that have been presented, if disproved, will make outsiders at least think that L. Ron Hubbard is a charlatan?

A Well, Mr. Hubbard and the organization had at that point for 30 years been putting out information about Mr. Hubbard and about has history and his accomplishments and he credentials and educational background, which I knew at that time to be untrue, and I felt like if we didn’t correct them and if they were disproven, which they were being disproven by the media and more particularly by Michael Shannon, that Hubbard would end up looking like a fraud, you know, unless we took steps to correct it.

Q Now, did you have a general understanding at the time that you wrote exhibit double I that thousands of Scientologists throughout the world had relied on L. Ron Hubbard’s background?


MR. LITT: Objection.

MR. HARRIS: I object to his understanding. It is irrelevant.

His state of mind might be.

THE COURT: What is the difference between understanding and state of mind?

MR. HARRIS: I’m not sure, Your Honor, because Mr. Flynn uses understanding seemingly always when he means state of mind.

Understanding, strikes me as an agreed upon reality. And this witness’ state of mind might not have been agreed upon by anybody except himself.

THE COURT: Why don’t you ask what his opinion was?

MR. HARRIS: That’s fine, Your Honor.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What was your opinion, Mr. Armstrong, as to whether Scientologists throughout the world had relied upon the honesty of L. Ron Hubbard?

A I thought they had.

Q And with regard to the background and educational background of L. Ron Hubbard, what was your state of mind with regards to that?

A I felt that Scientologists generally relied on that.

Q You see at the top of page 2, ". . . even in our system it would be severely dealt with if someone pretended certification."

What do you mean "in our system"?

A Well, within the broad Scientology network with


people who were then Scientologists, it was a crime to pretend certification that one didn’t have.

Q What do you mean "a crime"?

A Within Scientology.

Q Was that a term that was used, "crime"?

A Yes.

Q And what did the term mean?

A It was a particular offense within Scientology for which one could be punished.

Q To falsify their credentials?

A Right.

Q Now, you go on to recite the various misrepresentations you had found about L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?

A I went — I listed a number there which I found in a particular document which I believe I attached to the letter. The document isn’t here, but it was attached. And it was on this particular item I called the data sheet on Lafayette Ronald Hubbard.

I extracted from that a number of items which were inaccurate or unprovable or hyperbole.

Q In whose handwriting was the data sheet?

A Mr. Hubbard’s.

Q On page 4 you state that, ". . . it is not logical that I should be targeted for digging up the facts" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. What did you mean by that?

A I felt that I had been targeted by Norman Starsky


for trying to get to the truth.

He had ordered that I be Sec Checked. And I felt that was extremely out of line when in fact I was trying to investigate, as a researcher would, to find out what the facts were.

Q And on the top of page 5 you say, ". . , Nibs.

What I stated was the situation with Nibs was to a great degree our creation. He has been mishandled and dealt with dishonestly."

What did you mean by that?

A Nibs was L. Ron Hubbard’s son. And just prior to this I had gone to Carson City along with Omar Garrison and we had met Nibs.

I had also, prior to going to Carson City, was briefed on the situation with Nibs by Guardians Office personnel. I was given a time track of data collected on Nibs.

I was told by a GO intelligence officer by the name of Peter Alvette that they had someone in close to Nibs that was Ford Schwartz –

MR. LITT: Is this all for state of mind?

THE COURT: He is explaining his letter and the circumstances.

THE WITNESS: I also knew by that time that many people had been writing to Nibs and signing these letters, originating them and signing their, as if they were from L. Ron Hubbard when in fact they were not. And that this was, at least, the dishonesty that I had in mind when I wrote this



I felt like in that, we, Mr. Hubbard, the organization, his organization, were responsible for some of those acts. I thought that we had, to a great degree, created any problems which existed with Nibs.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you receive a reply from Cirrus Slevin?

A Yes, I did.

Q And when was that?

A It was sometime after my communication.

Q And when did you last see that reply?

A It would have been around — sometime after I got it.

Q And what did she say?

A I don’t recall very clearly right now.

It was an acknowledgement of my communication and that she understood my situation. And I believe she urged me to get in touch with Norman Starsky.

Q Did you do that?

A I tried to commuunicate to him. He never made himself available.

Q Now, you mentioned Vaughn Young was coming into the picture at this point in time; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now –

May this be marked as the next exhibit in order, Your Honor?



Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you receive from Vaughn Young what has been marked as exhibit JJ?

A Yes.

Q And what does that exhibit in general relate to, Mr. Armstrong?

A This is related to "re contracting with Omar Garrison."

The situation arose because Mr. Garrison complained about the biography contract which he had with PDK, AOSH PDK. And he was unhappy about the conditions of the contract and the unworkability of the contract.

Q And did you have discussions with Mr. Young relative to those matters that are in part set forth in exhibit JJ?

A Yes.

Q Now, directing your attention to page 2 under paragraph no. 5, there is a sentence relating to earlier correspondence regarding Laurel Sullivan and Mr. Wertheimer and a quote that the maximum advantages LRH could hope to achieve financially and publically in the creation of this property — we are paraphrasing it — the basic motivation at that point in the biography project in terms of getting the biography done; do you see that?

A Yes.


Q Was that discussed between you and Mr. Young?

A Yes.

Q And between you and Miss Sullivan?

A It was only discussed — initially it was discussed between Laurel and myself. This would have been in September or October of 1980. Laurel by the time of this was out of the — at least the PR Bureau in Los Angeles, but Mr. Young was there and I discussed it with him at that point, but only in relation to what had been done.

Q Now, there is a notation, "From this point on much of the discussion involved how to get LRH money on the cycle."

What does that mean?

A That in the initial biography negotiations one of the major points which was being discussed and one of the major reasons for even entering into the whole biography and contract was to make money for Mr. Hubbard.

Q And that is set forth in exhibit double J?

A Yes.

Q Now at the top of page 3 there is a notation relating to a secret contract to be done between LRH and PDK, but did not inform OVG.

Who is "OVG"?

A Omar V. Garrison.

Q And what was the discussion relative to the secret contract?

A Do you mean with –

MR. LITT: What discussion?


Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Young.

A Okay.

Mr. Young and I talked at the time about the fact that Omar had been enticed into a contract in which he was going to split royalties with Mr. Hubbard and not knowing at the time that the intention was also to have Mr. Hubbard make 50 percent of AOSH PDK’s net proceeds.

Q In addition to the royalties?

A Right.

Q And Mr. Garrison didn’t know that?

A Right. That was the substance of the conversations between Vaughn Young and myself.

Q Now was there a discussion relative to the fact of someone — the standardness in the industry of someone having a biography written about them and splitting the proceeds from the biography with the person writing it?

A I also discussed that with Vaughn.

Q And what was the nature of that discussion?

A Just basically what you said; the PR liability in having that situation in which the subject was being paid out of the proceeds of the biography and the lack of credibility that that would give the biography if that fact were known.

Q And the notation was made, "Thus the concentration became on how much money could be squeezed out for LRH."

Is that what you discussed with Mr. Young?

A That was it.

MR. HARRIS: Maybe, Your Honor, Mr. Flynn could ask the


witness if there was such a conversation and please state who said what as opposed to leading him through this letter which isn’t the witness’s letter.

MR. FLYNN: That was my foundation question, Your Honor, whether they had a conversation about the letter.

MR. HARRIS: Well, so far, Your Honor, everything I have heard has been foundation.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, on page 4 there is another notation about, "The entire contract resolved about money and put the project on a withhold."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q What is meant by a "withhold", Mr. Armstrong?

MR. HARRIS: In this letter, Your Honor?

THE COURT: If you know, you can state. If you don’t, you can so state.

THE WITNESS: The withhold is something which is not communicated when it ought to be communicated, so that everything between the parties in a communication know what they need to know.

In this case the project was on a withhold on a number of counts, the first being that Omar Garrison was not informed that Mr. Hubbard was going to make even more money than Mr. Garrison thought that he was going to make during the project.

The whole thing was on a withhold from the public because it was not going to be a standard biography as Mr. Young called it in that the subject of the biography


was going to make a great deal of money from it, and this would be a fact which it would not be desirable to the public know.

Q And was basically the substance of your conversation with regard to what you have just testified to with Mr. Young set forth in exhibit double J?

A Yes.


MR. LITT: Just so I understand the last question, was that question whether or not exhibit JJ reflects the — exhibit JJ in its totality reflects the substance of their discussions?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: With respect to the things that are set forth in exhibit JJ, did you have discussions with Vaughn Young about those matters, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q Now, at that point in time did you become concerned about the legality of the biography project?

A Yes.

Q Did you subsequently receive a copy of correspondence from Vaughn Young that had been sent to someone named Sue?

May that be marked as the next in order, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Very well; KK.


Q BY MR. FLYNN: And that correspondence is dated 28 November, ‘81, for the record.

Is that correct, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q Now, there is a notation, "Biog Debug Ic" in the upper left-hand corner; what does that mean?

A This is the biography project.

"Debug Ic," that is in charge, who was Vaughn Young.

"Debug" means there was a bug in it. It was a


problem. And the Debug person was to get rid of that bug.

Q Bug meaning problem?

A Problem.

A In the second paragraph — well, in the first paragraph it is stated, "I want to get into the pack. So we’ll just give the CC to Gerry’; is that you?

A Yes.

Q And what does the "CC" mean?

A The CC refers to the — he made a carbon copy of this and gave the carbon copy to me.

Q The next sentence is, "as you’ll see by the attached, PDK claims ignorance of a contract with OVG."

What was attached to that, Mr. Armstrong?

A There was a note from someone at Worldwide with whom Vaughn was communicating about the contract.

There is a note in there about PDK not know about the contract.

Q And the contract is the contract between Omar Garrison and PDK; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And one of the parties to the contract had notified Vaughn Young that they didn’t even know about it; is that correct?

A One of the parties had notified someone at WW who was attempting to rectify the matter of the final payment of Omar Garrison’s expense money, $2,500. And I could not get it paid. I attempted to.

The problem showed up that PDK did not know of


the existence of the contract.

MR. HARRIS: Well, this commanding officer, allegedly of PDK didn’t know about the contract is the witness’ testimony. So it assumes facts not in evidence in the question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I think he was purporting to relate the substance of this letter that was received.

Am I correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: For that purpose it will be received.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, when you indicated that you were trying to get money, expense money, for Mr. Garrison, under what circumstances did that come up?

A Well, per the contract which he signed in october, 1980, he was to be given, I believe it is, $7,500, maybe $7,000, some amount of money, for expenses to be paid to him in connection with his work on the biography. There was still $2,500 outstanding in the expense money. He had spent everything that he had up to date.

I ha been trying for a couple of months to obtain agreement or to obtain that money. And I communicated where I was supposed to communicate. And I received back at one point a Telex indicating that they didn’t know anything about the matter, about the contract.

And in chasing it down through the people who were probably in control of PDK, that is, the Guardian’s Office Worldwide, there was a communication which came back to me and one to Vaughn Young which indicated that they thought


that the whole thing was being handled in the U.S. and that PDK didn’t know about it.

Q And did you receive this communication from Vaughn Young relative to the expense money of Mr. Garrison and PDK’s refusal to pay it?

A Yes. I received a copy of this from Vaughn Young.


MR. FLYNN: May this be next in order?

THE COURT: Okay, double L.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, when you learned of these matters in the last part of November ‘81, I believe you testified that you became concerned about the legality of the project; is that correct?

A I had been concerned for some time and it was as a result of my concern, result of the fact that I couldn’t get the money for Omar Garrison, that PDK claimed no knowledge of the contract, that is one of the reasons that Vaughn Young was brought in. He was the Guardian’s office personnel.

It was Guardian’s office at GOWW who, in fact, had control of AOSH DK.

Larry Brennan was a Guardian’s office staff member in Worldwide, and he was the signer for AOSH PDK, for that and other reasons Vaughn was brought in to handle that problem.

Q Now, during this period of time was Laurel Sullivan involved in these problems that were ongoing about the contract?

A Laurel was involved initially. The first communication which Omar wrote in probably June of 1981, Laurel was involved. She knew about the problem that Omar was having with the biography at that time.

Laurel, within a short period of that time, was recalled from Los Angeles to Gilman Hot Springs and she was removed from the PR post or at least she was under what is called a Committee of Evidence which is a justice body,


and this was out at Gilmm Hot Springs, so her involvement with the biography and with the contract and with the legal problems ended at that point.

Q Now when you wrote the letter to Cirrus Slevin dated November 25, 1981, did you write that in your capacity as a representative for Mr. Hubbard?

A Well I believed that I was representing him at that time.

Q And was it your intention at that time to protect his interests when you wrote that letter?

A Yes.

Q Now at that time was there ongoing copying of materials by you and your wife with regard to the biography project in giving such materials to Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q And was that being done on a daily basis at that point in time, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q And for how long of a period of time did that continue where copying was being done on a daily basis?

A It continued virtually until the day that my wife and I left the organization which would be December 12, 1981.

Q And when you were doing that, did you believe that you were doing it to fulfill the terms of your agreement with Mr. Hubbard to provide materials to Mr. Garrison?

A Yes.

Q Were you able to communicate with Mr. Hubbard


at that time?

A No.

Q Did you believe that the materials you were providing to Mr. Garrison at that time would result in a truthful biography of L. Ron Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q Now did a series of circumstances originate in early December 1981 which involved Omar Garrison assisting you and leaving the organization?

A Yes.

Q And would you describe what that was, please?

A The initial thing, I guess, during that period was the order from Norman Starsky regarding my being sec checked, and I viewed at that time that that was an attack on me, and it was an attack on what I was doing at that point, and I became very concerned because I on one hand was working for Mr. Hubbard, and here other people ostensibly working for Mr. Hubbard were ordering that I do certain things and were coming in to try and govern or apparently take control take control of the biography contract.

At that time I tried to communicate with Mr. Starsky. He was unwilling to communicate to me. I began to realize that there was no way in which I could effect any kind of a change within the organization, particularly regarding representations being made about the organization, about Mr. Hubbard. I knew at that time that contrary to what was being told to me and the PR line at that point was that the actions of the Guardian’s office which


has been the intelligence network and enforcement arm of Hubbard and Scientology, that it had been dismantled and that that organization was no longer involved in dirty tricks and harassment of people viewed as enemies, that I felt that it was continuing.

I knew at that point that the ED International, Bill Franks, had been incarcerated at Gilman Not Springs. Laurel Sullivan related a story to me at that point of what had happened to the hierarchy of the Guardian’s office who had been removed and who had been put pulling weeds at Gilman Hot Springs.

She also told me stories at that time about an assassination plot against a woman in Canada by the name of Lorna Levitt –

MR. LITT: Your Honor, this is coming in for what purpose?

MR. FLYNN: His state of mind.

MR. HARRIS: State of mind.

THE WITNESS: I began to perceive that the organization was nothing but an intelligence organization. I began to perceive that the purpose of the Guardian’s office was to destroy anyone who sought to find out the truth of the facts of L. Ron Hubbard.

My wife and I were extremely, extremely paranoid at that time because I had also learned that Bill Franks’ phone had been tapped even though he was a staff member. I worked out an arrangement with Omar Garrison so that if at any time I was gone, if I did not call at a certain time, he


was to call for me at the organization. Mr. Garrison was knowledgeable of these things because he had done the book "Playing Dirty" in which he knew of burglaries, operations against government agencies and against individuals.

I knew at that point of the harassment of Paulette Cooper who had written a book about the organization. I knew that that is how the organization, Mr. Hubbard viewed myself and my wife and I in the beginning of December determined to leave.


And Mr, Garrison played a part in it; in fact, we met with Mr. Garrison, my wife and I, around this time down in Corona Del Mar. And all of us were so afraid that we were being bugged or followed that we met on the beach.

And he said — or I asked him that there was a lot of things happening at that time. And Jocelyn and I were very afraid, but that I would stick around as long as I could in order to get him the materials which he would need for the biography.

And he said, "get out." So I said, "Okay. I’ll stay and get for you whatever I can up to the point where we simply have to leave." And he agreed with that and said he would help in any way he could.

And so over a course of the next week or ten days, my wife and I moved our own materials, our own clothes, and knicknacks and bicycles and that sort of thing out of our room in the Cedars complex. We moved it out a box at a time, a day at a time. We moved it out at all hours. And the reason for this was because I knew of the practice of the organization of locking people up, especially people in a position like mine who had information that they would deem was of a high security nature, of locking people up, of having them submit to Sec Checks, of having them sign lists of their crimes culled from their auditing folders, of having them sign documents of various kinds incriminating them. And I would not submit to that. And so we left.

I would say we left over a period of about


ten days. We left a bit at a time, And I –

Jocelyn continued to copy whatever she could.

And I continued to provide to Mr. Garrison whatever I could. And then I had a number of originals at that time which Mr. Garrison wanted. I copied whatever I could of those originals and then I — knowing — gauging how much I could and could not copy, I delivered to him at the end whatever copies and whatever originals were in the pack of materials which he would need for the biography.

I was driving a car at the time.

I went down with my wife to Costa Mesa; brought back Mr. Garrison’s truck; put the remainder of our stuff in the truck and then left the car and took the truck.

Then we spent the first night of leaving at Mr. Garrison’s place and then the next day we drove his truck up to his home in Utah and we stayed there a couple of days.

He stayed in Utah for one day. He came up the following day. So we were there for — over the first night alone.

Then we stayed there for a couple of days and drove on to Canada.

Q While you were there the first night alone what precautions did you take?

A We took precautions throughout the whole time to make sure we were not followed and we didn’t turn on any lights. And we were very careful to — we slept on the living room floor that night so that we were aware and alert of everything that was going on.


Q Now, of all the documents that you copied or originals that you provided to Omar Garrison, when you left did you surrender all such materials to Mr. Garrison?

A Yes. Right at that time — I took the truck; Mr. Garrison gave me — loaned me his truck to take up to Canada to see my parents over Christmas. And I didn’t have any materials at that time.

At the same time he offered me a job because he owned a small publishing company and he knew of my interest in writing and publishing. And he offered me a job.

So while we were up in Canada I decided that I would accept the job, which really didn’t pan out, but I continued on that.

But from then until, perhaps March I didn’t have any of the materials at all.

Q Now, when you left the organization, Mr. Armstrong, was it your intention to do anything to harm Mr. Hubbard or the organization?

A No.

Q And you mentioned things that occurred to people who leave the organization involving culling auditing files; do you recall that?

A Yes.

Q Was there a procedure called routing out within the organization?

A Yes.

Q What was that procedure?

A It was a procedure — there was a routing form


with various steps that a person who desired to leave had to follow in order to be allowed to leave the organization. They included the culling of his folder and a signing of all of the crimes or blackmailable material obtained from his PC folders which are the auditing sections; statements made to a Scientology auditor in confidence.

Q Does a person in Scientology who is giving information in auditing sessions, is he made to understand that everything he says is in confidence?

A That is the initial representation which is made to someone. After awhile it becomes obvious that it is not, but that is the initial representation.

Q Now, had you personally seen auditing files culled?

A Yes.

Q For the purpose of requiring forced confessions?

A Yes.

Q And when had you seen that?

A Throughout 1976, 1977, 1978.

Q And do you know an individual named Tanya Burden?

A Yes.

Q Who is she?

A Tanya Burden was a young girl who was a Commodore’s Messenger on board the ship; later at Clearwater; later at Dunedin. And she ended up in the RPF at the same time I was in the RPF in 1977.

Q And on board the ship do you know what duties or did you see what duties Miss burden fulfilled for Mr. Hubbard?


A Broadly, yes.

Q And what were those?

A She was a Junior messenger. And she ran messages for Mr. Hubbard.

She also assisted the senior messengers; she also cleaned the rooms of the senior messengers.

Q And was she working in Dunedin with you?

A Yes, she was.

Q And do you know whether or not she fulfilled any personal services for Mr. Hubbard such as dressing him in the morning?

A I don’t have personal knowledge of that.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, what does that have to do with anything?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know how old Miss Burden was in 1977?

MR. HARRIS: Irrelevant, Your Honor. State of mind?

THE COURT: I don’t know what her age has to do with it. I’ll sustain the objection.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: At some point in time did Miss Burden leave the organization?

A Yes.

Q Did she go to her home in Las Vegas, Nevada?

A Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, how does he know this?

MR. FLYNN: You are going to find out, Mr. Harris.

THE COURT: I assume it goes to his state of mind concerning this routing project, whatever might occur.


Q BY MR. FLYNN: You were sent by the organization to get her?

A Yes.

Q Did you pick her up in Las Vegas and take her to Los Angeles?

A Yes.

Q Was she locked in a room in Los Angeles?

A I don’t know if she was locked in or not.

I turned her over to the RPF.

Q And do you know whether she was forced to sign documents thereafter?

A I don’t have personal knowledge of that.

Q Is it your testimony that in order to avoid that, you left without doing this routing out procedure?

A Right.

MR. LITT: In order to avoid what, the that that he doesn’t know about?

THE COURT: What is it that you left to avoid?

THE WITNESS: The procedures of routing out which included the signing of confessions, the signing of statements of how much money I would owe the organization; the statement of nonrelease and disclosure bond, more bonds, of being imprisoned.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And do you know whether it was the practice to make people who left under those circumstances to sign promissory notes to the organization?

A Yes.


Q Now, after you left, Mr. Armstrong, what was the next communication that you had with anyone from the

A I called right after –

MR. FLYNN: Let me withdraw that, Your Honor.

Q You testified you left on December 12; correct?

A Yes.

Q Just prior to leaving were you requested to sign certain documents?

A Yes.

Q Now these documents that you were asked to sign, did these have anything to do with the type of documents that you just testified a minute ago with regard to releases and promissory notes and that type of thing?

A Yes, similar.

MR. FLYNN: May this be marked next in order, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, we are up to double M.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now how many days before you left were you shown that document, Mr. Armstrong?

A About a week, a week, maybe 10 days.

Q And were you told to sign it?

A Yes.

Q And did you sign it?

A No.

Q And after seeing this document what was your state of mind with regard to whether the other procedures


you have testified about namely, the culling of PC files, the forced confessions and the promissory notes, what was your state of mind as to whether that was going to be required of you if you routed it?

A I knew they’d be required.

Q Now, turning to page 3 of this exhibit, I direct your attention to the third paragraph in which it says, "I recognise and understand that neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard receive any compensation or remuneration from training or processing by the church; that neither Ron nor Mary Sue are officers or  directors of the church, and that neither of them are in any manner responsible for actions of the church."

Did you read that at the time?

A Yes.

Q And did you know that to be true or false?

A It was false.

Q And did you refuse to sign it?

A Yes.

Q And what were the circumstances surrounding your refusal to sign it?

A I read this and I simply decided that I would not sign it. It was supposed to have been signed by December 10, which was the day that this Church of Scientology International was to come into being.

I had signed similar things, similar documents recognizing and understanding apparently the same things back in La Quinta and later in Los Angeles.


I had signed probably 30 or 40 documents in the whole time I was involved in the organization, and I recognized that it was a fraud and I was being asked to sign things that I did not believe, in and it was probably the first time in the whole time that I was involved that I read the document.

So, December 10 came along. I had already decided to leave. I would not sign.

Q Now, were you developing an awareness of the organization throughout the period of time that you were working with Omar Garrison?

A Yes.

Q And did that awareness differ from the awareness that you had over the prior nine years?

A Considerably.

Q And in what way did it differ?

A Previously I had felt that though I knew of the organization engaging in lies and fraud, they were excused in my mind because they were done to counter the attacks of the enemy. It was very clear in my mind throughout the first eight or nine years that there was an enemy that was out to destroy mankind, out to destroy civilization, out to get Mr. Hubbard and out to destroy his reputation, and our destruction of the enemies was that answer to that. It was a resolution of the problems that Mr. Hubbard and his organization were running into.

After 1981, I began to see that the destruction of anyone didn’t resolve any problem; that, in fact, there


was no enemy and that, in fact, all the frauds and the lies that Mr. Hubbard and the organization had become involved in were simply to give him wealth and power and I wanted no part of it.

Q Now, when you were in the organization, were you ordered to sign documents under oath which were false?

A Yes.

Q And did you do so?

A Yes.

Q And were you familiar with a policy called TR-L "How to Outflow False Data Effectively"?

A I had never seen that policy, TR-L, until some time later. I was drilled in the art of lying.

Q And how were you drilled?

A By being able to.

MR. LITT: I think we have heard this litany already.

THE COURT: Well, not on this subject.

THE WITNESS: By being able to create a shore story or a cover and be able to successfully answer questions regarding that shore story or cover without any flub, without being caught in any lie.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: And were these drills conducted with clay model mockups?

A We used clay model mockups. I don’t recall that I ever used this in connection with these drills.

Q And at some point in time did you see Intelligence Specialist Training Routine TR-L?

A I saw this some time later.


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

A This was in — some time I believe in 1982 or ‘83.

Q And when you saw that, did that conform to the policy that you had experienced inside the organization?

MR. HARRIS: Well that really calls for a conclusion, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well you can ask him, I suppose, whether it is consistent with it.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is it consistent with the policy that you were drilled on while you were in the employ of Mr. Hubbard?

A That is correct.


Q Now, after leaving the organization, did you –

THE COURT: Did you ask that this be marked?

MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor. I ask that that be marked next in order.

THE COURT: We’ll mark it NN for identification.

MR. LITT: Is that NN, Your Honor?


Q BY MR. FLYNN: After leaving the organization you testified that you went to Canada; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q How long did you remain up there?

A For about a week.

Q And then where did you go?

A Back to Utah.

Q And did you see Mr. Garrison at that time?

A Yes.

Q And was Mr. Garrison working on the biography project?

A Yes.

Q And did you have any conversations with him relative to your continued work on the biography project?

A I don’t know if it ever came up at that time.

I did assist him at that time sorting out some materials. And I built some shelves for him in Utah. But I was not going to continue to work on it at that time.

Q Now, did you receive a communication from Vaughn Young on or about December — sometime after December 16, 1982?


A Yes.

Q And what in general was the nature of that communication, Mr. Armstrong?

A We had a number of questions which he sent to me.

When I left the organization I left my parents’ address. And I said they could send any communications there that they wanted.

I asked that they not be called because I didn’t want my parents harassed.

I asked that I not be harassed. But this is mainly questions that he had because he then proceeded to become the LRH archivist after me.

Q And he was asking questions about where to find the materials and that type of thing?

A Right.

Q And he was looking for your cooperation?

A Yes.

Q Did you give him your cooperation?

A Yes.

Q What did you do?

A I called him sometime after this and I explained to him — I answered all of his questions basically.

There was once more when he was missing — he thought he was missing some materials. And I wrote to him and explained where they were or what they contained and why, perhaps, they were missing because someone else had been interested in the same materials.


There was another time when he said he couldn’t find particular materials which Omar Garrison was asking for.

So I went into the organization, into where the archives were, and located them for him.

Q How much longer after you had left the organization did you go back into the archives?

A I think it was probably February. I only went in one time. I met with him once at his request. He wanted to  meet and I met with him.

He said that someone from the organization wanted to meet with me. And he said that the person who wanted to meet with me was Peter Alvette.

I declined because I knew that Peter Alvette was one of the people in the GO intelligence bureau hierarchy.

So he said, "How about Terry Gamboa"?

I agreed to that and I met with Terry at his request.

Q And when did that meeting take place?

A All of this took place in either January or February.

Q And did you give Mr. Young your complete cooperation with regard to finding things like the cord on the Sony tape recorder?

A Yes; anything that he asked for, I tried to assist him with in that way.

Q Did you take with you anything that belonged to the organization when you left, Mr. Armstrong?

A No — I should correct that.


Q What is that?

A There were a number of slides which I had taken in two trips, actually, one that I had done with Omar Garrison up the Coast up to Washington State and into Montana, And there was another set of slides which I had taken on the trip which I did with Jocelyn into the Midwest.

I took those with me because I had not — I had all my notes on it, but I had not as yet identified them.

And so the day following our leaving, which would be December 13, I called Barbara DeCelle, who was then out in Gilman Sot Springs, and I explained to her that I had these slides and that I — when I got some time, I was going to type up what exactly they were. No one else could do it. They were meaningless to everyone but me. So I was going to do that at that time.

Q Did you return those to her?

A I sent them in sometime later. I hadn’t completed it. I had done about half of it.

And there was an incident where some photos were stolen, And I determined at that point, just to get rid of anything which they could claim I had stolen, I delivered the slides at that point to a friend of mine with a note to give them to Barbara DeCelle.

Q When you want back in to see Mr. Young did you do so at his request?

A Well, it was a combination of his request and Omar Garrison’s request.

Mr. Garrison was asking Vaughn Young for certain


materials which Vaughn said he couldn’t locate. I knew where they were; so I went in and located them. And  then subsequently Mr. Young delivered those to Mr. Garrison.

Q What was your state of mind when you went back to see Mr, Young?

A Well, I was pretty afraid of the whole thing.

I was developing at that point a sense that I was becoming free of it and I didn’t wish to antagonize the situation.

I felt that if I could chalk it up to being a learning experience, I would be better for it. So I tried to approach it in that light, without antagonizing anyone.


I did have a lot of concerns and a lot of questions because I felt like 13 years of my life had been lost at that point and I felt like I really couldn’t understand the intricacies of Mr. Hubbard’s mind and why he would do what he did, so I had some questions and I probably voiced some concerns. But generally I tried to remain on a pretty amicable relationship with them and tried to help as I could.

THE COURT: Well we are about to take a recess.

Did you want this letter marked, Counsel?

MR. FLYNN: Please, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, double O.

Fifteen minutes.


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

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

THE WITNESS: Gerald Armstrong.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, Mr. Armstrong, when you returned to the organization, do you recall what the date was?

A No. I recall I believe that it was some time in January or February 1982.

Q What was your state of mind at that time with regard to returning to the organization?

A Well, I was pretty shook up and I was pretty afraid, but I was willing to do it in order to help out


Mr. Garrison. I made adequate preparations in advance of doing it. Joscelyn was left outside the organization. I was to return at a particular time, and in the event that I didn’t, then she would be alerted.

Q Now at some point you responded to Mr. Young’s letter; is that correct?

A I don’t think I wrote anything in response to that. I spoke to him about it. I wrote to him on another subject some time later.

Q Now, was a Suppressive Person Declare issued on you dated 18 February, 1982?

A Yes.

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

THE COURT: Double P.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you receive this Declare?

A Yes.

Q And when did you receive it?

A In approximately April 18th or April 15th, April 15th through 20th, something in that period.

Q You received this one dated February 18, 1982 some time in April; is that correct?

A Yes.


Q Now, in April did you receive a revision also of this Declare?

A I received a revision sometime in May.

Q All right. When you received this Declare what impact did it have on your state of mind at that time?

A It had a great deal of impact.

I was meeting at that point Marilyn Brewer who was a friend of my wife’s inside the organization. We met for lunch. And it was during that lunch that she mentioned that they had brought on the Declare on me. And she described roughly what it was.

A day or so later I met Miss Brewer and she gave me a copy.

At that time I had known a couple called Mike and Kim Douglas. And they had been living with Mr. Hubbard in the secret location in Hemet. And they left in the beginning of 1980. And I had heard from various people that Mr. Hubbard had issued an order regarding the Douglas’; that they were not to be harassed and that there was to be no Declare put out on them.

I had talked to various — in meeting with Vaughn Young I had mentioned that fact and I felt at the time that because of the information that I had and the position that I was in, that they would not want to bring out such a thing on me.

I was quite shocked. It seemed like I had been underestimating them. I had — I was attributing to them more decency than ought to be. And so I was quite shocked


with this first one.

Q What is a suppressive person?

A Suppressive parson is anyone so declared by the organization of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard. It is someone who the organization considers totally insane, evil, part of the two and a half percent most evil people on the planet; destructive; committing continual crimes.

Q Now, because of your 10 years — 12 years in the Church of Scientology did that Declare have a particular effect on you with regard to knowing what a suppressive person is?

A It had — it did have a great deal of effect because I felt up to that time that I had put in a great deal of service for very little money.

I had been pawned; I had been ripped off; I had been betrayed by Mr. Hubbard. Suddenly I was the suppressive person. And I recognised that the Suppressive Person Declares were only a black propaganda tool designed to within the organization set up an atmosphere into which it then became possible to commit more acts against the individual, to commit more operations against him and to turn the weight of the organization against him without anyone speaking out against such acts.

So I attributed a lot of weight, a lot of importance to the Suppressive Person Declare and the effect it was going to have on my life thereafter.

Q Even though it is dated February l8, you didn’t receive it until sometime in April; is that correct?


MR. LITT: This is the third time that question has been asked.

MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.

Q On February 24, 1982 did you send a letter to Vaughn Young with regards to cooperating in providing materials to Omar Garrison that couldn’t be located?

A Yes.

Q And did you mail that to Mr. Young or did you deliver it to him?

A Omar Garrison gave it to him for me.

Q And at that point in time what was your state of mind with regard to trying not to antagonize Mr. Hubbard’s organization?

A That was how I — how I approached them at that time.

I sought to achieve some kind of live-and-let-live basis with them.

Q Now, up to this point in time had anyone in the organization charged that you had wrongfully taken any documents or materials?

A No.

Q When was the first time that that charge was made against you, Mr. Armstrong?

THE COURT: To your knowledge.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: — to your knowledge?

A That was in the second Declare, the one that is dated 22 April, 1982.

MR. FLYNN: I believe this has already been marked,


Your Honor.

THE COURT: What about this letter to Vaughn –

MR. FLYNN: May that be marked, Your Honor?



MR. FLYNN: I believe exhibit M is the Suppressive Person Declare of April 22, 1982.

Q Now, at some point in time did you receive another Suppressive Person Declare?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A It would have been some time in May, in late May, 1982.

Q What is your best memory as to when you received the first one, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. LITT: That makes number four, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know; is that an objection, Counsel?

MR. LITT: Asked and answered. That is the fourth time that this question has been asked.

THE COURT: All right, sustained.

MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it.

Q How did you receive the first Declare?

A I was given it, handed it by Marilyn Brewer.

Q And in the first Declare were you charged with theft of any church property?

A No.

Q What specifically in the first Declare were you charged with, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. HARRIS: Well, it speaks for itself.

THE COURT: It speaks for itself unless it needs to be interpreted. I am not sure.

MR. FLYNN: I think it should be interpreted.


THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: The first charge was first crime or high crime was secretly planning to leave and making private preparations to do so without informing the proper terminal in an Org and does leave and does not return within a reasonable length of time.

The next one was spreading destructive rumor about senior Scientologists, and the third one was announcing departure from Scientology but not by reason of leaving an organization, a location or situation or death.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, when you received that Declare, were you aware of a policy called the Fair Game Doctrine?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I take it we shouldn’t renew all of the objections that we made. We object to going into Declares. We raised that beforehand, and I don’t know whether the court wants us to renew these.

THE COURT: I don’t see any necessity for it. It is there. We have ruled on it before.

If there is something new that comes up that you want to object to, you are free to do so but certainly everything that’s been objected to or the court has ruled on, there is no need to repeat it.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may this exhibit be marked next in order?

THE COURT: Double R.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, exhibit double R has at the


top "HCO Policy Letter of 18 August, 1967?; do you see that, Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes.

Q What does HCO mean?

A Hubbard Communication Office.

Q And then there is a notation "Penalties for Lower Conditions" and then at the bottom a notation "Enemy SP Order."

What does "SP Order" mean?

A A Suppressive Person Order, a Declare.

Q And that is what you received in April; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And then there is the notation, "Fair game may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist."

Were you familiar with that policy?

A Yes.

Q And what did it mean to you in April of 1982?

A I felt that I was the subject of that Suppressive Person doctrine.

Q And then there is a notation, "May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed"; do you see that?

A Yes.

Q And what did that mean to you?

A That in breaking out this Suppressive Person Declare on me, that was their intention.

Q And it is copyrighted by L. Ron Hubbard; is


that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now were you in possession of that time of certain photographs that belonged to an individual named Jim Dincalci?

A I obtained the photographs from Jim Dincalci approximately April 24th, April 23rd or 24th, 1982.

Q And did you obtain possession of certain photographs from Kima or Michael Douglas?

A Yes, from Kima Douglas, around the same date or one day prior.

Q And how many photographs did you obtain from Kima Douglas?

A Fifteen.

Q How many did you obtain from Jim Dincalci?

A Fifteen.

Q And did you have your own photographs from the period that you on board the ship?

A Yes.

Q And how many photographs did you have?

A There was a complete photo album of them. There was probably 30 or more.

Q And were these your own personal photographs that you had taken?

A They were not photographs which I had taken, but they were personal photographs.

Q And how long had you owned these photographs?

A Since 1974.


Q And were they, for example, photographs of your wedding to Terri Gellam Gamboa?

A Yes.

Q And under what circumstances did the photographs of Kima Douglas and Jim Dincalci come into your possession?

A Some time in early 1982 I was planning at that time to do the walk across the country and to do a book from that walk having to do with hunger, and I was, having gotten out of the organization, I didn’t have any money.


My wife was working at the time. I had worked for a brief period at a law firm. I was then not employed, but I was planning to do this. I needed some money. And I learned from Virgil Wilhite, just in conversations with him — because he was at that time a friend of mine — that he was interested in the photographs which I had. This was the album. And several of the photographs taken at my wedding were photos of L. Ron Hubbard and there was then a market for photographs of Mr. Hubbard. And the album did not have as much value to me as it had when I was married to Terry Gamboa.

So I determined to sell it to Mr. Wilhite. Additionally, he — because I had, since getting out of the organization, been friendly with the Douglas’ and the Dincelcis, they were all former close friends of mine inside the organization who also worked personally for Mr. Hubbard and we had a lot of, you know, old times to talk over.

I learned from them that they had photos as well.

And they were interested in selling their photos.

I struck a deal with Mr. Wilhite. And he was going to pay us each $2,000 for our respective sets of photos. All of them were unique photos, not issued publicly by Scientology or Mr. Hubbard. So there was a market for them.

Anyway, I went out — I received a phone call from Mr. Wilhite and he left it on my answering machine.
This was April 22.

He said at that point, "The deal is on. They are sold. Bring them over."


So I at that point drove out to Palm Desert to where the Douglas’ lived and picked up Kima’s photos.

I prepared an album to contain these things and I — you know, I assembled them so that they were presentable.

I interviewed Kima at the time and she identified each photo, the time they were taken, what they concerned. And I typed up a little summary description of each photo and I did the same thing with Jim Dincalci’s photos.

I assembled all of this into a package and took it to Mr. Wilhite.

Q What date did you take it to Mr. Wilhite?

A It would have been around the 25th, maybe the 25th, 26th of May or April, somewhere in that area.

Q But the agreement with Mr. Wilhite was made April 22nd, the same date of the Suppressive Person Declare, the second one; is that correct?

A Right. I never — I wouldn’t have gone out to the Douglas’ and picked up their photos and the same thing with the Dincelci’s photos until Mr. Wilhite told me that he had clenched the deal. He claimed to be an intermediary. He was selling them to someone else in, he said, Clearwater.

Q How much time prior to April 22nd had you begun these negotiations with Mr. Wilhite about the photographs?

A I had mentioned my photos probably sometime when I was inside the organization.

Later on I mentioned it again. And probably a week or ten days prior to that, I had brought up the subject of the other photos.


Q A week or ten days prior to April 22nd?

A Perhaps a little more, but in that area.

Q Did you know whether or not Mr. Wilhite was in contact with anyone inside the organization during that period of time?

A He was in continual contact.

Q As it turned out?

A Well, he was the publisher of the book by Mr. Hubbard, a little pamphlet called "The Way To Happiness."

He was at that time the owner of something called Regent House, I believe it was Regent House Publications.

So he came into the organization; he dealt with the people in the PR bureau extensively and on a continual  basis. And he dealt with Hubbard’s representatives because he was at that time publishing Hubbard’s book.

Q So after you collected the photographs and put them in the albums with the little notes, did you then go and see Mr. Wilhite?

A Yes.

Q And that was on April 25th?

A It may have been a little later; it could have been the 25th through the 27th, something like that.

Q And what happened then?

A Then he said he was going to send them off right away to Clearwater and that he would get back to me.

Sometime later, a few days later, I called him. And he said that the deal was off.

He said that he had been shown a Declare on me


by a man by the name of Lyman Spurlock who Mr. Wilhite said represented himself as an organization attorney and that he had been shown this Declare on me and that Mr. Spurlock had taken the photos.

So Mr. Wilhite told that to me over the phone. And I was extremely shook up by this.

I said, "I am now driving up to Los Angeles –" I was living in Costa Mesa at the time.

I said, "I’m driving up to Los Angeles. I want either the photos or the money or I want to know what is going on with these things."

I demanded the photos or the money.

He was at his house when I arrived. I took my wife with me. And I asked Omar Garrison and his wife to go along as well.

I went to Mr. Wilhite’s house and he gave me back my photos, but refused to give me the other photos.

Q The photos of Mr. Dincalci and Kima Douglas?

A Right. And he, again, reiterated –


MR. LITT: May we just clarify one thing? His statement that these photos belonged to the Dincalcis or the Douglases is for his state of mind, I take it?

THE COURT: Well I gather that was told to him.

MR. LITT: Yes, that is my point.

MR. FLYNN: I am bringing them both in anyway, Mr. Litt.

MR. LITT: That is fine.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, he refused to give you the photographs of the Dincalcis and Kima Douglas; is that right?

A Right.

Q And at that time he indicated to you that he knew of the existence of the Declare dated April 22nd; is that correct?

A He didn’t say at that point and I didn’t know at that point that a new one had already been issued.

Q You mean the revised one?

A Right. When he said he had been shown a Declare on me, I thought he meant this one. What he meant I don’t know, but he said a Declare.

Q When you say "This one," you mean the one dated February 18, 1982?

A Yes.

Q Now, at that time you were aware of the Fair Game policy which said "may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist"; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And he told you he knew of the existence of


a Declare; is that correct?

MR. LITT: Objection; asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. FLYNN: After he refused to return the photographs of the Dincalcis and Kima Douglas, what did you do, Mr. Armstrong?

A I then went to the CMO building in Los Angeles. I went there because I knew that Lyman Spurlock was part of Mr. Hubbard’s legal mission and was, in fact — was involved with his accounts at that time.

I knew that the CMO building was where, at least when I left, the LRH legal mission was located. That
was Terri Gamboa, Norman Starsky, and there was other people in that special project, Julia Watson, and another couple whose names I don’t recall.

In any case I went to this building with my wife and Mr. and Mrs. Garrison, and I asked at that point
for Lyman Spurlock at the door. Lyman Spurlock wasn’t there.

I asked for Vaughn Young. Vaughn Young apparently wouldn’t come and talk to me.

Three other people showed up. One was John Alesso and the third gentleman I don’t recall his name.

I spoke to them at some length. I made repeated demands for the photos to be returned to me. They

They said that they were with attorneys and I was very incensed. I was extremely afraid. I was extremely angry, and finally after probably half an hour of going back


and forth, my demand and their refusal, Terri Gamboa appeared and she ordered me off the property and said to get an attorney.

So, that to me was the confirmation that I had already been declared a Suppressive Person. Property had been taken and now I was going to be sued for whatever they could concoct, so following that incident I contacted the Douglases and let them know. I contacted the Dincalcis.

The Dincalcis had just arrived back from seeing Michael Flynn, and they talked to me about — some time prior to that, prior to the theft of the photos I knew that they had gone and seen Michael Flynn and I knew how they perceived Michael Flynn and how they were treated by Michael Flynn.

So when this incident happened with the photos, I again spoke to the Douglas and in talking to them, determined to go see Michael Flynn.

Q When did you make that determination, Mr. Armstrong?

A It was within a few days of the incident with the photos. My wife ,and I from that period on — the same night it happened we didn’t sleep all night. I felt like I was going to become the target of some operation of some description, and I was extremely paranoid and it was at that time that I sought you out.

Q Did you begin to carry a weapon at that time?

A I began to sleep with a big hunting knife by my bed and I walked around throughout the night with this knife. At the slightest sound I was awake. It went on for


months. My wife would never be alone, refused to shower alone, and we determined at that point that we had to become somewhat more real about this whole subject than we had, and that it would — we could not run from the organization. We had to take a stand and we had to confront them, and what developed subsequently is what this lawsuit is all about.

Q Now, Mr. Armstrong, when did you come to see me and where did you see me?

A I called you within probably a couple of days of the photo incident and we had tried to make arrangements so I could get there as soon as possible.

I had some things that I had to take care of.

You were at that point leaving for Clearwater, so we made arrangements and you paid for my plane fare down to Clearwater. It was within a few days of that. I believe I arrived somewhere around 4 or 5 May, although I am not exactly sure of the date.

Q Now when you came to Clearwater, did you bring any documents with you that you had obtained from Mr. Garrison?

A The only documents which I intended to bring down there was a document to show to Nibs, L. Ron Hubbard’s son. You had told me that the hearings were going to be going on and that Nibs was going to be testifying in front of the Clearwater hearings.

I felt quite — I don’t know, sorry, for Nibs at that point. I felt like he was one of the bigger victims of the organization and of Mr. Hubbard, and quite a tragic figure and I took to him.


He had been writing throughout the years to his father or thought he was writing to his father, and the letters, all except one in 1967, did not get to his father. Probably 15 of the last letters that he ever wrote to his father never got to him and they were derailed by the organization, and the answers were written either by LRH personal communicator, LRH Pers Sec or Mary Sue Hubbard.

I had from the documents, from the Pers Sec files I had obtained a list of all the people who had been writing to Nibs.


And I took that to him to show to him because he had been continually writing through the years, saying, "I know somebody is writing. I know the s on one line is a fraud. I know that no one is getting this."

And he is writing to his father and saying, "I know you’re not getting this."

And I just felt sorry for him. And knowing that he was going to be there and, in fact, I had been a part of, you know, a fraudulent operation against Nibs myself; so that was why I took that particular document.

I had with me another document which was the — it was a letter that Mary Sue had written to L. Ron Hubbard in the mid 1950’s. And it was a letter which, when I was inside the organization, I tried to get to Mary Sue. It was the only thing in the all the letters in there which I considered of an actual personal nature.

Q Let me stop you right there.

Of all the documents that you then had under seal this was the only letter that you thought was of a highly personal nature; is that correct?

MR. HARRIS: I’m not sure I understand the predicate.

THE WITNESS: There were no documents under seal at that point.

MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it.

Q Of all the documents that you collected for Mr. Garrison, this particular document you had a question about as to what should be done with it; is that correct?

A Yes.


In late 1981, the fall of 1981 I had sought to get a communication to Mary Sue, to write to her. And I was told by Mr. Hubbard’s special projects personnel that there was no line of communication to Mary Sue and that I couldn’t send any letters.

Q This is late 1981?

A This is after her removal, sometime in the middle of 1981.

So into October, November of 1961, I attempted to communicate with Mary Sue. And I wanted to send to her this one letter. And I was told that there was no line.

I knew at this point about her removal. I knew how the hierarchy of the organization viewed her. I felt like she was a tremendous victim of the organization and of her husband and of the circumstances. And I — that is why I sought to get it to her and I happened to have it in my briefcase at the time when I went and saw you.

I showed it to you at that time.

You said, "It is highly personal." You didn’t want anything to do with it.

Q And did you then thereafter try to return it to Mary Sue Hubbard?

A Sometime later that year I was in communication with Laurel Sullivan. Laurel Sullivan was in communication with Mary Sue.

I asked Laurel Sullivan for Mary Sue’s address and Laurel sent it to me, the address. And she confirmed that it was still a good address.

1719 - 1720

Following that I did send it to that address.

This was sometime in August, 1982.

Apparently — it sat for sometime somewhere at that address which Mary Sue later said was some postal service of some sort. And it was returned to my P.O. box sometime, I believe, around the end of November, maybe sometime at the end of November, December, 1982.

I had a deposition shortly following that and I delivered the letter, my letter, the envelope, the unopened envelope to Mr. Litt at the time.


And is that envelope presently under seal if you know?

A I have seen it there.

Q Now, this envelope, did it have handwriting on it?

A Yes.

Q And did you recognize the handwriting?

A I believe that the handwriting was of David Miscavige.

Q Now –

MR. LITT: Objection; no foundation for that.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Were you familiar with Mr. Miscavige’s handwriting?

A Yes, it is printing.

Q Did you leave that letter in either the possession of Contos & Bunch or me when you saw me?

A No.

Q Strike that.

Did you leave that letter in my possession when you saw me, Mr. Armstrong?

A No.

Q Now, when you saw me, you explained the circumstances surrounding your involvement with Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And thereafter did I meet you in Los Angeles?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?


A I believe it was the end of May. I don’t know the exact date, but somewhere, May or June 1982.

Q Now, in May 1982 did you know that you were being followed by private investigators?

A Yes.

Q And how long had you been followed by private investigators, if you know?

A I don’t know.

I was only able to determine that we were being staked out just briefly.

Q Incidentally, since I have been in Los Angeles with you, have we been followed by private investigators?

A I believe so.

Q And have agents of the organization come in and sat down where we have been eating breakfast at locations outside the City of Los Angeles?

A That happened on one occasion.

Q Now, what is your best estimate as to how long private investigators have been staking you out when I saw you in late May 1982?

A Probably — my wife and I perceived them, someone watching the house and we were very aware at that time. We felt that it was going on and we believed that we had confirmed at some time in early May.

Q Do you recall the date in May that you received these Suppressive Person Declare dated April 2, 1982?

A Not the exact date. It was near the end of the month, about a week prior to my receipt of this thing.


We either called or we spoke to Marilyn Brewer. I am not — I don’t recall now if I called her or she called me, but I knew about the document and the contents roughtly maybe a week or more before I received it. I received it some time around the end of the month.

I knew about the existence when I met you in Los Angeles May or June.

Q Now, thereafter did you send — when you came to Clearwater, did you become my client?

A Yes.

Q And after our meeting in Los Angeles, did you begin to send me materials that you received from Omar Garrison relative to the factual background you had found out about L. Ron Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And when you sent those materials, had you at that point received the suppressive person declare, April 22, 1982 which, in effect, accused of lying about L. Ron Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And it had accused you of theft at that point; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And illegally taking or possession church property; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And some 18 other charges, many of which have to do with speaking falsely about L. Ron Hubbard, is that correct?


A Yes.

Q Now, did I send you to a law firm in Los Angeles called Contos & Bunch?

A Yes.

Q And were you instructed to send materials to that firm, also?

A I just took materials. I took whatever I had in the house at the time.

Q And were you having ongoing conversations with Omar Garrison at this point in time?

A Yes.


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

THE COURT: Maybe you can develop that, counsel.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When did you first start sending my office materials, Mr. Armstrong?

A It would have been sometime after the meeting in May. So it would have been June, 1982.

Q And did you thereafter continue to send me materials for a period of several months?

A Through approximately August, there was probably four, maybe four occasions in which I sent you materials.

Q And throughout that period of time did you continue to be followed?

A Yes.

Q And when did you send the materials to Contos and Bunch?

A It would have been in July, maybe the beginning of August. I am not sure of the exact date. It was sometime briefly prior to being sued.

Q Now, approximately how much — I believe we have already stipulated to that, Your Honor, that three boxes came to me and two boxes went to Contos and Bunch which have been sent to the court.

MR. HARRIS: We’ll so stipulate if it has not been done.

THE COURT: All right.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now long did you get followed by individuals, Mr. Armstrong, that you believed were working for the Church of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard?

A The last day that I know that it occurred was


sometime in maybe around the 20th or 22nd or so of September, 1982.

And I have — I believe I had seen people from perhaps May forward and it greatly accelerated in August, 1982.

Q Now, would you describe some of the incidents that occurred with regard to — in connection with these people following you?

A The first time when I was able to make a positive identification was sometime in August. And it was a yellow Volkswagen. And it was driven by a young man called Gregory Osborne.

I was at that time in an apartment, the second floor of a small building in Costa Mesa. And I had been — I had seen this Volkswagen around for a few days.

Finally, I saw that it was parked across a wide street, a boulevard, across from my house.

I snuck out to confirm. And I made my way over there without the driver noticing.

And I accosted him at that time. And he had been binoculars and a walkie-talkie. And that vas the first actual confirmation.

I called the — I stopped him from driving away because I wanted — he refused to identify himself. I thought he was a Scientologist. I thought it was an operation. And he refused to identify himself.

So — and he started to drive away.

I put my leg under the wheel of his car so he


would have had to crush my foot or my leg to get away. So he didn’t leave.

And I flagged down a passing motorcycle guy at the same time; it took awhile to get someone to come by to be willing to call the police.

But I called the police on that one occasion and the police arrived after awhile. And they sent –
I explained to them what it was and who I believed was ordering this operation.

Q You has been followed at this point for approximately three months?

A Yes.

And so the police sent me away. And they, apparently, took down his name and relevant material.

And a few days later I was able to obtain from the Costa Mesa police a positive identification of who he was and that sort of thing.

I wrote to the Costa Mesa police a number of reports throughout this period. And they have, apparently, been asked by the organization to produce these things, but can’t find them.

There was a series of incidents thereafter of positive identifications, positive ID’s of being followed. And finally I was able to –

It was a Sunday morining sometime in August, I believe August 29th, something like that. It was difficult at first to identify them, but this one day — it was daytime. And so I took a camera and was able to get close enough to


photograph the person. And I photographed the car.

He got out of the car and he began pushing me around behind a building that was sort of a deserted building nearby. And I felt this could be the end for me.


I kept photographing him and then my wife just happened to drive up. I had been screaming at her. She was about 200 yards away across the street, and somehow she either picked up and she saw this incident and came over, so then there was the two of us.

And he would come toward me and the camera and I told her to go look in his car and identify everything that was in there, and so she went over to identify the car and he’d go over to pull her away from the car and I’d photograph him. This went on until he finally took off and at the same time I had I.D.’d another car that was following at the same time.

Q Is that a picture of the individual who pushed you?

A Yes.

Q And that occurred behind the building?

A Well it was in front of a building, but it appeared like he was pushing me around back around an end of a building which would be out of sight.

Q So you felt he was pushing you out behind it?

A Yes.

Q And I believe these photographs have been seen by counsel.

Were you taking a picture of him as he was trying to push you?

A He was coming toward me at that point. That was right at the beginning of the incident.

Q Now, other than that incident in which you


were actually physically struck, did your car get struck by some of these people following you?

A Well, not my car. The next incident where there was any contact –

MR. FLYNN: May this be marked?

THE COURT: I guess we are up to double S.

MR. LITT: We would ask that the writing underneath be stricken and only the photographs go in. The writing is just a recounting of his testimony.

THE COURT: All right. The writing is — it is the witness’ notes and I will strike that out.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: What was the next incident, Mr. Armstrong?

MR. LITT: I am sorry, what was this marked as?

THE COURT: Double R.

THE CLERK: Double S.

THE WITNESS: From the date of this incident of the shoving incident, it continued on a daily basis. I was followed virtually daily from there on for a period of time until it ended around September 22nd or so.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now this was after the lawsuit had been brought; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And to your knowledge after my office and the office of Contos & Bunch were in communication with the office of Mr. Peterson?

A I believe so.

Q And what occurred in this next incident?


A Joscelyn and I were at that time working in a law firm in Costa Mesa or in Newport Beach and at lunch we had some business to do, so we drove — at that time I was driving a little, ‘71 Datsun, a little, tiny box of a car, and we were driving, and I spot I am being followed by a Ford car that I think is one of the cars involved in the incident of the shoving incident, and I make sufficient turns to be able to confirm that the guy is indeed following me. In fact, he is staying right on my tail.

It is a very close surveilance and I stop at one time and I wanted to talk to the guy to find out if he was a Scientologist or a private investigator or to get him to identify himself, find out what was going on because my wife and I were just freaking out during this period.

I went up to his car and he took off and went around the corner, and I again I was running up the street to try and talk to him, and he pulled around the corner and swerved toward me and clipped me on the elbow.

I again went to the police. I was a regular customer at the Costa Mesa Police Station for a couple of weeks, and I reported this incident and I reported several other incidents throughout this period. The same guy who hit me on the elbow was later driving another vehicle and on the Newport Freeway he got right in front of me and then slammed on his brakes, and I suppose in the hopes that I was going to crash into him.

MR. LITT: Objection.


THE WITNESS: There was another incident following that.

THE COURT: It will be stricken.

THE WITNESS: Following that same incident of getting in front of me and slamming on the breaks, he got beside me and came across the dividing line as if to push me off the road.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When did that take place, Mr. Armstrong?

A It would probably be in September.

I have pictures from that — from that day-to-day account of what happened each day. Each day I typed up whatever happened during that day.

Q And did take pictures of some of the vehicles and the people who were engaged in this activity throughout this period of time?

A Yes.

Q And to your knowledge was this after this court had issued a temporary restraining order with regard to the return of the documents?

A Yes.

MR. LITT: "This" being what? What is the "this"?

MR. FLYNN: These activities.

MR. LITT: Which activities, the ones regarding the stopping of the car in front of Mr. Armstrong and the purported running off the road?

Q BY MR. FLYNN: When you got run off the road, Mr. Armstrong was that after the temporary restraining order


was issued?

A Yes.

Q And with regard to the car slamming on its breaks in front of you, was that after the temporary restraining order?

A Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may the record indicate that the temporary restraining order was issued on August 24, 1982?

THE COURT: I’ll have to go through all of those files; is that correct?

MR. LITT: I think the court has already taken judicial notice of the temporary restraining order including the date.

Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did these incidents occur in September, 1982?

A Yes.

Q And the latter part of August, after 24th, 1982?

A Yes.

Q Were you closely followed everywhere you went during this period of time?

A During a great deal of it, yes.

Q And –

MR. LITT: Which period of time?

MR. FLYNN: August and September of 1982.


Q BY MR. FLYNN; And were you under surveillance at work?

A Yes.

Q And at your home?


A Yes.

Q And wherever you went?

A Yes.

Q And at some point in time did you live in a trailer park during this period?

A Yes.

Q Where was that located?

A That was — it was in the same location as the apartment.

We moved to the trailer park on the first of September, 1982; moved to the trailer. The whole thing was in a trailer park.

Q And did you observe individuals close to your bedroom window looking into your bedroom window during this period of tire?

A I observed they were able to look into my bedroom window.

I could see them from my bedroom window. I could see a car. And I photographed the people within six feet of my bedroom window.

Q And how long — over how long a period of hours did these individuals look into your bedroom window?

A I don’t know that they looked into the bedroom window. They had the capacity to.

They were observed by a neighbor looking over the fence into my trailer.

MR. LITT: Objection. Move to strike.

THE COURT: It will be stricken as hearsay.


MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if we could suspend it at this time, I have another matter to take up with the court of some importance with regard to a deposition subpoena that was served on Dr. Denk.

THE COURT: We’ll recess this case until 9:30 Monday morning.

Do you want to stay in session on this other matter, or what?

MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, we obtained in-hand service of Dr. Denk who we consider to be a critical witness for the defense for the following reason — and he was to appear today and he didn’t appear. We have received recent information and — I’m not real sure about the total reliability of this information. It is hearsay coming to me second-hand. But what I an told is that Dr. Denk last night was called out of town for several weeks on an emergency, medical emergency, and will not return for several weeks.

My concern is that —- I filed the subpoena in court. My concern is that Dr. Denk will appear during this trial because we believe that he has very significant evidence on several points, including the present whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard to enable us to call Mr. Hubbard as a witness for the defense and also with regard to a project that Mr. Armstrong worked on with Dr. Denk in connection with the Nobel Peace Prize project to confirm Mr. Armstrong’s testimony.


And, lastly, with regard to the physical condition of Mr. Hubbard who we believe that Dr. Denk examined in October of 1983.

MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I received –

THE COURT: I don’t know what it is you want me to do.

Do you want me to issue a body attachment? I can issue a body attachment. It may never get served.

MR. DRAGOJEVIC: Your Honor, I received a telephone call from an attorney who claimed to be representing him last night about 7:30. He acknowledged that Dr. Denk had been served and asked me to place him — the attorney — on call because he claimed that he was going to come in to make a motion to quash the subpoena.

I told him that I would be willing to work with Dr. Denk’s schedule if he couldn’t be present this morning if I had a sighed agreement by Dr. Denk that he would appear.

The attorney said that he was not willing to do that.

He subsequently called me back even later in the evening and said that he might be able to obtain such an agreement from his client.

And I indicated that I would accept a signed agreement. And then he never called me back.

So apparently he has acknowleaged service. He just simply did not appear this morning.

We would like a body attachment and a contempt issued.

MR. HARRIS: Unless Dr. Denk is represented by


two attorneys, counsel, could you, please, state the name of the attorney representing Dr. Denk?

MR. DRAGOJEVIC: I believe it was a Robert Burke.

MR. HARRIS: I had a conversation with a Robert Burke at approximately 7:30 last night, Your Honor, who indicated to me that he was in trial, but he would be moving to quash the subpoena. And he did not feel that there was proper service.

I said, well, it is up to him, but I can’t speak for him. And if Your Honor wants to hear from him, maybe I can get hold of him and he can be here Monday morning.

THE COURT: Well, he is not here at this midnight hour on this case; I mean, we have had years to prepare for this case; people have businesses to conduct; doctors have patients.

I notice that he was served at 8:20 a.m. on May 10th to be here in court on May 11th.

MR. DRAGOJEVIC: We were willing to work around his schedule, Your Honor. That wasn’t the problem. If he
couldn’t have appeared today, Mr. Burke should have just indicated to me that his client would appear on another date. But he wasn’t willing to indicate that to me.

MR. HARRIS: He is not on the witness list either, Your Honor, if that is of any importance, Dr. Denk.

MR. FLYNN: We received the information that he has knowledge about L. Ron Hubbard’s present location only recently, Your Honor.

THE COURT: well, you don’t really think there is a


snowball’s chance to try to find Mr. Hubbard, do you?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, we — he succeeded in 30 years of avoiding legal process all over the world. So I suppose Your Honor is correct. But I do think we should make the effort. On behalf of my client, it is my obligation to make the effort; whether that effort will succeed, Your Honor may be and probably is absolutely correct. But I believe it is my obligation to make the effort.


THE COURT: Well, I will find that there appears to have been a properly issued civil subpoena to appear in court this morning.

There apparently was no appearance, so I will issue a body attachment.

I will hold the body attachment for one week, May the 18th and you can advise counsel if he wants to make some motion with reference to it, to do it before that time, otherwise it will issue.

MR. HARRIS: I will undertake that responsibility.

THE COURT: All right; is that it then?

Okay, then we will reconvene on Monday at 9:30.

(At 3:52 p.m. the proceedings were adjourned until Monday, May 14, 1984 at 9:34 a.m.)