Reporters' Daily Transcript (May 8, 1984)
Armstrong 1SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, vs. GERALD ARMSTRONG, Defendant. MARY SUE HUBBARD, Intervenor. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
No. C 420153 |
REPORTERS’ TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, May 8, 1984
APPEARANCES:
(See Appearances page.)
VOLUME 7
Pages 996 - 1177
NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644 HERB CANNON, CSR #1923 Official Reporters |
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: | PETERSON & BRYNAN BY: JOHN G. PETERSON 8530 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 407 Beverly Hills, California 90211 (213) 659-9965 -and- ROBERT N. HARRIS The Oviatt Building 617 South Olive Street Suite 915 Los Angeles, California 90014 (213) 623-7511 |
For the Intervenor: | LITT & STORMER BY: BARRETT S. LITT Paramount Plaza 3550 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 386-4303 -and- BARRETT S. LITT BY: MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON The Oviatt Building 617 South Olive Street Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90014 (213) 623-7511 |
For the Defendant: | CONTOS & BUNCH BY: MICHAEL J. FLYNN -and- JULIA DRAGOJEVIC 5855 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite 400 Woodland Hills, California 91367 (213) 716-9400 |
VOLUME 7
I N D E X
Day | Date | Session | Page |
Tuesday | Mry 8, 1984 | A.M. | 996 |
P.M. | 1093 |
W I T N E S S E S
PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES: | DIRECT | CROSS | REDIRECT | RECROSS |
VORM, Tom
(Reopened) |
997 | 1025 | 1048 | 1049 |
HUBBARD, Mary Sue | 1051 | 1102 | 1115 | |
PETERSON, John | 1146 |
I N D E X
E X H I B I T S
PLAINTIFF’S | IDENTIFIED | RECEIVED |
13 - Inventory | 997 | 1051 |
14 - Chart | 1023 | 1051 |
15 - Defense list of exhibits | 1108 | |
16 - Supplemental list of exhibits | 1108 | |
17 - Letter, May 26, 1982 | 1147 | |
18 - Letter, May 27, 1982 | 1147 | |
19 - Letter, June 9, 1982 | 1149 | |
20 - Letter, June 21, 1982 | 1149 | |
21 - Invoices | 1152 | |
DEFENSE: | ||
K - Commodore Messengers | 1059 | |
L - | 1133 | |
M - Suppressive Person Declare | 1159 |
996
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984; 9:10 A.M.
-o0o-
MR. LITT: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. FLYNN: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, we are back in session.
Is Mrs. Hubbard available?
MR. LITT: Your Honor, what we would like to do is have Mr. Vorm testify. After court yesterday Mrs. Hubbard came to our office and we worked until about 10:00 reviewing these articles, and she will be here around 10:00 and we are prepared to proceed with Mr. Vorm.
THE COURT: All right.
TOM VORM, recalled as a witness by the plaintiff, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Mr. Vorm, you have already been sworn, so just have a seat. State your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: My name is Tom Vorm.
997
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I gave you a copy of the item which I said was an evidentiary item which contains the marks of Mr. Armstrong. I have a copy for Mr. Vorm; I gave a copy to Mr. Flynn. I would like the court’s copy to be marked Plaintiff’s next in order.
THE COURT: Okay. 13; so marked for identification.
DIRECT EXAMINATION, BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Mr. Vorm, you previously made reference to Mr. Armstrong marking certain sections of an inventory in your testimony previously as I recall; is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Now, at my request did you obtain the entirety of the inventory of the trunks from your files?
A Yes, I did.
Q Actually, it was pursuant to the court’s order, but at my request.
Now, When you obtained that inventory of the trunks, what did you do with it?
A I pulled out the pages that had Gerry’s check marks on them and put them together and put the others together separately.
Q And exhibit 13 which you have before you, are those the pages that you pulled out that had Gerry’s markings on them?
A That is correct.
Q Prior to pulling them out did you number the
998
pages at my request?A Yes, I did.
Q That is, the entirety of the inventory?
A The whole thing, yes.
Q From 1 to whatever it was?
A Yes.
Q After that was done you pulled out the pages?
A Right.
999
Q Directing your attention to the small 12 on the first page which is circled, is that your writing?
A Yes.
Q And is that the numbering system that you used throughout?
A Yes. I put a circle around all my numbers in the bottom right-hand corner.
Q All right. Other than that 12 on the first page, is anything there your writing?
A No it is not.
Q When you received the trunks, did you use exhibit 13 in going through the trunks?
A Yes, I used the original of exhibit 13, right.
Q On the front that is on the first page of exhibit 13 there is what appears to be trunk 8.
By your observation of the trunk, what did that mean?
A Well, each trunk had a designating letter that was marked on the trunk. Trunk 8 had the number 8 mark on the trunk, and that was the contents of the trunk.
Q All right, directing your attention to page 14, your numbering of exhibit 13 on the left-hand side appears to be the word “envelope” the number 1 and then a bracket which extends down toward the bottom of the page; do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q All right, when you opened the trunks and used the inventory, part of which is now exhibit 13, were
1000
you able to ascertain that the items that are inventoried, that is in the middle of page 14 of exhibit 13, were in fact contained in envelopes?A Yes.
Q And did the inventory that is page 14, for example, exhibit 13 contain an envelope No. 1 which contained the items that are on page 14?
A Yes, it did.
Q Down about three-quarters of the way down the page there appears to be some dark writing in the left-hand column.
Do you recognize that?
A Yes, it looks like Nikki Friedman’s handwriting.
Q And when you went through envelope No. 1 in trunk 8, did you find a packet re Pontiac papers, certificates, et cetera?
A No, I didn’t. It wasn’t there.
Q Was everything else that is indicated on the inventory page 14 of exhibit 13 in an envelope which had a designation 1?
A As far as I recall, yes.
Q Now, the check mark over on the right-hand side of page 14 of exhibit 13, whose marks are those?
A Those were made by Gerry.
Q And what time were these done?
A They were done as part of the procedure for the transfer of materials to Gerry in approximately October of ‘81.
Q In respect to the items that are checked off,
1001
he received the originals or copies?A He received the original item.
Q I am now looking at the top. There were two LRH wallets, one full of membership cards that would have just been given to him at the time?
A That’s right.
Q With no copies retained by you?
A No.
Q And that would have been true of the remainder of the envelope 1 which has check marks on the right-hand side?
A That is correct, yes.
1002
Q Envelope 2, envelope 3, at the time you opened the trunks using the inventory, did those appear to contain the contents as designated in the middle of page 14?
A Yes. They appeared to be accurate.
Q Please, turn to page 15.
Again, on the left-hand side there appear to be various envelopes. And so we can clear this up for the rest of it, in each of the cases where there was an envelope for file designated on the left-hand side, when you opened the trunks and looked in there was there an envelope which contained the items that are in the inventory, that is, the middle part?
A Yes.
Q Directing your attention to the top of page 15 there is what appears to be a bracket of some sort on the right-hand side with a check mark; do you see that?
A Yes.
Q What does that designate?
A What that meant was instead of checking off every single item, all the items in that category were bracketed and a check mark was put beside it, meaning all of those items were given to Gerry.
Q And, again, these were originals and no copies kept by you?
A Well, the items in the trunk were Xeroxed copies. Those originals of those Xeroxed copies were given, and no copies were kept by me.
Q Fine. Down about three-quarters of the way
1003
it looks like envelope 11; there appears to be a word on the right-hand side near where other checks are which says “Missing.”Whose writing is that, if you know?
A That would have been Gerry’s.
Q And there was something that was missing from envelope 11, to your recollection?
A Yes.
Q All right. Directing your attention to page 16 on the right-hand side, mid page, there appear to be M’s underlined, some with question marks; what do those designate, if you know?
A Well, as far as I can tell, the M in this inventory indicated there was a manuscript, meaning it was several pages of handwritten, usually handwritten, sometimes typed, either an article or something that could be considered a manuscript as opposed to just a single note or something like that.
Q And, again, the check marks are Mr. Armstrong’s check marks on the right-right side?
A That is correct.
Q What is that X that is below the two check marks mid page, right-hand side, page 16, Exhibit 13?
A What happened on that particular item was I was going to give it to Gerry. And after looking at it, decided that it was something that actually should be in my archives. And so the check mark was crossed off, and I kept that particular item.
1004
Q In Mr. Armstrong’s presence?
A Yes.
Q Now, with respect to the check marks at the bottom of the page on the right-hand side, were these envelope 22, envelope 23, with various categories, were these individual documents or multiple documents? What is it?
A Those particular items were files containing several articles, some of the pages stapled together because they are series, correspondence, or whatever that particular file contained. But there is definitely more than one item in those files.
Q Directing your attention to page 17 of Exhibit 13, again, each of the check marks on the right-hand side designated that these were items given to Mr. Armstrong and these were his check marks?
A That’s right.
Q And not to be duplicative, but again, are we talking about single pages, files, or a mixture, when you are looking at page 17?
A Page 17 is actually a mixture, I believe.
For instance, the letter from Karl Marx was either one or two pages, wasn’t very big, as I recall. Some of the others, like folder, legal receipts, I recall that it had quite a few receipts in the file itself. So it is a mixture.
Q Turning to page 18, it appears to be just one check mark, “Correspondent Home of this”; was that an individual document or a file?
1005
A That was a file. If I recall, there were several pages of correspondence in that.
Q Directing your attention to page 24, up on this –
By the way, this is trunk No. 12-1 up at the right-hand corners what does that designate?
A That was the designation on the outside of the trunk that was marked 12-1, and this inventory would correspond to that trunk.
1006
Q Okay. Now, when you received the trunks, approximately how many were there?
A As I recall, there were around 20, something like that when I first got them.
Q And the numbering system on the trunks were not, I take it, 1 to 20 judging from this?
A Right.
Q Could you explain to the court what the numbering system was if you could figure it out?
A They just had various numbers on them, 12-1, 12-3, 12-5, 12-6. I don’t know why they started with 12, but that is what the trunks were marked and that is what the pages were marked so that is what corresponded.
Q Now there is on the left-hand side an underlined phrase “Pack HWD-1.”
By your observation of the contents of the trunks, what did HM mean?
A Well, this particular trunk contained mostly HWD packs. HWD evidently stood for hand-written dispatches per the note on the top and also, I believe, the files themselves are labeled LRH handwritten dispatches or handwritten dispatches or something like that.
Q Now, when it says “pack HWD-1? what was the difference between a pack and an envelope by your observation?
A Well, in the earlier trunk the envelopes were actually like legal manila-sized brown envelopes with a flap on the front. They had numbers on the outside of the envelopes.
1007
When he talks about pack here, what it was is it looked like someone had gone into a file drawer and just taken out a section of files, wrapped them in cardboard and tied them with a string and then written on the outside of the cardboard the pack number of that particular pack.
Q All right, now, up in the center of the first inventory item appears to be ACC notes and then 16th and 17th have a circle around them, as does 20th and there is some handwriting; what is that?
A Those were notes that I made when I was going through the trunks originally.
Q And what does that indicate?
A Well on the 16th and 17th it says “Booklet filed MSS” which is my indication of manuscripts, so what that means is that there was a booklet pertaining to the 16th and 17th ACC’s which I considered should have been filed with the manuscripts, and I took it out and filed it in another file.
Q All right, and the circle around the 20th, what does that designate?
A That would just be my notation that I had pulled it out and filed it somewhere else. Those are my initials.
Q And when we see those throughout the remaining pages, those are indications that you took an item out of the trunk and filed it in some sort of file?
A Right.
Q And again the check marks that go down page 24
1008
indicate files to be obtained by Mr. Armstrong from you?A That is correct.
Q In respect to these, are we talking about multiple documents or single documents?
A In most of these cases there are multiple documents. Some of the files had hundreds of pages in them. Some of them had just a few.
Q And down at the — it looks like mid-way there is some writing. Appears to be “two folders.”
Whose writing is that?
A That looks like Gerry’s writing. I can’t be sure exactly.
Q Directing your attention to page 25 appears to be only two items designated by check mark; Cuba and deceased Scientologists.
These were items that were given to Mr. Armstrong?
A They were files that were given, yes.
Q And again with any of this so far did you make copies or did he make copies to return to archives?
A No, these were the original files and I was just transferring them to him.
Q All right. Directing your attention to page 27 pack HWD-3, there is a notation, there is an item FDA Legal scratched out, and then there is some writing; whose writing is that?
A That as Gerry’s writing.
Q What did that indicate?
A What if I recall when we went through this
1009
particular pack, this file, FDA Legal, was missing and so it was written “missing” and as we went through, then later on we found it in one of the other packs under a different heading. So we came back and wrote that in, crossed out the “missing” and wrote in where to find it.Q Direcing your attention to the bottom of page 27 of exhibit 13 there is what appears to be handwritten “all HEC files” with a check mark; whose writing is that?
A That is Gerry’s writing.
Q And what files were included in all HEC files?
A That included the entirety of pack HWD-4(a).
If you look right underneath on page 27 where it says pack HWD-4(a), it says HEC. There was a file divider there labeled “HEC” which included all the files evidently in the file drawer. That is what was used and these files were HEC files and they were all given to Gerry except for the two items that I had taken out earlier on page 28.
Q Two items — oh, I see, the RSF orders and ships org book?
A That is correct.
Q All right. Now, so what you are saying is the check mark that is on page 27 which is next to “all HEC files” encompassed the first part of page 28 through Tangiers?
A That is right.
Q Bottom of page 28 appears to be the designation “Legal” and then there is “AMA” and “FDA” with check marks;
1010
what does that indicate?A That indicates that those were two files that were taken and they were both checked off.
Q Do you recall the size of these files? Were they single documents or multiple?
A Those particular files were pretty thick.
I think they were an inch or more/of correspondence, various things having to do with legal.
Q Now, this FDA I noted earlier on page 27 was looked to be missing, and then there was this notation “See Legal FDA”; has that word showed up?
A That’s right.
Q And what is the designations of the dates at the bottom of page 28; 9-’53-’60 et cetera; what was it? I don’t assume it was just dates sitting in the file.
A No, that was, if I recall the file said Legal, and then afterwards it said whatever these designations were from 1953 to 1960. That would have been legal materials like correspondence with attorneys back and forth from that period of time, meaning 1953 to 1960, inclusive.
1011
Q All right. Page 29 appears to have check marks throughout and then some writing about two-thirds of the page down, “Legal AMA, Legal FDA”; whose writing is that?
A That is Gerry’s writing.
Q What does that indicate at the time that that was put there?
A I don’t recall exactly on that.
I think what happened is that these items were missing earlier, at least this one, this “FDA Legal.” And either there was two additional files labeled “Legal AMA” or it was just written in on the wrong page. I am not sure. Gerry was handling the check marks as we went through on that particular item.
Q Up at the top of page 29, the third entry, “Dear Fellows,” there is an X; what does that indicate?
A I don’t recall what that particular X meant.
Q And with respect to the items on page 29 of Exhibit 13, are they single documents or multiple?
A These were all file folders. These were the labels on the file folders. In some cases, some of them were single pages. As I recall, for the most part they had more than one page. In some cases, they had a lot more pages.
Q Turn to page 30, the bracket with the check that is up at the top and the category “Membership Cards”; what does that indicate?
A It indicated that those three items were all taken.
1012
Q And with respect to the items on page 30 which contain check marks, again, I take it it is a potpourri, some individual documents, some files?
A Well, they were all files. There weren’t any individual documents.
As far as what the files contained, you are correct; some were single: some were more than one.
Q All right. Quickly going through, 31 appears to be a lot of check marks.
32, there is one, Excalibur. This is an item that Mr. Armstrong took?
A That is correct.
Q Going to page 34, there is one check mark, “Ships and Boats, 1957-68,” and then an indication, seven folders; that was given to Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes.
Q And what does — from your recollection of what it looked like, what are the seven folders? Are we talking about big items, small? What is the best you can describe it?
A As I recall, those particular folders were all at least an inch thick. There was just a lot of miscellaneous files and correspondence, that sort of thing.
Q Turning to page 37, there appears to be some writing about two-thirds of the way down the page, “Pack HWD 13?; do you recognize that writing?
A Yes.
Q That is whose writing?
1013
A That would have been Gerry’s.
Q Directing your attention to page 42, at the bottom — well, it is actually mid page. But at the bottom of the typing appears to be some handwriting, “MSH Letter 1973 one pack LRH” — I can’t make that out — “Certs” and then “(Photos) two packs”; what was that and what did it indicate?
A What that indicated was the — the letters that Mrs. Hubbard wrote to Mr. Hubbard in the 1973 period.
He was away for a while.
What those included also, there were some certificates that were actual photos of the certificates as opposed to original certificates. There was two packs of those. Those were given to Gerry.
Q Those two items is handwriting, whose handwriting is that?
A That is Gerry’s handwriting.
Q And the letters, 1973 MSH, did Mr. Armstrong get the originals or copies?
A Well, per our agreement, he was given the originals to Xerox only, which he then brought back to me.
Q So you maintained the MSH letters in 1973 in original form in your archives right now?
A That is right.
Q And as far as you know, he made copies?
A Correct.
Q Directing your attention to page 43 of Exhibit 13, there appears to be an arrow of some sort about
1014
a third of the way down the page; is that your writing?A Yes.
Q And what does that designate?
A What that is, the — there were two packs labeled RHOD; that stood for Rhodesia 1 and 2.
Then it says, “See following inventory for details, contents of Rhodesia drawer and top study.” There are two pages following, page 44 and page 45, which was basically a breakdown of those two packs as far as the files that they contained. And my notation just says, “To Senior PTR Researcher Both Packs,” with my initials.
1015
Q And when was that written?
A I am not sure exactly. If I recall, it was written slightly later than or slightly before. I think it was later. It had to have been later than this other transfer with the checks.
Q A11 right. And how did that happen?
A I can’t recall specifics on it. I can’t recall specifics on that.
Q In any event, pages 44 and 45 –
THE COURT: Before you leave 43, what is all this crossed-out material supposed to be?
THE WITNESS: I don’t know what that was, Your Honor.
That was crossed out in a heavy black pen.
THE COURT: Before you had access to it?
THE WITNESS: Before I received the inventory.
THE COURT: Did Mr. Armstrong have anything to do with that, to your knowledge?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Pages 44 and 45, then, are the two packs that are under Rhodesia 1 and 2 just broken down?
A That’s right.
Q And you gave the entirety of the packages Rhodesia 1 and 2 to Mr. Armstrong?
A That’s correct.
Q Directing your attention to page 48 of Exhibit 13, about halfway down the page, “Some handwriting folder containing MSH letters, et cetera”; do you see that?
1016
A Yes.
Q Whose handwriting is that?
A I don’t know whose handwriting that was. That was on the inventory when I received it.
Q And was there, in fact, such a folder in the trunks?
A Yes, there was. If I recall, what happened was we came across these letters, but we couldn’t find the notation on the inventory as to where they were. So on page 42, Gerry just wrote them in, “MSH letters 1973, one pack.”
Q Page 42?
A Right.
Q Oh, I see.
A Then later I saw that notation, and if you will see on page 42 I wrote down at the bottom, “See 12-3 page 6,” just as an indication.
Q Oh, I see. In other words, back on page 42 there is some writing below the word “packs”?
A Right.
Q Which is your writing?
A Right.
Q Making reference to what is now page 48?
A That’s right.
Q All right. Page 50 of Exhibit 13, there is a notation up at the top which appears to be the title of the page as well as the date. There is a date 8 February 1969, then LRH per sec WW files to LRH.
1017
You received page 50 along with the rest of the inventory at the time you received the trunks?
A That’s right.
Q And the items from your observation of the trunks — in this case, trunk 12-4, contained all of these items?
A That’s correct.
Q And a great many of them appear to be checked off. Were these files or individual documents?
A These were all file folders. They appeared to be primary correspondence files.
Q Originals?
A Original documents.
Q And that extends over to page 51?
A Yes.
Q Page 52, about a third of the way down, the page there is on the left-hand side, something pack number LRH PS3, et cetera; whose writing is that, if you know?
A I am not sure whose writing it is.
Q All right. As far as the contents of the packs, does the inventory reflect what was in those packs?
A As far as I recall, yes. There were packs labeled LRH PS3. I believe that stood for per sec with a number after it, and those particular files matched up.
Q And the LRH Correspondence Files, which has a check mark next to it, two parcels, about how big were these, if you recall?
A I don’t recall exactly. I know they had more
1018
than one document in them.Q All right. Now, over on the left-hand side of page 52 there appears to be little dashes in the left margin; what are those?
A I don’t believe they signify anything other than maybe we just looked at the files. I don’t think they have any significance.
Q Again on page 56, title “Contents of Large Double Doored Safe WW,” with a date, that was all on there when you received this?
A Yes.
1019
Q Now, I want to direct your attention to page 58. I’d like to describe it in geometric terms, but I won’t.
There is a line running from “LRH Personal Records” down to “Sunburst Cross Pin plus Ornamental Ribbon.” And there appears to be some writing on the right-hand side. What does that designate, if you know?
A These particular items were all the ones that I gave to Gerry after I had sent the request to Mary Sue in January of ‘81.
MR. HARRIS: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: I am going to show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 11. Is that the approval that you are talking about?
A Yes.
Q And you listed the items that you wanted to turn over to Mr. Armstrong –
A Right.
Q — in box 1 and box 2. Now, I don’t see any paperbacks — approximately 30 assorted science fiction paperbacks; where were those from?
A I think those were in trunk 8, but I couldn’t find them on the inventory when I first picked up the trunks.
Q So these are the items that were approved by Mrs. Hubbard to be given to Mr. Armstrong, which are on
1020
page 58?A Right. What I did was I just went down the inventory. And you’ll see, it matches almost exactly with what is on the request.
Q In any event, throughout the remainder of Exhibit 13 the check marks indicate that Mr. Armstrong received the items after which the check marks appear?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you also, at my request, this weekend, from your memory of what was under seal here in the court, check all of the archives under your control with respect to items that you remembered being under seal?
A Yes, I did.
Q And for what purpose?
A To be able to determine whether we had copies of certain items that I remembered being under seal in court.
Q And the items under seal you are talking about are originals?
A Right.
Q So you compared your archives with your memory of what was under seal as originals to determine if you had copies?
A That’s right.
Q All right. Using Exhibit 13 and pointing to the page number on Exhibit 13, could you tell the Court some of the items that are originals under seal and no copies in
1021
your archives?MR. FLYNN: Which archives are we referring to, Your Honor?
THE COURT: The one under his control.
You are the controller archives?
THE WITNESS: That’s right.
THE COURT: Is that the same as the G.O. archives?
MR. HARRIS: I think we’ll straighten that out with the chart, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Charts are always helpful.
THE WITNESS: Page 25 of the inventory, my numbering system, there is a file under “Pack HWD-3? called “Deceased Scientologists.”
If I recall, when I was downstairs in the court, that file contained a funeral oration and handwriting by Mr. Hubbard for a lady named Peggy Conway, who had died at a certain time in the ’60s or late ’50s, something like that.
There also was some other correspondence relating to a couple other Scientologists who had passed away. I could not find any copy of those particular original documents in the archives.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: All right.
A On page 27, under the HEC Files that were all taken by Gerry, there was a file called Norton Rose 1966, which, as I recall, contained at least 75 pages of original documents, probably more, could have been in the hundreds of legal correspondence and that type of thing between –
1022
concerning the firm of Norton Rose. And I could not find any of those documents or copies of them in the archives.Also the file called “Catterall 1966?; those particular items, those particular files, I am sure — on some of these others I have a pretty good idea that they are missing. I am just not going to say for certain.
Q Only ones where you are certain.
A Right.
Q And only a few. If you could, just designate as you go through, name the page and the file. We’ll understand that there is an original by your memory under seal which you do not have copies of in your archives.
A Right.
The next page, page 28, again, is part of the HEC Files. It is a file called Constantine Diamontides, something like that. It is a Greek name. I don’t recall those documents in the file.
If I recall, there are several big correspondences, handwritten, between Mr. Hubbard and this particular person in Greece at the time.
At the bottom of page 28, under “Legal,” those two files, Legal AMA and Legal FDA.
Also, the file Legal 1962 to 1967. As I recall, in court, there were a lot of pages in those files. Some of them had like over 100 pages of legal correspondence, that type of thing, from that period of time. And I could find no copies in the archives concerning those.
Q Let me stop you for a minute.
1023
What archives did you look through to determine if you had copies so that the Court understands what you did?
A I went through Gerry’s archives, the ones that had been turned over to me. I went through the material, the files that had been returned by Omar Garrison and also I went through my own files, the controller archives’ files plus files that were listed as the G.O. Archives’ files that had been given to me in ‘83.
Q So we don’t extend this out, was there more items on the inventory that you could name where the originals are under seal and you do not have copies?
A I don’t have any more that I could name from memory.
If I had a complete inventory, I am sure –
MR. HARRIS: I have a chart which I showed to Mr. Flynn this morning, Your Honor, and indicated that I would use.
May this chart be marked Plaintiff’s next in order?
THE COURT: 14.
MR. FLYNN: We object and contend that it is inaccurate, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Any inaccuracies can be handled by Mr. Armstrong, Your Honor, or others.
Q Showing you Exhibit 14, let me ask you a few questions first.
Are you familiar with the contents of what is called Guardian Archives WW?
A Right now?
1024
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q And were you ever at Guardian Archives WW?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?
A That was January 1982.
Q And are the contents of Guardian Archives WW now under your control?
A Well when you say was called Guardian Archives WW, there’s been a lot of materials that have been called that at various times. Certain materials that I consider to be archive materials are now in my control that were called Guardian Archives WW?
Q All right. The inventory which I turned over to the court the other day, what is that an inventory of?
A That is an inventory of the materials that I received when the Guardian Archives WW was broken up basically.
Q All right. From your knowledge of archives generally, did you prepare rough drafts from which exhibit 14 was prepared?
A Yes.
Q All right, could you explain to the court what the designations on item 14 mean and you have got to hold it up go the court could see it at the same time.
A Do you want me to go through the whole chart?
Q Yes.
A Okay.
1025
Well, from what I know of the various archives and my own research into what they were pursuant to trying to sort out the confusion that existed when I came on the post, this is basically a delineation of the Guardian Archives and how that differs between the Controller Archives and what the various terms mean because some terms were used yesterday that kind of confused me as far as what was being referred to.
Anyway this is basically a drawing of how I understood the archives to have occurred and how it came together. In 1966 there were the original materials of Dianetics, of Scientology, including original LRH dispatches of matters, that type of thing, plus the reference, the Dianetics and Scientology materials, magazines that the various organizations were asked to send in so that they could be on file as a historical reference plus other historical files. Those were all termed the Guardian Archives. Mrs. Hubbard was the guardian, and that is where they all were in England.
In 1969 Mary Sue Hubbard was made the controller. There was some concern about the materials and the project was sent to England to bring some materials, the original materials of Dianetics and Scientology to the ship, leaving at England the reference files of Dianetics and Scientology materials, magazines, that type of thing, plus any other historical files.
So, this is where the trunks were created.
The result of the project that did that just went through
1026
and grabbed anything and everything that they thought might concern LRH and Mary Sue, and that is why you have a lot of personal materials and that type of thing in the trunks. So, the controller trunks then continue down the side.Around 1975-1976 they were moved to California.
They were kept in storage for a while. Some time around this period, at various times through this period the tape trunks were separated, the trunks containing the tape lectures for this project to preserve the tapes. They were kept in Clearwater, Florida in 1975 or 1976. A project was being done.
They were moved in 1977 to Los Angeles as a separate matter, then these other trunks containing the written materials and the personal materials.
In 1977 I came on post over the tapes. My post title was Guardian’s Office Archives Librarian. There was a little confusion as to what archives. There was no Controller Archives at that time.
In 1979 I received these trunks to add to the tape trunks that I had, and that was when the Controller Archives came into being. That included the original Dianetics and Scientology materials, original LRH dispatches, personal materials that were in the trunks plus all the tapes, and that was the Controller Archives.
In 1981 the transfer occurred of some of these materials to Gerry which was this archives here. After Gerry left in October 1982 all these archives then came back to me. The name was changed to LRH Archives.
1027
In February ‘83 what was left was at GO Archives Worldwide. During this period they got a bit confused as to what they were supposed to be doing, too. It was under the public relations bureau and they had put all kinds of public relations operational files, various programs that we were working on, that type of thing into the archives which weren’t archives material. That was — it was kind of a confused mess all the way down here.
1028
In February, ‘83 there was a project that was done basically at my request. They sorted out all of this other material; anything that was archives material, they shipped to me in packs. And that is the inventory that you have on your desk, the GO Archives Worldwide. That is basically the chart.
Q All right. Now, there have been mention of Bureau of Information Archives; is there such a thing?
A Not that I know about.
Q Those are called Bureau of Information what?
A Files.
Q There has been a mention of Per Sec files; what are those?
A Those were — basically, those were files of correspondence, that type of thing which the personal secretaries would keep; also a valuable documents file, which I believe is supposed to include insurance policies, legal things like that.
Q Is there a Pers Sec file in Los Angeles to which you have access?
A Yes.
Q And do you know generally the nature of the materials in that file?
A Yes.
Q Is there any Pers Sec file with which you are not familiar?
A Yes.
1029
Q Which one is that?
A Pers Sec files at Worldwide.
Q Now, the term R Storage has also come in.
A Uh-huh.
Q What is that?
A Well, the way I understand it is in relationship to this chart, in 1966 is where this chart started. Prior to that, prior to 1959, prior to Hubbard going to England, there were these other materials. Ana they were being stored in Washington DC.
Q Where did they wind up?
A R Storage at Gilman Hot Springs.
Q When you visited the archives area that Mr. Armstrong was putting together did he ever tell you that items that he was collecting were from R Storage?
A I wondered where he got them.
There was some mention of it, yes.
Q All right.
Q No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may cross-examine.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Would you turn to page 32 of exhibit 13, the inventory, please?
Do you have that in front of you, Mr. Vorm?
A Yes.
1030
Q In response to a question of Mr. Harris did you state that the Excalibur transcript was among the documents that are listed on page 30 to which Mr. Armstrong check marked as being given to him?
A I don’t think I mentioned the word “transcript.”
Q Did you state that it was a manuscript?
A No.
Q Do you recall what it was?
A Yes.
Q What was it?
A It was a file containing various notes or letters about the book “Excalibur.”
Q And do you know where the original manuscript of Excalibur was at the time that this inventory was created?
A No. I don’t.
Q Do you know whether it ever came into Mr. Armstrong’s possession?
A Yes.
Q Do you know where it came from?
A No.
Q In any event, it didn’t come from anything in this inventory; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, were you in the courtroom yesterday when Mrs. Hubbard testified that Gerald Armstrong stole these materials from her?
A I don’t recall her exact testimony; something to that effect.
1031
Q Well, would you agree with me, Mr. Vorm, that you and Mr. Armstrong went through a fairly elaborate procedure to list every item that Mr. Armstrong received possession of?
A Would I agree with you?
Q Would you agree with me that that is what the two of you did?
A Yes. We went through and checked the materials off.
Q In fact, you even listed what was missing?
A In some cases, yes.
Q And you cross-referenced to other areas of the inventory where you found it in other locations; is that correct?
A In one or two cases, yes.
Q And you gave all of this material to Mr. Armstrong with your permission; is that correct?
A Well, if you mean I did it willingly or unwillingly, I –
Q Did he steal the materials from you?
MR. HARRIS: May the witness finish the answer, Your Honor?
MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw the last question, Your Honor.
Q Did he steal the materials from you, Mr. Vorm?
A I am not sure.
THE COURT: Of course, the word “steal” in legal concept, there are a variety of ways a theft can be committed.
1032
We are dealing with a lay person here. I am not sure — I realize how this came up yesterday, but I think it begs the issue to say something was stolen from him. It is calling for a legal conclusion.
MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.
Q You and Mr. Armstrong agreed together and listed the materials that he could have; is that correct?
A Agreed together about what?
Q About what he could have.
A As we went through, yes.
Q And you received permission from your supervisor or Mr. Cook who was then the controller to do that; didn’t you?
A That’s right.
Q Now, is there anyone — strike that.
In October of 1981 when you did this was there anyone in the Church of Scientology of California of higher ranking authority than the controller?
A Yes.
Q Who?
A A post called ED Int. There was some particular — there was a thing called WEC which was a committee.
There were other terminals, other people.
Q Did you ask Mr. Cook whether or not he received permission from any of these other higher authorities?
A No.
Q Is Mr. Cook still a member of the church?
A I have no idea.
1033
Q I take it, then, Mr. Vorm, you just followed the command lines of — based on the orders or authority of your immediate senior; is that correct?
A I followed the command lines to put my request, do you mean?
1034
Q To give the materials to Mr. Armstrong.
A That is right.
Q Now, you testified that over the years there was a great deal of confusion as to what materials should go in what archives; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And I believe you testified that in 1966 there was a project where everyone, quote, grabbed anything and everything, end quote, and that is why, quote, there were personal materials of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard in the trunks.
MR. LITT: That is not the testimony. That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Well, we have all heard his testimony.
Why don’t you ask him a direct question?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: was there a project in 1966 to grab materials at Worldwide and place them in trunks?
A I don’t know if they were grabbing things. What you mean by that particular word, I don’t know. But as far as I know there was a project to pack materials up and put them in trunks.
Q On direct examination, did you state that they were grabbing anything and everything?
A I don’t recall.
Q And did you give a reason to the court as to why there were personal materials of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard in these trunks? Do you recall giving a reason?
1035
A I don’t recall. I think I recall saying that they did that. I — I don’t know if I gave a reason.
Q Well, is there a reason why personal materials of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard were in the trunks that you received?
A Probably.
Q What is it?
A Do you want my opinion? I don’t have any real first-hand knowledge of it.
Q Do you have any first-hand knowledge of anything to do with the project in 1966?
A No.
Q Where did you get your information?
A From talking to various people, writing to people, trying to find out what had happened at that time.
Q When did the chart that has been marked as exhibit 14 — any of that prior to 1980 predicated on your first-hand knowledge?
A Part of it is, yes.
Q What is?
A The fact that these materials were in the trunks and I saw them in the trunks; the fact that the tapes were separate from the trunks; that they had been moved separately to Los Angeles.
Q What is the sum total of your knowledge about the project in 1966, Mr. Vorm?
A Sum total?
Q Right.
1036
A Do you mean personal first-hand knowledge?
Q Any type of knowledge, first-hand, hearsay.
What do you know about the project in 1966?
A Basically what I testified; that there was a project to collect up materials; that they were going to bring these materials from England to the ship. There were, evidently, more than one person on it. one of the persons was named Wally Burgess.
They — per the materials and the inventory that I have, they went through practically every place they could find that contained materials that pertained to Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard. They packed them into cardboard boxes; tied them up with string; made up this inventory; sent them to the ship.
1037
Q Now, do you know whose permission they did that with?
A I don’t know exactly, no.
Q When they made the inventory, would you agree with me that they had to see that there were letters from Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard in order to list them as such in the inventory?
MR. HARRIS: I will stipulate to that, Your Honor.
That is self-evident.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Didn’t they do the same thing in 1966 that Mr. Armstrong was doing in 1980 and 1981, Mr. Vorm?
A I don’t think so.
Q Do you have Exhibit 11 in front of you?
A No.
MR. HARRIS: I took it away.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Would you turn to the last page of Exhibit 11?
A Yes.
Q In the last sentence in the first paragraph, the sentence reads, does it not, “These are currently being gathered up by RH Pers Sec PRO Research Unit”?
A Yes.
Q And that refers to personal materials of a founder which would be of historical interest; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And that is the basis upon which you gave all of the materials in the inventory to Mr. Armstrong: isn’t that
1038
correct?A No, that is not correct.
Q Didn’t you believe that this letter of Mary Sue Hubbard dated August 26, 1980 authorized that?
A No.
Q Didn’t you testify on cross-examination several days ago that that was the basis of your belief?
A That it was an authorization?
Q Didn’t you testify that you believed that Mary Sue Hubbard authorized personal materials of the founder of historical interest to be delivered to the LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit?
A By this particular document?
Q The question is, Mr. Vorm, didn’t you testify that based on Exhibit 11, you believed that personal materials of the founder of historical interest could rightfully be delivered to Gerald Armstrong?
A Well, I am a little confused per this particular first page.
Yes, materials were authorized. They were historical items, and they were approved by Mrs. Hubbard.
Q In October 1981, when you delivered more materials, did you believe that the August 26, 1980 letter of Mary Sue Hubbard authorized the types of materials that are set forth in the inventory that you delivered to Gerald Armstrong?
A No, I didn’t.
Q And you did that solely on the authority of
1039
the then controller; is that correct?A Right.
Q Now, in your chart, you have laid out what GO WW was at the top; is that correct?
A My understanding of it, yes.
Q And that is as of 1976, Mr. Vorm?
MR. LITT: Is that referring to GO WW Archives or GO WW itself?
THE WITNESS: It is referring to archives.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: All these questions relate to archives, Mr. Vorm, if there is any confusion in your mind.
A Okay.
Q When did you visit GO WW Archives?
A In January of ‘82.
Q And would you describe the physical premises in which GO WW Archives were located in January of ‘82?
A It was a building down the road from the main Saint Hill Manor. It was a cement — it is a cement floor. I am not sure what the walls were made of.
Q It was an entire building?
MR. HARRIS: Could the witness be allowed to finish his answer, Your Honor, once the question is asked? He is trying to describe the building.
THE COURT: All right. Well, let the witness finish his answer.
THE WITNESS: It had a locked door on it.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: It was an entire building, wasn’t it, Mr. Vorm?
1040
A I don’t think the entire building was the entirety of the archives. I think there were other things in a room or whatever.
Q How many divisions of GO WW Archives were there in January of 1982, if you know?
MR. HARRIS: “Divisions”? It is ambiguous, Your Honor. I will object to the question.
THE COURT: Well, overruled.
If he doesn’t know, he can state.
THE WITNESS: I didn’t know of any divisions.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, do you know whether there was PR Archives within GO WW in January 1982?
A It looked to me that it was pretty well messed up, mixed together, as far as what I considered to be archives material and PR files.
Q And do you know whether there were B-1 Archives at GO WW Archives in January 1982?
A I didn’t get part of your question.
Q Do you know whether there were B-1 Archives at GO WW Archives in January 1982?
A No.
Q Isn’t it a fact that between 1980 and October 1981, when Mr. Armstrong was working on this project, that there was one entire building at GO WW Archives solely relating to PR Archives?
A I am not sure. I don’t know what that is.
Q You don’t have any firsthand knowledge of that?
A That there was an entire building?
1041
Q That was just PR Archives as part of GO WW Archives?
A Well, it was my understanding that the PR Archives were the GO Archives. The GO Archives were placed under the PR bureau sometime in the mid ’70s.
1042
Q Do you know whether Mr. Armstrong ever visited those archives before you did?
A I believe he did, yes.
Q Did you find any separate section of GOWW Archives when you visited there which comprised B-1 Archives?
A No.
Q You testified that in the inventory there was Xeroxed copies of many of these materials that were in the trunks; is that correct?
A I don’t recall saying that.
Q Well, were there Xerox copies which you called Xerox originals in the trunks?
A In the trunks?
Q In the trunks that you had possession of in October, 1981 when you looked at this inventory.
A I am sorry. I am confused.
Q Could you give me the first question?
Q You understand the difference between an original and a copy?
A That’s right.
Q When you opened the trunk and you went through what has been marked as exhibit 13, did some of the items in exhibit 13 constitute originals and some constitute copies?
A Yes.
Q Do you know where the originals were of the copies that you saw?
A Well, the copies, I recall, were — there were
1043
some files in there that had copies of hand-written originals. But if I recall, I also had the original in another file of the ones I remember.Q Were there any copies in the trunks that you didn’t have possession of the originals?
A I can’t say one way or the other.
Q You don’t know?
A I don’t recall any specific ones, no.
Q Do you know whether there are originals at GO — whether there were originals at the GO Worldwide Archives between October — strike that — in October of 1981 where you only had copies?
A I don’t know that, no.
Q Now, do you recall testifying in your prior testimony that you never went to all of the documents in the LRH Archives collected by Gerald Armstrong?
A I couldn’t have said that. I don’t recall specifically exactly what the words were.
Q This past weekend did you go through all of the documents that were collected by Gerald Armstrong?
A In general, yes.
Q Approximately how many documents did you go through, Mr. Vorm?
A That is hard for me to say. There were quite a few.
Q Well, do you recall testifying that there were approximately 16 to 18 file cabinets?
A I don’t recall saying that number, no.
1044
Q Do you recall how many file cabinets there are that comprise the documents that were collected by Gerald Armstrong?
A Well, there is approximately — there is around four or five that contain original documents. There are other files that contain other types of materials like there was a working file that contained magazines and that type of thing.
There was a file that contained some letter from someone else that they had written that weren’t even LRH’s. It may have been, but the whole file was like a Xeroxed copy of that. Some of the file drawers were empty.
Q Do you recall how many boxes of materials there were?
MR. HARRIS: Originals, or copies, Your Honor?
MR. FLYNN: Originals or copies.
THE WITNESS: Fifteen or twenty.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is it your testimony that you went through all of that material this weekend?
A Yes.
Q Can you give me an estimate as to the number of pages that you went through?
THE COURT: Well, the witness di say that he went through these things generally. I don’t know what that meant. Nobody asked him.
But as distinguished from specifically, what did you mean when you said you went through them generally?
THE WITNESS: Well, what I was looking for was copies
1045
of the originals that were in the sealed documents. So there were a lot of files that just contained originals. And those particular files, I just went through and made sure they weren’t copies.In one case it was easy to tell because the original was a different colored paper or older age, that type of thing. Some of the boxes, some of the files, I just went through generally. Whatever the whole file of magazines, I could see in the files that there were no copies of the particular documents that I was looking for. Then I didn’t go into the magazines page by page.
In many cases, boxes contained books and that type of thing which just, by looking at the books, I could tell that there weren’t files or loose copies of the documents I was looking for. So that is what I mean by generally.
THE COURT: We’ll take a 15-minute recess.
(Recess.)
1046
THE COURT: All right. In the case on trial let the record reflect that parties and counsel are all present.
The witness has retaken the stand.
Just state your name again for the record, sir.
You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: My name is Tom Vorm.
THE COURT: You may continue, counsel.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Vorm, when you were going through Exhibit 13 and checking over the items you were giving to Mr. Armstrong –
THE COURT: Are you talking about when it happened or yesterday or today or what?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: At the time that you actually gave him the materials when Mr. Armstrong was in your presence checking off the items, did you know that Omar Garrison was writing a biography on the life of L. Ron Hubbard?
A I think so, yes.
Q And at that time did you know that Mr. Armstrong was giving these materials to Omar Garrison?
A Original materials?
Q Any of the materials that are checked, did you know that he was giving them to Omar Garrison?
A I was not aware that he was giving him original materials.
Q Did you give him original materials?
A Yes.
Q For what purpose?
1047
A For use in the biography and for his archives.
Q You gave him original materials for use in the biography; is that your testimony?
A Uh-huh.
MR. LITT: Objection; his testimony is what he just said.
THE COURT: There was an “and,” also.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: When you gave him the original materials, you knew that they were being used in the biography; is that correct?
THE COURT: Or in his archives. That is what he said.
THE WITNESS: Right.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, was it your understanding, Mr. Vorm, that all of those original materials had to be used for both of those purposes?
A It was my understanding that copies may be given to Mr. Garrison.
Q In whose discretion?
A I don’t know.
Q In Mr. Armstrong’s discretion?
A I don’t know. I didn’t have any particular consideration about that.
Q Now, when you knew that the materials were being given to Mr. Armstrong for use in the biography or for Mr. Armstrong’s archives, you knew that there were at least two groups of letters from Mary Sue Hubbard to L. Ron Hubbard; isn’t that correct?
A That is true.
1048
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Redirect.
MR. HARRIS: Just briefly, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Mr. Vorm, again Mr. Flynn mentioned B-1 Archives; is there such a thing, to your knowledge?
A I have never heard that term until it was mentioned here.
Q And the project which resulted in the trunks which came into your custody, what was the year of that project?
A It would have been 1969.
1049
Q The letters from Mary Sue Hubbard to Mr. Hubbard and vice versa that Mr. Armstrong asked for, please, state the conversation at the time that he asked for those and what you did.
A The particular letters in question, the ones from 1966 and ‘67 and also the ones from 1973, I was not originally going to give them to Mr. Armstrong.
He basically insisted that he needed them; that the data in those letters was needed as background material to verify dates, names, places, that type of thing where Mr. Hubbard/was at a certain time, but that the contents of the letters would not be used, which was my concern because I considered them very private.
Q Did you give him the originals or copies?
A Based on his assurance that they would just be used as background data, I allowed him to make copies of them and kept the originals for the archives.
MR. HARRIS: No further questions.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Prior to giving those letters to Mr. Armstrong, did you consult with anyone?
A What do you mean by “prior”? Like within a few days?
Q At that time, contemporaneous with giving them to him, did you check with anyone to see whether it was okay to do it?
1050
A Regarding the letters, no.
Q You used your own discretion?
A I used my discretion based on Mary Sue’s earlier instructions when she originally allowed the trunks to come to me.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Mr. Vorm.
THE COURT: Was it your testimony, Mr. Vorm, that anything that is in the court’s exhibits under seal that appears to be a copy, the church has the originals somewhere?
THE WITNESS: No. That wouldn’t be my contention.
I belive there are some copies here that we have.
THE COURT: I got the impression that you only allowed him to take — I’ll back off of that.
You are not able to identify any of those matters which are copies, I gather, from reviewing exhibit 13?
THE WITNESS: I probably could if I put attention to it.
THE COURT: What items?
THE WITNESS: Originals. My contention is that I was looking for original documents in the court’s possession that we did not have copies for, not the other way around where there were copies in the court’s possession where we did have originals.
THE COURT: Anything further, gentlemen?
MR. FLYNN: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir, again.
MR. HARRIS: I move the admission of exhibit 13
1051
and exhibit 14, Your Honor.THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: I object to 14, Your Honor.
No objection to 13.
THE COURT: It was part of the witness’s testimony.
Overruled. It will be received.
We are going to resume with Mrs. Hubbard’s testimony?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may retake the stand, ma’am.
MARY SUE HUBBARD, recalled as a witness by the plaintiff, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: You have already been sworn. Just have a seat and state your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: My name is Mary Sue Hubbard.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mrs. Hubbard, do you know whether or not Mr. Garrison completed a manuscript for the biography on your husband?
A No, I don’t know.
1052
Q So you have never seen one; is that correct?
A No, I have not.
Q When the agreement was reached with Mr. Garrison in the summer of 1983, did you play any part in reaching that agreement with him?
A No, I did not.
Q Do you know who the parties to that agreement were?
A No. I don’t.
Q In the original contract between PUBS DK and Omar Garrison, was it your understanding that if the contract was terminated for whatever reason, all of the documents would be returned to PUBS DK?
MR. LITT: Objection as to the “documents.” What documents is Mr. Flynn referring to?
MR. FLYNN: All of the materials in the possession of Omar Garrison.
THE WITNESS: No. I thought that Omar Garrison would be writing the biography in quarters provided by the Church, and that all the materials therefore would be in the possession of the Church.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether or not there are any provisions in the contract relating to what would happen to the materials or proceeds of his research, Mr. Garrison’s research –
MR. LITT: Objection; the contract speaks for itself.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: — if the contract was terminated?
1053
THE COURT: He is asking this witness if she has any knowledge. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What was your question?
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if I can complete my question before Mr. Litt interrupts.
MR. LITT: I am sorry.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you have any knowledge of a contractual provision in the contract between PUBS DK and Omar Garrison that the proceeds of Mr. Garrison’s research, the documents he collected, the tape interviews that he did, would be returned to PUBS DK upon termination of the contract?
A I never considered that they were in the possession — from the contract that they were going to be in the possession of Mr. Garrison. I considered that we were providing materials that he would come and look at and that we would always have the materials, so I don’t quite understand your question.
Q Are you aware of a public relations bureau program for Mr. Garrison to travel throughout the world with documents that he chose to take with him for purposes of promoting the biography prior to its publication?
A No, I am not aware.
Q Did you testify that you have looked through the materials under seal?
A Yes.
Q And when you looked through the materials under seal, did you see such a program?
1054
A To the best of my recollection I didn’t see any such program.
Q So you don’t know whether it is under seal or not?
A I don’t know.
Q Did you know anything about the proposal to have Mr. Garrison travel throughout the world to promote the biography?
A I think generally I heard that there was going to — when the book was published and released, that he would be making appearances as an author, yes.
Q And do you know anything about discussions between Omar Garrison and any representatives of your husband at which you may or may not have been present with regard to the fact that Omar Garrison could use the documents to defend his position in the biography?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know whether that was discussed between Laurel Sullivan and Alan Wertheimer?
A No, I don’t.
Q Are you aware of the fact that an SP Declare has been issued on Gerald Armstrong?
A No, I am not.
Q So you haven’t seen it?
A I have not seen it.
Q And you don’t know anything about it?
A I don’t know anything about it.
Q Do you know whether the Church of Scientology
1055
accused Mr. Armstrong of theft –MR. LITT: Objection –
Q BY MR. FLYNN:– after he left the organization?
MR. LITT: Objection; it is beyond the scope and it is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, overruled. It may be preliminary to something else. May go to bias, interest, motive.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t know.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether or not Mr. Armstrong was threatened with a lawsuit by the Church of Scientology in April of 1982?
A No, I didn’t.
1056
Q Do you know any of the circumstances under which Mr. Armstrong came to me to seek legal assistance?
A No, I don’t.
MR. LITT: I object. That assumes facts not in evidence, among other things.
MR. FLYNN: There will be evidence on it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I’ll let it stand.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You testified yesterday that you approved numerous financial expenditures by Mr. Armstrong for the biography; is that correct?
A I don’t know if I stated numerous. But I approve quite a few, yes.
Q Do you recall car do you have an estimate of what the dollar mount of your approval of financial expenditures was?
A No.
Q You did that in your position as controller?
A Yes.
Q And did those expenditures relate to the fact that Mr. Armstrong was collecting materials relating to the biography of your husband?
A Yes.
Q And you knew that he was collecting those materials from a wide variety of sources; is that correct?
A Well, from a variety of sources, yes.
Q And over how long a period of time did you approve financial expenditures for Mr. Armstrong to collect materials for the biography of your husband?
1057
A That must have been for a period some time in 1980; through all ‘80 and then up until some time in ‘81, April — May, ‘81 or thereabouts.
Q Now, you testified that you learned that your husband had approved Mr. Armstrong’s petition in January, 1980 and that the approval came through a messenger; do you recall that?
MR. LITT: I object. That misstates the testimony in so many different ways.
THE COURT: Well, you can reframe your question.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you receive information that the petition of Mr. Armstrong to collect materials from the biography project was approved by a messenger?
A No. That was my assumption only.
Q Did you testify that you had a conversation with Laurel Sullivan about that fact?
A Yes.
Q And that she told you it was approved by a messenger.
MR. LITT: I object. That misstates the testimony.
If this is supposed to be reference to what Mrs. Hubbard testified previously to, I –
THE WITNESS: I didn’t say that, no.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You didn’t say that Laurel Sullivan told you that?
A No.
Q So you simply assumed that a messenger had done it.
1058
MR. LITT: I object. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: I guess it is an attempt to pin it down. Is that your assumption?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What was that assumption predicated upon?
A On two factors: One, usually when a petition went to my husband, he usually signed it off with his own initials.
Secondly, I don’t think that my husband considered Mr. Armstrong — I don’t think he would have approved Mr. Armstrong to have done work on the biography.
Q So on that basis you assumed that it was a messenger and not your husband?
A Yes, on that basis, those two facts.
Q Now, do you recall in your declaration on page 10 filed in this case that you stated, “My husband approved in general terms and did not make reference to our personal storage”?
A Yes.
1059
Q And your husband approved in general terms that Mr. Armstrong work on the biography and collect materials; is that correct?
A That is no what I think, no.
Q Well, did you state in your declaration, that he approved in general terms –
THE COURT: Well, she’s read that. She’s indicated already that is what she said.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What is a messenger, Mrs. Hubbard?
A A messenger is more or less like a communication terminal that delivers and receives messages.
Q And is it your testimony that a messenger simply approved this petition that started all of this project?
MR. LITT: Objection; that has not been her testimony.
She said she didn’t know about ten times at this point.
THE WITNESS: I am only assuming.
THE COURT: Is it your testimony that you are assuming it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you familiar with Flag order 3729?
A No.
Q Entitled “Commodore’s Messengers”?
May that be marked for identification, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Okay. What are we up to?
1060
THE CLERK: K as in king.
THE COURT: All right, K.
MR. LITT: You have a copy for us, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: I don’t. I will have one made, Mr. Litt.
I’d expect I’d be about another 15 minutes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s okay. We are not going anywhere.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you familiar with that Flag Order?
A No, I am not familiar with it, but I have just read it.
Q Never seen it before?
A I think I saw it before, but as I say I am not familiar with it.
Q Well are you familiar in general with the policy that when a messenger speaks, he speaks on behalf of the Commodore, your husband, and the messenger’s orders are to be strictly obeyed as orders coming from the Commodore?
A Yes and no.
THE COURT: Well, that is what you get for asking a compound question.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Your husband is a commodore; isn’t he?
A Yes, he is.
Q Commodore of what?
A Of the Sea Organization, or that was what he was at the time.
Q How long was he the commodore of the Sea
1061
Organization?A I am not certain, since 1968, ‘69, something like that.
Q And then he stopped being the commodore of the Sea Organization?
A No.
Q How long did he continue to be commodore of the Sea Organization?
A Well he is still referred to among those in the Sea Organization as the commodore.
Q So he is still the commodore of the Sea Organization?
A In their minds, yes.
Q And he can still deliver orders to messengers as such pursuant to any policy of the Sea Organization?
A I presume. He is — yes, I presume.
Q Now, you testified yes and no in response to my compound question.
What part of it was yes and what part of it was no?
MR. LITT: Your Honor –
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, was a messenger bound per policy of the Sea Organization to follow the orders of your husband?
A Unless they queried such an order, yes.
Q Well, assuming there was no query, were they bound to follow the orders of your husband?
1062
A Yes.
Q And were people taking orders from the messengers bound to follow the orders given by the messengers on the basis that they were given by your husband?
A Yes, but –
Q In the period from January 1980 to October 1981 when Mr. Armstrong was collecting materials for the biography project, do you know whether anyone queried his authority to do so?
A I think I was the only one who did. I asked Laurel if she personally knew whether my husband had approved his being on the project, and she said she didn’t know, and I don’t know of anyone else who did know.
1063
Q Was that a written query or an oral query?
A An oral query.
Q Were there policies relating to written queries?
MR. HARRIS: Objection. Made, Your Honor.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Were there policies of the SEA Organization relating to written queries?
A Yes.
MR. HARRIS: Policies, Your Honor, get into a problem because there are ecclesiastical policies, corporate policies, as embodied in board minutes and other sorts of policies.
THE COURT: The witness said they are. Let’s find out what they are. And then we’ll go from there.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What are those policies?
A The policies are if one receives an order from a senior, one does not approve of the order, then one queries one’s senior in relationship to that order.
Q In writing?
A In writing.
Q Does it have to be in writing?
A It has to be in writing.
Q When you made your query, did you do it in writing?
THE COURT: This wouldn’t be a query.
She wasn’t your senior, was she?
Q Who was your senior?
A For reporting and administrative purposes, my
1064
senior was Senior Management Int. But that was only for administrative purposes.Q For what other purposes did you have seniors for?
A I didn’t have any other seniors.
Q Was L. Ron Hubbard your senior?
A He wasn’t there.
Q Prior to his leaving, was he your senior?
MR. LITT: Objection.
Are we talking now in an ecclesiastical sense?
We’ll stipulate that in an ecclesiastical sense, that Mr. Hubbard is her senior.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
We are getting back into ancient history now.
We are talking here of what happened in ‘80 to ‘81, counsel.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Your testimony is that your husband left in January, 1980?
A I testified to that, but I got confused with all the papers. And it was really February, 1980.
Q In January, 1980, when Mr. Armstrong filed the petition before your husband had left, was your husband your senior?
A He was not –
MR. LITT: Just a minute.
I have the same objection as to the use of the word “senior.”
THE COURT: For the purposes of this concept of query,
1065
was he your senior?How is that? For that purpose only.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, did you, between January,
1980 and October, 1981, see any dispatches or orders from your husband removing Gerald Armstrong from his post?
A No. My husband had left in January.
Q Between January of 1980 and October, 1981, did you see any dispatches or orders from any messenger removing Gerald Armstrong from his post?
A No, I did not.
Q At any time between January, 1980 and October, 1981, did you make any effort to remove Gerald Armstrong from his post?
A No, I did not.
Q Now, you testified yesterday and you noted in Exhibit 11 that the personal materials of the founder which would be of historical interest were currently being gathered up by LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit; do you recall that?
A I don’t recall that particular title there.
Yes. LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit.
Q Was gathering up personal materials of historical interest; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q You knew that in August, 1980?
MR. LITT: I object. This has been stated and asked about.
1066
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, do you consider the honesty, integrity and moral character of your husband to be of historical interest?
MR. LITT: Objection. That calls for speculation.
And it is really quite an outrageous question.
What is going on here?
THE COURT: Well, it is a compound question.
I’ll sustain the objection.
1067
MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor.
Q Are you aware that a survey was done for the biography project which is under seal that honesty in the project was the primary request of Scientologists throughout the world?
A I don’t know of any survey.
Q Did you consider honesty of your husband to be a matter of historical interest to be written about by Omar Garrison?
MR. LITT: Your Honor, the question is so vague.
What does honest — what are we talking about, honesty of your husband in what sense? Is this to lead to the fact of everything about her husband to come in to determine honesty for 70 years?
It is an improper question. The word “honesty” cannot be given the kind of definiteness of meaning in the context of this case for it to lead anyplace.
THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection as to the form of the question.
Without getting into spiritual matters, philosophical matters, perhaps you can be more specific what you have reference to. Honesty as to what?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Over the years that your husband and you promoted the Church of Scientology, did you promote, the factual background relating to L. Ron Hubbard’s life?
A No, I can’t remember promoting anything.
Q Do you know whether there was biographical data printed on jackets of books that your husband wrote?
1068
A Yes.
Q And did you consider that biographical data on the jacket of books to be honest statements of your husband’s background?
MR. LITT: Objection. Without knowing — we are talking about — Mr. Hubbard has written dozens of books, hundreds of books in his lifetime, if we should include science fiction. He has written several hundreds of books.
To ask a question, did you consider –
THE COURT: All right. I will sustain the objection.
It is broad, ambiguous.
MR. HARRIS: While Mr. Flynn is digging for his item, Your Honor, I had the privilege of trying a case against the Internal Revenue Service in respect to the Church of Scientology of California, and I made an exhibit for that case about what Mr. Hubbard had written and books up to 1972, and that is it.
MR. FLYNN: That is very fine.
MR. HARRIS: On the subject of Scientology, so that gives you an idea of the mass of it, anyway, just an aside.
THE COURT: Very well.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, with regard to this mass of material that Mr. Harris has just referred to, do you know whether or not in promoting that mass of material representations were made about your husband and his biographical background?
A I think there were things that the publisher used to put on the books.
1069
Q And over how many years was this mass of materials promoted and sold by your husband. Mrs. Hubbard?
MR. LITT: Objection; assumes facts not in evidence.
These are Scientology books.
THE WITNESS: The Church has sold and promoted books for years.
THE COURT: It can be reframed.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Approximately how many books has your husband written, Mrs. Hubbard?
A Innumerable ones. I have never sat down and counted them.
Q Now, do you know whether he sold any of his books on promotional items that he was a nuclear physicist?
MR. LITT: Objection. Your Honor, Mr. Flynn is holding a book in his hand. Why doesn’t he show Mrs. Hubbard the book and let her read what he is referring to and let’s get on with the question.
THE COURT: All right. We will go forward that way.
MR. HARRIS: And also beyond the scope of direct, each and all of these questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, no. There’s been testimony about historical interest, and he is getting into this, or at least he was when some objection was sustained, getting into historical interest.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you familiar with that book, Mrs. Hubbard?
THE COURT: What is the name of it, for the record?
THE WITNESS: “All About Radiation.”
1070
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And the title “All About Radiation” is by a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor; is that correct?
A Yes.
THE COURT: Who is it published by?
THE WITNESS: It is published by Hubbard College of Scientology, Church of Scientology of California, an English company, and printed in Denmark, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, have you read that book?
A I did years ago, yes.
Q And was your husband or is your husband a nuclear physicist or a medical doctor?
MR. LITT: Objection as to what is a nuclear physicist. That is a conclusion.
THE COURT: Well, it is a compound question.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was he a nuclear physicist, Mrs. Hubbard?
1071
MR. LITT: I make the same objection, Your Honor.
What is the question? Was Albert Einstein a nuclear physicist? He didn’t graduate from any particular college.
MR. FLYNN: That happens to be incorrect about Mr. Einstein.
THE COURT: Let’s not get involved with Albert Einstein.
MR. HARRIS: He seems to be the only thing sacred around here, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Disregard the asides, jury.
The jury is not here, of course.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was your husband a nuclear physicist?
A No, he wasn’t.
He took a course in nuclear physics, but he was not a nuclear physicist.
Q He flunked that course that he took, didn’t he?
A I don’t know.
Q Was he a medical doctor?
A No.
But this is written by authors.
Q Would you refer to the book and name the name of the medical doctor who wrote the book?
A A portion of the book.
But the medical doctor who wrote a portion of the book requested that his name not be used. And it is signed. So we have here the dedication, “To Sir Winston
1072
Churchill, who could have written and said it such better and who Dwight D. Eisenhower who could have solved it if he had had a little more preparation.” And it is signed “The Authors.”
Q And who was the authors?
A An English medical doctor and my husband.
And the English medical doctor requested that his name be kept confidential and not released at the time.
Q Was a term used to describe the medical doctor’s portion of the book?
A Yes. I think — it is called Medicus, M-e-d-i-c-u-s.
Q Mrs. Hubbard, were you around when that book was written by your husband?
THE COURT: I don’t know what you mean by “around.”
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Were you there? Were you physically present when your husband was writing that book?
A Not while he was — you know, but I was there when he was working on the book, yes.
Q Do you know whether he wrote the entire book, or whether this medical doctor wrote a portion of the book?
A I know the medical doctor wrote a portion of the book.
Q Your husband wrote the part on nuclear physics?
A That’s correct.
Q Was it your understanding that he was holding himself out as a nuclear physicist when he promoted the book
1073
and sold it?>
MR. LITT: I object as to what the — what is the relevance of this? This is beyond the scope.
MR. HARRIS: And it assumes facts not in evidence.
MR. LITT: That he held himself out. Because it is the book jacket that we are dealing with here.
THE COURT: Okay. It is compound question.
MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it, Your Honor.
Q Was it your understanding that he was a nuclear physicist when the book was promoted?
MR. LITT: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know how the book was promoted.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether your husband received royalties for the sales of the book?
MR. LITT: Your Honor, is this going into matters of historical interest as to whether Mr. Hubbard received royalites?
THE COURT: I think in peripheral way.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether your husband received royalties?
A He did receive royalties.
Q For the sale of this book?
A I don’t know specifically for the sale of the book.
Q Now, you have testified that he was not a nuclear physicist; is that correct?
A No.
Q You didn’t testify to that?
1074
A I testified that he was not a nuclear physicist.
Q Now, was whether he was a nuclear physicist or not a mater of historical interest for Omar Garrison’s biography?
MR. LITT: I object.
Is he asking Mrs. Hubbard her present opinion?
Is he asking Mrs. Hubbard at the time that she wrote that that she was thinking nuclear physicist? The question is vague, ambiguous.
THE COURT: I think he is asking her opinion.
MR. LITT: Presently?
THE COURT: Whenever.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, did you testify yesterday that you felt mentally raped by Omar Garrison and Gerald Armstrong having access to your husband’s medical records during World War II?
A I don’t know if I specifically used that phrase in that reference, no.
Q Do you feel mentally raped here in the courtroom by Omar Garrison and Gerald Armstrong having access to your husband’s health records and academic records?
A I consider such records to be personal, extremely personal and private. That is all I can say.
Q Now, was whether or not your husband a nuclear physicist when he wrote and sold that book made a matter of public interest in your understanding?
1075
MR. LITT: Objection; assumes facts not in evidence, that Mr. Hubbard ever sold the book, and it is compound.
MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor.
Q Did your husband copyright the book?
MR. HARRIS: Other than by looking at the book — the witness appears to be looking at the book.
THE COURT: That is not a bad way to do it.
MR. HARRIS: Well, that would not refresh her recollection.
THE COURT: It would obviously be an admission. It is published by the plaintiff here, California — CSC.
MR. HARRIS: It was published by the Church of Scientology of California, UK branch through PUBS DK.
THE COURT: I don’t know all these interrelationships, but it would appear to be, if nothing else, an admission against interest, at least an admission as to that aspect, as to CSC plaintiff.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Let me ask you this: Are there millions of Scientologists throughout the world who revere your husband?
A I think so.
Q Are there millions of Scientologists throughout the world who had read his books?
A Yes.
Q And has he been promoted by the Church of Scientology as one of the greatest men who ever lived?
A I don’t know what they ever promoted, no.
Q Have you ever heard that phrase in connection
1076
with the promotion of your husband?A Not directly. I think so, but –
Q But you have never heard that phrase in any promotional literature of the Church?
A Not that I can recall specifically, no.
Q Well, in the 30 years you were involved with the Church of Scientology and based on your knowledge of the millions of people that revere him, do you know whether it was generally considered by millions of Scientologists that he was one of the greatest men who ever lived?
MR. HARRIS: Is this calling for reputation opinion or the witness’ opinion about if she had asked all those millions of Scientologists?
THE COURT: Just asking for this witness’ belief, I guess, or state of mind. Overruled.
You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Do I feel that Scientologists generally revere my husband?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: As one of the greatest men who ever lived.
A Well, I certainly think they revere him, yes.
I couldn’t say whether they have compared him, you know, historically to all the people that are considered to be the religious leaders in the past. I don’t know.
Q Is that reverence based upon at least in part, if you know, the books that he’s written?
MR. LITT: Are we referring to the content of the books now?
1077
MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you have an understanding, Mrs. Hubbard, as to what this reverence is based upon?
A Yes.
Q And what is it?
A It is based upon the writings and materials contained in his writings, his philosophy. It is based upon the application of the principles of Scientology to their own personal lives through pastoral counseling and the gains and achievements which they feel that they have made in their personal lives in the application of their religion.
Q Is it based upon the honesty of your husband?
A I don’t think that would be a factor at all.
I think it is merely what the philosophical and religious principles of my husband were, and I don’t know if you are talking about honesty or not.
Q Do you know what the term “honesty” means?
A Yes, I do. You see, I don’t know who put this on the jacket, and I do know that you seem to have an old copy here which was done in England, and there is a new copy, and I know that the new copies say that he just attended George Washington University and took a course in nuclear physics.
So I don’t know — I don’t understand what you are trying to get at.
Q Well, just so I am clear about your testimony, I believe you testified that you don’t believe your husband’s
1078
honesty was a factor in the fact that millions of Scientologists revere him; is that what you stated?A No, not — that isn’t what I stated. I said that the honesty — I didn’t know whose honesty, whether it was the publisher’s or what, was a factor in this book, and I don’t know — this is not a religious book as such. It is about radiation, and — anyway, I am sorry. I am rambling. What is your question?
Q That book is not a religious book?
A There might be some beliefs in there that people considered to be religious, but I am just telling my estimation of it.
It says, “All About Radiation,” which I presume is atomic radiation.
Q You testified that is an old copy of the book and that the new copies have corrected misstatements about your husband?
A I am just saying that there is a new copy and that it is different than what I have seen here. I just wonder why you presented the old copy.
Q Do you know whether or not in the documents under seal there is some 10 to 12 different biographical sketches of your husband that go from 1960 almost up to the present time?
A When I was going through these — going through these — sorry — when I was going through what the Court asked me to do, I saw a reference to them and I saw some of them that were there, yes.
1079
Q Now, did you testify that honesty was or was not a factor –
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: — based upon the fact that millions of people revere your husband?
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, we are really beating a dead horse. Mrs. Hubbard has answered the question.
First of all, it calls for speculation of what is in the minds of all of the Scientologists across the world anyplace. It also calls for reputation or opinion evidence.
Her state of mind is irrelevant, Your Honor, to whether or not — I’ll submit it. Clearly, it is 352-able now.
THE COURT: Setting the numbers aside, it seems to me that this witness, just from the perspective of her involvement and the role that she has apparently played, it would seem to have a pretty good general idea as to what followers of Scientology have in mind and why they would appear to be followers of Scientology.
Obviously, the question, really, can’t be directed to asking her to read any particular individual’s point of view or why any particular individual is a follower. But it seems to me as a general proposition she is uniquely in a position to generalize upon that subject considering her background and involvement with the church, the role that she has played. She was the controller; she had no senior on many matters, administrative matters and
1080
her involvement with the international aspect of it, it seems to me, as I have indicated, she would be intimately familiar with these types of matters and should be able to give some fairly accurate generalizations.I don’t think the objection that it calls for speculation or conclusion is well taken.
It is true that this question has been asked in different ways and has been responded to already. And it may be that you ought to try to ask a different question, Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN: I submit, Your Honor, I think I have got two different answers to the same question.
Q Was honesty a factor in your opinion that millions of Scientologists have relied upon in revering your husband?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that as irrelevant, Your Honor. It is irrelevant and it is also getting into an extremely sensitive First Amendment area; that is, the business as it were, of a church and its flock and what the hierarchy of an ecclesiastical church might believe about the followers of that church in respect to church policy and the reputation of the founder.
What is God?
There are any number of possible First Amendment issues here. It is irrelevant and intruding mightily at this point on the First Amendment.
THE COURT: I don’t see that as a particular problem in this particular question. It seems to me that the
1081
question was incomplete because you just spoke in — honesty in general. I don’t know whether you mean honesty as it relates to Mr. Hubbard and the –MR. FLYNN: I’ll rephrase it, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, may I also add an objection?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LITT: On this line of questioning, Your Honor, Mrs. Hubbard has testified as to what she believes has attracted people to her husband and to Scientology.
What Mr. Flynn in reality is doing now is he is trying to get into his affirmative defense. If he wants to call Mrs. Hubbard in his case on his affirmative defense, he is entitled to do so. And if the court finds that questions about her opinion are appropriate in that context, he is entitled to do so. But Mr. Flynn’s whole theory is supposedly Mr. Hubbard is not really honest and he’ll go back, as he said, to the age of 12 to try to show that. And that is why this line of questioning is simply being phrased in a certain way to get into the defense of the case which does not appropriately belong at this time and as such it is beyond the scope and it is a very misleading question.
Mrs. Hubbard has essentially answered the question. To break it down, are we going to find out her opinion as to whether or not people were attracted to him because of his physical demeanor? I mean, you can go on and on. She has answered the question.
1082
THE COURT: Well it is pretty hard because nobody sees him apparently.
MR. LITT: Well, people did once.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if I could be briefly heard.
THE COURT: Why don’t you just try another question and see what happens.
MR. FLYNN: And for the record, Your Honor, this goes to the witness’ state of mind or her emotional distress as having been mentally raped by Mr. Armstrong seeing what is in the documents, not to the affirmative defenses, and Mrs. Hubbard will be recalled on the defendant’s case.
Q Now, Mrs. Hubbard, you testified about various factors that you believe Scientologists have relied upon in revering your husbands is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, was his honesty about his background, his biographical background, academic, professional, military, whether he was a nuclear physicist, was his honesty about those factors in your mind any factor in the reliance of Scientologists or in the reverance that Scientologists placed on your husband?
MR. HARRIS: Objection; compound.
THE COURT: Well it is pretty compound, but did this have anything to do with any of your feelings of outrage or emotional distress that people might find out things about him that may not be what they had believed?
THE WITNESS: No. I think — to answer his question is that I think that my husband could say like jokingly, like
1083
just take an example in this. I don’t know who promoted the book or who wrote the promotion for the book. I presume the organization did, but in that my husband in lots of lectures that he gave would laugh and talk about the course of nuclear physics and how he had one theory about them and his professor had another theory, and I know that he was not in his lectures holding himself out to be a nuclear physicist.So I don’t know who, you know, on the printed jacket — and I really don’t, if you say like do the personal matters have — I don’t think many Scientologists consider those — his personal background or whether he went to this or whether he did that of any significance at all.
I think it is mainly based upon, as I said, his — the writings, the materials, the many tape lectures and their gains that they have had in courses and personal counseling and so on that is the main basis of their reverence for him.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: My question is, Mrs. Hubbard, less of whether he really was a nuclear physicist or wasn’t or attended or graduated from George Washington University or didn’t. The question is was his honesty about those items a factor that Scientologists relied upon in their reverence of him?
A No, I don’t think so.
Q Same question with regard to his integrity.
Was his integrity a factor?
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to object once again.
1084
This is not going to Mrs. Hubbard’s mental distress. That is just bogus.
MR. FLYNN: That is where I am going to get asking the same question that Your Honor just asked and exploring it.
MR. LITT: And the question should be clear –
THE COURT: Well, let’s not talk at the same time.
MR. LITT: This question is only as to Mrs. Hubbard’s assessment of whether or not those are in Scientologists’ minds as to whether Scientology is important to them. We are not here saying whether or not Scientologists even considered — I mean, where are we going with this?
THE COURT: Well we better get somewhere pretty quick. I will let him go a little bit further. If it doesn’t end up anywhere, it is not going to go much further.
MR. FLYNN: I am very close to finishing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I have heard that before.
MR. FLYNN: If I didn’t have these continual interruptions, we’d be finished by now.
Q Mrs. Hubbard, was his integrity about his background a factor in your mind with regard to the reverence that Scientologists placed him in?
A I think — I don’t know. I couldn’t say.
I know that his integrity in relationship to his publishing and printing what he had researched in letting them have all that information and so on was a very vital factor, yes.
Q His integrity in his research?
1085
A His integrity in publishing what he had done and so on was a factor.
Q Now, what about his moral character? Same question with regard to his moral character.
Do you think Scientologists revered/him and because they held/him in high esteem as having great moral character?
MR. HARRIS: Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant.
Beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Well, it is cross-examination as it relates to these things that have a bearing upon emotional distress. Overruled.
MR. HARRIS: Just so it is clear, the whole line of questioning, so I don’t have to do it for every objection.
THE COURT: Yes, I will deem the objection be remade.
BY MR. FLYNN: His moral character?
A I don’t know quite what you mean by moral character.
I mean, I think that any husband is, since I have known him and been married to him, is a very kind, loving, moral individual. I don’t know what you are talking about.
Q Is he an honest individual?
A In my relationships with him he’s always been very honest, yes.
MR. LITT: Your Honor –
THE COURT: Well, we are going around in circles.
I will sustain the objection.
1086
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, Mrs. Hubbard, does any part of your emotional distress relate to the fact that the documents under seal would show that your husband is dishonest?
A No. I think my emotional distress and upset is the fact that someone took papers and materials without my authorization and then gave them to you, Mr. Flynn, and I think I have said that. I really don’t know how I can say it any more times. I am tired.
1087
Q Does any part of your emotional distress relate to the fact that the documents under seal would reveal that your husband’s almost entire biographical background has been falsified.
MR. LITT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
And the witness has already answered the question. She has said it I don’t know how many times.
THE COURT: I can see no reason in going over it and beating a dead horse. I’ll sustain it under 352.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, do you know whether or not the documents under seal reveal the fact that your husband’s biographical background has been almost uniformly falsified for almost 30 years?
MR. LITT: Objection. assumes facts not in evidence; argumentative; outside the scope.
THE COURT: Let’s not get executed.
It assumes facts not in evidence. It is very conclusionary.
I’ll sustain the objection.
MR. FLYNN: We’ll recall Mrs. Hubbard in the defense of this case, Your Honor. And we would like to have her available.
THE COURT: All right.
Counsel, she is under notice to appear when her testimony is required under 776.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, with respect to that, that is fine. But we’ll want at least 24 hours’ advance notice. Mrs. Hubbard is not going to attend every day.
1088
I was going to ask — to cut this short, she is visibly tired now. I do have some redirect. I don’t want to do it now. It is clear to me that she is having difficulty at this point. And so I do want an agreement that there will be advance notice.
THE COURT: All right. 24 hours’ notice.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, Mr. Armstrong has had to defend himself for six weeks without a job. And he has been here in the courtroom every day.
THE COURT: I don’t know what that has to do with the matter, how much notice is required.
Just relax.
MR. LITT: I’ll have some redirect.
Mrs. Hubbard is very tired. Unless there is a matter –
Mr. Flynn had Mrs. Hubbard spend several hours going through all of these materials and then did not ask questions.
THE COURT: I assumed it would probably be easier for you to do it on direct.
MR. LITT: That is fine.
And there are other things. But I don’t want to continue Mrs. Hubbard right now. We can come back at 1:15, if Your Honor won’t mind.
THE COURT: Do you have any other witnesses?
MR. LITT: We have the deposition testimony of Omar Garrison to read, Your Honor. We can do that.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, the reason I didn’t go back
1089
into it is because I intend to recall Mrs. Hubbard in the defense of this case after Mr. Armstrong has testified. And many of the documents are in evidence with regard to what his state of mind was.With regard to Omar Garrison, he is not unavailable. He is down at his home in Costa Mesa. We object to the reading of his deposition without the opportunity to examine him.
MR. LITT: We called him in Utah to check. He stated on the record that he is a resident of Utah in the deposition. To our knowledge he remains a resident of Utah as far as I am aware.
THE COURT: It is very simple. If there is a dispute, you have to present evidence one way or another. If you have something from a deposition that shows where he is a resident, you can read that into the record rather than oral assertions which are not evidence. And if counsel has something, I’ll duly consider it.
1090
MR. FLYNN: I am going to retrieve, Your Honor, my book.
THE COURT: Oh, well, let’s just take a recess.
MR. LITT: I can read to the court from the deposition of Mr. Garrison. This is the deposition of July 12, 1983, page 6 of the deposition beginning at line 18:
“Q Let me begin by asking, Mr.Garrison, what is your occupation?
“A I am a professional author.
“Q And where do reside?
“A I reside at 1099 West Cedar Knoll South, Cedar City, Utah.”
THE COURT: When was that deposition taken?
MR. LITT: July 12, 1983.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I could put Mr. Armstrong on the witness stand who will testify he lives in Costa Mesa and he has spoken to him within the last few days and we can try and get him on the phone right now.
THE COURT: Well, it looks like he may be available then.
MR. LITT: Well, if he is available, that is news to us. It is fine with us. If Mr. Garrison is available, then we will bring him in.
It was always our understanding, he told us that he lived in Utah and that he was not going to be available as a witness, and I will check with my office because I believe Mr. Magnuson spoke with him in Utah this
1091
weekend, but I will double check that to make sure.THE COURT: If he is available and you want him here, one side or the other, let’s get him here. Let’s not unduly prolong matters.
Have you got an address where he can be subpoenaed or will he come in in response to his call?
MR. FLYNN: We subpoenaed him, Your Honor. We do have an address. We do have a phone number. Whether he will come in response to my call, I don’t know. I will have to call him.
THE COURT: When do you want him?
MR. LITT: It is news to us that he is a resident of California. That is all I can say, Your Honor. Our knowledge has always been that he is a resident of Utah. We were planning to read the deposition this afternoon after Mrs. Hubbard finished.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know –
MR. HARRIS: We will have some redirect. Maybe Mr. Flynn, since he subpoenaed him, can call him in and he can be here this afternoon and we can have live testimony.
THE COURT: I assume if he does, he would want to present his defense testimony.
MR. FLYNN: That is exactly –
THE COURT: Of course, it will come out in the wash anyway.
MR. HARRIS: I suppose so, but I don’t think it ought to intrude in our case-in-chief.
Q If you can get him in, give it a shot.
1092
MR. FLYNN: I will try.
THE COURT: You should have some back up in case he can’t get him in because the man maybe involved in other things. After all it is a quarter to 12:00.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: We are convening at 1:30?
THE COURT: 1:30.
(At 11:47 a.m. the luncheon recess was taken at 11:47 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
1093
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1984; 1:30 P.M.
-o0o-
THE COURT: Okay, in the case on trial. let the record reflect that parties and counsel are present.
You may call your next witness.
MR. FLYNN: We spoke to Mr. Garrison, Your Honor, and here is the situation.
He’s been in Costa Mesa for the past several months. Apparently under the settlement agreement he can’t voluntarily appear for any legal proceeding. He has to be subpoenaed. No subpoena was served on him by the plaintiff or the intervenor.
This past weekend Mr. Magnuson called him in Utah. Never requested him to appear and never informed him that he would be served with a subpoena this week for purposes of having him appear.
1094
He plans to return from Utah the latter part of this week. He considers his residence both in Costa Mesa and in Utah.
We have a subpoena which we have served on him.
And Mr. Magnuson suggested to him that he didn’t have to honor or obey that subpoena.
MR. LITT: That is absolutely –
Mr. Magnuson is in the courtroom. He’ll take the stand.
THE COURT: I think you should restate it, counsel.
Apparently you are relying on information that you got from Mr. Garrison.
MR. LITT: That he is interpreting.
THE COURT: You shouldn’t state it as a fact, but as –
MR. FLYNN: Mr. Garrison stated that Mr. Magnuson told him that he didn’t have to obey the subpoena that we served on him. And he intended to obey the subpoena that we served on him.
So our position is basically that they knew about the settlement agreement and the fact that he had to be subpoenaed.
He has been in Costa Mesa for the past several months. He would obey the subpoena. We do consider him available.
We are willing to have his entire deposition marked as an exhibit for the court to read whenever it chooses. Since he is going to come to court to testify, we would object to taking two or three hours or whatever it is
[Missing 1095]
1096
To the best of our knowledge, he has been consistently unavailable. We have no information and no information was ever provided to us that he was ever residing in Costa Mesa.
THE COURT: Well, gentlemen, I don’t want to spend a lot of time quibbling on where he is. If he is going to be here sooner or later, I don’t see why we can’t live with that.
Do you have any other witnesses to present?
MR. LITT: We do, Your Honor. Here is the question, one of procedure, which is that if Mr. Garrison is not going to be here until the end of the week, we will have completed the remainder of our witnesses before that. We obviously don’t want — Mr. Garrison’s testimony is quite important. We cannot rest without having his testimony.
MR. FLYNN: I can cure that, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: Can I please finish, Mr. Flynn, and then you can –
With respect to this question of reading in just what we want to read in in a deposition of a non-party witness, the procedure is that we read in what we want, and the other side reads in what they want, and either side makes appropriate objections. So, it is not the same thing as a party’s deposition.
It is going to cause problems in terms of the Court’s consideration of our case. Mr. Garrison’s testimony is critical to our case.
We do have other witnesses that we can put on.
1097
We are going to call Mrs. Hubbard for some redirect, and we have one other witness who is available.
THE COURT: How long is this deposition?
MR. LITT: It is about a hundred pages.
THE COURT: Counsel has offered to stipulate, in effect, that it be marked as an exhibit. I can read it, and we can stipulate that the reporter copy it into the record as though it had been read here in the record, and that will get you off the dime.
MR. LITT: That is fine, and I can provide the Court a copy; and in that copy it is set forth as follows: We have bracketed in red the portions of the deposition that we are introducing and we have bracketed in blue where we have objections to the answers. They are all written out on the side because I didn’t know whether the Court would want to follow the procedure that is now being discussed, and there are questions of our ability to object, and it is fine with us if the Court just rules based upon the notations with respect to any objections. So we can follow that procedure if the Court chooses.
THE COURT: Well, I really don’t know what the objections are. Are there a lot of objections or just a few?
MR. LITT: They are evidentiary objections. They are objections calling for hearsay. They are objections to irrelevance; objection, nonresponsive. There is a decent number of objections, no question about that.
Of course, some of them, these notes were done prior to the time that the Court had made certain rulings,
1098
so I think some of this probably the Court would not consider to be appropriate, but we did note the objections that we have. They are in blue. They are somewhat extensive.It is fine with me if the Court, as it reads it, simply notes a ruling on the Court’s copy.
MR. HARRIS: I am beginning to think the record will not exactly be decipherable. That is the problem.
If there are just one or two objections, it is no problem.
MR. LITT: At this stage, at least, subject to a re-analysis, there are substantial objections. The part of the deposition that we intend to introduce is probably less than 50 pages total, however the Court wishes to proceed.
THE COURT: When he was spoken to, was he in Salt Lake or in Utah?
MR. FLYNN: He is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So he is not available today.
MR. FLYNN: But he has also never been served with a subpoena, and he’s also been in Costa Mesa for the last several months.
THE COURT: You are going to put him on. It is all going to come out in the wash.
MR. FLYNN: What I was thinking was that since I am going to call him, if and when I make him available, if the plaintiff and the intervenor first want to do his testimony on direct, that is fine with me: and then I will have the opportunity to do my examination of him.
THE COURT: When would he be here?
1099
MR. FLYNN: I am going to have him come during our case pursuant to the subpoena. Whenever our case begins, he will probably be our second or third witness.
MR. LITT: That really doesn’t solve the problem.
If that is what Mr. Flynn wants to do, then my suggestion would be that we introduce the bracketed red portion now, that Mr. Flynn, at the time that Mr. Garrison appears, can do a cross-examination of him that would encompass the scope of that direct of him, then do a direct on other matters, and he can do them both in his case or he can designate whatever other portions of the deposition, and he can call Mr. Flynn in his case.
THE COURT: Are you objecting to portions of what you want read?
The blue marks, do they have reference to what you want read, or is that in relation to what you are anticipating Mr. Flynn is going to want read?
MR. LITT: We assumed that the deposition itself would be the basis of the testimony, and we made objections of various kinds in the course of the deposition as to what we felt were improper questions and those that we wanted to raise to the Court we noted in blue.
THE COURT: As a part of what you want put in in your case?
MR. LITT: No.
THE COURT: Well, then it is totally academic.
MR. LITT: Right. It is only if they are reading in other parts and we are reading in.
1100
THE COURT: They can read it or they can present it later.
Well, then, is it stipulated that that collection can be marked as your next in order for identification; and I will read the portions which are enclosed in red?
MR. LITT: I have a separate set that is just with the red, so maybe I will just give you that.
THE COURT: Then the reporter can copy that portion in.
(A discussion was held off the record among the Court, counsel and the reporter.)
MR. FLYNN: I have no objection to whenever the reporters put it into the record.
THE COURT: Mark it as your next in order collectively, and we will proceed and have whatever witnesses you have available.
MR. LITT: If I can just find it, Your Honor.
1101
MR. LITT: What I have here, Your Honor, that is just marked in red are the portions that we intend to introduce. It is not — this is not the whole deposition. I do have the whole deposition that has the red and the blue both.
Does the court want –
THE COURT: Is that acceptable, Mr. Flynn, that this collection be marked as an exhibit? Do you have a copy for Mr. Flynn?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor, I do.
MR. FLYNN: It was my understanding that the whole deposition was going to be marked, but only a portion was going to be transcribed into the record.
THE COURT: There is no reason to mark the whole thing if I am not going to read it, if I am just going to read selected portions.
The original, presumably, is supposed to be lodged with the clerk, presumably, as far as that goes.
If there is some portion that you want to be presented as far as your case, you are permitted to do that, I suppose.
MR. FLYNN: What I would be willing to do is offer the balance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have witnesses here prepared to testify?
MR. LITT: We do have some, Your Honor.
Mrs. Hubbard is going to take the stand.
THE COURT: Let’s pass this problem and go on and accommodate the witnesses that are here.
1102
MARY SUE HUBBARD, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Mrs. Hubbard, you have already been sworn.
Have a seat.
State your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: My name is Mary Sue Hubbard.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Mrs. Hubbard, I believe that in the course of his cross-examination Mr. Flynn asked you something about whether you had knowledge of Mr. Armstrong being commissioned, I think was the word he used, to work on any biography; do you have any knowledge of his being commissioned?
A No.
Q What is the extent of your knowledge?
A That he petitioned for a position of working on the biography. And that was approved by someone.
Q In the course of Mr. Flynn’s cross-examination of you he showed you a declaration of January 26, 1983. And he asked you on several occasions about paragraph 15 in which there is a statement that your husband approved in general terms this petition; do you recall that?
A Yes, I do.
Q What were the circumstances under which that declaration of yours was prepared and signed?
1103
A That was the day before I was to report to Federal authorities.
Q Did you actually write out the declaration, or was one prepared and submitted to you?
A It was prepared and submitted to me.
Q Did you read it?
A I did.
Q Did you have time to give it very detailed study?
A No.
Q Now, two weeks prior to the time that that declaration was signed had you testified in a deposition in this case?
A I had done that, yes.
Q Had Ms. Dragojevic examined you?
A She had.
Q Did she ask you your view with respect to whether or not your husband had personally approved the petition?
A She did.
Q And what did you answer on that occasion generally?
A More or less to the effect that I did not know who had authorized the petition, but that I did not believe that my husband had done so, but that a messenger had.
Q Mr. Flynn also asked you a question which was actually a compound question, saying, ‘Did your husband have approval of the biography on the contract,” to which
1104
you answered, “Yes.”I would like to clear that up. The contract was referring to the Omar Garrison contract; did your husband actually have approval of the contract between AOSH, PUBS DK and Omar Garrison?
A No.
Q What was your understanding as to what approval with respect to the biography contract he would have?
A Allegedly in relationship to the petition of writing a biography.
Q What about the biography itself?
A Oh, do you mean the finalization?
He would have final authority, yes, to approve the biography if that was written.
Q Mr. Flynn also asked you about the petition that you were shown from Mr. Armstrong or, I suppose, it was the letter to you from Mr. Armstrong in early February where there was some mention of some personal letters; do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q Now, tell me, these personal letters that Mr. Armstrong was referring to or, as you understood them, not as whatever he nay have intended, but as you understood them, tell me what you thought they were in as much detail as you can recall.
A They were just old letters and they were not personal letters between myself and my husband. They were
1105
very early letters.Q Where did you see them?
A I saw them in the house at Gilman Hot Springs on a coffee table.
Q Were they in an envelope, or were they out on the table?
A They were in an envelope.
Q And was it these letters that you thought that Mr. Armstrong was saying that he had found?
A Yes.
Q Now, also, just so we are sure that the record is clear on this because this was somewhat confusing, did you yourself actually approve Mr. Armstrong’s petition?
A No, I didn’t.
Q And the exchange of letters between you and Mr. Armstrong in early February, was that an approval by you?
A No, sir, it was not.
Q How would you characterise it?
A It was more or less an acknowledgement of his communication with me.
MR. LITT: Does the clerk have exhibit 14, please?
Q Now, Mrs. Hubbard, there has been a lot of confusion about these archives; did you have anything to do with the origination of what were at the time the Guardian Archives WW?
A I did.
Q And when was that?
1106
A That was in 1966.
Q And what materials at that time were supposed to be collected up in the Guardian’s office Worldwide Archives?
A The writings of Scientology, publications of every book, all the publications of various organization magazines, every issue that had ever been issued and various historical items of the church’s history.
1107
Q Okay. And did these have originals?
A No, they were not originals.
Q Now, at some point were these four materials from the Guardian’s archive WW moved to the ship, the Apollo?
A They were in 1969.
Q And when that happened, were any of yours and your husband’s personal materials also moved with these, also with the archive materials?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And subsequently did there come to be a designation for what was now a mixture of these personal materials with what had originally been Guardian worldwide archives?
A Yes.
Q And what was that designation?
A Controller’s archive.
Q And those were the archives that Mr. Vorm testified about earlier today?
A That’s correct.
Q With respect to the Guardian’s office archive WW, did there remain some archival materials at WW?
A Oh, Yes.
Q And do you know whether at some point the Guardian office worldwide archives were moved to some particular bureau within the Guardian’s office worldwide?
A Yes.
Q What bureau was that?
1108
A The public relations bureau.
Q Which is also known as the PR Bureau?
A That’s correct.
Q Mrs. Hubbard, last night we took a stab at trying to review the designated exhibit list of the sealed documents in this case.
Do you have some exhibit list before you in reference to that activity?
A Yes, I do.
MR. FLYNN: May we have, Your Honor, the exhibit list which is designated Defendant’s List of Exhibits from Documents Under Seal, this list will have notations on it, marked Plaintiffs’ next in order?
THE COURT: Okay. Exhibit 15.
MR. LITT: .And may we have the exhibit list entitled “Supplemental List of Plaintiffs’ Exhibits,” which in the text states that it is a list of exhibits under seal which has notations on it, marked Plaintiffs’ 16?
THE COURT: All right. 16 by reference to the file, unless you have another copy that you want to submit to the clerk.
MR. LITT: We can give the clerk this copy. I have a duplicate.
Q Now, Mrs. Hubbard, there is, speaking now to Exhibit 15, there is various handwriting on this exhibit; is that right?
A That is correct.
Q And there are marked next to certain documents
1109
the word “Private”; is that correct?A That is correct.
Q And there are marked next to some documents the words “Personal and Private”; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And next to some documents there is nothing marked; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And next to some documents it is marked the words “Don’t Have, Don’t Know”; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And also next to some documents are marked the words “Need to See”; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Let’s go through so that we can define what each of these terms meant.
When you put “Nothing” next to a document, what did that mean?
A That meant that I didn’t consider it to be personal or private.
Q When you put the words “Personal and Private” next to a document, what did that mean?
A That meant that I considered it to be not only private but personal.
Q And when you put the word “Private” next to it, what did that mean?
A I considered that to be private either in relationship to myself or my husband or the Church or all of
1110
us.Q And the notations that said “Have not Seen,” or “Need to See,” or “Don’t Have”; what did that mean?
A That meant there was nothing there for us to view. We had no document to look at, so I couldn’t make a determination.
Q And there are also some notations that say “Attorney-Client” as well as “Personal and Private”; what did that mean?
A That means that they were communications that I considered would fall under attorney-client privilege.
Q And in making this list, were you able to do a careful review of all of these documents or just a general review?
A Just a general review.
1111
Q And on some of the pages here the handwriting is not your own; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Whose handwriting is it?
A It is yours.
Q And why is my handwriting there instead of yours in some cases?
A Because I got very tired. And I said, “You do it.”
Q All right. Now, referring to exhibit 16 –
A Yes.
Q — you didn’t review each of the documents on exhibit 16; is that correct?
A No.
Q Did you review the description of what the document was?
A I did.
Q All right. And at the top also in my handwriting are the words “all personal and private unless not marked personal. Then means only private.” Do you see that?
A That is correct.
Q What is that notation for?
A That is for all of the documents except for those specificly noted.
Q So does that mean that if — did you write out the words “personal and private” next to each document on this list that you considered personal and private?
1112
A No, I did not.
Q Do you consider on this there is a notation to the contrary that all of the documents an that list are personal and private documents?
A I do consider.
Q And next to some you wrote the words — actually, I wrote the words “not personal”?
A That is correct.
Q And what does that mean?
A That meant that it contained no personal information in relationship to myself or my husband in the documents.
Q So as far as you were aware –
A As far as I was aware, correct.
Q Now, Mrs. Hubbard, where the notes are written in my hand, was the determination as to what categorization– let me rephrase it.
When the notes are written in any hand, who was it that made the decision as to how to characterize whether it was personal or private?
A I did. You merely wrote it down.
Q In the course of Mr. Flynn’s examination of you, Mrs. Hubbard, he asked some questions about the documents or sending the documents to him and what you knew about that.
I would like to ask you a question: Do you have any knowledge with respect to what litigation activities Mr. Flynn was engaged in as of the time period of May 1982
1113
regarding your husband, yourself and the Church of Scientology of California?A I did, yes.
Q Now, are there lawsuits that you are aware of in which Mr. Flynn represented plaintiffs who were suing the California church, you, and your husband in May, 1982?
A Yes.
Q And without asking you the specific title of them, can you tell me what lawsuits you know of of your own personal knowledge?
A Yes. There is one by Tanya Burden, B-u-r-d-e-n. There is one by Paulette Cooper and there are four out here in Los Angeles by Garrity, Peterson, Lockwood and Jefferson.
Q And are you and your husband named as defendants in those suits?
A Yes, we are.
Q And in May, 1982 were you and your husband named as defendants in those suits?
A Yes, we were.
Q Do you know for certain whether there may or may not be other suits in which Mr. Flynn is involved as of that time period?
A No, I don’t know.
Q And do you have some notion of the amount of damages that are being sought in those suits?
A Generally.
Q What is your knowledge of that?
1114
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: In the tens of millions.
THE COURT: I’ll let it stand.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mrs. Hubbard, I only have one final area of questioning for you. Mr. Flynn spent quite some time asking you about your claim that Mr. Armstrong stole the documents; what is the aspect of Mr. Armstrong’s conduct that you consider not only not authorized, but actually theft?
A After he left the church and was no longer employed by the church, he took and stole documents and gave them to Mr. Flynn. And I consider that to be the theft that occurred.
1115
MR. LITT: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Who did he steal them from, Mrs. Hubbard?
A I don’t know.
Q What were the circumstances under which he stole them?
A Sneakily, I guess. I don’t know.
Q You are guessing?
A Well, I don’t know. All I know is that they are here in court.
Q You mentioned four suits that you are familiar with. Do you know how many suits Michael Flynn was defending brought by your organization in May 1982?
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. The testimony that we introduced was introduced for one purpose, to show that Mr. Flynn had an adverse relationship to Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard and the Church. That adverse relationship is relevant in terms of the determination of Mr. Armstrong to give them to him, especially when there is an admission that he gave permission to use them in litigation other than the instant case.
That is the sole purpose for which that testimony is introduced; and we did not go into any of this litigation for any other reason and in any other breadth.
The question of the merits of any other
1116
litigation or suits against Mr. Flynn have nothing to do with the examination of Mrs. Hubbard. It is beyond the scope and it is irrelevant at this stage, at least.THE COURT: Well, we are not going to go into what might be alleged in any of these lawsuits either for or against; but I will overrule the objection to that particular question. Puts things in context.
Do you know if there were any lawsuits pending against clients represented by Mr. Flynn at that time?
THE WITNESS: Lawsuits against –
THE COURT: Clients of his by Church of Scientology or yourself or Mr. Hubbard?
THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of, Your Honor.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, you mentioned the Paulette Cooper suit. Isn’t it a fact that the Paulette Cooper suit was brought by the Church of Scientology against Miss Cooper, and she counterclaimed?
A I don’t know that. I don’t recall.
Q If I suggest to you that I was defending 15 lawsuits brought by your organization, does that refresh your memory at all, Mrs. Hubbard?
MR. LITT: Objection; irrelevant, beyond the scope, improper form.
THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know how many lawsuits your organization brought over the last 20 years against people pursuant to the Fair Game Doctrine to harass them, Mrs. Hubbard?
1117
MR. LITT: Objection; beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: If I suggest to you that it is in excess of 150 –
THE COURT: There is no question pending. I sustained the objection to the last one, Mr. Flynn.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: When you were the controller, did you collect 30 linear feet of information about Michael Flynn?
MR. LITT: Objection; beyond the scope.
Your Honor, this has nothing to do with the testimony.
THE COURT: I will overrule that objection.
You may answer. The subject has come up.
THE WITNESS: I never saw any linear feet. I never saw anything that was collected in relationship to yourself except some public relations reports, news press releases and things like that that I personally saw.
MR. FLYNN: Could we see Exhibit 6-S?
While she is looking for that, I will ask a couple of questions. May I see those exhibits where you have marked — I would just like to ask the witness whether she has seen that document, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
Have you seen that document?
THE WITNESS: No.
1118
And are there policies in fact in the Guardian’s Office in regard to collecting information on people?
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. This is really –
MR. FLYNN: This is the last question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I assume you are talking about not today, but sometime in the past?
MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor.
Q — collecting information on people, Mrs. Hubbard?
A Yes, collecting information on groups of people.
Q Now, what did you mean by “private” when you say “private”?
A I mean that it is something that is not for release and has not been released to the public.
Q What do you mean by “personal”?
A I mean something that contains information that is of a personal nature, to — and contains personal data to myself or my husband or other individuals.
Q Personal data relating to you and to your husband?
A Yes.
Q And when you say “the public” in your phrase “not to the public,” what do you mean by “public”?
A I mean yourself and generally other people who are not parties to the communication or to the document.
Q And was Mr. Armstrong part of the public between January 1980 and October 1981?
A What was the time period again?
1119
Q January 1980 to October 1981.
A I didn’t consider him to be a party to it. I mean the public.
Q You mentioned that there were personal letters in an envelope sitting on a coffee table at Gilman Hot Springs?
A I said there were letters there, yes.
Q Did you say personal letters?
A I don’t recall specifically what I said.
Q Did Mr. Armstrong in the petition that he sent to you dated 5 February 1980 say personal letters and other things?
A I don’t recall. I’d have to look at the document.
Q What are the letters that you remember that you thought he was referring to when he wrote the petition?
A Letters from very early in my husband’s past.
Q And when had you last seen those letters?
A In 1979 on a coffee table.
Q And in whose possession did you leave those letters?
A I left them there on the coffee table.
My husband had said look at these things.
Q What were the letters about?
A I didn’t read the letters. I just assumed they were personal.
Q Who were the letters between?
A I didn’t read them.
1120
Q If you didn’t read them, how do you know that they are personal letters?
A I merely assumed because — I merely assumed that.
Q You list I, Tomkins’ Biographical Summary as a private document?
A Yes.
Q Who is Tomkins?
A He was a man who at one time was going to write a biography on my husband.
Q An author?
A Yes.
Q Was he a Scientologist?
A I think.
Q Was he part of the public?
A yes.
Q You mentioned a document 26 May ‘74, the Explorer’s Club, New York City, as being private; do you know what that document is?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A It was an application to the Explorer’s Club and other documents, letters and so forth, a whole folder.
Q Is that on the files of the Explorer’s Club in New York City?
A It might be. I don’t know.
Q Do you know whether that is public?
A I don’t know what they — what policy they have
1121
in relationship to their files.Q So you are assuming that, too.
MR. LITT: Objection. Her testimony was what she considered private.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you noted attorney-client privilege next to various documents; are you asserting the attorney-client privilege, Mrs. Hubbard?
A Yes.
MR. LITT: That calls for –
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether the document relates to you or to your husband?
A They relate to some of my personal affairs and some of the affairs of my husband.
Q Which ones relate to your personal affairs?
A I don’t have anything before me to — and also church affairs.
1122
The first one I come across is something entitled “MCCS Tapes.”
THE COURT: Do you have an identifying number or letter?
THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, sir. That is on page 5, and it is 5-C.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. FLYNN: Now, are you asserting the attorney-client privilege in connection with those tapes, Mrs. Hubbard?
MR. LITT: Just a moment. This is a legal matter.
I have not discussed it with Mrs. Hubbard. If there is going to be a question of what she is going to do legally, we have not gotten into the attorney-client privilege yet on those tapes.
THE COURT: Well, the only problem is, counsel, your client has testified, correct me if I am wrong, that she either made these entries or that you made them at her discretion.
MR. LITT: That is correct.
THE COURT: So I presume that if there is something written there, “Attorney-Client,” she told you to put it there.
MR. LITT: Yes, but as to whether — who holds the privilege is a complicated question which finally involves legal advice. All she wrote down is that she considered that to be attorney-client matters.
THE COURT: Well, I would agree with you that some of
1123
these problems may be complicated, but it seems to me that what he can ask her — for example, was she getting involved in a confidential communication with an attorney at that time and she can answer that yes or no.It may be some attorney on behalf of a client would have a right to assert the privilege other than her, but in response to her direct testimony I would think that that limited inquiry would be permissible.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is your voice on those tapes communicating to any lawyer?
A No.
Q Are you claiming that the voice of any lawyer on those tapes represents you?
MR. LITT: Objection; that calls for a conclusion and without having the opportunity to consult with Mrs. Hubbard, Your Honor –
MR. HARRIS: There are two. There are personal — there are three –
THE COURT: You are talking at the same time, and the reporter –
MR. HARRIS: We are talking about three possible claims of privilege; personally, on behalf of her husband L. Ron Hubbard, and on behalf of the Church which she was representing, and at least on behalf of the Church I would claim the privilege.
THE COURT: Well, that may be, but this is still cross-examination of this witness, and we are not getting into what is on the tape, just a question of whether she’s made a
1124
representation that she’s asserted the attorney-client privilege, and he’s just cross-examining on that as to the fundamentals on it.Let’s go forward. We are not going to get into the substance of what is involved.
MR. FLYNN: I don’t intend to.
Q All I want to know, Mrs. Hubbard, is there any lawyer on those tapes that you say represents you?
A Not me personally.
Q What is the next attorney-client privilege entry?
A 5-L.
Q And what does that refer to?
A I am asserting that in relationship to my husband. It is a legal document with regard to legal fees.
Q Your testimony is you are asserting that on behalf of your husband?
A Yes.
Q Is there anything in that document which is designated 5-L, I believe; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Is there anything in document 5-L that contains any communication between you and a lawyer?
A I don’t believe so.
Q What is the next attorney-client privilege entry?
A 5-M.
Your Honor, I’d really like — I don’t want to
1125
slow things down, but at the time I — we were going through these very rapidly, and I was saying in my estimation, my feeling, that is a violation of the attorney-client privilege.THE COURT: Okay. But he’s got a right to cross-examine on it.
THE WITNESS: But I’d like to see the documents. I’m afraid I might be losing my own right.
THE COURT: If we ever get around to what is involved, I am sure your counsel will raise the issue. If there is any question about it, we will deal with it at that time.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: On 5-M, is there any communication between you and a lawyer?
A No.
Q Let me ask you this: On the attorney-client privilege assertions that you have noted on Exhibit 15, do you know of any document where you have noted the privilege that relates to communications between you and a lawyer?
1126
MR. HARRIS: If it could be amended, the question, personally or through an agent, Your Honor, I think it would be a more appropriate answer.
THE COURT: Is that an objection?
MR. HARRIS: Trying to help, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: Mr. Harris’ help, I can do without, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Apparently it is a one-way street.
THE WITNESS: 5-T on page 6, that involves my IRS tax case, my husband’s and myself.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: 5-T; were you a party in that case?
A I certainly was.
Q Do you know where the documents came from in terms of what archives that relate to document 5-T?
A I believe they came from Guardian archives –
Controller archives. Sorry.
Q Do you know how many people have had access to those documents between the early 1960s and the present date?
MR. LITT: I object as to the term “access.” What — is Mr. Flynn asking how many people have read it? How many have had physical access, custody?
THE COURT: Maybe you had better reframe your question, counsel.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you ever give the documents in 5-T to any person other than a lawyer?
A No.
1127
Q And they were, however, given to Omar Garrison; is that correct?
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is there any other document in which you claim that a personal communication between you and your husband was involved?
A There are some documents here that I haven’t seen; so I don’t know how I would mark them because we didn’t have them.
There was another document, I believe, that is not included in either this list or the other list which was, I believe, a — a document between myself and my attorney, Mr. Baudin.
Q And it is not on that list?
A It is not on this list and it is not on the other list.
Q Do you know whether the Tomkins Biographical Summary was given to Mr. Garrison?
A I don’t know.
MR. FLYNN: May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, prior to the time that you met your husband — strike that.
When did you first meet your husband.
MR. HARRIS: Beyond the scope of the direct, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: It goes to the personal and private, Your
1128
Honor.THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: When did you first meet your husband?
A In 1951.
1129
Q Now are you claiming that the documents that came into existence that are the documents of your husband prior to 1951 are personal and private to you?
A Yes and my husband.
Q Well, you are claiming that they are personal and private to you; is that correct?
A To us jointly.
Q Prior to 1951 did they constitute the property of your husband?
A Yes.
Q And when you married your husband, did you enter into an agreement that all of the property that he owned prior to the marriage would remain his property?
MR. LITT: Objection; if Mr. Flynn is going to ask the question, at least he should read the agreement so that he quotes it right.
MR. FLYNN: Fine, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: No. You should read the agreement so you can ask the question accurately.
MR. FLYNN: I’d be happy to read the agreement, Your Honor. I’d be happy to mark it as an exhibit, also.
MR. LITT: No, that is not what the agreement says, Your Honor. As has been explained numerous times, it has to do with in the event of divorce. It has nothing to do with anything else.
THE COURT: I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know what it says.
MR. FLYNN: Can we get the agreement?
1130
THE WITNESS: It is personal and private.
THE COURT: We will take a recess and I will look at it during the recess.
What identifying number is it?
MR. FLYNN: 4Z, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We will take a 15-minute recess.
(Recess.)
1131
THE COURT: We are back in session.
The witness can retake the stand.
State your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Mary Sue Hubbard.
THE COURT: Well, I have reviewed these two documents. It appears to be upon the stationary of Hubbard Dianetic Foundation, Inc. of Wichita, Kansas.
Do you know when, approximately what date these papers were signed?
THE WITNESS: I think it was some time in late 1951, sir.
THE COURT: Before you were married, or after you were married?
THE WITNESS: I don’t have — I haven’t reviewed them carefully.
To the best of my recollection, it was prior to our marriage.
THE COURT: Before marriage?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, without getting into any detail of what was involved in these agreements, I have to find that this purports to be a prenuptial agreement and executed in Kansas. And I haven’t the slightest idea of what the law of Kansas is, but in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the presumption is that California law would be identical. And California law requires that before a prenuptial agreement can be valid and enforceable, that it be acknowledged before
1132
a notary public, the signatures, and under Civil Code Section 5034. At least these do not appear to be so.It is somewhat ambiguos. I think the words of this could be interpreted to be that this purports to be an agreement that what is hers is hers and what is his is his and that neither would make any claim upon the other.
At the same time I don’t think it has any validity.
Furthermore, it there were a post-marital contract, the law of California is clear that the parties may orally modify any previous expression of how they want to hold their property.
I don’t think this has much evidentiary value, Mr. Flynn, so I’ll sustain the objection to the use of it.
Do you want to mark it as an exhibit for identification? We can mark it and I’ll make the order that any exhibits which are marked for identification only or not received in evidence will be kept in a separate sealed envelope in some fashion.
1133
MR. FLYNN: That is fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So we could mark this defendant’s next in order.
THE CLERK: L.
THE COURT: All right, L.
We have one other, I think, that’s been marked and kept in the same fashion.
THE CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: H, I think.
Well, we will go on anyway. We won’t worry about that.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, has your husband ever formally established a residence to your knowledge in the State of California?
A Yes.
Q When? A ‘76, ‘77, ‘78, ‘79 and I don’t know for 1980 and since.
Q Thank you.
A Could I amend that, sir?
We do file jointly California State Taxes. I don’t know if that makes somebody a resident or not.
THE COURT: Well, I suppose it depends how he describes it. Of course, that matter — the returns, themselves, would be privileged.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know either because I don’t know where he is living now, but I know we jointly file California State Income Tax.
1134
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mrs. Hubbard, you testified that you saw the Guardian Office Worldwide archives when they were established in 1966?
A Yes.
Q And did you see them in 1969 when the materials that you have described that were in the trunks were moved onto the ship?
A No.
Q When was the last time you saw the Guardian’s Office Worldwide archives?
A In 1969, summer.
Q And were they housed in a building that solely encompassed the archives?
A Not at that time.
Q Did that subsequently take place?
A Must have done.
Q Do you know how big the building was?
A I don’t know.
Q Do you know how many documents were in there?
A I don’t know.
Q If I suggest to you that there were millions of documents in there, does that refresh your memory?
A I have no knowledge of it.
Q Do you know whether copies were made of documents that were in the trunks and placed in GO Worldwide archives in 1969 after the documents were placed in the trunks and moved onto the Apollo?
A You mean whether — I’m not certain when they
1135
were putting — packing the trunks in 1969 — whether copies were made and left in England at that time?Q Correct.
A To the best of my knowledge, no, no copies were made at that time.
Q There were copies of documents and not originals that were in the trunks; is that correct?
A I don’t know what you mean by “copies.” Carbon copies were in the trunk. In other words, if a letter was written to someone else, all we had left was a carbon copy and those carbon copies were in the trunks and that was the only original we had of such things.
Q Were there Xerox copies in the trunks?
A To the best of my recollection, if there were any, they were very slight and small. Most of them were original documents.
THE COURT: What date is this?
THE WITNESS: I presume he is talking after the trunks came aboard the ship, sir.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, in 1969 when all these materials were packed up, were you there supervising it?
A No, I was not.
Q Were those your personal and private materials as you testified?
A Yes.
Q And were inventories made of those materials at the time?
1136
A Yes.
Q And did the people, if you know, who were making the inventories look at the documents to see what they were?
A I presume they would have to have looked at them at least.
Q And do you know how many people looked at them?
A There would have been Mr. Burgess, and I think he had a couple of other people helping him.
Q And did you authorize that?
A I did. I think I ought to modify something there just to be quite correct.
What I authorized them to do was to go there and take the materials and they were supposed to bring back certain materials. They went beyond what they were asked to do and brought back a lot of personal materials which they had not been requested to bring, but after I had received them, you know, that was that.
Q Did you sue them for invasion of privacy?
A No, because I received the materials and they were in the trunks under my control.
Q You knew that they had read them, though; right?
A I didn’t know that, no.
Q You knew that they had read them at least enough to make an inventory of them?
A They would have to have done that, yes.
Q Now, over the years how many people would you estimate you have allowed to manage or maintain possession of your personal and private materials?
1137
A I don’t know which ones you are referring to.
Q Well, how many different people between 1966 and the present would you estimate have looked at the documents that are contained in defendant’s list of exhibits marked as exhibit 15?
THE COURT: Pursuant to her permission, express or implied.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: First, pursuant to your permission, Mrs. Hubbard.
A Well, there would have been — I really can’t give you an estimate. There would be typists who typed the materials, so to that degree they had permission.
There would have been people who saw the materials in packing them up in 1969, and although I didn’t grant them permission, you might say that I condoned it in that, you know, I didn’t — and those were, as I have said, about three people.
1138
I know that in going through the archives trunks to get materials out, that we tried to limit anyone going into them because we had inventories. And so they would look at the inventory. I suppose that I — I feel like I trusted those individuals, you know, to go in there and take something out that was asked for without invading — looking through everything else. I really can’t give you an estimate. I would say about maybe — about seven or eight people.
Q Now, did you have any understanding that the only documents that Mr. Garrison would have access to for purposes of the biography would be documents that only had been released to the public?
A No.
Q What documents did you understand he would have access to other than documents that were released to the public?
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. Mr. Flynn examined Mrs. Hubbard at length on this in cross. This is certainly not within the scope of the redirect. We are going back into –
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
MR. FLYNN: It is going to be very limited. It only goes to what is personal and private that the witness has marked on exhibit 15.
THE COURT: All right. If you can answer that generally, what you anticipated that would be made available for Mr. Garrison, you may describe such.
1139
THE WITNESS: I did not authorize those to be made available to Mr. Garrison. Those were materials from my personal storage. I never authorized them to be made available to him.
In the archives trunks I authorized only mall quantities of material that I personally checked to be made available. And that is all I can say.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you know when the biography project was being written that Mr. Garrison had private and personal documents belonging to your husband?
A When he was starting to write?
Q Between January, 1980 and October, 1981.
A I knew that he had materials that I had, at least, authorized to be released to him, yes.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, rather than take the time now in the context of the cross-examination to go through what is personal and private on this list, what we’ll do is recall Mrs. Hubbard in the defendant’s case after Mr. Armstrong testifies.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. LITT: Mr. Flynn, I can have a copy made for you of that which I’ll provide you tomorrow. But those are the court’s.
MR. FLYNN: Receiving stolen goods again, I guess, Your Honor. Only I didn’t leave an inventory behind.
THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
Let me ask a couple of preliminary things and
1140
then we’ll have one more witness that we can call now and then we return to the problem of Mr. Garrison.First, Your Honor, we would ask that the court take judicial notice of the temporary restraining order, which we can provide a copy of, although I don’t know that I have one with me, that was entered by this court on, I believe it is — I have to check — August 24, 1982, which restraining order requires the return of various materials. This is just to establish the chain leading to the fact that the materials under seal were returned.
1141
THE COURT: All right, the court will take judicial notice of it.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I would object for the following reason: This specific problem arose in the context of the contempt proceeding that was brought against myself and also against Ms. Dragojevic.
The issue with regard to the contents of the temporary restraining order and how long it was in force and the language of the preliminary injunction became a specific issue before Judge Olson, and at that time Judge Olson ruled that since the preliminary injunction was written by Mr. Litt –
MR. LITT: By me?
MR. FLYNN: By the attorneys for the church which may have been Tray and Kohleck at the time, and the language in the preliminary injunction had to be narrowly construed, and that the failure to place in the preliminary injunction the language of the temporary restraining order with regard to the return of the documents rendered the preliminary injunction on that issue and on that point defective.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I don’t know what this has to do with anything –
THE COURT: Can’t you just enter into a stipulation that the documents that are identified in the inventory of materials turned over to the court by Mr. Flynn and by Contos & Bunch are those that were turned over to the court pursuant to court order. Isn’t that what you want?
MR. LITT: Yes. All we are trying to establish is
1142
that all the materials under seal were returned from the law offices of Michael J. Flynn, of which there were three boxes and the law offices of Contos & Bunch, which there were two boxes.They were returned pursuant to an order to Mr. Armstrong that he return all materials that came from the church or church archives, whether directly or indirectly, be delivered into the custody of the church and that these materials were returned pursuant to that order by these two law firms as law offices representing Mr. Armstrong. That is what we are looking for in this context.
THE COURT: Is that acceptable, counsel?
MR. FLYNN: It was so long, I’d have to see some type of handwritten proposal.
I am very reluctant to waive my client’s rights.
THE COURT: Are there any exhibits under seal that don’t come from Mr. Flynn’s office or Ms. Dragojevic’s office?
MR. FLYNN: I don’t believe there are, but I think that there are more elaborate First Amendment issues with regard to the contents of the documents that relate to the preliminary injunction and the temporary restraining order.
THE COURT: Well, I am not going to get involved in determining whether anybody is in contempt of court or not.
All I am concerned about is he–wants to show, I guess, that the documents that are under seal came from your client pursuant to a court order essentially through your legal
1143
offices.MR. FLYNN: That I will agree to. What Mr. Litt just said got a little more tortuous and was not as succinct as what the court just said. What the court just said, I’d be willing to stipulate to.
THE COURT: Is that agreeable, Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: Here is what I would suggest. I think that the TRO which speaks for itself is the order that should be entered and then I will enter into a stipulation that the materials under seal, and I would like a description of the three boxes from Mr. Flynn’s office and two from the law offices of Contos & Bunch were returned pursuant to that order. That is clearly my understanding of the facts.
Nobody is trying to slip anything by you, but I think the court order makes sense in the chain of events.
MR. FLYNN: We don’t necessarily agree to what Mr. Litt just said because we think that the court order at the time it was written was invalid, and I don’t want to waive my client’s rights with regard to returning the documents.
We agreed because the order existed to return the documents, but there is a serious question in our mind with regard to the validity of the order.
THE COURT: Without entering into a stipulation concerning the validity of the order, do you agree that following the order you returned these documents as indicated; three boxes from you and two boxes from Contos & Bunch to the County Clerk’s Office?
1144
MR. FLYNN: That we agree to, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And that the document which is referred to, the temporary restraining order, was, in fact, issued by the court without getting into whether it was valid or not, subsequently thereto you did return or deliver back into the custody or deliver into the custody of the court these aforementioned exhibits?
MR. FLYNN: Correct.
THE COURT: So stipulated?
MR. LITT: So stipulated.
THE COURT: Ms. Dragojevic, you join in that?
MS. DRAGOJEVIC: I join.
MR. LITT: And that includes the court taking judicial notice of the order?
THE COURT: I will take judicial notice of the existence of the order without commenting upon its validity.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, we have had Mrs. Hubbard step down. I take it that is okay?
THE COURT: That is okay.
MR. LITT: We would also ask, it doesn’t have to be done now, but at some point before the conclusion of our case we would ask that the court take a view of the totality of the documents, not to read them but just so that the court has the opportunity to view the scope.
THE COURT: That is okay. I will be glad to do it sometime.
MR. FLYNN: We request a view of the Guardian Worldwide archives in England.
1145
THE COURT: If you pay the way, I will view them I can afford the trip down to the Clerk’s Office.
1146
MR. LITT: Your Honor, Mrs. Hubbard is excused as a witnesss; is that correct?
THE COURT: Subject to being recalled by the defendant upon 24 hours’ notice.
MR. LITT: Our next witness will be John Peterson, Your Honor.
JOHN PETERSON, called as a witness by the plaintiff, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Please, raise your right hand to be sworn.
You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Be seated in the witness stand. State your name and spell your last name for the record, please.
THE WITNESS: John Peterson. P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS
Q Your occupation, Mr. Peterson?
A I am an attorney.
Q Is one of your clients the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes.
1147
Q Did there come a time that you wrote a letter to Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes.
Q And approximately when was that?
A May 26, 1982.
MR. HARRIS: May the May 26th, 1982 letter be marked plaintiff’s next in order?
THE COURT: 17.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to plaintiff’s exhibit 17, does that appear to be the letter that you wrote?
A Yes.
Q I note that there is no address on there.
A Correct.
Q How did you attempt to get that to Mr. Armstrong?
A A messenger was sent with the letter to personally deliver it to Mr. Armstrong at his last-known address.
Q And subsequently did you write another letter to Mr. Armstong?
A Yes, I believe on May 27, 1982 I wrote another letter.
MR. HARRIS: I have another letter dated May 27, 1982; may this be marked plaintiff’s 18, Your Honor?
THE COURT: So marked.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to exhibit 18, is that the letter that you referred to?
A Yes.
1148
Q And on that I note an address in care of somebody; how did you attempt to deliver that letter that is exhibit 18?
A This letter was also sent by messenger to personally serve it on Gerry Armstrong at a post office box in Costa Mesa.
Q Did you receive word that he did in fact deliver it?
A Yes. The May 27th letter was confirmed that he did receive that letter a few days later.
Q Now, in the 27 — in exhibit 18 there is a — what I call a deadline of June 3rd for something to happen?
A Yes. I made demand that Gerry Armstrong deliver the materials that he had in his possession from the archives on or before Thursday, June 3rd, 1982 at my offices.
Q And when June 3rd came and expired had Mr. Armstrong delivered any materials to your office?
A No. I hadn’t heard anything from Mr. Armstrong.
Q What did you do then?
A I contacted some professional private investigators and asked them to conduct an investigation and surveillance, of Mr. Armstrong.
Q By name?
A They were called the Tin Goose.
Q T-i-n Goose?
A T-i-n G–o-o-s-e, Inc.
Q At some point did you receive a letter from Mr. Armstrong?
1149
A I believe I received a letter from Mr. Armstrong probably around June 11th, 12th, something like that.
I recall his letter was dated something like the 9th of June, 1982.
MR. HARRIS: I have a letter dated June 9, 1982, Your Honor; may it be marked plaintiff’s 19?
THE COURT: So marked.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to plaintiff’s 19, did you receive that by mail at your offices?
A Yes.
Q All right. After you received the letter of June 9, 1982 what did you do, if anything?
A Well, I recall contacting the Tin Goose and telling them that I had received this letter and to finish off any little bits of investigation that they were doing; not to conduct any surveillance and to await further instructions from me; that I was going to try to resolve the matter directly with Mr. Armstrong.
Q And subsequently did you write another letter to Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes. It was the latter part of June, around the third week, 21st, something like that. I wrote another letter to Mr. Armstrong in response to his letter of June 9th.
MR. HARRIS: I have letter dated June 21st, 1982; may that be marked plaintiff’s.. exhibit 20, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. It may be so marked.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to
1150
plaintiff’s exhibit 20, does that appear to be a copy of a letter that you wrote to Mr Armstrong on June 21st?A Yes. This is a copy.
1151
Q Within a reasonable period of time did you receive any response to your letter of June 21 from Mr. Armstrong?
A I never received any response from Mr. Armstrong regarding my letter of June 21, 1982.
Q All right. What did you do next, if anything?
A Well, I had, you know, inquired in the letter if we couldn’t resolve this matter without any type of real proceedings or anything like that. And when I didn’t receive any type of response, either from Mr. Armstrong or a representative, I again contacted the investigators and asked them to commence their investigation again and to set up a surveillance of Mr. Armstrong.
Q And was your purpose for doing that to attempt to recover any materials that Mr. Armstrong might have?
MR. FLYNN: Objection; leading, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Well, okay. I will withdraw it.
Q Why did you retain the services of the Tin Goose?
A My client and I had received information that led us to believe that Gerry Armstrong might have been in possession of materials that were taken from the archives, and when I didn’t get any response to any of my correspondence and my request in the letter of June 21 was a simple request that he answer three little questions, I felt that because of the private nature of the archives and the documents involved, that it would be necessary to try to ascertain the true facts.
1152
Q And for how long was the Tin Goose, Incorporated performing services in respect to the Armstrong matter, approximately?
A Well, I believe the Tin Goose did a short amount of investigation on the Armstrong matter in May. We are not claiming any of those bills as part of our damages.
They again commenced investigation in early June after one of the letters. They were off for a period of time, and then they continued at my request through September, I believe, of ‘82. once the documents were returned to the court, it was shortly after that that they were taken off the case.
MR. HARRIS: I have a series of invoices that I’d like to mark collectively, Your Honor, as Plaintiffs’ 21, if that is acceptable to the Court.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FLYNN: Are these being marked?
MR. HARRIS: They are.
THE COURT: Yes.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to what has been marked collectively as Exhibit 21. Perhaps I ought to staple that or clip it or something, but right now we will leave it.
Do you recognize Exhibit 21?
1153
A Yes. These are the invoices I received from the Tin Goose.
Q And were these each received, that is, all of exhibit 21, collectively in respect to the Tin Goose investigation in respect to Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes.
Q And did you pay these in the ordinary course of business?
A Yes. I paid these.
Q And were you reimbursed for those payments by the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes.
Q In respect to the amounts thereon, was it your opinion that these were reasonably incurred in an attempt to recover the documents for the Church of Scientology of California?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: I think it is an appropriate subject of opinion, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I’ll overrule the objection.
Certainly, the fact that these documents — these payments were made is evidence. And I suppose the witness can give his opinion as to whether or not it was reasonable. At the same time, what any investigator may or may not have done, this witness, presumably, has no personal knowledge of. And while he can give his opinion on matters that may not be in evidence, it would go to the weight to be given to such opinion.
1154
MR. HARRIS: I fully understand that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I won’t consider it as evidence of what any investigator did or didn’t do.
MR. HARRIS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, in my experience of practicing law in the Southern California area for close to 15 years, the rates that were charged, the hourly rate charged by the investigators were a fair rate for that period of time in 1982. And because of the very private and sensitive nature of the documents, I felt that the amount of surveillance and the amount of time spent was appropriate and very reasonable under the circumstances that resulted.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Who are the principals of Tin Goose, Inc.? What is their background experience if you know?
A Oh, yes. I know. Probably one of the first questions I asked them, why Tin Goose.
The principals of the Tin Goose, Inc. are two retired Los Angeles police detectives who, I imagine, put in their 20 years and then went on to become private investigators.
One is Al Tinsley — Gene Tinsley and the other is Al Goosen.
So they chopped off the last part of their name and became the Tin Goose, Inc., Private Investigators.
They came very highly recommended.
MR. HARRIS: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may cross-examine.
1155
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mr. Peterson, do you have the expenses of the private investigator there in front of you?
A I have exhibit 21 in front of me marked for identification.
Q Now, on the first page of your surveillance re Utah, date 9-10-82, do you see that?
A I don’t see it on the first page — my first page is Invoice No. 2116.
Maybe if you went by invoice number, it would help me.
MR. FLYNN: My first page is 2209.
MR. HARRIS: That is my first page too.
My apology.
What number do you have?
THE WITNESS: When Mr. Flynn asks me a question regarding an invoice he’ll ask me the invoice number; I’ll flip to mine rather than you trying to put yours in the same order that mine is.
1156
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What is the first one you have, Mr. Peterson?
A 2116.
Q And that is dated 6-21-82?
A Yes.
Q Now, that invoice says “Re Omar Garrison-Gerald D. Armstrong.”
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether the surveillance involving that date was of Omar Garrison or Gerald Armstrong?
A This one at this time was regarding Gerald Armstrong.
There may be a point that should be clarified.
On some of the reports there is underneath a caption which will say “Utah Surveillance.”
Q I will get to that, Mr. Peterson.
A That is not included in our claim for damages.
Q If you could just answer the question.
The answer was that you believed it related to Gerald Armstrong; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Is there anything on the face of that document which shows that it was Armstrong as opposed to Garrison?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A The date.
Q Other than the date?
A Yes.
1157
Q What?
A The mileage.
Q Do you know whether that was mileage that involved driving around Utah or driving around Southern California from the face of the document?
MR. HARRIS: Just so it is clear, Your Honor, Mr. Peterson has stated, and which I forgot, we are not making any claim to the damages in respect to any Utah surveillance.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, was the Utah surveillance on Mr. Garrison or Mr. Armstrong?
MR. HARRIS: Now, it is irrelevant if we are not making a claim.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know. Overruled. He can answer.
THE WITNESS: What was the question again?
THE COURT: What was the purpose of the Utah surveillance?
THE WITNESS: The purpose. The purpose of the Utah surveillance was that Gerald Armstrong had indicated that he had given documents and items to Omar Garrison, and we at that time were checking into Omar Garrison. There was no surveillance of Omar Garrison at that time.
We were also looking into locating Garrison and doing some investigation on Omar Garrison.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You say Mr. Armstrong had indicated that he had given documents to Mr. Garrison?
A Well, it was part of his archives project.
1158
I mean, it was known that documents had gone to Mr. Garrison, and Mr. Garrison had told people that he had received documents from Mr. Armstrong. It was no secret.
Q Now, you testified that there were private investigator’s fees for early May which you are not claiming as damages; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Do you recall when in May?
A Oh, I think they started around the 10th of May, somewhere the first week of May.
Q Prior to that time had you ever hired private investigators to conduct surveillance of Omar Garrison or Gerald Armstrong?
A Prior to May 10th?
MR. HARRIS: Well, as to Gerald Armstrong, I think it is relevant. As to the rest, I don’t think it is, and I will object on that ground.
THE COURT: Well, overruled. See where we are going.
THE WITNESS: I can’t remember any prior to the first part of May.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, did you see a Suppressive Person Declare issued on Gerald Armstrong dated February 18, 1982 revised April 22, 1982, prior to its issuance?
MR. LITT: Objection; that is beyond the scope.
What does that have to do with the damages testimony?
THE COURT: Well, we have had testimony that letters were sent. Demands were made. They may have some relevancy in that context. I don’t know where he is going.
1159
MR. FLYNN: That is exactly where it is going, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: For the record, Your Honor, I would just like to make clear a Suppressive Person Declare is an internal Scientology issue and it has nothing to do with this matter.
THE COURT: It is a preliminary question.
MR. LITT: I just want to make –
THE COURT: It is a preliminary question. We will see what happens.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you review the Suppressive Person Declare, Mr. Peterson, before it was issued, as an attorney for the Church?
A Which one?
Q This one dated April 22, 1982.
And I have a copy for the Court, and may this be marked for identification, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. I think we are up to the letter which escapes me. M, like in music, Exhibit M.
1160
THE WITNESS: No. I can’t remember seeing that prior to its being issued.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Your testimony is that you don’t recall, Mr. Peterson?
A That is true.
Q Did you have a conversation with Bruce Bunch and Julia Dragojevic relative to the fact that you reviewed this Suppressive Person Declare before it was issued?
A No.
Q Did you have a conversation with Julia Dragojevic?
A Yes.
Q Relative to the fact that you reviewed this Suppressive Person Declare before it was issued?
A That wasn’t what it was relative to.
We were in a meet and confer meeting regarding answers to interrogatories. That was one of the interrogatory questions.
I indicated to her that I may have; that I would look into whether I reviewed it.
I checked with my client. I found that there was no indication that I had ever seen or reviewed that document. I had no personal knowledge when I was talking to Julia whether I did or didn’t.
I indicated to her, which is memorialized in a letter that I wrote, to look into it.
I looked into it and my review indicated that I had not looked at it.
Q Prior to your writing the letter which has
1161
been marked as exhibit 17 or exhibit — correct, exhibit 17 dated May 26, 1982 did you review the Suppressive Person Declare?A No.
Q When was the first time that you reviewed the Suppressive Person Declare?
MR. LITT: I’ll renew my objection, Your Honor.
What has this to do with Mr. Peterson’s testimony?
THE COURT: We’ll see.
THE WITNESS: I am sure the first time I reviewed this Declare was when reference was made to it in a cross-complaint.
Q BY MR.FLYNN: Now, did you tell Ms. Dragojevic that you had in fact proved the Declare?
A No.
As I had explained earlier with Miss Dragojevic, there are some times when I review some Declares. I had no personal knowledge in our meeting whether or not this was one of the ones I had ever looked at.
I said I would have to check and see. And I did.
When I checked, this was not a Declare that I had seen, approved, and I don’t approve Declares. I just look at them.
It is an internal church function of which I had no part.
Q When you wrote exhibit 17 who was your client?
A The Church of Scientology of California.
1162
Q Was L. Ron Hubbard your client at that time?
A No.
Q Has L. Ron Hubbard ever been your client?
MR. HARRIS: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was Mary Sue Hubbard your client?
MR. HARRIS: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LITT: Is this at the time the letter was written?
MR. FLYNN: At the time the letter was written.
THE WITNESS: NO.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was PUBS DK your client?
MR. HARRIS: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t believe so.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is your letter accurate, Mr. Armstrong — strike that — Mr. Peterson, that the material that you claim was then in Mr. Armstrong’s possession belonged to the Church of Scientology of California?
MR. LITT: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: It relates to the letter, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Was this ever delivered?
THE WITNESS: I have no personal knowledge that this exhibit 17 actually ever reached Mr. Armstrong.
He said he has received 18 which is the letter of the 27th. But I have no personal knowledge that he ever received the letter of the 26th.
1163
Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to exhibit 18, in the first line you refer to your client; is that the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes.
Q And at that time you wrote the letter, was it your understanding that the Church of Scientology of California owned or had the right to possess any of the documents which you claim were in Mr. Armstrong’s possession?
A Yes.
Q Is that your position today?
A Yes.
Q Which documents?
A Well, your question, really, was sort of poorly formed.
You said own or right to possess.
Are we going through each document for own, right to possess?
I believe my client has a right to possess all the documents.
Q The Church of Scientology of California?
A They were the bailee at the time they were stolen. They should be returned to that person or entity.
Q Do you know whether or not the documents had been delivered to Mr. Garrison pursuant to any contract, Mr. Peterson?
A At what time?
Q Between January of 1980 and October of 1981.
A At what time did I hold that knowledge is what
1164
I am asking.THE COURT: At the time these letters were written.
THE WITNESS: At the time I wrote this letter, or now?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: At the time the letters were written.
A I had had information that there were some documents out of archives that had been sent to Omar Garrison.
Q And did you know that there was a contract between Oman Garrison and PUBS DK when you wrote these letters?
A I can’t remember if I knew exactly at that time or I had learned about the contract at a later time.
Q Did you as an attorney examine the contract before writing the letters?
A No.
Q Did you know whether the contract related to any possessory interest involving the documents that Omar Garrison had?
A Well, if I hadn’t read it, I didn’t know what was contained in it.
Q Did you write a similar letter to Omar Garrison?
A No.
Q Where did your information come from that Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents and materials belong to the Church of Scientology of California, your client?
A From my client.
Q Who?
1165
A The Church of Scientology of California.
Q What individual?
A I have spoken with a great number of people regarding this case at the Church of Scientology of California.
Could you be a little more specific?
Q Could you be more specific, Mr. Peterson? What individual told you that Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents and materials belonging to the Church of Scientology of California when you wrote those letters?
A Well, I wasn’t told that by my client.
1166
Q Where did you arrive at that information?
A Well what my client told me was that there was a suspicion, they thought that Gerry Armstrong might have materials that he had taken out of the archives without authorization. There was no determination at that point whether or not Mr. Armstrong had anything. That is why we hired investigators to conduct a lawful and professional investigation.
Q Did you write a letter to me threatening Mr. Armstrong and myself with criminal prosecution for Mr. Armstrong’s possession of these documents?
A No, I would never do that.
Q At any time between June and the bringing of this lawsuit did you write a letter to me threatening Gerald Armstrong with criminal prosecution?
MR. LITT: Objection. If there is a letter, then the letter speaks for itself.
MR. FLYNN: I will get the letter. I just happen to not have it here.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: I have no power to prosecute anyone.
I am a private attorney. That is a function of the district attorney’s office. I cannot threaten to prosecute anyone nor would I ever threaten to prosecute anyone.
Q BY MR, FLYNN: Did you threaten to seek prosecution of Mr. Armstrong?
A Well, if the facts are there after a lawful investigation, I would see that my client is informed that they
1167
have a right to present the facts in a criminal complaint with the appropriate authorities, but I have no power to do so, to prosecute.Q The question is did you threaten that in a letter, Mr. Peterson?
A Well, Mr. Flynn, the letter is about two years old. I’d have to see the letter to know exactly what I said. Your misrepresentation or mischaracterization is something –
Q The answer is you don’t recall without reading the letter?
A Without reading the letter, I don’t, no.
Q Mr. Armstrong responded by letter dated June 9, 1982; is that correct?
A That is the date of the letter.
Q And he states that you have been misinformed by your client; is that correct?
A That is what the letter says.
Q And that he did not have possession of photographs, transparencies or documentation concerning LRH or the church belonging to your client which he acquired while in the employ of your client; is that correct?
A That is what the words say. You put your own words.
Q Now after you received that letter from Mr. Armstrong, did you acquire any information as to whether in June 1982 Mr. Armstrong had any possession of any documents or materials belonging to the Church of Scientology
1168
of California?A I am sorry. I was still reading the letter when you started your question. Could you repeat it?
Q After you received the letter from Mr. Armstrong, did you receive any information from any source that Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents or materials belonging to the Church of Scientology of California?
A Any information?
Q Any information.
A After this June 9th letter?
Q Correct.
A Yes.
Q From whom?
A You.
Q What was the information, Mr. Peterson?
A Well you had filed declarations of Mr. Armstrong and several of your cases where you are suing Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, and in those declarations were information that only could have come from having the documents and, as a matter of fact, in one of the declarations you filed in the Burden case, the Ron DeWolfe affidavit, I believe there was attached to it a document which at that time we believed could possibly have come from Gerald Armstrong and his access to the archives.
Q Let’s take one affidavit at a time. The affidavits that were filed by Mr. Armstrong, were there any documents attached to them?
A The Armstrong affidavits?
1169
THE COURT: In this lawsuit?
THE WITNESS: No they are in other lawsuits.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Any documents that you claim are from the sealed documents under seal in this court?
A I’d have to see them to be able to testify today, but you asked me what information came to me from my client wherein they suspected that Gerald Armstrong had documents and that was some of the information that I had received from my client. To verify I’d have to look at it and see it, make a comparison, stuff like that.
Q But presently you can’t identify one document attached to any affidavit of Gerald Armstrong; is that correct?
A Well I said in the Ron DeWolfe affidavit which you filed in the Burden case, I believe it was July 1st, was the date you filed it. I think it was executed earlier than that in June. There was attached a piece of paper which I believe the original of that paper or a copy is in those sealed things, but I can easily verify that.
Q Did you hear the question?
A I, thought I did. I tried to answer it.
Q Let me try it again.
Can you presently identify one document attached to an affidavit of Gerald Armstrong in the summer of 1982?
A Very good.
Q That you claim comes from the sealed documents?
A There was no documents that were attached.
1170
Q And did you infer from the affidavit that Mr. Armstrong had possession of documents because he recited contents of the documents in the affidavit, Mr. Peterson?
A Well, if you read the affidavit carefully, Mr. Flynn, you’ll see that he has a remarkable memory. And he actually sets off the contents as if he was giving exact quotes.
I am not saying that there was anything attached. I am just giving you the answer to your question which was items of information that were given to me by my client which caused us to suspect and therefore we went out and hired a lawful private investigative firm to do a lawful investigation.
Q Well, Mr. Peterson, you would agree, would you not, per your prior testimony that Mr. Garrison had possession of documents that are presently under seal in this court; is that correct?
A There has been testimony to that effect.
Q Did you find out whether Mr. Armstrong quoted materials from documents that were in Mr. Garrison’s possession at the time that he did the affidavit?
A What I did at the time, after I had received exhibit 19 from Mr. Armstrong, is that I hired private investigators to do an investigation. I myself at that time was not conducting an investigation.
Q When you received the letter dated June 9th from Mr. Armstrong, which has been marked as exhibit 19, did you note that he stated that he didn’t acquire any documents
1171
while in the employ of your client the Church of Scientology of California?A I read that.
Q And you are aware, are you not, and you became aware in early August or late July 1982 from correspondence from me that Mr. Armstrong has continually claimed that he worked for L. Ron Hubbard; are you not?
A Without reading your letter, I am not sure that you made the claim in the letter. I am sure you did. You don’t miss a chance. But I do recall something to that effect.
Q And what portion of the private investigative fees are you claiming damages for after I informed you that Mr. Armstrong was claiming that he worked for L. Ron Hubbard and not for your client?
A All of them.
Q How many came after — strike that.
What amount came after August 1, 1982, Mr. Peterson?
A Well, without sitting down with a calculator and these bills, I couldn’t give you an exact number.
I would say a great majority of it came after August 1. That much, I can tell you, if that is okay.
Q What amount came after the documents had been surrendered to the court by myself and Contos & Bunch?
A The last bill I have, which appears to be the last dated bill is for September 10th.
As I recall the court order, they were supposed
1172
to be returned by September 3rd; however, your three boxes didn’t arrive for several weeks. So this investigation was concluded shortly after your boxes arrived about a couple of weeks late.Q Now, during the course of the investigation did you receive any information from your private investigators that Mr. Armstrong was claiming that they were harassing him?
A That they were claiming –
Q That Mr. Armstrong was claiming that he was being harassed by these private investigators?
A I think there was some indication that Mr. Armstrong might have been making that claim.
Q Did you order your private investigators to conduct loose surveillance or close surveillance?
A I’m not sure I understand the difference.
1173
Q Did you order your private investigators to sit outside Mr. Armstrong’s bedroom windows 24 hours a day?
A I sure hope they didn’t. I didn’t order it.
Q You hope they didn’t?
A No. The purpose of it was not to have Mr. Armstrong know that he was being surveilled. It was our plan that they stay as far out of sight, as far away as they possibly could so he wouldn’t note that they were there. Otherwise, it would have been a useless surveillance.
Q Now, you have seen photographs that Mr. Armstrong has submitted to the court in this case; is that correct?
A No, I haven’t.
Q But your hope is that they didn’t sit outside his bedroom window 24 hours a day?
A They did not sit outside his bedroom window 24 hours a day.
Q Did they sit outside his bedroom window at all?
A Well, what do you consider “outside his bedroom window”?
Do you mean within three feet of the house or a mile?
Q Within 10 feet.
A Within 10 feet. Did they sit out there?
A I have no indication of that. That was never reported to me.
Q Now, you testified that you did not write a letter to Mr. Garrison demanding the return of any documents; is that correct?
1174
A That is correct.
Q Did you ever write such a letter?
A Did I?
Q Correct.
A No.
MR. FLYNN: May I have a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Peterson, at any time around the period that the present lawsuit was brought did you contact the Los Angeles Police Department to seek the issuance of a criminal complaint against Mr. Armstrong?
MR. LITT: Objection. What is the relevance of this?
Is there anything improper about that? Does it go to the reasonableness of the damages?
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know. I will sustain the objection.
MR. FLYNN: I submit, Your Honor, it goes to Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind having been accused of theft on April 22, 1982 and then hiring me as an attorney and then being threatened with a criminal prosecution in this case.
THE COURT: Well, if it becomes relevant, you can recall Mr. Peterson in your case. At this point it seems to me it is outside the scope, laboring a little bit on the subject.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Peterson, can you identify the person in early May 1982 who gave you information that Mr. Armstrong possessed documents belonging to the Church of Scientology of California?
1175
A The person — there may have been two. Not with any certainty. I heard information from a variety of sources, I think.
1176
Q Do you know who Andrew Lenarcic is?
A Yes.
Q Did you prepare this declaration to obtain a temporary restraining order in this case?
A No.
Q Do you know who did?
A No.
Q Do you know where Andrew Lenarcic is, Mr. Peterson?
A Today?
Q Today.
A No.
Q Do you know whether he is still a member of the church?
MR. HARRIS: This is way beyond the scope of direct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Redirect?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. You may step down.
MR. HARRIS: With the exception of the Garrison deposition, Your Honor, we would be pretty much prepared to rest.
MR. LITT: We have to make a review of what we want to move into evidence.
THE COURT: Why don’t we just figure on reading the deposition into the record, then, tomorrow morning? I can
1177
guess we can start in the beginning –You wanted to put it all in, didn’t you, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor.
I would offer the entire thing.
THE COURT: Let’s let the whole thing in, then. Make plans to read it. One can read — one can be the questioner; one can be the answerer. If you get tired, switch and other people can join you.
MR. HARRIS: We’ll provide somebody to be the readers, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: When we read the deposition of Mr. Armstrong into the record and certain answers to interrogatories in discovery matters, does the court wish us to lodge all the originals of those things?
THE COURT: There is no necessity at this point. It is read into the record; the reporters have made a transcript of it.
MR. LITT: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(At 3:55 p.m. an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, May 9, 1984 at 9:30 a.m.)