Reporters' Daily Transcript (May 3, 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
Thursday, May 3, 1984
VOLUME 4
Pages 431 - 597
APPEARANCES: (See Appearances page.) |
NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644 HERB CANNON, CSR #1923 Official Reporters |
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 |
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 3
I N D E X
Day | Date | Session | Page |
Thursday | May 3, 1984 | A.M. | 431 |
P.M. | 506 |
W I T N E S S E S
PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES: | DIRECT | CROSS | REDIRECT | RECROSS |
KEIR, Donald | 485 | 492 | ||
BOWMAN, William L. | 494 | 502 | 504 | |
MORROW, James L. | 506 | 518 | 540 | |
VORM, Tom | 542 | 567 |
EXHIBITS
PLAINTIFF’S | IDENTIFIED | RECEIVED |
1 - Letter from L. Ron Hubbard | 486 | |
2 - Exemplar Card | 487 | 492 |
3 - Exemplar Card | 487 | 492 |
4 - Comparison Letter | 499 | 504 |
5 - Comparison Letter | 499 | 504 |
6 - Vouchers | 511 | 514 |
7 - Letter, Advanced Organization, St. Hill | 515 | 541 |
8 - | 515 | 541 |
9 - | 515 | 541 |
10 - Letter dated 12-11-79 | 547 | 556 |
11 - Document dated 6 Jan ‘80 | 552 | 555 |
12 - Chart | 554 | |
DEFENSE: | ||
A - Trust deed | 536 | |
B - Petition | 571 | 571 |
431
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1984; 9:15 A.M.
-o0o-
THE COURT: Good morning, Counsel.
MR. LITT: Good morning.
MR. HARRIS: Good morning.
MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Good morning.
MR. FLYNN: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Plaintiff ready to proceed?
MR. LITT: Yes, we are, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well –
MR. HARRIS: I should introduce myelf. I am Robert N. Harris, H-a-r-r-i-s, and I have been associated
in representing the Church of Scientology of California.
THE COURT: All right. Defense ready to proceed?
MR. FLYNN: We are, Your Honor.
We filed a motion for costs which we are not going to present at the present time.
432
THE COURT: I have read and considered the motion. I am not going to rule on it at this time. I’ll simply it off calendar — on second thought, I won’t put it off calendar. I’ll deny it without prejudice. I’m not disposed to do that.
All right. Who is going to be the counsel in presenting this thing for the plaintiff? Let’s try to get our act organized.
MR. LITT: It will vary, Your Honor. For purposes of the opening, I’ll present an opening on behalf of both plaintiffs. Our plan with respect to direct, one of the other counsel will present the direct on this particular witness.
THE COURT: The lawyer that conducts the direct will be the only lawyer that will be permitted to object on cross-examination or argue to the court on rulings. I don’t want a triumverate of lawyers arguing each objection for one side or the other. It is the same rule for the defense as well.
MR. LITT: That is fine with one exception that I would like to make clear, Your Honor. One of the reasons there is separate counsel for the church and Mrs. Hubbard is we feel the way the case is framed, there are separate issues that apply to each. We’ll designate one counsel for each plaintiff to act. And we’ll not — essentially the person who handles the direct will be the main lawyer on the plaintiff’s side to take responsibility for that. But I don’t want to be precluded or have Mr. Harris precluded from being able to act with respect to the particular client that is being represented on a matter that comes up. That is
433
all.MR. FLYNN: I would like to raise one point on procedure: In terms of presentation of the evidence, it is my understanding that the plaintiff should go first; present its case and then the intervenor should proceed and present her case.
THE COURT: I’ll let the plaintiffs — much of this evidence would overlap anyway. I don’t really see that we should try to departmentalize the evidence. I’ll let the plaintiff present their evidence as they see fit.
Are you going to be conducting the examination of witnesses, Mr. Flynn?
434
MR. FLYNN: I am, Your Honor. What I had in mind, maybe to clarify a little more, in other words, rather than the plaintiff proceed, the defendant conduct the cross, the intervenor proceed and the defendant conduct the cross, I was wondering what the court had in mind?
Is the plaintiff going to proceed with the witnesses, then the intervenor examine the witnesses and then me?
THE COURT: Yes. If there is to be more than one –
MR. LITT: On direct that is not a problem, Your Honor.
We don’t intend to have Mr. Harris do a direct and then me do another direct or a cross or whatever. So that is not a problem.
Obviously on cross-examination of Mr. Flynn’s witnesses, depending on the circumstances, both counsel for the plaintiffs may examine at that stage, but in terms of our case that is not our intention.
THE COURT: If you are going to call the witness, Mr. Litt, then you can conduct your examination, and I will ask Mr. Harris if he has any additional questions he wants to elicit on direct examination at this point because the interests are basically allied, and than defense will have an opportunity to cross-examine, and there will be rebuttal.
Are you going to be –
MR. FLYNN: I am, Your Honor. I will conduct the entire trial unless I am called as a witness, in which event Miss Dragojevic will conduct that part of the trial when I am on the witness stand.
435
THE COURT: What about these exhibits which have been identified by the parties as exhibits they, at least initially intend to use in this trial; are they up here? Shouldn’t we order these up here now at this time so we have them available or are we going to be needing them?
MR. FLYNN: I think they should be brought up.
MR. LITT: It remains our intention, your Honor, not to introduce any documents that are under seal, at least until such time as that court has admitted them by the defendant over our objection. The court is obviously aware of the reasons for that, so we don’t see the necessity of them at this time, at least.
I don’t know, I suppose Mr. Flynn may try to open the door from the beginning by trying to bring them in through our witnesses.
THE COURT: Well, that may be cross-examination.
I don’t know. With reference to some of these exhibits, I don’t know.
MR. FLYNN: There will be, Your Honor.
THE COURT: In what form have these been seprated out from the bulk of the documents? Are they in a separate box now?
MR. FLYNN: They are.
THE COURT: Both the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ additional, are they in envelopes as I understand it or something?
MR. FLYNN: They are segregated by plaintiff and by defendant, and at the end of the day yesterday, I believe, the
436
plaintiff was in one box and the defendant was in another.THE COURT: Let’s order those exhibits brought up.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, has the defendant prepared an exhibit list of the exhibits that have been designated?
(Mr. Flynn hands document to Mr. Litt.)
THE COURT: Have you got a copy for me and for the clerk?
MS. DRAGOJEVIC: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, the clerk wants a copy obviously and I should have a copy.
FLYNN: We will make another, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: Do you want them all?
THE COURT: I just want the ones that both sides have identified as ones they propose to use, possibly use.
MR. FLYNN: We may not offer all of those, Your Honor. We pulled the ones that we thought were relevant to the issues in the case.
THE COURT: I don’t understand what you have done here. I am with you up to double Z and then you have got 3-A, 3-B, 3-C.
MR. FLYNN: In terms of since we were assigned the letter system, we would have had to go to four A’s and then put four A’s in a row on a piece of paper, so rather than put four A’s, we put 4 dash A.
THE COURT: Oh, I see. It is triple A.
The clerk can worry about that, I guess.
What about the plaintiff; did you prepare a list?
437
MR. LITT: There’s already been one submitted, Your Honor. It is no different. We submitted a separate list of sealed documents, separate frown our regular exhibit list.
Now, the numbers that the court has on those, they are just sequentially numbered. My suggestion would be that any such sealed documents begin instead of with 1, with 101 and then we will have from 1 to 100.
THE COURT: That is all right.
MR. FLYNN: There is one other procedural matter, Your Honor.
One of the first pieces of evidence that we will introduce is the letter from Mr. Hubbard. That is presently in the court file. The original, I don’t believe, is up here.
We can either proceed with a copy, if that is agreeable to the court and the defendant or we can order the original up, but the court will have to do that.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, we are prepared to litigate the issue of its admissibility in terms of the availability of Mr. Hubbard. We are in the process of subpoenaing a witness who we think will be pretty much able to provide the court conclusive evidence of Mr. Hubbard’s availability so as to make the document inadmissible. If the court was going to take it de bene and until we had the opportunity to put on our evidence with regard to his availability, that is a possible point of procedure. But we would object to its admissibility at this point in time if for no other reason on the grounds of the availability of Mr. Hubbard.
438
MR. LITT: Your Honor, at this point –
MR. HARRIS: Excuse me, Your Honor. Mr. Flynn used a word which I didn’t understand which was “de bene.” Is that a legal word that Your Honor is familiar with?
THE COURT: No, I wasn’t sure.
MR. FLYNN: In Massachusetts it is accepting evidence that during the pendency of the trial temporarily to be ruled on at the end of the trial as to whether it is finally admitted into evidence.
439
THE COURT: Well, we can order up the original if we can identify it.
Has it been marked in some other proceeding?
Has Judge Cole specially marked it?
MR. LITT: Judge Cole, as far as I know, just ordered it placed in the file. The date of it is February, ‘83, to the extent that that helps find where it is.
I have been informed that it is being held specially by the clerk.
THE COURT: We can order it specially brought up here alone with the other exhibits.
I don’t think we should get started until we get these exhibits up here and see what order they are in so that the clerk can get an opportunity to see how we can handle these up here at least mechanically.
Were you going to make an opening statement, gentlemen?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Let’s take our recess until we get these exhibits up here.
(Recess.)
440
THE COURT: All right. In the case on trial, let the record reflect that all counsel are present.
The record should reflect that apparently all the exhibits identified by the parties are now in court and are available to the parties if and when there is a request for such.
Do the plaintiffs desire to make an opening statement?
MR. LITT: Yes.
THE COURT: You may do so, Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I hope to make this opening statement brief. One advantage of having waived a jury is that I don’t have to explain to the court, obviously, how some of the evidence works. But I do want to summarize for the court the evidence that we’ll present which will establish that Mr. Armstrong has committed the torts which we have claimed in the complaint and which will establish that we are entitled to receive back the originals and copies of all of the materials presently under seal.
441
This case can be described in a brief way as a story of the betrayal of a sacred trust held by Gerald Armstrong who was entrusted by the Church of Scientology to care for the very private papers and archives held by the church, mainly composed of the private papers of L. Ron Hubbard, also of many private papers of Mary Sue Hubbard and of the church itself.
It is the story of how Mr. Armstrong took these papers, many originals and copies of these papers, gave then to Michael Flynn for the purpose of using them to attack the Hubbards, to invade their privacy, and in an effort to discredit by using their most personal and private materials.
L. Ron Hubbard, as the court is aware, is the revered founder of the religion of Scientology, and within Scientology he is revered as the man who has developed the religion which is followed by millions of people around the world.
He and Mary Sue Hubbard, who is present in court today with us, have been married for over 30 years. Mr. Hubbard presently is in seclusion. His whereabouts are not known. He has been in seclusion for the past four years and he is not personally available.
For many years Mary Sue Hubbard held a post within the Church of Scientology known as the controller post, and I will explain that more. I just want to briefly cover the parties and the actors so that we are all clear on who they are.
442
The Church of Scientology of California, which is the other plaintiff along with Mrs. Hubbard, is a religious corporation which was founded in 1954 and bases itself upon the philosophy and religious views of L. Ron Hubbard.
It is that church of which Mr. Armstrong was a staff member for the period when he held the post of archivist. When Mr. Armstrong held that post, he believed in Scientology, was a dedicated member of the Church of Scientology. Later after he left the church, he went and obtained copies of the materials that he had gathered as I have described.
Michael Flynn, although not a party of this action, is an important actor in the action. Mr. Flynn is involved in extensive litigation throughout the United States in suing Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard.
443
He is the man to whom Mr. Armstrong gave these private papers. He gave them to him so that Mr. Flynn could use them in the way that I described previously, in an antagonistic way.
Mr. Flynn is a self-described antagonist of the church and of the Hubbards. And Mr. Flynn has millions of dollars at stake in this litigation. He represents plaintiffs who are suing for many millions of dollars.
The act of giving these materials to Mr. Flynn was in furtherance of an effort to use these — to gain these millions.
The documents themselves which are under seal, which are the subject of this action, encompass approximately 8- to l0,000 pages. There are many private materials, including letters between Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard, letters between Mr. Hubbard and his first two wives, letters between Mr. Hubbard and his parents, letters from his parents to Mr. Hubbard, and to Mrs. Hubbard, and material relating to Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard’s children; a premarital agreement between Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard; private journals and diaries; letters to attorneys; internal church matters, business correspondence, and a variety of other personal and private materials.
The archives from which these materials came have a value that in straight economic terms — which is not their only value from the church’s and from the Hubbard’s point of view — that is in the millions of dollars.
The materials taken have a value that is in the
444
hundreds of thousands of dollars including an original unpublished manuscript carbon which by itself has a value which is hard to calculate which is a book called Excalibur which is legendary within Scientology and has never been published and considered the first writing of Mr. Hubbard on the subject of the spirit.Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard were married in 1952. And the story of these materials in some ways begins when they packed up materials at the time that they were living in Washington D.C. which was in approximately 1959; the Hubbards moved around a great deal.
In 1959 they left the United States and went abroad. At this point Mrs. Hubbard personally packed the private possessions that she and her husband had collected over the years including many materials which were her husband’s from prior to their marriage. These were stored in Washington D.C. and they were stored there for some 17 years or so until the middle to late ’70’s when the materials were moved from the storage to Church of Scientology facilities; subsequently to facilities called Gilman Hot Springs.
They were stored in areas that were known as private storage of the Hubbards. It was called R storage, R referring to Ron, Mr. Hubbard. Not only did it have the various — many of the various private materials that I have described, it had furniture, clothing, and a whole range of private possessions of all types that were maintained there. That is the origin of one of the sets of materials under seal as I’ll further describe.
445
In addition there is a set of materials that runs from the mid 1960’s to the 1970’s that were gathered up from England. These mere materials of a similar nature, private materials of the Hubbards that had been gathered over the years that they had spent primarily in England.They were eventually brought aboard a ship called the Apollo which was a ship that the Hubbards and many Scientologist spent several years on. These materials at the time that the ship finally stopped sailing, which was in approximately 1975, they were brought from the ship and was stored with the church under Mrs. Hubbard’s direct control.
These materials were what is known as the controller’s archives, as I mentioned before.
Mrs. Hubbard held the Scientology post of controller which is not a financial position as one might think in terms of determining corporations, that it was a post that involved coordinating external affairs and the internal management of the churches. There are many private materials from these controller archives, many originals which have ended up before the court. And in addition, there are a variety of materials from other files, personal files maintained within various church organizations concerning the Hubbards.
Mr. Armstrong joined Scientology in 1969. And he held a variety of positions which I will not detail except to say that in early 1980 he sought the post to gather up materials relating to Mr. Hubbard.
446
He requested within the church apparatus and within the Scientology structure that he be permitted to hold this post and he was assigned to this post. The function of this post was to gather and preserve materials relating to Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Armstrong set about gathering up materials, many of which I have already described. These materials were, in fact, we will demonstrate not known to Mrs. Hubbard and from what we can determine to Mr. Hubbard to, in fact, be taken by anyone. Mrs. Hubbard, who was supposed to be told about activities relating to her and her husband’s storage, was not informed that Mrs. Hubbard — I am sorry, that Mr. Armstrong was gathering the private and personal materials that had been stored by them over the years, nor would she have given her permission for Mr. Armstrong to do so.
Nonetheless we would not contend that within the church this was not known and we do not contend that what Mr. Armstrong did in and of itself in taking the materials and gathering them was wrongful. Mr. Armstrong put these materials together at a Church of Scientology facility at what is called the Cedars Complex which is where they were moved to. He gathered up the materials from Gilman Hot Springs, some 25-or-so boxes. He moved them to church facilities at the Cedars Complex. He organized them. He took extreme precautions to maintain their confidentiality, their security and their safety. He was provided church moneys to do so. He was provided church moneys to purchase
447
additional materials for these archives which he expended.He put these materials and organized them into various binders. The doors were always locked. It was extremely difficult to get access. Normal church staff members could not have access to this. Only a very small number of people could have access because it was recognized that these were private and confidential papers and that they were very valuable papers and that they were to be treated with the greatest care.
Approximately sometime in late 1980 or in early 1981 Mr. Armstrong got from the controller’s archives a small number of materials with Mrs. Hubbard’s approval. These controller’s archives were materials for which there was an archivist in charge of them who will testify, and he had been informed by Mrs. Hubbard that in these materials, which had come from the ships originally and then had been added to their, were what were rightfully archive materials and there were also personal materials that were not rightfully archive materials that were personal storage materials.
Mr. Armstrong sought to obtain some materials for what Mrs. Hubbard thought was a museum, materials of historical interest because there was a plan to develop a museum concerning Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Armstrong contacted the archivist who was in charge of the controller’s archives whose name was Tom Vorm and requested some materials.
Mr. Vorm sent to Mrs. Hubbard a list of the
448
materials and the materials themselves for her personal review to determine whether or not they had been provided to Mr. Armstrong. After she reviewed them, Mrs. Hubbard approved those and, as the court will see, the list of those materials are materials of the type that would be of use to a museum or of general historical interest.In the same time frame, approximately in the fall of 1980, a contract concerning a biography of L. Ron Hubbard was entered into. This contract was entered into between a corporation called AOSH-DK which was a Scientology — not a Church of Scientology of California corporation, but a Scientology corporation located in Denmark, and Omar Garrison who was to be the biographer.
This biography project and the contract setting it up included the fact that the biography to be drafted by Mr. Garrison was subject to the approval of the publisher, and it was the understanding of the parties that that would include submission to Mr. Hubbard and to Mrs. Hubbard for review and approval. If the biography was not satisfactory, there was a provision that the book would not be published and Mr. Garrison would be paid a certain amount of money if an agreement could not be reached as to what the text of the biography should be and what should be in it and what should not be in it. The biography contract contained a clause that in writing the biography, there shall be no invasion of anyone’s privacy.
Now, after this Denmark corporation entered into this agreement, it contacted the Church of Scientology of
449
California because part of the terms of the contract, which by the way Mrs. Hubbard was generally aware of, she was not involved in any negotiations but she was kept apprised of what was going on in general with respect to the contract. The Denmark company, the AOSH-DK Denmark corporation had agreed that it would make an effort to provide various previously unavailable materials concerning Mr. Hubbard and provide a research assistant and an office for Mr. Garrison to work out of.A letter was then written to the Church of Scientology of California requesting that the the Church of Scientology of California provide an office and provide a researcher. The Church of Scientology of California agreed and passed a Board minute pursuant to that agreement.
Mr. Armstrong was then assigned by the Church of Scientology of California to assist Mr. Garrison. Indeed it was contemplated even before that that Mr. Armstrong would assist Mr. Garrison if the biography, in fact, developed.
He proceeded to copy many materials from the materials that he had gathered and provide them to Mr. Garrison. He provided these to Mr. Garrison on a confidential basis. That is Mr. Garrison’s testimony. That is Mr. Armstrong’s testimony. He considered the materials extremely private. In fact, Mr. Garrison describes the materials; he said that if he had to give a one-line description, they would be the private papers of L. Ron Hubbard.
The materials which Mr. Armstrong eventually
450
provided included not only materials of Mr. Hubbard but also materials of Mrs. Hubbard’s end of the church. These materials were given to Mr. Garrison for one purpose and one purpose only, for use in drafting the biography and for no other purpose. Both Mr. Garrison and Mr. Armstrong attest to that.450 [sic]
Mr. Armstrong concedes that his sole authority as he perceived it was to compile the archives and provide materials to Mr. Garrison and that he had no authority to do anything else with them.
We’ll show that these materials that he gathered up, that there were policies with respect to how to handle them; that originals could not be removed; although Mr. Armstrong in fact did so. And we’ll show that it was the understanding of all of the parties and every person who is before the court and every party that had anything to do with any of these transactions that these materials were completely private; that they would be returned at the end of Mr. Garrison’s work on the biography; that Mr. Armstrong had no right to them and that the whole biography relationship was based on a long working relationship of some 10 years in which, as Mr. Garrison described it, there was a high degree of mutual trust based upon this prior working relationship.
Literally tens and tens of thousands of pages of these private materials were provided by Mr. Armstrong to Mr. Garrison, most of it from the Hubbard’s private files; included in them were materials that Mr. Armstrong obtained after Mrs. Hubbard had left her Scientology post of controller. Mrs. Hubbard left that post some time in the middle of 1981. And the controller archives, which contained both materials relating to the subjects of Scientology and
Dianetics, archives that were lodged with Mr. Vorm which were taped materials and handwritten manuscript materials of Mr. Hubbard as well as these materials that I have described
451
remained there. Mr. Armstrong sought from Mr. Vorm that these materials be given to him. He said they were urgently needed for the biography.Mr. Vorm was most reluctant to give them to him. He attempted, but was unable to reach Mrs. Hubbard.
He then inquired of the person who held the post of controller that Mrs. Hubbard had previously held and he was told to provide them to Mr. Armstrong and he did so; although with many things, he still refused to provide the original copies and only provided Xerox copies.
He was assured by Mr. Armstrong that these materials would not be used in a way that would violate the privacy of them and that Mr. Garrison needed them to review, but that there should be no concern about using them in a way that would intrude into the Hubbard’s privacy.
So they were given to him. Many of the originals which are under seal with this court come from those material which Mr. Armstrong obtained after Mrs. Hubbard was no longer acting as the controller.
In approximately December of 1981 Mr. Armstrong reached a decision to leave the Church of Scientology. According to his testimony, he reached that decision by approximately December 1st.
For the next 12 days he engaged in an extraordinary range of activities of copying as many materials as he could to provide to Mr. Garrison. And in a 12-day period of December 1 to December 12, he flooded Mr. Garrison with thousands of pages of additional materials.
452
When Mr. Armstrong left there was at that time many originals which either was taken by his at that time or which he bad gives to Mr. Garrison — it is not completely clear — but which originals were never permitted to have been given to Mr. Garrison for, among other reasons, their extraordinary value and the fact that Mr. Armstrong’s function was to gather up originals, not to give anybody else the originals.
After Mr. Armstrong left the church in December, 1981 he continued to have contact with Mr. Garrison. And he continued to have access to these materials. And he, apparently, had many of then with him in his possession.
In early May, 1982, without discussing the matter with Mr. Garrison, Mr. Armstrong went to Clearwater, Florida and met with Michael Flynn.
He took with him an original letter from Mrs. Hubbard to Mr. Hubbard from the early 1950’s which we do not intend to introduce into evidence, but which Mr. Armstrong has ascribed as a particularly personal letter. And this was one of the documents that he took to show to Mr. Flynn at that time.
Mr. Flynn was shown the letter and he read the letter.
Mr. Flynn paid for Mr. Armstrong’s trip to Clearwater, Florida.
At the same time Mr. Armstrong told Mr. Flynn about the archives materials and what was in them.
Within a period of approximately three weeks,
453
Mr. Flynn came to Los Angeles to the Bonaventure Hotel and he there met with Armstrong again.
In the interim Mr. Armstrong, after returning from Clearwater, went to Mr. Garrison and persuaded Mr. Garrison to let him have copies of many materials from these archives which had been provided originally to Mr. Garrison by Mr. Armstrong when he was acting for the church on the archives post.
He told Mr. Garrison that he needed the documents for evidence, although there was no suit against him by anyone.
In his first conversation with Mr. Garrison on this subject he requested letters between Mr. Hubbard and his first wife, letters between Mr. Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard and naval records of Mr. Hubbard. He made copies of these materials.
He met with Mr. Flynn; he provided him at the meeting at the Bonaventure Hotel — he brought him approximately 1,000 pages of materials; then copied them and sent them to him.
454
The court should recall, of course, that this is not going to seek the advice of any lawyer. This is going to seek the advice or to provide materials, which is the real situation, to the attorney in the United States who is more active in litigation against various Church of Scientology and against the Hubbards than any other lawyer in the country.
Mr. Armstrong, when he went to see Mr. Flynn, knew that Mr. Flynn represented a variety of plaintiffs. He agreed with Mr. Flynn that he would act as a witness for Mr. Flynn. He agreed that Mr. Flynn could use the materials that he was providing in his other litigation. Mr. Armstrong prepared affidavits for use in suits in which he reviewed and used the private materials that he had not taken originals or copies of and given to Mr. Flynn, and when he did all of this by his own testimony he did not believe that it was pursuant to the conditions under which he had been permitted to gather them up.
In the course of the next approximately three months or so Mr. Armstrong sent to Michael Flynn approximately 3,000 pages of original materials, sent to Contos & Bunch approximately 2,000 pages of original materials and sent thousands of other copies of materials as well. He was clearly engaged in a systematic gathering up of materials. He had free access to Mr. Garrison’s materials which he would go into and copy what he wanted and send on to Mr. Flynn or toward the end also to Contos & Bunch.
The church made reasonable efforts to inquire of Mr. Armstrong as to whether he was engaging in this
455
improper conduct. John Peterson, an attorney for the church, sent a letter to Mr. Armstrong asking that he return anything that had been taken while he was a church employee. Mr. Armstrong responded that there was nothing, although the materials under seal are original materials which Mr. Armstrong had in his possession which were ultimately delivered to the church and which come from the archives as originals.In addition, there were numerous copies. In Mr. Armstrong’s response he said nothing about the fact that he had been copying materials or taking materials from Mr. Garrison.
The church, concerned about the situation and concerned about whether or not either originals or copies of the archives materials had been taken, set about a reasonable course of retaining private investigators through Mr. Peterson and others to engage in surveillance of Mr. Armstrong in an effort to determine whether or not he had archives materials which he was not entitled to. The surveillance was extensive and involved substantial expense suffered by the church in an effort to recover its property.
Ultimately, as the court is aware, a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction was issued and the materials which are now under seal were returned pursuant to court order from the firms of Michael Flynn and Contos & Bunch. The order required that all materials or copies of materials from the archives be provided to the court.
456
Mrs. Hubbard learned of this whole affair only after the court suit itself had begun. She was not aware that any of this had occurred. She was quite upset to hear that hers and her husband’s private materials were being gathered up and extremely upset to hear that Mr. Armstrong, whom she had known, had not only gone into her private storage but more to the point, then sent these materials to Mr. Flynn.
At this time the relationship of Mr. Garrison to this whole matter had been resolved. Mr. Garrison and the publishing company with whom he originally entered into a contract or successor to that contract actually, entered into a settlement agreement. In that settlement agreement Mr. Garrison agreed that he was not going to publish a book. He returned all materials from the archives that he had and he forgave any possessory claim that he may have had or presently had with respect to any other materials that had been provided to him in connection with his biography research.
457
The court is aware that Mr. Hubbard, who is not available, has sent a letter expressing his wishes that these materials be returned to the custody of the church. We’ll authenticate that letter and show that it is a genuine letter from Mr. Hubbard.
The materials themselves are of such a range that any description hardly begins to give a comprehension of just how extensive and how private both from the point of view of the Hubbards personally and from the point of view of the church because many of the materials relate to internal church matters or Scientology matters.
There are under seal letters from the mid-1960s; many letters from Mrs. Hubbard to Mr. Hubbard and some from Mr. Hubbard to Mrs. Hubbard; materials relating to the tragic death of one of the sons of the Hubbards that Mr. Armstrong sent to Mr. Flynn.
There is a pre-marital agreement which had never been even discussed with other people which Mr. Armstrong sent.
There are letters from the Hubbards’ parents and Mr. Hubbard and Mrs. Hubbard, extensive correspondence between Mr. Hubbard and his first two wives and private financial materials relating to that; extremely personal journals kept by Mr. Hubbard which speak to his innermost thoughts and which are part of the early bodies of self-research in the development of Scientology and Dianetics which have not been published and which he has never provided to anyone until Mr. Armstrong took them and gave
458
them to Mr. Flynn; Naval records obtained and put in the archives; unpublished manuscripts of extraordinary value which Mr. Hubbard had never indicated should be published; tax and financial records of the Hubbards; wills, correspondence with friends, correspondence with Scientologists, correspondence with business associates, correspondence with attorneys; records of attorney-client conferences. The list goes on and on. And one could spend an hour describing the range of these materials which were taken.Hence, we’ll establish from the evidence that we present that Mr. Armstrong was a church employee who had access to the private and confidential material of the Hubbards and the church; that after leaving, knowing their privacy, knowing their confidentiality, he wrongfully went and obtained them for unauthorized purposes which he knew to be unauthorized, but in fact which were not only unauthorized, but hostile; that he took materials that he had no right to have at that point; that he had no right to have access to; that he took them, sent them to an individual antagonistic of the Hubbards and the church and did so for antagonistic reasons and in furtherance of his scheme of collecting multi-million dollar damage claims; that he used the materials to prepare documents in other cases than his own case and gave the same permission to Mr. Flynn to do so; that he was not entitled to do any of this and that any claim he makes to justify his conduct — we’ll not address factually those issues in this opening
459
statement — but we’ll say that any claim that he makes to justify his conduct will be shown to be misleading and false and which cannot be shown to justify his conduct in any way, shape, or form.In reality, what this conduct comes down to is the act of voyeurs pouring through the private lives of other people to find any and everything they can to spread about them in an effort to discredit them in order to collect through lawsuits large amounts of money; that it will be shown that this supposed justification defense that the defendant presents will come down to nothing but self-serving vigilanteism of the worst kind.
In short, we’ll show that Mr. Armstrong converted these materials for his own use; that he enormously invaded the privacy of Mrs. Hubbard, Mr. Hubbard and the church and that he breached confidences that he had been given and that he completely, disloyally, and without justification breached his fiduciary obligation to both the church and the Hubbards to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of the archives materials.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, did you have anything you wanted to add?
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Litt was so eloquent, Your Honor, I’ll waive.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, do you wish to make an opening statement at this time?
MR. FLYNN: I will, Your Honor.
Before doing so, I would like to briefly review
460
my motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensible parties. I’ll be very, very brief.The indispensible parties are the corporations that Mr. Litt referred to, AOSH-DK Publications of Denmark; New Era Publications which he did not mention, but which Your Honor is going to find is one of the most significant parties in this lawsuit. And the most significant party, without doubt, is L. Ron Hubbard.
Mr. Litt told the court that final approval for the entire biography project was predicated and given to L. Ron Hubbard.
This court has no way of knowing how to dispose of the interests in this lawsuit, the rights, liabilities, and duties of any of the parties to this lawsuit without Mr. Hubbard coming forth and giving testimony as to what those rights, liabilities and duties are within the context of the contracts and, specifically, the final biography project with regard to Mr. Garrison was predicated upon Mr. Hubbard’s approval.
Since that is the unassailable fact that was admitted by Mr. Litt, there is no evidence and there will be no evidence before this court that Garrison didn’t properly maintain possession of the documents and could have published them on his own; disseminated them across the United States on his own, given them to people like Mr. Armstrong; given them to anyone he wanted as well as published them in the book. That final approval lay with Mr. Hubbard.
461
Mr. Hubbard is not before the court. He is an indispensible party before the court.
There is a document under seal which specifically states that Mr. Garrison has the right to use the documents; create video tapes and promotional material prior to even publishing the biography; to travel throughout the world and publish the biography.
Since the one unassailable fact admitted by Mr. Litt is that Mr. Hubbard’s approval is required for all of that, it will be impossible, without hearing evidence from either the two corporations or from Mr. Hubbard as to what should have been done with the biographical materials that were collected by Mr. Armstrong, what should have been done with the book and what in the future can be done with the book, with the documents or with Mr. Armstrong’s right to publish the contents of the documents.
462
There are several cases which at the conclusion of the trial we will provide a memorandum to the court. I am again renewing my motion for failure to join an indispensable party. I think that the rights, liabilities and duties in this case are governed by two contracts, two written contracts, only one of which has been introduced, the second of which we will call for production during the trial. All of which require the final approval of Mr. Hubbard and with that I will make my opening statement.
THE COURT: Well, I should rule on your motion, I guess. For the reason previously stated, I will deny your motion without prejudice. You can renew it later on.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, Mr. Litt is correct when he states that this case involves a sacred trust. However, the sacred trust is a trust that Mr. Armstrong owed to himself and a trust that he owed to thousands of people who, together with him, were victimized by L. Ron Hubbard.
It is a sacred trust that is owed to society because of the representations made by L. Ron Hubbard about himself which representations were disseminated and promoted in a very commercial manner to obtain money. Indeed the evidence that the court will see will specifically address the promotion of L. Ron Hubbard as having certain credentials, character, integrity, academic qualifications, military background on which he sold himself to the public, such as Mr. Armstrong, in order to obtain money.
This case does have a certain characteristic that threads through the entire case, and I submit at the
463
close of this evidence Your Honor will see very clearly that these characteristics do not relate to Mr. Hubbard as a founder of a revered religion. They relate to intrigue, greed, misrepresentation, fraud and criminology, criminology and fraud permeated not only Mr. Armstrong’s entire involvement with Mr. Hubbard but begins virtually from the age of 12 with Mr. Hubbard which Mr. Armstrong discovered.That criminality and the lies, written lies within written lies, within written lies, within written lies become self-evident in these documents which will become blatantly clear in testimony of Mr. Armstrong will indicate that the sacred trust that was owed was fulfilled by Mr. Armstrong, not only to himself but to this court and to other Scientologists.
Mr. Litt indicated that the position of Mr. Armstrong would be structured within the position of the church. The court will hear the following evidence: That when Mr. Armstrong joined the Church of Scientology in 1969 he thought be was joining something which was represented to him as not being a religion. In fact, that representation was universally made.
He joined an organization within a short time called the Sea Organization. The evidence which is in the documents and which you will hear from the mouth of Mr. Armstrong is that he went on board a ship which was owned by a succession of for profit corporations, and the for profit corporations are the Hubbard Explorational Corporation, O T S and O T C.
464
The documents under seal will show that the the individuals who worked on the ship worked for Mr. Hubbard in a for profit corporation. In fact, the testimony will be from Mr. Armstrong that in connection with the duties in the port captain’s office on board the ship, he was required to go into each port and tell the people in the port that they were a business corporation called O T C conducting business research in management.
The representations that were universally made from 1970 through 1975 as to who Mr. Armstrong worked for was that he worked for a corporation called Operation Transport Corporation. The documents show it and Mr. Armstrong will so testify.
In fact, he was instructed per written policies to state to whoever asked that he was not connected with the Church of Scientology but he worked for that corporation. Following Operation Transport Corporation he was instructed when they landed in Clearwater, Florida to tell everyone that he worked for an organization called the United Church of Florida.
Following that he was instructed to relate to the public, the press and the media that he worked for an organization called The Friends of Norton Karno doing business research, then it became the Friends of Mr. Snyder’s Uncle.
Eventually these organizations wound there way down to an organization called Author Services Incorporated, which is now a for profit organization which encompasses the people that Mr. Armstrong worked with who are now all earning
465
money, wages doing the identical duties that Mr. Armstrong did for the period of 12 years.The evidence will be that Mr. Armstrong worked in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard. The documents will show that the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard was a for profit undertaking and that Mr. Armstrong and the others were working in Mr. Hubbard’s office were continually told and, in fact, the evidence will be that Mr. Hubbard told then that he worked for them and Laurel Sullivan, Mr. Armstrong’s senior, worked for L. Ron Hubbard and not for the Church of Scientology.
That evidence, I submit to the court, will become critical and there is extensive evidence which I am not going to go into at the present time in order to keep this brief, but that evidence is extensive and it will show fact upon fact upon fact that in the mind of Mr. Armstrong, he always worked for L. Ron Hubbard. In the mind of L. Ron Hubbard, the parties to this contract, Armstrong always worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
Coming up to the biography project, in January 1980 the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, a party in this case, were being investigated by numerous state and federal agencies. In fact –
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to object to this. What is the relevance of that to the issues in this case?
THE COURT: I assume it is preliminary to the reasons why he took these documents, what was done, how it came into his possession.
466
Overruled.
MR. FLYNN: In fact, in July 1977 there was a raid on the premises here is Los Angeles of the Church of Scientology and some 80,000 documents were seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The contents of those documents I won’t go into. They eventually led to the indictment of the 11 highest officials of the Church of Scientology, including Mary Sue Hubbard, and their subsequent conviction.
In January of 1980 the organization was fearful that there was going to be another raid. They were fearful that this raid would tie Hubbard into several operations, including Operation Snow White which was the subject of the indictment of Mary Sue Hubbard. For that reason they mustered between 150 and 250 people. They rented a paper shredder which they designated Igor, and they proceeded to shred some 5- to 600,000 potentially documents. No one knows what the final amount is.
The shredder operated for weeks. They were using five ton trucks.
The evidence will be that the purpose of the shredding operation, which becomes critical evidence in this case, was to one, remove all evidence that connected L. Ron Hubbard to the Church of Scientology, and two, remove all evidence that connected him to the property at Gilman Hot Springs. The evidence will be that under that criteria, the criteria under which the shredding was conducted, the documents should have been shredded. The documents were
467
not shredded because Mr. Armstrong thought at that time they had value as L. Ron Hubbard’s personal documents and private documents.468
For that reason they weren’t shredded. Under the criteria for shredding, they should have been shredded. And that will be the evidence.
Five copies were made of those documents which essentially encompass the documents that are under seal with additions. The value of those documents, the evidence will be, was lost over the next year and a half because of the contents of the documents.
If the documents prove what the Church of Scientology, Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard held out L. Ron Hubbard to be for 30 years and if he was in fact what was set forth in numerous biographical publications about him and his organization of this religion, then they may have had value.
The documents, however, as I indicated at the outset, will reveal precisely the opposite. And they lost during that period of time all their intrinsic value as pieces of paper. And as they lost their intrinsic value as pieces of paper, they gained value with regard to their informational content.
And as the court will see in the presentation of the evidence, it is the content of these documents and the perspective of Mr. Hubbard’s involvement with this organization which is the critical issue before this court and which is the only issue relating to value.
At the outset of the biography project Mr. Armstrong contracted with L. Ron Hubbard by submitting a petition to Mr. Hubbard to collect materials to work on the
469
biography project. There were no restrictions placed upon his collection of the materials; in fact, the evidence will be that over the next year and a half he collected literally hundreds of thousands of pages and that the documents under seal represent probably 2 percent of the documents collected. And, in fact, the evidence will be that of the documents under seal, contrary to Mr. Litt’s representation to the court that Mr. Armstrong scurried around and copied thousands of documents in the last days before he left the organization, of the documents under seal the copying that was done in the last few days probably represents less than 5 percent of the documents that were copied throughout that period of time.The evidence will be that the biography project started and that the mid-1970s; the person most instrumental in the biography project was Laurel Sullivan.
When Mr. Armstrong collected these materials and obtained approval from L. Ron Hubbard, he went to Laurel Sullivan. Laurel Sullivan contacted Mr. Hubbard and the biography project at this point probably became reborn for the third time.
There were two prior occasions when they attempted to do it. The authors found so many discrepancies in the biographical data on L. Ron Hubbard that they were unable to proceed. Now for the third time the project is reborn.
Laurel Sullivan and Armstrong believed they had the documents to support a legitimate biography of L. Ron
470
Hubbard. For that reason a lot of wheels are placed in motion. Contract negotiations began.Contrary to the representations of Mr. Litt, the testimony will be that Mary Sue Hubbard didn’t represent her husband in those contract negotiations, but as she testified in those depositions, she represented the interests of the Church of Scientology.
Contract negotiations began and a written contract was entered into in October of 1980. The contract was entered into between what we called the PDK and Omar Garrison. That contract, we submit, will be one of the most critical pieces of evidence in this case, a provision with regard to whether the documents could be revealed to third parties or disclosed to anyone outside the people who were immediately involved; namely, Gerald Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan and Omar Garrison were specifically excluded from the contract because it would have voided the contract as a violation of public policy under the restatement of contracts and under several cases that have been decided in California.
MR. LITT: May we approach the bench, Your Honor, or I’ll make it here.
I believe — we had a discussion about what information Laurel Sullivan may or may not have given to Mr. Flynn. I don’t know exactly what he is referring to, but if I had to put my money down, it would be that she has been talking to him about advice that she gained from a Church of Scientology staff member — about advice –
471
THE COURT: He is talking about the non-inclusion of something in the contract.
Let’s go forward.
MR. FLYNN: There was a question about Mr. Litt’s association on the –
THE COURT: Let’s go on. Overruled.
472
MR. FLYNN: They specifically did not put that provision in the contract. The defense submits that that is one of the critical items of evidence in this case with regard to the rights and liabilities of Omar Garrison from which Mr. Armstrong got the documents and, in fact, if they had put it in, it would have been void as against public policy.
At the same time that contract was entered into, a contract was entered into between L. Ron Hubbard and PDK with regard to the publication rights in the biography. Under the biography proposals that were negotiated at the time, L. Ron Hubbard was to make $10 million from the publication of this book. The evidence will be that that is a for profit purpose, and Mr. Armstrong was working in connection with that for profit purpose. Under that contract Mr. Hubbard had final approval over every item relating to the biography project. That contract has never been produced.
During the next year and a half, and I won’t go into the misrepresentations, I will simply itemize for the court some of the areas without stating what the evidence will be from the documents at this time in order to obviate Mr. Litt’s objection. Some of the representations that were made about L. Ron Hubbard which became the critical focus for Mr. Armstrong in the collection of the documents are as follows, and as the evidence will be, these became absolutely the fundamental basis upon which most people paid money and joined this organization.
That L. Ron Hubbard was a nuclear physicist.
473
That he was a medical doctor. That he was a scientist.
That he’s the most highly decorated naval hero of World War II. That he served in five theaters. That he was a commander of squadrons of Corvettes.
That he was crippled and blinded from war wounds. That he was twice pronounced medically dead. That he was the first casualty of the Far East.
That he was flown home personally in the Secretary of Navy’s personal airplane. That he received 28 medals and palms.
That he was the subject of “Mr. Roberts.” That he is Mr. Roberts, the subject of the movie. That he served in the amphibious forces in the South Pacific in connection with his “Mr. Roberts” activities on the U.S.S. Algol.
That he was fully healed and reclassified for combat duty after World War II as a result of his discoveries, scientific discoveries of Dianetics. That at one point he was returned to combat without rest in order to command a Corvette. That he served the remainder of that year with British and American anti-submarine vessels in the North Atlantic.
That his naval record states that he was permanently disabled physically. That his naval record states that this officer has no neurotic or psychotic tendencies whatsoever.
That the naval record states that he saw duty in the North Pacific. That in the space of two years he worked himelf back to fitness and strength.
474
That after World War II he had to study for several years when he was blind and couldn’t see. That he resigned his commission in the Navy rather than assist government research projects. That he worked for naval intelligence in breaking up a black magic ring.
That he was sent home as the first casualty in the Pacific and relieved by 15 officers of rank.
He studied under a Commander Thompson from the age of 12 who vas a student of Sigmund Freud. That he was a civil engineer with a Bachelor of Science, with a Ph.D. That he was an atomic physicist, an anthropoligist.
That he had graduated from George Washington University in mathematics and engineering. That he excelled in his subject.
These are all written representations in the biographical sketches of L. Ron Hubbard.
That he attended Princeton University as a post-graduate. That he was involved in the first course in nuclear physics.
That he graduated from grade school with high honors. That he excelled in his subjects in high school.
That the book “All About Radiation” was written by a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor, which is purportedly him.
That between 1924 and 1929 he was educated in Asia and studied under Llamas and learned the wisdom of the Far East under four years of intense study.
475
That he was an adventurer and explorer; that he had conducted a Carribbean motion picture expedition; conducted extensive underwater photography in connection with that expedition; that he did it for the Hydrographic Office of the Navy and that he provided the materials for that expedition to the University of Michigan; that he led three expeditions to study savage peoples; that he led an expedition into Central America; that between 1933 and 1941he visited many barbaric cultures; that he did the first complete minerological survey of Puerto Rico; conducted the Alaskan Radio Expedition for the government; rewrote the Alaskan Pilot charting the coastline of Alaska; was the originator of LORAN in connection with that expedition; that he claimed he led an expedition to the Red Sea to investigate and research underwater civilizations; that he was involved in an around-the-world flight.
With regard to his health, he has claimed that because of Dianetics, he represented the supremely healthy and perfect human being.
He makes various claims with regard to his health after World War II through the 1950s and into and throughout the 1970s and into the early 1980s; that he was a blood brother of the Black Feet Indians; that he wrote the book Treasure Island; that he was — that he was a Hollywood director; that he wrote several books and Hollywood scripts; that he is a member of various organizations relating to all of his academic and professional qualifications.
The evidence will be that all of those
476
representations are uniformly false.The evidence will be that in early 1980 what triggered this entire matter was that Mary Sue Hubbard and the other individuals who were under indictment were trying to raise funds in connection with the Church of Scientology to defend themselves in a criminal case. In connection with raising those funds, promotional material was sent out throughout the United States; that the movie, the Dive Bomber, a movie that was produced in the 1930s, was written by L. Ron Hubbard; the screenplay was written by L. Ron Hubbard and that thousands of people in connection with extensive promotional materials that earned somewhere between twenty and thirty thousand dollars was sent out to have people come in and see the movie on the basis that it was written by L. Ron Hubbard and on the basis that all of the people that were to go to see the movie believed all of those biographical representations that I laid out to the
court.
477
Mr. Armstrong, because of the position he was in as the researcher simply began to conduct research into this very initial subject as to whether or not L. Ron Hubbard had written the “Dive Bomber.” He went to the library of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and he could find no credit for L. Ron Hubbard. He found that L. Ron Hubbard had written a very short story called the “Dive Bomber” in the 1930’s and he read the entire screen play of the movie and the “Dive Bomber” and the were 180 degrees opposite, and one had nothing to do with the other.
He than went to his seniors and he explained to them that the promotional material was false based on what he had found and he didn’t think that L. Ron Hubbard had written the “Dive Bomber” and it couldn’t be proved.
A communication was then sent to L. Ron Hubbard to try to explain the discrepancy in these basic facts upon which thousands of people were about to pay between 20 and $40,000 to defend Mary Sue Hubbard.
A communication came back from L. Ron Hubbard, which is under seal, and the communication states that the reason they couldn’t find his credits was because someone at Warner Brothers tried to gyp him out of the money, that he really did, in fact, write it and they paid his $10,000 under the table, and this is on the sealed document, that L. Ron Hubbard was paid $10,000 under the table, and then he took the $10,000 before the war started and put it into a safe deposit box, and then when the war ended, he used the $10,000 to go on a cruise in the Carribbean.
478
The beginning of Mr. Armstrong’s inquiry focused around this matter because Mr. Armstrong had remembered in the collection of materials that he read that Hubbard had said he was crippled and blinded after World War II, abandoned by his family, penniless, broke, destitute, cured himself with Dianetics, and not until he wrote the book “All About Dianetics” in 1950 did he have any funds.
The documents under seal inescapably prove that between 1945 when Mr. L. Ron Hubbard got out of the Oak Knoll Military Hospital as a inpatient and 1950 prior to writing “Dianetics, The Modern Science To Mental Health”; not only did he not have $10,000, but he was throughout the five years writing to the Veterans Administration saying he was broke, claiming that he was a victim of war wounds to get a pension.
The documents will prove that even among those documents, it shows that there were no war wounds. That he was destitute and broke and whatever it showed Mr. Armstrong in 1980 was that the letter that Hubbard had written in 1980 about what he had done is 1945 through ‘47 was false. Then as Mr. Armstrong got into the naval documents, he found out that virtually everything that was said about Mr. Hubbard with regard to his naval career was false, which led him into all of the other documents.
Throughout this period of time he was having on-going conversations with members of the organization and with Omar Garrison. He explained to Garrison, he explained to members of the organization what he was finding. Garrison
479
realized after a period of time, and the evidence will be from Mr. Garrison’s mouth, that the biography could not possibly be written. That it was subject to Hubbard’s final approval, and that they were being told that Hubbard could not even be communicated with. So Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Garrison both realized that they were in a box.They had discovered the truth about an individual who was involved in an organization which had a doctrine called the “Fair Game Doctrine.” The evidence will be from Mr. Garrison, contrary to Mr. Litt’s representations to the court, that Mr. Garrison drove Mr. Armstrong to the airport to come to Clearwater to see Michael Flynn because they were both afraid for their lives.
The evidence will be that prior to Gerald Armstrong ever contacting Michael Flynn on February 18, 1982, revised on April 22, 1982, before there was any contact between Gerald Armstrong and Michael Flynn a Suppressive Person Declare was issued on Gerald Armstrong which accused him of theft, illegally taking or possessing church property, receiving material for private gain, impersonating a Scientologist staff member, falsifying reports, making out or submitting false purchase orders, juggling accounts, obtaining loans or money under false pretenses, issuing data or information which was false, engaging in malicious rumor mongering of things that were false, and some 10 or 11 other allegations against Mr. Armstrong, making him subject to the Fair Game Doctrine.
That is why he came to Michael Flynn, and it
480
wasn’t until that was declared and they realized the position they were in and photographs were stolen from Mr. Armstrong during this period of time that he came to an attorney after he was told by one of the highest members of the organization to go get an attorney.The evidence will be that Mr. Garrison felt that under the contract and the promotional materials that had been given to him, which as I indicated are under seal, he had the right o use the documents within his discretion. His discretion was something that was never defined by the contract. There were never any limitations put under the contract.
Given that critical fact, the defense’s position is and the evidence will be that Garrison rightfully gave the documents to Gerald Armstrong to defend himself against an attack by an organization when he, in fact, had simply sought to correct falsehoods.
481
In that he was within his sacred duty to correct those falsehoods.
The evidence will be that thereafter Mr. Armstrong was ordered to return the documents by Mr. Peterson and that in order to safeguard the evidence of what he knew was the truth in that he knew that he had not engaged in malicious rumor-mongering and defamation, he sent the documents to his lawyer.
The evidence will be that the church then sued him and then after a year of this litigation in which this court did allow documents to be used in other litigation and specifically provided for that in the preliminary injunction, the evidence will be that in the summer of 1983 the non-parties to this litigation, PDK assigning its contractual rights to New Era Publications, entered into an agreement with Omar Garrison and that pursuant to that agreement, Omar Garrison was paid approximately $240,000 — we believe, but we are not certain –
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I object. This is not stated to be evidence, but belief.
MR. FLYNN: We are subpoenaing the settlement agreement to find out. It was never given to us.
The evidence will be that Mr. Garrison, until that point in time, possessed the documents and had the right to possess the documents. And during the period of time that he gave them to Gerald Armstrong, he did so pursuant to the contract; that since New Era Publications and PDK are not parties to this lawsuit, the right to
482
possession of the documents throughout the pendency of the lawsuit has been pursuant to that contractual arrangement, first in Omar Garrison and then under the agreement that was made in the summer of 1983, apparently, in a corporation called New Era Publications, a full profit corporation that is not a party to these proceedings.The evidence will be that throughout the period of this lawsuit Mr. Armstrong has adhered to the orders of the court in that the only reason that this litigation is in this court is because of the content of those documents.
Mr. Armstrong did not convert and could not convert, as the evidence will be, what was rightfully in his possession based on the rightful possession of Omar Garrison.
The evidence will be that L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard and the plaintiff Church of Scientology of California are public figures; that they made themselves public figures beginning in 1952; that they thrust themselves into the public arena on issues that most people don’t thrust themselves into the public arena on, their integrity, their private lives, their health, the entire basis on which they sold Dianetics and made hundreds of millions of dollars which were put in Licthenstein bank accounts between 1952 and the present was the integrity, character, and qualifications of L. Ron Hubbard and that all of those things were grossly and falsely misrepresented throughout that period of time to thousands of people who relied on it.
483
With respect to the invasion of privacy count, the evidence will be that given the public-figure status of Mr. Hubbard and given the documents that Gerald Armstrong seeks to introduce into evidence and sent to me, those documents relate to issues that Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard have thrust into the public arena.
With regard to documents that may be under seal or in the possession of the Church of Scientology now, such as private letters, they have never gone beyond Michael Flynn, Mr. Armstrong’s lawyer; never.
Number two, Michael Flynn has not even read 95 percent of the documents that relate to the personal correspondence between L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, and his other wives.
So the evidence will be that sending the documents to a person’s lawyer under the threat that I have laid out to the court was entirely appropriate conduct and that there has been no publication or dissemination beyond giving them to his lawyer of any such confidential materials.
At the outset of this case I informed the court that what the case comes down to is what to do with these documents; how they should be preserved for the sacred trust that is owed to former members of the Church of Scientology; for the sacred trust that society has in finding out what this man has done and for the sacred trust of Mr. Armstrong in protecting himself in this litigation and in his suit and in his counterclaim.
484
The evidence will be that there was no tort committed by Mr. Armstrong at any point in time and that the sole issue for this court to decide is whether the parties are properly before the court in order to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of all necessary parties that have an interest in these documents and what to do with the documents themselves.
THE COURT: We’ll take a 15-minute recess.
(Recess.)
485
THE COURT: All right. In the case on trial let the record reflect that the parties and counsel are present.
You may proceed, Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: We will call Donald Keir, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What is the last name?
MR. LITT: K-e-i-r.
DONALD KEIR, called as a witness by the plaintiff, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Be seated on the witness stand. Please state your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Donald Keir, K-e-i-r.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR LITT:
Q Mr. Keir, what is your occupation?
A I an a latent fingerprint expert with the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division, latent print section.
Q And how long have you been so employed?
A I have been a fingerprint expert approximately 15 years.
Q And as a fingerprint expert, is it your job to compare fingerprints to fingerprint exemplars in order to determine whether they are the same or not?
A Yes, it is.
Q How many fingerprint comparisons have you made
486
in the course of your career?A In excess of one million comparisons of latent fingerprints to exemplars.
Q And how many times have you been qualified as a fingerprint expert in Los Angeles courts?
A In excess of 375 times.
MR. LITT: May we have the letter from Mr. Hubbard which has been sent up by the clerk marked as exhibit 1?
THE COURT: Rosie, could you get that for us?
MR. FLYNN: Is this being offered at this point, Your Honor?
THE COURT: No, just marked for identification.
487
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I have a copy –
THE COURT: We have found it, Counsel.
MR. LITT: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Mr. Keir, I am showing you a letter which is marked as exhibit 1; have you ever seen this letter before?
A Yes, I have.
Q And did you see it by coming down to the clerk’s office in this court and examining it?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when you examined it did you have any materials with you to compare the fingerprints to it?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you have those with yon?
A Yes, I do.
MR. LITT: May I approach again, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. LITT: I’ll mark this as exhibit 2.
The next one will be 3.
Have you marked that already?
THE CLERK: No; just put a little 2 on it and keep it.
THE COURT: Is that the exemplar card? Is that correct, a Xerox?
MR. FLYNN: I object, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: I’ll lay the foundation.
THE COURT: You do have to lay the foundation.
Go ahead.
488
Q BY MR. LITT: Mr, Keir, did you use this Xeroxed copy of an exemplar card that has been marked at the top “Exhibit No. 2, Hubbard, Lafayette Ron” and compare these fingerprints on this exemplar card on exhibit No. 2 to the fingerprints on exhibit 1.
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you use a conclusion as to whether or not the fingerprints imprinted on exhibit 1 are the same as the fingerprints –
Let me just finish and then — I have another exhibit card which will be connected to –
THE COURT: Let’s go toward.
MR. FLYNN: I have no idea where these exemplars come from.
THE COURT: You’ll have to lay a foundation.
Let’s go forward.
Q BY MR. LITT: Did you make a comparison between exhibit 1 and exhibit 2 with respect to these fingerprints?
A Yes, I did.
Q And can tell me what your conclusion was?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: That the fingerprint, the first fingerprint on top of the page, that, I felt was unidentifiable.
The second latent fingerprint, the second print on page No. 1, I identified to the right index finger.
THE COURT: You are referring to the — what appear to be latent prints on exhibit 1; is that correct?
489
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
THE COURT: Did you develop these latent prints yourself, or somebody else?
THE WITNESS: They were developed already.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: On page 2 of the document, the first print on top of the page was also unidentifiable.
The second print I identified to the right index finger of the exemplar.
The third print on the page I identified to the right index finger of the exemplar.
490
Q BY MR. LITT: So if I understand your testimony correctly, you were able to match at least two of the prints that are on the letter that is marked exhibit 1 to be identical to the right index finger of the exemplar that is marked 2?
A There is three fingerprints in total, one on the first page and two on the second page.
Q Showing you exhibit No. 3 which is a document entitled at the top “State of California Department of Justice” and is sworn to by Rolf R. Owre, Legal Keeper of Records at the Bureau of Criminal Identification and is a certification that the fingerprints attached to this, and the attachment page 2 have the initials of Rolf Owre on them, the exhibit 3 says that this is the fingerprint card of Lafayette Ron Hubbard; have you seen this document before, exhibit No. 3?
A Yes, I have.
Q And did you make a comparison between exhibit No. 3 fingerprint card and the fingerprints on exhibit No. 2?
A Yes, I have.
Q And did you reach a conclusion as to whether or not they are the same set of fingerprints?
A Yes, I have reached a conclusion that they were made by one and the same person. They are copies of the original that were certified.
Q And assuming that the fingerprints on exhibit 3 are in fact the fingerprints of Lafayette Ron Hubbard, would
491
you have a conclusion as to whether or not the prints on exhibit 1 are the fingerprints of L. Ron Hubbard?A Yes, I would.
Q And what would that conclusion be?
A That the prints on exhibit No. 11 were made by L. Ron Hubbard.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I would move into evidence exhibit No. 3. It is a self-authenticating documents. It is certified.
THE COURT: Let me see it.
Any objection, counsel?
MR. FLYNN: I object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What basis?
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I object to the introduction of either the letter or anything to lay a foundation to authenticate the letter based on fingerprinting on the grounds that it is hearsay. It is irrelevant and it is not trustworthy enough with regard to where this letter has come from, the circumstances under which the letter was written, who was present, et cetera.
All this witness has testified to is that these two fingerprints are the same. That doesn’t authenticate the document.
THE COURT: Well –
MR. LITT: I am not at this time moving in exhibit 1.
THE COURT: No, he is offering these fingerprint exemplars, 1 and 2 — rather 2, and 3.
MR. LITT: 2 and 3, yes.
492
MR. FLYNN: 3 is –
THE COURT: Certified copy of what appears to be a record of a fingerprint card that was filled out back in 1948 from the Sheriff’s Office, San Luis Obispo County. I don’t see any reason –
MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw my objection to this, counsel.
THE COURT: 2 and 3 will be received.
MR. LITT: I have no further questions of this witness.
THE COURT: Any cross?
MR. FLYNN: Just very briefly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Surely.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mr. Keir, have you ever met L. Ron Hubbard?
A No, I have not.
Q Did you ever see him put his fingerprints on any piece of paper?
A No, I have not.
Q Do you know where he is?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know the circumstances under which what has been marked as exhibit 1 for identification was prepared?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you examine the arrest report of L. Ron
493
Hubbard dated August 8, 1948?A No, I did not.
Q Did you work from a copy or did you work from an original?
A I worked from a copy.
Q Isn’t it necessary in your line of work to work from originals?
A It depends on the clarity of the comparison that you are comparing it to. Generally the original is a clearer copy, yes.
Q Well, it is well known that a fingerprint expert generally wants to work from originals rather than copies?
A Generally, yes.
Q And your testimony is you worked from a copy?
A That is correct.
Q And the copy was a fingerprint card from a 1948 arrest record of L. Ron Hubbard?
A It was a fingerprint card taken in 1948 of the arrest of L. Ron Hubbard, yes.
Q What was he arrested for?
MR. LITT: Objection.
MR. HARRIS: Objection.
THE COURT: That is immaterial.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you compare the original of exhibit 1 to the copy which has been marked exhibit 2?
A Yes.
Q Where did you get that original?
A I made the comparison downstairs.
494
Q Do you know how that was delivered to the court?
A No, I do not.
Q So the first time you saw it was downstairs?
A That is correct.
MR. FLYNN: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. LITT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir. You are excused.
MR. LITT: Our next witness will be William Bowman, Your Honor.
WILLIAM L. BOWMAN, called as a witness in behalf of the plaintiffs, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Be seated on the witness stand. Please state your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: My name is William L. Bowman, B-o-w-m-a-n.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Mr. Bowman, what is your occupation?
A I am an examiner of questioned documents, more commonly called a handwriting expert.
Q And how long have you been employed or had the occupation of being a questioned document examiner?
A Approximately 25 years.
495
Q Where were you employed with you first began that occupation?
A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
Q How long did you work there?
A I was on the department for 11 years. A portion of that I was in the Documents Section.
Q For what portion of that were you in the Documents Section?
A Nine of the eleven years.
Q What posts did you hold with respect — within the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department with respect to questioned documents?
A Well, after the trainee position, which was the initial training portion, I became the chief documents examiner, taking over from Mr. John L. Harris, the senior in the firm of Harris & Harris who was a private contractor for the County.
Q How long were you the actual chief documents examiner for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office?
A Approximately six years.
Q In that period of time how many questioned documents examinations did you make, approximately?
A Well, I couldn’t tell how many examinations, but the number of documents was approximately 100,000.
Q After you left the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office where did you go?
A I resigned my position to go into private practice as a documents examiner.
496
Q How long have you been in private practice as a documents examiner?
A Well over 15 years.
Q Have you worked in your own firm during that period of time?
A Yes.
Q During that period of time approximately how many documents have you examined in connection with making a questioned documents analysis?
A I don’t have any figure because I don’t count anymore to justify my time. But I would say it is probably approximately the same number.
Q Approximately 100,000?
A Yes.
Q And have you ever testified as an expert witness on the subject of questioned documents?
A Yes.
Q On how many occasions?
A Well, again, after leaving the Sheriff’s Office I didn’t keep accurate count. But at that time it was approximately 500 times. I would estimate now it is between 800 and 1,000 times.
Q Has that been in proceedings in this court, the Los Angeles Superior Court?
A Yes. And in other courts in the state and in other states.
Q And in Federal Court as well?
A Yes.
497
Q Will you take a look at what is marked before you as exhibit 1?
Have you seen that document before?
A yes.
Q Do you recall when that was?
A Yes.
Q When?
A The afternoon of March 23rd, 1984 in this building.
Q And did you come down to the court and have the document exhibit No. 1 provided to you for your examination?
A Yes.
Q When you came down did you have any materials with you?
A Yes.
Q What were those?
A Well, I was accompanied by someone else who had several documents in their possession which were letters either identified to me as being written by L. Ron Hubbard or signed by him with the signature on it.
I believe all the documents I had previously seen in other matters involving the same individual –
MR. FLYNN: I object, Your Honor, and move to strike.
THE COURT: On what basis?
MR. FLYNN: Hearsay as to what these people said about the documents that were provided to him.
THE COURT: I’ll deny the motion. Overruled.
Proceed.
498
Q BY MR. LITT: Do you have copies of the materials that you actually used to make your handwriting comparison with you?
A Can you bring it out, please?
Can you identify for us the material that you have just taken out of your briefcase?
A The first document consists of writing on both sides of the single sheet of paper.
The first line is titled “HCO.” And it appears to be the letters “P” and “D.” And then what might be “LTR” and what appears to be a date, “1 M-a-r ‘66.”
On the reverse side of the top of the page it has the number “34? written on it.
And at the bottom there is an initial which I recognize as being the initial of L. Ron Hubbard.
The second document is titled “My Philosophy by L. Ron Hubbard” at the top.
It has another notation in the upper right-hand corner which bears a date 11- — either 10 or 15 ‘65. It is multi-pages, but the last page at the very bottom as the signature “L. Ron Hubbard” which I identify as being his signature.
The third document — I don’t recall what all the words are in the title, but the second part of the title has “For Apollo’s ‘74.” And it is dated 3 J-a-n ‘74.” Although it has been written over, probably ‘73 before. That is multi-pages.
The last page has a printed initial “LRH.”
499
Q Let’s just take the first two for the moment.
The first document that you described, can you mark at the bottom of that a No. 4 for exhibit No. 4?
THE COURT: 4 for identification.
Q BY MR. LITT: That is the document that starts “HCO” and “Pd”; is that right?
A That is correct.
I have marked a “4? with a circle around it.
Q And the document marked “My Philosophy,” can you mark that as No. 5?
THE COURT: It may be so marked.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, when you went down to the court to look at the exhibit No. 1 were the originals of these exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 with you?
A Yes.
500
Q They were handwritten pages that appeared to be in a ballpoint pin or some kind of pen on an original paper?
A That is correct.
Q And were you present when the Xerox copies that you made use of were made in my office?
A Yes, I was.
Q So the Xerox copy that you have with you, were you present when it was made from the original?
A Yes, as I recall it was at my request so I would have something to place notations on. So it was in response to my question.
MR. LITT: Now, Your Honor, what I would like to do, I have the originals of these materials with me if the parties want to inspect them. I do not want to mark them and introduce them into evidence.
I would only ask to substitute them for copies which we already have.
THE COURT: Lay a foundation that those are true and correct copies of the original and counsel can see them if he wants to.
MR. FLYNN: We have no objection.
THE COURT: All right, then, are these true and correct copies of the originals, sir?
THE WITNESS: Yes, they are, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Bowman, did you make a comparison of the documents that have been marked exhibit No. 4
501
and exhibit No. 5 of the handwriting on those exhibits? Did you make a comparison between the handwriting on those exhibits and the handwriting an the exhibit which is marked as exhibit No. 1?A Yes.
Q And did you reach any conclusion as to whether or not the handwriting on exhibit No. 1 was written by the same person as the handwriting on exhibit No. 4 and No. 5?
A Yes.
Q And what was the conclusion?
A After making the examination it was my opinion that the person who wrote on the two pages consisting of exhibit 1 was the same person who wrote the handwriting on the other exhibits now marked 4 and 5. It was the same person’s normal handwriting.
Q One further question which is: Attached to exhibit No. 1 is a typed version of the handwritten version; have you examined that typed version? Have you seen it?
A I have seen it, but I have not examined it.
In fact I don’t recall even reading it at all.
Q Just so there is no question about the handwriting, could you read the handwriting on the letter?
Unless there is a stipulation that the typed version is the same, Your Honor, we will have Mr. Bowman read directly from the handwritten text so that there is no question about what the text said.
MR. FLYNN: If Mr. Litt is willing to represent that
502
they are the same, Your Honor, I will accept it.MR. LITT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. You need not read it.
MR. LITT: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: You may cross-examination.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Were you present, Mr. Bowman, when exhibit 1was written?
A No.
Q Who are you working for today in connection with your testimony here?
A Mr. Litt.
Q And have you ever been employed by Mr. Litt before?
A Yes.
Q In connection with Scientology litigation?
A Yes.
Q On how many occasions?
A Well, I believe only once.
Q One other time?
A I believe so. I know once.
Q And was that for a comparative analysis of L. Ron Hubbard’s handwriting?
A Yes.
Q Did you use the same exemplars that you used here in the courtroom?
503
A With the exception to the best of my recollection of exhibit 4, yes. I have previously seen exhibit 5 and I had a copy in my possession from previous examination.
Q So you used the exemplar that says “My Philosophy”?
A Yes.
Q The original?
A Yes.
Q Do you know where that came from?
A No.
Q Had you ever seen exhibit 1 prior to doing your examination?
A No.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have.
THE COURT: Anything further, Counsel?
MR. LITT: Nothing further.
We will move exhibits 4 and 5 into evidence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s see, what are 4 and 5? The exemplars?
MR. LITT: They are the comparison letters.
THE COURT: Are you prepared to prove up that these are the writings of Mr. Hubbard?
MR. LITT: We will do that through a separate witness.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: I might explain I have placed red markings on those sheets as to things I observed in case anybody wonders what they are are. That is my notations.
THE COURT: All right.
504
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Do you have an extra copy in your own files of that?
A No, I don’t.
MR. LITT: I have my own copies that don’t have Mr. Bowman’s markings on them. I assume he would like to keep for his records his notations. Could I substitute our copy?
THE COURT: I don’t have any problem. Do you have any problem?
MR. FLYNN: No problem. We have no objection to them going into evidence.
THE COURT: All right then we will receive 4 and 5 into evidence. Substitute additional copies.
MR. FLYNN: Could Mr. Litt make copies available to us, Your Honor?
MR. LITT: Yes, I will, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, may I make a suggestion — may I have just a moment?
MR. HARRIS: Here’s the problem so your Honor understands.
On Monday I have been summoned — well, not really because I caused it to happen — to be down in San Diego Federal District Court in connection with a trade mark matter that I can’t get out of, and we are just
505
trying to determine which witnesses, because we each have responsibility for different witnesses, we should put on. I think we just need about five minutes unless the court is prepared to say at this point that we could adjourn Monday, never to adjourn again, for my absence.THE COURT: I plan an being here Monday.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, I figured you did.
THE COURT: Because we have lost a little bit of time up to this point.
MR. HARRIS: Very well.
THE COURT: We might as well take a break until 1:30 if you have to get through this consultation.
MR. HARRIS: Fine.
THE COURT: We will resume at 1:30.
(The luncheon recess was taken at 11:45 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
506
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1984; 1:33 P.M.
-o0o-
THE COURT: In the case on trial, let the record reflect that counsel are present.
You may proceed.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
We split up our responsibilities. And I’ll be taking the next couple of witnesses so I can be free on Monday.
THE COURT: very well.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. James Morrow, Your Honor.
JAMES L. MORROW, called as a witness by the plaintiff, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Be seated. Please, state your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: James L. Morrow, M-o-r-r-o-w.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Are you an officer of the plaintiff Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes.
Q What is your office?
A I am the vice president.
Q And what is the Church of Scientology of
507
California?A It is a non-profit California Corporation, religious corporation. It is a church.
508
Q And I take it you are a Scientologist?
A Yes.
Q And for how long have you been such?
A Twelve years.
Q In addition to your corporate office of vice president, do you also hold a position a staff member within the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes, I do.
Q And are you a member of the Sea Organization?
A Yes, I am.
Q And what is that?
A The Sea Organization is a religious order made up of Scientologists who have dedicted their lives to Scientology.
Q From 1979 through or to December 1981 what real property was owned by the Church of Scientology of California?
A Generally there was Cedars of Lebanon — the former Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Complex, an adjacent property to that, buildings and some parking lots; the property that the Church of Scientology of San Francisco was in; property in Clearwater, Florida where the Flag land base was and still is; and property at Gilman Hot Springs.
Q And Gilman Hot Springs is in California?
A Yes.
Q From 1979 to December of 1981 what was the position of the Church of Scientology of California insofar as the ecclesiastical structure of the religion?
509
A It was the mother church.
Q And what organizations were housed in that corporation during that period?
A There was the Advanced organization of Los Angeles, Saint Hill organization, the Church of Scientology of Los Angeles organization, the Church of Scientology of San Francisco, the Flag land base, various management units of the church like the Commodore’s Messenger’s Organization, an international Commodore’s Messenger’s Organization for the PAC area, Pacific; U.S. Guardian’s Office; Flag operations Liaison Office, West U.S. That gives a pretty good picture. I am sure I didn’t get every one of them.
Q It is a rather large group housed in this one corporation?
A Yes.
Q Who is L. Ron Hubbard?
A He is the founder of the religion of Scientology. He is the author of the scriptures of the church, all the writings that make up the tenets and doctrines of the church.
He is a man that is generally viewed by all the scientologists as someone who has affected their lives positively.
510
Q Did the Church of Scientology of Calfornia have a unit or bureau during the years 1979 to December 1981 which was called “The Personal Public Relations Office of L. Ron Hubbard”?
A Yes, it did. I think the name may have changed near the end of 1981, but for most of that period.
Q Do you know what the name was changed to?
A I am not exactly sure. It was part of the product development organization.
Q All right. And what was the function of the Personal PR Office Bureau or whatever it was?
Is it a bureau, a unit? What did you call it within the church?
A it was a unit of the church. It had the function of promoting L. Ron Hubbard for the benefit of the church because the church and L. Ron Hubbard are very closely connected in that he is the founder of the church. And by promoting L. Ron Hubbard, it would help and benefit the church.
Q Was that office, that is, the Personal PRO Office, staffed by Church of Scientology of California staff members?
A Yes.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, please, I think a little more foundation should be laid as to the witness’ knowledge of some of these things. All we have is the fact that he was a vice-president. We don’t know how long; we don’t know
511
whether he had any involvement with the public relations office.THE COURT: It seems to me –
What was your role in 1979, 1980; were you vice-president then?
THE WITNESS: No, I wasn’t. I was — I have been the vice-president since October of 1983.
MR. HARRIS: Maybe I can clear this up.
THE COURT: It is like the pedigree exception to the hearsay, a reputation of certain things. Certainly, he ought to have competency to testify to these things.
You can go into it in more detail on cross-examination, but it seems to me it affects his ability to testify about these things.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t remember what the last question was.
MR. HARRIS: I have forgotten it too, but I think it was whether the Personal Public Relations Office was staffed by Church of Scientology of California employees.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. FLYNN: Could we have a date, Your Honor?
MR. HARRIS: During the period, as I have indicated, Mr. Flynn, in the beginning, 1979 to December 1981.
I have an exhibit, Your Honor, that contains numerous disbursement vouchers, each of which as a separate number. I would like to mark it collectively plaintiff’s next in order which would be 6, as I recall.
512
THE COURT: 6 for identification.
Have you seen these, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: I am about to give him a copy of the same, Your Honor. And the remaining items that I have as well.
May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: I show you a document, Mr. Morrow, that has been marked exhibit 6 and ask you if you recognize the documents contained therein?
A Yes, I do.
Q How do you recognize them?
A These are financial records of the Church of Scientology of California which I requested at your request and which were provided to me by someone from the church.
Q Do you recognize the form of the items that are contained in exhibit 6?
A These are disbursement vouchers that are for staff pay, staff allowances.
Q And are you familiar with those from being a staff member of the Church of Scientology of California?
A I have received similar things for the last five years from the Church of Scientology of California.
Q How are these prepared?
A Generally, at the end of the week the treasury secretary or director of disbursements or payroll office, whoever is holding the function, will get a check for the
513
staff pay; will cash that check; will then write out individual disbursement vouchers for each person receiving pay and will disburse the pay to that person, giving them a copy of the disbursement voucher and keeping another copy for the church records. And generally the yellow copy, which these are, are signed by the individual receiving the pay.Q And do those documents that you have in front of you which have been marked collectively exhibit 6 appear to have a name on there for the person who received the money?
A The name on the top is Gerry Armstrong.
And there is a signature that looks like it could be Gerry Armstrong’s as well on the bottom.
514
Q Are those documents that you have before you of the class of documents which are prepared at or about the time the money is disbursed?
A Either the same day or maybe a day or so before.
Q All right.
MR. FLYNN: We have no objection to these documents, Your Honor, going into evidence.
MR. HARRIS: Then I will move their admission.
THE COURT: All right, they will be received.
You want to let me see them?
THE WITNESS: Sure.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Morrow, at my request did you also personally search the corporate records for a letter from American St. Hill Organization — strike that — Advanced Organization St. Hill, Denmark to the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes.
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I have a document dated 14 November 1 980. I’d like to mark that plaintiff’s next in order which would be 7.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARRIS: And may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Showing you what has been marked exhibit 7, I ask you if you recognize that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And was that the document that you obtained at my request?
515
A Yes, it is.
Q Is that maintained in the ordinary course of business by the Church of Scientology of California as part of its corporate records?
A Yes.
Q Did you also find an accompanying minute of the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology in connection with that order?
A Yes, I did.
MR. HARRIS: Well, if you will give me a minute while I try to find it, I will see if I can.
Yes. Your Honor, I have a document entitled “Resolutions Adopted by Unanimous Written Consent, Et Cetera.” May that be marked plaintiff’s next in order, exhibit 8?
THE COURT: All right, exhibit 8.
MR. HARRIS: And again may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
If you want to approach the witness with a document, you don’t need to keep asking because this case involves a number of documents. That applies to both sides as long as you are going to approach the witness with a document or examining him with reference to a document.
Go ahead.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you very much.
Q Do you recognize that document, Mr. Morrow?
A Yes, I do.
Q And where was that obtained?
516
A That was in the Board Book of the Church of Scientology of California.
Q Also at my request did you obtain some finance records in respect to the Church of Scientology of California, purchases for the archives?
A Yes, I did.
MR. HARRIS: Again to save time, Your Honor, I would like to mark this collectively though it contains a great many documents, each of which has a date or some other identifying characteristic which could be put in the record if necessary.
THE COURT: Marked collectively as exhibit 9. If there is any need to refer to individual pieces, you can refer to them as 9-A or -B, whatever.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Showing you what has been marked exhibit 9, I ask you if you recognize that?
A Yes.
Q And how do you recognize it?
A These were also records that I requested from the corporate records of the Church of Scientology of California. These were delivered to me.
Q And do you recognize the form of the documents contained collectively in exhibit 9?
A Yes, there is a couple of purchase orders and related disbursement vouchers and third-party receipts that are also related to the purchases.
Q How are purchase orders ordinarily prepared in the course of business of the Church of Scientology of
517
California?A Well, if a person in the church wishes to purchase something on behalf of the church, they will submit a purchase order to the Financial Planning Committee. The Financial Planning Committee will review that against the budget for that week and against other expenses and the need for the item, and then they either approve it or they disapprove it.
If it is approved, the funds will be disbursed and when they are disbursed a disbursement voucher will be written.
Q That is the yellow item that is on top of exhibit 9?
A That’s right. The disbursement voucher will contain some information about what it is for, who it is disbursed to, what the amount is and the date. And then after the person has completed whatever the purchase is, they should return the receipts which then get packaged together and are then maintained as the record of expenses for the church.
Q And these are maintained in the ordinary course of business by the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes.
MR. HARRIS: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may cross-examine.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
518
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Are you the keeper of the records of the Church of Scientology of California?
A I am not necessarily the keeper of all the records. I can obtain records if I need to.
519
Q Have you ever fulfilled any function keeping records of the Church of Scientology of California?
A I have maintained some legal files.
Q What branch of the church are you in?
A I am in the Office of Special Activities at this time.
Q What is that?
A It is a section of the church that deals primarily with external affairs for the church, public relations, legal.
Q How long have you been in that unit?
A Since its formation. I am not sure exactly how long that is, about a year.
Q Have you ever met L. Ron Hubbard?
A No.
Q Did you ever work in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?
A. No.
Q Have you ever been to Gilman Hot Springs?
A No, I haven’t.
Q Do you know who owns the property at Gilman Hot Springs?
A Well, at what period of time?
Q The period of time that these records relate to, 1979 and December, 1981.
A At that time it was essentially owned by the Church of Scientology. It had the beneficial interest in the property. That is my understanding.
520
Q When you say “essentially owned, beneficial interest,” do you know whose name the deed was in?
A I am not entirely sure at this time.
Q If I suggest to you that it was the name of a private individual named Richard Hoag, does that refresh your recollection?
A I have seen the name. I am not sure it was on the deed. That is very possible.
Q You have seen the deed?
A Yes.
Q Do you know where the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard physically existed between 1979 and 1981?
A Not at all time. During some of that time, at least, I know it was in Cedars of Lebanon complex.
Q Do you know whether at any time during that period it was out in the Gilman Hot Springs property?
A I am not certain.
Q Do you know who Laurel Sullivan is?
A Yes.
Q Who is she?
A She is a former Scientologist and she held a position in the church in the personal office.
Q Do you know whether she was L. Ron Hubbard’s personal public relations officer?
A She held a post in the church, a staff post in the church of L. Ron Hubbard’s personal PRO officer.
Q So the answer to my question is yes?
521
MR. HARRISON: I object. The answer is what it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The answer is what it is. It speaks for itself.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What does personal PRO officer mean, Mr. Morrow?
A That is pretty much what I covered before on direct. That is person who has the position in the church of promoting L. Ron Hubbard as a staff member of the church for the benefit of the church.
Q Do you know whether they ever did it for the benefit of L. Ron Hubbard?
A I am sure L. Ron Hubbard benefited at the same time if his image was promoted. The person’s post was a staff post. And the purpose was promoting L. Ron Hubbard for the church’s benefit.
Q Your knowledge about the operation of the personal public relations officer comes from whom?
A Well, it comes from my experience in the church and seeing what was done by people in that office. It comes from just general knowledge of kind of knowing where everything is in the church and what is being done.
I have also read documents relating to the personal office.
Q Between 1977 and 1980 if the personal office was at Gilman Hot Springs you would never have observed its activities during that period of time; is that correct?
A Not necessarily. I would not have observed the
522
operations at Gilman Hot Springs, but that doesn’t mean that a person from there would not have been doing things in Los Angeles that I would have observed, an event or something like that.Q Laurel Sullivan would know a lot more about the operation of that office than you would; isn’t that true?
MR. HARRIS: Objection. That calls for speculation about the state of mind and knowledge of Laurel Sullivan, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: There are people in the church that — strike that.
You have a very specific post; do you not?
A Yes.
Q And, in fact, the structure of the Church of Scientology is broken down into very specific posts; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And people are trained with respect to those specific posts; is that correct?
A That’s right.
Q And they are trained on things that are generally called hat packs; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q What does the term “hat pack” mean?
A The word “hat” is used to describe someone’s job, just like the hat you wear. If you were a conductor, you would wear a conductor’s hat.
523
Q The hat pack –
A The hat pack contains material relating to a particular post.
524
Q And, in fact, in the training in connection with the Church of Scientology before you take post, you have to take training for that particular hat; is that correct?
A Well, theoretically that is correct. A lot of people have taken posts without doing training prior to doing that.
Q But in general that is the rule; is it not?
A That is generally what would be accepted.
Q Have you ever had any Guardian’s Office training?
A Yes.
Q Did you do any Guardian’s Office hat packs?
A Yes.
Q Which ones?
A I did an Assistant Guardian for legal hat packand a Deputy Guardian for legal hat pack, those two.
Q Did you ever do any B-1 Bureau hat packs?
A Never did.
Q What is the B-1 Bureau?
A Well, what was the B-1 Bureau or how that termwas used was the Information Bureau of the church which was basically the church’s unit for doing investigations.
Q Did you ever do the Public Relations hat packfor the Guardian’s Office?
A No.
Q Did you ever do the Public Relations hat packfor the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?
A No.
525
Q Do you know what it is?
A I have seen — I have seen hat packs for Public Relations. I am not sure which ones I have seen and I have not done them. I am not intimately familiar with them.
Q Now, can you tell me between 1977 and 1981
whether the Central Office of the Office of L. Ron Hubbard was located in the Gilman Hot Springs property?
MR. LITT: Objection; vague. What does the term “Central Office” mean?
THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection. You can reframe the question.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know what “Central Office” means?
A Well, it would be a central office. There was a designation called “Central Office of LRH.”
Q Thank you, and where was the Central Office located?
A I’m not sure during that period of time.
Q Do you know whether Mr. Armstrong worked in the Central Office of L. Ron Hubbard?
A I’m not certain.
Q Do you know what the Household Unit is?
A I don’t have personal knowledge. I have heard things about what it might be.
Q You have no personal knowledge of the Central Office of the Public Relations Office of L. Ron Hubbard and you have no personal knowledge of the Household Unit; is that correct?
526
A I don’t have personal knowledge.
Q If I suggest to you that Gerald Armstrong was working personally for L. Ron Hubbard in the Personal Office Household Unit before he went to the Personal Office Public Relations Department, do you have any knowledge of that?
MR. HARRIS: Well, I will object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you have any knowledge that Gerald Armstrong worked in the Household Unit of the Personal Office?
A No.
Q So you wouldn’t know who he dealt with; is that correct, in that office?
A That office? I didn’t know he worked in that office, so, no.
Q Do you know anyone that did?
A No. I mean, I may know someone who did, but I don’t know that they did if they did, if that makes sense.
Q So if you weren’t there, you can’t tell us exactly what the structure of that office was; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And with regard to the Public Relations Office and the Central Office, if you weren’t there, you can’t tell us what the structure of that office was at that time; is that correct?
A That is correct. I have seen some diagrams of
527
that office, but I cannot tell you with personal knowledge of having seen it operate, no.Q Can you name one person who was in the Central Office of L. Ron Hubbard between 1977 and 1981?
A I am a little unclear of what the Central Office was and what all it encompassed. I am sure I know people who worked in there, but I am not exactly sure what it was.
Q Can you name one person who worked in the Personal Public Relations Office of L. Ron Hubbard at Gilman Hot Springs between 1977 and 1981?
A Well, I am not sure that it was there. That is what I said before. If it was there, Laurel Sullivan probably did.
Q Anyone besides Laurel Sullivan?
A Well, I am just not sure that it was there during that period of time, so I can’t answer that.
Q Do you know how long Laurel Sullivan worked personally with L. Ron Hubbard?
A No.
Q Do you know how long Gerald Armstrong worked personally with L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. LITT: Objection. This question and the last assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether either one of those individuals ever worked personally with L. Ron Hubbard?
A Not from personal knowledge, no.
528
Q You were made a vice-president when?
A 1983, October.
Q And you are giving testimony here on the fact that these records come from the Church of Scientology; is that correct?
A From the Church of Scientology of California.
Q With regard to exhibit 6, I think it is, what you call the staff allowances; do you have those in front of you?
THE COURT: They are over here, counsel.
MR. FLYNN: Well, I will show him mine.
Q Would you look through those staff allowances and see if you can find one that says “Church of Scientology of California” on it?
A There are none that do. I have looked through these previously.
Q Have you seen payment vouchers that say “Church of Scientology of California” on them?
A Yes.
Q And yet you have produced payment vouchers that don’t have one heading with the Church of Scientology of California on them; isn’t that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Were you ever on the ship?
A Which ship?
Q Were you ever on any ship?
A I have been on boats. I haven’t been on any ships.
529
Q Were you ever on the Apollo?
A No.
Q Do you know whether or not the people on the Apollo got disbursed payment vouchers?
A Yes, they did.
Q And do you know what it said on them?
A I have seen them. I don’t recall real specifically right at the moment.
Q Do you know what corporation the people on the ship worked for, Apollo?
A I think so.
Q You think so?
A They worked for the Church of Scientology of California.
Q Have you looked through any of the sealed documents?
A No.
Q So you don’t know the contents of any of the sealed documents?
A No.
Q Do you know whether the disbursement vouchers for people that were on the ship are also blank in terms of coming from a particular corporation?
A I believe that some of them are. I have a vague recollection of it. I have seen them — I haven’t seen any of those in a couple of years.
530
Q Prior to being made vice president in 1983 had you ever been an officer, director of any corporation relating to the Church of Scientology?
A No.
Q Now, you brought in a document involving the board minutes of the Church of Scientology of California; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, there is no date on that document, is there?
A No.
Well, there is a date within the resolution. There is not a date — the document itself is not dated.
Q The date within the resolution refers to the fact of that November 14, 1980 letter from Publications Denmark, that is what is referred to; isn’t that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Do you know when these board minutes were prepared?
A Around that same period of time. I don’t know precisely what day.
Q Were you involved in the preparation?
A No.
Q That is what someone told you?
A That is what I was told.
Q Who is Larry Brennan.
A He is a Scientologist.
Q Does he hold any position in the Church of
531
Scientology of California?A Not at this time.
Q Did he, when these board minutes were prepared?
A I don’t believe so.
Q Did Larry Brennan –
What positions within the Church of Scientology of California has Larry Brennan held?
A Well, I am not real clear on it, but I believe that he was in the legal department at some point. I am not sure exactly when he left that. That was in probably the early ’70’s.
Q Do you know whether he was ever an officer or director of Publications Denmark?
A No, I don’t know that.
Q Do you know whether he was involved in the preparation of a contract between Publications Denmark and Omar Garrison?
A I have seen documents where he — it appears that he was related to that or had something to do with it, but I don’t know specifically what he did.
Q Prior to coming in here and testifying today did you consult with Larry Brennan with regard to your testimony?
A No, I didn’t.
Q At any time prior to coming in here have you consulted with Larry Brennan about your testimony in connection with this case?
A No.
532
Q Who within the church have you consulted with?
MR. HARRIS: Other than attorneys, Your Honor?
MR. FLYNN: Other than lawyers.
THE WITNESS: Gary Press; he delivered the records to me.
Nick McNaughton, who was the secretary and had board books. I went and consulted with him and he showed me the board book and where things were. That is about it.
Q Let me show you this deed for the Gilman Hot Springs property. I’ll ask you if you recognize that as the deed that you testified about that you had previously seen.
MR. HARRIS: Could I have a copy of that, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: I don’t have a copy, Your Honor. I will make one available.
MR. HARRIS: May I just approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
THE WITNESS: I am not totally sure.
Yu see, there is more than one piece of property out there. And there’s more than one deed. And I am not real good on real estate.
I saw a deed and it looked something like this. But I am not certain exactly which of the pieces of property out there that deed referred to.
533
Q Did you see any deed out at the Gilman Hot Springs property where the central office of L. Ron Hubbard was located that was in the name of the Church of Scientology of California?
MR. HARRIS: Assumes facts not in evidence.
MR. LITT: Objection.
THE COURT: He asked if he saw it. He can ask whether he saw something or not.
MR. HARRIS: No, no. The assumption is that the central office of L. Ron Hubbard was at Gilman Hot Springs.
THE COURT: Do you want to read the question, Nancy.
(Record read.)
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. It is a compound question.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Between 1977 and 1980 do you have any knowledge about where the central office of L. Ron Hubbard was located?
A No, I don’t quite know what that entity was.
I have heard the term. I have seen it, but I don’t know all of what was contained in the central office.
Q You just testified you don’t quite know what that entity was; is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Did you testify on direct that you had knowledge of that office of the church that is part of the Church of Scientology of California?
A I don’t think I testified that on direct examination. I testified about the personal office of
534
L. Ron Hubbard which is not the same thing.Q How do they differ?
A Well, I don’t know because I don’t know what the one is. I know what one of them is. I don’t know what the other one is.
Q What do you think the personal office is?
MR. HARRIS: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: He said he knew what one was. What one do you know?
THE WITNESS: The personal office.
THE COURT: You can describe that.
THE WITNESS: That is the one I have already described twice now.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What is the personal office?
A Well, the personal office, I described the personal PR office. That is the one that I described before.
Q How many divisions in the personal PR office are there, Mr. Morrow?
A I am not sure, probably seven. That is the usual amount.
Q And what are they?
A I don’t know.
Q Do you now whether they all represent for profit activities for L. Ron Hubbard?
A I know they don’t.
Q You don’t know what they are, but you know that they don’t; is that your testimony?
A Well, I know that the Church of Scientology
535
of California which contained that is operated as a non-profit corporation and that the activities were not for L. Ron Hubbard’s profit.Q Do you have any knowledge about one of the divisions of the personal office being to sell L. Ron Hubbard’s books for his personal profit?
A I don’t know that, no.
Q You don’t know anything about that?
A To sell L. Ron Hubbard’s books for his personal profit, no.
Q And you can’t name me any of the seven divisions?
A We are talking about the period of time, the same period of time; is that right?
Q Correct.
A Not for certain. I have seen a diagram of that office, but I can’t — it is not something that I am real familiar with.
Q And you have never been on the premises at Gilman Hot Springs; is that correct?
A Never have.
Q And you know or you don’t believe that any of the deeds are in the name of the Church of Scientology of California; is that correct?
A Any of which deeds?
Q Gilman Hot Springs properties.
A In that same period of time?
Q During that same period of time.
A From the ones that I have seen, they were not
536
in the name of the Church of Scientology of California.Q Have you seen that deed that I have placed in front of you?
A Well, as I already said, I saw a deed for one of the properties out there and I am not good on real estate. This looks similar, but I am not sure which of the pieces of property it was that I saw.
Q Do you know who Richard Hoag is?
A No.
MR. FLYNN: I will offer this, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: I don’t think it has been adequately described.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARRIS: But if it is a certified copy, then I wouldn’t have any objection to its authenticity. But I would be concerned about its relevance since it doesn’t –
THE COURT: We could mark it for identification at this time. It hasn’t been tied up.
MR. HARRIS: For the court’s benefit, I will seek out the records of the church and see if, in fact, that deed corresponds with it.
MR. FLYNN: The name John Peterson is on it,Mr. Harris.
MR. HARRIS: Well, big deal, Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN: Well, he is counsel for the church.
THE COURT: What are we up to?
We will make it A for identification.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are you a member of the board of
537
directors of the Church of Scientology of California?A No, I am not.
Q Have you ever attended any meetings of the officers and/or directors of the Church of Scientology of California?
A No, I have met with other officers. I haven’t attended meetings where we have all gotten together.
Q And to your knowledge based on your acquaintance
with the corporate structure of the church as you have testified on direct examination between the years 1977 and 1981, did L. Ron Hubbard play any managerial role within the Church of Scientology of California?
A No, he didn’t.
Q None?
A No.
Q Do you know where L. Ron Hubbard was during those years?
538
Q Do you know who the officers and directors of the corporation Church of Scientology of California, Inc. were during those years?
A Which years?
Q ‘77 to ‘81?
A I can find out. I know who some of them were at some times but they were not the same during all of those years.
THE COURT: Maybe you can look at those documents and see if you can identify those. They purport to be members of the Board of Directors on there.
THE WITNESS: Laurie Zurn, Fred Hare, Susan Walker.
THE COURT: I am referring to exhibits 7 and 8.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you ever attend any Board meetings during those years?
A No.
Q So if L. Ron Hubbard had attended Board meetings, you wouldn’t even know about it?
MR. HARRIS: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Outside the scope. I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: How do you know that L. Ron Hubbard didn’t have any managerial role during those years, Mr. Morrow?
A He was not working in the church during those years and the church was being run by other people.
Q Who?
A Primarily, by — well, it depends on which
539
aspect you are talking about.The Board of Directors took care of the temporal matters.
As far as the ecclesiatical hierarchy, the Commodore Messengers International was probably up near the top running the organization.
Q And who is running the organization now?
A It would be pretty much the same.
Q And who in the Commodore Messengers is running it?
A I don’t have personal knowledge of that.
Q Did you sign an undated letter of resignation as an officer?
A No.
Q Do you know whether it was a practice between 1968 and 1981 for all directors of the Church of Scientology of California to sign undated letters of resignation held by L. Ron Hubbard?
A No. I don’t know that that was the case.
Q Did you ever see one?
MR. HARRIS: Undated resignation letter held by L. Ron Hubbard? Is that the precedent, sir?
MR. FLYNN: That is the precedent, yes.
THE WITNESS: No.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You haven’t looked through the sealed documents?
A No.
Q You don’t know whether there is a whole list of
540
undated letters of resignation in the sealed documents, do you?MR. HARRIS: I’ll stipulate that he has no knowledge, that he hasn’t looked, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California signed undated letters of resignation between 1977 and 1981?
A I don’t know whether they have or not. I haven’t seen those.
Q Did you make a check of your corporate records for any of those?
A No, I didn’t.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Redirect?
MR. LITT: Could we have a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Mr. Morrow, let me ask you briefly, have you seen Church of Scientology of California invoices and disbursement vouchers which do not have “Church of Scientology of California” embossed upon them?
A Yes.
Q And is it a requirement of the corporation that in the ordinary course of business the disbursement vouchers have “Church of Scientology of California” embossed upon
541
them?A No. It is only required that one keep a record of what transactions there are and that there is an invoice or disbursement voucher.
MR. HARRIS: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
I would move –
MR. FLYNN: Nothing further.
MR. HARRIS: I would move exhibits 7, 8 and 9 into evidence.
THE COURT: Any objection, counsel?
MR. FLYNN: One moment, Your Honor, please.
MR. HARRIS: I do intend, Your Honor, to designate Mr. Morrow as the officer of the corporation. And he may from time to time be required to help me out here with exhibits and so on, if that is all right with Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, we have no objection to exhibits 6, 7, or 9. But we object to the resolution on the ground that it is not sufficiently authenticated. It is undated. And we think that one of these people who signed it should be produced.
THE COURT: Apparently it came from the records. I’ll overrule the objection. It will be received.
MR. HARRIS: Could we have a brief recess, Your Honor, while I get the exhibits together for the next witness?
THE COURT: We’ll take a 10-minute recess.
(Recess.)
542
THE COURT: Well, that was a long 10 minutes.
MR. HARRIS: We were grateful for it.
THE COURT: I had to take a verdict next door and it took 20 minutes.
At any rate, let the record reflect that the parties and counsel are now present. You may call your next witness.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Tom Vorm, V-o-r-m.
TOM VORM, called as a witness by the plaintiff, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Would you be seated on the witness stand.
Please state your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: My name is Tom Vorm, V-o-r-m.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Mr. Vorm, are you a Scientologist?
A Yes, I am.
543
Q When did you first get into Scientology?
A Approximately 1975.
Q Did you go on the staff of Scientology Church at some point?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A Around October of 1975.
Q And are you a member of the Sea Organization?
A Yes.
Q What church were you on staff first?
A Church of Scientology Celebrity Center.
Q Is that here in Los Angeles?
A Yes.
Q What were you staff duties there?
A When I first went there I was on training for about two or three months. Then I assumed the post of Director of Validity which is in the qualification schedule.
Q What generally was the duties of that?
A Director of Validity basically gave examinations to students, made up certificates and more or less kept an eye on the quality of the courses being delivered and made sure they were done properly.
Q And for how long did you hold that particular position?
A Right around two years.
Q At some point did you transfer to the staff of another Church of Scientology?
A Yes.
544
Q Was that the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes.
Q What was your first post there?
A The first post I held was called Guardian’s Office Archives Librarian.
Q What were the duties of that post?
A That was a project going on at that time to copy various tape lectures that Mr. Hubbard had given since 1950 or so.
My duties — they were like the original lectures. And the project was to make copies of them.
My duties were to watch over those tapes, make sure they were handled properly by this project, log them in and out and keep an eye on the project itself; make sure it is done properly; the tapes that were made quality tapes.
Q What was the purpose of this project?
A Well, tapes as they were contained like the bulk of the research into Dianetics and Scientology. And as such they were like very valuable to the religion of Scientology.
The medium of tape actually came out around 1950. And because of that, some of the early tapes were not made on real good quality tape and were sort of like getting fragile, that type of thing.
The project was basically to recopy them for preservation.
545
Q Was there a practice in your post with respect to the originals, what one would do with the originals as opposed to the copies?
A Right. Well, the originals were always kept separate from any other copies, and there was a policy or a practice at that time where anybody who wanted an original or access to an original needed to get Mrs. Hubbard’s approval.
Q By the way, let’s date this if we can. When did you first go on this post of Guardian office-archives librarian?
A It was the early part of 1978.
Q At some point did the post title change?
A Yes.
Q To what?
A It changed to controller-archives in charge.
Q Controller, was that a financial post?
A No.
Q When the post title changed, did your duties change?
A Not exactly at that moment, but shortly thereafter they did.
Q And how, if at all, were they changed?
A Well, the post of geoarchives-librarian was primarily concerned with the tapes.
When I assumed the post of controller-archives in charge, my duties were expanded to include the written materials and written published works and unpublished of
546
Mr. Hubbard, various scriptures of Scientology.Q And what were your duties in respect to those written items?
A To keep them secure and also we wanted to preserve them, too, by various microfilm projects, that type of thing.
Q At some point did you become aware of some materials that properly belonged in your area that were elsewhere?
A Yes.
Q And in the process of determining that did you write some kind of a memorandum to — strike that.
Did you have a conversation with anybody about getting those materials to your area?
A Yes.
Q And who was that?
A That would be — there was someone in England doing an eval or a project to sort out the various archives, and I wrote to them about it.
Q Did there come a time when you received some trunks?
A Yes.
Q And did you request that you receive those trunks?
A I didn’t actually personally, but it was — actually I had some input on it, but they did end up coming to me.
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I have a document dated
547
11 December 1979. May that be marked plaintiff’s 10 for identification?THE COURT: All right, exhibit 10 for identification.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: I show you what has been marked exhibit 10 and ask you if you recognize that?
A Yes.
Q And what is that? A That is — was basically Mrs. Hubbard’s communication to me at the time that the trunks that contained the written materials were approved to come to me.
Q All right. Now, after the trunks got to where you were, what did you do with them?
A The first thing I did was lock them up in their own storage room and then I proceeded to go through them and to pull out various kinds of — sort out the materials. The main ones I was interested in were the materials that concerned the works of L. Ron Hubbard in relation to Scientology and Dianetics, and I put them separately, put them into separate file cabinets and basically got them in order.
Q And approximately how many trunks were there that you received?
A There was close to 20, 25, somewhere around there.
Q And approximately what size?
A They were like your standard storage trunks, two feet by two feet square and about three feet long.
Q How long did it take you to pull the materials
548
out that were the materials of Dianetics and Scientology which you were interested in?A There were quite a few materials. It took me several months, even a year. I mean, it was a continuing project.
THE COURT: Can we get some idea what point in time this is, what year this is?
THE WITNESS: The trunks came to me — well, it was approved in December ‘79. The trunks came to me shortly thereafter.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: And then it took you several months and maybe even up to a year to pull the materials out that you had an interest in for your archives?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Why did it take so long?
A Because there were a lot of materials.
Q What items remained in the trunks after you had pulled out the technical materials of Dianetics and Scientology?
A There remained a lot of personal items, private things that Mary Sue originally mentioned in her note that is in front of me, and those things, as far as the personal items, I mean, it was all sorts of things; wallets, insurance papers for Mr. Hubbard, research notes, wills.
There was personal income tax returns for Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard from the early ’50s. There were science fiction, copies of science fiction magazines. It was very miscellaneous.
549
Some of the things were just even described as like contents of the bottom right hand drawer in Mr. Hubbard’s study. There were also a lot of organizational dispatches that ranged from the 1950s to 1960s, which Mr. Hubbard sent and received from various organization executives over that time period.
There were corporate papers. There was just a real miscellaneous batch of material.
550
Q And did the trunk also contain letters?
A Yes.
Q And did you have an opportunity to look at those letters?
A Yes, I did.
Q Can you give the court just a qeneral description, not of the subject matter, but the addressees and so on of those letters?
A They mere letters to his family, to his son, his mother, his father, his aunt, his father, and, of course, to Mrs. Hubbard and letters from her to him also.
Q Now, when did you meet, if ever, the defendant in this case. Mr. Armstrong?
A I met Jerry at an event is early 1980.
Q And what attracted you to him?
A He had a booth of material like LRH memorabilia, science fiction magazines. I think there were photos, photo albums, that type of thing that was set up out in the lobby of the Hollywood Palladium.
I wondered who he was and what he was doing. And that is what attracted me.
Q All right. Did you have a conversation with him at that tine?
A Yes.
Q Who was present?
A There were quite a few people around, like milling around the lobby, that type of thing. But I don’t think anyone overheard my conversation.
551
Basically, I asked him who he was. He told me. And what he was doing, that type of thing.
I identified myself as the controller archives at Sea.
Q When he identified himself and what he was doing, what did he say in that respect?
A Well, I believe he identified himself as VPRO researcher, at least identified with the First Bureau Office. I don’t recall the exact specifics on that.
Q Were you generally aware of what the First PRO office was doing?
A Yes, more or less.
Q And you had this conversation with him; did you tell him anything about what was in your archives area?
A Well, I mentioned that — he had some science fiction magazines laid out. And I had just received these trunks shortly earlier. And I recalled there were like 25 or 30 of these magazines in one of the trunks.
I thought that if he was collecting that type of thing, he might be interested. And I had let him know that I had some of these materials and that we should maybe get together when we had a little bit more time to talk and kind of figure out what each other was doing and how we could help each other.
Q Now, at the same time — well, you should tell me, I guess.
You said there was some sort of evaluation going on, I guess, about where various archives should be
552
about that time, or –A Yes. It was right around that time.
Q Now, when you referred to LRH, I take it you meant L. Ron Hubbard?
A Yes.
Q That is short for that; that is what he is known as?
A That is correct.
Q At some point did you write something to get approval to give some of the items of the trunks to Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?
A I believe it was around January of 1981.
MR. HARRIS: I have a document, Your Honor, dated, as we’ll see, misleadingly 6 January, 1980.
May that be marked plaintiff’s exhibit 11?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I have no objection to either this or the prior exhibit being offered into evidence; however, this document is dated 6 January, 1980 and refers to a document, 11 December, ‘79.
Mr. Harris just said it was dated misleadingly 1980. And if we could clarify that –
THE COURT: His comments are not in evidence.
MR. HARRIS: I will. I intend to do that.
THE COURT: This document exhibit 10 says December 11, 1979.
553
Q BY MR. HARRIS: This document, Mr. Vorm, marked plaintiff’s exhibit 11, can you identify that?
A Yes.
Q What is that?
A That is a request from myself to Mrs. Hubbard listing out about 15 items plus a box of around 30 science fiction paperbacks and requesting her approval that I give these to Jerry.
Q And look at the date and tell me if the date that appears on the document is in fact the date that it was prepared.
A No, it is not.
Q What is the true date?
A The correct date would be January 6, 1981.
Q How do you know that?
A Because I referenced in the document an earlier communication I had with Mrs. Hubbard on the 26th of August, 1980 and also the people that the document was sent through signed it off and dated it 1981.
Q All right. Attached to the exhibit — let me ask you — is it a part of plaintiff’s exhibit 11 to attach what has been attached? In other words — well, that was really poorly phrased. Let me withdraw that.
When you prepared the original of exhibit 11did you attach the document to it dated August 26, 1980?
A Yes.
554
Q All right. Did you receive approval to transfer those items to Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes, I did.
Q And that was after sending them to Mrs. Hubbard?
A Yes.
Q For her approval?
A yes.
Q All right. Did you have occasion to see Mr. Armstrong after having delivered those items to him?
A You mean after I got the approval back and took these documents to him?
Q Yes.
A Yes. I saw him now and then.
Q When you saw him, where would you see him?
A I would see him in the hallways of the organization. We had various conversations about certain things. He sent me a couple of items that dealt with preservation of materials, a couple of phone calls now and then.
I can’t recall the specifics on it. We did talk.
Q Did you ever meet him in his area?
A Yes.
MR. HARRIS: I have a chart, Your Honor. May that be marked plaintiff’s exhibit 12.
THE COURT: Very well, 12 for identification.
MR. FLYNN: May I take a look at it, Your Honor?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, I’m going to show it to you,
555
Mr. Flynn.MR. FLYNN: We have no objection, Your Honor; some question as to whether the Xerox machine is located where it is shown.
THE COURT: Well, let’s be consistent now.
You have indicated you have no objection toeither 10 or 11?
MR. FLYNN: No.
THE COURT: All right. We will receive 10 and 11 in evidence.
I gather 12 can be received in evidence. There can be testimony elicited as to what is what or where is where.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Directing your attention to plaintiff’s exhibit 12, do you recognize that?
A Yes.
Q And what is that? What does it depict?
A It looks like a layout of the office are where Gerry’s office was at that time.
Q All right. When is the first time that you saw that particular area?
A It was shortly after I met Gerry at the event.
Q While you were in that area, did you have occasion to see what materials Mr. Armstrong had there?
A In general, yes.
Q What sort of materials did he have there?
A Well, when he first brought me in, it was just
556
in the same time he was telling me what he did and what he was involved in which was getting together a museum that would contain L. Ron Hubbard’s things and also there was some mention of a biography that was going to be done, and so he was showing me some files around the office at that time, and he pulled open a file drawer at that time and there were various files. I recall some personal letters, that type of thing.Q Those were located where on the chart?
A In the bottom right-hand office there that is marked “Archives.”
Q All right. Now, did you have a conversation with him making reference to an office to be used by Omar Garrison?
A Yes, there was some mention of it.
Q And does the chart depict where that office was to be?
A That is where I recall it to be, yes.
Q Now, after you had delivered this batch of material where you had received approval, if I take your testimony correctly, you then met with him on other occasions thereafter?
A Yes.
Q Did you also have telephone conversations with him?
A Yes.
Q In any of the meetings or telephone conversations, did you discuss the contents of the trunks?
557
A Yes.
Q Could you state approximately when the conversations were, who was present, what he said and what you said?
A Well, it was from 1981. This was after I brought the two boxes to him.
Just in general, I can’t recall the exact specifics because they were rather mundane conversations, but it concerned primarily when the personal materials I had in the trunks will be transferred over to him and my answer was usually as soon as I could get approval on it, which hadn’t been done yet but which I had to do before I could give those materials to him, and that occurred several times at various times.
Q Did there come a time when you again attempted to communicate with Mary Sue Hubbard about the materials in the trunks?
A Yes.
Q And was that in writing?
A Yes.
Q Did you receive an answer?
A No, I didn’t.
Q Did you do anything else to try to straighten out the matter of the trunks?
A Well, after I didn’t get any answer back from Mary Sue, I sent a request to the new controller who was called Gordon Cook who had offices out in Clearwater proposing a solution to the handling of these personal
558
materials in the trunks and how they should be disbursed since Mary Sue wasn’t there, and he sent back his answer saying that that was approved.Q And what was the proposal that you made as to how this should be handled?
A Well, since there was so many materials, what I proposed was that instead of listing them all out like I had
done in my original thing to Mary Sue, that I just go through the trunks with Gerry and we would go through and he would let me know if there was anything that he would need for his biography, and if that wasn’t something that I needed for the controller archives or pertaining to Dianetics and Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard’s works in that respect, then I would give them to him.
559
Q And approximately when did you get approval to go through this procedure?
A That was right around October of 1981.
Q And what did you do pursuant to that approval?
A When I got it back I called Gerry up because it was one of the first things I did because we talked about it so much. Finally we had approval.
And then we set up a time that he would come over and then when that occurred, we went through the trunks one by one, pulling out materials that would be transferred over to him.
Q Did you put any restrictions on what materials Mr. Armstrong could have?
A Well, there certain materials in the trunks that I didn’t feel good about giving him. Those were primarily — and what is about six files, about a foot thick or so of correspondence, personal. I considered it quite private correspondence between Mary Sue and LRH.
There were things like their marriage certificate, passports for the children, some things that Mary Sue had mentioned in her original instructions to me.
Q That would have been the original instructions in exhibit 10?
A Yes.
Q The 11th of December, 1979 –
A Yes.
Q Fine. Okay. So what did you do about that, not feeling good about it?
560
A Well, I wasn’t going to give them to Gerry at first, but Gerry insisted that they were like key to the biography because, evidently, the way he explained it to me was that when he was doing research on the biography, various dates and names and that type of thing came up. And that I felt that these were private things.
He assured me that they wouldn’t be used in the biography per se, but they would just be used as verification in that respect. He needed them for the biography. On that condition, I let him make copies and kept the originals.
Q The archives that Gerry had control of, do you have control of those archives?
A Yes.
Q And have you been to the sealed documents here in this courthouse?
A Yes.
Q Did you have an opportunity to look over what was there?
A Yes, fairly good.
Q Can you tell the court or estimate for the court approximately how many original documents are under seal which you do not have copies in your archives?
A As a rough guess, I would say between 2- and 3,000 pages, something like that.
THE COURT: How many?
THE WITNESS: Two and three thousand pages.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: And have you had an occasion in
561
your post as archivist to speak with people who collect the materials of L. Ron Hubbard?A Yes.
Q Private collectors?
A Yes.
Q On how many occasions?
A Five or six, something like that.
Q Do you have some estimate of the value of the archives that you control?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain it. There is no foundation at this point.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Are you aware of sales of LRH manuscripts and letters?
A Yes.
Q How are you aware?
A There was a matter that came up about a year or less ago regarding a collector that had found some materials at a location. And I think it was in Kansas or Texas or something like that. And he was planning on selling these materials. And we discussed actually getting those materials into the archives rather than selling them. And he agreed to that.
One thing he did sell which was a copy of a manuscript, actually an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Hubbard
on civil defense. And it went for around $30,000.
MR. FLYNN: I object and move to strike, Your Honor.
That is hearsay.
562
MR. HARRIS: There probably will be an exception to the hearsay rule in respect to that, Your Honor if that was in fact the fair market value of the item and that is what it was sold for. That would have been the terms of a contract. But I’ll submit it.
THE COURT: Well, I assume that it would only have relevance — not going to be hearsay to prove that he did
sell some book for $30,000, but to show that in this witness’s opinion he might have.
The problem is there is no way we can develop this. There is no way this witness has of knowing unless he had some personal knowledge of what was in that particular manuscript or how it might compare with something else.
563
MR. HARRIS: Well I understand the problem, Your Honor. I will try to develop a bit more. If I fail, I fail.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may I also add there is absolutely no foundation of who bought it, the circumstances under which it was purchased. It is just rank hearsay as to who paid what to whom.
THE COURT: Well, for that purpose it would be, but it may have some relevance to something else here. Maybe this witness has some ability to express an opinion. I will let you proceed anyway at this point.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Mr. Armstrong, have you seen –
Mr. Armstrong — my apologies, Your Honor, and most particularly to you, Mr. Vorm.
Have you seen in the past any items that were for sale that were L. Ron Hubbard manuscripts?
A Yes.
Q Where, when, under what circumstances?
A There was a lady in Las Vegas who had an original manuscript written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was an 18-page document in his own handwriting. She was offering it for sale for approximately $75,000.
MR. FLYNN: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I will just receive it for the fact that he is aware of this, not that it is worth $75,000.
MR. HARRIS: That is all it is being offered for.
THE COURT: Received for a limited purpose as to his state of mind.
564
Q BY MR. HARRIS: And this 18-page document, what was it, if you recall?
A It as a manuscript of some writing, actually some material that deal with Scientology philosophy as well
as some theory behind some of the practices of Scientology.
Q Other than that particular one which was being offered for $75,000, have you seen other original manuscripts, letters, documents of L. Ron Hubbard that were for sale?
A Yes.
Q Where, when, under what circumstances?
MR. FLYNN: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. If he’s seen it, observed it.
THE WITNESS: There was, along with this manuscript that went for $30,000, which was a copy by the way, there was some original papers that were discovered by these collectors which they turned over to me, but prior to them turning it over to me they had been planning of selling it and they had mocked up or created a sheet that listed out the items and the approximate sale that they wanted — the asking price, and these were various letters from Mr. Hubbard to some early organizational people from the 1950’s, like 1950, ‘52, around there, and all it was was just like correspondence. There was nothing really special about it other than it was just some correspondence, and they were asking around $150,000 for it.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: For how many pieces?
A Was around probably 20, 25 pages of documents. Some of them typed with just Mr. Hubbard’s notes on them.
565
There were a couple that we all in his handwriting.
Q Are you aware of any actual purchases by the church while you were archivist of LRH materials?
A The only knowledge I would have of that — I don’t have any knowledge of the transaction itself other than I do have materials in my possession which have been identified to me that they were bought by the church from a collector.
Q But you wouldn’t know what the price was that was paid?
A What I was told by the same person, basically the collector that they were bought from, and it was around
$60,000.
MR. FLYNN: Objection; move to strike.
THE COURT: I will strike it. I think that the witness can testify that the documents have value, but as to what the value would be, I don’t think he is competent to testify to that.
MR. HARRIS: Well, perhaps we can settle on a range, Your Honor. There is valuable and valuable.
I just want to get across the point that there is some value in excess of the paper they are written on.
THE COURT: I think the witness can testify to that, but anything as to what precisely, you’d have to have an
expert to testify to that, somebody that is qualified to deal with that subject.
MR. HARRIS: Very well. I will drop that for now.
566
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: In viewing thre documents under seal, can you tell me or estimate approximately how many came from the controller’s archives?
THE COURT: If you know.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: If you know.
A I can’t say a percentage, but I did see quite a few that I recognized as coming from the controller’s archives.
Q And among the ones that were from the controller’s archives, can you give me an estimate of the percentage that are originals rather than copies?
A Again I am not sure about the percentage, but I did see quite a few originals that were in Mr. Hubbard’s
handwriting.
MR. HARRIS: May I have just a moment.
THE COURT: Yes.
567
MR. HARRIS: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may cross-examine.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mr. Vorm, you were in charge of controller archives?
A That’s right.
Q When?
A From approximately 1979 to the present time.
Q And how many other types of archives from 1979 to the present time were there?
A Well, Gerry had his archives; there was an archive in England. That was a question that was being basically sorted out as to where these materials were and who should maintain the care of them and safekeeping.
Q Approximately how many pages of documents did Mr. Armstrong collect if you know in his archives?
A I don’t know. He had several file cabinets full.
Q Several hundred thousand?
A I don’t know. Because he made a lot of copies. And I am not sure how many of the bulk were copies and which were the originals.
Q Approximately how many pages of documents did you have in controller archives?
A Several hundred thousand.
568
Q Of those several hundred thousand how many are originals?
A In my archives?
Q Correct.
A Almost all of them.
Q Have you done an inventory of Mr. Armstrong’s archives?
A Not a complete inventory, no.
THE COURT: That is a little ambiguous. Are you referring to the documents under seal, or what he might have had at some other time, or what?
MR. FLYNN: I’ll develop that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Armstrong was the personal PRO researcher; is that correct?
A That is what I understood was his post title.
Q Senior?
A Yes.
Q He was in charge of the archives for the biography?
A Right.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes. Right.
Q And Mary Sue Hubbard knew that, didn’t she?
A I don’t know if she did or not.
Q You informed her of that, didn’t you?
A That he was going a biography?
Q That he was in charge of archives material for
569
the biography.A I think I made mention in one of my communications. I don’t know exactly what I told her Q On exhibit 11 you told Mary Sue Hubbard — which she approved — that, “. . .In addition, I believe many of the items in Box 1 would be invaluable to the work they are presently doing on the LRH biography.”
A Right.
Q Isn’t that correct?
A That’s right.
Q And she signed in the upper right-hand corner “Very good. Approved”?
A That’s right.
Q So she knew that Gerry Armstrong was collecting materials for the archives biography; is that correct?
A For the LRH biography.
Q For the LRH biography?
A Evidently, if she read my thing, she did.
Q There was no question about the fact that Mr. Armstrong was selecting these documents for the biography and that you petitioned Mary Sue Hubbard to give him documents from controller archives?
A That is right.
Q She was removed as controller at some point; is that correct?
A That is true. I think — I am not sure of the circumstances surrounding that.
Q Well, you were in the Guardian’s office;
570
correct?A For a while, yes.
Q And the controller was head of the Guardian’s Office; is that correct?
A I was in the controller’s office. I am not sure. It seemed to be, but I’m not sure exactly what the — you know the exact legal lines were between the controller’s office and the Guardian’s Office.
Q Well, what was the controller’s office?
A It was the office of the controller, Mary Sue’s office.
Q She was in charge of the Guardian’s Office; you knew that.
MR. HARRIS: Is that a question, or a statement?
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you know she was in charge of the Guardian’s Office?
A I knew she had some dealings with it.
Q After she was removed from her post as controller, you sent another petition to give more documents
to Mr. Armstrong; didn’t you?
A That’s true.
Q This is a copy of that petition, is it not?
A That is true. The bottom is cut off a little bit, but that is essentially the right one.
Q This is the petition that you sent?
A Right.
MR. FLYNN: I would offer it, Your Honor.
571
THE COURT: It will be marked as exhibit B.
Is there any objection, gentlemen?
MR. HARRIS: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
MR. HARRIS: I would like to get a copy of it so I can read it at my leisure.
MR. FLYNN: They have the original; we don’t have it. All we have got is what they gave us.
MR. HARRIS: I’ll find it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: On exhibit B you stated, “He already has many file cabinets of this type of material and I feel this material we have rightfully belongs with him”; isn’t that correct?
MR. HARRIS: Exhibit B speaks for itself, Your Honor. It is unlikely that the witness would be able to duplicate
exactly what he wrote. If he is shown the document, I have no objection.
THE WITNESS: Could I have the question again?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You gave further materials to Mr. Armstrong as set forth in your writing on exhibit B; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And what additional materials did you give him?
A It was a whole bunch of materials, things that mainly pertained to the biography.
Q And who was the controller when you got approval to give him those?
572
A The controller was Gordon Cook.
Q Mary Sue Hubbard was no longer the controller?
A That is true.
THE COURT: What date is that “B”?
THE WITNESS: 10 October ‘81.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Based on the authority lines within the organization, you surrendered those documents to
Mr. Armstrong because the controller gave you authority; isn’t that correct?
A That is true.
Q And you were in charge of the controller archives?
A That is true.
Q Now, let’s see if we can find out what was in what archives.
You testified that you don’t know what percentage of the documents currently under seal were originals from the controller archives; is that true?
A That is true.
573
Q Can you name one document?
A I can’t specifically, no, but some of them are big files that are just — I mean, there is a lot of papers in there.
Q How many times have you gone downstairs and inventoried documents?
A None.
Q Have you sent other people over here to inventory documents?
A No.
Q Has an inventory bean done of the documents downstairs?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Have you seen it?
A Yes.
Q Do you have it?
A No.
Q Have you seen it in the last week?
A No.
Q Do you know where it is?
A No.
Q How extensive is it?
MR. HARRIS: Well, objection, Your Honor. That is ambiguous.
MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it.
Q How many pages is it?
A The copy that I saw that was told to me was the inventory of the documents in the court was — I don’t
574
know. It was fairly thick, at least maybe a quarter of an inch thick of paper.Q In fact the organization has been regularly going in and has made an inventory of every document downstairs; isn’t that accurate, and you have seen it?
A No, I haven’t.
Q You haven’t seen the inventory?
A I have seen an inventory.
Q Can you name one document that is currently under seal from controller archives?
A No, not by name, no.
Q Now, approximately how many pages of materials did you give with the permission of the controller from
controller archives to Mr. Armstrong?
A I don’t know if I would know by pages, but by general bulk there were several boxes full of files.
Q And when you gave those several boxes, you first gave the boxes with Mary Sue Hubbard’s approval when she was controller and subsequently with Gordon Cook’s approval when he was controller; correct?
A Right, at different times.
Q Were there any documents that you gave to Mr. Armstrong where you didn’t have approval from the
controller?
A Not that I recall, no.
Q Now there is a notation on exhibit 10 that there were archives material being routed to the SU; do you
see that?
575
A Yes.
Q What is the SU?
A Well, what I understood it to be, it stood for Special Unit.
Q Where was the Special Unit located?
A I think it was Gilman Hot Springs. I am not sure about that.
Q In 1979 were you at Gilman Hot Springs?
A No.
Q In 1980 were you at Gilman Hot Springs?
A No.
Q Did you have any participation in the shredding operations that took place in early 1980?
A No.
MR. HARRIS: At Gilman Hot Springs, Counsel?
MR. FLYNN: Anywhere?
MR. HARRIS: I will object to that, Your Honor, as irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, he’s already answered “no”; I think.
Am I correct?
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: Let the answer stand.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In early 1980 I take it you were in charge of the controller archives?
A That is right.
Q When you were in charge of the controller archives, did you get briefed on a mission to shred all
documents that showed L. Ron Hubbard’s connection –
576
MR. HARRIS: “Briefed on a mission”; I am sorry, but I don’t quite understand the nature of the question. Perhaps Mr. Flynn could rephrase it.
THE COURT: You can rephrase it.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In early 1980 did you get briefed to go through all of the documents in controller archives and shred documents that showed L. Ron Hubbard’s connection to the church?
A No.
Q Did you see anyone else do that?
A No.
Q What was your answer, Mr. Vorm?
A No.
Q Where were you located at the time?
A In Los Angeles.
Q Who worked for you at that period of time in the controller archives?
A No one.
Q Who was your supervisor?
A A person by the name of Vilia Roubinek.
Q Did you have any conversation with the intervenor, Mary Sue Hubbard, in the latter part of 1979 or the early part of 1980 relative to shredding documents in the controller archives?
A No.
Q What is the B-1 Bureau?
577
MR. HARRIS: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: I’ll tie it together, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
You may answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: Well, I think it stood for Bureau 1 of the Guardian’s Office.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: That was the intelligence unit?
A I was told it stood for Information Bureau.
Q Did the Information Bureau go through the controller archives and shred documents in the early part of
1980?
A No.
Q Did you tell Mr. Armstrong that that had been done.
A Not that I recall.
Q Of the documents under seal — strike that.
Has an inventory been done of the archives that Mr. Armstrong was in charge of?
MR. HARRIS: By this witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I am sorry.
Would you read the question, please?
(The question was read.)
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: I think there may have been an attempted one soon after Gerry left, but aside from that, no, not that I know of.
578
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Have you seen the attempted inventory?
A I saw portions of it.
Q So the inventory was never completed?
A I don’t know. I was not involved in it.
Q You testified that two to three thousand pages of materials under seal are originals that are not in the
possession of the organization; is that correct?
A Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You have to answer audibly, sir.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Have you gone through each and every page of materials in the Armstrong archives?
A No.
THE COURT: Well, again, now are you referring to the matters under seal? You say “Armstrong archives.” I am not sure what you mean. I don’t understand what you are referring to.
MR. FLYNN: I’ll clarify it, Your Honor.
Q Your testimony, Mr. Vorm, is that there are two or three thousand pages under seal that are originals that
are in the possession of the organization; is that correct?
A Right.
Q Now, first of all, you are only in charge of controller archives; is that correct?
A Right now?
Q During the relevant period.
MR. HARRIS: What is the relevant period? It could be
579
right now.MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it.
Q You were in charge of controller archives from ‘79 to the present; is that correct?
A That is true.
Q And there are several hundred thousands of pages of materials in controller archives; is that correct?
A That is true.
Q And on two occasions you gave permission for Mr. Armstrong to have possession of materials from controller archives; is that correct?
A That is true.
Q How many pages of materials did you give to Mr. Armstrong from controller archives?
A Well. I am not sure as far as pages go. There were several boxes that were transferred over to him.
Q Of those several boxes that were transferred over to him from controller archives how many pages of
material are currently under seal from those materials?
A Well, as I said, I believe it is approximately two to three thousand pages that I saw downstairs.
Q Now, your testimony now is — so this is clear — that there are two or three thousand pages of originals under seal from controller archives; is that correct?
A That’s right.
Q Yet, you don’t know what the percentage of
580
documents is under seal that are from controller archives in proportion to the rest?A Well, I didn’t want to give a specific answer because I haven’t had everything out on the table and said
okay, this is the percentage.
Q Have you done an inventory of the documents under seal or — strike that.
Have you seen an inventory of the documents under seal that are from controller archives?
A I don’t know if I recall exactly. I seem to recall there was something that was made up, that a check was made regarding the files. And whether they came from controller archives and that type of thing –
Q Where is that inventory now?
A I don’t know.
Q If you are subpoenaed back here to testify for the defense can you get your hands on it?
MR. HARRIS: If Mr. Flynn wishes to subpoena the church for the item and can describe it with specificity, we’ll produce it, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: I would like all inventories of documents, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: That is egregious. Your Honor.
All inventories made by anybody, anyplace? Of what? Why doesn’t he put it in a subpoena and serve it on
us, Your Honor?
THE COURT: All he needs is a notice to produce. If it is something that you can produce, I can short-cut that
581
by making the order right here.What is it you want, inventories of materials which are downstairs on file under seal?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If you have such an inventory, you are ordered to produce it.
MR. HARRIS: We’ll produce it tomorrow, Your Honor.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, is there an inventory of the materials collected by Gerald Armstrong for the biography project aside from the documents under seal?
A I don’t know.
582
Q Have you seen the documents collected by Mr. Armstrong for the biography project that are not under
seal?
A I have seen some of them, yes.
Q Approximately how many?
A I don’t know if I can answer that because they were given to me along with a lot of other materials but I am not sure whether they were for the biography project or not.
Q Just restrict your testimony to documents collected by Gerald Armstrong.
Now many documents have yon seen that were collected by Gerald Armstrong that are in possession of
your organization that are not under seal?
A Several file cabinets, maybe three, four file cabinets, something like that.
Q How many drawer file cabinets?
A Four.
Q And are they all full?
A No.
Q Have those documents been inventoried?
A No.
Q Your answer was what, Mr. Vorm?
A No.
Q So you don’t know then whether copies of the documents under seal may exist in those file cabinets;
is that correct?
A Well I have a pretty good idea. I have been
583
through most of those documents just looking through what was contained in the file cabinets.What was asked of me earlier was if we had copies of those particular documents which would be fairly easy to tell a copy from the original since the originals are fairly old and that type of thing.
Q Well, the originals are under seal; correct?
A Well you asked me if I knew whether we had copies of these documents where the originals are under
seal here.
Q Correct.
A Right, and you asked me if I had been through the materials where the originals that I had received from
Gerry Armstrong, if I would know whether there were copies of them — of the originals that are in the court, and I said I had been through those file cabinets just scanning through, and to my knowledge there is no copies in there at all of those particular documents.
Q Did you use any inventory to do a comparative analysis?
Q Has anyone done that?
A I don’t know.
Q Now in the summer of 1983 the organization received documents back from Omar Garrison; is that correct?
A That is true.
Q Did you inventory those?
A No.
Q Approximately how many documents did you receive
584
back from Omar Garrison?
A Several boxes.
Q In terms of numbers of pages of material, can you give me an estimate?
A Well I don’t know how many pages are in a box, so I really can’t but there were probably eight boxes, something like that.
Q You have given us an estimate of 2- to 3,000 pages of originals; is that correct, under seal?
A Approximately.
Q Now did you arrive at that estimate?
A I just roughly guessed.
Q It was just a rough guess?
A That is right.
Q Can you give me a rough guess of how many thousands of pages you received back from Omar Garrison?
A Copies and originals, a rough guess would be — I don’t know — 50,000, something like that.
585
Q Have those been inventoried?
A Not that I know of.
Q Did you go through them?
A On a rough, just a general scan through, yes.
Q Did you make any notes?
A No.
Q Have you — do you know whether anyone else has conducted an inventory of those materials?
A I think there may have been some type of a rough thing done, yes.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may that be produced also if an inventory has been done of Omar Garrison’s documents?
THE COURT: If there is such an inventory, then the church will be ordered to produce it.
The contention has been made about two or three thousand originals. And counsel has a right to explore
that.
MR. HARRIS: I understand, Your Honor. If we produce these, we would like them produced under seal since they describe the documents that are under seal.
THE COURT: I don’t know how you describe them.
We can have sort of an in camera situation, if you wish.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Vorm, can you name one document under seal that is an original that the organization does not have possession of either in controller archives, among the documents collected by Mr. Armstrong, or among the documents returned by Omar
586
Garrison?A No, I can’t specifically.
Q How long have you worked in comparing the documents that are under seal in this case, the documents
that are in the possession of the organization either from Omar Garrison, Gerald Armstrong, or in the controller archives?
A Total hours since this case started?
Q Correct.
A Maybe two weeks full time. That would be 24 hours a day times 14. That would be just the number of
hours approximately.
Q Do you know of any individual who has worked more than you for the organization in doing a comparative
analysis of the documents under seal to the documents in possession of the organization?
A Yes.
Q Who?
A Ken Long.
Q How many hours has he worked if you know?
A I don’t know.
Q Did he prepare the inventories?
A He may have been involved in it. I am not sure of that.
Q Did you consult with him prior to your testimony here today?
A I have talked to him, yes.
Q But in any event, your testimony is that you
587
cannot identify one document; is that is that correct?A Not from the stand right now, no. That is correct.
Q Did you engage in any preparation for your testimony here today?
A Yes.
588
Q Now, you testified that you met Mr. Armstrong at the Hollywood Palladium; is that correct, for the first
time?
A Yes.
Q And approximately when was that?
A Right around February of ‘80.
Q What were the circumstances surrounding that event?
A They were showing a film at that event as I recall.
Q What film were they showing?
A I think it was called “Dive Bomber.”
Q How many people were there?
A I can’t recall specifically. I have been to several events at the Palladium.
Q Well, if I suggest to you that them were several thousand people there, does that refresh your memory?
A I don’t think there were several thousand.
Q More than 1,000?
A Probably or I would say maybe around 1,000, just looking back at it.
Q And were tickets being sold for this event?
A I think so. I don’t know.
Q How much were the tickets?
A I don’t know.
Q What were the tickets for?
A I don’t know.
Q Was it to raise money for the Safe Environment
589
Fund to defend Mary Sue Hubbard.MR. HARRIS: What is the relevance of that, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I assume it is preliminary to something else. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: It could be for the safe environment fund. I am not totally sure of the purpose of the safe
environment fund.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you see promotional material in connection with that event?
A Yes.
Q What was the promotional material?
A It was a poster with duplication of the “Dive Bomber” original poster on it.
Q And was it promoted on the basis that L. Ron Hubbard wrote the movie script for the “Dive Bomber?”
MR. HARRIS: Was it promoted? This is far beyond the scope of direct and far beyond the circumstances of the the meeting of Gerry Armstrong.
THE COURT: Well, testing his recollection, I suppose. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: What was the question?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was it promoted on the basis that L. Ron Hubbard wrote the movie script for the movie
the “Dive Bomber”?
A I don’t recall the exact specifics that were on the posters.
Q Why did you go?
590
A Because I was given a ticket.
Q Did you see the movie?
A Yeah.
Q Was it your understanding that L. Ron Hubbard wrote the movie script?
MR. HARRIS: Understanding based upon what?
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you believe that L. Ron Hubbard wrote the movie script?
MR. HARRIS: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled; you can answer if you can remember.
THE WITNESS: I think it was at the time, yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know who Mr. Armstrong’s senior was?
A I think it was Laurel Sullivan.
Q Was it your understanding that they were in charge of the biography project in terms of research?
A Yes.
Q And that Mr. Armstrong was collecting documents for that project?
A Yes, also there was a museum. I was told there was plans for a museum, also.
Q Have you examined the contents of any documents under seal?
A What do you mean by “examined”?
Q Read.
591
A I have read some of them, yes.
Q What have you read?
A I don’t recall specifically.
Q Do you recall anything?
A Yeah.
Q What do you recall?
THE COURT: Well, without going into the details, maybe you can describe generally what you read, may have
read.
THE WITNESS: It was a copy of the book “Excalibur” which I read a few pages of. There was some correspondence between LRH and his attorneys. There was piece of correspondence between LRH and I think it was a person who was handling some PR aspect for him in the late ’60’s or early ’60’s or something like that.
There were other items also, I can’t recall specifically what I read.
592
Q Did you ever meet Omar Garrison?
A No.
Q Did you testify on direct that the manuscript Excaliber has not been published has not been published?
A I don’t believe I did.
Q You don’t remember whether you did or didn’t?
A I don’t think I did say anything about that.
Q Do you know whether the manuscript Excaliber has been published?
A I don’t have any direct knowledge, no.
Q Are you familiar with the book called “Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary” by L. Ron Hubbard?
A Yes.
Q Have you read it?
A Part of it.
Q Have you read the part relating to Excaliber?
A I could have at some point. I don’t recall.
Q Have you read the part that, “. . .most has been released in HCOBs, PLs and books”?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object. If Mr. Flynn is reading from a book, Your Honor –
THE COURT: I’ll sustain it. If you are about through with this witness, we’ll go on and finish. If not, we’ll take a recess.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, we can take a short recess –
HE COURT: It will be a long one.
MR. FLYNN: Well, Your Honor –
THE COURT: We’ll see. Go ahead for a few minutes.
593
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you contend as a representative or a witness for the plaintiff that the manuscript Excaliber has not been published?
MR. HARRIS: He does not contend anything, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Who is Andrew Linarcic?
A It is Linarcic.
He is a staff member of the church.
Q Is he currently — When you say “the church,” which church?
A I’m not sure which church.
Q Do you know what his position is?
A No.
Q Have you ever met him?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever worked with him?
A Yes, actually.
Q And in what capacity did you work with him?
A He worked for me for a short period.
Q What period?
A From August — I think it was a couple of weeks in August of ‘83.
Q Did he work for you in August ‘82?
A No.
Q Do you know what his post was then?
A I’m not sure of the date.
Q Well, do you know whether he was in charge of the archive material of the church concerning L. Ron
594
Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology?A I don’t think that is true, no.
Q What are the technical archives?
A Well, there are basically the controller archives or that portion of the controller archives that deals with the works of L. Ron Hubbard pertaining to Scientology. It is philosophy. It has certain technical procedures regarding the spirit and that type of thing.
Q Mr. Armstrong gave you many documents to put into controller archives; didn’t he?
A It depends on how you mean “many.” Relative to –
Q How many did he give you?
A He gave me several file folders plus some charts, a few tapes, that type of thing.
Q He gave you those because controller archives are basically technical archives relating to L. Ron Hubbard’s writings; is that correct, as opposed to his personal biographical materials, Mr. Vorm?
A That was basically the original intention of the controller archives.
Q Right; that the controller archives related to technical writings and the biographical archives related to personal biographical materials; isn’t that correct?
A Well, that is like the original intention;however, that is not exactly the way it was in practicality.
Q Well, did Mr. Armstrong collect personal biographical materials?
595
A Yes.
Q Did you collect technical writings?
A Yes.
Q Did Mr. Armstrong turn over technical writings to you?
A Yes.
Q Did you turn over personal biographical materials to Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes.
596
Q And was Mr. Linarcic in charge of the archive material relating to L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology?
A No.
Q Do you know what Mr. Linarcic’s present post is?
A No.
Q Do you know where he is?
A No.
Q When did you last see him?
A Three months ago.
Q Where?
A Walking down the street, on the sidewalk.
Q Is he still a staff member of the Church of Scientology?
A I don’t know. I assume so, but I don’t know.
Q Do you know that he filed an affidavit in this case at the beginning of the case?
A I am not sure. I may have — maybe he told me. I don’t recall exactly.
Q Well let me show you the affidavit and ask you if you have read it.
A Okay.
Q Have you read that, sir?
A Not prior to just now, no.
Q You had never read it before?
A No.
Q Having read it, are the contents of that to your knowledge accurate?
597
A I didn’t finish reading the whole thing.
Q Would you do so, please.
A Okay.
Q To your knowledge, is that affidavit accurate?
A I don’t really have personal knowledge on some of these points, so I can’t –
Q Well, did the Church of Scientology of California to your knowledge own the archives material?
A I don’t have knowledge on that exact legal ownership.
Q Mr. Linarcic worked for you in the summer of 1983?
A That’s right.
Q He was your junior?
A That’s right.
Q Would he have had knowledge to your knowledge of who owned the documents?
MR. HARRIS: Well –
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
I think we will take a recess at this time. We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 o’clock. The witness is ordered to return at that time.
(At 4:10 p.m. an adjournment was taken, to be resumed at 9:00 a.m., Friday, May 4, 1984.)