SUPERIOR 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, June 7, 1984
Pages 4684 through 4721, incl.
| APPEARANCES: (See Appearance Page) |
NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644 HERB CANNON, CSR #1923 OFFICIAL REPORTERS |
APPEARANCES:
| For the Plaintiff: | PETERSON & BRYNAN BY: JOHN G. PETERSON 8530 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 407 Beverly Hills, California 90211 (213) 659-9965 -and- ROBERT N. HARRIS The Oviatt Building 617 South Olive Street Suite 915 Los Angeles, California 90014 (213) 626-3271 |
| 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 |
| INDEX FOR VOLUME 27 | Pages 4684 — 4721, incl. |
||
| DAY | DATE | PAGE |
|
| Thursday | June 7, 1984 | A.M. | 4684 |
| P.M. | none | ||
EXHIBITS
| DEFENDANT'S: | IN EVIDENCE |
| (All of the following exhibits have been previously marked for identification and described therein as 500-series:) | |
| YYY-1- | 4691 |
| JJJJ- | 4692 |
| KKKK- | 4694 |
| 7A- | 4685 |
| 7D- | 4688 |
| 7E, 7F- | 4689 |
| 7I, 7J- | 4690 |
| PLAINTIFF'S: | |
| 1- | 4700 |
| 2, 3- | 4701 |
| 4, 5, 6, 7- | 4702 |
| 8, 9, 10- | 4703 |
| 14, 15, 16- | 4704 |
| 17, 18, 22, 23- | 4705 |
| 24, 25, 26, 27- | 4706 |
| 29- | 4707 |
| 30- | 4708 |
| 31, 32- | 4709 |
| 33- | 4710 |
| 34- | 4711 |
| 40- (Sealed.) | 4711 |
| 41-42- | 4712 |
II
INDEX FOR VOLUME 27 (Continued)
EXHIBITS
| PLAINTIFF'S: | IN EVIDENCE |
| 43, 44, 45, 46, 47- | 4713 |
| 51, 52, 54- | 4714 |
| 55, 56, 57- | 4715 |
| 59- | 4717 |
| (The following exhibits are not in the 500-series:) | |
| 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69- | 4718 |
| 100- | 4719 |
4684
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1984; 9:07 A.M.
oOo
THE COURT: I guess we just finished the five series?
MR. LITT: Six, I believe. Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: We are on 7A, I believe, Your Honor.
THE COURT: 7A is a dispatch from LRH, 3/4/67, regarding -- so forth. Are you offering this, Counsel?
MR. FLYNN: I am, Your Honor.
Mr. Armstrong testified that there was evidence -- you keep on your books the sale price of St. Hill as a business. It shows the origins of the Sea Organization, payment of Sea Organization personnel by Mr. Hubbard, and items of that nature.
4685
THE COURT: Any additional objection, Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: I think -- can I take a look at it, Your Honor?
I don't have any of these documents. Maybe I had better stand over here.
First Amendment, financial and religious privacy, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be overruled. It will be received.
Seven B's is a letter to Dear Mr. Wesikirch.
MR. FLYNN: Those relate to Mr. Purcell and Mr. Hubbard corresponding with regard to the fact that Alexis was Mr. Hubbard's daughter.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I believe that is a letter to an attorney. Mrs. Hubbard testified that Mr. Wesikirch represented, I believe, both her and her husband in this period. I haven't read the letter, but I do know the name Weiskersch.
MR. FLYNN: There are a number of letters, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There are two letters.
Well, it does appear these may be of a nature — it is hard to tell. I'll sustain the objection. I'll order it sealed, seven B's.
4686-87
We have 7C's as re the PR Counsel, 29 October, '81 from Monica to Durel.
MR. FLYNN: That is the document, Your Honor, that, authorized Mr. Garrison in advance of the book publication to go around and do a video based on the document, go around the world. It is somewhere on the third or fourth page. Both Mr. Garrison and Mr. Armstrong testified about that.
We are offering it to show the scope of discretion and authority possessed by Mr. Armstrong and by Mr. Garrison to use the documents in connection with the biography project.
MR. LITT: la there is a particular page that you are referring to?
MR. FLYNN: I'd like to look through it. I remember looking through it before and seeing it with Mr. Armstrong.
In any event, the entire document shows that the motion activity was taking place, but it is here somewhere.
MR. LITT: I don't have anything additional, but it seems to me to be rather .irrelevant. There is no testimony that anything occurred or was even authorized in this meeting.
MR. FLYNN: Laurel Sullivan testified that it was authorized.
THE COURT: There is nothing there, other than the testimony itself is available. I will sustain the objection. Clutter up the record.
7D is a letter on the letterhead of L. Ron Hubbard personal office public relations, 17 November,
4688
1980 from Gerry to Helen O'Brien.
MR. FLYNN: For the record it was item No. 3 on one of those pages.
MR. LITT: I would object as to its relevance. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
7E is a letter apparently by Mr. Hubbard, a draft of a letter concerning inquiry by Parliament into Scientology and a lawsuit against the Daily Mail.
MR. FLYNN: There is some language in there with regard to attacking the media, attacking the press.
It is our view, Your Honor, that that type of language and intimidation by Mr. Hubbard permeated the entire organization, is what made Mr. Armstrong feel the way he did throughout the period he was involved.
4689
MR. LITT: I don't have anything other than what has already been raised.
THE COURT: Well, I'll receive it in evidence. If nothing else, it is evidence of his handwriting.
Seven F's is a draft of a wire to the editor of the Daily News regarding Formosa.
What is the theory of that, counsel?
MR. FLYNN: I think it is the same, Your Honor. I have to take a look at it.
THE COURT: It says, "Tell the world that we can have it if we want it, the United States."
MR. FLYNN: It is Tom Esterbrook. He is writing under someone else's name.
MR. LITT: I thought we had established that that was a pen name, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, for whatever it is worth, I'll receive it.
H is to whom it may concern on the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard, LRH personal secretary by Mrs. Pat Brice.
MR. FLYNN: That is in evidence already as exhibit BB which is not under seal. That is the authorization from L. Ron Hubbard's personal secretary.
THE COURT: If it is already in evidence, there is no reason to receive it.
MR. FLYNN: We won't offer it.
THE COURT: Seven I's.
MR. FLYNN: That relates to the claim that he was a4690
Provost Marshall of Korea. That claim is made in that data sheet.
MR. LITT: I don't have anything to add on seven I's, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
Seven J's.
MR. FLYNN: That relates to transfers of monies, Your Honor. It should be in Mr. Hubbard's handwriting and it refers to HEC and I believe OTS.
I believe it relates to the transfers of monies between the Church of Scientology and HEC, showing Mr. Hubbard to be receiving funds.
MR. LITT: First Amendment, financial, and religious privacy.
THE COURT: Overruled. It will be received.
Okay. Apparently that is the end of the defendant's. Happy days.
Now we'll go over the plaintiff's.
MR. FLYNN: We have that one exhibit that we passed. I culled it.
THE COURT: That is a dirty word.
MR. FLYNN: I pulled out a few exhibits that relate to a little chronology and financial condition which relate to a number of claims by Mr. Hubbard.
4691
THE COURT: Okay, we can submark this group as tripleY-1 collectively.
MR. LITT: Well, I don't think, other than the general things that have already been raised about the Naval and VA records generally --
THE COURT: All right. I will receive it in evidence.
MR. LITT: That was triple Y sub --
THE COURT: 1, and the other will just remain as an exhibit for identification.
You also said something about a declaration of Mr. Armstrong you wanted to mark as an exhibit?
MR. FLYNN: Right, Your Honor. It is the one I gave to the court with regard to the MCCS tapes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: And I'd also like to mark, Your Honor, the declaration of Andrew Lenarcic.
THE COURT: Well let's see if we have these declarations.
MR. FLYNN: I have a copy of Lenarcic's with me. The original is in the court file.
THE CLERK: Is it attached to something?
MR. FLYNN: It was attached to the original complaint to get the restraining order.
THE COURT: I have a supplemental affidavit.
MR. FLYNN: That's it.
THE COURT: Of Mr. Armstrong.
MR. FLYNN: That's it.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, if it is the declaration or
4692
affidavit, what I am thinking of, what it does is it purports to transcribe a portion of the MCCS tape, the privilege on which has been upheld, and since the privilege has been upheld, one, I see no relevance in marking it and two, it is improper because it violates the privilege.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, depending on what happens to the case, it has been --
THE COURT: Well I will mark it as an exhibit for identification. Since it purports to be something which I have concluded is at least provisionally privileged, I will order it sealed so we can mark that defendants 4J, and we will seal it along with any other exhibits that have been received for identification and put under seal.
MR. FLYNN: With regard to the sealing order. Your Honor, that exhibit has been filed in several cases where it is not under seal.
MR. LITT: Well, there are motions in those cases with respect to it, Your Honor. I think in this case it is properly sealed.
The other courts will have to treat it as they deem fit when they reach the issues.
THE COURT: I think that is probably accurate. It is available. It is part of the file.
Okay, now, we have some plaintiff's exhibits.
MR. FLYNN: And I have that Lenarcic declaration, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The who?
MR. FLYNN: I'd like to offer that in evidence.
4693
That was attached to the original complaint to get the restraining order and the preliminary injunction and, of course, as Your Honor can see from reading it, the position taken at trial is virtually 180 --
THE COURT: Didn't you ask me to take judicial notice of that at one time and didn't I do so?
I have forgotten.
MR. FLYNN: It was left up in the air. It was never resolved.
THE COURT: Okay. We can mark this next in order and since it is already a part of the court file which the court can take judicial notice of, not as evidence of the truth of what is therein asserted, just that this was am assertion by Mr. Lenarcic at that time.
4694
MR. FLYNN: That will be in evidence, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. It will be received in evidence, four K's.
All right. Are there any of these that you are aware of that you have any objection to, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: Our general view, Your Honor, is what Mr. Litt is doing is introducing all of these letters of Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard.
MR. LITT: I haven't introduced anything yet. I only have them marked. I'm going to offer many of them, but let me tell you how I would like to do it.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LITT: Any spousal letters, I do not wish to enter. I wish a ruling that they are spousal communications and are privileged because I want a record of that. And I don't intend to introduce those documents.
I do intend --
THE COURT: We have a problem with her letters. She was, obviously a spouse, but she was also a Guardian Controller of this Church. And he was the founder. And there is a lot of other evidence that he was directing the Church through her or some of the activities of the Church through her.
So it seems to me that communications between them that are in that general capacity, certainly, aren't to be treated as privileged communications.
MR. LITT: I think unless, Your Honor, it can be demonstrated that these were formal organizational4695
communications, if a husband and wife have communication about, say, business matters which are not transmitted through the business, but are done between the two of them, they are confidential even though they discuss, for example, business matters.
The letters clearly are not addressed to her post; nor are they signed in the way that normal organizational letters are signed. They are private correspondence that may discuss Church matters and may give his opinion on Church matters.
THE COURT: The problem that I have is that if you are going to contend that on the one hand these are private and personal and can't be read by anybody or considered by them, but on the other hand you are going to contend that Mr. Armstrong was wrong in taking this without giving an explanation for whatever purposes that he took them, then I think that is rather — you can't have it both ways.
It seems to me that if he took these, he is not a lawyer; he was not a lawyer and has a right to explain or demonstrate why he took any particular letter. If you want it sealed and not disclosed, then I am not going to consider it. I can't consider it as a basis for any cause of action here.
MR. LITT: I'm not asking as such that the Court consider the contents.
It is our position, among other things, that certain types of things, even in the context of this defense, simply should not be permissible. We'll argue that in4696
argument.
The Court may not agree with that. And that is fine. I understand that if the Court doesn't agree with that.
On the other hand, they are, in fact, I believe, privileged. And so all we are asking for at this point is a determination reflecting that. And we don't intend to introduce into evidence --
THE COURT: If you take the position it is privileged, the Court is going to deem that you are making no claim for any damages based on Mr. Armstrong taking the particular letters because there is no way for me to evaluate his claims without having the contents in evidence.
MR. LITT: I understand that is the Court's position. We disagree with it, of course, and would like not now, but in the context of argument, to, at least, have the opportunity to argue that further.
But if that is how the Court rules, that is --
THE COURT: That will have to be my position so that if you want these to remain, for example, as a privileged communication and confidential and sealed, I'm willing to do that. But I am also going to deem that, assuming that the Court concludes he may have a privilege to take some of these matters, that there is a reasonable cause to believe that there is something in these letters which warrant his taking them.
So that will be the way I'm going to call it.
4697
500-1, do you want to offer that, or do you want that --
MR. LITT: May I make a couple of preliminary inquiries before I decide, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. LITT: One, if these are offered will the Court place these under seal, or are they being offered in a public record?
THE COURT: If it is going to be received into evidence, it will be a matter of public record.
On the other hand, if it is something that would only be for identification and I conclude it is confidential, I'll seal it, order it to remain sealed.
MR. LITT: My second inquiry would be, is the Court going to find any waiver of any other spousal privilege claims by -- if we determine to introduce these?
THE COURT: No, no. The Court will take the same position as to any exhibits to which you contend is confidential and can't be divulged and you don't want to put it in evidence. If I agree with you that it is confidential, at least it would be subject to a privilege; I'll order it sealed and remain as an exhibit for identification. But I am not going to consider it in substance as a basis for any claimed damages unless I change my mind and conclude that there is no defense based upon privilege.
MR. LITT: Then I think the way I would like to do it, Your Honor, is I would basically like a determination so that, at least the record is clear that it is privileged4698
based on the Court's ruling and statement that it could not consider the contents unless -- cannot consider whether Mr. Armstrong was entitled to take them unless we move them into evidence. We would move them into evidence on that basis, but we would like a determination that it is privileged.
And we would move it into evidence based on the Court's determination as to how it would treat the privileged matter; is that agreeable with the Court?
THE COURT: Yes.
4699
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, as I understand it, they are not going to be in evidence?
THE COURT: Well I guess we will take one step at a time.
I think this letter, the 500-1 probably would In general fall within the privilege as a confidential communication. It does not appear to me to be a letter which vas in the chain of command.
On the other hand, I can see why Mr. Armstrong took it from some of the language in here consistent with some of the other testimony he has given toward other exhibits.
Now, if Mr. Litt wants to offer this in evidence, it will be received in evidence and will remain as any other exhibit in evidence.
If, on the other hand, if he wants it simply to be left as an exhibit for identification, then I will so leave it and it will be ordered sealed based upon the conclusion that it was a confidential communication.
MR. FLYNN: We only add, Your Honor, that there is extensive evidence that Mrs. Hubbard knew and even acknowledged that personal letters were in the possession of Mr. Armstrong in January, 1980. In fact, it is even in some of the initial documents.
THE COURT: Well, I think it goes to the weight. I don't think there is any waiver.
Let's go forward.
MR. LITT: Can I just take a quick look at it?
4700
THE COURT: Surely.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, so I don't repeat it, any requests for exhibits that we move in would be that they be sealed.
THE COURT: All right. Well that request will be denied as a general proposition.
MR. FLYNN: There is one further consideration. Your Honor. If Mr. Litt picks and chooses one or two of these letters which are the more innocuous type in a six-inch pile of which 95 percent of the others relate to almost all financial entanglements of Mr. Hubbard and the organization and because he ran the organization as if it was his, the informality of the communication between him and the second in command would be evidence of the way he ran it, and if he picks and chooses several innocuous ones while the great bulk of them are of a totally different character, it would be highly misleading in the record.
THE COURT: Well, we will do one thing at a time.
MR. LITT: Well, we will introduce it, Your Honor.
I want to make clear, I guess it is, but just in case it is not that we are only moving documents in because the court has adopted this defense and permitted documents to be moved in.
THE COURT: Very well. That is understood.
I will receive 500-1.
500—2, I suppose goes along with 500—3 to do with the tentative constitution of the nation of Rhodesia, and the letter to Mr. Hubbard from Mr. Thomspon, principal
4701
private secretary to the prime minister of Rhodesia.
Are you offering this into evidence, Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: No, no objection to that exhibit, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, receive 500-2 and 500-3.
500-4, another letter to Susie from Mr. Hubbard from Tangiers, at least it is on the letterhead of the hotel in Tangiers.
MR. LITT: We would like a spousal privilege ruling on this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I would think -- I'd find this would be a privileged communication.
MR. LITT: And based on the previous discussion and the court's ruling in that regard, we will move it in.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: Well the same objection. Your Honor, to any spousal communication, Your Honor. Your Honor excluded spousal communication that we had offered which is more reflective, we think, of the six inches of letters down there to allow --
4702
THE COURT: As I have indicated, if they objected to it, they can't claim any element of damages based upon it as far as I am concerned.
I'll receive 4 in evidence.
They want it in evidence; it will be just another exhibit.
Exhibit 500-5 is another one of 8 January, '67. This, again, appears to be a privileged communication.
MR. LITT: We would move it in based on the same understanding previously discussed.
MR. FLYNN: We would just make the same objection.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. I'll receive it.
6 is another letter. This would also appear to be a privileged communication.
MR. LITT: Move it in on the same understanding.
MR. FLYNN: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be received.
7. All right. This would appear to be a privileged communication.
MR. LITT: Move it in on the same understanding.
THE COURT: I'll deem the same objection raised; overruled.
It will be received.
500-8, Rosie has a note here, "has no page number."
MR. LITT: Page 5 is missing, Your Honor. It looks like it is just misnumbered.
4703
THE COURT: All right. It appears to be another communication which will be privileged.
MR. LITT: Move it in on the same understanding.
THE COURT: I'll deem the same objection; overruled. I'll receive it.
9 is to "Dear Arthur." I guess it is a father to son.
MR. LITT: Move that in, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be received.
10 is another privileged communication.
MR. LITT: Move it in on the same understanding.
THE COURT: All right. I'll deem the same objection; overruled; receive it.
The next one here the next number is 14 here, a letter from Mr. Hubbard to his son Ron, February 20, '38. Are you offering this?
MR. LITT: Yes.
4704
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: Relevancy, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Oh, I will receive it.
MR. LITT: And we are moving 15, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, will be received.
MR. LITT: We are moving 16.
MR. FLYNN: There, Your Honor, same type of objection that we had to -- we attempted to move into evidence some correspondence between Mr. Hubbard and his earlier wives.
MR. LITT: This is not --
MR. FLYNN: I understand that.
MR. LITT: Wait, I am sorry. Let me just -- yes, on this, Your Honor, we would also look for a privilege determination and then we'd move it in.
MR. FLYNN: This was the mother? is that correct?
MR. LITT: Oh, this is the mother. No, this is not a privilege. I am sorry.
THE COURT: I don't know what -- maybe Mr. Harris' client who would have presumably an interest in this --
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am just moving in for both of us, but that would be just introduced in terms of distributing private information. That wouldn't come within the ambit of this defense, to the extent that it is applicable would be the argument.
THE COURT: All right, I will receive 16.
4705
17 is to "Dearest Ron, Dearest Polly" signed "Mom." Are you offering that, Counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor, but -- yes, no but.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No, no objection.
THE COURT: Be received.
500-18 is too, I guess, from Mr. Hubbard's to Ron Hubbard, USS Black Hawk. Are you offering this?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
22 is a letter from LRH to his mother April 14, '55.
MR. LITT: We will offer that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received.
23 is a letter to Ron and Sue from Dad, Port Orchard, Washington, '57. Are you offering this, Counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
24 is a letter to Ron from Dad, September 13, '58.
Are you offering this?
4706
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received.
Exhibit 25 is a letter to Ron from Mom, September 15, '58. Are you offering this?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
26 is a letter from the U.S. Naval Hospital, Bremmerton from Dad to Ron and Sue. Are you offering this?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN; No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
27 is a letter to Ron and Sue from Dad, January 12, 1956. Are you offering this?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received.
29 is a letter from the Knickerbocker Hotel --
MR. FLYNN: 28 we skipped over?
THE COURT: I guess we didn't mark it.
MR. LITT: We didn't mark 28.
THE COURT: 29.
I am not sure who this is from or who it is to.
MR. LITT: I believe the testimony was it is a letter
4707
from Mr. Hubbard to his first wife, Louise Grubb Hubbard. Yes, that was the testimony.
We would ask for a privilege finding on this. Your Honor, and we would move it on the same understanding.
MR. FLYNN: We'd make the same objection as before, Your Honor.
4707-A
THE COURT: Well, it is something that is between Mr. Hubbard and --
Who was he married to in 1938?
MR. LITT: Louise Grubb Hubbard.
MR. FLYNN: Who was called "Polly."
THE COURT: It says "My dearest one."
MR. LITT: She was also called "Skipper" by Mr. Hubbard.
MR. FLYNN: We would be willing to stipulate. I think I am a little familiar with the letter.
MR. LITT: Mr. Armstrong testified to that, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: We would stipulate that it is between Mr. Hubbard and his first wife; however, our view is, again, the overall character of the letters better those two, for example, we intend to introduce the other --
THE COURT: I have concluded that there was a privilege as between Mr. Hubbard who is not here to claim it and his first wife who is not here to claim it.
MR. FLYNN: Who is deceased.
THE COURT: I don't know that she is deceased. I'll accept your representation.
MR. LITT: As far as I know, that is accurate.
THE COURT: And I guess the Church is purportedly asserting it. Whatever, I'll receive it.
30 is a letter to Skipper from the Knickerbocker Hotel from Ron, 12-8-39.
MR. FLYNN: The same category; same objection, Your Honor.
4708
MR. LITT: We would ask for the same privileged determination and move it in.
THE COURT: It would be privileged if somebody was here to claim it.
Well, I'll receive it. 30 will be received into evidence.
MR. LITT: Has the Court found that it is privileged?
THE COURT: It is privileged, but I am not sure anybody here has a legitimate right to assert it. I'm not sure that the Church has any right to vicariously assert this unless they want to stipulate that they are the alter ego of Mr. Hubbard.
MR. LITT: There is no such stipulation, Your Honor.
One, there is a question of whether Mrs. Hubbard could do it. But even aside from that, I think the issue can be raised spontaneously since there is a privilege involved unless there is a showing of waiver.
THE COURT: Well, whatever, I'll receive it. I won't take the time to research the law.
31 is another one.
MR. LITT: We would, again, ask for a privileged determination and move it in, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: Same objection, Your Honor. We think there has been a waiver. We don't think any privilege applies. We think it has got to be asserted by Mr. Hubbard.
THE COURT: Well, are you objecting to its introduction? I'm not sure whether you are objecting to his contentions or objecting to the introduction of the
4709
MR. FLYNN: I am objecting to his contentions with regard to all the findings of privilege and then, therefore, the introduction. Because the condition we are in, there has been a judicial finding that they are privileged and then an introduction into evidence to prove that Mr. Armstrong has violated the privilege. So we are in kind of a Catch-22 situation.
We think all of these documents were voluntarily given to Mr. Armstrong who voluntarily gave them to Mr. Garrison with Mr. Hubbard's permission.
Mr. Hubbard has not come forward to say anything different than the evidence that is in the record.
THE COURT: I think that is probably a valid point as to these letters from Mr. Hubbard to Skipper. So they will be received.
32 is the same category.
Are you offering that, counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same ruling. It will be received.
March 29, '40, "Red head" to "Sweetheart."
I assume that is the same category?
MR. FLYNN: That is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you offering it?
MR. LITT: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
It will be received.
33, are you offering that in evidence?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
4710
THE COURT: Same ruling.
It will be received.
4711
34 is to Skipper from, Red Head. Same situation?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT; Are you offering it in evidence?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, same ruling. Be received.
40 is a letter to Red Head from Skipper.
MR. LITT: I think -- I thought we were at -- Your Honor, do you have 37 there that is marked?
THE COURT: The last we had was 34.
MR. LITT: And then I think you moved to 40, but my notes show that the next one should be 37.
THE CLERK: No, 37 wasn't even in the folder.
MR. LITT: Okay. All right, then, I guess my notes are wrong.
THE COURT: Well, this letter concerns lot of personal information about this former wife, deceased, and I don't see any reason for that to go into the public domain.
Are you offering this exhibit 40?
MR. LITT: Yes. Your Honor.
As with everything, we do ask that all of these things be sealed, of course.
THE COURT: Well she is not a party in this action. She didn't do anything to invite it. Of course, she is deceased, but she might have some heirs and so forth that would be upset with this.
I will receive it, but I will order it sealed, not to be opened except under further order of the court.
4712
41, is another letter from her. Are you offering this in evidence?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There was a privilege and it was weighed. All right, I will receive it.
Exhibit 42, another -- - well, same category. Are you offering this?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, I will receive it, 42.
43 is a letter from Skipper. It is typed, to Mr. Hubbard.
4713
THE COURT: Are you offering this in evidence?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be received.
44 is a letter to Mr. Hubbard from his wife at that time.
MR. FLYNN: Same objection, Your Honor, to all of these.
THE COURT: All right. Are you offering that, counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
45; are you offering that?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The same objection will be deemed entered; overruled.
It will be received.
46, another letter; are you offering that?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The same objection deemed entered; same ruling.
It will be received.
500-47, the same category; are you offering that, counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The same objection deemed raised; overruled; received.
Is that about all the plaintiff's exhibits?
MR. LITT: We are close, Your Honor.
4714
THE COURT: 51 is miscellaneous things, funeral oration for Peggy Conway.
MR. FLYNN: No objection, Your Honor. It has to do with some people that are deceased, apparently.
THE COURT: Are you offering that, counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
52 says "LRH handwritten dispatches.
Are you offering this, counsel?
MR. LITT: Can I take a look at that, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LITT: We'll offer it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be received.
54 is a share certificate, 9 shares, in the name of L. Ron Hubbard; are you offering this, counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. It will be received.
55 is a little envelope; apparently it has a receipt for 330 pounds, 10 percent deposit on the Ketch "Isabel" 30 March, '61.
Are you offering this in evidence?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
4715
THE COURT: It will be received.
56 is to whom it may concern, a draft of a letter. "This will certify that Charles Shepperdson was employed Saint Hill from '63 to '64. Should he desire references, we would be pleased to give one."
Are you offering this, counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: Be received.
A blue binder, LRH Will and a key envelope to Dr. Hubbard's bedroom desk.
Are you offering that? This is October 28, 1959.
MR. LITT: May I take a look at that?
THE COURT: Apparently there are some other things in here. Maybe they are drafts of a Will. Let's see what else. LRH Birth Certificate, "Do not give out originals, photostats." Codicil to Mr, Hubbard's Will of January 18, '60.
MR. LITT: We'll offer it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
58 is just a little writing nonpublished, the original manuscript of Excalibur.
Are you offering that?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Armstrong testified that went along with
4716
a copy of the manuscript.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: Only that it should be put with the manuscript.
THE COURT: Where is the manuscript?
MR. LITT: It is under seal. It is unpublished. And we don't intend to introduce it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll just leave it as it is.
There is a collection of 59, LRH notes, handwritten data, et cetera, letters, envelopes; a letter from Nibs to Daddy.
"Dear Henrietta,' "Nibs." "Helena, Montana," other things.4717
MR. LITT: We will offer this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. FLYNN: No objection.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
61 and 62 are just apparently letters from Travers to Moxon of the Church of Scientology about the VA claim and then the disallowance sheet.
MR. LITT: May I take a look at that?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FLYNN: We have no objection to those.
MR. LITT: I don't think we will offer this.
THE COURT: You want to offer this?
MR. FLYNN: We will offer them.
THE COURT: All right, be received.
It think they are probably just duplications -- is that all the plaintiff's exhibits?
MR. LITT: There is one other category of exhibits that were left.
THE COURT: That is right. There were some when we went through this originally that Mr. Harris wanted to wait. Did you want to offer all of those?
MR. LITT: If you can give me one moment, I can take a quick look.
THE COURT: Oh, you were going to provide the clerk with the pages from the book.
MR. LITT: Yes, that is what we were just talking about and it got overlooked. I will have it delivered this afternoon and have a copy delivered -- well, I think they have
4718
the book actually.
MR. FLYNN: If you can just bring a copy tomorrow to court, that is fine.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I think what we have at this point is 62, -3, -4, -5, -6,-7 and 69.
THE COURT: Do you have any objection to those exhibits, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: No, Your Honor. We'd offer them if they don't.
THE COURT: All right. They will be received.
MR. FLYNN: These exhibits --
THE CLERK: 62, 63, 64 to 68?
MR. LITT: 68 is in.
MR. FLYNN: Yes, 62 it starts and it goes up to 69.
MR. LITT: Except for 68, and for the record these are also, Your Honor, being offered only on the same basis as the others. I believe they come from the archives.
THE COURT: Very well. So understood.
4719
MR. LITT: And according to my records here, Your Honor, 100, I don't know whether the Court actually received it into evidence or not or held off.
I would ask that it be moved in and I will have delivered this afternoon a copy to the Court.
THE COURT: It will be received. Those are the pages from the book?
MR. LITT: Yes.
THE COURT: It will be received.
Do you want to read those numbers again?
MR. LITT: It begins with 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, and then 69.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LITT: And then 100 has now also been admitted.
THE COURT: Does that take care of all of our business for the day?
MR. LITT: I believe it does, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: One thing, Your Honor: We need copies of several exhibits. And we would like the Court's permission to make arrangements with the clerk to figure out how we can now get these copies and take them upstairs to the sixth floor and have copies made and then returned or have her do it and then bill us or whatever arrangements can be made.
THE COURT: I'll authorize the clerk to do it as she sees fit.
MR. LITT: Your Honor,we would ask at this time, until the case is over, that any copies that are made, that the order presently be for use only in this case. I know
4720
that they have been received into evidence. Depending on what happens in the case, we may have further motions on this after the Court rules. And so we do feel that that is appropriate, at least at this time.
MR. FLYNN; Your Honor, these exhibits, many of them -- some of which I brought with me from Boston, they are being used in cases all over the country.
MR. LITT: I'm talking about the formerly sealed exhibits, the ones that came from the archives. I'm not talking about any other exhibits.
THE COURT: Well, I don't really -- I can't think of anything that is going to cause me to change my position on these things. What is in evidence is evidence. They are going to be here. They are going to have access to them.
MR. LITT: If Mr. Flynn is talking about having copies made now of these --
THE COURT: I assume he is only going to use them in connection with the case.
MR. FLYNN: That is true, Your Honor.
One other thing --
MR. LITT: Can we have an order to that effect? I am not impuning anybody's integrity.
MR. FLYNN: We are not asking for copies of sealed documents.
MR. LITT: That is fine; no problem.
MR. FLYNN: I take it in these arguments tomorrow there will be arguments on the law also in addition to arguments on the facts?
4721
THE COURT: Whatever you want to argue.
MR. LITT: That gives sufficient flexibility.
THE COURT: As long as you can finish.
MR. LITT: Whatever you can say in 20 minutes?
MR. FLYNN: There will be no time limits, apparently.
THE COURT: Well, unless I get awful impatient.
I assume that counsel are thinking in terms of winding this whole thing up tomorrow as far as the arguments are concerned?
MR. LITT: I would hope so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So I think you and Mr. Harris ought to get together to allow Mr. Flynn to have a decent amount of time. I'm not going to limit him.
MR. LITT: We have discussed it. And our plan for the combined opening between the two of us which will deal with different areas will be an hour and a half to an hour and forty-five minutes which I think is in line with what the Court is thinking.
THE COURT: As long as counsel are going to be reasonable, I am not going to cut anybody off. We have been here for six weeks.
I'll see you tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.
(At 10:25 a.m. an adjournment was taken until Friday, June 8, 1984; at 9:00 a.m.)
