IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

JULIE CHRISTOFFERSON TITCHBOURNE, Plaintiff, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, MISSION OF DAVIS, a non-profit California corporation, doing business in Oregon; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, doing business in Oregon; and L. RON HUBBARD, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. A7704-05184

EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Volume IX
Pages 4640 to 4835
Testimony of Gerald D. Armstrong

April 11, 1985

BILL ELLIS & ASSOCIATES
Court Reporters
1001 S. W. Fifth Ave.
Portland, Oregon

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4686

THE COURT: Well, I said yesterday afternoon and I am going to watch this fairly closely the rest of this day, we are not here to build a case for whatever cases are going on around the country. I’ll address this to the gentlemen in the audience. I’m trying the Christofferson case.

MR. COOLEY: Two days we gave him discovery in the California case.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know where the lawyers present are from or what cases and I don’t really care. That’s their job. It’s that we are trying the issues in this case, as I see them, and I’m going to try to limit it to that.

MR. COOLEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: We’ll take a few minutes.

(Court recessed at 10:57 a.m. and reconvened at 11:17 a.m.)

MR. COOLEY: Before we bring in the jury, Your Honor, you remember, I told the Court I would continue my examination. I told the Court I was continuing to check on whether there were additional tapes, and I am now informed there are tapes of meetings with Mike Rinder on November 19 and November 30, 1984. I have no intention of using them, but I want to inform the Court that they do

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4687

exist.

MR. McMURRY: We would like them produced forthwith.

MR. COOLEY: I object to that.

THE COURT: Well, I asked the other day for all tapes, videotapes, and so forth, to be produced regarding the Armstrong Operation.

MR. COOLEY: I understood the tapes were for the Court, not counsel. I was not required to produce, in the midst of my cross-examination, the tapes of the –

THE COURT: Now, how did we find this information?

MR. COOLEY: I have had Mr. Peterson check on the situation with the lawyer in Toronto.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, where are the tapes?

MR. PETERSON: They are in Toronto.

MR. COOLEY: I’ll have them sent here.

THE COURT: Okay. Get them here.

MR. COOLEY: I’ll be happy to present them to the Court. But the point is, the other tapes did not get turned over to Counsel until the Court determined they were going into evidence.

THE COURT: And these are tapes of what?

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4688

MR.COOLEY: The Rinder meetings of November.

THE COURT: We are not going to have any testimony about this meeting until I hear those tapes.

MR. COOLEY: I don’t understand that ruling at all.

THE COURT: Well, just take it as a ruling. I was told that there were nonexistent tapes. Now we are getting –

MR. COOLEY: No. I didn’t say that about the Rinder meeting. I said there were no tapes –

THE COURT: No, wait a minute, Mr. Cooley. Just a second. Let me talk now. I asked about tapes regarding anything to do with the Armstrong Operation.

MR. COOLEY: I told the Court I was still checking the Toronto situation.

THE COURT: I’m not blaming you, Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I had determined there was no tape of the hotel meeting, there was no tape of the lawyer’s meeting; that I had not completed my investigation of the existence of tapes, any other tapes with respect to Toronto. And I have now determined that there are tapes of the meeting with Rinder on November 19 and 30, and I’m telling the

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4689

Court that. I’m not concealing anything.

MR. McMURRY: May I be heard, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. MCMURRY: This Court on Monday –

THE COURT: And don’t get angry.

MR. MCMURRY: I’m not. I certainly wouldn’t want to do that.

This Court, on Friday and again on Monday, ordered all writings, all reports, all wires, all recordings of any kind from any source, including the Toronto lawyer, Ingram, and anybody else, were to be furnished to this Court by Monday morning.

And there was colloquy: “That’s a big order, but we’ll do it.”

Now here we are on Thursday and low and behold Peterson finds — not Mr. Gutfeld, but Peterson — finds, yes, there’s a Toronto tape.

Now, he didn’t find it on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. He finds it on
Thursday. Now, I also suggest that the cross-examination that pinpoints the 19th and 30th of November must be in the form of some report, must be in the form of some memorandum.

THE COURT: Is this the meetings of –

MR. MCMURRY: — of good old Rinder meetings –

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4690

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MCMURRY: — which have been referred to by Mr. Cooley as occurring on the 19th and 30th. There must be some evidence, unless the Toronto lawyer is in court and can shed some light on this sudden information, as to date, time and place.

There must be some evidence that, low and behold, Mr. Peterson might be able to enlighten us on. The
contents and the times are clearly within the knowledge now of Mr. Cooley, and we can only suppose
that source of information is Mr. Peterson, specially admitted as an officer of this court.

We would suggest, Your Honor, that the cross-examination on this setup be terminated. It’s obvious that the Court’s orders are not being complied with until it suits the purpose of the defendant, Church of Scientology of California, and that obviously evidence is being used from this setup to harass and intimidate this witness, and it’s an ongoing operation to this very day, to this very last hour.

MR. COOLEY: Your Honor, you may recall in Mr. Gutfeld’s testimony he said, “That is not within my ability,” at which time I announced to the Court –

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4691

THE COURT: I’m not blaming Mr. Gutfeld.

MR. COOLEY: Let me please finish. I stood up and I said, “I’m handling that aspect. I am continuing the investigation; I have not completed it yet. I will report to the Court when I do.” I have now reported to the Court. There is no concealment of any tapes here. Now, with respect to –

THE COURT: Do you want to know what bothers me?

MR. COOLEY: What, sir?

THE COURT: When I had Mr. Peterson stand up, and I said, “Are there any more tapes or documents or anything with reference” –

Don’t shake your head at me, Mr. Peterson.

Just get up here because you and I are going to have a little talk.

MR. PETERSON: Good.

THE COURT: And you said you didn’t have any.

MR. PETERSON: That’s correct.

THE COURT: You didn’t tell me they were in existence somewhere else.

MR. PETERSON: At that time, when I said it, I did not know. We have been trying to track down the tapes. We have been trying to track down, you

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4692

know, the Toronto attorney and his investigator. The investigator has been out of the state on some sort of investigation. When we get out of court here, it’s 5:00, 5:30 by the time we get back to the apartment, and it’s late at night in Toronto. We have been unable to locate Mr. Ruby. At the time I represented to the Court that I had nothing, I had nothing. And I still don’t have tapes. And I have no documentation regarding the Toronto tapes. As I had said, it was done by the Toronto attorney and a private investigator, not me, not the Church. Mr. Gutfeld was telling the truth when he didn’t even know of the existence of this taping, because it was not done through the Church and no one was told about it. That’s why we don’t have it.

THE COURT: Mr. Cooley somehow has information about it.

MR. COOLEY: I had information about the meetings that took place and I have access to Michael Rinder, Your Honor.

MR. PETERSON: Right.

MR. COOLEY: I assume the Court will give me some credit for doing some attorney work product here.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4693

THE COURT: No question about that.

MR. PETERSON: I believe the Court ordered we get the five boxes, and they are sitting over there. We have always endeavored to comply with the Court’s orders.

THE COURT: I sometimes feel that I am being used in this case, that I have been tolerant, I have listened to representations by all Counsel, I have accepted those. And then something comes along different. It never is anyone’s fault, and it’s never anyone’s responsibility. But somebody has to be responsible. Somebody has to be responsible for seeing that when a Court orders something, it’s done.

MR. PETERSON: When we started preparing the case, we had no idea of the scope of the testimony; for example, Mr. Armstrong, or any other witnesses. That’s why we didn’t have tapes down here, we didn’t have all the stuff here and available. Discovery has been ongoing since the beginning of trial, as evidenced by those boxes. Those are our entire files for the cross-examination of this witness sitting over there. I mean, it hasn’t helped us, these discovery orders, and we are doing our best to comply with the orders. As Mr. Cooley said, we had

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4694

no plans of playing the tape. We had enough trouble with this tape. Two more tapes would be — it just wasn’t in the plans. That’s why the stuff isn’t here, because we had no idea it would be needed.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, I share the Court’s concern and I realize Mr. McMurry and I are getting a little indignant. I mean, Mr. Peterson stood here the other day, and certainly maybe he didn’t say, “The tapes don’t exist anywhere and I don’t know about them,” but he certainly inferred there were no tapes. None whatsoever. And that’s all we have heard is those tapes were not in existence.

Mr. Gutfeld testified from the stand: nobody knows about those tapes. Mr. Armstrong testified about it, about people saying the tapes didn’t exist. That’s what they said; they said the tapes didn’t exist. I remember that statement: “They don’t exist.” And now they do exist. Now they want to cross-examine on the subject when they have tapes.

The first thing, they can’t cross-examine in that area until we get the tapes. The Court ordered the tapes be produced; they should be produced. And it is incredible to say, as Mr. Peterson has just said, “We didn’t think we needed those. We didn’t

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4695

think we needed to use those. You used the two tapes. You saw the problems we had with the two tapes. We didn’t think we would need these other tapes.”

Somebody in the Church certainly knew those tapes existed. And just because they didn’t want to use them or they didn’t want the testimony from those tapes, that’s why they weren’t here. That’s why they weren’t produced. It just doesn’t make any sense. This cat-and-mouse game doesn’t make any sense at all. An attorney or witness stands up and says things don’t exist, the tapes don’t exist, the program orders don’t exist, nothing exists, and then later on we find out they do exist. And I don’t think it’s anything less than misrepresentation.

MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, I stepped forward at the last hearing. I wasn’t on the stand. I volunteered that Mr. Wade or Mr. McMurry or the Court could ask me any questions regarding any documents or any tapes or anything. These two gentlemen had no questions, and I said, “Your Honor, I personally have no documents.” They were talking about documents at the time. I had no knowledge regarding those tapes until Mr. Cooley asked me, because he couldn’t get in touch with the Toronto

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4696

lawyer, if I would help him get in touch with the Toronto lawyer because he was in trial all day. And there’s been –

MR. COOLEY: Nonexistence, Your Honor. You may recall you asked me about whether there were tapes of the hotel meeting. I said there were no tapes that I knew about.

THE COURT: I tried to be as thorough in asking that question as I possibly could, because I don’t know of all the meetings. That’s why I made it as broad as I did.

MR. COOLEY: I specifically told the Court that I was still investigating the Toronto aspect of it to see whether there were any further conversations, tapes. I had satisfied myself that nowhere was there a tape of the meeting in the hotel room or a meeting in the lawyer’s office. I then said that I knew that Mr. Rinder had met on two occasions with the witness.

As a matter of fact, the first time I had met Rinder in any detail was when the witness spoke about it. I wasn’t familiar with the fact that they also had met at Griffith Park. I learned that; I spoke with Rinder; I had Mr. Peterson chase it down, and I now know there are two tapes. I don’t intend

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4697

to play them. Although from what I understand from Mr. Rinder, there is plenty of good stuff on there for me. The reason I don’t want to play it is that it has taken us a week to deal with the first two tapes, and that is enough time. Now I will present them to the Court and let the Court view them, and I will –

The COURT: Are these videotapes again?

MR. COOLEY: Yes.

THE COURT: Done under the same circumstances as the last?

MR. COOLEY: As I understand, under the same circumstances and the same investigator.

MR. WADE: Your Honor, it’s very strange to me that Mr. Cooley is able to obtain information that he says will show there are no tapes for the meeting in the hotel. Now, if this was the lawyer in Toronto, why didn’t he find out during that same conversation of the other tapes?

MR. COOLEY: The reason: I did not talk to the lawyer in Toronto. The thing was dealt with piecemeal. When the Court asked me — not the Court, but when I was asked by Mr. Armstrong, he said, “Well, you undoubtedly” — or he said to the

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4698

jury, “You undoubtedly have tapes. I went to the hotel room, I went to the lawyer, and you undoubtedly have tapes.”

Well, I didn’t know at that time I had tapes.

THE COURT: Your argument even going into this cross-examination regarding these meetings was you, just got through telling me, on the basis of bias. Now we are back to the original point we were with the other tapes.

MR. COOLEY: That was bias.

THE COURT: And I said at that time they have got to be coughed up so they can be at least heard by me first and then by Counsel to see whether or not, number one, they are, they do show bias; and secondly, whether they were in their proper context.

MR. COOLEY: That came in the context of me offering the tapes. I’m not offering them now.

THE COURT: But they are here and we know they exist. And I see no reason why Counsel on the other side shouldn’t know what’s on those tapes.

MR. COOLEY: That’s the first time the Court has made that ruling.

THE COURT: Because I think in this context I have been misled.

MR. COOLEY: I am very sorry, Your Honor,

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4699

because I did not deliberately mislead the Court. I’m sorry I pursued the matter, frankly.

THE COURT: Did you hear me say “deliberately”? I didn’t say deliberately, Mr. Cooley. I didn’t say deliberately. If I would have said deliberately, I also would have been calling for a sheriff.

MR. COOLEY: Well, then, I don’t know how I misled the Court.

THE COURT: Because you and Mr. Peterson have said, “That it,” at least led me to believe there are no — I asked, “Are there any more audio tapes?”

I remember my conversation. “Are there any other video tapes? Are there any audio tapes of this Armstrong Project that we are dealing with here?”

And I was led to believe by all the answers that there were none.

MR. COOLEY: I think if Your Honor reviews the transcript, you will see that is not the way it happened. I specifically left open the Toronto situation on anything dealing with –

THE COURT: When can they get here?

MR. COOLEY: When I go back for lunch, I’ll check on their location. I understand I could have them here no later than tomorrow morning.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4700

MR. McMURRY: Mr. Peterson is apparently the person that made the contact with Mr. Ruby in Toronto; certainly he should be able to give us the answer to that question, whether they are here or in Portland.

MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, it is just a matter of flight schedules. They can be put on a plane. I’m confident there are enough flights coming into Portland that they can be here by tomorrow. If not 9:30, by at least noon.

THE COURT: Well, they are going to have to get here.

MR. COOLEY: They will get here, Your Honor, and I will give them to the Court tomorrow.

THE COURT: They are going to be here immediately as soon as you can get them on the airplane and get them down here.

MR. COOLEY: We will deal with that when Mr. Peterson and I go back for lunch.

MR. McMURRY: The Court also ordered every other writing. The Court said, “This is inconceivable to me that there isn’t a paper trail.”

THE COURT: That’s what I said.

MR. McMURRY: Precisely. And the only thing that was excepted from your order was the writings,

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4701

the handwritings of Gerald Armstrong. Now, –

THE COURT: That was my order, Mr. McMurry.

MR. COOLEY: This is what I have been dealing with for two days.

MR. McMURRY: I submit that just from the beginning of this second attack through the Rinder meeting, and the specific language that is being used, that there is writings, and that they do exist, and that they are here in Portland and that they should be produced.

MR. COOLEY: That is not so. My information has come directly from Rinder and there are not writings to be produced and I’m not going to give him my work product under any circumstances.

THE COURT: Do I have to go through the litany again of what should be produced? I thought everybody by now should certainly understand it.

MR. COOLEY: There is no problem, Your Honor. These tapes, as I understand it, the last of the material to be produced.

THE COURT: I meant writings, documents, notes.

MR. COOLEY: I understand that.

THE COURT: Chalkboard material. Anything.

MR. COOLEY: I can tell you at this time I’m

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4702

not going to have transcripts made of those tapes. I’m deliberately going to avoid that. There would be no documents.

THE COURT: Anything at all regarding the Armstrong Project, as it’s been called here, has got to be coughed up.

MR. COOLEY: Everything is on that table or on the way from Toronto, I understand it, and that’s it.

MR. PETERSON: Is that supposed to be stuff that dealt with the Armstrong taping incidents? None of that stuff has anything to do with –

THE COURT: No. I understand Mr. Gutfeld saying that doesn’t have anything to do with the taping incident. Three boxes are claimed attorney/client privelege, two boxes may be discoverable matters or may or may not be. I haven’t the looked at them.

Now, –

MR. McMURRY: Would you please put the question to Mr. Peterson item by item, writings, handwritings, notes, reports, debriefing, project orders. Just item by item to Mr. Peterson, please.

THE COURT: Would you give me a — I don’t know that terminology you are talking about.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4703

MR. PETERSON: I don’t either.

MR. McMURRY: I hand the Court what I just dashed off. I hope it will be clear enough for Mr. Peterson.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Peterson. We are referring now to all documents, writings, memorandums, briefings, debriefings, evaluations, program orders, reports, all tape recordings, or electronic recordings, mechanical recordings, wire taps. Well, the third one I’m a little bit bothered by Mr. McMurry. I think that’s not a matter for this Court. I think it is a matter for a court.

MR. McMURRY: What other Court can make inquiry at this stage, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I think a California court is going to have to make an inquiry on this because I have no way of determining the authentication of police documents. We are back to that illegally seized evidence problem again.

MR. McMURRY: As the Court remembers, the Ingram exhibit, which is 876, had a date between November 7 and 14. The Rinder meetings, as we understand it now, occurred on the 19 and 30, if my notes are correct. So there must have been yet another authorization from Mr. Rodriguez or someone

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4704

like him.

THE COURT: Because I didn’t put much credence in that, if you remember correctly.

MR. McMURRY: That’s correct, Your Honor. But if there is the tape, as they now admit, the videotape, then –

THE COURT: Then Mr. Cooley would argue they had authority.

MR. McMURRY: That’s right. And –

THE COURT: Okay. Give me –

MR. PETERSON: If the Court didn’t put any credence in it, whether the –

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, did I ask for argument?

MR. PETERSON: Well, usually the procedure has been each side got to answer a question.

THE COURT: I didn’t ask you a question. I’m only telling you what to come up with.

MR. PETERSON: What to look for.

THE COURT: And come up with.

MR. PETERSON: If it exists. Your Honor, I have not seen any of this stuff and I don’t want the Court to take the opinion that because Mr. McMurry writes it down, that it exists somewhere.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4705

THE COURT: I now know there our videotapes, I just found out a few moments ago of another meeting in Griffith park. Now, if there is such a meeting and if it was videotaped, in order for it to have any smattering of legality, there had to be some authorization by some governmental agency to issue it, as I read the California Penal Code and Mr. Cooley explained it to me.

MR. PETERSON: That’s part of it. There are two grounds that you can have a legally recorded conversation in California. One is police authorization, and there is another exception, too. But again, — there probably is a letter in existence.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PETERSON: We have one, I’m sure there were two obtained. I don’t know.

THE COURT: Let’s have that.

MR. PETERSON: I will make inquiry.

THE COURT: Now, here you say — and I’m sure what you are referring to, Mr. McMurry, orders, Executive Directives, and amended orders or directives. What are we referring to? I want to make this very specific so there is no further misunderstanding as to discovery matters.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4706

MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. I make it generic because I don’t know what org it might be issued from. So I don’t refer to just RPF, RRF, ASI, Sea Org, OSA, all of these little acronyms for their various intelligence operations. I want all orders, all program orders, directing the undertaking of anything.

THE COURT: Relating to Mr. Armstrong?

MR. PETERSON: That’s a little broad.

MR. McMURRY: Relating to Mr. Armstrong and it goes on. It goes on.

THE COURT: Relating to Mr. Armstrong, his wife Joycelyn.

MR. McMURRY: Correct.

THE COURT: Mike Flynn.

MR. McMURRY: You recall in Exhibit 876, the Rodreguez also included Mike Flynn and others. I want to have all orders, all programs, all reports, whether they relate to Michael Flynn, Joycelyn, A Armstrong, myself, plaintiff, anybody involved in this litigation as a witness or as a party or as a
lawyer.

MR. COOLEY: I object to anything going beyond Armstrong and his wife. I have no problem with Armstrong and his wife. We are not going to

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4707

get involved in a wide sweeping discovery rematch now involving Michael Flynn.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. Mr. Cooley, as I understood the thrust of a lof of your questions of Mr. Armstrong, they dealt with Mike Flynn.

MR. COOLEY: That’s right. Your Honor, if we get into a discovery match now on the issue of Michael Flynn, this case is never going to get started again. It’s one thing to have it with respect to the witness, it’s quite another with respect to Michael Flynn.

THE COURT: I can settle that. Then we don’t ask any questions about Michael Flynn.

MR. COOLEY: I cannot believe what is happening here. I cannot believe it.

THE COURT: You want it all on your side.

MR. COOLEY: That isn’t so at all, Your Honor. That is simply not so. I have never been confronted with more stringent restrictions placed on cross-examination.

THE COURT: And I have never been confronted with evidence turning up on a daily basis that has been ordered by the Court on many occasions.

MR. COOLEY: Well, I am prepared to rest on the record as it stands and I have daily copy.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4708

THE COURT: You are not the only one that that has daily copy, Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I will show you the daily copy. Your Honor is really accusing me of something that is really unjust.

THE COURT: I told you when start accusing you, Mr. Cooley, that I will have a sheriff down here to accompany –

MR. COOLEY: That will be fine. Then I would defend myself in an appropriate form. I have been threatened in this case with all manner of things. I have had restrictions placed on cross-examination, Mr. McMurry is allowed to attack opposing Counsel at will. The Court allows these witnesses who are attacking the Church to absolutely say anything they want on the witness stand. And then discovery gets conducted in the middle of my cross-examination, and now Mr. McMurry has the nerve to ask, in the middle of this cross-examination, that everything in the Church’s files with respect to Michael Flynn be produced, and the Court says if I don’t do it, I’m not going to be allowed to ask questions on it. That, Your Honor, is absolutely improper in my opinion, requesting things like that.

THE COURT: One more time you raise your

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4709

voice to me, Mr. Cooley — Let this record indicate right now, this is the second warning I have given Mr. Cooley in two days regarding his attitude toward this Court. I am now prepared to take under advisement a matter of sanctions against Mr. Cooley.

MR. COOLEY: I object to the attitude that the Court manifests toward me. I think it’s unfair, I think it manifests bias, and I think it manifests prejudice.

THE COURT: Fine. You may think whatever you will. I’m stating that for the record right now, Mr. Cooley. You’d better — number one, you take things the Court says out of context, you twist them around and state them in a manner which is not what the Court says. Nobody has yet ordered Michael Flynn documents to be produced. Nobody has ordered you to do anything, yet. Instead of that, you conduct this harangue against the Court, which is highly inappropriate, which is not done by any lawyer that I’m aware of in the state of Oregon nor do I know any Court which will accept it.

Now, I don’t understand the breath of Mike Flynn or Mr. McMurry documents.

MR. McMURRY: Yes, Your Honor. If the Court would look at Exhibit 876, a so-called authorization

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4710

issued by Philip Rodriguez unto Mr. Eugene Ingram, the Court will note that the authorization allowing illegal wire taping and eavesdropping included –

THE COURT: Incidentally, I might say something else. And I don’t — I don’t know whether it’s going on or not, but everybody should be aware that there is to be no recording done in the courtroom with the exception of Court recordings. I failed to make that announcement earlier and I hope everybody understands that.

I don’t know whether it is, I’m just making announcement that says under our court rules, it is not done. Okay.

MR. McMURRY: The Court will note on Exhibit 876 that the so-called authorization included the wiretapping or eavesdropping of Mr. Gerald Armstrong and attorney Michael J. Flynn and others for possible violation or attempts to violate certain laws and any other law. Now, I think with the revelations that keep coming out, that we should determine — Mr. Flynn’s name has been utilized time and again by defense counsel as if — and he has stated in open court, a criminal conspiracy exists somehow, and I have challenged him to exculpate that off the record as to whether he would include myself

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4711

or my law firm. I want to know what additional wiretapping, eavesdropping or recording occurred with Michael Flynn, and I would like to know what recording has occurred, if any, with me. And I would like it put to Mr. Peterson, who professes to be Counsel for the Church of Scientology, who apparently has more access to documents than Mr. Gutfeld or Mr. Cooley. I would like those questions put.

THE COURT: The proposition as to Michael Flynn I could almost answer myself. The problem with that is, they could be so voluminous as far as orders and directives and so forth that — and I’m only guessing –

MR. McMURRY: I’m speaking of the wiretaps, Your Honor, and transcripts.

THE COURT: Strictly wire taps?

MR. McMURRY: That’s right. Because that’s how his name comes up in the context of Exhibit 876.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, do you understand his question?

MR. PETERSON: Yes. Is this started? I thought we were talking with reference to the Rodriguez letter and the Toronto — you know, taping project, whatever it was, of Mr. Armstrong. That’s

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4712

the context that I viewing this in.

THE COURT: Yes, that’s where we are. That’s where we started. We started with that. He points out that this authorization, by officer Rodriguez, which I have noted before is not even on official stationary, says that this authorization shall specifically pertain to the investigation of Gerry Armstrong, Michael J. Flynn and others not known at this time.

And I guess your question, Mr. McMurry, is you want to know what else came within the purview of this alleged authorization.

MR. McMURRY: Precisely. Now, that’s on point three, the on that I referred to. With respect to Armstrong and his wife, we want every report.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson understands that.

MR. McMURRY: With respect to the eavesdropping and transcripts of any form, I don’t care whether it’s mechanical, electronic, video, wire, whatever method this guy Ingram uses, we want it.

MR. PETERSON: On who?

MR. McMURRY: On me, on Mr. Wade, on Julie Christofferson Titchbourne, on Mike Flynn, and on

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4713

Gerry Armstrong and his wife Joscelyn.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, can you shed any information for me on this?

MR. PETERSON: You mean whether they exist? Well, like I have — on several occasions stated, this so-called Armstrong project was not commenced the by the Church, but –

THE COURT: I understand by Toronto.

MR. PETERSON: — and a private investigator, Mr. Ingram.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. PETERSON: I will make inquiries to see if any of these things exist as to the people Mr. McMurry has enumerated or listed out for me. Frankly, I don’t think so, but I will make the proper –

THE COURT: Will you report back to me on that as quickly as possible.

MR. PETERSON: I can check on that when we make the arrangements to get the two tapes –

THE COURT: That would be satisfactory. And give me the information. I’m not ruling on any of that. I have only ruled so far on Armstrong and his wife, Joscelyn. Do you understand that?

MR. PETERSON: Oh, yeah.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4714

THE COURT: That, you understand?

MR. PETERSON: Clearly.

THE COURT: I’m withholding Flynn, McMurry, and et al, yet until you give me some information.

MR. PETERSON: That’s fine.

THE COURT: Do you understand that? I hate to keep saying, “Do you understand that,” with every every question, but I think I’m getting into that area where I’ve get to on the record “do you understand what I’m saying.”

MR. PETERSON: And I want the Court and everyone that I understand and I’m going to do my best to comply, as I have always done.

Now the other stuff, Your Honor, I think we have complied with all that in the previous discovery and this ongoing discovery. As I listen to the things, I would like a copy of that list that — you know, I think we have complied, but again –

THE COURT: You mean Mr. McMurry’s list?

MR. PETERSON: All these EDs and aprogram orders and all that other stuff. And that I’m not so sure I understand. Maybe if I could –

THE COURT: Well, let’s get an understanding before we recess.

MR. PETERSON: His last paragraph relating to

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4715

Gerry Armstrong, that’s fine, his wife, Joscelyn, although her name hasn’t been mentioned in this case, I don’t think. But Mike Flynn, all these other people, all these policies and orders? It would be probably another hundred thousand –

THE COURT: No, no, no. I think I can clarify that. I thought you understood that. That only refers to this authorization for video taping and taping. Those other items do not refer to all those people.

MR. PETERSON: Executive directives, amended orders, directives –

THE COURT: Those are for Mr. Armstrong.

MR. PETERSON: I see.

THE COURT: Now, do you understand?

MR. PETERSON: Now, it appears to be clear.

THE COURT: Okay. We will recess for lunch until 1:30.

Mr. Runstein, I think I have to talk to you.

(Court recessed at 11:58 a.m., and reconvened at 1:33 p.m.)

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MR. COOLEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson was going to give me a quick rundown, I think.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4716

MR. COOLEY: I know Mr. Peterson made the call and the man was in court. The secretary said he had left for court.

THE COURT: Maybe he is still working on that problem.

Now, before we hear from Mr. Peterson — and I’m hesitant about the cross-examination regarding the park incident — do you have another area you can proceed to until Mr. Peterson reports back?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, I can.

THE COURT: Very good.

Mr. Armstrong, would you come up to the stand, please.

(Witness resumed the witness stand.)

THE COURT: I have taken under consideration those matters I have discussed this morning. I’m not going to take any sanctions against Mr. Cooley. Mr. Cooley, are you paying attention? At this time I’m not taking any sanctions against Mr. Cooley. Mr. Cooley’s actions were not deliberate, I am convinced. And whatever comments he made toward the Court, I feel, were in the heat of his representation of his client.

MR. COOLEY: It’s a long, tough case, Your Honor.

G. ARMSTRONG - X - 4717

THE COURT: Do I take that to mean you agree?

MR. COOLEY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let’s get the jury.

Wait. Here’s Mr: Peterson.

THE COURT: Mr. Peterson, any news for me?

MR. PETERSON: I put a call in to Toronto. The attorney was not in his office. He was expected back at the end of the day. And I said I would call back, and left my name and number. But I’m still confident that I can get in touch with him either later this afternoon or this evening and the tapes will be here. I don’t foresee a problem.

THE COURT: Okay. And you are working on the other aspects?

MR. PETERSON: As soon as I can get through to him, I can ask about the other items.

THE COURT: Including all the questions we had. Some were relative to Mr. Armstrong; some were relative to other videotapes which may or may not be in existence.

MR. PETERSON: Right.

THE COURT: Communication, okay? We understand each other?

MR. PETERSON: We understand each other.

THE COURT: Okay.