TOBY L. PLEVIN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
10700 SANTA MONICA BLVD, SUITE 4-300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025
(213) 788-8660

Attorney for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
GERALD ARMSTRONG

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR AND IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. GERALD ARMSTRONG; et al., Defendants. GERALD ARMSTRONG, Cross-Complainant, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, et al., Cross-Defendants.

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

No. C 420 153 DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND TO ENJOIN FUTURE VIOLATIONS [FILED UNDER SEAL] Date: December 3, 1991 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 56

I, Gerald Armstrong, declare and state:

1. I am making this declaration to support an opposition to a motion brought by the Scientology organization in the case of Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C420153 to enforce the settlement agreement I had entered into with the organization in December 1986. The

-1-

facts hereinafter set forth are of my own first-hand knowledge.

2. I became involved with Scientology as a customer in 1969 in Vancouver, B.C. I worked on staff there in 1970 and in February 1971 joined the Sea Organization (SO or Sea Org) in Los Angeles. I was flown to Spain and joined the Sea Org’s flag ship, “Apollo,” in Morocco. L. Ron Hubbard, the Sea Org’s “Commodore,” was on board and operated Scientology internationally through the “crew” which numbered, during my stay on board of four and a half years, around four hundred. All my staff positions on board involved personal contact with L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard, administrative organization staff and people in the ports and countries the “Apollo” visited, and included “Ship’s Representative” (legal representative), “Port Captain” (public relations officer), and “Information Officer” (intelligence officer).

3. In the fall of 1975 after the ship operation moved ashore in Florida I was posted in the Guardian’s Office (GO) Intelligence Bureau connected to Hubbard’s Personal Office. From December 1975 through June 1976 I held the post of Deputy LRH External Communications Aide, a relay terminal for Hubbard’s written and telex traffic to and from Scientology organizations. From July 1976 to December 1977 I was assigned, on Hubbard’s order, to the “Rehabilitation Project Force” (RPF), the SO prison system. In 1978 I worked in Hubbard’s cinematography crew in La Quinta, California making movies under his direction until the fall of that year when he again assigned me to the RPF, this time for eight months first in La Quinta, then at a newly purchased base in Gilman Hot Springs near Hemet, California. When I got out of the RPF in the spring of 1979 and until the beginning of 1980 I

-2-

worked in Hubbard’s “Household Unit” (HU) at Gilman, the SO unit which took care of Hubbard’s house, personal effects, transport, meals and so forth, as the “Purchaser,” “Renovations In-Charge” and “Deputy Commanding Officer HU.”

4. Throughout 1980 and until I left the organization in December 1981 I held the organization posts in Hubbard’s ” Personal Public Relations Bureau” of “LRH Archivist” and ” LRH Personal Researcher.” I assembled in Los Angeles an archive of Hubbard’s writings and other materials relating to his history to be used as, inter alia, the basis for a biography to be written about the man. I also worked in Los Angeles for the first few months of 1980 on Mission Corporate Category Sortout (MCCS), which had the purpose of restructuring the Scientology enterprise so that Hubbard could continue to control it without being liable for its actions. (A tape recording of two meetings relating to MCCS’s actions subsequently became the subject of Church of Scientology of California v. Zolin.) Beginning in the fall of 1980 and continuing until my departure, I provided the biographical writings and other materials, as I collected and organized them, to Omar Garrison, who had contracted with the organization to write the Hubbard biography. I interviewed many people who had known Mr. Hubbard at periods throughout his life, including almost all of his known living relatives. I traveled several thousand miles collecting biographical information and conducting a genealogy search, and arranged the purchase of a number of collections of Hubbard-related documents and other materials from individual collectors.

5. Through my research and study of documentary evidence I was compelled to conclude that Mr. Hubbard had lied about his

-3-

past, credentials, accomplishments, relationships and intentions. I obtained evidence which disproved many of the claims made by Hubbard in his biographies printed in Scientology publications and used in promotion of the man and his philosophy and psychotherapy; consequently I attempted to get the organization executives responsible for these publications to correct the disproven claims. As a result I was ordered to be security checked, an invasive interrogation employing an electronic meter as a lie detector, a procedure I had undergone many times in the Sea Org. I had by this time obtained evidence which disproved the significant representations Hubbard had made about himself or his “technology” which had drawn me into and kept me in the organization for over twelve years; e.g., that he was an engineer and an atomic physicist, that he had been crippled and blinded in combat in WW II and had cured himself with his mental science discoveries, that it was a matter of medical record that he had twice been pronounced dead, that his psychotherapy had been subjected to rigorous scientific testing, that it cured all psychosomatic ills and raised IQs a point per hour of therapy (I had by this time had well over a thousand hours), that he had been remunerated for his labors less than staff members were paid (in my case between $4.30 and $17.20 per week throughout my SO years), and that he and his organization were ethical and well-intentioned. When it became clear to me that I was not going to be able to get the organization or Hubbard to admit to the lies and take a more honest path I, and my wife Jocelyn, left the organization.

6. Following my departure the organization published a “Declaration” dated February 18, 1982 labelling me a ” Suppressive

-4-

Person (SP) .” An SP is considered in Scientology completely psychotic and destructive, one of the two and a half percent truly evil people on the planet. SPs are viewed as enemies of Scientology and mankind and are targets for the organization’s “Fair Game Policy,” which states specifically that they may be lied to, cheated, sued and destroyed without discipline of the Scientologist committing such acts. The SP Declare also accused me of “spreading destructive rumors about senior Scientologists.” I knew in early 1982 that I was the target of Guardian’s Office intelligence operations because certain friends were contacted and interrogated about me by known GO intelligence personnel. The organization also appropriated a set of photographs I had entrusted with an associate, Virgil Wilhite, and when I demanded their return told me to get a lawyer.

7. A few days later I met with attorney Michael Flynn who agreed to defend me against the organization, which on April 22, 1982 published a second SP declare accusing me of eighteen “crimes, high crimes and suppressive acts,” including, inter alia, promulgating false information about Hubbard and the organization. In the late spring and summer of 1982 I obtained from Omar Garrison with his permission some of the documents I had delivered to him while in the organization which I considered I would need to defend myself against the organization’s charges in the SP declares and whatever actions they would bring against me in the non-Scientology courts. I sent these to Mr. Flynn and to Contos and Bunch, a California law firm which by then had agreed to represent me in Scientology litigation. The organization filed suit against me in the Los Angeles Superior Court on August 2, 1982 and the Hubbard biography documents I had sent to my lawyers

-5-

were ordered by the Court to be deposited with the clerk where they stayed until trial in the spring of 1984.

8. In August and September 1982 the organization employed a number of private investigators to surveil and harass my wife and me. During that period one of these investigators assaulted me bodily, and another struck my body with a car, and attempted to involve me in a freeway accident by getting in front of my car and slamming on his brakes and pulling alongside my car and swerving into my lane. The organization also attempted to get the Los Angeles Police Department to bring criminal charges against me in connection with the Hubbard documents which had become the subject of the litigation in the Superior Court.

9. I filed a cross-complaint in 1982 against various Scientology corporations which was bifurcated from the underlying document case and never tried because it settled in December 1986. The document case was tried without a jury by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. who rendered a decision on June 20, 1984. Between that time and the settlement the organization continued its campaign against me which included at least these acts:

• attempted entrapment;
• illegal videotaping;
• filing false criminal charges against me with the Los Angeles District Attorney;
• filing false criminal charges against me with the Boston office of the FBI;
• filing false declarations to bring contempt of court proceedings against me on three occasions;
• obtaining perjured affidavits from English private investigators, who had harassed me in London in 1984, accusing me

-6-

of distributing “sealed” documents;

• international dissemination of Scientology publications
• falsely accusing me of crimes, including crimes against humanity; and
• culling and disseminating information from my supposedly confidential auditing (psychotherapy) file.

10. On December 5, 1986 I was flown to Los Angeles, as were several other of Mr. Flynn’s clients with claims against the organization to participate in a “global settlement.” After my arrival in LA I was shown a copy of a document entitled ” Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement,” hereinafter referred to as “the settlement agreement,” and some other documents, which I was expected to sign.

11. The settlement agreement has now become a public document, and it and its effects are issues in various lawsuits now pending.

12. Upon reading the settlement agreement draft I was shocked and heartsick. I told Mr. Flynn that the condition of “strict confidentiality and silence with respect to [my] experiences with the [organization]” (settlement agreement, para.

7D), since it involved over seventeen years of my life, was impossible. I told him that the “liquidated damages” clause (para. 7D) was outrageous; that pursuant to the settlement agreement I would have to pay $50,000.00 if I told a doctor or psychologist about my experiences from those years, or if I put on
a resume what positions I had held during my organization years. I told Mr. Flynn that the requirements of non-amenability to service of process (para. 7H) and non-cooperation with persons or organizations adverse to the organization (paras. 7G, 10) were

-7-

obstructive of justice. I told him that I felt that agreeing to leave the organization’s appeal of the decision in Armstrong and not respond to any subsequent appeals (para. 4B) was unfair to the courts and all the people who had been helped by the decision. I told Mr. Flynn that an affidavit the organization was demanding that I sign along with the settlement agreement was false. That document, which I do not have, stated, inter alia, that my disagreements with the organization had been with prior management, and not with the then-current leadership. In fact there had been no management change and I had the same disagreements with the organization’s “fair game” policies and actions which had continued without change up to the time of the settlement. I told him that I was being asked to betray everything and everyone I had fought for against an organization which was based upon injustice.

13. In answer to my objections to the settlement agreement, Mr. Flynn said that the silence and liquidated damages clauses, and anything which called for obstruction of justice were not worth the paper they were printed on. He said the same thing a number of times and a number of ways; e.g., that I could not contract away my Constitutional rights; that the conditions were unenforceable. He said that he had advised the organization attorneys that those conditions in the settlement agreement were not worth the paper they were printed on, but that the organization, nevertheless, insisted on their inclusion in the settlement agreement and would not agree to any changes. He pointed out the clauses concerning my release of all claims against the organization to date and its release of all claims against me to date (paras. 1,4,5,6,8) and said that they were the

-8-

essential elements of the settlement and were what the organization was paying for.

14. Mr. Flynn also said that everyone was sick of the litigation and wanted to get on with their lives. He said that he was sick of the litigation, the threats to him and his family and wanted out. He said that as a part of the settlement he and all co-counsels had agreed to not become involved in organization-related litigation in the future. He expressed a deep concern that the courts in this country cannot deal with the organization and its lawyers and their contemptuous abuse of the justice system. He said that if I didn’t sign the documents all I had to look forward to was more years of harassment and misery. One of Mr. Flynn’s other clients, Edward Walters, who was in the room with us during this discussion, yelled at me, accusing me of killing the settlement for everyone, and that everyone else had signed or would sign, and everyone else wanted the settlement. Mr. Flynn said that the organization would only settle with everyone together; otherwise there would be no settlement. He did agree to ask the organization to include a clause in my settlement agreement allowing me to keep my creative works relating to L. Ron Hubbard or the organization (para. 7L).

15. Mr. Flynn said that a major reason for the settlement’s “global” form was to give the organization the opportunity to change its combative attitude and behavior by removing the threat he and his clients represented to it. He argued that the organization’s willingness to pay us substantial sums of money,
after its agents and attorneys had sworn for years to pay us ” not one thin dime” was evidence of a philosophic shift within the organization. I argued that the settlement agreement evidenced

-9-

the unchanged philosophy of fair game, and that if the organization did not use the opportunity to transform its antisocial nature and actions toward its members, critics and society I would, a few years hence, because of my knowledge of organization fraud and fair game, be again embroiled in its litigation and targeted for extralegal attacks.

16. Regarding the affidavit the organization required that I sign, Mr. Flynn said that the “disagreement with prior management” could be rationalized as being a disagreement with L. Ron Hubbard, and since Mr. Hubbard had died in January 1986 it could be said that I no longer had that disagreement. Mr. Flynn said that the organization’s attorneys had promised that the affidavit, which all the settling litigants were signing, would only be used by the organization if I began attacking it after the settlement, and since I had no intention of attacking the organization the affidavit would never see the light of day.

17. During my meeting with Mr. Flynn in Los Angeles I found myself facing a dilemma which I reasoned through in this way. If I refused to sign the settlement agreement and affidavit all the other settling litigants, many of whom had been flown to Los Angeles in anticipation of a settlement, would be extremely disappointed and would continue to be subjected to organization harassment for an unknown period of time. I had been positioned in the settlement drama as a deal-breaker and would undoubtedly lose the support of some if not all of these litigants, several of whom were key witnesses in my case against the organization. Although I was certain that Mr. Flynn and my other lawyers would not refuse to represent me if I did not sign the documents I also knew that they all would view me as a deal-breaker and they would

-10-

be as disappointed as the other litigants in not ending the litigation they desperately wanted out of. The prospect of continuing the litigation with unhappy and unwilling attorneys on my side, even though my cross-complaint was set for trial within three months, was distressing. On the other hand, if I signed the documents, all my co-litigants, some of whom I knew to be in financial trouble, would be happy, the stress they felt would be reduced and they could get on with their lives. Mr. Flynn and the other lawyers would be happy and the threat to them and their families would be removed. The organization would have the opportunity they said they desired to clean up their act and start anew. I would have the opportunity to get on with the next phase of my life and the financial wherewithal to do so. I was also not unhappy to at that time not have to testify in all the litigation nor to respond to the media’s frequent questions. If the organization continued its fair game practices toward me I knew that I would be left to defend myself and I accepted that fact. So, armed with Mr. Flynn’s advice that the conditions I found so offensive in the settlement agreement were not worth the paper they were printed on, and the knowledge that the organization’s attorneys were also aware of that legal opinion, I put on a happy face and the following day went through the charade of a videotaped signing.

18. It was my understanding and intention at the time of the settlement that I would honor the silence and confidentiality conditions of the settlement agreement, and that the organization had agreed to do likewise.

19. Following the December 1986 settlement the organization continued its fair game campaign against me in violation of the

-11-

spirit and letter of the settlement agreement. I detailed the post-settlement violations I knew about in my declaration of March 15, 1990, which was filed in the Court of Appeal as an exhibit to a document entitled “Defendant’s Reply to Appellants’ Opposition to Petition for Permission to File Response and for Time” and served on the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 24, 1990, and my declaration of December 25, 1990, which was filed in the Court of Appeal as “Defendant’s Appendix” to “Defendant’s Briefs and served on the Los Angeles Superior Court on December 28, 1990. I request that this Court take Judicial Notice of these declarations and the exhibits thereto as they are part of the record in this case.

20. The organization’s violations of the settlement agreement include at least:

a) Use in 1987 of my name and a false and unfavorable description of my organizational experiences in a “dead agent” pack relating to Bent Corydon, pages 11, 12, 18 and 29 from which are attached hereto true and correct copies as Exhibit A;

b) Filing several false affidavits, attached herewith are true and correct copies as Exhibit B (Kenneth David Long’s First Affidavit dated October 5, 1987), Exhibit C (Kenneth Long’s Second Affidavit dated October 5, 1987), Exhibit D (Kenneth Long’s Third Affidavit dated October 5, 1987), Exhibit E (Sheila MacDonald Chaleff’s First Affidavit dated October 5, 1987), Exhibit F (Kenneth Long’s Fourth Affidavit dated October 7, 1987), and Exhibit G (Kenneth Long’s Fifth Affidavit dated October 8, 1987) in the case of Church of Scientology of California v. Russell Miller and Penguin Books Limited, Case no. 6140 in the High Court of Justice in London England, accusing me of violations of court orders in the Armstrong case, and labeling me “an admitted agent

-12-

provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government;”

c) Delivering a copy of an edited version of the 1984 illegal videotape of me, a photocopy of the cassette for which showing the business card of organization private investigator Eugene Ingram is attached herewith is a true and correct copy as Exhibit H, to the London Sunday Times;

d)Threatening me with lawsuits on six occasions as set forth in my March 15, 1990 and December 25, 1990 declarations of which I have asked the Court to take judicial notice, above;

e) Threatening to release a description of a dream I had had, and which the organization had stolen from a friend of mine, if I did not assist them in preventing Bent Corydon from gaining access to the Armstrong court file;

f) Using my name and a false rendition of the organization’s 1984 videotape operation where they attempted to entrap me into the commission of a crime in the Complaint filed in the case of Church of Scientology International v. 17 Agents, Case No. 91-4301 SVW filed August 12, 1991 in US District Court, Central District of California, page 14 from which is attached herewith is a true and correct copy as Exhibit I;

g) Using the same false rendition of the 1984 ” Armstrong Operation,” perjurious declarations by organization lawyers and a general attack on my character and truthfulness in various pleadings filed in August 1991 in the case of Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al, No. CV 88-1786 JMI in U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of pages 2, 3, 33, and 34 of “Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Statute of Limitations.” Exhibit K is a true and correct copy

-13-

which comprises pages 4, 5, and 6 of “Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice.” Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of pages 2 - 5 and pages 9 and 10 (the declaration of attorney Laurie J. Bartilson dated August 27, 1991) of “Defendants’ Opposition to Ex Parte Application to File Plaintiffs’ Genuine Statement of Issues [sic] re Defendants’ Motions

(1) to Exclude Expert Testimony; and (2) for Separate Trial on Issues of Releases and Waivers; Request that Opposition Be Stricken.” I have included only a few pages from these documents in the interest of economy, but will file the complete documents if the Court wishes. The organization has included my declaration of September 3, 1991 “Regarding Alleged ‘Taint’ of Joseph A. Yanny, Esquire”, also filed in the Aznaran case in response to its allegations in these pleadings, as Exhibit N to its motion to enforce the settlement.

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Author Services, Inc. to Delay or Prevent the Taking of Certain Third Party Depositions by Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations of Lawrence E. Heller and Howard Schomer in Support Thereof filed on or about November 1, 1989 in the case entitled Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc., et al., LASC No. C694401.

22. In late 1987 I received a telephone call from a reporter for the London Sunday Times who told me that the organization had delivered to the newspaper a stack of documents concerning me, including materials from the 1984 illegal videotape “Armstrong Operation,” and he asked me to comment about them. I was greatly saddened by this news, but told the reporter only that I

-14-

considered the organitation’s action a violation of its agreement with me and I would not comment further.

23. When I was threatened in 1988 with exposure of the stolen dream recitation (see 3-15-90 declaration, para. 40), I considered I was being blackmailed. In the hope that by my example I would deter further such conduct, I did not violate the settlement agreement. I learned this past August 1991 in Johannesburg, South Africa that the organization had given a copy of the dream recitation, which had been specifically sealed in the Armstrong litigation, to its representatives in that country.

24. When I had several times been threatened by organization attorney Larry Heller that I would be sued if I did not obstruct justice as directed by the organization, and when it had become obvious to me that I could not avoid a confrontation with the organization (see 3-15-90 declaration, paras. 4-8, 44) did I respond to defend myself and to correct the injustices created by the settlement agreement and the organization’s violations thereof.

25. The first action I took was to file on February 28, 1990 in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, in the appeal the organization had maintained from the June 20, 1984 decision in Armstrong, a document entitled Respondent’s Petition for Permission to File Response and for an Extension of Time to File Response,” attached hereto as Exhibit N. I did so in part because in my research of my rights following my recognition that I could not avoid involvement I discovered that my agreement to not respond pursuant to the settlement contract was an obstruction of justice. After the Court of Appeal granted my petition on March 9, 1990, I did thereafter file a respondent’s brief.

-15-

Thereafter, on July 29, 1991 an opinion issued in that appeal upholding the trial court’s decision on the merits.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 17th day of November, 1991 at San Anselmo, California.

-16-