JOHN G. PETERSON
PETERSON AND BRYNAN
8530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 407
Beverly Hills, California 90211

DONALD C. RANDOLPH
A Member of
OVERLAND, BERKE, WESLEY, GITS,
RANDOLPH & LEVANAS
A Professional Corporation
2566 Overland Avenue, Seventh Floor
Los Angeles, California 90064
(213) 559-8150
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; Plaintiff, v. GERALD ARMSTRONG, et al., Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C 420 153 OBJECTION OF CROSS-DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA TO RELEASE OF PRECLEAR FILES [UNDER SEAL]

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Church has fought, at all times herein, to protect Armstrong’s privacy, and the privacy of its other parishioners, by refusing to produce the preclear files relating to Armstrong for an in camera inspection. Needless to say, the Church does not wish to jeopardize its ability to provide religious services to all of its

-1-

adherents simply because one ex-member lacks respect for its religious principles. The Church urges this   court to consider carefully, as several other courts have done, the potential adverse impact on religious confidentiality for all Church members which arises from Armstrong’s own attempts at self-destruction through insisting that his preclear files become discoverable.

Throughout this litigation, the Church has maintained these files securely and in confidence, and only   within the last few weeks have these files been copied, indexed and reviewed by counsel in preparation for their production as ordered by this Court. As is evident below, the Church has very obviously not utilized or disseminated the information contained in these files at any point. As is also evident below, there is significant information contained in these files which is directly contradictory and otherwise quite detrimental to Armstrong’s assertions in support of his case. Additionally, there is a great deal of information contained in the files which is undoubtedly personally  embarrassing to Mr. Armstrong and extremely destructive to his reputation and credibility. Nonetheless, even in full awareness of the damage that the contents of these files could inflict upon Armstrong and his claims, the Church still urges this Court to maintain the privacy of the documents and the information contained therein. This position is not based upon any overriding concern for Armstrong’s welfare; rather, the Church still maintains that the sanctity of the confessional must be placed above all other concerns.

-2-

II.

APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THIS COURT

In Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California et al., Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 332 027, the Honorable Ronald Swearinger was faced with a similar, although possibly even more serious, situation. In that case, plaintiff Larry Wollersheim had alleged that the pastoral counseling delivered to him by the  Church had directly resulted in physical and emotional damage to him. He further alleged that the preclear files pertaining to him were directly relevant as evidence of this damage, and the intentional or negligent infliction emotional distress to him.

As in the case herein, the production of the preclear files relating to Larry Wollersheim occurred in stages, with the Church bringing to the Court’s attention at each stage the relevant objections. On February 28, 1986, Judge Swearinger required plaintiff Wollersheim to inform the Court that a knowing and informed waiver of the priest-penitent privilege was being made. (See Declaration of John G. Peterson, attached hereto as Exhibit “[A] “.)

On March 13, 1986, Judge Swearinger took note of the November 5, 1985 Order issued by the Honorable Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in the case of Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Larry Wollersheim, et al., U.S.D.C. C.D.Ca. Civil Action No. 85-7197-MRP. That Order described as “confidential religious scriptures” the materials known within the Church as “(1) Solo Part II, (2) Power, (3) R6EW, (4) DCSI, (5) Sunshine

-3-

Rundown, (6) Clearing Course, (7) OT I, (8) OT II, (9) OT III, . . .” (See Temporary Restraining order, attached hereto as Exhibit “[B]“.) Following the decision reached by Judge Pfaelzer, Judge Swearinger ordered that “[w]e are not going into the contents of those upper level materials.” (See March 13, 1986 Trial Transcript, pp. 2208-2209, attached hereto as Exhibit “[C]“.) Judge Swearinger reiterated on April 3, 1986 that no testimony from the upper levels materials, being defined as “Power through NOTS”, would be allowed into the trial of the action. (See April 3, 1986 Trial Transcript, pp. 786-4787, attached hereto as Exhibit “[D]“.) Thereafter, the preclear files were produced to Judge Swearinger for his in camera inspection. The files containing upper level materials were not required to be produced, and were not produced.

On May 6, 1986, after Judge Swearinger had thoroughly reviewed the contents of the files, a discussion was held concerning the “tremendous confusion and side shows” that the introduction of the preclear files into the Wollersheim case would create. (See May 6, 1986 Trial Transcript, p. 7571, attached hereto as Exhibit “[E]“.)

A procedure whereby the files were maintained by the Court, but in which Wollersheim and his counsel could review them in the presence of a referee, was established. No such review occurred, apparently due to a decision by Wollersheim and his counsel that the interests balanced by the information contained in those files becoming public or staying private came down on the side of privacy.

-4-

The alternative suggested by the Wollersheim case is completely applicable and appropriate to the case  herein. The Church has not produced the three files pertaining to Armstrong which contain “confidential religious scriptures”. Those files, covering the time period from just a portion of 1978 into early 1980, include “(1) Solo Part II, . . . (6) Clearing Course, (7) OT I, (8) OT II, [and] (9) OT III” materials. It has, however, produced for inspection the twenty-five files covering the time period from Armstrong’s first pastoral counseling, in 1970, up through the portion of 1978 when he engaged in the confidential upper level counseling. This Court should require only the production of the preclear files already produced.

This Court should also, as was established by the Wollersheim court, require Armstrong and his counsel to provide a waiver of the priest-penitent privilege prior to any review of the files which have been produced. The procedure formulated by Judge Swearinger, which would allow Armstrong and his counsel to review the files in the presence of a referee, is likewise completely appropriate for the case herein. Upon completion of his review, this Court should require Armstrong to specifically state which documents support his claims. The Church is confident that Armstrong will be unable to demonstrate any support for his claims that Armstrong’s files were “culled” for the simple reason that no such action has occurred.

It seems highly unlikely that Armstrong and his counsel, once they have reviewed these files, will still insist on

-5-

making their contents a part of this case as such an action will create only harm to Armstrong. The Church has not utilized these files in any way for this litigation, and repeats its offer at this time to destroy the   files, and any copies thereof, in Armstrong and/or his counsel’s presence should they now be willing to adopt this course of action.

III.

INFORMATION IN THE PRECLEAR FILES IS HARMFUL TO ARMSTRONG’S CASE AND CHARACTER

If Armstrong insists on making the contents of these files a part of this case by obtaining copies of them, and if the Court does not reconsider its intention to release these preclear files to Armstrong, the Church will be forced, against its wishes, to utilize the same documentation in its defense as evidence of  Armstrong’s character and perjurious statements.

A. Statements Regarding Armstrong’s Case

The files contain numerous references to admissions by Armstrong which are directly contradictory to his allegations in the Third Amended Cross-Complaint as well as representations made directly to this Court in various declarations. Information in this regard includes the following:

1. On November 18, 1977, Armstrong commented to his minister oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

-6-

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooo. On February 26, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. On November 13, 1976, Armstrong stated that

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

2. On October 24, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

3. On October 16, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooo.

4. On September 20, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister that ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooo

5. On September 2, 1977, Armstrong confessed to his minister that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

6. On May 5, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister that, oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

7. On February 27, 1977, Armstrong informed his minister that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

-7-

8. On February 26, 1977, Armstrong described the oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

All of the above statements by Armstrong are highly relevant to this action. They lead to the inescapable conclusion that Armstrong has lied to this Court and, when that ultimately proves to be the case, contempt and dismissal of the action is the proper sanction.

B. Statements Regarding Armstrong’s Character
Other admissions contained in these files, which go directly to Armstrong’s credibility and character, include the following:

1. Armstrong admitted to his ministers on numerous occasions that ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
(see, e.g., March 26, 1970 and July 16, 1970 statements); oooooooooooo (see e.g., state o April 11970; oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (see e.go., statments of er 31, 1972, and July 20, 1973; (see, oooooooooooooo e.g., June 30, 1977 statement).

2. Armstrong admitted to his ministers on numerous occasions that ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

-8-

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

(see, e.g., statements of July 18, 1974 and September 6, 1977; ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo see, e.g., statements of May 23, 1970, July 18, 1974 and February 27, 1997);ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo see, e.g., statements of May 23, 1970); oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo(September 24, 1976); oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (see, e.g., statement of December 8, 1976); oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (see, e.g., statements of April 14, 1970, February 6, 1971 and August 12, 1977); oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo (September 6, 1977); ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (see, e.g., statements of September 15, 1971 and February 26, 1972.

3. Armstrong admitted to his ministers that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. (See, e.g., statement of July 25, 1973.

4. Armstrong admitted to his auditors on numerous occasions that oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (See, e.g., statements of February 6, 1971; February 15, 1971; September 15, 1971; and October 10, 1972.)

The above admissions, if the Church is aver forced to use them, must be construed as admissions against Armstrong’s interest. They paint an incredibly sad picture of a pathetic and troubled individual who engaged in one illegal or deviant

-9-

act after another until entering the Church; who continued, although in a comparatively minor way, to  practice his debased activities while a member of the Church; and who immediately resumed his extremely aberrated activities upon leaving the Church as demonstrated by his theft of thousands of pages of personal materials and his “talking pig” essay, a sickening “personal creative work” authored by Armstrong for potential publication. (See essay, attached hereto as:Exhibit ” [F]“.)

IV.

THE DOCUMENT DATED NOVEMBER 26, 1976, MARKED BY THE COURT AS SEALED EXHIBIT NO. 600, IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRECLEAR FOLDERS

The document selected by the Court and denoted as sealed Exhibit No. 600 in its Order of June 26, 1986 is not representative of the majority of the documents contained in the preclear files pertaining to Armstrong. The majority of the documents contained in these preclear files are notes taken by the ministers who  delivered specific pastoral counseling processes to Armstrong. Their notes, as demonstrated above, reflect a great deal of spiritual reflection and unburdening by Armstrong. The document selected by this Court, however, is simply a review of an earlier pastoral counseling process delivered to Armstrong; its purpose was only to prepare Armstrong for additional pastoral counseling processes.

Therefore, if the Court determines to release these files to Armstrong, the Church proposes the addition of several additional sealed exhibits as more truly being representative

-10-

of the documents contained within these preclear files. The documents dated March 26, 1970, May 23,  1970, July 18, 1974, and February 22, 1977 are hereby requested for introduction as sealed Exhibits No. 601, 602, 603, and 604.

V.

FURTHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S ORDER OF JULY 2, 1985

Pursuant to this Court’s Order of July 2, 1985, attached hereto as Exhibit ” [G]” is a list of each of the pastoral counseling sessions contained within the preclear files by date, the name of the minister who counseled Armstrong, and the location where the counseling occurred when known.

VI.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth hereinabove, the Church urges this Court to allow Armstrong access to the preclear files for inspection without copying or the taking of notes only. Such an alternative will meet Armstrong’s discovery objectives and yet maintain the integrity of the confessional files without interjecting their contents into this litigation. The Church further urges this Court to require a waiver of the priest-penitent privilege from Armstrong and his counsel prior to any such inspection, to require a written statement specifying

///
///
///
///

-11-

what documents support his claims, and to exclude any production of the “confidential religious scriptures”.

DATED: July 3, 1986

Respectfully submitted,
OVERLAND, BERKE, WESLEY, GITS,
RANDOLPH & LEVANAS

By: ____________
DONALD C. RANDOLPH

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Cross-Defendant Church of
Scientology of California

-12-

Exhibit [A] Declaration of John G. Peterson

Exhibit [B] Temporary Restraining order

Exhibit [C] March 13, 1986 Trial Transcript, pp. 2208-2209

Exhibit [D] April 3, 1986 Trial Transcript, pp. 4786-4787

Exhibit [E] May 6, 1986 Trial Transcript, p. 7571

Exhibit [F] “Talking pig” essay

Exhibit [G] “List of each of the pastoral counseling sessions contained within the preclear files by date, the name of the minister who counseled Armstrong, and the location where the counseling occurred when known.”