Declaration of Gerald Armstrong

Armstrong 1

I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

1. I am making this declaration in support of an opposition to plaintiff organization’s motion for summary adjudication.

2. The organization’s motion deals with a serious issue, one which affects the life of potentially thousands of individuals, and one which has become for me emotionally devastating and mind-altering, in a manner which is illogical and perverse. The realization that the people behind this
motion and behind all the pc file violations; that is, the attorneys and the few who control organization money, will stop at nothing, no lie, or perversion of reality, no act, to, as Hubbard ordered, ruin me utterly, has some time ago gone far beyond a passing thought.

3. Mr. Peterson’s argument in the summary adjudication motion is that “by 1978 (I) knew, or reasonably should have known” about the violations of my pc files, and that because my cross-complaint was filed in September 1982; my causes of action for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract as they relate to the organization’s violations of my pc files are barred by applicable statutes of limitation. Mr. Peterson twists what I knew in 1978 with what I knew in the fall of 1981 and what I learned subsequently. The


whole statute of limitations argument is rendered ludicrous, however, by the fact that the organization and its attorneys have continued both the fraud of promised sanctity of pc files and violation thereof right up to the present time. Attached hereto as Exhibit [A] is a copy of the organization’s “objection to release of preclear files “dated July 3, 1986 filed with this Court. At p. 2 of this document, organization attorney Donald Randolph states: “only within the last few weeks have these files been copied, indexed and reviewed by counsel.” Mr. Randolph included in the “objection” several pages of statements he gloats were culled from my pc files. I have blacked out these statements in the document copy attached.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit [B] is a copy of a declaration dated December 18, 1983 which I wrote to support a motion to get my pc files delivered to me. At p. 8 I state, “I do not waive the (priest-penitent) privilege, and in fact I insist upon it.” In a demonstration of the organization’s malevolent intent, Mr. Randolph asks this Court a p. 5 of the ” objection” to “require Armstrong and his counsel to provide a waiver of the priest-penitent privilege.” To veil the organization’s antisocial acts with an illusion of legitimacy, Mr. Randolph states at p. 6 of the “objection” that if I even obtain copies of my pc files (part of which I do now have) the organization “will be forced against its wishes, to utilize the same documentation in its defense as evidence of Armstrong’s character and perjurious statements.” This is blackmail. And it is the clearest proof of the sanctity fraud, the


organization’s actual policy regarding use of “confidential” pc file information against the pc, and the basic fraud of Hubbard and his creation.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit [C] is a declaration dated July 14, 1985 written by Frank K. Flinn, B.D., Ph.D.,  the organization’s “religious expert.” This declaration was filed in this case along with the organization’s “response,” of July 30, 1985 to the Court’s July 2, 1985 Discovery Order. At pp. 18-20, Dr. Flinn compares Scientology’s policies and practices regarding the “sanctity” of pre-clear files with those of other “religions.”

“Another religious practice of the Church of Scientology which has come under scrutiny is the  issue of the confidentiality exercised with respect to the auditing records of members and  specially of the “pre-clear files” of upper-level church members. I find the practice of the Church of Scientology in this regard fully in keeping with the practices of other religions. In general, there are two fundamental reasons why churches, including the Church of Scientology, seek confidentiality with regard to unauthorized examination of spiritual records. The first is to preserve the sanctity of the spiritual privacy of the believer. ….


In regard to the first reason, the spiritual privacy of the believer, Scientology is like every  religion known to me. The Roman Catholic Church protects the priest-penitent relationship with the severest of sanctions, including dismissal from priestly office and expulsion from the Church itself. Upon ordination priests take an oath of the “confessional seal” before they are allowed to hear the confession of sins and administer official spiritual counselling. My pastor, a Monsignor in the Roman Catholic Church, has testified to me that he would undergo  imprisonment and death before revealing the contents of any confession, whether this revelation was demanded by the President of the United States or by the Pope of Rome. ….

Abuse of the archive and unauthorized divulging of information can bring severe penalties, including demotion from office, penances and even excommunication.

Most Protestant denominations have similar regulations and penalties in their respective church polities.

Likewise Scientology has codes of conduct for auditors and other officials regarding authorized files. The Church does not allow any outsider access to a parishioner’s files as a matter of  priest-pentient privilege, as is the case with other churches. Confidentiality of this type of material touches on the nerve center of religion itself. The historical record


shows that no church lightly suffers the intrusion into such records by the government or any other outside agency. The history of the Reign of Terror in France reveals the great number of priests who went to the guillotine rather than break the confessional seal.”

Neither the President, the Pope, this Court nor anyone other than the organizations’ leaders and attorneys ordered the violations of the “sanctity” of my pc files. These leaders and the attorneys reveal a radically different standard of conduct and ethics from that of the ministers of “other religions” who went to the guillotine rather than divulge the confessions of their preclears.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit [D] is a declaration signed by Reverend Ken Hoden, “president” of one of the new “corporations” “divested” recently by the ” California” organization. This declaration was also filed in this case with the ” response” to the July 2, 1985 Discovery Order.

Mr. Hoden states at par. 3:

“Materials and information stored or recorded within the confessional folders (PC folders) are confidential and privileged. Our religious doctrine prohibits any parishioner or person receiving pastoral counselling (auditing) from viewing the contents of their folders. Our religious doctrines also prohibit any external dissemination of preclear folders. Even our attorneys


are forbidden to review these folders. The only people who are allowed to view the pastoral  counselling folders are authorized Church ministers.

Yet, my pc files were given to attorneys, culled and used against me. Mr. Randolph even defines the statements he culled from my “confidential” pc files “as admissions against Armstrong’s interest.” It is clear that the defense the organization’s attorneys have desperately devised to their inhuman and criminal actions is the threatened divulgence of the materials culled from my pc files and my resultant hoped and worked for emotional disintegration. The filing of the culled statements ” under seal” is a cheap attempt to give an  appearance of morality to the organization’s perfidious act. Dozens of organization attorneys, staff members, and attorney staff have seen the culled statements. They were placed in front of the Judge in this case, the individual who can most affect the outcome of this case and the rest of my life. Several of the incidents ” culled” from my pc files as “admissions” never happened. Mr. Randolph and whoever helped him, in their ignorance of auditing and recklessness , have apparently culled imaginary ” past life” incidents or have created the incidents out of whole cloth. For several other incidents, Mr. Randolph’s interpretation is twisted beyond recognition. When he states at p. 2 that ” the Church still maintains that the sanctity of the confessional must be placed above all other concerns,” he lays to rest Mr. Peterson’s statute of limitations argument because he shows that the fraud is continuing. The organization is still claiming out of one side of its mouth that


the sanctity of pc files is its paramount concern while out the other side it spits its victims’ innermost thoughts and secrets and when these treacherously obtained and used thoughts and secrets are not sufficiently juicy to achieve the organization’s black PR ends, it has someone fabricate them.

7. At p. 8 of the summary adjudication motion Mr. Peterson states:

“The only way Armstrong can avoid the bar of the statute of limitations is by proving that he did not and could not have discovered the events alleged in his Cross Complaint any earlier than he did.”

As has already been shown the culling of my files admitted to by the organization occurred in 1986 and I only learned of this fact in July this year, almost four years after the filing of the cross-complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit [E] is a page from what the organization produced as my “B-1 time track.” The entry at April 7, 1980 is taken from my pc files (in session). I only learned of this culling in March 1985 when the organization produced some B-1 materials in the Christofferson case in Oregon. Even using the organization’s date for the culled incident of April 7, 1980, this is two years after the 1978 date Mr. Peterson would like the Court to use. And when I learned of this culling is two and half years after the filing of the cross-complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit [F] is a document entitled “Gerry Armstrong Project” dated February 17, 1982. Step 2 reads:

“Go through his files and folders to extract the names


of people who knew him and who are still well connected up and completely trustworthy.  Interview these people to find out who Gerry’s close friends were and to see if he had any relatives in this area (we could then follow up to see if he might be staying with them).

This is the use of my pc files for intelligence data to be used against me. Attached hereto as Exhibit [G] is a “daily report dated February 22, 1982, from Assistant Guardian for Intelligence (AGI), Brad Ballentine to his organizational seniors at GOUS. He states in the fourth paragraph:

“SU (Special Unit, the name for the Gilman Hotspring compound) and Flag (the Clearwater, Florida base) have sent us all their files on him (Armstrong).”

“Us” is the GO intelligence bureau. I only learned of this transmission of my pc files to the organization’s intelligence bureau and this use to which they were then put in March 1985, again two and half years after the filing of the cross-complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit [H] is a declaration dated May 7, 1985 written by me in support of efforts to obtain my pc files from the organization, and prevent its continued violations of them. In paragraphs 5 through 9 I describe an organization intelligence operation involving the use of my pc files to entrap me. Much of the operation occurred in 1984, some six years after Mr. Peterson claims I should have known about it. I only became aware of the operation in April 1985 when organization attorneys used its product to attack me in the Christofferson case. It’s perhaps unfortunate for the organization that it gave my pc file the intelligence bureau


for culling and intelligence purposes in 1982, used them to set up the illegal videotaping of me in 1984, and again culled my files to concoct the “objection to release of preclear files” in 1986, since in so doing it lost any shot it may have had at obtaining a summary adjudication based on the statutes of limitations. The organization’s misfortune cannot begin, however, to compare with the pain and anguish it subjected me to with these acts. If the organization had acted decently, and not violated either overtly or covertly, my pc files, the situation today might be quite different.

8.Even without considering the pc file violations after I left the organization in 1981 or even back into the 1970’s, the summary adjudication motion still falls because I had been rendered by the organization and Hubbard, until I began to come to my senses in late 1981, something different from “a reasonably prudent person.” Mr. Peterson has selected statements from some of my response to interrogatories as “admissions against (my) own interest” to show that I learned of the culling in the 1970’s while in the organization. From the same responses used by Mr. Peterson, attached to his motion as Exhibit A, I have excerpted the following three statements by me which show why a reasonably



prudent person perceiving the same tip of the pc file violation iceberg that I did in the 1970s would or  should have fled in disgust and filed suit for the fraud and related crimes and torts, and why I could not.

P.6 “In 1976 while locked up and guarded by the Guardian’s Office on the orders of L. Ron  Hubbard, I was told that my auditing reports were being gone through by GO staff. Had I protested this action, I would have remained locked up indefinitely. I had no control of my preclear folders, nor any control of those who had access to them. My will was broken by this time, and I was effectively controlled and manipulated by L. Ron Hubbard and the organization.

In 1976 through through December of 1977, I was assigned to and kept on the RPF by L. Ron Hubbard and those under his control. A system of control and deprivation was exerted over me throughout this period and a campaign of harassment and terror was directed against me and the RPF as ordered by Hubbard.


P.9 “If I had known of the existence of this policy (GO 121669) and the practice of disclosure of ” confidential” session information, I would never have become involved with Scientology. I was brought along as far as I went with the organization by the systematic trickery and manipulation by L. Ron Hubbard and the organization.



P.23 “I spent from July 1, 1976 to December 1, 1977 on the RPF on Hubbard’s order. I was  humiliated, degraded, terrorized and defrauded by Hubbard during this period. I underwent tremendous emotional trauma and lost self respect and rationality.

The proof of the mind manipulation run by Hubbard and the organization is that I stayed so long after so much degradation and betrayal. Only in late 1981 when I spotted Hubbard as the source of the fraud and the organization’s antisocial conduct, and after leaving the organization when the control mechanisms began to fall away,did I become aware of the criminal significance of pc file culling and the fraud which makes it possible.

9. Hubbard also used the auditing process itself, by which he claimed to be freeing people, to subtly program them to not even think a critical thought about the deplorable conditions in which they were kept, including a questioning of auditing or the pc file violations which might be observed or heard about. During any auditing session, if the preclear makes any critical comment, the auditor will immediately demand of the preclear any “overt”, that is any misdeed, crime or intentionally harmful act, he has committed. In Hubbard’s system, any criticism meant that the person making it had a hidden undisclosed crime. One of his bulletins, ” Session Must-nots,” attached hereto as Exhibit [I], states this point:

“When a pc is critical of the auditor, the organization or any of the many things in life, this is always a symptom of overts priorly committed by the pc.



This is a sweeping fully embracive statement - and a true one. There are no criticisms in the absence of overts committed earlier by the pc.

Very soon after some auditing in the Sea Organization I learned that any criticism I had meant I had done something bad, and after a while I even was stopped from thinking any thought critical of Hubbard or the organization. In Hubbard’s dictionary of Scientology terms, a “critical thought” in fact is defined as “a symptom of an overt act having been committed.” The page from the dictionary is attached hereto as Exhibit [J]. This concept, although programmed into people in auditing, pervaded every part or aspect of the organization. So the criticisms of a staff member about Hubbard’s or the GO’s practices, and specifically pc file violations, were not listened to; rather he would be investigated or sec checked for his “crimes.” By contrast, however, it could never be thought that Hubbard, who was constantly critical of doctors, judges, scientists, psychologists, government, teachers, and especially Scientologists and Sea Org members, had himself committed crimes or overts, because such a thought about him was clearly “critical.” Thus he achieved almost absolute mind control.

10. Beginning at page 10 of the summary adjudication motion, Mr. Peterson makes a confusing argument that:

“Armstrong is barred by Statute of Limitations from asserting Scientology’s religious status, and auditing benefits as “misrepresentations” as Armstrong had a


duty to investigate these “facts” more than 3 years prior to date of cross-complaint.

Mr. Peterson further states at p. 14:

“Clearly, if Armstrong is to be believed, he was aware of what he terms the scientific  non-religious nature of Scientology no later than 1975.

How that helps the organization’s position is baffling. It is the basis of the whole Hubbardian fraud. It was Hubbard’s scientific guarantees for auditing and Scientology which were the lure into the organization. Even the promise of auditing confidentiality was given in scientific terms and differentiated from ” religious confessions” which Hubbard claimed had degenerated into “a kind of blackmail.” In his bulletin of January 21, 1960, attached hereto as Exhibit [K] he stated:

“Some churches used a mechanism of confession. This was a limited effort to relieve a person  of his overt acts. Later the mechanism of confession was employed as a kind of blackmail by which increased contribution could be obtained from the person confessing. Factually this is a limited mechanism to such an extent that it can be extremely dangerous. Religious confession does not carry with it any real stress of responsibility for the individual but on the contrary seeks to lay responsibility at the door of the Divinity — a sort of blasphemy in itself. I have no axe to grind here with religion. Religion as religion is fairly natural. But psychotherapy must be in itself a completed fact or, as we all know, it can become a dangerous fact.


Hubbard goes on in the same bulletin to ask auditors to “make your pc write these overts and withholds down and sign them and send them off to me.” His motivation for this policy is not altruistic, and it only became clear to me in 1981. The other part of Mr. Peterson’s argument is that since I had some doubts in my early Scientology years I had a duty from that point to investigate. Mr. Peterson includes in the testimony from the trial in the underlying case, however, at p. 15 of the motion my statement of what happened when I did question the fact that the auditing I had had did not resolve what I considered the essential problem: “I was told after doing the auditing steps that that would only happen at Clear.” And “clear” only happened around 1979, and that did not produce the promised results of auditing, but I was told these would happen at another “higher level” called OT III. In other words an aspect of the continuing fraud was bait and switch.

Attached hereto as Exhibit [L] is a policy written by Hubbard dated February 25, 1966 entitled Attacks on Scientology” wherein he orders:

“NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. ONLY agree to an investigation of the attackers.”

The investigation Mr. Peterson is seeking to convince the Court I had a duty to make was impossible. In fact I did something of an investigation in 1980 and 1981 when it was somewhat possible and the results of the investigation were a major factor in my leaving the organization and Hubbard.

11. Mr. Peterson claims at p. 16 of the motion that the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action is


barred by the statute of limitations in regards to the pc file violations since I was emotionally distressed in 1976 and 1977 while I was locked up, in the RPF, and generally being manipulated and degraded on a daily basis by the organization on Hubbard’s orders. Mr. Peterson’s argument is hollow since culling or my files occurred as well, as has been shown above, in the 1980s and as recently as July this year. The emotional  distress I have experienced from the 1986 culling alone is beyond description. Mr. Peterson’s argument that I am barred by the statute of limitations because of my knowledge in the 1970s that pc file culling occurred is like telling a victim of years of abuse that he or she cannot do anything about it because the abuse has gone on so long.

Interrogatory no. 16, the response to which Mr. Peterson has quoted from at p. 17, states:

“With regard to the second cause of action of your first amended cross-complaint for damages for alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress against cross-defendants Scientology and Hubbard, to the extent you have not done so, in response to the above interrogatory, provide the following factual basis for such cause of action:

A. The specific and full factual basis–for all the allegations contained in said cause of action.

Mr. Peterson’s assumption that the date that I “first suffered severe emotional distress as a consequence” of realizing the organization had and would my innermost thoughts and secrets, was “by 1978″ is erroneous. And the conclusion, at p. 18 of the


motion, that “Armstrong had knowledge of what he contends were all the above referenced breaches of the so-called contract no later than December 1, 1977,” and at p. 8 that “(i)n reality, Armstrong has not testified that he knew anything in the Fall of 1981 that he had not already known as of 1978, by the latest”omit any reference to and attempt to slip by the whole biography project, Hubbard’s archives and the underlying case which the organization brought.

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

Executed this first day of November, 1986 at Boston, Massachusetts.

Gerald Armstrong


Exhibit [A] Objection Of Cross-Defendant Church of Scientology To Release Preclear Files 07-03-1986

Exhibit [B] Armstrong Declaration 12-18-1983

Exhibit [C] Declaration of Frank K. Flinn 07-14-1985

Exhibit [D] Declaration of Ken Hoden 07-29-1985 [.pdf]

Exhibit [E] Page from B1’s “time-track” on Armstrong

B1 Time Track (partial) [ .pdf]

Exhibit [F] “The Gerry Armstrong Project

Exhibit [G] AGI “Daily report” 02-22-1982

Exhibit [H] Armstrong Declaration 05-07-1985

Exhibit [I] HCO Bulletin 24 August 1964 SESSION MUST-NOTS © 1964 L. Ron Hubbard

Exhibit [J] Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary — definition ” critical thought” © L. Ron Hubbard

Exhibit [K] HCO Bulletin 21 January AD10 [1960] JUSTIFICATION © 1960 L. Ron Hubbard

Exhibit [L] HCO Policy Letter 25 Feburary 1966 ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY © 1966 L. Ron Hubbard