Answer To Amended Complaint
Armstrong 2Ford Greene, Esquire PAUL MORANTZ, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant |
FILED FILED |
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California
not-for-profit religious
corporation; |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
No. BC 052395 |
Defendant Gerald Armstrong, hereinafter "Armstrong," and The Gerald Armstrong Corporation, hereinafter "TGAC," defendants, hereby jointly answer the complaint of plaintiff, hereinafter "CSI." Although the following Answer may be framed in the singular, it shall be interpreted to refer to both answering defendants.
1. Armstrong admits there was a settlement agreement
entered into in December, 1986, but denies each and every allegation of the rest of this paragraph. Armstrong's only actions have been those necessitated by the violations by the Scientology organization, including CSI, hereinafter the "ORG," of the express terms and spirit of the settlement agreement. It is the ORG which has embarked on a deliberate campaign to breach the provisions of the agreement, and foment litigation, hatred and ill-will against ARMSTRONG and the world in violation of the norms of civilized conduct, and in a calculated and deliberate abuse of the justice process.2. Armstrong admits that he entered into a settlement agreement with the ORG in December 1986 of his cross-complaint in Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 420 153. Armstrong denies that the agreement was for the benefit of numerous third-parties; he asserts that the agreement is to constitute a fraud on courts, nationally and internationally, and upon the public of the World. Armstrong denies that the description of the ORG as a church is true. It is a totalitarian cult of unreason, antireligious in philosophy, antisocial in conduct, and political in motivation. Armstrong denies CSI's description of him. It is the ORG which sought by litigation and covert means to disrupt Armstrong's activities and life, and which displayed through the years an intense and abiding hatred for Armstrong, and an eagerness to annoy and harass Armstrong by spreading enmity and hatred about him among its employees, customers, victims, in the media, the courts and the world. Armstrong denies that the ORG sought to end Armstrong's covert activities, because there were no such covert
2
activities, nor to end the litigation. Armstrong denies that the agreement contained carefully negotiated and agreed-upon provisions. Armstrong was not included in one word of the negotiations, which were engineered by the ORG through the compromise of Armstrong's attorney. Armstrong never agreed to the conditions, but did agree with the representations of his attorney that the conditions were unenforceable. The ORG structured and used the settlement to continue its litigation, even with Armstrong, and to use litigation to attack its perceived enemies. The ORG is the greatest fomenter of litigation this country has ever known. Its abuse of the justice system and its use of litigation to intimidate and destroy peoples' lives is legendary. Armstrong denies that the ORG bargained for the settlement provisions to put an end to enmity and strife generated by Armstrong because Armstrong generated no such enmity and strife. The ORG's goal with the settlement agreement was to allow it to continue and accelerate the global enmity and strife it generated so as to increase its ideological power and financial profit through the dissemination of unchecked disinformation.3. Armstrong denies that this action arises from his deliberate and repeated breaches of provisions of the agreement because there have been no breaches of the settlement agreement by Armstrong, but only responses to the ORG's attacks on Armstrong and other innocent victims in violation of the settlement agreement and the laws of the State of California, the laws of the United States, and moral and ethical standards. By such attacks the ORG waived its right to consider Armstrong's responses breaches of the agreement. Armstrong denies moreover that he can
3
violate the agreement because its provisions are contrary to public policy and illegal. Armstrong denies that the ORG fully performed its obligations under the agreement; rather, it violated both the letter and spirit from the date of its signing. Armstrong denies that he never intended to keep his part of the bargain; rather Armstrong bent over backwards to try to live by the spirit of settlement, even not responding to the ORG's post-settlement attacks, as will be further set forth herein, until it was obvious that the ORG would not cease its attacks, and threatened him several times with litigation and attempted to force him through the settlement agreement to obstruct justice. It was the ORG which never intended to keep its part of the bargain and has maintained that not only the settlement agreement but the norms of human decency do not apply to it. Armstrong admits that, based on the representations of his lawyer that the referenced provisions were unenforceable and that the ORG lawyers also knew they were unenforceable, he also considered said provisions unenforceable. Armstrong denies that he ever extracted money from the ORG. The ORG settled with Armstrong because it was terrified about the imminent trial of his cross-complaint, and because it thought it could continue to attack him unchecked, having compromised his lawyer and removed him from Armstrong's defense. Armstrong denies that in June 1991 he had finished spending his money. In August 1990 Armstrong had given away all his assets for reasons unrelated to the ORG, except that he evaluated that because the ORG committed so much harm with its billions of dollars there was no reason not to give his money away, and that it was better to combat the ORG's tyranny without money than not to combat it with4
wheelbarrow loads of it. Armstrong denies that in June, 1991 he began any campaign, provided any confidential information to anyone, copies of any agreement, declarations, and paralegal assistance to any litigants. In June 1991 Armstrong attempted to bring peace to the ORG conflict into which the ORG had drawn him by its attacks on him and its other innocent victims. Armstrong denies that the ORG repeatedly demanded that Armstrong end his constant and repeated breach of the provisions of the agreement. There has never been a constant and repeated breach of the provisions of the agreement by Armstrong, nor has there ever been a repeated demand from the ORG. The ORG, in fact, has refused to communicate with Armstrong, but has only attacked him in ways which necessitated, and necessitates, Armstrong's response and by which the ORG waived, and waives, any right to demand an end to such responses and his efforts to defend himself and the tragic victims in the ORG's wake.4. Armstrong denies that the ORG bargained for peace. It thought by the 1986 settlement that it had manipulated an opportunity to make war without its target being able to defend himself. Armstrong denies that the ORG seeks the Court's aid in obtaining peace. The ORG is using the Los Angeles Superior Court as a weapon in its arsenal for its war on Armstrong and its victims and perceived enemies. Armstrong admits that the ORG requests liquidated damages, but denies that the ORG is due such damages pursuant to the terms of the agreement, and states that said liquidated damages are invalid. By its acts in violation of the agreement the ORG has sacrificed its right to any relief, including damages. It is Armstrong who is due liquidated damages.
5
Armstrong denies that the ORG requests injunctive relief to prevent additional and future breaches by Armstrong. There have been no breaches by Armstrong and there can be no future breaches by Armstrong because of the ORG's violations of the agreement and because the agreement itself is contrary to public policy and illegal.
5. Armstrong denies CSI's description of itself. It is an arm of a global enterprise operated by David Miscavige and a small band of conspiratorial underlings as a profit-making, anti-religious, totalitarian, psycho-political cult. Armstrong admits that CSI is incorporated under the laws of the State of California and has its principal offices in Los Angeles. Armstrong denies that Scientology is a religion, but is an antireligious, pseudo-scientific philosophy of aberration, deception and domination which employs a self-ascribed religious status so as to exploit the extraordinary benefits conferred by the religious liberty clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
6. Armstrong admits that he is a resident of Marin County, California.
7. Armstrong lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and is therefore unable to admit or deny the same.
8. Armstrong admits the truth of the averments in this paragraph.
9. Armstrong admits that the agreement was entered into with the participation of respective counsel, but denies that it was after full negotiation. Armstrong denies that the provisions of the agreement were carefully framed by the parties and their
6
counsel to accurately reflect the agreement of the parties. Armstrong only participated in the framing of one provision in the agreement, the one allowing him to keep his art. Armstrong was, in fact, carefully kept in the dark concerning the settlement provisions by the ORG and his counsel. The provisions, moreover, do not contain the actual agreement of the parties concerning their unenforceability. Nor do they contain the agreement whereby the ORG contracted with Armstrong's lawyer to not represent him in future litigation regarding the agreement. And they do not contain the agreement whereby Armstrong's lawyer would assist the ORG in allowing it to attack Armstrong without his response, nor the side indemnity agreement and other agreements with Armstrong's lawyer for a collusive appeal and rigged retrial of the underlying action. The purpose of the agreement was to engineer a reversal of Judge Breckenridge's 1984 decision holding for Armstrong on Scientology's complaint against Armstrong in Armstrong I.10. Armstrong denies the totality of this paragraph. There never was a series of covert activities by Armstrong intended to discredit ORG leaders, spark government raids, create phony "evidence" of wrongdoing against the ORG and ultimately destroy the ORG and its leadership. ORG operatives came to Armstrong claiming that they feared for their lives and wanted his help as part of deceptive operation intended to set him up. The accusations in this paragraph are false and part of an ORG intelligence operation to cover up its own crimes and justify its outrageous and malicious attacks on Armstrong. The ORG injected the provisions into the agreement for the purpose of intimidating Armstrong and, having contracted with his lawyer to not defend him
7
from ORG attacks, to make him open season for Fair Game.11. Armstrong admits that when asked by ORG lawyer Lawrence Heller during the videotaped signing of the settlement agreement if he was acting of his own free will he said he was. Armstrong was, however, under great duress resulting from years of ORG abuse, threats and attacks, his manipulation by the ORG through his attorney as a deal-breaker during the settlement, and his knowledge of ORG policies of hatred and vindictiveness. Armstrong denies that in later 1991 he revealed for the first time that he believed at the time the agreement was signed the provisions were unenforceable. Armstrong put his opinion of the provisions' unenforceability in his declaration dated March 15, 1990, which the ORG received within a week of that date. Moreover, Armstrong's lawyer, Michael Flynn, advised Armstrong that he had advised the ORG in December 1986, before the agreement was signed that the provisions were unenforceable.
12. Armstrong does not answer these allegations of this paragraph inasmuch as they have been stricken by court order.
13. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph.
14. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph.
15. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph.
16. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
17. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in
8
this answer.18. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph, but denies that the Aznarans were Scientology parishioners; they were Scientology victims. Scientology is not a religion.
19. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph.
20. Armstrong admits that while Yanny was acting as the Aznarans' counsel he asked Armstrong to help him, but denies that Yanny hired him as paralegal to work on the Aznaran case.
21. Armstrong admits that he agreed to travel to Los Angeles from Marin Country but denies that he asked Yanny to pay him $500.00 for his proposed help.
22. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph except that he denies that he provided "paralegal assistance." Armstrong did assist in drafting two evidentiary declarations, which he personally executed as a witness.
23. Armstrong lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and is therefore unable to admit or deny the same.
24. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
25. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph. Whatever assistance Armstrong gave Yanny in the Aznaran litigation caused the ORG no damage, but assisted it in its publicly stated goal of peace.
26. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 and 18 through 25 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and
9
averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.27. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph except that he denies that Yanny indicated to CSI's counsel that he represented Armstrong, and Armstrong denies that there exists any order of injunction prohibiting Yanny from representing Armstrong in any manner whatsoever on any matters relating to anyone.
28. Armstrong lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and is therefore unable to admit or deny the same.
29. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph. Armstrong adds, moreover, that if, as the ORG alleges, the Court in RTC v. Yanny rejected Yanny's defense which was supported by Armstrong's declarations, Armstrong could not with those declarations have aided Yanny.
30. Armstrong admits that he attached the settlement agreement to his July 16, 1991 declaration as an exhibit, but denies that he had agreed to keep the terms of the agreement confidential. Armstrong was under duress when signing the agreement and did not ever agree with the unenforceable conditions of the agreement including confidentiality regarding the agreement itself. Nevertheless, he did not discuss the agreement until after it was made public by the California Court of Appeal.Armstrong filed the agreement under seal in the Court of Appeal in February, 1990 in order to prevent a fraud upon the Court being perpetrated by the ORG, and it was the Court of Appeal which sua sponte unsealed the agreement. But prior to filing the agreement in the Court of Appeal, Armstrong had already been relieved of any
10
conceivable obligation to keep the agreement confidential by the ORG's divulging of its contents in other litigations, and therefore waiving any right to have it remain confidential thereafter.31. Armstrong admits that he has never paid the ORG $50,000, but denies that the ORG has ever demanded payment of $50,000, denies that he owes $50,000 to the ORG for anything and denies that whatever he has done at any time was a breach of the agreement. The agreement is illegal and against public policy and the ORG has by its own acts sacrificed any right it ever may have had to enforce any of its provisions.
32. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 1through 25 and 27 through 31 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
33. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph.
34. Armstrong admits that in August 1991 he began working in Ford Greene's office and that his paralegal duties at that time involved work on the Aznaran case. Armstrong denies that thereafter the Aznarans hired John Elstead. Armstrong admits that his employment in Greene's office has continued to the present, but he denies that his activities constitute a daily and continuing breach of any contract. The ORG's bargain has been rendered a nullity, because it is the ORG which has, through its attacks on Armstrong, its overweening reliance on Fair Game and similar antisocial policies, and its attempt to force upon the
11
world an agreement illegal in the first place, done it to itself.35. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph. The ORG's damages are self-inflicted, and they will cease only when the ORG ceases its suppressive, pathological, malevolent and suicidal conduct.
36. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31 and 33 through 35 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
37. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph except that he denies that any of his actions are violations of the agreement and that he is required to pay the ORG one penny in liquidated damages.
38. Armstrong admits that he has not paid the ORG $50,000, but denies that the ORG ever made a demand for $50,000 and denies that whatever he has done is a breach of the agreement.
39. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35 and 37 and 38 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
40. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph except that he denies that the press release violated the agreement and that the press release constituted disclosures of his experiences
12
with Scientology. Statements containing the same facts and similar language are contained in the public file in this case in which the ORG has sued Armstrong; therefore there is in the press release no disclosure. Moreover, the ORG, by itself using Armstrong's experiences in its litigations and to attack Armstrong after the settlement lost any right it may have once had to complain of Armstrong's discussing his experiences to counter its attacks. The agreement's confidentiality provisions are antithetical to civilized conduct, impossible to perform, contrary to public policy and illegal.41. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph except that he denies that the distribution of the press release violated the provisions of the agreement. By suing Armstrong publicly, by attacking him publicly and by making public itself the conditions of the agreement, including filing the agreement in open court, the ORG waived any right it may have once had to object to Armstrong's public discussion of the litigation or the agreement it concerned. The agreement, moreover, is illegal; therefore it is unenforceable and Armstrong is not bound by any part of it.
42. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
43. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38 and 40 through 42 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
13
44. Armstrong admits that on March 20, 1992 he and Greene granted the media interviews, but denies that such interviews were additional. Armstrong denies that any such interviews violated any part of the agreement. Armstrong admits that he stated that he is an expert in the misrepresentations Hubbard made about himself from the beginning of Dianetics until the day he died. Armstrong admits that he is such an expert. Armstrong lacks the information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in this paragraph that Exhibit C to the ORG's complaint is a true and correct transcription of the CNN broadcast and is therefore unable to admit or deny the same.
45. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
46. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42 and 44 and 45 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, deniedand averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
47. Armstrong admits that he agreed to appear voluntarily as an expert witness in the Hunziker case. He denies that his expertise is alleged and denies that his expertise is such that it should be set off in the ORG's complaint in quotation marks. He denies that his expertise is in scientology, but rather in the fraud of Scientology and the ORG's doctrine of Fair Game. Armstrong admits that the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, Inc. is named as a defendant in the Hunziker case,
14
admits that it is an ORG dominated entity, but denies that it, nor any other ORG entity, is protected by the agreement.48. Armstrong admits that he met with Rummond and Elstead, attorneys for plaintiffs in the Hunziker case, but denies that he discussed his experiences with any entities protected bythe agreement. Armstrong denies that any entities are protected by the agreement because it is unenforceable on its face and, moreover, has been rendered void by the ORG's post-settlement attacks on Armstrong and its illegal efforts at enforcement. Armstrong admits that he agreed to appear for plaintiffs as an expert on the aspects of Scientology practices and beliefs of fraud and Fair Game.
49. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph except that he denies that he testified at length concerning CSI or any other ORG affiliated entities and individuals protected by the agreement, because no entities or individuals are protected by the agreement due to the ORG's acts to contravene it.
50. Armstrong admits that he produced documents during his March 3, 1992 deposition but denies that there are any documents referred to is paragraph 46 of the ORG's complaint. Armstrong denies moreover that any documents he produced at the deposition were in violation of any agreement.
51. Armstrong admits that he appeared for a deposition on or about March 12, 1992 in the Hunziker case. He denies that he claimed he had been given a subpoena not by the deposing attorney. Armstrong admits that he said he had been given a deposition subpoena by attorney Elstead and that Elstead had filled out the subpoena that morning. Armstrong admits that he refused to
15
produce the subpoena, but lacks the information or knowledge to admit or deny the averment that it was not served on any of the parties to the case. Armstrong admits that he delivered documentsto Elstead on or about March 8, 1992 and requested that he be served with a subpoena, but denies that his delivery of documents was in violation of the agreement.52. Armstrong lacks the information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to what the ORG learned in April 1992 so as to that averment he cannot either admit or deny this allegation. Armstrong does deny that he reacquired any documents which he had previously returned to the ORG. And he denies that he produced any such documents either to Elstead or to opposing counsel at any time.
53. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
54. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45 and 47 through 52 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
55. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph except that he did testify on or about April 7, 1992 in the Yanny case. The ORG compelled Armstrong to testify on that date in that case. The ORG filed the agreement publicly months before this deposition, and the ORG had forced Armstrong to file the agreement in the Court of Appeal, which sua sponte, unsealed
16
it, because of the ORG's efforts to make him a party to its subversion of the justice system. The ORG, moreover, divulged the contents of the agreement at least as early as 1989, thus giving up any right it may have had to keep it confidential.56. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
57. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52 and 55 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
58. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
59. Armstrong admits that he gave a declaration in the Aznaran litigation on August 26, 1991, but denies that his action was a violation of any provision of the agreement.
60. Armstrong admits that his declaration attached as exhibits the two documents referred to in paragraph 58 of the ORG's complaint, but denies that said attachment was in breach of any provisions of the agreement.
61. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
62. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
63. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18
17
through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55 and 58 through 60 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.64. Armstrong lacks the information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to what the ORG learned in March 1992 so as to that averment he cannot either admit or deny.
65. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
66. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph. He denies moreover that his giving voluntary assistance to anyone not only does not harm the ORG but assists the ORG, and that such voluntary assistance to anyone cannot be proscribed by any agreement, and that any agreement which attempts to proscribe voluntary assistance is against public policy, violative of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech, association, press and religion, and is unenforceable.
67. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60 and 64 and 65 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
68. Armstrong admits the averments of this paragraph, but denies that ORG entities CSI, CSC and RTC are protected by the
18
agreement, because they cannot be protected legally by an illegal contract and they have acted themselves to vitiate and waive whatever protection they might at one time have had, if any.69. Armstrong admits that in his May 27, 1992 declaration he did authenticate another declaration he had executed earlier. Armstrong lacks the information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether the transcript had at one time been ordered sealed in the earlier action between him and the ORG, so as to that averment he cannot either admit or deny. The transcript, however, has been a public document since 1982, and the tape recordings from which the transcript had originated have been found by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to contain evidence of criminal fraud and were released to the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS. Armstrong denies that any of his acts are violations of any paragraphs of the agreement and denies that he is required to pay one cent to CSI.
70. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
71. In answering the averments contained in this paragraph wherein CSI adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65 and 68 and 69 of its averments, Armstrong admits, denies and avers to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied and averred with respect to those specific paragraphs as previously set forth in this answer.
72. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
19
73. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
74. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
75. Armstrong denies each and every averment of this paragraph.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
76. Plaintiff is a single component of the Scientology Organization ("ORG") that, along with all of the Scientology-related beneficiaries of the settlement are subject to a unity of control exercised by David Miscavige. Plaintiff and all other Scientology-related organizations, entities and individuals were created by David Miscavige and his attorneys as an attempt to avoid payment of taxes and civil judgments and to confuse courts and those seeking redress for the civil and criminal misconduct of Miscavige and all other Scientology-related organizations, entities and individuals. Due to the unity of personnel, commingling of assets, and commonality of business objectives, any effort by plaintiff to separate itself as being independent and separate should be disregarded.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure To State A Cause Of Action)
77. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a first, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69 and
20
CT 180
72 through 75 herein and allege as follows: The complaint and each cause of action contained herein fails to state a cause of action against these defendants upon which relief can be granted.SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(This Court Cannot Enjoin The Practice Of A Profession)
78. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a second, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows:
Any attempt by plaintiff to limit the ability to obtain gainful employment by these answering defendants, or any of them, is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy, and constitutes an unenforceable restraint on the right of defendants, or any of them, to pursue their chosen profession.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
79. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a third, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81, 82, 83, 87 and 88 herein and allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants and/or obtaining the equitable relief requested herein under the doctrine of unclean hands.
///
///
21
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(In Pari Delicto)
80. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a fourth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, and 81 through 88, herein and allege as follows: Notwithstanding the things alleged of defendants in the complaint, which are denied in the applicable paragraphs herein, plaintiffs and their counsels' conduct in connection with the events giving rise to this action bars plaintiff from recovery with regard to the complaint under the doctrine of in pari delicto.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Illegality)
81. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a fifth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81, 82, 83, 87 and 88, herein and allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action as a result of its acts of illegality in connection with matters that give rise to this case. Particularly plaintiff and other Scientology-related entities engaged in a wholesale attempt to obstruct
22
justice, suppress evidence in order to deny redress, due process, and equal protection of the law to its civil and criminal victims by means of obtaining settlements of litigation in actions in various state and federal courts across the United States. In each of those actions attorney Michael J. Flynn was attorney of record, or coordinating counsel for litigants adverse to Scientology. In each of those actions litigants adverse to Scientology were coerced into signing secret settlement agreements the terms of which were substantially similar to those set forth in the settlement agreement at issue herein. Plaintiff is further barred from bringing this action because as a material part of entering the settlement agreement with defendant, plaintiff required defendant's counsel, Michael Flynn, to sign secret side agreements for indemnification for resolution of the retrial of Armstrong I were plaintiff and other Scientology-related entities successful in obtaining reversal of Judge Breckenridge's decision on appeal. In such agreement Scientology promised to limit its collections of damages to $25,001.00 and to indemnify Flynn for the payment thereof and Flynn, in turn, would indemnify Armstrong for any such judgment. The existence of these secret, side agreements were never disclosed to Armstrong by Flynn, plaintiff, or other Scientology-related entities.Plaintiff is further barred from bringing this action because as a material part of entering said settlement agreements, it or its agents required attorney Flynn to promise never to take any anti-Scientology cases in the future. Thereafter, although Flynn has refused to provide any declarations for defendant Armstrong,
23
he has been willing to provide documentary assistance to Scientology.Plaintiff is further barred from bringing this action as a result of its acts of illegality in connection with the commission of acts giving rise to the action entitled Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, Case No C88-1786 JMI (Ex) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Aznaran case"); conduct by plaintiff, its counsel and others, including but not limited to the making of certain settlement proposals to Barry Van Sickle, Esq., for direct communication to Vicki and Richard Aznaran ("the Aznarans") knowing that Van Sickle had been disqualified from representing the Aznarans, and knowing that the Aznarans at the time were represented by Ford Greene and participating in conduct which resulted in the Aznarans (in hopes of facilitating settlement and in accordance with plaintiff's conditions) dismissing their counsel, Ford Greene, whereupon while the Aznarans were in pro per, plaintiff withdrew any offer of settlement and commenced loading up the record with voluminous, sophisticated and dispositive motions, including but not limited to two for summary judgment. In consequence thereof defendants, and each of them, provided aid and assistance to counsel whom the Aznarans subsequently employed for the purpose of preserving their rights to redress, due process and equal protection of the law.
Furthermore, other acts of illegality by plaintiff and other Scientology-related entities have been publicly documented.
Plaintiffs have engaged in acts of impropriety, as set forth above, and including what the District Court in the Aznaran case referred to in a written order, entered after most of the events
24
in issue herein, as "outrageous litigation tactics." Also, in addition to the Flynn settlement agreements the conduct of plaintiff and other Scientology-related organizations, entities and individuals against persons "adverse to Scientology" including citizens, counsel, judges and government authorities (including but not limited to illegal surveillance, obtaining telephone company records, breaking and entering, threatening conduct, and violence) have discouraged and intimidated knowledgeable persons from disclosing their knowledge about, or otherwise coming forward against, the illegal activities of plaintiff and other Scientology-related organizations, entities and individuals, and from assisting victims thereof to obtain redress, due process and equal protection of the law.SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud and Deceit)
82. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a sixth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, and 81 through 88, herein and allege as follows:
Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, because of its fraud and deceit in representing to defendants, and each of them, that its management had changed and no longer would engage in illegal activities, that it wanted to buy peace, that it would leave defendants, and each of them alone, and that the false affidavit that it required
25
Armstrong to sign as a condition of the setlement would be disclosed only if Armstrong attacked the ORG. Plaintiff made the foregoing representations to defendants, and each of them, with knowledge of the falsity thereof at the time said representations were made and with the intent to deceive defendants, and each of them, who actually and justifiably relied on those material misrepresentations to their injury by signing the settlement agreement. In fact, plaintiff and other Scientology-related organizations, entities and individuals never intended to cease their illegal and immoral activities, never intended to buy peace with defendants, and each of them, never intended to leave Armstrong alone, never intended not to use the false declaration only if Armstrong attacked the ORG, and never intended to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. Rather plaintiff and other Scientology-related entities intended to use the settlement agreement as a tool for the implementation of the Fair Game Policy and Scientology's litigation tactics so as to engineer a reversal of Judge Breckenridge's decision in Armstrong I, to collusively resolve any re-trial of Armstrong I, to obtain possession of the so-called MCCS tapes which were evidence of Scientology employing attorneys for the purpose of committing future crimes and frauds, to use the false declaration in other litigation without regard to Armstrong's conduct, and to otherwise obstruct justice and suppress evidence of facts which discredited plaintiff and other Scientology-related entities.///
///
///
26
Said Fair Game Policy states that any enemy of Scientology"[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
Scientology's litigation strategy is as follows:
"The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
From the outset, prior to the execution of the settlement agreement with defendant, and the execution of all other Flynn settlement agreements, it was the intent of plaintiff and other Scientology-related organizations, entities and individuals to continue to wage war on and harass Armstrong, to continue to engage in illegal activities and conduct, and to suppress evidence and obstruct justice by means of said agreements and to use said agreements as a tool of Fair Game and the litigation strategy of ruin in order to ensure that information regarding Scientology's crimes and civil misconduct would stay suppressed, and its criminal and civil victims would be denied legal redress and justice.
Moreover, Flynn advised Armstrong that he would always be
27
available in the future to represent Armstrong if Armstrong had to litigate with the ORG in the future. Said statement was false and misleading because Flynn had signed an agreement with the ORG promising not to represent anti-ORG litigants in the future.Armstrong relied on the truth of Flynn's statement in signing the settlement agreement.
Plaintiff is further barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, because of the fraud and deceit against the Aznarans prior to July 1, 1991. Scientology-related organizations, through their counsel John J. Quinn ("Quinn") and William T. Drescher ("Drescher") caused material misrepresentations to be made to the Aznarans with knowledge of the falsity of the misrepresentations at the time they were made and with the intent to deceive the Aznarans, who actually and justifiably relied on those material misrepresentations to their injury, by substituting themselves into the Aznaran case as attorneys pro per in the place of their counsel, Ford Greene, whereupon plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment against the Aznarans.
Specifically, Quinn, Drescher, and another attorney Barry Van Sickle, on or about June 5, 1991, met in a restaurant when they discussed the possible settlement of both the Aznaran case and the case of Corydon v. Church of Scientology, et al. and discussed certain settlement proposals with regard thereto. Obviously, knowing that Van Sickle had been disqualified at their insistence from representing the Aznarans in the Aznaran case because of his relationship with former Scientology counsel, Joseph A. Yanny, and well knowing that the Aznarans were represented by their Attorney
28
of Record, Ford Greene, Quinn and Drescher made settlement proposals to Van Sickle regarding possible settlement of the Aznaran case. Quinn and Drescher, on behalf of certain Scientology-related entities, specifically discussed details regarding Van Sickle making direct settlement proposals to the Aznarans without the knowledge of their counsel of record, Ford Greene, and with the expectation that the Aznarans might thus be induced to then discharge their attorney, Greene. Furthermore, Drescher, in the presence of Quinn, expressly made it a condition of this meeting and these communications that these discussions would never be repeated and would not become the subject of declarations in either the Corydon case or the Aznaran case. By inducing Van Sickle to make settlement proposals to the Aznarans, the Scientology-related entities made Van Sickle their agent. On June 20, 1991, or thereabouts, Quinn, Drescher and Van Sickle again met in a restaurant and again discussed joint settlement of the Corydon and Aznaran cases. At this meeting, Quinn and Drescher learned that the Aznarans were now discharging Ford Greene. Neither Quinn nor Drescher disclosed to Van Sickle during either of these restaurant meetings, or at any other relevant time, that plaintiffs were then finalizing substantial motions for summary judgment, and other dispositive motions in the Aznaran case.Within a very short time thereafter, on July 1, 1991, the Aznarans substituted themselves into the Aznaran case in pro per in place of Greene who they had discharged, and whereupon plaintiffs filed its first motion for summary judgment against the Aznarans.
29
Believing that they had taken a major step towards concluding a settlement agreement with certain Scientology-related entities, and instead suddenly facing a motion for summary judgment and without essential legal representation, the Aznarans contacted Joseph A. Yanny for assistance. Yanny contacted Quinn and requested that his client continue the hearing date on the summary judgment motion so that the Aznarans could obtain new legal counsel and oppose the motion for summary judgment. Quinn refused to continue the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment. Subsequently, the District Court reinstated Ford Greene as the Aznaran's counsel and shortly thereafter entered a written order referring to the "outrageous litigation tactics" being employed in the case. At the time that Greene was reinstated, and/or shortly thereafter, the Scientology-related litigants in the Aznaran case loaded up the record with six dispositive motions totalling 285 pages with in excess of 2,400 pages of exhibits. Greene had approximately three weeks to oppose all motions. Greene was and is a sole practitioner. Defendants, and each of them, were aware of the ploy described above and in an effort to preserve the Aznarans rights to redress, due process and equal protection of the law assisted Greene as a paralegal on the Aznaran case. But for the conduct of plaintiff, and other Scientology-related entities in the Aznaran case defendants, and each of them, would not have had to assist both Yanny and Greene.
///
///
///
///
30
CT 190
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
83. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a seventh, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81, 82 and 84 through 88, herein and allege as follows:
Plaintiff is equitably estopped from asserting each and all of the purported causes of action in the complaint by reason of its own acts, omissions, and conduct, or that of its agents, including, but not limited to the fact that it violated the settlement agreement in that it or its agents provided information from Armstrong I that was the subject of the settlement agreement to various persons and in various litigation including but not limited to The London Sunday Times, The Los Angeles Times, the instant litigation, the Corydon litigation, and in Church of Scientology of California v. Russell Miller and Penguin Books Limited in the High Court of Justice, Case No. 6140 in London, England, where a Scientology-related entity filed multiple affidavits attacking defendant Armstrong.
As yet a further basis for barring plaintiff on the ground of estoppel, defendant has requested plaintiff and other Scientology-related entities to release Flynn and his other former attorneys from the agreements they signed never to represent Armstrong again, and plaintiff and said entities have refused to do so.
31
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
84. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as an eighth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81, 82, and 83, herein and allege as follows:
Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, by reason of their own acts, omissions and conduct, or that of its agents.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Mistake Of Law)
85. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a ninth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81 through 84, and 86 through 88, herein and allege as follows:
Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, because defendant Armstrong's former attorney, Michael Flynn, advised said defendant that the provisions of the settlement agreement that plaintiff is seeking to enforce herein were not in any way enforceable. Armstrong
32
relied on such representations, but for which he would not have signed said settlement agreement.TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Mistake Of Fact)
86. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a tenth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81 through 84, and 86 through 88, herein and allege as follows:
Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, because defendant Armstrong's former attorney, Michael Flynn, advised said defendant that the provisions of the settlement agreement that plaintiff is seeking to enforce herein were not in any way enforceable. Armstrong relied on such representations, but for which he would not have signed said settlement agreement.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Conflict of Interest)
87. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a tenth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81 through 86, and 88, herein and allege as follows:
33
Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, because defendant Armstrong's former attorney, Michael Flynn, in conjunction with settling Armstrong's case against Scientology-related entities, also settled 30 other cases, including cases of his own against Scientology-related defendants without procuring outside counsel for defendant.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Duress and Undue Influence)
88. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a Twelfth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81 through 87, herein and allege as follows:
Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, because plaintiff and other Scientology-related organizations, entities and individuals had implemented Fair Game Policy stratagems on defendant Armstrong's attorney, Michael J. Flynn and upon other anti-Scientology litigants and would continue such conduct against all such persons unless all said anti-Scientology litigants, including Flynn, signed settlement agreements substantially similar to that signed by defendant Armstrong.
Further, in early December 1986, attorney Flynn and other anti-Scientology litigants, postured Armstrong as a deal breaker, by stating that their desires to settle would be ruined unless defendant Armstrong agreed to settle and led him to believe if he
34
did not sign the agreement, they would not cooperate in such event by acting as Armstrong's witnesses and zealous advocate on the trial of his cross-complaint against Scientology set to commence shortly thereafter in Armstrong I.THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
89. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirteenth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these
answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds of laches.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Impossibility)
90. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a fourteenth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds of impossibility.
///
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Frustration of Contractual Purpose)
91. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a fifteenth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these
answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds of frustrating defendants', and each of their, ability to perform the terms of the settlement agreement.
35
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unfair and Unreasonable Contract)
92. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a sixteenth separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement is unreasonable and unfair as to defendant Armstrong.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Mutuality)
93. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a seventeenth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement, as interpreted by plaintiff, lacks in reciprocity and mutuality.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ambiguity)
94. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a eighteenth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement in ambiguous and incapable of enforcement.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Adequate Consideration)
95.Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a
36
nineteenth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement is not supported by adequate consideration.TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unconscionability)
96. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twentieth separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement is unconscionable.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Adhesion)
97. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-first, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement is a contract of adhesion.
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Hardship)
98. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-second, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement
37
agreement would work an unfair hardship on defendants, and each of them.TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Offset)
99. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-third, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Any damages that plaintiff has suffered in consequence of the alleged conduct is exceeded by the damages suffered by defendants, and each of them, in consequence of the misconduct of plaintiff, and plaintiff's agents acts of Fair Game and therefore plaintiff should take nothing.
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Liquidated Damages Act As Penalty)
100. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-fourth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement's provision of liquidated damages is not an approximation of damage, but is intended to act and does act as a penalty.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(First Amendment - Religion)
101. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-fifth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these
38
defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement violates defendants', and each of them, right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(First Amendment - Speech)
102. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-sixth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement violates defendants', and each of them, right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(First Amendment - Press)
103. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-seventh, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement violates defendants', and each of them, right to freedom of press guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(First Amendment - Association)
104. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-eighth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement
39
agreement violates defendants, and each of them, right to freedom of association guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Privacy)
105. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a twenty-ninth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the settlement agreement violates defendants, and each of them, right of privacy guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
106. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a
thirtieth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these
answering defendants allege as follows:
Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action against these
defendants, and each of them, on the grounds that the conduct of
plaintiff and its agents violates the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Justification - Defense of Another, Interests
of Third Persons, and the Public)
107. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-first, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40
40
through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81 through 88, herein and allege as follows: At all relevant times, the acts of these answering defendants were privileged and justified because they were done in the defense of others, the interests of third parties, the interests of justice, and the interests of the public.THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Res Judicata)
108. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-second, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff's complaint, and plaintiff's claims for equitable relief and for damages, are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Collateral Estoppel)
109. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-second, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff's complaint, and plaintiff's claims for equitable relief and for damages, are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
110. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-fourth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows:
41
Plaintiff, and/or its agent, and/or its counsel, failed to take proper and reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate the damages alleged in the amended complaint, and to the extent of such failure to mitigate or to avoid, damages allegedly incurred by plaintiff, if any, should be reduced accordingly.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Action Barred By Equity and Civil Code Provisions)
111. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-fifth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72 through 75, 81 through 88, herein and allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief by the general principles of equity and the specific provisions of Part IV of the Civil Code, including but not limited to §§ 3512, 3517, 3519, 3524, (without any admission of wrongdoing by defendants) and 3533.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Void As Against Public Policy)
112. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-sixth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 16, 18 through 25, 27 through 31, 33 through 35, 37, 38, 40 through 42, 44, 45, 47 through 52, 54, 55, 58 through 60, 64, 65,
42
68, 69, 72 through 75, 81 through 88, herein and allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief because the settlement agreement is void as against public policy.THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(The Settlement Agreement Cannot Be Specifically Enforced)
13. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-seventh, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief because the settlement agreement cannot be specifically enforced.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(The Settlement Agreement Cannot Be Specifically Performed)
114. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-eighth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief because the settlement agreement cannot be specifically performed.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Due Process)
115. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-ninth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief because the settlement agreement deprives defendants, and each of them, other third parties and the public of due process of law as protected by the state constitution and by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution.
43
FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Equal Protection)
116. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a thirty-ninth, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief because the settlement agreement deprives defendants, and each of them, other third parties and the public of equal protection of law as protected by the state constitution and by the federal constitution.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Right to Counsel)
117. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a forty-first, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief because the settlement agreement deprives defendants, and each of them, other third parties and the public of their right to counsel as protected by the state constitution and by the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Public Domain)
118. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a forty-second, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief because the information that defendants, and each of them, are accused of disclosing is in the public domain.
44
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Privilege)
119. Further answering said first amended complaint, and as a forty-third, separate and affirmative defense thereto, these answering defendants allege as follows: Plaintiff is barred from judicial relief because the acts that defendants, and each of them, are accused of having committed are privileged.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants, and each of them, hereby demand this case be tried by a jury.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Armstrong prays for relief as follows:
1. That CSI takes nothing by its complaint:
2. That Armstrong recover his costs of suit herein:
3. That Armstrong recover his attorney's fees and costs of defending the suit herein;
4. That the Court award such further relief as it may deem proper.
DATED: July 21, 1992 | Respectfully submitted, HUB LAW OFFICES By: [signed] Ford Greene FORD GREENE Attorney for Defendant |
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, am one of the defendants in the above entitled action. I know the contents of the foregoing Answer to Amended Complaint I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct according to the laws of the State of California and that this declaration was executed on this 21st day of July at San Anselmo, California.
By: [signed] Gerry ArmstrongGERALD ARMSTRONG
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, am an officer of defendant The Gerald Armstrong Corporation in the above entitled action. I know the contents of the foregoing Answer to Amended Complaint I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct according to the laws of the State of California and that this declaration was executed on this 21st day of July at San Anselmo, California.
By: [signed] Gerry ArmstrongGERALD ARMSTRONG
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above entitled action. My business address is 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California. I served the following documents: ANSWER OF GERALD ARMSTRONG AND THE GERALD ARMSTRONG CORPORATION TO AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following persons) on the date set forth below, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Anselmo, California:
Andrew Wilson, Esquire WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 450 San Francisco, California 94104 |
LAURIE J. BARTILSON, ESQ. Bowles & Moxon 6255 Sunset Boulevard Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90028 |
Graham E. Berry, Esquire LEWIS, D'AMATO, BRISBOIS & BISGAARD 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90012 |
|
PAUL MORANTZ, ESQ. P.O. Box 511 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 |
[x] (By Mail) | I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Anselmo, California. |
[x] (State) | I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. |
DATED: July 22, 1992
[signed] Ford Greene