WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO
235 Montgomery Street
Suite 450
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 391-3900
Laurie J. Bartilson
BOWLES & MOXON
6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 2000
Hollywood, CA 90028
(213) 661-4030
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
| CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a California not-
for-profit religious corporation, Plaintiff, vs. GERALD ARMSTRONG; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
CASE NO. BC 052395 DECLARATION OF LAURIE J. BARTILSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY GERALD ARMSTRONG SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT DATE: December 31, 1992 TIME: 1:30 p.m. DEPT: 88 DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: None MOTION CUT-OFF: None TRIAL DATE: May 3, 1992 |
I, LAURIE J. BARTILSON, hereby declare:
1. I am a member of the law firm of Bowles & Moxon and am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of California. My firm represents plaintiff Church of Scientology International ("Church") in the instant case. I am submitting this declaration in support of the Church's Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Gerald Armstrong Should Not Be Held in Contempt ("Motion") and
1
said Motion's accompanying memorandum of points and authorities ("Memorandum"). I have personal knowledge of the matters specified in this declaration and, if called upon to testify on such matters, would and could do so competently.2. On May 28, 1992, this Court issued a preliminary injunction order ("May 28 Order") in this case which stated, in relevant part:
Defendant Gerald Armstrong, his agents, and persons acting in concert or conspiracy with him (excluding attorneys at law who are not said defendant's agents or retained by him) are restrained and enjoined during the pendency of this suit pending further order of this court from doing directly or indirectly any of the following:
Voluntarily assisting any person (not a governmental organ or entity) intending to make, intending to press, intending to arbitrate, or intending to litigate a claim against the persons referred to in sec. 1. of the "Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement" of December 1986 regarding such claim or regarding pressing, arbitrating or litigating it.
Voluntarily assisting any person (not a governmental organ or entity) arbitrating or litigating a claim against the persons referred to in sec. 1 of the "Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement" of December, 1986.
A true and correct copy of the May 28 Order which I received from the Court is attached as Exhibit A in support of the Motion.
3. On June 5, 1992, I gave notice to Armstrong's lawyers, Ford Greene and Paul Morantz, of the May 28 Order. A true and correct copy of the Notice with exhibits and proofs of service is attached as Exhibit S in support of the Motion.
4. At a deposition of Gerald Armstrong ("Armstrong") in this case on June 24, 1992, he and my co-counsel, Andrew Wilson, had the following exchange regarding the December 1986 "Mutual
2
Release and Settlement Agreement" between the Church and Armstrong ("Settlement Agreement") and the May 28 Order:
A. ... I have absolutely no intention of honoring that settlement agreement. I cannot. I cannot logically. I cannot ethically. I cannot morally. I cannot psychically. I cannot philosophically. I cannot spiritually. I cannot in any way. And it is firmly my intention to not honor it.
Q. No matter what a court says?
A. No court can order it. They're going to have to kill me.
A true and correct copy of the relevant page of the transcript of that deposition, p. 124, accurately reflecting the statements of Armstrong and myself, is attached as Exhibit F to the Motion.
5. At a continuation of Armstrong's deposition in this case on October 7, 1992, Armstrong and I had the following exchange regarding the May 28 Order:
Q. When was the next time you spoke to Mr. Welkos or Mr. Sappell?
A. Around the time of the Sohigian ruling.
Q. This is another telephone conversation?
A. In that I only met Mr. Welkos on that one occasion, yes.
Q. I apologize. You said that, and I forgot. And this was a conversation with Mr. Welkos?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you call him, or did he call you?
A. I believe I originated the conversation.
Q. What did he say to you, and what did you say to him, during that conversation?
A. I believe I advised him of the Sohigian ruling.
3
Q. Did you discuss anything else with him?
A. I think it was -- That's all that I recall being the subject of the discussion at that time.
Q. Did you tell him that as a result of the Sohigian ruling, you now felt that you were more free to do things that you had been constrained about doing before?
A. No, I never said that. Because I did not feel I was constrained before. But rather that by specifically denying the injunction as to all of those things which the organization sought in the preliminary injunction, that I was free from the potential of an injunction.
A true and correct copy of the relevant pages of the transcript of that deposition, pp. 378-379, accurately reflecting the statements of Armstrong and myself, is attached as part of Exhibit D to the Motion. On behalf of my client the Church, I allege that the statements made by Armstrong under oath as quoted in this paragraph and the paragraph immediately preceding in this declaration are acknowledgements by Armstrong of his awareness of the May 28 Order, his ability to act in compliance of such order and his intention to wilfully disobey its terms.
6. At a continuation of Armstrong's deposition in this case on July 22, 1992, he acknowledged to me under oath that he continued to be employed by Ford Greene as a paralegal. A true and correct copy of the relevant pages of the transcript of that deposition, pp. 186-189, accurately reflecting the statements of Armstrong and myself, is attached as Exhibit H to the Motion.
7. On July 7, 1992, I received in the mail a notice of association from Ford Greene announcing that he again represented Vicki and Richard Aznaran in the matter of Vicki Aznaran and Richard Aznaran v. Church of Scientology International, et al.
5
1615
U.S. District Court, Central District of California No.CV-88-1786-JMI(Ex) ("Aznaran v. Church"). On that day, I sent Mr. Greene a letter by telecopier and first class mail. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit I to the Motion. In that letter, I requested that Mr. Greene inform me of the steps that had been and that would be taken to ensure that Armstrong did not violate the terms of the May 28 Order, in particular the prohibition that prevented Armstrong from assisting the Aznarans in their case.
8. On or about July 12, 1992, I received a letter from Mr. Greene, dated July 11, 1992, which responded to the above referenced letter of July 7, 1992. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit J to the Motion. In that letter, Mr. Greene pointedly declined to provide any specific assurances that Armstrong would not assist the Aznarans or any other anti-Church litigant or claimant in violation of the above-cited terms of the May 28 Order. Instead, he characterized the May 28 Order as "somewhat cryptic and difficult to enforce" and that as to Armstrong's compliance with said order, I "would simply have to take [Mr. Greene's] word for it."
9. In July, 1992, following my receipt of a copy of a ruling of Judge Ideman in Aznaran v. Church transferring that case from the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court in Dallas, Texas, I received a telephone call from Armstrong in which he stated that he was calling from Mr. Greene's office and that he needed to receive immediately by fax such transfer ruling of Judge Ideman. I told Armstrong that the May 28 Order prohibited him from assisting the Aznarans or any
5
other litigants against the Church. He replied that he was trying to help the Aznarans. On behalf of my client the Church, I allege that the statements made by Armstrong as relayed in this paragraph are acknowledgements by Armstrong of his awareness of the May 28 Order, his ability to act in compliance of such order and his intention to wilfully disobey its terms.10. On July 18, 1992, I sent another letter to Mr. Greene by telecopier and first class mail, responding to his July 11, 1992 letter, accurately describing my above referenced July, 1992 conversation with Armstrong and reiterating that Armstrong was required to immediately cease all work for the Aznarans and to cease all actions in violation of the May 28 Order. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit K to the Motion.
11. I received no response to my July 18, 1992 letter from Mr. Greene. However, on or about August 1, 1992, I received two proofs of service for Mr. Greene's pleadings in the Aznaran v. Church case, each of which was executed by Armstrong. True and correct copies of those proofs of service are attached as Exhibit L to the Motion. On behalf of my client the Church, I allege that the actions taken by Armstrong as relayed in this paragraph are acknowledgements by Armstrong of his ability to act in compliance of the May 28 Order and his intention to wilfully disobey its terms.
12. In the continuation of Armstrong's deposition in this case on October 7 and 8, 1992, during which I further examined Armstrong, he made several additional admissions that I allege indicate his awareness of the May 28 Order, his ability to act in
6
1617
compliance of such order and his intention to wilfully disobey its terms. These admissions include Armstrong's statements that he broadly discussed with the Aznarans matters relating to their case against the Church, that he assisted in the relay of communications between the Aznarans and Mr. Greene and that he was assisting three other persons, Tillie Good, Denise Cantin and Ed Roberts, each of whom is making claims, through Mr. Greene's office, against Churches of Scientology protected by the May 28 Order. A true and correct copy of the relevant pages of the transcript of this deposition, pp. 448-458, accurately reflecting the statements of Armstrong, Mr. Greene and myself, is attached as part of Exhibit D to the Motion. True and correct copies of Mr. Greene's demand letters against various Churches of Scientology on behalf of Ms. Good, Ms. Cantin and Mr. Roberts received by me and/or my firm are attached as Exhibits M, N and O respectively to the Motion.13. On December 26, 1992, I received by U.S. mail a letter signed by Gerald Armstrong, dated December 22, 1992, and addressed to "David Miscavige and all other individuals who participate in the control of Scientology, C/O Laurie J. Bartilson, Esquire" ("December 22 Letter"). A true and correct copy of the December 22 Letter is attached to the moving papers as Exhibit G.
14. In what can only be described as deliberate harassment, Armstrong also sent copies of the letter to 35 individuals and groups, including anti-Church litigants, such as Vicki and Richard Aznaran, Larry Wollersheim and Joseph Yanny, and lawyers who represent clients in actions brought against one of more
7
1618
churches, including Toby Plevin, John Elstead, and Dan Leipold.15. Armstrong spends the bulk of the December 22 Letter vilifying the Church and its members, and threatening further breaches of the settlement agreement, and violations of the preliminary injunction, if his demands are not met. Although Armstrong has publicly disavowed any interest in money, he insists that the Church pay him $500,000 for his "legal fees and costs," "cancel" the settlement agreement, and pay unspecified amounts of money to other anti-Church litigants if the Church wishes to avoid Armstrong's threatened violations.
16. Specifically, Armstrong threatens that, if his demands are not met, that he will travel voluntarily to South Africa to testify against a church of Scientology, give interviews to the media, and voluntarily assist anyone and everyone opposing Churches that he can locate. [Id. pp. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8] Expressing the viewpoint that the May 28 Order places no restrictions whatsoever on his conduct, Armstrong states,
I consider myself free to do anything anyone can, except testify absent a subpoena. Much of what I am
permitted to do I am going to do. . . .I will continue to associate with and befriend all those people I consider you attack unjustly and senselessly. I will make my knowledge and support available to the Cult Awareness Network, a group of
people of good will you vilify, in all the litigation you have fomented against them. . . . I will even make
my knowledge and support available to entities like Time and people like Rich Behar in their defenses from your attacks.
[Exhibit G, p. 3].
17. The Cult Awareness Network is an anti-religious group that advocates the kidnapping and forcible "deprogramming" of individuals belonging to religions which they have identified as
8
1619
"cults." While the Church is not presently suing the Cult Awareness Network in any litigation, the president of the Cult Awareness Network, Cynthia Kisser, has initiated an action against the Church and its president, Heber Jentzsch.
18. Richard Behar is the author of a Time cover story concerning the Church which ran in May, 1991. The Church is presently engaged in a lawsuit against Time and Behar for defamation.
19. In the December 22 Letter, Armstrong also makes plain the personal contempt which he has for a Court which would rule against him:
There is also, as mentioned above, the fact that in order to defend myself from your attacks and to fund
the defense of the litigation you have fomented I must speak and must publish. I'm sure you understand that I remain completely confident that no court, other than the odd one your mercenaries are able to compromise with bucks, babes or bull, will order me not to defend myself.
[Id. p. 5].
20. These recent pronouncements by Armstrong make plain that nothing short of a criminal contempt order is likely to end Armstrong's misconduct.
21. On December 30, 1992, I received a videotape identified by the initial speaker as a November 6, 1992 interview of Armstrong. Jerry Whitfield and others participated in such interview which, on information and belief, took place at the Los Angeles convention in early November, 1992 of the so-called "Cult Awareness Network" ("CAN"). A true and accurate copy of the video tape is attached and lodged as Exhibit Q to the Motion. A true and accurate transcript of the conversation between
9
Armstrong, Mr. Whitfield and others as reflected on said videotape is attached as Exhibit P to the Motion. During this recorded interview, Armstrong makes the following statement:. . . I cannot, except pursuant to a subpoena, assist someone intending to file a claim or pressing a claim
against the organization. Now then we are appealing even that narrow ruling, because that's unenforceable
because if you construe that my ... that this video could possibly indirectly help someone in the future, I can't do this. And not only that but if you consider that my existence indirectly or directly helps someone, then I'll oblige to take my own life. In other words, I must stop breathing. It's unenforceable. I feel I am completely at liberty to associate with whomever I want, to talk to whomever I want, and I act and live
that way. And that is in part why I am here at this event now, why I came to the CAN conference.
Exhibit P, p. 34.
On behalf of my client the Church, I allege that the statements made by Armstrong as relayed in this paragraph are further acknowledgements by Armstrong of his awareness of the May 28 Order, his ability to act in compliance of such order and his intention to wilfully disobey its terms.
22. Mr. Whitfield is a defendant in the matter of Casillas v. Jerry Whitfield, et al., Los Angeles County Municipal Court No. 91K49349. My office represents Mr. Casillas in that action. Mr. Casillas is a staff member of the Church and is suing Mr. Whitfield and others for false imprisonment and false arrest.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 31st day of December, 1992 at Los Angeles, California.
| H:\ARMSTRON\BART.DEC | [signed] Laurie J. Bartilson |
