I, Gerald Armstrong, declare

1. I am making this declaration to support an opposition to the motion in limine of Church of Scientology International, hereinafter referred to, along with the rest of Scientology's command and control structure, as "the organization, " to exclude at the trial of the organization's OSC re contempt, now set for March 2, 1993, evidence of alleged actions of the organization or others which predate the May 28, 1992 order of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian, hereinafter referred to as the " Sohigian ruling," which the organization alleges I have violated.

2. I am a writer, artist and philosopher. I am also a paralegal, and have been involved in litigation with the organization, as defendant, plaintiff and witness since 1982. I am at present the sole support staff of attorney Ford Greene who represents a number of people who have been victimized by the organization, and who is also my attorney in this litigation. I have made my knowledge and opinions concerning the organization known in declarations and other documents filed in this case and others. I ask this Court to take judicial notice of my declaration in support of my opposition to the OSC re Contempt, filed contemporaneously with this declaration, and my other declarations filed in this case and in the underlying case, Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong , Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 420153, hereinafter referred to as

1

Armstrong I. The command and control structure which, under the organization's leader David Miscavige, runs the organization's intelligence, legal, PR, financial and enforcement arms, and which controls this case, is criminal and antisocial in nature. It employs, as its basic policy in its dealings with me and others, whom, as with me, it considers " enemies," a philosophy of opportunistic hatred, its originator, the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, called "fair game." The fair game doctrine states that anyone declared an enemy of the organization or "suppressive person:"

"may 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."

Hubbard's policy letter of October 18, 1967, in which he spelled out this treatment for any "enemy" [1] is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Fair game was condemned by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. in his decision filed June 22, 1984 following my trial in Armstrong I, affirmed on appeal in Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 1060, 283 Cal. Rptr. 917, and it has been condemned by other courts in other cases and in the media. Judge Breckenridge stated in his decision:

"[i]n addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in

2

the [organization] whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid..."

I am an expert in the fraudulent representations made by L. Ron Hubbard and the organization, and in their doctrine of fair game. The organization claims that fair game was canceled, but I know this to be untrue and merely another example of the philosophy of fair game itself. Since I left the organization in 1981 I have been the target of an endless chain of its attacks in and out of the legal arena pursuant to its fair game policy.

3. I consider the present motion in limine to exclude evidence of actions which predate yet another instance of fair game and I am again deeply saddened at the use to which this organization continues to put our legal system. Through fair game, to which it consciously and cynically blinds itself by its self-generated paranoia and schizophrenia, the organization ruthlessly and unremittingly attacked my attorney in Armstrong I , Michael Flynn, suing him some fifteen times, filing false bar complaints against him, infiltrating his office, stealing documents, framing him with the forgery of a $2,000, 000 check, and, according to Mr. Flynn, attempting his assassination. The organization threatened his law practice, family and life, ruined his marriage, and finally drove him, out of his desperation to end the threats, to desert me and sign a contract with the organization specifically to not help me in my battle against its criminality. In December 1986, in order to free Michael Flynn

3

and several other people from the organization's attacks, I signed the settlement agreement, which Mr. Flynn advised me was unenforceable and "not worth the paper it's printed on," and which the organization, having contracted away Mr. Flynn from representing or helping me, is now attempting to enforce in the instant lawsuit. Through fair game the organization compromised my lawyer, through fair game it obtained my signature on an illegal " settlement" agreement, through fair game it is litigating that document's enforcement, through fair game it is attempting to have this Court have me jailed for violations of the Sohigian ruling it has manufactured, and through fair game it is seeking in the instant motion in limine to deny me a defense to its attack. L. Ron Hubbard delineated his organization's cynical fair game method for using the legal system in his article "Dissemination of Material," [2] from a basic staff manual, "Level O Checksheet, " attached hereto as Exhibit B.

"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."

The organization's bad faith litigation tactics, fortunately, have not gone completely unnoticed by our courts. In his memorandum of decision filed January 28, 1993 in the case of Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International

4

& Church of Scientology of California v. Scott, et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 85-711-JMI (Bx) and 85-7197-JMI (Bx), [3] and attached hereto as Exhibit C, U.S. Special Master James G. Kolts stated:

"Plaintiffs have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes 'extraordinary, malicious, wanton and oppressive conduct'."

"It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this. Therefore, it is appropriate to award attorneys' fees pursuant to the copyright statute."

Judge Kolts (Retd) ordered plaintiffs, who are represented by the same lawyers who represent plaintiff in this case, to pay defendants 2.9 million dollars for attorneys' fees.

4. While the organization urges this Court to exclude presentation by me of any "evidence concerning alleged actions

5

supposedly attributable to [the organization] which predate the May 28 Order, " (Motion in Limine p. 10, l. 7) it has itself included discussion and evidence of at least 38 pre-Sohigian ruling matters in both its Application for an OSC re Contempt (App.) and its Motion in Limine (ML), as follows:

B. App. p. 2, l. 20, "[Sohigian ruling prohibitions] were based on paragraph 7G of the December 1986 "Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement." (5 1/2 years before the Sohigian ruling);

C. App. p. 2, n. 1, quote from 1986 settlement agreement, and Exhibit B thereto, the settlement agreement . (5 1/2 years before the Sohigian ruling);

D. App. p. 3, n. 2, quote from the 1986 settlement agreement. (5 1/2 years before the Sohigian ruling);

E. App. p. 3, n. 3, l. 16 "the March 5, 1992 issuance (sic) the temporary restraining order by Judge Dufficy," (84 days before the Sohigian ruling);

F. App. p. 3, n. 3, l. 19, "the March 12, 1992 deposition testimony in the matter of Hunziker, et al. v. Applied Materials, et al.., " (77 days before the Sohigian ruling);

G. Exhibit C to App. "March 12 deposition of Gerald Armstrong in Hunziker," (77 days before the Sohigian ruling);

H. App. p. 3, n. 3, l. 22, "discussion with Time Magazine Reporter Richard Behar," (a month before the Sohigian ruling);

I. App. p. 3, n. 3, l. 24, "participated in the

6

issuance of a press release critical of the [organization] and the Armstrong TRO on March 19, 1992," (70 days before the Sohigian ruling);

J. App. p. 3, n. 3, l. 27, "on March 27, 1992, Judge Dufficy extended the Armstrong TRO to May 11, 1992" (62 days before the Sohigian ruling);

K. App. p. 4, n. 3, l. 20, "conducting post- extension hearing interviews with the press on March 27, 1992," (62 days before the Sohigian ruling);

L. App. p. 4, n. 3, l. 20, "in April, 1992, (William Horne of American Lawyer Magazine)" (a month before the Sohigian ruling);

M. App. p. 5, n. 7, "Behar is the author of a Time cover story concerning the [organization] which ran in May, 1991." (one year before the Sohigian ruling);

N. App. p. 6, l. 5, "raised in the [organization's] February 4, 1992 preliminary injunction motion," (115 days before the Sohigian ruling);

O. App. p. 6, l. 9, "see also, February 4, 1992 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Breach of Contract," (115 days before the Sohigian ruling);

P. App. p. 8, l. 9, "Armstrong did admit that he had met with and interviewed Mr. Roberts concerning the latter's [organization] dispute, " (See Ex. D to App., 10/8/92 Armstrong deposition, p. 457, "in approximately November, 1991, " (6 months

7

before the Sohigian ruling);

Q. App. p. 9, l. 19, "In paragraph 6(D) of the Agreement, Armstrong agreed, inter alia, [quote from 1986 settlement agreement]," (5 1/2 years before the Sohigian ruling);

R. App. Ex. D, Deposition of Gerald Armstrong October 7, 1992, p. 338 - 348 discussion of press release and CNN interview. (March 20, 1992, 69 days before the Sohigian ruling);

S. App. Ex. D, Deposition of Gerald Armstrong October 7, 1992, p. 349 - 355 discussion of interview with William Horne, (2 months before the Sohigian ruling);

T. App. Ex. D, Deposition of Gerald Armstrong October 7, 1992, p. 386 - 387 discussion of conversation with Richard Behar (1 month before the Sohigian ruling);

U. App. Ex. D, Deposition of Gerald Armstrong October 7, 1992, p. 455 - 458 discussion of conversation with Ed Roberts, (6 months before the Sohigian ruling);

V. App. Ex. E, Press Release from March, 19, 1992, (70 days before the Sohigian ruling);

W. App. Ex. F, Deposition of Gerald Armstrong July 22, 1992, p. 186 discussion of when I heard about the Aznaran litigation, (three years before the Sohigian ruling);

X. App. Ex. F, Deposition of Gerald Armstrong July 22, 1992, p. 186 discussion of execution of declaration in July, 1991, (10 months before the Sohigian ruling);

Y. App. Ex. F, Deposition of Gerald Armstrong July 22, 1992, p. 186 - 187, discussion of my beginning to work for

8

Ford Greene in August, 1991, (9 months before the Sohigian ruling);

Z. App. Ex. F, Deposition of Gerald Armstrong July 22, 1992, p. 188 - 189, discussion of conversations since August, 1991, (9 months before the Sohigian ruling);

AA. App. Ex. G. Attachment to December 22, 1992 letter, letter from organization attorney Eric Lieberman to Gerald Armstrong dated July 3, 1991, (over 10 months before the Sohigian ruling);

AB. App. Ex. G. Attachment to December 22, 1992 letter, letter from Gerald Armstrong to Eric Lieberman dated June 21, 1991, (over 11 months before the Sohigian ruling);

AC. App. Ex. H. (same as for V through Y above);

AD. ML p. 1, l. 11, "[organization] seeks damages and a permanent injunction against Armstrong for breaches of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties in 1986," (5 1/2 years before the Sohigian ruling);

AE. ML p. 1, l. 13, "The Agreement settled bitter litigation ongoing since 1982," (a decade before the Sohigian ruling);

AF. ML p. 1, l. 13 "when Armstrong left the [organization]," (10 1/2 years before the Sohigian ruling);

AG. ML p. 1, l. 14 "[the agreement] included non- disclosure provisions, and contains provisions prohibiting Armstrong from providing voluntary assistance to others engaged in or contemplating litigation against the [organization] and

9

related entities and individuals." (5 1/2 years before the Sohigian ruling);

AH. ML p. 1, l. 18, "Armstrong's deliberate violations of these provisions led to the issuance of the [May 28, 1992] Order." (before the Sohigian ruling);

AI. ML p. 4, l. 8 - p. 5, l. 12, the organization lists six items which were not admitted into evidence on May 26, 1992 during the evidentiary aspect of the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, (2 days before the Sohigian ruling);

AJ. ML p. 5, n. 3, l. 24, "Armstrong's evidentiary offering was over 1 1/2 feet high," (2 days before the Sohigian ruling);

AK. ML p. 5, n. 3, l. 25, "The Court initially issued an OSC to the attorneys for both sides as to why no resolution concerning the evidence had been reached prior to the hearing, but dissolved the OSC without hearing after it became apparent that most of plaintiff's objections were valid, but that Armstrong contested every one of them." (1 day before the Sohigian ruling);

AL. ML Ex. B, transcript of May 26, 1992 hearing (2 days before the Sohigian ruling);

AM. ML Ex. C, partial transcript of May 27, 1992 hearing (1 day before the Sohigian ruling);

5. The organization states in its motion in limine that "[t]he purpose of the [March 2] hearing is to determine whether or not Armstrong has wilfully violated the Court's May 28 order.

10

Events, actions or allegations which relate to plaintiff, persons not parties to this action, or which concern matters allegedly occurring prior to May 28, 1993 are simply not relevant to a determination of this narrow issue." (ML p. 3, l. 1) Yet the organization has held itself to a completely different standard, supporting its position with dozens of events, actions and allegations predating the Sohigian ruling as far back as 1981. Surely if the organization cannot support its effort to have me jailed without including such pre-May 28, 1992 matters it cannot honestly expect me to not include pre-May 28, 1992 matters in my defense. The organization's arrogance and feigned inability to examine its own actions flow from its judicially noticed schizophrenia which it employs to excuse its criminal acts; in this case its malicious prosecution of Gerald Armstrong, its perjury and its obstruction of justice.

6. The organization claims that my evidentiary offering at the May 26 hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction was over 1 1/2 feet high. (ML p. 5, n. 3, l. 24) Poppycock. My offering was no more than 9 inches.

7. The organization claims that "[a]t the hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction...Armstrong's historical recitations and accusations were presented in the form of thousands of pages of irrelevant documents, and hours and hours of the Court's valuable time was spent considering these documents, and rejecting most of them as not relevant." (ML p. 2, l. 3) This is not true. Judge Sohigian admitted into evidence

11

some twelve of my personal declarations dating back to 1983, and did not admit into evidence only a few paragraphs from one declaration. Of the nine inches of offered evidence he admitted into evidence a good six.

8. The organization claims that the Court issued an Order which found that the Agreement was lawful. (ML p. 2, l. 9) To the contrary, by denying the preliminary injunction as to every aspect of the settlement agreement but for the narrow respects in which he granted it, Judge Sohigian, in fact signalled a preliminary finding in this litigation of the agreement's illegality. Even the respects in which he enjoined me evidence the agreement's unlawfulness because Judge Sohigian rewrote the agreement's prohibitions, presumably for the very reason that the language of the agreement is illegal. Nevertheless, the only thing on the subject of the agreement's lawfulness or unlawfulness that Judge Sohigian stated in his ruling was that "[t]he court does not dispositively decide the underlying merits of the case except for this preliminary determination."

9. The organization claims that Judge Sohigian " issued an Order which found that [I] needed to be enjoined from continuing to violate the terms of the Agreement." ML p. 2, l. 11. The exact opposite is true. The Sohigian ruling allows me to "violate" the terms of the Agreement however, whenever and wherever I possibly can, except as to the narrowly, albeit cryptically structured respect in which the organization's application for a preliminary injunction was granted. And even

12

in that narrow respect, as stated above, Judge Sohigian did not enjoin me from violating the agreement, but rewrote its language. My understanding of what the organization attempts in its barefaced perversions of court orders, communications of all sorts, facts, truth and logic, is to build a cover for its criminality. The organization's leaders and lawyers reason that if they ever admitted the truth, to which they pretend blindness - about what they have done and what I have done, and about their life of lies and their abuse of the human mind and spirit - their liability and shame would crush them. So they come to court, where they tell themselves lies don't raise an eyebrow, to lie again and hold back perhaps another day the crushing fear of retribution and of ignomy.

10. The organization claims that at the hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction Judge Sohigian "initially issued an OSC to the attorneys for both sides as to why no resolution concerning the evidence had been reached prior to the hearing, but dissolved the OSC without hearing after it became apparent that most of plaintiff's objections were valid, but that Armstrong contested every one of them." (ML p. 5, n. 3, l. 25) The organization supports this pronouncement regarding Judge Sohigian's reason for his decision to not have counsel for both sides "back again on the order to show cause, " with pages 3 and 4 of the transcript of the May 27, 1992 hearing. (Ex. C to ML) Yet all Judge Sohigian said regarding this decision is: "Going through the evidence last night gives me the feeling it would

13

probably not be fruitful to conduct such a proceeding." He made this statement after admitting into evidence six of the nine inches of defendant's offered evidence. His reasoning is made clear, however, by his ruling wherein he denied the organization's application for a preliminary injunction except as to the narrow respect in which he rewrote the settlement agreement's terms, and by his comments later at the May 27 hearing. He stated:

"The information (Gerald Armstrong's evidence) that's being suppressed in this case (by the organization), however, is information about extremely blame-worthy behavior of the plaintiff which nobody owns; it is information having to do with the behavior of a high degree of offensiveness and behavior which is meritorious in the extreme.

It involved abusing people who are weak. It involves taking advantage of people who for one reason or another get themselves enmeshed in this extremist view in a way that makes them unable to resist it apparently. It involves using techniques of coercion." (5/27/92 hearing transcript at p. 107, l. 6)

"There appears to be in the history of [the organization's] behavior a very, very

14

substantial deviation between their conduct and standards of ordinary, courteous conduct and standards of ordinary, honest behavior. They're just way off in a different firmament."

"..it's the kind of behavior which makes you sort of be sure you cut the deck and be sure you've counted all the cards. If you're having a friendly poker game you'd make sure to count all the chips before you dealt any cards." (5/27/92 hearing transcript at p. 108, l. 15, l. 21)

Pages 107 and 108 from the transcript of the hearing on May 27, 1992 [4] are attached hereto as Exhibit D. My reading of the record is that Judge Sohigian dissolved his order to show cause to counsel after making his statement that "[t]he elements that they should refer to (in the response to the OSC) are the evidentiary or purported evidentiary submittals in the case and the apparent failure of counsel to meet or confer or do anything with respect to trying to obviate some of the evidentiary difficulties associated with the various submittals," because he understood after reading the evidence that the organization's behavior was "offensive," "blame- worthy," and in a " different firmament" from "ordinary, honest behavior, " and that in a friendly game of meet and confer the organization could be depended on to behave in the same uncooperative, antisocial way. Having examined the

15

evidence, knowing that the organization would not behave in an ordinary, honest way to resolve evidentiary matters without a court order, and knowing that he was going to censure the organization's behavior, he realized the unfairness of the situation to defense counsel and dissolved his order to show cause.

11. The organization claims that I have " throughout this litigation, done nothing but attack the church and its parishioners." Within the litigation itself I have merely responded in what I consider a logical, low-key way to the organization's attacks. I think it is obvious to anyone reading this case's files that the organization has not said one kind word about me, has not acknowldeged what I am, has lied about what I have done, has rejected all my peace offerings, perverted my efforts to unfoment its litigation, and refused to communicate in any manner but through its lawyers in a terrifying assault in court and through its PIs and intelligence operatives on the street. It is true that I have pointed out what about the organization is illusionary, without effect and therefore evil. I have confronted that evil when it attacked me and other innocent people, and shone whatever light of truth I had on it. I do not call for the organization's destruction but for its peaceful transformation, not for condemnation but forgiveness. I have confronted and thus far not been crushed by the organization's dark illusions: its attempted perversion of justice, its lies, its hatred, its tyranny, its threats, its

16

intelligence operations, its black propaganda campaigns, its mob mind control, its criminality. I do not attack its personnel and its customers, which it calls " parishioners," because I believe that all of them are salvageable and should be forgiven; but I do hold up as stupid, as every thinking person should, their attacks on religion, justice, truth, and God. I do not attack any church, but I do hold up for examination evil which calls itself religion, illusion which calls itself reality, lies which call themselves truth. I believe that every Scientologist, L. Ron Hubbard included, is a child of God and are but deluded in their organization- enforced conviction that they and I are something different. The organization has brought its war on religion into this secular Court, and it only demonstrates its irreligiosity when it protests that in my defense I attack its "church."

12. It has taken me eleven hours to prepare this declaration response to the organization's motion, and my rate for this sort of thing is $55.00 per hour. Since the organization, as shown in this declaration, has itself supported its application for an order to show cause with dozens of events, actions and allegations predating the Sohigian ruling as far back as 1981, the motion in limine to exclude such events, actions and allegations from evidence at the trial of the OSC re Contempt is brought in bad faith, it is dishonest, an abuse of process, and sanctions are therefore appropriate.

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

17

Executed at San Anselmo, California, on February 17, 1993.

GERALD ARMSTRONG

18

[1] Hubbard, L. Ron HCO PL 18 October, 1967
Penalties for Lower Conditions © 1967 L. Ron Hubbard

[2] "Dissemination of Material"

[3] Exhibit C memorandum of decision filed January 28, 1993 in the case of Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International & Church of Scientology of California v. Scott, et al., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 85-711-JMI (Bx) and 85-7197-JMI (Bx)

[4] Pages 107 and 108 from the transcript of the hearing on May 27, 1992 are attached hereto as Exhibit D.