Reporters Transcript of Proceedings

Armstrong 4





No. 157680


March 8, 1996


For the Plaintiff:

Laurie Bartilson
Attorney at Law


For the Defendant: Gerald Armstrong Pro per



March 8 , 1996



THE COURT: Church of Scientology versus Armstrong.

MR. WILSON: Andrew Wilson for the plaintiff and moving party Church of Scientology.

MR. ARMSTRONG: Gerald Armstrong.

THE COURT: Mr. Armstrong, I believe you requested this motion.

MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you.

First of all, I know that I suppose it's clear to the Court that I've felt unlistened to.

Nevertheless, I have this opportunity and I want to address for the sake of our future relationship together because I think it will go on for a while in spite of all the rulings to date the inconsistencies between the agreement and between the orders that were sought and the orders which were granted. And although I listed a great number of them in my separate statement inconsistencies, I want to address just three of them here.

THE COURT: The argument what is left of the case is that there is no present controversy for me to


rule on a declaratory type of judgment.

That's basically what it is.

MR. ARMSTRONG: There are controversies.

THE COURT: There might be in the future, but I don't rule on future things.

MR. ARMSTRONG: That's what the declaratory relief is asking to look at.

THE COURT: The possibilities are endless, possibilities of anything.

The philosophers sometimes argue that possibility exists that there are no possibilities. We don't go on that in legal.

MR. ARMSTRONG: If that were true, it would be a fact.

I'll not address initial future possibilities although that is a question because there are future possibilities that exist right now. They are not future.

The inconsistencies which make the ruling on the cross-complaint wrong, I have three which are very important.

The first one is the qualification in your orders permitting me to communicate and assist government agencies.

I'm barred from doing that by the agreement.


Can you, therefore, declare that the agreement is enforceable when your orders do not enforce it in that respect?

Secondly, there is the matter of avoidance of service of process. I'm called upon by the agreement to avoid service of process. I was specifically in his order Judge Sohechen specifically said that I may make myself reasonably available for service of process.

Your orders are silent on that specific part of the agreement.

If that paragraph of the agreement is enforceable, am I therefore to make my -- to avoid service of process?

If I am to avoid service of process, is that not obstruction of justice?

If it is obstructive of justice, must you not again look at the whole Settlement Agreement, it's effect in the whole arena of Scientology litigation?

Your Honor has noted what Scientology does it intimidate its critics. It has acted to intimidate me.

If there are these inconsistencies between the orders and between the agreement, how can you declare that the agreement is enforceable when the orders did not enforce it?

Thirdly, there is the matter of communications to my lawyer. I'm specifically permitted 


by the orders to communicate to my lawyer. If that is -- if you parallel that with the avoidance of service of process, I'm not permitted by the agreement to communicate to my lawyers.

Likewise, I would not be permitted by the agreement to communicate to my minister, to communicate as I noted earlier to the government, to communicate to a doctor, to communicate to anyone.

Those inconsistencies would indicate to me and I think that if Your Honor were to look at and acknowledge that there are these inconsistencies which there certainly are, how can you say that those paragraphs of the agreement are enforceable when they have not been enforced, when they have not been addressed, when those things have not been addressed in your orders.

Then, we come to the matter of the meaning of the order and I will tell this Court right now that given the situation -- given the way this Court has ruled, given my relationship of now 27 years with the Scientology organization, given what it has done and attempted to do in my mind, given the pressures it has put me under and now the orders, there is no way in this and this Court has no -- There is no way for me to extracate myself from that.

Therefore, I need to know something about the meaning of the orders.


Am I, for example, permitted to communicate about the orders?

Are you saying that I'm gaged [gagged] with respect to the orders that this Court has issued or the rulings all along or this litigation itself? If I'm not gaged, to whom may I communicate and in what context?

Am I gaged [gagged] about my bankruptcy proceeding?

May I communicate to the world about what happened in bankruptcy?

If I'm specifically permitted to communicate to government agencies, must I communicate in secret less someone else hear?

Your Honor has addressed this ruling specifically to two paragraphs which the Scientology organization claims is all that remains.

I have just talked to what actually remains, controversies. Nevertheless, 7-I will not use the prior history and in future litigation.

They say and Your Honor has ruled on that basis that they don't expect to enforce that in the future should I bring an action against them.

If they will in reality make that promise not get rid of it not likely is not good enough.

Am I permited in any future action to use their past as they have used my past even in the initiation of this action?


18-E refrain from doing anything inconsistent with the agreement.

There we come to Your Honor's interpretation of the agreement which still remains because it doesn't get addressed.

Is it this Court's interpretation that Scientology can say whatever it wants about Jerry [Gerry] Armstrong in any context in any Court and Jerry Armstrong does not have the right to respond?

I know you probably won't answer that because you don't have to. I'm the one who has to do the answering.

Nevertheless, I think it must be addressed.

What does it mean to refrain from doing anything inconsistent with the agreement?

If the agreement means that because that is the Court's interpretation, they are free to do whatever they want.

If that's the way we're going to leave it, then you have to understand why I'm here.

Knowing that Your Honor has consistently ruled against me and has apparently not for whatever reason not listened, then I must be here because the effect of such an agreement such an order and such a treatment by the Court must be addressed. And if I'm the last voice on this great planet to say it, I'm going to


continue to say it. I have and that's why I'm here.

Finally, I know your Honor stated to my former lawyer that he had gone over his 15 minutes, I didn't set my stopwatch.

There has been a recent ruling -- if I may I'll give one to Your Honor to read. This is the Church of Scientology versus Lawrence Wallershine. [Wollersheim] The date on this is February 1st, 1996.

MR. WILSON: Your Honor, I object to this.

I'm familiar with that case. It wasn't cited in any briefs. It's irrelevant to this proceedings and it's improper further for Mr. Armstrong to bring it up now.

THE COURT: That objection is sustained. You didn't put the other side on notice of that.

MR. ARMSTRONG: That's fine.

Finally I've been -- I've had this paper floating around for a long time.

For some reason, I copied it. For one reason, as it turns out, it is completely applicable and it is what this case is all about.

There are three aspects of it.

I know your Honor often quotes various writers and philosophers and so on and so I would just like to make my own quote and that's this.


This is Christ speaking and it's a parable.

He said that men ought always to try not to faint; saying there was in a city a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man. There was a widow in that city. She came unto him saying avenge me of mine adversary. He would not for a while. Afterward he said within himself, "Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubled me, I will avenge her, lest by her continuing coming she weary me."

The Lord said, "Hear what the unjust judge said. Shall not God avenge his own elect which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on earth?"

That's why I'm here because there is faith and it's also why I think even at this late date Your Honor must look and must address the religious issues in this case which have never been addressed and which have been skirted and which have been called something else.

They are there and that's what this case is about and even at this late date, you can relook at that agreement and my cross-complaint for declaratory relief and you can maintain that and we can still proceed and have a trial on these issues.

That's it. I made a copy for Mr. Wilson.


MR. WILSON: I'm familiar with the Bible, Mr. Armstrong.

MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. I have one if the Court would like it.

THE COURT: Yes. You can give that to the clerk.

MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you, your Honor. That's all that I have to say.

THE COURT: What do you say about this matter?

MR. WILSON: Well, Your Honor, I'm going to be very brief.

First of all, the Court has listened to Mr. Armstrong ad nauseam on a number of occasions.

The Court has simply decided against him.

I'm not going to go back through the whole history of this matter.

The fact is that Number 1, Mr. Armstrong's interpretation of the agreement is incorrect.

It doesn't prohibit him from being available for service of process and it doesn't prohibit him from doing the things it say.

Even if it did, it has a severance clause which severs the parts that are unenforceable from the parts that aren't and the injunctions are narrowly drafted narrowly construed and are completely enforceable. They are very detailed. They tell Mr. Armstrong what he can


and can't do.

They don't need to be reinterpreted. There is no controversy with respect to the two provisions of the agreement that is at issue in the cross-complaint.

This case had 16 or 17 causes of action. None of them had anything to do with those two claims. There is no present controversy.

The last provision that Mr. Armstrong refrained from doing things contrary to the agreement is simply explication of the duty of good faith and fair dealing that every contract has in the case.

Finally when this is over, I hope I have a continuing relationship with this Court. I sure hope it's not in this case.

I don't have anything else to say except that there is a status conference set for Monday morning which, if the tentative is upheld, probably should be taken off calendar.

THE COURT: Mr. Armstrong, I don't think that you, by your continual actions, have shown that you have been intimidated by the Church of Scientology.

You have had a long relationship which you just announced with regard to declaratory relief and that's the only action pending between the church and you and in this case.

I know there is some other adversary


proceeding regarding some matter in bankruptcy.

MR. WILSON: That's been completed.

THE COURT: There have been some matters that have gone to the Court of Appeal and otherwise.

In this case, the two sections which are 7-I and 18-E, the Church, even from the reading of the papers, has never tried to specifically enforce the paragraphs and never tried to recover from a breach of damages action involving those particular matters and were not subjects of their claim in this particular case.

In the prior motions which have been many, I had enforced 77-D-E-G-H 10 and 18-D and I guess 4-A and 4-B were at one time appealed. It has become final as I recall.

We're down to 7-I and 18-E in which I have to decide whether there is something that is presently here -- it isn't here presently -- or whether there will be a probable future controversy involving those paragraphs.

From the fact of your long association and the non-attempt to enforce such matters, I cannot say that there is any probability of future controversy with regard to those particular matters in your contract.

My motion for Summary Judgment on the cross-complaint is granted for those reasons I've set forth and the status conference is taken off calendar.


Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. WILSON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you, your Honor


(Whereupon, the matter calendared for this date concluded.)