THEREUPON, GERALD D. ARMSTRONG, the deponent herein, being first duly sworn on oath, was examined and deposed as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Please state your full name.

A Gerald David Armstrong. G-e-r-a-1-d.

Q Do you also go by Gerry?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And, Mr. Armstrong, are you here today under subpoena that I had served on you?

A Yes.

Q And where do you reside?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. I would like to see the subpoena.

Q (By Mr. Dandar) Do you have it with you?

A I believe so.

MR. WEINBERG: And I'd like to conduct some voir dire with regard to the circumstances under which Mr. Armstrong is here today.

All right. If we would mark this as the firstexhibit.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I'm not going to let you voir dire. You can do that in your cross

4

examination.

MR. WEINBERG: No, Ken, then -- no, we cannot.

Then we have a serious problem with this deposition.

MR. DANDAR: Well, let's call the judge right now on the telephone if you have a problem.

MR. WEINBERG: First I want to talk about it and I want you to understand what the problem is.

First of all, Mr. Armstrong is subject to a permanent injunction which was issued in California in the Superior Court, State of California, for the County of Marin, on October 17, 1995. Now, that injunction --

Do you have a copy of it?

MR. DANDAR: No, I don't. This was argued two days ago before Judge Moody, and your motion --

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I don't believe this issue was argued.

MR. DANDAR: -- was denied and then you waived it.

MR. WEINBERG: No, no.

MR. DANDAR: And he's under subpoena.

MR. WEINBERG: No, absolutely not

MR. DANDAR: All right. That's it. I'm not going to waste my time with an out-of-country

5

deponent while you argue to me what the law is. So we will simply get Judge Moody on the telephone, okay?

MR. WEINBERG: And before we get Judge Moody shouldn't we establish what the factual basis is for Mr. Armstrong being here?

MR. DANDAR: No. You tried to do that at a hearing and it was denied, and I'm not going to waste my time.

MR. WEINBERG: How could we do that when Mr. Armstrong wasn't at the hearing. It indicates he was served on December 3rd.

MR. DANDAR: Of course. He was served when he was in the State of Florida.

MR. WEINBERG: And what the injunction prevents him from doing is in any way cooperating against Scientology, talking to anybody about Scientology. Now, how did an out-of-country person who you noticed for a deposition on November 20th get here if he was served on December 3rd.

The fact of the matter is he is in contempt of court twice out there. There is a bench warrant that calls for his imprisonment for 28 days. And the injunction is not just against Mr. Armstrong but it's against anyone acting in concert with Mr.

6

[...]

2:00. Okay.

EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Armstrong, when were you first contacted with regard to giving a deposition concerning the Lisa McPherson matter?

A I would say perhaps two weeks ago.

Q And where were you when you were contacted?

A In British Columbia.

Q Who contacted you?

A Mr. Dandar.

Q By telephone?

A Yes.

Q Had you communicated with Mr. Dandar prior to that time?

A Yes.

Q When?

A Some -- I would say some months before I had let him know who I was. I believe by e-mail.

Q When was that? Do you have that e-mail, by the way?

A No.

Q What did you say in the e-mail?

A I recall that I had, I believed, information about people being treated similarly to the way I

107

understood Lisa McPherson had been treated.

QSpecifically what did you say in the e-mail?

A That's what I'm saying.

Q And you're talking about treated similarly by Scientology?

A Right.

Q And did you get a response back from Mr. Dandar?

A I believe so, yes.

Q Well, you know so.

A Well, I don't have a specific recollection, but I believe that he did. After that we communicated, so I believe so.

Q Well, after that you communicated on a routine basis with Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Q How many times have you communicated with Mr. Dandar since you e-mailed him?

A I did not subsequently communicate with him again aside from that time some months ago, and until two weeks ago.

Q You seem to have a very good recollection of events that occurred in 1972 and 1973 and 1976, all right?

A I have --

108

[...]

A I believe so.

Q And what did Mr. Dandar say to you?

A I believe that it was a simple acknowledgment of having received whatever I sent him.

Q Do you remember specifically what Mr. Dandar said in his e-mail?

A My recollection is that the communication back was merely an acknowledgment of what I had said to him.

Now, there was a time -- and I think that there was a subsequent communication when he asked about -- and my recollection is here that he may have heard -- without -- this is just speculating for the moment -- that he had -- he asked about the injunction.

Q The injunction against you?

A Right.

Q All right. Was this an e-mail or a telephone call?

A My recollection is that it was an e-mail and I responded, and that was the end of our communications for several months until this last within two weeks.

Q So Mr. Dandar asked you about the injunction that we'll get into in a little while at or about the time that you first e-mailed him about having information that may be helpful to him?

A Right.

112

Q Okay. And what did you respond to Mr. Dandar about the injunction?

A I don't recall specifically. My recollection is explaining it to him.

Q Well, what did you explain to him?

A That according to the injunction -- and this is a recollection, because I would say the same thing to anyone and I say it to so many people that it's the same story. That according to the injunction I can only testify pursuant to a subpoena.

Q What else did you tell him?

A That's basically it.

Q Now, in the communications did you explain to him that under the injunction you couldn't even communicate with him about Scientology, that that was a violation of the injunction? Did you explain that to him?

A I very easily may have.

Q Because it is a violation of the injunction for you to communicate with people about Scientology?

A Yes, it is.

Q Okay. Did you, back whenever this was a few months ago, give details to Mr. Dandar about that which you believe that you could assist him with regard to his lawsuit?

113

[...]

A Correct.

Q When you communicated with Mr. Dandar a few weeks ago and told him you were coming to Florida, you were attempting to assist him with regard to a case against the Church of Scientology, right?

A Correct.

Q Mr. Dandar didn't force you to come to Florida, did he?

A Correct. He had nothing to do with my coming to Florida.

Q Mr. Dandar didn't compel you to come to Florida, did he?

ACorrect.

QHe didn't serve you with a subpoena requiring you to come to Florida for a deposition, did he?

A Only upon my arrival.

Q That's not my -- listen to my question. He didn't go through a process that caused a subpoena to be served on you in British Columbia that required you to travel from one country to another for a deposition, did he?

ACorrect.

QYou traveled here on your own voluntarily, correct?

A Correct.

122