Declaration of Gerry Armstrong
MS. BARTILSON TURNS
ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK
A Literary Work Created and Written
MS. BARTILSON TURNS ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK
Copyright ©1994 Gerald Armstrong
DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG
I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:
1. I am the defendant in the cases of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Marin Superior Court No. 157680 (Armstrong IV) and Los Angeles Superior Court Nos. C 420153 (Armstrong I) and BC 052395 (Armstrong II). Scientology v. Armstrong, LASC No. BC 084642 (Armstrong III) was consolidated with Armstrong II and given the same case number, BC 052395. I am also the sole assistant of Ford Greene, my attorney in the Armstrong II and Armstrong IV cases.
2. On October 31, 1994 I took a telephone call from Judy in the Marin County Clerk's office who advised me that the Scientology organization's paralegal had completed his review of the Armstrong II court file, which had been transferred from Los Angeles to the Marin Superior Court, that the Scientology paralegal had determined there were documents missing from the file, and that it was now the turn of someone from Mr. Greene's office to review the file to ensure that Scientology's record of the file's incompleteness was complete.
3. Despite our best intentions, due to some other matters in Mr. Greene's office of considerable more urgency and importance than reviewing the transferred file, the first opportunity I had to review the file was Thursday, November 3. When I arrived at the Clerk's office, however, I was advised by Arlene that Judy, who had been given responsibility for the file, was out that day and my review would have to wait until she
returned the next day. I spent almost all of Friday, November 4 reviewing the file and returned Monday, November 7 and completed the review. The same day Mr. Greene faxed Scientology attorney Laurie Bartilson a letter based on my review, listing various documents and other items I had determined were missing from the file.
4. Now on November 16 Ms. Bartilson urges the Court to order the file deemed complete and accepted by the clerk and to order $400.00 sanctions against me and Mr. Greene. As I understand the word "complete," and believing that the Court's definition of the word must be no less complete than mine, the file is not complete. No sanctions should be ordered, other than appropriate sanctions against Ms. Bartilson's organization and its lawyer.
5. Scientology states that its purpose in seeking the Court's orders to deem the file complete and sanctions is "to end the delaying tactics of defendant Armstrong and his counsel in connection with the routine transfer of the file of this action from Los Angeles to Marin County." (Scientology's Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 2:1-5) Scientology's actual purpose is to take advantage of a concocted opportunity to "dev-T" and threaten me and Mr. Greene, and to get in front of the Court one more time whatever it can find or manufacture to show that I am the bad guy Ms. Bartilson and her organization are trying by all their antisocial means to get the world to think I am.
6. "Dev-T" is a Scientology term shortened from " developed
traffic" which means "unusual and unnecessary traffic" or, as a verb, to generate such unusual and unnecessary traffic; or to cause someone to do unnecessary work. It also means confusion or to generate confusion. "Dev-T's" usage in organization policies and orders is spelled out in its "Dictionary of Administration and Management," relevant pages from which are attached hereto as Exhibit [A].
7. Scientology's use of dev-T as a litigation tactic is spelled out in an internal Scientology document, Guardian Order 166, dated October 7, 1971, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [B]. The document, which was one of many such documents I studied inside the organization, was written by the organization's former "Guardian," Jane Kember, at the time junior in the organization only to L. Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard. Kember explains to Guardian's Office personnel in all organizations internationally that Scientology's legal strategy in the U.S. is to use litigation as a financial club:
"The button used in effecting settlement is purely financial. In other words, it is more costly to continue the legal action than to settle in some fashion . ...[¶] Therefore, it is imperative that legal US Dev-T his opponents and their lawyers with correspondence (a lawyer's letter costs approx $50), phone calls (time costs), interrogatories, depositions and whatever else legal can mock up. [¶] One of the bright spots of US legal is that even if you lose you
don't pay your opponent for his lawyers fees." (Ex. B. p. 3)
8. L. Ron Hubbard spelled out what the organization's legal personnel are to do in his policy letter entitled "Legal, Tax, Accountant and Solicitor, Mail and Legal Officer," dated February 3, 1966, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [C]:
"The purpose of the Legal Officer is to help LRH handle every legal, government, suit, accounting and tax contact or action for the organization and by himself or employed representative, to protect the organization and its people from harm and to bring the greatest possible confusion and loss to its enemies." (Ex. C)
9. Hubbard spelled out the way he expected his organization to use the law in a 1955 article entitled "The Scientologist," relevant pages from which are attached hereto as Exhibit [D]. This article was reprinted by the organization in its "scriptures" at least into the 1980's.
"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. [¶] The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply in 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." (Ex. D p. 157)
Scientology's present supreme ruler, David Miscavige, has,
without fanfare, removed this mad mandate from the organization's latest reprinting of its "scriptures;" but he, as his former boss did a generation ago with his idiom "fair game," has removed neither the policy nor the practice from what he enforces and uses as Scientology. Scientology's Armstrong I-IV litigation is its dramatization into present time of Hubbard's "use the law to harass - ruin him utterly" decree.
10. Exhibits B through D deal with the litigation aspect of Hubbard's basic philosophy and practice in dealing with his and his organization's labeled enemies, a terrifying doctrine he called "fair game." Attached hereto as Exhibit [E] is his Policy Letter entitled "Penalties for Lower Conditions" dated October 18, 1967, wherein he states as organization policy:
"ENEMY - SP Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." (Ex. E)
11. Scientology and its lawyers pretend to be oblivious to the immorality of their litigation practices and their reputation in the legal industry, even among judges in all sorts of courts, for the same. Actually Scientology and its lawyers are fully aware of the immorality of their practices and their reputation for Dev-T, dishonesty and threat, because this immorality and reputation are what Hubbard wanted and do give them the imagined advantage they imagine they need. Scientology's leaders desire to be known for the very base, animal nature that Scientology
claims is responsible for all human ills. Scientology claims that Hubbard's "technology" alone is the cure for that base nature, and David Miscavige claims that his personal corporation Religious Technology Center owns Hubbard's tech. Attached hereto as Exhibit [F] is an unpublished opinion filed June 29, 1994 in Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International and Church of Scientology of California v. Joseph Yanny, California Court of Appeal Case No. B058291, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C690211, wherein Justice Staniforth writes:
"This appeal court and the trial court below was used as a means in Scientology's pursuit of the "fair game," policy of punishing those who leave Scientology without Scientology's approval. This appears to be a continuation of the fair game procedures of Scientology to discredit and to destroy and ruin an adversary by whatever means available. [Cites, including Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal. App.3d 1060]" (Ex.F, p. 29)
"This was an appeal (by Scientology) on unproved--rejected as false--facts. This appeal and its delays and total lack of merit must be viewed in conjunction with the other groundless similar lawsuit pursued against Yanny. Such evidence leads to the conclusion that this proceeding was a device for destroying Yanny and any lawyers who chose to work with him. This
appeal is the "Fair Game" of Scientology infamy at work." (Ex.F, p. 31)
The "other groundless similar lawsuit pursued against Yanny" is Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 033035, wherein Scientology sued Joseph Yanny, alleging, based on no facts other than ones Kendrick Moxon, another lawyer in Ms. Bartilson's firm, mocked up, that Mr. Yanny was defending me in Scientology litigation.
12. Ms. Bartilson states that she has " agreed to supply the Marin Court with every document defendant claims should be a part of the file." (Scientology's Ex Parte Application at 2:20-22). Ms. Bartilson has, however, only made this "agreement" because of Mr. Greene's and my refusal to bend before her threats. In her letter of November 8 (Ex. G to her declaration) she states, for example:
"3. OSC exhibits: None of these appear on the Los Angeles Court docket, and none appear to be retained by that court. If they are not part of the Los Angeles court files, they cannot be transferred."
She did not agree to have these exhibits located, and did not agree to provide them to make the transferred file complete. This is understandable when Scientology's peccant litigation policy of creating the greatest possible confusion for its enemies is recognized. Based on the perjured charging declarations Ms. Bartilson signed for the organization, Scientology actively prosecuted me for a year and a half, urging
the LA Superior Court over and over to jail me for " violations" of the injunction entered May 29, 1992 in this case, " violations" which Ms. Bartilson and her organization manufactured. Now, after a lengthy evidentiary hearing this past July, which resulted in all contempts against me being discharged, a result Scientology did not appeal, the exhibits entered into evidence are, according to Ms. Bartilson, simply not part of the file. It is my intention, moreover, to bring a cross-complaint for abuse of process in connection with Scientology and its lawyers' efforts to have me prosecuted for contempt of court; thus these missing exhibits are not as Ms Bartilson asserts "such things as books and videotapes which plaintiff had lodged in Los Angeles and had returned to it by the clerk, and evidentiary documents which had been served on Mr. Greene but never filed." (Scientology's Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 4:25-28)
Nowhere does Ms. Bartilson state what steps she took, if any, to obtain the missing exhibits, and other missing documents relating to the contempt charges, from the LA Superior Court. This also is understandable because Scientology is never able to completely snuff out anyone's God-given decent nature, and Ms. Bartilson, even after years of using her professional status to further her organization's abuse of the innocent, would rather that all her lying and trying to get me jailed had never happened. It was a nightmare for me for a year and a half to have a dishonest lawyer and her dishonest cultic cohorts do whatever they could using the courts' authority and powers to have me jailed. Scientology's
actual but hidden purpose in having me jailed, and why Ms. Bartilson and the rest of the organization's litigation machine worked so diligently to achieve that end, is spelled out by L. Ron Hubbard in his Bulletin entitled "Secret - Why Thetans Mock Up" dated October 1, 1969, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit [G]:
"Jailing is a sure way to confirm criminals and also make them crazy as well." (Ex. G, p. 2)
Scientology has dramatized its intention to make me crazy for over twelve years, ceaselessly scheming, and working to get some court.who might listen to its lies to jail me. Ms. Bartilson's ex parte application is another unpretty dramatization of that evil intention.
13. Ms. Bartilson states that "defendant and his counsel have succeeded in keeping the case from the Court (and pending dispositive motions resolved) for more than two months." (Scientology's Points and Authorities at 2:6-9) The only possible delays Ms. Bartilson can actually point out are a few days after she first contacted Mr. Greene requesting that he stipulate to the procedure of review of the transferred file and the few days between when Scientology's paralegal reviewed the file and when I reviewed the file. Because, however, I am to Ms. Bartilson and her organization "fair game," it is just ducky with her to stretch the truth of a couple of weeks at most into a Scientological lie of two months.
14. Ms. Bartilson states that "Armstrong did not review the
file until November 7, 1994." (Scientology's Memorandum of Points and Authorities, at 4:21-22). As stated in paragraph 3 above, I was unable to review the file on November 3 only due to the clerk's absence, did review the file on November 4, and completed my review on November 7.
15. Ms. Bartilson states that "[t]he file is now here; thanks to the efforts of plaintiff's counsel's paralegal, it is organized and ready for the clerk to proceed." (Scientology's -Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 2:9 11) The file is not organized and it is not ready for the clerk to proceed. Ms. Bartilson makes much of her organization dispatching one of its paralegals from Los Angeles to review the transferred file. Scientology corporate deponent, Lynn R. Farny, testified recently in the Armstrong IV lawsuit that even Church of Scientology International, the corporate component the organization uses as its plaintiff in the II, III and IV cases, has upwards of 50 people in its legal department doing the work for the organization that I do for Mr. Greene; so it is no big deal for Scientology to fly its people all over the world to carry out its silly schemes or go through other people's files. It would be a big deal if they told the truth about the schemes and the files.
16. Ms. Bartilson states that "[d] efendant, however, has failed and refused to cooperate with plaintiff in providing the Court with the few documents which will make the file complete." (Scientology's Points and Authorities at 2:11-1) To make this attack Ms. Bartilson has apparently and not inconveniently
forgotten that, in order to obtain our agreement to the transfer of the case and its file to Marin County from Los Angeles, she promised that Scientology, not me or Mr. Greene, would be responsible for "payment of costs and fees of the transfer." (Stipulation and Order Changing Venue, Exhibit A to Bartilson Declaration) Failing and refusing herself to provide the Court with the missing documents, which she agreed to do, she charges that I failed and refused to provide them.--Ms. Bartilson follows a basic Scientology maxim that "the bank follows the line of attack." Hubbard's idea is that the common denominator among people is their "reactive mind" or "-bank;-'-'-which he blamed for all human ills and invented and sold his gilt psychotherapy "auditing"--to eliminate. Hubbard trained his intelligence, legal and public relations personnel-in the concept that all one has to do is attack something or someone, and other uninvolved people, in reaction to the attack, will follow the line of attack and join it against the thing or person being targeted. Pursuant to Hubbard's "technology," Ms. Bartilson and her organization attack me, with the intention of restimulating the "reactive bank" of the Judge, who must read their attacking papers, to get him to join their attack. Hubbard taught that if one attacks long and hard enough others will follow your attack line and you will win. He also taught, but "forgot," that this sort of continual attack on imagined enemies is what identifies the truly crazy.
17. Ms. Bartilson states that [t]he delay deliberately caused by defendant is inexcusable, and has forced plaintiff to
the expense of bringing this motion." (Scientology's Ex Parte Application at 2:26-28) She also states that Mr. Greene's and my "willful failure to comply with their stipulation, which has had the effect of grinding the case to a halt, is a clear example of a 'bad-faith action or tactic' that is 'solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.'" (Scientology's Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 6:7-11) These claims of delay are absurd, and the idea that I have forced her organization to bring this motion, application, or any of the rest of its dev-T, lies and threat is truly miscavigian in its megalomadness. Discovery has continued. Scientology has taken my-deposition during this period, and the depositions of three of my friends. I have continued to provide discovery to Scientology. The transfer of the case, at Scientology's request, to Marin, moreover, extended the whole case over 6 months; so the organization will have months left before trial to keep its fair game litigation machine rolling; months more than it had before I agreed to the transfer of the LA case. The fact is, it is Scientology, in dramatization of its own hubbardian dictum that "the overt doth scream loudly in accusation," which engages, and religiously, in bad faith delaying tactics, as will be seen as this case moves to trial. Though quick to do meanness, Scientology delays any justice, and refuses to be just itself. This has been its pattern in all the cases it has brought against me, a pattern spelled out in the declaration of U.S. District Court Judge James M. Ideman dated June 17, 1993, filed June 21, 1993 in Religious Technology
Center, Petitioner v. U.S. District Court, Respondent, David Mayo, Real Party in Interest, No. 93--0281 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a true copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit H:
"[Scientology's] noncompliance [with the Court's discovery orders] has consisted of evasions, misrepresentations, broken promises and lies, but ultimately with refusal. As part of this scheme to not comply, [Scientology has] undertaken a massive campaign of filing every conceivable motion (and some inconceivable) [Judge Ideman's parens in original] to disguise the true issue in these pretrial proceedings. Apparently viewing litigation as war, [Scientology] by this tactic (has] had the effect of massively increasing the costs to the other parties, and, for a while, to the Court. The appointment of the Special Master 4 years ago has considerably relieved the burden to this Court. The scope of [Scientology's] efforts have to be seen to be believed Yet it is almost all puffery -- motions without merit or substance." (Ex. H, p. 2, para 4, 5)
In this lawsuit, while receiving every possible morsel of discovery from me, and all the while howling "delay," Scientology has yet to produce to me one document.
18. It is time that this and every court into which Scientology sends its corporate entities refuse to allow itself
to follow this organization's line of attack and refuse to be used any longer in its pursuit of fair game.
19. I have spent 11 hours dealing with Scientology's ex parte application. My rate for this sort of work is $55.00 per hour.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at San Anselmo, California, on November 16, 1994.
[signed] GERALD ARMSTRONG
Modern Management Technology Defined ©1976 L. Ron Hubbard Pages 149, 150
GO 166 7 October 1961 by Jane Kember, Guardian Worldwide
Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter 3 Feb 1966
LEGAL, TAX, ACCOUNTANT AND SOLICITOR, MAIL AND LEGAL OFFICER ©1966 L. Ron Hubbard
1955 Article "The Scientologist" by L. Ron Hubbard
HCO PL 18 October 1967 PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS© 1967 L. Ron Hubbard
Opinion filed in Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International and Church of Scientology of California v. Joseph Yanny 06-29-1994
HCO BULLETIN 1 October 1969 WHY THETANS MOCK UP© 1969 L. Ron Hubbard