ANDREW H. WILSON, ESQ., SBN 63209
WILSON CAMPILONGO LLP
475 Gate Five Road, Suite 212
Sausalito, CA 94965-1475
Telephone: (415) 289-7100
Facsimile: (415) 289-7110

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Church of Scientology International (hereinafter "Church" or "Plaintiff'), hereby objects to, and moves to strike in its entirety, the Declaration of Defendant Gerry Armstrong In Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ("Armstrong Declaration"). Plaintiff also moves to strike exhibits A through E of the Armstrong Declaration.

OBJECTIONS

Armstrong Declaration. The entire Declaration is irrelevant to any issue before this Court. It consists of Mr. Armstrong's version of his involvement with the Church, which ended in the mid 1980's, and Armstrong's imagined persecution at the hands of the Church and its agents, which

1

Armstrong imagines includes the Hon. Gary W. Thomas. None of these “facts" have any bearing here. In any event, the issues upon which they bear have already been litigated and decided against Armstrong. Most of his declaration is devoted to argument, rather than to proffering evidence of facts. Not only that, the arguments are repetitions of arguments made by Mr. Armstrong in his oversize opposition memorandum. Much of the declaration is plainly not based on Mr. Armstrong's personal knowledge, such as the state of mind of his counsel at the time the Agreement was signed and the state of mind of Judge Thomas when he entered the Order of Permanent Injunction and when he subsequently held Mr. Armstrong in contempt for violating it.

Paragraphs 1-4 incorporate Mr. Armstrong's "Complaint" to the Department of Justice, which regurgitates in greater detail what Armstrong says in his declaration and then launches into a ludicrous charge of criminal conspiracy against the Church, its lawyers and the Hon. Gary W. Thomas. These paragraphs are irrelevant, argumentative and not based on Mr. Armstrong's personal knowledge.

Paragraphs 4-6 deal with the circumstances surrounding Mr. Armstrong's execution of the Agreement upon which this action is based, and the successful efforts of the Church to enforce that Agreement in the previous action. This evidence is proffered to show that the Agreement was entered into as a result of fraud and duress. However, these issues have been litigated in the previous action and this evidence is irrelevant. It is also argumentative and much of it is Mr. Armstrong's conjecture, not based on his personal knowledge.

Paragraphs 7-12 consist of Mr. Armstrong's opinion testimony, based upon his experiences with the Church which ended in the mid 1980's, of certain aspects of the Scientology religion. All of this is irrelevant to any issue before this Court. In addition, to the extent it is offered to prove any fact concerning any aspect of the Scientology religion, Armstrong's statements are incompetent opinion testimony. They are also inadmissible because they are not based on personal knowledge.

Paragraphs 13 and 14 also deal with the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Agreement, and are irrelevant to any issue before this Court. To the extent that Mr. Armstrong's statements concerning what his attorney, Mr. Flynn, said to him, are offered for the truth of the

2

matter stated, they are hearsay and not subject to any exception. In addition, and as stated above, these issues have been litigated in the previous action and this evidence is irrelevant. It is also argumentative and much of it is Mr. Armstrong's conjecture, not based on his personal knowledge.

Paragraph 15 consists of Mr. Armstrong's apparently uncommunicated state of mind at the time that he signed the Agreement. This is irrelevant to any issue before this Court. To the extent that Mr. Armstrong's statements concerning what Mr. Flynn told him are offered for the truth of the matter stated, they are hearsay evidence not subject to any exception and are also inadmissible because they are not based on personal knowledge.

Paragraphs 16-17 offer no evidence, but merely Mr. Armstrong's opinions and arguments concerning the enforceability of the Agreement.

Paragraph 18, which relates to an email letter Mr. Armstrong wrote to the Los Angeles City Counsel, is irrelevant. That letter is not the subject of this action. The statement by the Church's counsel that Armstrong's letter had not achieved its desired result is apparently offered to show that the Church suffers little damage from Armstrong's campaign. However, the amount of damage is not an issue here. The liquidated damages clause was held enforceable by Judge Thomas, and liquidated damages were assessed against Mr. Armstrong in the previous action.

Paragraphs 19-20 consist of Mr. Armstrong's arguments and opinion concerning the enforceability of the Agreement and as such are irrelevant, incompetent opinion.

Paragraph 21 deals with service of a subpoena on Mr. Armstrong and a letter from the Church's counsel, stating that Mr. Armstrong's right to comply with the subpoena was "unquestioned". This purported threat was allegedly part of the "criminal conspiracy" which victimized Mr. Armstrong. This incident, though a breach of the Agreement, is not one of the breaches alleged here and evidence relating to it is irrelevant.

Paragraphs 26-30 consist of Mr. Armstrong's opinion and argument to the effect that he has a constitutional right to do everything that he has done, and that the Church, its lawyers and Judge Thomas are engaged in an unlawful criminal conspiracy against him. This is not evidence, merely statements of opinion, and incompetent at that.

///

3

Exhibits to Armstrong Declaration. Plaintiff also objects to and moves to strike the following Exhibits:

EXHIBIT A - Complaint Report. This entire 88 page purported "Complaint" to the Department of Justice is hearsay, for which no exception is available. To the extent the complaint consists of Mr. Armstrong's opinions concerning any aspect of the Scientology religion, it is incompetent testimony, not based on personal knowledge.

EXHIBIT B. This document, purportedly generated by the Church of Scientology, bears a date of September 24, 1987. It is unauthenticated, irrelevant to any issue before this Court and is hearsay evidence, not subject to any exception.

EXHIBIT C. This document, also purportedly generated by the Church of Scientology, bears a date of 1991. It is not authenticated by Mr. Armstrong, nor can it be, since its date, 1991, is more than six years after Mr. Armstrong severed any association with the Church. It is hearsay evidence, not subject to any exception.

EXHIBIT D. Exhibit D consists of a series of emails, totaling 105 pages, which Mr. Armstrong does not authenticate but which he contends illustrate that the Church of Scientology has been conducting a public relations campaign again him. None of these emails are relevant to any issue before this Court. Many of the emails themselves are inadmissible hearsay.

EXHIBIT E, Mr. Armstrong's letter to the Los Angeles City Counsel is irrelevant to any issue before this Court.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Plaintiff submits that Armstrong's Declaration, and Exhibits A through E thereto, should be stricken from the record herein. This Court has the inherent power to do so in order to "...make sure judicial proceedings are conducted in a manner consistent with the orderly administration of justice and to punish those who show disrespect or disrupt the proceedings..." Lloyd v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 3d 896, 899-900 (1982). It is hard to imagine anything more disrespectful than filing a declaration accusing a retired jurist of aiding and abetting a civil conspiracy simply because he ruled against Armstrong. Armstrong's penchant for burdening the court with oversized, rambling and irrelevant briefs is inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.

4

It requires considerable judicial resources just to read these filings in order to determine that they are irrelevant.

In Baldwin v. Daniels, 154 Cal. App. 2d 153 (1957), the court struck a brief which gratuitously repeats and elaborates upon the scandalous and abusive remarks concerning our courts and judges..." The court ordered the brief stricken because it contained "disrespectful, scandalous, or abusive language directed against our courts," characterizing the brief as a "reprehensible breach of duty" and "contempt."

Armstrong's opposition papers go beyond that. Without even a shred of evidence to substantiate any of his scurrilous assertions, Armstrong repeatedly accuses Judge Thomas of dishonesty, corruption, malfeasance in office and of intentionally depriving Armstrong of civil rights. The court should strike the Armstrong Declaration in its entirety. The scandalous and disrespectful allegations, arguments and statements so permeate the Armstrong Declaration that there is simply no way to strike only the offending portions.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, and for the reasons stated above, the Court should exclude and strike from the record the Armstrong Declaration and Exhibits A -E thereto.

5

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, declare:

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 475 Gate 5 Road, Suite 212, Sausalito, California 94965.

On March 17, 2004, I served the foregoing document(s) described as follows:

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY GERRY ARMSTRONG IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

on the interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached service list, as follows:

             BY U.S. MAIL:

  XX       BY FEDERAL EXPRESS OR OVERNIGHT COURIER

               BY HAND DELIVERY

Gerald Armstrong
1UP-45950 Alexander Avenue
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5
Canada

Executed on March 17, 2004, at Sausalito, California

  XX         (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

               (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.