Gerry Armstrong
#2-46298 Yale Road
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2P6
Canada
gerry@gerryarmstrong.org
604-703-1373
In Propria Persona

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN

In anticipation of this Court granting Defendant Gerry Armstrong (“Armstrong”) an evidentiary hearing pursuant to California Civil Code §1670.5 to determine the unconscionability of certain contractual clauses that Plaintiff Scientology organization (“Scientology”) seeks or has sought or to enforce against him in this case and the consolidated cases, Armstrong submits the following preliminary statement of issues, proposed witnesses, proposed exhibits, necessary discovery, and discovery and hearing time estimates for such an evidentiary hearing. Armstrong reserves the right to modify this preliminary statement at any time prior to such evidentiary hearing.

Issues

A. The clauses that Armstrong claims are unconscionable:

1. Para. 7D, the clause requiring Armstrong to maintain strict confidentiality and silence;

1

2. Para. 7D, the clause penalizing Armstrong with liquidated damages of $50,000 per utterance;

3. Para. 7F, the clause prohibiting Armstrong from seeking Scientology religious services;

4. Para. 7G, the clause prohibiting Armstrong from voluntarily assisting or cooperating with persons adverse to the contract’s beneficiaries identified in para. 1 (the “beneficiaries;”

5. Para. 7G, the clause prohibiting Armstrong from cooperating with any organizations aligned against Scientology or the beneficiaries;

6. Para. 7H, the clause prohibiting Armstrong from voluntarily testifying or participating in judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding adverse to Scientology or the beneficiaries;

7. Para. 7I, the clause prohibiting use of evidence in litigation;

8. Para. 10, the clause prohibiting Armstrong from assisting or advising individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, or governmental agencies contemplating any claim or engaged in litigation or involved in or contemplating any activity adverse to Scientology or the beneficiaries.

B. Fact issues for examination and adduction of evidence pursuant to C.C.C. § 1670.5:

1. What was the commercial setting between and involving Scientology, the beneficiaries, Armstrong, his attorney, and his attorney’s other clients at the time of signing of the contract?

2. What was the contract’s purpose, and the purpose of each clause claimed to be unconscionable?

3. What have been the contract’s effect, and the effect of each claimed unconscionable clause?

C. Legal issues for adjudication:

1. What procedural unconscionability existed at the time of the signing of the contract?

2. What substantive unconscionability exists in the contract and in each of the claimed unconscionable clauses?

2

Witnesses

1. Gerry Armstrong. He will testify about the contract’s commercial setting, purpose and effect.

2. Graham E. Berry. Mr. Berry is a California attorney who has agreed to testify. He will testify about the effect of the contract’s various clauses on himself and others and their rights; on Scientology litigation and extralitigation practices; and on Rules of Professional Conduct, legal representation, conflict of interest factors within the commercial setting at the time of the signing of the contract.

3. Michael Flynn. Mr. Flynn is an attorney living in California. He represented Armstrong in the litigation against Scientology through the signing of the contract. Mr. Flynn also represented several other people who were Scientology victims or targets and had claims against Scientology and various of the beneficiaries. Mr. Flynn was himself a target of Scientology fair game and had his own claims that were settled in the 1986 global settlement. Armstrong has been in contact with Mr. Flynn over the past two weeks, but has been unable so far to obtain Mr. Flynn’s agreement to testify.

4. Ford Greene. Mr. Greene is a California attorney who has agreed to testify. He employed Armstrong as a paralegal from 1991 through 1995, and represented him in the consolidated cases through that period and at trial in 2004. Mr. Greene has represented several other people with claims against or defending against various Scientology entities. He will testify about the effect of various clauses on himself, his practice, his relationship with Armstrong, on Scientology victims’ rights.

5. Caroline Letkeman. Ms. Letkeman is Armstrong’s wife and has agreed to testify. She is in the class of people identified in the injunction in this case as “persons acting in concert” with Armstrong. She will testify about the effect of the contract and its various clauses on her life and her relationships. She was herself a beneficiary at the time the contract was signed, and she will testify about her knowledge of the nature, views, intentions and activities of Scientology and the beneficiaries.

6. Stephen A. Kent, Ph.D. Dr. Kent has agreed to testify. He is a professor of sociology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, and is an expert in cultic groups including

3

Scientology. He has written specifically about the Scientology v. Armstrong case and the subject contract in published professional papers. In 2002 Scientology threatened him with prosecution pursuant to the contract for allegedly “acting in concert” with Armstrong. He will testify about the contract’s effect on himself and on his relationship with Armstrong and others, and about the information that Scientology is seeking to suppress with its contract.

7. Michael L. Walton. Mr. Walton is a California attorney who has agreed to testify. He and Armstrong have been friends since 1982. Scientology filed a fraudulent conveyance case against Mr. Walton and his wife (Marin Superior Court Case No. 157680) pursuant to the contract’s clauses. Scientology eventually abandoned their claims, which were false. Mr. Walton will testify about the effect of the contract on his life, his family, his practice and his relationship with Armstrong.

8. Lawrence Wollersheim. Mr. Wollersheim has agreed to testify. He and Armstrong have been friends since about 1982. In 1986, a few months before the settlement of Mr. Flynn’s Scientology cases, Mr. Wollersheim obtained a jury verdict against Scientology in Los Angeles Superior Court for $25 million. This was reduced on appeal to $2.5 million, which Scientology paid, with an additional $6 million in interest, in 2002. Scientology threatened Mr. Wollersheim with prosecution for “acting in concert” with Armstrong, and employed the contract’s clauses to interfere with their personal, spiritual and business relationships. Mr. Wollersheim will testify about the commercial setting at the time the contract was signed and its effects over the past twenty years.

Armstrong is continuing to canvass for other people with knowledge regarding the contract’s commercial setting, purpose and effect, who are willing to testify in an evidentiary hearing.

Armstrong requests that Scientology make available the following witnesses for examination at the hearing:

1. David Miscavige. He is the supreme ruler of Scientology, a beneficiary of the contract, and responsible for the contract’s creation and all enforcement actions or threats of enforcement ever since. Mr. Miscavige’s organization title is Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center, another contractual beneficiary.

4

2. Andrew H. Wilson. Mr. Wilson is a California attorney and has represented Scientology and the beneficiaries throughout this case and the consolidated cases. Mr. Wilson has executed several declarations concerning Armstrong, made public statements about him, and used the judicial process to have him prosecuted pursuant to the contract. Mr. Wilson is also a beneficiary in the contract.

3. A corporate representative for the specific Scientology entity named as plaintiff in this case, Church of Scientology International.

Exhibits

Armstrong is here only identifying categories of proposed exhibits, and will provide a full list identifying each exhibit before the evidentiary hearing.

1. Statements by Armstrong containing his knowledge and experiences regarding Scientology or the beneficiaries, uttered before signing the contract.

2. Statements by Scientology or the beneficiaries about Armstrong made before the contract was signed.

3. Statements by Scientology or the beneficiaries about Armstrong made after the contract was signed.

4. Statements by Armstrong containing his knowledge and experiences regarding Scientology or the beneficiaries, uttered after signing the contract.

5. Documents admitted into evidence at trial in Scientology v. Armstrong Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C420153.

6. Documents delivered to Scientology from the LA Court Clerk or any source as a result of Armstrong’s dismissal of his case against Scientology as part of the settlement.

7. The contract and other documents relating to the global settlement.

8. Any documents already filed in this case or the consolidated cases.

9. Documents relating to intelligence operations run on Armstrong at any time by Scientology or the beneficiaries, physical assaults on him by any beneficiaries, and efforts to have him prosecuted or harassed as a result of any contractual clauses.

10. Documents created by third parties, media, government agencies, etc. relating to Scientology’s relationship with Armstrong or with his class, the “Suppressive Person” class.

5

11. Scientology’s IRS Form 1023 submissions, or any other documents provided to the IRS that mention or relate to Armstrong in any way.

12. Documents relating to Scientology’s nature, particularly its religious nature, its religious scriptures and its indicia of religion.

Discovery

Armstrong does not have an attorney yet, but is in touch with a number of attorneys regarding possible representation. He is confident that if he is granted the evidentiary hearing he has requested he will be able to retain competent counsel to represent him at such hearing. It may be that his counsel will have discovery needs beyond what Armstrong considers necessary at present.

Armstrong former attorney Julia Dragojevic, co-counsel with Mr. Flynn in the LASC C420153 case, some years ago advised Mr. Greene, Armstrong’s former counsel in the consolidated cases, that because of the contract and Scientology she would not transmit the C420153 case to Armstrong without a court order. Armstrong therefore expects to file a motion to have this Court order the delivery of Armstrong’s case file to him for use in the evidentiary hearing; unless he can get Scientology to agree to not oppose his former attorney’s release of his file to him

Discovery Time Estimate

Armstrong anticipates that two months will be needed to file the motion mentioned above, obtain the necessary order and take possession of the case file.

Armstrong also anticipates that any other discovery, depositions, etc., including whatever Scientology might claim to need, can be obtained within two months.

Hearing Time Estimate

Armstrong estimates that direct examination of his witnesses and the witnesses Scientology provides will take five court days. Time for cross examination and rebuttal will depend on what witnesses or evidence if any Scientology intends to use or uses at the hearing.

One of Mr. Armstrong’s key witnesses Lawrence Wollersheim, will not be available, for medical reasons, until the end of November.

Armstrong is willing to give Scientology any reasonable amount of time it requires to prepare for the hearing.

6

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is #2-46298 Yale Road, Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 2P6 Canada

I served the following document:

DEFENDANT GERRY ARMSTRONG’S PRELIMINARY PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF ISSUES, PROPOSED WITNESS LIST, EXHIBIT LIST, NECESSARY DISCOVERY, AND DISCOVERY AND HEARING TIME ESTIMATES

on the following person on the date set forth below, by UPS Overnight Courier to the addressee below:

Kendrick L. Moxon, Esquire
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010

and by e-mail to: kmoxon@earthlink.net

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California, the United States and Canada that the above is true and correct.

Executed on September 27, 2007 at Chilliwack, B.C., Canada.

_________________
Caroline Letkeman