Declaration Of Gerry Armstrong

Fishman Litigation

I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and if called upon to testify thereto I competently would.

2. I am making this declaration in response to the Scientology organization's efforts to have part of the Court's file sealed in the case of Church of Scientology International v.Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 91-6426-HLH(Bx). It is my request that for the reasons set forth below no papers in that case be sealed.

3. One of the documents the organization seeks to seal is a declaration I executed on February 22, 1994 in response to falsehoods made about me and my experiences with the organization by its leader David Miscavige in his declaration executed February 8 and filed in the Fishman case. At paragraph 14 of my February 22 declaration I stated:

"I will also take the opportunity to advise this Court that Mr. Miscavige's organization considers that it has me under a contract whereby it may sue me for filing this declaration, not because it is untrue or libelous, but because that is what the organization insists its contract permits. This contract was obtained by Mr. Miscavige as the result of his organization's years of attack on my attorney Michael Flynn, as stated in paragraph 7 subparagraph h. above.


In order to get the organization to cease its fair game against Mr. Flynn I had to sign its contract, which, according to Mr. Miscavige, allows him and his agents to say whatever they want about me in any court proceeding or in the media and I may not respond. If I do respond I become subject to a $50,000.00 liquidated damages provision for every utterance, and the target in another Miscavige-ordered costly and harassing lawsuit. The three lawsuits, Armstrong II, III and IV described in paragraph 7, subparagraphs o, p and q, and the contempt of court proceedings at subparagraph r, are all pursuant to this contract. The contract is against public policy and illegal."

A copy of the first page of the February 22 declaration, pages 12 and 13 which contain this quoted-section, and the signature page are appended hereto as Exhibit A.

4. On April 5, 1994 the organization did indeed amend its complaint in Church of Scientology International v. Gerald Armstrong, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 052395 (Armstrong II) to add a cause of action for my providing the

February 22 declaration to attorneys for defendant Uwe Geertz in order to correct the Miscavige falsehoods, and it did indeed claim $50,000.00 in liquidated damages and additional damages which it states are incalculable. A copy of the face page of the organization's Verified Second Amended Complaint for Damages and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief for Breach of Contract, pages 25 and 26 which contain the cause of action relating to my February 22 declaration, the signature page and


the verification page are appended hereto as Exhibit B.

5. On April 15, 1994 I filed a Second Amended Verified Cross-Complaint for Abuse of Process in the case of Church of Scientology International v. Gerald Armstrong, et al. Marin County Superior Court Case No. 157680, which included in paragraph 69 at page 24 the allegation that the organization's claim of damages in Armstrong II for my February 22 declaration response to Miscavige's falsehoods in Fishman was an act in furtherance of its actual litigation motives of obstruction of justice, suppression of evidence, assassination of my reputation, use of the discovery process for gathering intelligence on its enemies, and making an example of me to scare knowledgeable witnesses into silence, which act constituted an abuse of process. A copy of my second amended cross-complaint is appended hereto as Exhibit C.

6. Since the organization has made my February 22 declaration the subject of its litigation in its unsealed Armstrong II case it is inconsistent of the organization to seek to seal the declaration in the Fishman case. Sealing the declaration in one case when the organization will use it in another case wherein the declaration will not be sealed will only generate confusion; which is in fact the organization's purpose in seeking to seal not only my declaration, but all the other documents filed in Fishman as well. Pursuant to its policies to "use the law to harass" the organization will then capitalize on the confusion it has generated to further its attacks on its fancied enemies.

7. The Scientology organization has since 1984 accused me


falsely of violating court sealing orders at least a dozen times, including three attempts to have me found in contempt of court for alleged violations which the organization fabricated. Meanwhile the organization has itself refused to honor the same sealing orders, and has used documents which it had itself had sealed to attack me. Sealing documents at the insistence of this organization only provides it with a mechanism to obstruct justice and use our courts to wage an unjust war on its designated enemies.

8. Appended hereto as Exhibit D is a copy of a declaration I executed March 15, 1990 and filed in the California Court of Appeal in support of a petition to be able to respond in an appeal the organization had taken from an order of the Los Angeles Superior Court unsealing that Court's file in the case of Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong, Case No. C 420153 (Armstrong I). At paragraphs 20 through 24 and 26

through 39 I describe a series of affidavits executed by organization personnel Kenneth Long and Sheila Chaleff which were filed in 1987 in the case of Church of Scientology of California v. Russell Miller & Penguin Books Limited in London, England in the High Court of Justice, Case No. 6140. The organization falsely accuses me in its affidavits, copies of which are appended hereto as Exhibit E, of "knowingly violating several court (sealing) orders."

9. I did not respond in the Miller case to the organization's charges of sealing order violations because one of its lawyers, Earle C. Cooley, had threatened through my attorney Michael Flynn that I would be sued if I even talked to Mr.


Miller's or Penguin Books' lawyers (see paragraph 20 at page 9 of my March 15, 1990 declaration, Exhibit D hereto). Following my filing of the March [15], 1990 declaration in which I denied the organization's charges the organization refused to change its claim of sealing order violations. On December 25, 1990 I executed a declaration, which was also filed in the Court of Appeal, detailing the facts underlying the organization's charges in the Long and Chaleff affidavits of sealing order violations and refuting the charges. Paragraph 17 at page 10 of the December 25, 1990 declaration, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit F, described Mr. Long's repetition of his sealing order violation charges in a declaration he executed March 26, 1990, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit G. Paragraph 20 at page 10 of the December 25, 1990 declaration details the truth behind Mr. Long's false charges. Although the facts I give in both the March 15 and December, 25, 1990 declarations have remained unrefuted, the organization refuses to correct its false charges against me in its declarations and affidavits. That is unsurprising, however, because one of its purposes in litigation is to generate as much confusion as possible. In the area of what is or is not sealed or unsealed or has or has not been sealed when in what court where it is particularly easy for confusion to be generated and false charges of violations to be made, and the Scientology organization has taken great advantage of that fact and great advantage of the inclination of the courts of this country to treat the organization with the same respect given to honest parties who lack its determination to subvert justice.


10. In paragraph 25 at page 10 of my March 15, 1990 declaration (exhibit D hereto) I list ten documents which Mr. Long had appended as exhibits to his affidavit of October 5, 1987, all of which had been part of the record in the Armstrong I case which the organization had insisted be sealed as a condition of settlement of the case. The organization, while making false allegations of sealing order violations or even manufacturing "violations" in order to make its charges, simply will not respect any court's sealing order itself if it will gain some advantage by violating such order.

11. Appended hereto as Exhibit H is a copy of a document published and distributed by the organization entitled "" Factnet" - Perversions, Criminality and Lies." On information and belief this document was ordered, written and ordered disseminated by David Miscavige. It is an example of what L. Ron Hubbard, the organization's leader before Miscavige, called "black propaganda" or "black PR," which he defined as "spreading lies by hidden sources," or "a covert attack on the reputation of a person, company or nation using slander and lies in order to weaken or destroy." At page 3 and 4 of this publication is a section devoted to me. It is almost all lies and clearly libelous. It includes the description of a dream I had and was inspired to write down. Organization covert operatives stole my writing and filed it in the Armstrong I case. The dream is insignificant because it was only a dream. What has become significant about it is its misuse and perversion pursuant to the organization's black PR and fair game policies. The writing was specifically sealed in Armstrong I. The Armstrong I trial judge, Honorable


Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. stated at page 12 of his decision of June 20, 1984, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I, that the organization's intelligence, legal and public relations arm "was no respector of anyone's civil rights, particularly that of privacy." The same is true in 1994, and for that reason too the organization's efforts to seal the declarations of its "enemies," when it will itself use whatever is sealed to abuse those people should be rejected. The Breckenridge decision was affirmed on appeal on July 29, 1991, Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, 232 Cal. App. 3d 1060, 283 Cal. Rptr.917.

12. On September 11, 1991 the organization filed a motion to seal the record on appeal in Armstrong, supported by a declaration of Kenneth Long executed September 10, 1991 in which he falsely claimed that a lengthy list of documents in the appellate record, plus the trial transcript had been sealed throughout the Armstrong I litigation and should therefore be sealed again to preserve the organization's "property and privacy interests." The organization's motion and the supporting Long declaration are appended hereto as Exhibit J.

13. Appended hereto as Exhibit K is my opposition to the organization's motion to seal the record on appeal and my declaration in support thereof executed October 16, 1991. I point out in the opposition and declaration that the documents and trial transcript the organization was seeking to have sealed in the appellate record were, contrary to the organization's claim, public documents which had been widely disseminated because of the great public interest in them, and that sealing


the record would be senseless. The same is true regarding the documents, in addition to my February 22, 1994 declaration, which the organization seeks to have sealed in Fishman. I myself have received a copy of two full file boxes of these documents, and had already given them to yet another person for copying for himself and others, again because of the great public interest in these materials, long before I learned of the organization's attempt to have them sealed.

14. Appended hereto as Exhibit L is a copy of the California Court of Appeal's denial of the organization's motion to seal the record dated December 5, 1991.

15. Appended hereto as Exhibit M is page 15 of the organization's second amended complaint in Armstrong II (see also Exhibit B hereto). At paragraph 61 the organization alleges that I have violated its "settlement agreement" by failing to return two documents. This is untrue. Both of these documents I obtained years after the 1986 settlement, and both are public documents. One of the documents the organization publishes to this day in its books. This allegation is significant, however, because it shows the sort of liberties the organization will take with the truth to be able to allege any sort of "violation" by its "enemies."

16. Appended hereto as Exhibit N is page 17 of the organization's second amended complaint in Armstrong II (see also Exhibit B hereto). At paragraph 72 the organization alleges that I have violated a sealing order in Armstrong I by authenticating a portion of a transcript. This is untrue. There never was such a sealing order. The transcript was disseminated to countless


people around the world, and is widely available. Again it shows the abuse this organization make of any sealing order, real or not, and the confusion it will generate with its allegations of violations.

17. Judge Breckenridge declared in 1984:

"In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the [organization] whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements." ( Exhibit I hereto)

The organization desperately seeks to rewrite its dark history, just as Hubbard sought to rewrite his. It uses its schizophrenia to deliberately forget the facts and truth so that it can continue to madly attack its imagined enemies. It compartmentalizes its monolithic organizational self in its group mind to support its schizophrenia. It has its various entities and mouthpieces appear in court as it suits its purposes to make its mad allegations and give plausibility to its denials of its victims' allegations. Our courts should not support the organization's efforts to rewrite history, but should act to restrain its autogenetic madness.

18. At page 23 of my opposition to the organization's


motion to seal the record on appeal in Armstrong I (Exhibit K hereto) I stated that:

"This Court has a golden opportunity in this matter to send the message to (the organization) to cause them to abandon their hope of enlisting the assistance of the judiciary to hide their past and confuse the truth, and to place their hope for a peaceful future in openness, not secrecy."

The same is true today in whatever the Courts do in the Fishman case. But add too the protection of those people who have the courage to come forward, stand up to this organization and say some of what they know. Do not leave them even more exposed to the organization's malevolence than they are already by sealing their words.

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 Apri1 21, 1994.

Signature Gerald Armstrong 04-21-1994