|
|
|
|
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Plaintiff and Respondent
v.
GERALD ARMSTRONG,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal No. A075027
Marin County Superior Court No. 157680
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
Gerald Armstrong
C/O George W. Abbott, Esquire
2245-B Meridian Boulevard
P.O. Box 98
Minden, Nevada 89423-0098
Defendant and Appellant
In Propria Persona
(702)782-2302
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.INTRODUCTION................................................-1-
II. ARMSTRONG'S HISTORY WITH SCIENTOLOGY......................-3-
A. Pre-Settlement........................................-4-
B. The Settlement........................................-7-
C. From Settlement to First Response....................-10-
D. Fair Game After Armstrong's First Response...........-14-
E. Armstrong's Actions..................................-17-
F. Scientology's Enforcement Litigation.................-19-
III. ARGUMENT................................................-29-
A. There is a Triable Issue as to Duress................-29-
B. There is a Triable Issue as to Fraud.................-32-
C. There is a Triable Issue as to Justification.........-34-
D. The Settlement Agreement Obstructs Justice...........-36-
E. There is a Triable Issue as to the Validity
of the Liquidated Damages Provision..................-41-
F. The Settlement Agreement Violates
Freedom of Speech....................................-45-
G. The Settlement Agreement Violates
the Thirteenth Amendment.............................-47-
H. The Settlement Agreement Violates
Freedom of Religion..................................-48-
IV. CONCLUSION...............................................-50-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989)
214 Cal.App.3d 307, 319......................................-46-
Scientology v. Armstrong, (1991)
232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal. Rptr. 917......................-13-
Civ. Code, Sec.1671, Subd (b).............................-24,41-
I.INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from a Marin County Superior Court judgment
obtained by plaintiff Church of Scientology International,
hereinafter (also with other components of the global Scientology
organization) "Scientology" or "Scn," against defendant Gerald
Armstrong, hereinafter "Armstrong" or "GA," pursuant to a series of
summary adjudication motions. The judgment (Clerk's Transcript on
Appeal, hereinafter "CT," 9783-85) includes a monetary award of
$300,000 in "liquidated damages," $334,671.75 in costs, and an
order of permanent injunction against GA. The judgment and
injunction (CT 9786-94) are the result of the enforcement by way of
breach of contract action of a 1986 "Mutual Release of All Claims
and Settlement Agreement," hereinafter "SA" (CT 116-31) which was
to end then existing Los Angeles Superior Court litigation between
Scn and GA. The SA requires, inter alia, that GA not mention Scn,
his knowledge thereof or experiences therein(CT 121-3), not
voluntarily assist or advise Scn's litigation opponents including
governmental agencies (CT 125,6; 128), and avoid service of process
(CT 125,6). The SA also included a liquidated damages provision of
$50,000 (CT 123) for any such mention or assistance by GA. Scn
claims that GA violated the SA some 50 times, which are listed in
the injunction, between 1991 and 1995. (CT 9787-91)
The order of injunction states:
"[GA], his agents, employees, and persons acting in
concert or conspiracy with him are restrained and
enjoined from doing directly or indirectly any of the
following:
1. Voluntarily assisting any person (not a
government organ or entity) intending to make, intending
to press, intending to arbitrate, or intending to
litigate a claim, regarding such claim or regarding
pressing, arbitrating, or litigating it, against any of
the following persons or entities:
- [The Church of Scientology International, Church of
Scientology of California, Religious Technology Center,
Church of Spiritual Technology, all Scientology and
Scientology affiliated Churches, organizations and
entities, Author Services, Inc., and all their officers,
directors, agents, representatives, employees,
volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel;]
- The Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, its executor,
beneficiaries, heirs, representatives, and legal counsel;
and/or
- Mary Sue Hubbard;
(Hereinafter referred to collectively as "the
Beneficiaries");
2. Voluntarily assisting any person (not a
government organ or entity) defending a claim, intending
to defend a claim, intending to defend an arbitration, or
intending to defend any claim being pressed, made,
arbitrated or litigated by any of the Beneficiaries,
regarding such claim or regarding defending, arbitrating,
or litigating against it;
3. Voluntarily assisting any person (not a
government organ or entity) arbitrating, or litigating
adversely to any of the Beneficiaries;
4. Facilitating in any manner the creation,
publication, broadcast, writing, filming audio recording,
video recording, electronic recording or reproduction of
any kind of any book, article, film, television program,
radio program, treatment, declaration, screenplay or
other literary, artistic or documentary work of any kind
which discusses, refers to or mentions Scientology, the
Church, and/or any of the Beneficiaries;
5. Discussing with anyone, not a member of
Armstrong's immediate family or his attorney,
Scientology, the Church, and/or any of the
Beneficiaries."
GA contends that his signature was obtained by Scn on the SA
by duress, fraud and the compromise of his then attorney. GA
contends that all his alleged breaches of the SA were in response
to and in self-defense against Scn's post-settlement attacks on
him, and that as such his actions were legally justified. He
contends that the purpose and function of the SA and its
enforcement are obstruction of justice, and as such are against
public policy. He contends that the SA and the injunction
impermissibly violate his Constitutional rights to freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process
and freedom from slavery; and impermissibly eliminate his
litigant's, clergyman-penitent, therapist-patient and doctor-
patient privileges. GA contends that the liquidated damages
provision impermissibly acts as punishment, that the amount has no
reasonable relationship to Scn's actual damages for his alleged
breaches, and that there are sufficient disputed facts concerning
circumstances at the time of the settlement of the Los Angeles
action to make imposition of monetary damages and disposition of
the case by summary judgment clear judicial error. GA contends that
there is also a triable issue of fact as to the intentions of the
settling parties regarding Scn's being bound by the same silence
conditions. Finally, GA contends that the court below erred in not
considering his defenses and not considering the miscarriage of
justice which would result from its erroneous judgment.
GA is not an attorney and has no present access to published
California and US laws and appellate opinions. He was represented
by competent counsel throughout most of the litigation in the court
below, and he relies on and incorporates herein his counsel's
memoranda of points and authorities in his oppositions, with all
arguments and citations therein, to Scn's various summary
adjudication motions (CT 8252-75; 8243-51; 3875-98; 9349-63) and in
his motion for reconsideration and reply. (CT 9046-62; 9509-18)
II. ARMSTRONG'S HISTORY WITH SCIENTOLOGY
Unless otherwise indicated, all facts in this section are from
GA's Separate Statements of Disputed and Undisputed Facts in
Opposition to Summary Adjudication Motions (CT 8276-410; 8411-553)
and GA's Evidence in Support of Oppositions to Summary Adjudication
Motions (CT 5871-8242), all properly before the trial court. Any
document cited to is identified only in the initial citation. Facts
stated in the Separate Statements are designated (SS (no.), CT
(no.). Certain documents contained in GA's Evidence before the
court below, which are inexplicably missing from the Clerk's
Transcript, and are designated "Missing."
A. Pre-Settlement
GA was inside Scn from 1969 through 1981. From 1971 until he
left the organization he was a member of the Sea Organization, the
highly dedicated upper echelon of Scn, and worked for Scn founder
and director L. Ron Hubbard. GA's last position inside Scn involved
assembling an archive of Hubbard's personal documents and providing
research assistance and copies of the archive documents to a writer
Omar Garrison who had been contracted to produce Hubbard's
biography. Through his study of the papers in his possession GA
came to see that Hubbard and his organization had continuously lied
about Hubbard's past, credentials and accomplishments. GA attempted
to get the organization to correct the lies, but his efforts were
rejected and he was ordered to a "security check," a Scn
interrogation using its lie detector, also called an E-meter. GA
saw that his trust, which he had placed in Hubbard and Scn for more
than 12 years, had no meaning, and that the frauds perpetrated
about Hubbard's life would continue; and as a result GA left the
organization. (Decision, 6/20/84, Scientology v. Armstrong,
hereinafter, "Armstrong I,"LASC No. 420153, CT 5960-70)
Shortly after leaving, GA became the target of Scn's "Fair
Game Doctrine," which permits individuals designated as "enemies,"
also called "Suppressive Persons," hereinafter "SP's," to be
"deprived of property, injured by any means by any Scientologist...
tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed." (Scn Policy, CT 6934; SS
1A, CT 8412) GA says that "fair game" is the name given by Hubbard
to his philosophy of opportunistic hatred directed at anybody he
didn't like. GA observes that over Hubbard's adult life he used
hatred and acts which flow therefrom (lying, cheating, stealing,
compromising, entrapping, obstructing, bullying, blackmailing,
destroying) as the solution to his problems. (GA Declaration
12/25/90, CT 6139,40) Scn declared GA an SP, published documents
accusing him falsely of crimes and high crimes including
promulgating false information about Hubbard and Scn (SP Declares,
CT 7354-7; SS 1A, CT 8416,7), and seized photographs GA possessed.
Fearing that his wife's and his life were in danger GA, who had
extensive knowledge of covert intelligence operations carried out
by Scn against SPs, obtained from Garrison documents GA believed he
would need to defend himself against Scn, and sent them to
attorneys who had agreed to represent him in his defense. (CT
5972,3; SS 1A, CT 8412) One of the attorneys was Michael Flynn,
whom Scn considered its foremost lawyer enemy. (CT 5958)
Scn filed its Armstrong I suit against GA in August, 1982 for
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and invasion of privacy. The
documents GA sent to his attorneys were ordered to be delivered to
the LASC Clerk where they remained until the 1986 settlement. Scn
also hired individuals who followed and surveilled GA, assaulted
him, struck him bodily with a car, and attempted to involve him in
a freeway accident. The same individuals spied in GA's windows,
created disturbances and upset his neighbors. (CT 5973,4; SS 1A, CT
8412) GA filed a cross-complaint against Scn for, inter alia, fraud
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Scn's suit, from which the cross-complaint was severed, was
tried without a jury by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr. in the
spring of 1984, resulting in a decision for GA. Judge Breckenridge
found that Scn and Mary Sue Hubbard had unclean hands and that GA's
actions in sending the documents to his attorneys were reasonable
and justified because he reasonably believed he was the target of
"fair game." (CT 5948-59; SS 126, CT 8517) The Judge stated:
"[GA] did what he did, because he believed that his life,
physical and mental well being, as well as that of his
wife were threatened because the organization was aware
of what he knew about the life of LRH (Hubbard), the
secret machinations and financial activities of the
Church, and his dedication to the truth. He believed
that the only way he could defend himself, physically as
well as from harassing lawsuits, was to take from Omar
Garrison those materials which would support and
corroborate everything he had been saying about LRH and
the Church, or refute the allegations made against him in
the [SP] Declare. He believed that the only way he could
be sure that the documents would remain secure for his
future use was to send them to his attorneys, and that to
protect himself, he had to go public so as to minimize
the risk that LRH, the Church or any of their agents
would do him physical harm." (CT 5952)
Judge Breckenridge condemned Scn's "fair game" policy:
"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 Church 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. The writings and
documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism,
greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and
aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be
disloyal or hostile." (CT 5955,6)
Judge Breckenridge condemned Scn's abuse of its participants'
auditing or psychotherapy records:
"culling supposedly confidential "P.C. folders or files"
to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and/or
harassment is repugnant and outrageous." (CT 5958,9)
Judge Breckenridge commented on GA's credibility:
"the court finds the testimony of [GA and 7 other named
defense witnesses] to be credible, extremely persuasive,
and the defense of privilege or justification established
and corroborated by this evidence. [ ] In all critical
and important matters, their testimony was precise,
accurate and rang true." (CT 5954)
Judge Breckenridge also stated that:
"[GA] and his counsel are free to speak or communicate
upon any of [GA's} recollections or his life as a
Scientologist or the contents of any exhibit received in
evidence or marked for identification and not
specifically ordered sealed." (CT 5950)
The decision was entered as a Judgment and Scn appealed.
Following the 1984 decision and until the 1986 settlement Scn
continued its fair game attacks on GA which included at least these
acts: attempted entrapment; illegal videotaping; filing false
criminal charges against him with the Los Angeles District
Attorney; filing false criminal charges against him with the Boston
office of the FBI; filing false declarations to bring contempt of
court proceedings against him on three occasions; obtaining
perjured affidavits from English private investigators who had
harassed him in London, England in 1984, accusing him of
distributing "sealed" documents; international dissemination of
Scientology publications falsely accusing him of, inter alia,
crimes, including crimes against humanity; culling and
disseminating information from his supposedly confidential auditing
or psychotherapy file. (SS 1A, CT 8413-8; GA Declaration, 3/16/92,
CT 6910-1; GA Declaration, 9/15/95, CT 5897-9; LAPD Officer
Rodriguez letter re eavesdropping, 11/7/84, CT 6941; LAPD Chief
Gates Announcement, 4/23/85, CT 6942; LA DA letter, 4/25/86, CT
6943-55; "Freedom," 1985, CT 7060-71; Scn Directive, 9/20/84, CT
7119,20); GA Declaration, 11/1/86, CT 6411-47. Scn calls falsehoods
used to destroy reputation or public belief in a person, "black
propaganda," or "black PR." (SS 1A, CT 8413; Scn policies 11/21/72
and 11/5/71, CT 7376-87) Scn also calls black PR "dead agent," and
documents used for black PR purposes "dead agent documents" or "DA
docs." See also Scn's Request for Judicial Notice, GA Declaration,
2/22/94, (CT 5580-93; GA Declaration, 2/20/94, CT 5624-39; SS 1A)
GA's attorney Michael Flynn was the target of Scientology's
fair game from 1979 through the time of the signing of the
settlement agreements. Fair game acts against Flynn included
infiltrating his office, paying known criminals to testify falsely
against him, suing him and his office some fifteen times, framing
him with the forgery of a $2,000,000 check, and an international
black PR campaign. (SS 1B, CT 8418-20; GA Declaration, 9/9/95, CT
8245; CT 6125; GA Declaration, 1/13/94, CT 6967,8; "Juggernaut"
Intelligence Eval, 9/13/81, CT 6310-6324; Jonathan Atack
Declaration, 4/9/95, CT 7964; Settlement Agreement between Flynn
and clients 6938,9 (signed version at CT 5483); CT 5899,900).
B. The Settlement
At the beginning of December, 1986 an agreement was reached
between Flynn and Scn to settle the cases in which he was involved
as counsel or party. GA was then working for Flynn in his Boston
office, was aware that settlement talks were occurring, and had an
agreement with Flynn on a monetary amount to settle his cross-
complaint, then set for trial in March, 1987. GA was flown to Los
Angeles, as were several other clients with claims against the
organization, to participate in a global settlement. Only after his
arrival in LA was he shown a copy of the SA and other documents
which he was expected to sign. (CT 6911,2; 6125,6; 5900,1)
Upon reading the SA, GA was shocked and heartsick. He told
Flynn that the condition of strict confidentiality and silence with
respect to his experiences with Scn, since they involved over
seventeen years of his life, was impossible. GA told Flynn that the
liquidated damages provision was outrageous; that pursuant to the
settlement agreement he would have to pay $50,000.00 if he told a
doctor or psychologist about his experiences from those years, or
if he put on a resume what positions he had held during his Scn
years. He told Flynn that the requirements of non-amenability to
service of process and non-cooperation with persons or
organizations adverse to the organization were obstructive of
justice. He told Flynn that agreeing to leave Scn's appeal of the
Armstrong I decision and not respond to any subsequent appeals was
unfair to the courts and all the people who had been helped by the
decision. He told Flynn that an affidavit the organization was
demanding that he sign along with the SA was false. GA told Flynn
that he was being asked to betray everything and everyone he had
fought for against Scn injustice. (CT 6911-2; 6126,7; 5901)
In answer to GA's objections Flynn said that the silence and
liquidated damages clauses, and anything which called for
obstruction of justice were "not worth the paper they're printed
on." Flynn told GA this a number of times and in a number of ways;
"You can't contract away your Constitutional rights; "the
conditions are unenforceable." Flynn said that he had advised Scn
attorneys that those conditions in the SA were not worth the paper
they were printed on, but that they, nevertheless, insisted on
their inclusion in the SA and would not agree to any changes. Flynn
said that Scn's attorneys had promised that the affidavit, which
all the settling litigants were signing, would only be used by Scn
if GA began attacking it after the settlement; and if GA did not
attack Scn the affidavit "would never see the light of day." Flynn
pointed out to GA the clauses concerning his release of all claims
against Scn to date and its release of all claims against GA to
date and said that they were the essential elements of the
settlement and were what Scn was paying for. (CT 6912,3; 6127;
5901; SS 116; CT 8509)
Flynn told GA that everyone was sick of the litigation and
wanted to get on with their lives. Flynn said that he was sick of
the litigation, the threats to him and his family and wanted out.
He said that as a part of the settlement he and all co-counsels had
agreed to not become involved in organization-related litigation in
the future. He expressed a deep concern that the courts in this
country cannot deal with Scn and its lawyers and their contemptuous
abuse of the justice system. He told GA that if he didn't sign the
documents all he had to look forward to was more years of
harassment and misery. Another client in the room with Flynn and GA
during this discussion yelled at GA, accusing him of killing the
settlement for everyone, and saying that everyone else had signed
or would sign, and everyone else wanted the settlement. Flynn said
that Scn would only settle with everyone together; otherwise there
would be no settlement. (SS 1C, 1D, 1E, CT 8420,1; CT 6913; 6127,8;
5902) Flynn said that he had to get out of the fight, that he had
done enough, that he had paid his dues, that Scientology had ruined
his marriage, his wife's health and his life. (CT 5902)
Flynn told GA that a major reason for the settlement's global
form was to give Scn the opportunity to change its combative
attitude and behavior by removing the threat he and his clients
represented to it. Flynn said that Scn's willingness to pay
substantial sums of money, after its agents and attorneys had sworn
for years to pay his clients "not one thin dime" was evidence of a
philosophic shift within the organization. GA told Flynn that the
SA evidenced the unchanged philosophy of fair game, and that if Scn
did not use the opportunity to transform its antisocial nature and
actions toward its members, critics and society he would, a few
years hence, because of his knowledge of Scn fraud and fair game,
be again embroiled in its litigation and targeted for extralegal
attacks. (SS 98, CT 8487; CT 6913,4; 6128; 5902)
GA had been positioned as a deal-breaker, with all the other
settling parties depending on his signing in order to have the fair
game cease. He reasoned that if he signed, his co-litigants, some
of whom he knew to be in financial trouble, would be happy, the
stress they felt would be reduced and they could get on with their
lives. Flynn and the other lawyers would be happy and the threat to
them and their families would be removed. Scn would have the
opportunity they said they desired to clean up their act and start
anew. GA would have the opportunity to get on with his life and the
financial wherewithal to do so. He was also not unhappy to at that
time not have to testify in all the litigation nor to respond to
the media's frequent questions. He knew that if Scn continued its
fair game practices toward him he would be left to defend himself;
so, armed with Flynn's advice that the SA conditions he found so
offensive were not worth the paper they were printed on, and the
knowledge that Scn's attorneys were also aware of that legal
opinion, GA put on a happy face and the following day went through
a videotaped signing, which he saw as a charade. (CT 6914,5;
6129,30; 5902)
C. From Settlement to First Response
It was GA's understanding and intention at the time of the
settlement that he would honor the silence and confidentiality
conditions of the SA, and that Scn had agreed to do likewise. (CT
6916) GA delivered to Scn the evidence he had accumulated in his
case, released to Scn the documents held by the LASC, and agreed to
the sealing of the Court file. (CT 123,4; 5925; 5940) After the
settlement, GA got on with his life, did many usual or unusual
things including pursuing religious studies, left Scn alone, and
did not speak publicly about Scn or his experiences. (CT 6997-7000;
5902,3)
Scn, however, could not leave GA alone but continued to
disseminate falsehoods about him publicly, and file false
statements about him in legal proceedings. He perceived that he was
still fair game, yet for 3 years, although saddened by the attacks,
he did nothing in response. These fair game attacks after December,
1986, but prior to any acts by GA which Scn claims are breaches of
the SA, include at least: delivering DA Documents (black PR) on him
to various media representatives; publishing Scn's own false
descriptions of his experiences; disseminating to the media an
edited, misleading and defamatory version of the secret and illegal
videotape its agents made of him; disseminating his own documents
which had been sealed on Scn's insistence in Armstrong I; filing
affidavits about him in a civil lawsuit in England (Scientology v.
Miller & Penguin Books, High Court of Justice, London, England,
Case No. 1987 C 6140) which falsely charged, inter alia, that GA
violated court orders and was an admitted agent provocateur of the
US Government; threatening him with being sued if he even talked to
attorneys in the Miller case in which the false charges about him
were being made; threatening to expose a private writing if he did
not assist Scn's effort to prevent a civil litigant, Bent Corydon,
from obtaining access to the Armstrong I LASC case file;
threatening him with being sued if he testified about his
Scientology experiences even pursuant to a subpoena. (SS 105A-H, CT
8491-3; CT 6916-9; 5931-46; 5903,4; Excerpts DA document, CT 6007-
10; videocassette face, Missing; Affidavits of Kenneth Long, CT
6011-69 (first page missing); CT 6072-102; Affidavit of Sheila
Chaleff, CT 6060,1; GA 1977,8 wage and tax statement, CT 6028; GA
Affidavit, CT 6029; Nondisclosure and Release Bond, CT 6030; GA
Deposition Transcript, CT 6031-43; GA Affidavit, CT 6087-102; CT
5926-8; 5943,4; 6919; 5970; 5904; 6135,6; GA Declaration, CT
6219,30). In 1987 Scn also filed in one of its cases with the IRS
the affidavit it had required GA sign as part of the settlement, in
direct violation of the promise it made through Flynn to only use
the document if GA attacked it. (CT 6138,9; IRS Final Adverse
Ruling re Church of Spiritual Technology, 7/8/88, CT 6241-3; CT
5903)
In October, 1989 GA was served with a deposition subpoena by
plaintiff in the case of Bent Corydon v. Scientology, LASC No.
C694401. (CT 5925; Subpoena, CT 5990-4). Shortly afterward he was
called by Scn attorney Lawrence Heller, with whom he had three
telephone conversations over the next month. In these conversations
Heller threatened that GA could be sued if he testified, even
though he had been subpoenaed, and that he should refuse to answer
the deposition questions put to him by Corydon's attorney. Heller
offered to have Scn pay for a lawyer to represent GA at the
deposition. Heller requested GA to execute a declaration to assist
Scn in preventing GA's deposition from going forward, and
threatened that GA would have hassles if the deposition did go
forward. Heller also stated to GA that he should honor the SA
because Scn had honored it. Heller said that Scn had signed a non-
disclosure agreement as well and had lived up to it. GA told Heller
that Scn had filed declarations about him, put out dead agent
documents on him, and used the illegal videotape. GA made notes of
the conversations with Heller and recorded his side of the final
conversation. (CT 5925-8; 5943,4; Phone notes, CT 6227-37;
Transcript, CT 6238,9; CT 5904; 6135-7; CT 6919; CT 6970; CT 5904;
SS 105H, 8493,4; SS 103, CT 8490)
On November 1, 1990 Scn filed a motion in Corydon to delay or
prevent the taking of certain third party depositions, one of whom
was GA. (CT 5995-6006) The motion and supporting declaration were
signed by attorney Heller who stated that he was personally
involved in the settlements. (Heller Declaration, CT 6002) Heller
stated in the motion:
"One of the key ingredients to completing these
settlements, *insisted upon by all parties involved,* was
strict confidentiality respecting: (1) the Scientology
parishioner or staff member's experiences with the Church
of Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by the
Scientology entities concerning those staff members or
parishioners." (Underline in orig.) (SS 102, CT 8489,90;
CT 5998)
Heller stated in his declaration:
"The non-disclosure obligations were a key part of
the settlement agreements insisted upon by all parties
involved." (SS 101, CT 8488,9; CT 6003)
"The contractual non-disclosure provisions were the
one issue which was not debated by any of the parties or
attorneys involved." (CT 6003)
As a result of Heller's telephoned threats, which deeply
troubled him, GA concluded that the SA and Scn's efforts to enforce
it were acting to obstruct justice, and if he allowed himself to be
intimidated by the threats he would be abetting that obstruction.
He concluded that he had a right, and even a duty, regardless of
whatever the SA said, to not obstruct justice. He concluded that he
could not avoid a confrontation with Scn, and only then responded
to defend himself and to correct what he perceived were the
injustices created by the SA and Scn's misuse and violations
thereof. (CT 5928; 5930; 5940; 5945; 6919; 6970; 5904) Scn was
given a period of years to cease fair game. GA and the other
settling litigants had honored the agreements, removed themselves
as threats and allowed Scn the opportunity to change its combative
attitude and behavior. GA concluded that disclosure of Scn's
attitude and behavior would relieve and ultimately eliminate fair
game. (CT 6141,2)
When he researched his rights, responsibilities and how to
proceed in response to Scn's threats and fair game, GA learned that
through the intervening five years Scientology had been able to
maintain its appeal from the 1984 Armstrong I decision, Scientology
v. Armstrong, No. B025920, Second District, Division Three. GA
petitioned for permission to respond in the appeal. The Court
granted his petition, and also unsealed the SA, which he had filed
as a sealed exhibit to his petition. (SS 106, CT 8494,5; CT
6919,20; 5904; Petition, CT 6113-8) At the same time GA also
petitioned Division Four of the Second District for permission to
respond in another appeal, Corydon v. Scientology, No. B038975,
that Scn had taken from a 1988 LASC order granting Corydon's motion
to unseal the Armstrong I court file. (Petition, CT 6119-22) Scn
opposed GA's petition and he filed a declaration dated March 15,
1990, (CT 5925-6123) detailing many of the organization's post
settlement threats and attacks and stating his position regarding
the unenforceability of several conditions of the SA. (CT 6970,1)
The Division Four Court granted GA's petition, and he filed a
respondent's brief in both appeals, which were ultimately
consolidated.
On July 29, 1991 the Court of Appeal affirmed the 1984
decision and judgment in Armstrong I (Scientology v. Armstrong, 232
Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal. Rptr. 917.) The Court of Appeal stated:
"These [Suppressive Person] "declares" subjected
Armstrong to the "Fair Game Doctrine" of the Church which
permits a suppressive person to be "tricked, sued or lied
to or destroyed...[or] deprived of property or injured by
any means by any Scientologist." (Id. at 1067; 920) (SS
127, CT 8517,8)
In September, 1991 Scn filed a motion in the Court of Appeal
to seal the record on appeal, (CT 6521-88) based in part on the
assertion that "an integral, indispensable part of that [Armstrong
I] settlement was the sealing of the court's records." (CT 6529) GA
filed an opposition to the motion to seal (CT 6589-902) in which he
stated that "[t]he superior rights regarding the materials
plaintiffs want sealed are those of defendant whose safety from
attack rests in part on the availability of information and the
openness of court files, and those of the public who have a
Constitutional right to precisely the kind of information these
materials contain." (CT 6592). The Court of Appeal denied Scn's
motion to seal the record. (CT 6903)
D. Fair Game After Armstrong's First Response
From the time GA petitioned the Court of Appeal, Scn has
continued to fair game him without letup. These attacks include,
but are not limited to: (SS 107A-L, CT 8495-503; CT 5913-4)
+ Disseminating to the media dead agent packs of black PR on
him which provide Scn's false version of his experiences and
include at least the following lies:
- he testified falsely at trial in 1984 (Scn DA Docs re GA and
Judge Breckenridge, CT 7527; 7533; 7600; 7605)
- he "has adopted a degraded life-style (CT 7528; 7600)
- he was "apparently naked" in a newspaper photo (CT 7528)
- he is connected to Cult Awareness Network, hereinafter
"CAN," described by Scn as "a referral agency for those who engage
in the illegal activity of kidnapping adults for the purpose of
forcibly persuading them to abandon their religious beliefs" (CT
7528)
- his defense at his 1984 trial "was a sham and a fraud" (CT
7528,9; 7614)
- the LAPD "authorized" [Scn's] videotapes of GA (CT 7529;
7615)
- GA wanted to plant fabricated documents in Scientology files
and tell the IRS to conduct a raid (CT 7529-31; 7609; 7615,6)
- he wanted to plunder Scientology for his own financial gain
(CT 7530)
- he never intended to stick to the terms of the SA (CT 7532;
7617)
- his motives in writing attorney Eric Lieberman regarding the
case of Malcolm Nothling v. Scn, in South Africa were money and
power (CT 7533; GA letter, 6/21/91, CT 7482-98)
- he was incompetent as a researcher on the Hubbard biography
project (CT 7533; 7622)
- he wanted to orchestrate a coup in which members of the US
Government would wrest control of Scn (CT 7531; 7616)
+ Using transcripts and other documents to attack him which
Scn itself has insisted be sealed (CT 7537-97; 7533; 7534; 7610;
7616; 7623)
+ Publishing black PR on him without stating its source which
provide Scn's false version of his experiences and include at least
these false and/or perverted charges:
- he was formerly a heavy drug user (Scn publication
"FACTNet," CT 7514)
- he was paid to provide homosexual sex (CT 7514)
- a Marin Independent Journal photo showed him in the nude
holding the globe (CT 7514; Marin IJ article 11/11/92, CT 7184)
- he is a psychotic and lives in a delusory world (Scn
publication "FACTNet," CT 7520)
+ Scn director Michael Rinder wrote a letter to the Mirror
Newspaper Group in London, United Kingdom in which he stated that
GA "has now distinguished himself by posing naked in a newspaper"
(Rinder letter, 5/9/94, CT 7524)
+ Scn President Heber Jentzsch wrote a letter, sent with
documents about GA, to E! Television in which he stated that GA
"has no relation to art or artists...except, of course, for the
photo of himself, nude, hugging the globe (Jentzsch letter 8/5/93,
CT 7693)
+ Scn agent Eugene Ingram spread the lie that GA has AIDS (CT
5916; 8226,7; Videotape taken by Ingram of GA at November, 1992 CAN
Convention, CT 8242; Notice of Lodging Videotape, CT 8676,7))
+ Scn agent Garry Scarff was briefed by Ingram to expand on
the [invented] "fuck buddy" relationship between GA and attorney
Ford Greene (Scarff declaration, 2/11/93, CT 7510)
+ Filing declarations and other documents in various courts
containing false charges, and then using the SA to prevent GA from
responding or to punish him for responding (Declaration of David
Miscavige, 2/8/94, filed in Scientology v. Fishman, USDC Cen. Dist.
Cal. No. 91-6426 HLH, CT 7655,6; CT 5580-93; 5624-39; Scn's Second
Amended Complaint herein, CT 5356,7; Scn's motion for summary
adjudication of 13th, 16th, 17th & 19th causes of action, 3/17/95,
CT 5312,3; Scn's separate statement in support of motion for
summary adjudication, 2/23/95, CT 4524.44 CT 9789) (Scn's Supp.
Memo. in Support of Motion to Dismiss, 8/26/91, filed in Aznaran v.
Scientology, USDC Cen. Dist. Cal. No. 88-1786 JMI, CT 6682-6;
Declaration of Sam Brown, 8/26/91, CT 6714,5; Declaration of Lynn
Farny, 8/26/91, CT 6725-7; Reply in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment, 8/26/91, filed in Aznaran, CT 6797-9; GA Declaration,
9/3/91, CT 6802-12; CT 4524.36; CT; CT 9787)
+ Attempting to have Armstrong jailed for contempt of court
based on mischaracterization of his actions and manufactured
actions (Scn's Ex Parte Application herein for OSC re Contempt,
12/31/92, CT 7121-84; GA Declaration, CT 7406,7; Scn's evidence, GA
declaration, 2/2/93, CT 5016-44; Scn's Ex Parte Application for OSC
re Contempt, 7/26/93, CT 1628-739; Order of Judge Diane Wayne
herein discharging OSC, 7/29/94, CT 7499-501)
+ Providing documentation to Premiere magazine about GA,
including partial transcripts of the illegal Ingram videotaping of
him and then using the settlement agreement to punish GA for
responding (Article "Catch a Rising Star, 9/93, CT 7672; GA letter,
10/11/93, CT 4811-4; CT 4524.48; Scn's motion for summary
adjudication of 20th cause of action, CT 4524.11; CT 9790)
+ Providing a press release to the Marin Independent Journal
concerning the Court's 1/27/95 ruling, which discusses GA's Scn
experiences and contains the false statement that he "promised [in
the SA] to refrain from spreading falsehoods about [Scn];" and then
using the settlement agreement to punish GA for responding; (Scn
press release from Nancy O'Meara and Andrew H. Wilson, 1/95, CT
7692; GA letter to O'Meara, CT 5056; CT 4524.17,8
+ Secretly videotaping him (GA letters, 8/21/91, 8/22/91, CT
6834-9; CT 6714)
E. Armstrong's Actions
In August, 1990, GA was in a new home he had purchased in
Marin County, and living his life. (CT 6998-7000) Although still a
troubled target of fair game, he considered himself free of the
SA's restrictions, not only because of what Flynn had told him at
the time of the settlement, but because of Scn's post settlement
attacks and the SA's unenforceability due to its obstruction of
justice. (CT 6972; 5928; 5930; 5940; 5945) Then the Iraqi army
invaded Kuwait, and his life was again forever changed. Moved by
media reports of the invasion, the global tension, and the daily
events of Desert Shield, GA prayed for guidance concerning
humanity's condition, and specifically the then developing Middle
East crisis. (CT 6988; 5905,6) GA received a message, which he
believed came from God, saying: "Keep nothing. Give what you have
to the poor. Take only what you need." (Message, CT 7204) The idea
of renunciation of worldly wealth, although coming at that time as
a surprise, and unclear as to the details for its accomplishment,
was not altogether illogical to GA because he had long recognized
that money, greed and power motivated much of the madness that made
human beings war against each other. (CT 6988) He had already
recognized the essential valuelessness of money in an essay he had
written in 1989. (CT 7039-41) GA also recognized that Scn's leaders
were motivated by the same forces of money, greed and power that
made men war against each other and that his renunciation was
spiritually directed at bringing peace for Scn no less than the
rest of the world. (CT 7002) GA gave away his assets, including his
ownership of The Gerald Armstrong Corporation, hereinafter "TGAC,"
his philosophic services company; his ownership of his home;
forgave debts owed him; and determined to go wherever his help was
asked for. (CT 7002; 5906) Over the next few months GA gave himself
to resolving the Middle East crisis (CT 7095-103) but he was not
successful and a quarter million people were killed.
In June, 1991 GA received a call from Malcolm Nothing, asking
him to testify in his case against Scn in South Africa. Nothling
said he had not been able to find anyone else in the world willing
to testify about Scn's policies and practices. After listening to
Nothling's story, and because Nothling had asked, GA agreed to help
him. GA said he first wanted to see if the situation could be
resolved peacefully, and he wrote a letter to attorney Lieberman,
who represented Scn in the Armstrong I appeal. (CT 7482-98) Scn
rejected GA's peace proposal, so he flew to South Africa and helped
Nothling, but did not testify as the trial was postponed. (CT 7004;
5906) (SS 21-2, CT 8438,9)
Before leaving for South Africa, GA received a call from
attorney Joseph Yanny, asking for GA's help in the Aznaran case.
Yanny told GA that he had come into the case after the Aznarans had
been tricked by Scn into firing their attorney Ford Greene. GA
travelled to Los Angeles and wrote a declaration concerning the
unjust effect of the 1986 "global settlement" on litigants against
Scn and in the legal community, and helped Yanny with moral support
and matters of the soul. (CT 7005; 5906)
As GA was leaving for South Africa he learned from Yanny that
Scn had sued Yanny for allegedly inducing GA to breach the SA. In
response, GA wrote a declaration in which he stated his philosophy
regarding his calling to help. (GA Declaration, 7/19/91, CT 6740-9)
"But more than a desire to protect myself or right the
organization's unjust acts towards me, however, I helped
Mr. Yanny for the simple reason that he asked. I will do
the same for anyone....It is not only the right of all
men to respond to requests for help, it is our essence.
If I was induced, therefore, to help Mr. Yanny, or anyone
else, it was our Creator Who induced me." (CT 6747)
In its lawsuit, Scientology v, Yanny, LASC No. BC 033035, Scn
claimed that Yanny, who had formerly represented Scn, was
representing GA in Scn-related litigation. Yanny had never
represented GA in any litigation and GA had never consulted Yanny
about his Scn legal battle. Scn's complaint was ultimately
dismissed. (CT 7005,6) Scn considers GA's declaration, provided by
him in a case in which an attorney was falsely sued for
representing him, a SA violation. (CT 4524.8; 4524.37,8; 9787,8)
(SS 17-20, CT 8436-8)
Upon his return to the US GA received the complaint Scn filed
against 17 IRS agents, Scientology v. Xanthos, et al., USDC Cen.
Dist. Cal. No. 91-4301-SVW, which contained the allegation that:
"The infiltration of the Church was planned as an
undercover operation by the LA CID (Criminal
Investigation Division of the IRS) along with former
Church member Gerald Armstrong, who planned to seed
church files with forged documents which the IRS could
seize in a raid. The CID actually planned to assist
Armstrong in taking over the Church of Scientology
hierarchy which would then turn over all Church documents
to the IRS for their investigation." (Xanthos, complaint,
8/12/91, CT 6636)
Although GA had seen this attack line in many forms and venues
since 1985, this 1991 charge signaled to him that the organization
was not about to peacefully end its legal and psychological war in
which he knew he was one of its most hated enemies. (CT 7007,8)
Within a few days GA went by Ford Greene's office, which was
near his residence in San Anselmo in Marin County. Greene, who was
one of few attorneys willing to take cases on behalf of Scn's
victims, had been reinstated as counsel in Aznaran. GA saw that
Greene was facing several summary judgment and other motions Scn
had filed in the case when the Aznarans were lawyerless, had no
time, staff or other resources, and truly needed GA's help. (CT
7006,7; 6811,2) GA worked for Greene as his sole office assistant
from August, 1991 until, except for a three week period, December,
1995. (CT 5907) Throughout those years Scn tried continuously to
prevent GA from working with Greene. (See, e.g., CT 6804-12; 7508;
7510,1; 7131-3; Complaint herein, CT 0009-10; Bartilson
Declaration, 12/31/92, CT 7143-6)(SS 12-16, CT 8432-6)
F. Scientology's Enforcement Litigation
In October, 1991 Scn filed a motion in Armstrong I to enforce
the SA. GA opposed the motion and on December 23, 1991, after a
hearing, LASC Judge Bruce R. Geernaert denied it. Judge Geernaert
stated regarding the SA:
"So my belief is Judge Breckenridge, being a very
careful judge....if he had been presented that whole
agreement and if he had been asked to order its
performance, he would have dug his feet in because that
is one .... I'll say one of the most ambiguous, one-sided
agreements I have ever read. And I would not have
ordered the enforcement of hardly any of the terms if I
had been asked to, even on the threat that, okay the case
is not settled.
I know we like to settle cases. But we don't like
to settle cases and, in effect, prostrate the court
system into making an order which is not fair or in the
public interest." (SS 120, CT 8510,1; Transcript of
12/23/91 hearing, CT 7700)
On February 4, 1992, Scn filed its verified complaint for
damages and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for
breach of contract, Marin SC No. 152229, hereinafter "Armstrong
II." (CT 0001-12)On February 7, 1992 Scn filed a motion for
preliminary injunction. (CT 0073-4). GA filed a motion to transfer
the case to the LASC, which was granted March 20, 1992. (CT 75-80.
The case was transferred and given LASC No. BC 052395. (CT 0081)
On April 14, 1992 Scn filed a renewed motion for preliminary
injunction (CT 0082-4), a hearing on which was held May 26 and 27
before LASC Judge Ronald Sohigian, who on May 28, issued an order
granting in part Scn's motion. He prohibited GA from:
"Voluntarily assisting any person (not a
governmental organ or entity) intending to make,
intending to press, intending to arbitrate, or intending
to litigate a claim against the persons referred to in
sec. 1 of the [SA] regarding such claim or regarding
pressing, arbitrating, or litigating it.
Voluntarily assisting any person (not a governmental
organ or entity) arbitrating, or litigating a claim
against the persons referred to in sec. 1 of the [SA].
"The Court does not intend by the foregoing to
prohibit [GA] from (a) being reasonably available for the
service of subpoenas on him; (b) accepting service of
subpoenas on him without physical resistance, obstructive
tactics, or flight; (c) testifying fully and fairly in
response to questions in either deposition, at trial, or
in other legal proceedings; (d) properly reporting or
disclosing to authorities criminal conduct of the persons
referred to in sec. 1 of the [SA]; or (e) engaging in
gainful employment rendering clerical or paralegal
services not contrary to the terms and conditions of this
order.
The application for preliminary injunction is otherwise
denied." (Order 5/28/92, CT 0091-4)
GA appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction.
On June 4, 1992 Scn filed an amended verified complaint for
damages and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for
breach of contract. (CT 0095-115) On June 23, 1992 Scn filed an
amendment to complaint, adding TGAC as Doe 1. (CT 0159) On July 22,
1992 GA filed his answer and a cross-complaint for declaratory
relief, abuse of process, and breach of contract, (CT 0160-254).
On October 8, 1992 he filed an amended answer and an amended cross-
complaint. (CT 0255-333)
On December 31, 1992 Scn filed an application for an OSC why
GA should not be held in contempt. (CT 0428-639) The OSC was signed
by Judge Sohigian. (CT 640,1) The charged contempts were for a
letter GA wrote to Scn leader David Miscavige (CT 0436,7; GA
letter, 12/22/92, CT 0525-34) a discussion with the Aznarans;
signing 2 proofs of service in their case (CT 0438,9; Proofs of
service, CT 0567-70); "assisting" Greene clients Tillie Good,
Denise Cantin and Ed Roberts (CT 0439-40); and making a videotape
discussing his Scn experiences. (CT 0440-2) GA filed his opposition
to the OSC, and various supporting declarations and other
documents. Scn filed a motion in limine to exclude Scn's prior
acts, and various other documents relating to the OSC. (CT 0644-
1268) On March 5, 1993 a hearing was held before LASC Judge Diane
Wayne, who ruled that because the 5/28/92 order was on appeal, she
would not proceed. Judge Wayne stated during the hearing:
"I have some serious questions about the validity of the
order." (Transcript, CT 1410)
"I'll tell you, when I first looked at this order, I
thought the order was clear until I read part of the
transcript. Then it became unclear to me." (CT 1414)
On March 17, 1993 GA filed an application to stay proceedings
(CT 1269-86) based on his appeal of the 5/28/92 order, which Scn
opposed. (CT 1297-394) On March 23, 1993 LASC Judge David A.
Horowitz granted the motion. (Order, CT 1596)
On July 26, 1993 Scn filed a second application for an OSC re
contempt. (CT 1628-739) The charged contempt was for providing a
declaration of Lawrence Wollersheim in the case of Scientology v.
Wollersheim, LASC No. BC 074815. (CT 1629; 1634,5; GA declaration,
6/4/93, CT 1686-90) On July 26, 1993 GA filed his opposition to the
application. (CT 1740-98) The OSC was signed by Judge Wayne. (CT
1601,2) On September 7, 1993 GA filed an opposition to the OSC (CT
1800-98) and on September 10, Scn filed its response. (CT 1905-
1932)
On July 8, 1993 Scn filed a verified complaint for damages and
for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief for breach of
contract, LASC No. BC 084462, hereinafter "Armstrong III." All the
documents filed in this case are missing. On August 27, 1993 the
LASC ruled that Armstrong II and Armstrong III were related cases.
(CT 1799) On September 14, 1993, GA filed a special motion to
strike the Armstrong III complaint pursuant to the SLAPP Statute.
On September 29 Scn filed an opposition, and on October 4, GA filed
a reply. On October 6 Judge Horowitz entered an order consolidating
Armstrong III with II and staying the action. On February 10, 1994
Scn filed a motion to vacate the stay, GA filed an opposition, and
on March 14 Judge Horowitz entered an order denying the motion.
On July 23, 1993 Scn filed a verified complaint to set aside
fraudulent transfers and for damages; conspiracy, Marin SC No.
157680, hereinafter "Armstrong IV," against GA, TGAC and Michael
Walton. (CT 3071-86) Walton was GA's friend and part owner of the
Marin house to whom GA had transferred his ownership in August,
1990 at the time of his epiphanic renunciation. Scn charged that GA
had given Walton the house to make himself judgment proof in order
to prevent Scn from collecting on liquidated damages for GA's
planned breaches of the SA. That case, now part of the consolidated
case with the same number, Marin SC No. 157680, was not disposed of
by summary judgment, and remains to be tried. Walton filed an
answer in Armstrong IV on November, 29, 1993 (CT 3102-7), and GA
and TGAC filed answers on November 30. (CT 3108-3155)
On April 5, 1994 Scn filed in Armstrong II its verified second
amended complaint. (CT 1933-2037)
On May 16, 1994 the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division
Four issued its opinion affirming the 5/28/92 preliminary
injunction order. (CT 2040-50) The Court stated: