The Armstrong Religious persecution by Scientology, Appeal Brief Part 1

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: