SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE
|CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
MARY SUE HUBBARD,
|No. C 420153|
REPORTERS’ TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday, May 9, 1984
(See Appearances page.)
|NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644
HERB CANNON, CSR #1923
|For the Plaintiff:||PETERSON & BRYNAN
BY: JOHN G. PETERSON
8530 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90211
ROBERT N. HARRIS
The Oviatt Building
617 South Olive Street
Los Angeles, California 90014
|For the Intervenor:||LITT & STORMER
BY: BARRETT S. LITT
3550 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90010
BARRETT S. LITT
BY: MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON
The Oviatt Building
617 South Olive Street
Los Angeles, California 90014
|For the Defendant:||CONTOS & BUNCH
BY: MICHAEL J. FLYNN
5855 Topanga Canyon Boulevard
Woodland Hills, California 91367
I N D E X
|Wednesday||May 9, 1984||A.M.||1178|
|PLAINTIFF RESTS||Page 1358|
|DEFENSE MOTION FOR NONSUIT||Page 1358|
|PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT ON MOTION FOR NONSUIT||Page 1358|
E X H I B I T S
|15 – (Previously identified)||1187|
|16 – (Previously identified)||1187|
|17 – (Previously identified)||1187|
|18 – (Previously identified)||1185|
|19 – (Previously identified)||1185|
|20 – (Previously identified)||1185|
|21 – (Previously identified)||1185|
|22 – (Previously identified)||1254||1356|
|G – (Previously identified)||1187|
|I – (Previously identified)||1187|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984; 9:45 A.M.
THE COURT: All right. In the case on trial let the record reflect that counsel are present.
You may proceed.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor, before we proceed to read Mr. Garrison’s deposition testimony let me see if we can deal with some other housekeeping matters. One, there are a few items of evidence that we would like to move in.
We would like to move in exhibit 1. Before we do so, if the court feels it is necessary on the question of unavailability I have and am obtaining a certified copy of, which should be here by the noon break, the decision in the case in re Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, a missing person which is a decision of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside which states in relevant part:
“That the lack of information as to Mr. Hubbard’s present address is a matter of choice by Mr. Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard’s constitutional right of privacy gives him a right to keep his residence a secret from the public, and therefore he is not a missing person.”
And we offer that as further evidence that Mr. Hubbard is in seclusion. It is a judicial finding by the court of this state. We don’t really think it is necessary.
Mrs. Hubbard has testified to it, but we are prepared to add that on the unavailability issue. And we would ask that the court take judicial notice of that decision.
If the court wishes, we’ll provide certified copies, although I believe counsel for the defendant is fully aware of the decision.
MR. FLYNN: I would like to be heard on that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are you through?
MR LITT: On that, I am through, Your Honor. And then on — we would move in exhibit 1. We have other exhibits, but I assume Mr. Flynn wants to be heard on exhibit 1.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, with regard to the decision in the probate case, it is over a year old, first.
Secondly, it is simply a decision that in the context of the California Missing Persons Statute where a person is missing for more than 90 days, the court found because of a declaration submitted by L. Ron Hubbard under the pain of penalty of perjury, which has not been done in this case, that Mr. Hubbard was not missing. That was the entire scope of the ruling. It had nothing to do with availability for purposes of service of process or service of a witness subpoena.
Secondly, the Federal District Court in Tampa in a copy of a ruling that I have provided to the court specifically found that L. Ron Hubbard is concealing himself.
The court stated at page 5 — and this opinion was subsequently appealed on two occasions to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal which is now the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. And the decision of the Federal Judge was confirmed.
MR. LITT: That is simply an incorrect misstatement.
There was an interlocutory appeal. The Eleventh Circuit Court did not hear the interlocutory appeal. There was no affirmation.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard submitted approximately a foot of materials to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. The court rejected the appeal. The Federal District Court in Florida ruled as follows:
“The Court of Appeals opinion confirms such projects as ‘red box’ an organized effort on the part of persons within the church to hide the whereabouts of key personnel and key documents. Exhibit 3 to Lisa’s deposition is ‘Operation Bulldozer Leak’, the stated purpose of which is to spread the rumor that L. Ron Hubbard has no control of the church and no legal liability for it. To the extent that the church is shown to be Hubbard’s agents, these are efforts of concealment attributable to him.”
And the court rules further on that page,
“… these comprise corroborative and supportive evidence of the Hubbards’ efforts and intent to conceal themselves. Accordingly, the file herein presents a showing sufficient to indicate concealment under Florida law.”
Now, this court is confronted with a situation where one federal court has ruled that L. Ron Hubbard is hiding from service of process. The court has received for identification this exhibit which initially when it was provided to the court was provided with an attached affidavit of a Mr. Brunell that was secured by an attorney named Lawrence Heller, and the exhibit 1 is dated February 3, 1982, and Mr. Brunell provided the special ink in which the letter is written and states in his affidavit, which we intend to introduce through Mr. Heller who we have subpoenaed in our part of the case, that the special ink was prepared and transmitted to Mr. Hubbard on February 2nd, and the letter is dated February 3rd.
I submit that that supports an inference on the part of Mr. Hubbard’s attorneys, of which Mr. Heller is one, of immediate access to Mr. Hubbard. We have subpoenaed, as I indicated, Mr. Heller to appear before this court.
Lastly, we succeeded in subpoenaing last night Dr. Eugene Denk. Dr. Denk is Mr. Hubbard’s physician, and we have testimony from other individuals that he has been his physician from at least 1979.
We believe that Dr. Denk has seen Mr. Hubbard in California within the last five to six months, and on one occasion took an electrocardiogram machine out of his office and took it to Mr. Hubbard’s location. We have received information as to where Mr. Hubbard’s location may be.
We have received information that there are three separate homes that have been set up as residences under an assumed name, and that Mr. Hubbard –
MR. LITT: Your Honor, can we not have these — we have spent this whole case hearing about Mr. Flynn’s incriminations. Let’s get to facts.
What are we supposed to do with information he’s received? I have heard so many statements from Mr. Flynn of information that he has that has not turned out to be any such information, has not turned out to be evidence. I don’t think it is right.
THE COURT: I think if we are going to get involved in a dispute, it is going to have to be presented by way of evidence and not by way of assertion.
I have already made some indication in my rulings on the in limine matter. I don’t know that there’s anything that’s occurred since then that would cause me to change my mind, but let me look at this letter. It will be helpful if you could read this.
MR. LITT: There is an attached typed –
THE COURT: Interpretation.
Well, the letter purports to have been written February 3rd, 1983. Under 1250 of the Evidence Code this would be evidence of Mr. Hubbard’s state of mind at that time, and as far as I am concerned, it is evidence of his state of mind on February 3rd that he’d like to have the belongings returned to the church or the legal representative of it. As to what he may have done in years before, it is
not admissible under 1250 subsection (b).
Under 1251, evidence of a previous existing mental state, there has to be unavailability and it has to go to his state of mind and not a corporeal act or that he acted in accordance with that state of mind, and further under 1252 the evidence is admissible under the article that the statement was made under circumstances such to indicate its lack of trustworthiness.
THE COURT: I would not receive this even if he were unavailable to prove the truth of what is asserted there. I consider it to be hearsay, as I have indicated before. And I think that there is nothing to indicate anything that relates to its trustworthiness. And there is no opportunity to cross-examine.
So I would not receive it for that purpose, but I’ll receive it under 1250 of the Evidence Code which doesn’t require unavailability insofar as the third paragraph is concerned in which he requests that it be returned. It is received for that limited purpose.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
The next item — I just want to go through at this point and clean up moving whatever into evidence. And I am just going through as they are marked.
I think the next item is actually a defendant’s exhibit which we are all in agreement on which is the Omar Garrison PUBS DK agreement which was marked by the defendant as exhibit G. He would move that in.
THE COURT: Why don’t we stick with plaintiff’s exhibits first? Are they all in?
MR. LITT: No, Your Honor.
The next on the plaintiff’s exhibits, that we would move in are exhibits 17 through 21 which Mr. Peterson testified to yesterday.
THE COURT: Is there any objection to those letters and bills?
MR. FLYNN: No objection to the letters, Your Honor.
I object to the bills for the reasons stated yesterday.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection. They’ll be received with the same comments the court made yesterday relative to the objections.
MR. LITT: That takes care of all of the plaintiff’s exhibits that we are moving into evidence at this time.
Exhibits 15 and 16, we do not want to move into evidence at this time, Your Honor, because they are lists of the sealed documents. And unless they are going to be received as such under seal, we are just reluctant to move them into evidence.
The court knows our feelings about doing anything that makes these matters a public record.
THE COURT: Are those the ones that indicate which is private and confidential? If it wasn’t developed, how am I going to receive it?
MR. LITT: The court, at least, for the present, until the case begins and we see what has and hasn’t come out in the way of documents, the court can agree to receive that at this time under seal.
THE COURT: This is just an inventory with comments personal and private; isn’t it?
MR. LITT: That is all it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Or a statement that is to be filed with the court anyway as a list of exhibits?
MR. LITT: Yes.
THE COURT: I see no reason to put that under seal.
MR. HARRIS: So long as it is not considered any sort
of waiver in respect to the actual documents which underlie the index, Your Honor; no problem. We’ll move it in.
THE COURT: I have no feeling that it would constitute any kind of waiver. Your position is very clear. I understand your position.
MR. HARRIS: We’ll move them into evidence.
THE COURT: 15 and 16 are received.
MR. LITT: Exhibit G, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: I have no objection, Your Honor, as long as the two attachments are also marked which are exhibit I.
THE COURT: They may be attached by stipulation.
I don’t think there is any evidence.
MR. HARRIS: There was one which there was testimony about which was –
MR. LITT: I have the original agreement here, Your Honor, if I can find it. And we can –
Mr. Flynn, what are you referring to as the attachment?
MR. FLYNN: The letter of L. Ron Hubbard with the initials OVG in the lower right-hand corner dated March 16, 1977.
MR. LITT: Oh, yes. It is a part of it. That is fine.
MR. HARRIS: We have no objection.
THE COURT: We have the G and I.
MR. FLYNN: I have no objection to it being merged into one exhibit.
THE COURT: All right. Then I’ll receive G and I with
the understanding that I was included within exhibit G.
Are those the only exhibits you want to offer of the defense?
MR. LITT: At this time, yes, Your Honor.
Your Honor, may I make one other inquiry before we begin, which is that the process of absorbing the defendant’s marked exhibits has still been a difficult process for us because each day at the end of the day the defendant marked more exhibits and including the last day after we had had the last access to the documents. I wonder if the court would permit Mr. Long, who is here, who has been acting — he is a church staff member from the legal bureau of the church and has been acting as a factual research assistant. I wonder if the court would permit that he sit in the jury box with the defendant’s exhibits just so he can review them and make some notes on them for our purposes?
THE COURT: Which defense exhibits?
MR. LITT: The sealed exhibits.
Our problem is that some of them, we are not even sure still what the notations even refer to or what the contents of some of them are.
THE COURT: You mean while we are conducting the trial?
MR. LITT: I know there is some concern about the security of the documents. So I am just trying to think of any means that would allow him, since they are here now, to be able to review them while the trial is proceeding in some form.
If the jury box isn’t a good suggestion, I am
open to whatever makes the most sense.
THE COURT: Maybe Nick can sit with him Do you want to sit with him and watch what he is doing?
THE COURT ATTENDANT: I suppose so.
THE COURT: Maybe it would be better over here where there are no other people around.
Why don’t you tell him which ones you want and the clerk will –
MR. LITT: Mr. Long will bring the list to the bailiff.
THE COURT: Are we going to proceed with the reading of Mr. Garrison’s depo?
MR. LITT: Yes, we are. Your Honor.
I have the original of the transcript with me.
The set that the court has received is the set that has the blue markings and the red markings. Because that is all I had.
THE COURT: Mr. Litt, you can read Mr. Litt’s questions and Mr. Harris can read Ms. Dragojevic’s questions and I can rule on the objections as we deal with them.
THE COURT: What about the — there are a couple of exhibits here. Are we going to use those exhibits in this proceeding?
MR. LITT: Well, one of the exhibits is the agreement.
THE COURT: Okay. That is G.
MR. LITT: We will refer to it by G. The exhibit that is marked exhibit 1 in this deposition transcript would be exhibit G in this case.
There is a second exhibit which is a statement of the agreement, settlement agreement between Mr. Garrison and New Era Publications which has not yet been marked as an exhibit and that when we come to it we will mark as plaintiff’s next in order.
THE COURT: Very well.
” OMAR GARRISON, having been called as a witness on behalf of the Intervenor, was duly sworn, examined, and testified as follows:”
Beginning with page 5.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I think we can skip the medical questions. We can go to page 6, line 18.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: I take it then I am going to follow after.
Wherever Mr. Litt stops, I am going to join in?
THE COURT: Where Mrs. Dragojevic asks the question.
MR. FLYNN: And Mr. Harris is going to be kind enough to ask me the questions?
MR. HARRIS: I didn’t know I was volunteering for that,
THE COURT: Well, if you start having problems, let us know.
MR. HARRIS: Okay.
MR. LITT: (Reading:)
“Q Let me begin by asking: Mr.Garrison, what is your occupation?
“A I’m a professional author.
“Q And where do you reside?
“A I reside at 1099 West Cedar Knolls South, Cedar City, Utah.
“Q Can you describe just very briefly the books that you have published, specifically books that relate to the subject of Scientology.
You don’t have to go through everything.
“A No. I have 14 books in print; it would be very rather difficult.
“With respect to Scientology, the first book I did was one called The Hidden Story of Scientology. Do you want to know basically what it’s about?
“Q Just the title is all right.
“A The next one which dealt with Scientology, at least peripherally, was one called The Secret World of Interpol; and there was a third one, the last one, which is entitled Playing Dirty and has a subtitle The Secret War Against Beliefs.
“Q Some time in the year 1980, did you enter into a contract to write a biography on the subject of L. Ron Hubbard?
“A I did.
“Q Showing you Exhibit” — what is now Exhibit G — “can you examine that document and tell me if that is a copy of the contract which you entered into to write that biography?
“A As each page with the exception of one page, namely page 8, bears my initials, I assume that it’s the same document.
“Q With whom did you enter into that agreement?
“A I’m not quite sure with whom I was entering the agreement at all. The name on the contract was an entity known as, I believe, Publications DK.
“Q ‘DK’ referring to Denmark?
“Q And this biography, was there an arrangement with respect to it that would involve cooperation by the Church of Scientology and by L. Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard with respect to the biography?
“A Yes, indeed, very much so. I was to be provided with all — I believe the contract itself spells it out — all necessary materials to do a full and complete biography.
“Q Was it an authorized biography?
“A I’m not competent legally to say what an authorized biography is. If you mean was it my understanding that L. Ron Hubbard approved it, yes, indeed. I have a memo to that effect signed — initialed by Mr. Hubbard.
“Q Now, in drafting the biography, were you to be provided materials by the Church of Scientology of California to assist you and provide you background information in writing the biography?
“A No. At no time was it specified where the material would come from except from Mr. Gerry Armstrong who was appointed as my research assistant. Now this occurred when I first met Mr. Armstrong in England in East Grinstead, Sussex. He was introduced to me as the archivist who had charge of biographical materials and would have more, I believe; and it was my understanding that a general memo had been circulated to other parts of the Church of Scientology saying that this biography was being done, and if they had any pertinent material, they were to send it to Mr. Armstrong.
“So as to the source of the material, I honestly cannot say where it came from or who had it. It was first introduced to me by Mr. Armstrong.
“Q When did you first meet Mr. Armstrong?
“A I can’t give you the exact date off the top of my head, but it is fairly well documented because I was in East Grinstead at the time, and it was a few months prior to signing of the contract.
“Q Was it essentially in the context of discussions about how the biography would proceed; is that right?
“A No. At that time –
“Q Negotiations –
“A At that time, remember, I had not signed — at that time I had not really agreed until knowing that they would conform to certain conditions I had. At that point I had not either signed under the contract or agreed to do it. I was very hesitant at that point.
“Q And the contract itself was signed, I believe, October 30, 1980; is that right?
“A Yes, approximately.
“Q Is that your recollection?
“A Yes; in Los Angeles.
“Q At that time was Mr. Armstrong working as an archivist or the archivist?
“A Yes. Well, it is my understanding he was.
“Q That was the information you received?
“A That was the information I had, yes.
“Q Both from Mr. Armstrong and other people?
“A Other people, responsible people in the church.
“Q Do you know where Mr. Armstrong had his office, his archives office?
“A Those that I saw — and, incidentally, I don’t have access to — but I saw them. They were in the Cedars of Lebanon building known as the Cedars Complex.
“Q That’s at the Church of Scientology facilities in Hollywood?
“A Well, it’s known as the Cedars Complex.
It’s their principal building here, I think.
“Q Now, once you signed the contract did Mr. Armstrong begin to provide you with materials to be used for it?
“A Yes. He provided me copies.
And it involved rather extensive copying of original documents. And the documents, as I understood it, were arriving as we went along from other places as well in addition to those he already had. So I have no personal knowledge of what the setup is with regard to what he had and what he received later. But he began to provide me with material from that point, from the point of signing up the contract.
“Q Now, in the past you indicated that you had written other subjects that generally were in the area of Scientology. Had you been provided materials in preparing those?
“A Copious materials, enormous amounts of material.
“Q And had it been your general practice to keep those materials confidential between you and the people who had provided them to you essentially?
“Q And was it your understanding that the same practice would apply to the materials provided for this –
“A Oh, yes.
“Q Let me follow out, if I can for a moment, how this contract would work. Was there a mechanism by which after you drafted a manuscript that it would be provided to certain people for their review?
“A I think you’ll find the document itself is the best answer to that. I think it really mentions names of people. I haven’t looked at the document recently because it’s null and void so far as I am concerned. And as you know now, it is legally as well; so I haven’t had occasion to refresh my memory as to who those persons were, but I believe they are named in the document.
“Q Well, specifically, and correct me if I am wrong –
“A David Gaiman was one. And he, of course, is now outside the pale; and I believe Mr. Hubbard was another. But I don’t recall the third person. There were three, were there not? In any event, it is in the document.
“Q And after this was subjected to review could proposed changes be suggested to you?
“A Well, again, my memory is that they could. But as you have the document before you,
I think you could refer to it and it could tell you.”
MR. LITT: I wasn’t going to read the next.
THE COURT: I think Mr. Flynn wants it all.
MR. LITT: I’ll read my questions because there was no objection by me to them.
“Q And was it your understanding that in the event for whatever reason that an agreement could not be reached as to the content of the document, there was a method by which the manuscript would not be published and you would be reimbursed? Was that also part of the contract?
“A Again, the contract is there before you. The contract in my opinion was obtained fraudulently and so for that reason I’ve not again reviewed it and refreshed my memory on it.”
MR. LITT: I move to strike that answer as non-responsive, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be stricken.
MR. LITT: (Reading):
“Q All I’m asking you here is not the financial arrangements of the contract or whatever, but was it your understanding when you entered into the contract that there was a mechanism by which –
“Q If an agreement at the present
time could not be reached, there could be an arrangement by which you could be reimbursed –
“Q — and the manuscript not actually be published?
“Q Thank you. Give me a description, and here I don’t want a detailed description, but a general description of the types of materials that Mr. Armstrong as the archivist made available to you in the course of your work on the biography.
“A To a biographer, anything whatsoever pertaining to the person about whom you are writing is grist for the mill. I want to sort of preface it with that.
“The material that Mr. Armstrong provided me ran the whole gamut from ordinary — let’s say, the baby book, the beginning of Mr. Hubbard’s career, his letters; there were legal documents; there were — everything, all the material that would go into a classic biography.
“Q Were they extensive?
“A Extremely so, yes.
“Q Can you give me any kind of estimate of the volume of them?
“A I’m still trying to determine that because I had such enormous reserves of documents
left from the last book that related to Mr. Hubbard as well that for the last three years I’ve been reviewing not only the material that Mr. Armstrong gave me, but all that went before. So it’s intermingled. And I can give you a rough estimate, for what it’s worth, as to worth — you want the number of pages or — ”
“Q However you find it easiest. I realize we can’t be precise but –
“A Well, there were in terms of binders — because much of this material was collected into individual binders. There were, I believe, some 300-and-some-odd which — the Scientologists have a way of computing documents, as dating from the time of those they took in Washington, as stacking them up on the side. If this is true, I might have a five-foot stack of documents.
“Q Were you provided materials by anyone other than Mr. Armstrong?
“A Oh, yes. Different people. I couldn’t tell you everybody, Sullivan; people even wrote me from Denmark.
“Q But the primary person was Mr. Armstrong?
“A Yes. He was my research assistant so it was his job.
“Q Do you know what his actual title was? Was it ‘Archivist’ to your knowledge?
“A This was my information; and research assistant.
“Q And was it your understanding that that was a church title of some kind?
“A I have no idea; their titles are very mysterious.
“Q Would you at times request from Mr. Armstrong certain types of materials?
“A Yes. Not frequently because he was always ahead of me. In other words, the documents that he had provided me I was still reviewing and going through and making notes from and cross-referencing. Always there was a backlog of material I hadn’t got to, and this was the case right up to the end. As you know, there were several documents I hadn’t even seen or gone through because I didn’t get to them.
“But on occasion when a question would arise, I would make a note of it and I thought he might have the answer to, and then he would say, yes, it may be in this or that document, and he’d go into the files and look for it.
“Q Were many of the materials from what you could determine personal records of Mr. or Mrs. Hubbard?
“A Very personal records.
“Q And would it be fair to say that upon completion of the project and in the event there was a request for the return of them, that it would have been both your practice and your understanding that they would be returned with the possible exception of materials that were directly used by you?
“A I think so. I have a reluctance to have other people’s personal matters in my files and — but I would have retained through publication
and beyond, at least beyond the statutory limits, any material related to what I had published simply out of a — simply as a protection against future suits.
“Q So, in other words, the materials that were given to you were materials provided to you for your use as opposed for your personal ownership; would that be a fair statement?
“A That’s an assumption. Curiously when we got to look at the contract — it never occurred to me because this has never been a problem before. But when my attorney — when you first brought up, I believe, the question of return of all the documents and then they issued this — this subpoena duces tecum to me over there, saying bring everything you ever owned about scientology, we got to thinking about it, and my attorney looked at the contract, and he said nowhere in there does it require me to return anything.
“Q I understand that the contract itself is silent on that point.
“A Yes. But if you mean is it my practice, would I have done it, yes.
“Q That had been the practice on your other –
“A Not always. They didn’t — as time — it was the practice with the first book,
and after that I think that the knowledge finally grew on them that I was a person who could be trusted, and they never requested the return of any other material. I have very sensitive materials relating to the other books, some of it very sensitive.
“Q Did you ever provide access to any of these materials to anyone who was not part of the church?
“A I did not, that is, not knowingly, not with my consent.
“Q What was your understanding, if you had, ones as to who owned the materials, copies of which were provided to you?
“A The question never arose.
“Q Let we ask it this way: I take it you were able to determine that there was a variety of materials, some of which could be categorized as personal papers of Mr. Hubbard and Mrs. Hubbard, some of which/were from the church files; is that right?
“A There was very little comparatively.
If you take the entire body of the material, I’d say that almost nothing was church — this is the material that I had and was provided me where, if you wanted to characterize them, you would say they are the private papers of L. Ron Hubbard.
“Q To you knowledge, had these papers
or were these papers made available to anyone from outside the church other than you?
“A Would you repeat that, I didn’t quite follow.
“Q To your knowledge, had these papers ever been made available to anyone from outside of the church other than yourself?
“A Not in the sense of my having seen them pass from one hand to another. It’s just a general loose understanding, an assumption that they would have been used, certain ones, in another, in another context. But as for my personal knowledge of it, no, I can’t say that I ever knew.
“Q Explain to me how Mr. Armstrong would work with you as your research assistant on the biography. Explain the working relationship between the two of you.
“A Generally speaking, Mr. Armstrong was an extremely efficient researcher in that he — we had a vast body of material that was just miscellaneous that he had apparently brought in or sent in or acquired or wherever it came from. And he was able to take this and, it seemed to me, in a very short time and intelligently sorted out and put it into binders in such a way that it would save me hours and hours and hours of work trying to relate one thing to another.
“So that if in one binder there was within a certain time period there were certain developments, and over here in another time period there were developments way down the road that related to these, I didn’t have to wait until I got down there, but there would be a cross reference or the documents itself in there. So in that sense I was extremely grateful, and I still am extremely grateful for the work he did.
“So to answer it in a general way, he was a very able researcher, and he knew — he had the ability, which is important, to keep everything in his head as well. So that if I asked — there were thousands of details, minute details; and if I said, ‘Well, somewhere I recall — I didn’t make a note of it at the time, but I recall that there was a reference to an incident that occurred in 1932 in Puerto Rico,’ he would say, ‘Yes, it’s in this or that binder.’ And I’d know right where — so from that point of view it was extraordinary really.
“Q So essentially it sounds like from what you are saying that he played two interrelated roles. One is he gathered materials and provided to you what he thought would be relevant to the biography and, secondly, he was a resource on whom you could draw if you had a question about those materials?
“Q Now, I have a list. And I just want to go over it real briefly. This is a list of, at least, some of the types of documents that Mr. Armstrong has previously indicated were among the materials provided to you.
“There were letters between Mr. Hubbard and his various wives?
“Q Documents from Mr. Hubbard’s Naval career?
“Q Correspondence with various agents and publishers between Mr. Hubbard and others?
“Q Correspondence or other files relating to friends of Mr. Hubbard’s or acquaintances?
“A Relating — I don’t –
“Q In other words, letters or whatever between personal acquaintances –
“Q — and Mr. Hubbard?
“A Yes, ‘writer friends,’ I think was the title.
“Q Files of various written materials by Mr. Hubbard, original written materials, manuscripts?
“A Well, they weren’t originals in the sense — with one or two exceptions, they were copies of originals, yes.
“Q Awards that Mr. Hubbard had received in the course of his life?
“A Possibly, yes, I believe there were one or two.
“Q Correspondence between Mr. Hubbard and other family members aside from his wives?
“Q Childhood information such as Boy Scouts, a variety of sort of miscellaneous — ‘memorabilia’ would be the best word?
“A Yes, memorabilia concerning his Boy Scout period, yes.
“Q Diaries and journals?
“Q Can you think of any other general categories that I haven’t included?
“A Yes — well, no. Mostly — you see, you’ve given a more-or-less broad — some of those categories are broadly descriptive. I think you can subsume mose of the materials under those you’ve given.
“Q Now, at some point you became aware that Mr. Armstrong had left the church and was no longer the church archivist; is that correct?
“Q Would that be in — sometime around Christmas of 1981 that you –
“A I believe so.
“Q — learned this?
“A In that general time period, yes.
It was after Christmas, just following Christmas, I think.
“Q Mr. Armstrong called you and advised you that he had left the church?
“Q Now, for the period, say, the two or three months immediately prior to that — I am referring now to that being the time Mr. Armstrong left the church –
“Q — had you received any large
body of materials for your biography from Mr. Armstrong?
“A My recollection is that I did. I’m not quite certain as to how much, but it seems to me, if I recall correctly, at that period — well, again, this came to me all the way along the line and more or less in bunches. I’d receive a number of binders at the same time. But generally speaking, I believe that there was some — I would say a little more toward the end than there had been in the immediate preceding months.
“Q I know it’s a while ago so I recognize it’s hard. But when you say ‘a little more,’ would it be like –
“A Well, I honestly don’t remember.
I really don’t. These things — I remember I thought we were at the end of everything, staring the first two months afterward. You must realize that I had no idea that all this material existed and I don’t think anyone else did. I don’t think Mr. Armstrong did. I think it just proliferated.
“Q Let me ask you the question this way: In the months of November of December, were you given several thousand additional pages?
“A No. I don’t believe so. I don’t
recall that many.
“Q So to the best of your recollection it may be a few hundred, something like that?
“A I would characterize it by number because I honestly don’t remember. And, you see, this had been an ongoing project over three years and it’s — I honestly don’t remember any given time how much I received at one time.
“Q Now, as I understand it Mr. Armstrong agreed to continue to help you out for a while in your biography?
“A Yes. He did at my request.
“Q And was the assistance that he gave you in the form of continuing to be a resource to help to answer questions or –
“A It was chiefly –
“Q Or help locate things –
“A That was it. It was to help locate things and materials. That was it, to help me locate things. Because as I said, he had a very astonishing recall and memory of where things were and it saved me hours and hours because I could say ‘Well, where is this?’ And also he was able to readjust some of this material so it would bring it in alignment and I wouldn’t overlook something
which perhaps was down the way and I wouldn’t even know about it so I couldn’t ask him about it because I didn’t have knowledge of it. So the re-arrangement as well.
“Q And after he had left the church did he do any writing or provide any new biographical material other than what he had already given you?
“A Not to my knowledge. There were — there were things that were not sorted out, as you know and so, what was there, what he had knowledge of, it is unknown to me.
“Q So essentially, as I understand it, the form of his assistance would be that he was available for you at any time to call him and ask him questions about the materials?
“A Well, he continued to work very closely with me on it.
“Q When Mr. Armstrong left the church he did not have a job; is that right?
“A I don’t know that.
“Q Well, let me ask it this way:
You helped him to get a job –
“Q — at some point –
“Q Do you remember when that was, approximately?
“A Well, you could tell when his employment began with Feldsott & Lee, the law firm for whom he has been employed in the last year and a half or whatever it is.
“Q To the best of your recollection, that was around the spring of 1982?
“A Gee, I don’t recall precisely, but somewhere in that time period, yes.
“Q Now, as I understand it, after Mr. Armstrong began working at the law firm — whose name you mentioned, but nonetheless evades me at the moment — his relationship to working on the biography diminished?
“A Oh, considerably, yes, almost entirely. I mean — well, he was very good about this because he was never — he was never reimbursed for any of his services after he left the church. But he was very good about it because I was constantly ringing him up and right up to the time that I left off writing the book and asked him where certain things were.
“Q So let me see if I understand it correctly. Basically, after he went to work for the law firm, you might call him on occasion –
“Q — to ask him one question –
“A That’s right.
“Q — or another?
“A Because we didn’t see each other that often. He was here and I was in Utah.
“Q Now, as some point did Mr. Armstrong come to you and say that he would like to obtain from you some of the materials from the — ‘biography project’ I’ll call it that — that you had?
“A Yes. Perhaps we ought to, at least I would like to preface that by saying that during the period we are discussing — and this has been, I think, laid out in an affidavit by Mr. Armstrong. So I won’t repeat all of it — but in a general way he was — considered his life in danger.”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I move to strike that as nonresponsive. I moved it in the transcript.
THE COURT: Well, let’s see. All right. I’ll strike the answer as nonresponsive.
“Q My only question here is at some point did Mr. Armstrong come to you and ask you if he could get some materials from you that you had from the biography project?
“A In a general way, yes. I’m not — in other words, I don’t at the moment recall a specific instance, but obviously, he did, yes.
“Q Did that occur on more than one occasion, or on one occasion as best you recall? Was there a particular time? Without necessarily being able to identify the date, was there a particular request?
“A That was what I was trying to explain, that it wasn’t a series of specific requests. There was a general understanding that grew of what was happening to him which laid the foundation for his having access to the documents, which, in fact, I had received from him anyway. It wasn’t betraying any confidentiality because I got the documents from him. He knew everything that was in them.
“Q I understand. But he came to you at some point and asked you if he could make copies of some documents; is that right –
“Q — as opposed to his having access?
“Q And he told you that he needed these documents for his legal case –
“A For his — yes, for his defense.
“Q Referring to that request when he came to you and said that there were materials he would like to copy for his case, do you recall the nature of the materials that he requested?
“A No, I don’t recall.
“Q Were they materials that generally were to relate to the subject of L. Ron Hubbard’s connection to or control over the Church of Scientology?
“A That was my understanding, but as to whether that was the fact or not, I couldn’t answer that, no.
“Q It was your understanding from Mr. Armstrong –
“A That was the purpose. You are inquiring as to the purpose. That was represented to me as I understood it, yes. Yes.
“Q And then Mr. Armstrong, in fact got some documents and then reviewed them with you, is that right, as to what he was taking?
“A No, he didn’t review them with me at all. He said — there are several occasions.
We’re speaking of this as — again, you are trying to put it into a single incident when in fact what you are referring to was an occasion in which Mr. Armstrong took some documents for his use in his case and left me a list of the documents he took so that I would know what he
had. But I did not review those and I do not know what they were.
“Q Do you recall how much material he took on that occasion, approximately?
“A It’s simply an estimate on my part, but I would guess about 12 binders.
“Q Would that fill — just to try to get a physical estimate of it. If you can’t answer it after I ask it, just tell me. Would that be, say, one carton full?
“A Oh, no. You must understand that all the binders were not uniform in size. Some were extremely thin; and some of those that he would have been interested in for the preparation of a legal case were in fact documents that would be single documents in a binder and therefore quite thin.
“Q So to your understanding it would be less than a carton?
“A Oh, yes, I think so. On this — remember we’re speaking of a specific occasion, now. There were other occasions.
“Q Now, on the other occasions — and again I recognize you can’t remember all of the details. On the other occasions, was it also your understanding that these documents were being taken for use in his case?
“Q And if you have any idea or as best you can, can you give me an estimate of the total bulk of documents that he would have taken from you. Would they have all together filled one carton, say?
“A I have no idea. quite honestly, because I don’t know. It’s the same thing I’ve said repeatedly about –
“Q Let me explain one thing. I am not asking for what was actually taken because I realize you weren’t there when Mr. Armstrong took them. But as far as you understood of what was being taken, I’m trying to get some ideas of the amount of materials that we’re dealing with.
“Q Frankly, I don’t know. Frankly, I really don’t know. This was, again, over a period of time, and it’s very difficult to — to — I want to be accurate because there’s no point in my just estimating it, and I really don’t know how much material Mr. Armstrong concluded he needed or wanted for his — for his case.
“Q The occasion that you described a moment ago where you said he left you a list of what he took. Was that around the time of the Clearwater City Commission hearings?
“A No, it was afterwards. I believe.
I wouldn’t want to be held to it, but I am — my
impression is it was considerably some time afterward, but I’m not sure.
“Q In terms of the types of materials which you would give permission to take, were you agreeing to taking what you considered to be private or confidential papers of Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard?
“A They were characterized to me as mostly legal documents that were necessary because I was constantly like a broken record telling Mr. Armstrong that under no circumstances was he to take, to disseminate or let out of my ken biographical information. My — I was constantly reminding him we’d have to limit the material to what he needed for legal purposes; and what that was I had no way of knowing because I wasn’t his attorney and I didn’t — I wasn’t in charge of his case. I didn’t know what kind of case they were working out. I never consulted with them. But there was always the caution that I didn’t want any biographical materials to be disseminated.
“Q So if I understand the situation correctly, and please tell me if I’m wrong, Mr. Armstrong came to you and said he needed materials for his case, and you made a distinction between legal documents and documents that related to your work on the biography or that would
be more personal documents that would only be usable for the biography project as such, and then left the judgment as to what fell into those categories up to Mr. Armstrong?
“A Yes, that is correct.
“Q I am going to attempt — and I’m not sure I’m going to succeed — in seeing if I can go through some different types of materials with you and see if these are materials that you know Mr. Armstrong has taken from you or were within the category of the types of materials that he had taken from you.
Letters of Mrs. Hubbard to Mr. Hubbard. Do you know whether Mr. Armstrong took any such materials from you?
“A Of my certain knowledge, no. No.
“Q He did not take any such?
“A No, I did not say that. I said of my certain personal knowledge, I don’t know.
“Q When you had the discussion with Mr. Armstrong about his taking materials from you, was it your understanding that he would be taking such letters?
“A Well, it was well understood, as I believe I told you in our initial conversation, that I had no intention of using Mrs. Hubbard’s letters at all and in fact did not.
“Q I understand that. From the conversation between you and Mr. Armstrong about the materials he said that he would be getting from what you had, was it your understanding that that would include letters
of Mrs. Hubbard?
“A No. Letters of Mrs. Hubbard were never discussed by us at all. I don’t recall in any context discussing Mrs. Hubbard’s letters with Mr. Armstrong other than the reference that they were there in the material.
“Q How about tax documents?
“A There was one folder — again, I’d like to be precise, but I’m not certain on that point. I think — there certainly was no discussion, and I may have provided him one called ‘Tax Matters.’ I’m not sure about that. There was one, I recall, one folder that had that label.
“Q Let me go back for a moment before I continue on this tack.
“Do you recall approximately when the request came to you from Mr. Armstrong for documents? I mean was it right after he left the church or somewhat later?
“A No, no. It was somewhat later.
It was specifically — without pinpointing it in time, I can give it to you relatively. It was, say, when he felt the necessity he said of retaining counsel, and he had in fact, did retain counsel, and at that point he needed, he said he needed documents to support his case.
“Q Now, was that counsel, do you
know, Michael Flynn?
“A I — to the best of my belief, it was, but I’m not sure because Mr. Armstrong didn’t confide in me chiefly because at that point — I mean with respect to his counsel –chiefly because I think he felt I was opposed to anything that Mr. Flynn might do with any information he would get. I felt he was in close contact with other writers, some of whom I felt some doubt about; and I didn’t want them to obtain any material that I had for my biography because, obviously, they’d use it. And so I didn’t — I rather frowned on the idea at that time of Mr. Armstrong having a relation with Mr. Flynn at all; and he felt this reluctance on my part, and he didn’t discuss any of the — any of the details of his association with Mr. Flynn.
“Q Did you communicate to Mr. Armstrong your hesitancy to have materials that you felt were important to the biography that you were writing provided to Mr. Flynn because there was a danger that they in turn could be passed on to other writers?
“Q Now, I’m going to ask you just about what’s really a completely unsystematic list of materials just to try to get a sense of
certain things and see if can jog your memory or not. This relates to what to your understanding was provided to Mr. Armstrong by you.
“For example, do you have any recollection of whether there were any newspaper clippings from the late 1950s that Mr. Armstrong took from you?
“A Gee, I don’t recall any at all.
I’m not sure. Could you be more specific? What kind of newspaper clippings?
“Q All I know about them is that there were some newspaper clippings from the years 1957 to 1961 that had comments by Mr. Hubbard, apparently.
“A I recall only one, which had to do with horticulture — and the reason I recall it is that I just found it, and I’ve just returned it this morning — and I found it in my files. It was from an English newspaper, and it had to do with Mr. Hubbard’s work with plants in England. Apart from that the only other one I recall, I think, was some account of the ship APOLLO, it’s latter history.
“Q Did you have any understanding that such newspaper clippings were to be provided to Mr. Armstrong as part of the materials that you were giving him?
“A Well, of course, I had no idea
what was going to be provided Mr. Armstrong. It just — you know, it just came over the transom, and I grabbed it.
“Q No, no, no. You are back in a different time period than I am.
“A I see. Maybe I don’t understand you.
“Q I’m referring now to — not the period that Mr. Armstrong was gathering up materials to give you but the period when he came to you and said that he needed certain materials. And what I’m trying to get an understanding of in general in these questions is the types of materials that you understood that he would be taking from what you had, and one example would be — for instance, would it have been your understanding that part of what he was getting from you would have been some newspaper clippings?
“A No, absolutely not. I wasn’t aware of any newspaper clippings at all.
“Q How about earlier incomplete biographical sketches of Mr. Hubbard? Same question.
“A I’m not quite sure I understand the identity of the document you are talking about. Is this — the church has provided all sorts of biographical sketches of Mr. Hubbard.
“Q Apparently this is an early, incomplete biographical sketch.
“A Well, there are so many I really couldn’t say because I have seen various ones dating back to –
“Q How about letters between Mr. Hubbard and A. E. Van Vogt? Would it be your understanding that Mr. Armstrong would have been getting such letters from you?
“A Specifically, I don’t recall, but I rather think, yes.
“Q How about letters between Mr. Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. — then L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., now Ronald De Wolfe — from the late ’50s?
“A No, not to my recollection or knowledge.
“Q How about letters between Mr. Hubbard and his son?
“A I don’t recall specifically what, but it’s quite possible.
“Q That you would have given such materials to Mr. Armstrong?
“A If — if they appeared relevant to his announced purpose, yes.
“Q How about premarital agreements between Mr. Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard?
“A Well, I saw those but I don’t know whether Mr. Armstrong — whether — he didn’t ask specifically for them.
“Q Would it have been your understanding that that was the type of material you told him he could take?
“A Well, again, if it appeared that that — at the moment I don’t see any relation, but anyway, it didn’t come up between us.
Q Personal letters between L. Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard?
“A Mr. Armstrong didn’t specifically ask for any of those, didn’t ask me for any of those.
“Q If he had asked you for that, would you have given it to him?
“A Well, that’s an assumption which, if it were not assumed it would depend on what
the circumstances were. You see, I don’t — quite frankly, I haven’t read all those letters. And I don’t know what’s in them as I wasn’t going to use them and Mrs. Hubbard is quite prolix in everything she wrote, going on and on about minor details about the children and so on. I didn’t see any good reason if I am not going to use them to read through all that. There are page after page of these letters.
“Q How about letters between Mr. Hubbard and Volney Mathison?
“A I don’t believe I’ve ever seen one.
“Q You don’t believe you have ever seen any letters between Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Volney Mathison?
“A Let me put it this way: I don’t recall having seen any letters between them. It doesn’t mean they they didn’t exist or I didn’t have them right under my hands, but I don’t recall them.
“Q How about correspondence between Mr. Hubbard and the British Home Office, mid-’60s?
“A I don’t recall specifically any such letter.
“Q How about Mr. Hubbard’s Naval
“Q It was your understanding that Mr. Armstrong was taking those?
“A Yes, yes — well, not all of them. They’re quite extensive. Just selected ones, I believe.
“Q According to my notes — these notes, for your reference, are notes taken by going through the documents that are under seal. These are several hundred pages in the court of such Naval records.
“A Well, all that I saw or had, I returned. So whatever was in that. But I remember there were a number of binders and also one binder called — maybe two binders called ‘Board of Investigation’ which actually related to his Naval experience.
“Q Well, my question here is — you did, I know you had such binders. My question here goes to your understanding of the nature of the materials Mr. Armstrong was taking from you.
“Was it your understanding that part of what he needed for his legal case were Mr. Hubbard’s Naval records?
“A I’m not quite sure. But I believe I would have — I don’t — let me
answer your question first of all specifically. I don’t recall any such discussion or understanding, but had it arisen, I would have weighed it in the limited context of my knowledge of what his case was — and I still don’t know what it is — and if it had appeared to me that it would have been helpful to him, I would have been certainly agreeable to his using it.
“Q Well, let me ask you a question:
You described your understanding of the type of materials that Mr. Armstrong wanted which basically had to do with the relationship between Mr. Hubbard and the church.
“A Yes, especially with respect to control and so on.
“Q You were not prepared to give Mr. Armstrong, if I understand correctly, personal material that had to do with Mr. Hubbard’s personal life which might, say, contradict other statements that had been made by the church? These were not the type of materials that you were providing to Mr. Armstrong; is that right?
“A If I felt if they were not? That is a hypothetical question you are asking me because specifically, it didn’t arise. But you are asking now for a –
“Q Well, actually, I am not asking a hypothetical question. I am asking for your understanding. In other words, in terms of what you thought you were giving and what your understanding of what was being requested of you was, it was not that you were being requested for materials from Mr. Hubbard’s personal life that might contradict other statements about his personal life that had been made in another –
“A Actually not, but I would have provided those as well as –
“Q No, no, no. That’s not my question. My question is not what you would have done. My question is did you understand that you had agreed or did you agree to actually provide such materials?
“A I’m still somewhat in the dark as to what the question is.
“Q Okay. I’ll try again.
“Did you tell Mr. Armstrong that it was all right for him to take whatever materials he wanted related to facts from Mr. Hubbard’s personal life that contradicted statements that the church had made about Mr. Hubbard’s life?
“A In a general way, yes; but specifically, no. In other words, as I said
before, whatever, not knowing what his case was or what they were working up, I said anything that was necessary for his case, he could have; but I constantly added the proviso that it be strictly limited to the legal case and to protecting me and my material as a biographer. And that was the only limitation that I set. That’s the only one.”
THE COURT: We’ll take a 15-minute break.
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, with your permission, may I designate a switch hitter, Mr. Peterson?
THE COURT: Let the record show that counsel is present.
Yes; you may continue on page 39, line 12.
“Q Can you estimate the total bulk of material that you had if you just gathered it altogether?
“A Well, whatever I had, I returned, I think.
“Q I know.
“A There are some exceptions, perhaps, that I’m still looking for.
“Q I understand. But can you estimate for me how much material that was?
“A No better than you can. You’ve
“Q I didn’t see it, actually.
“A Well, maybe that’s it. There were — in terms of binders there were 300-some-odd binders and then all the folders and the tapes and loose documents and — it’s still coconuts are still falling, as you see.
“Q How about letters between Mr. Hubbard and his first wife or his second wife? Did you understand that Mr. Armstrong needed those materials for his case?
“A Did you say his first wife or his second wife, or from both?
“A I had no understanding with respect to that at all.
“Q How about letters between Mr. Hubbard and his mother?
“A No. I was not aware of –
“Q How about Mr. Hubbard’s diary from the early 1940s, his journal?
“Q How about a copy of the book Excalibur?
“A Yes — well, I think, again, with certain limitations, that it was not to be disseminated and so on.
“Q Now about a copy of Mr. Hubbard’s — not really a copy but materials related to the Alaska expedition?
“A I don’t recall those one way or the other.
“Q How about materials related to the death of Quentin Hubbard?
“A Those materials were provided to me not by Mr. Armstrong but by Vaughn Young.
“Q My question is, did you understand that those were –
“A I didn’t have any discussion relative to those with Mr. Armstrong. I could have because we talked about everything.
“Q How about materials related to the divorce proceedings between L. Ron Hubbard and Sarah Northrup Hubbard?
“Q You felt that that was connected to the question of Mr. Hubbard’s control over the church?
“A Yes, partly, yes. They were spelled out in there, I believe, some of the statements made that would definitely go to that.
“Q How about various materials that are dispatches of Mrs. Hubbard?
“A I’ve got loads of them, but not in this context; they’re from previous books. I don’t offhand recall any dispatches from Mrs. Hubbard other than her letters, correspondence, memos to help me, and so on.
“Q You had several binders, I believe, didn’t you, that were specifically on correspondence between Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard? By which I mean Mary Sue Hubbard.
“A I have a great number of them; as I said, hundreds of pages.
“Q Did you understand that Mr. Armstrong was taking those from you?
“A I don’t — I’m not sure. At the moment I don’t recall our discussing it or my saying, ‘Take these.’ I think it was — you see, you are assuming that I looked at every document he took.
“Q No, I’m just asking, I am not making any –
“A That would assume that I examined every document that he took. No, in this instance I did not specifically say, ‘Take these documents.’
“Q You like Mr. Armstrong, don’t you?
“A Very much.
“Q You consider him a close personal friend?
“Q And on many occasions you’ve gone out of your way to help him out as best you could?
“A Yes, I have.
“Q How about poems of Mr. Hubbard?
Did you understand that Mr. Armstrong would be taking materials of that nature?
“A Did you say ‘poems’?
“A No, I can’t — although much of Mr. Hubbard’s prose could fall in that category.
No, I don’t specifically.”
Going down to line 27:
“Q All right. We’re continuing the deposition,” — actually just going to the next page –
“Let me spend a few more minutes on the materials that you had. First, I may have asked you and so tell me — I sometimes lose “The materials that were given to you by Mr. Armstrong — I am referring now to when he was archivist — were for your use only; is that correct?
“A Well, it was never spelled out what it was for, but my assumption was that it was for the purpose of the biography.
“Q Well, you would not have felt free, would you, to disseminate/to third persons?
“A Well, I would not have done under any circumstances.
“Q And would it be fair to say that based on your experience — you indicated that you had written three previous books that related to the subject of Scientology — that the materials that were provided to you an arrangement that you had were based upon a good working and amicable working relationship between you and the church?
“A Yes, it was.
“Q Going to the time when after Mr. Armstrong had left, you’ve described the discussions or some of the discussions, at least, that you had with him concerning his obtaining certain information. Was it your understanding that the sole purpose for which he was getting these materials from you was for use in his case as you have described?
“Q It was not for use in working on the biography that you were working on?
“A You mean a biography separate from the one I was working on?
“Q No, no. When the materials that he obtained from you, copies of which he obtained
from you, he didn’t get those as part of assisting you on the biography; right? This was a separate –
“A This is partly true. At times, remember, he was still assisting me after he left the church. And at times he did have documents that were related to the biography that he was helping me with. So –
“Q But I’m referring now to when he requested of you to make copies –
“A No, no. it had no relation to that, no.
“Q As he would take materials from you, would you discuss with him what he was taking, or did he have free access to the material?
“A He had free access to the material because he was still assisting me.
“Q Where were the materials?
“A Well, at different times they were different places. At first after he left the church — as you know I maintained a — I had a flat in Costa Mesa and the materials were all there.
“After the — after the difficulties began between him and the church, in other words, when they started harassing him, and he felt that he had to counsel, I’m not quite sure whether — yeah, I’m sure that I still had
them in the flat in Costa Mesa, and he was still assisting me, so he had access, but with my permission to the materials.
“Q Most of the materials were there at your flat in Costa Mesa?
“A They were up to the time that the difficulty began where they started having — approaching him in the parking lots and that sort of thing. And then I felt that security was involved and that they might — as a matter of fact, Jane Kember, the former head — the former Guardian had a key to my flat. So there was a matter of security at that point that entered into it.”
Your Honor, I am going to move to strike the part of that response that says “approaching him in parking lots and that sort of thing” as being based on hearsay which is not an objection that has to be made at the deposition.
THE COURT: Well, I assume he’d say he was told that by Mr. Armstrong. It will be limited to that purpose, keep the context of what we are talking about.
MR. LITT: (Reading):
“Q So, were the documents moved from Costa Mesa?
“A Yes, they were moved from Costa Mesa.
“Q Where were they moved to?
“A Part of them were moved to Utah, and part of them I moved too, to the home of a
friend of mine, Bill Crago.
“Q Do you remember approximately when this move occurred?
“A I can only — in relation to — I can’t give you an exact date, but it was — it would be approximately at the time that the litigation between the church and Mr. Armstrong began.
“Q Which was some months at least after Mr. Armstrong –
“A Yes, yes.
“Q — had left the church?
“Q So for maybe six months or so –
A I would guess approximately May of 1982.
“Q So for the six months from December ‘81 until May of ‘82 they were in a flat in Costa Mesa?
“A Not the entire time. Part of the time Mr. Armstrong — I paid rent on an office for him to answer the telephone for a corporation, Ralston-Pilot. And during that time the documents were moved from time to time because for security reasons.
“I was about to explain to you that Jane Kember, who was formerly head of the Guardian’s office had a key to my flat and I didn’t want them, the Church of Scientology or its representatives, to come in and simply take all my documents.”
MR. LITT: I’ll move to strike that as nonresponsive, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Oh, I’ll leave it in.
“Q Let me explain –
“A That’s why they were moved.
“Q That’s fine. That’s not my question.
“A What is your question?
“Q My question is, simply, am I correct in saying that the materials were in your Costa Mesa flat from approximately December ‘81 or earlier — but I am referring now to the period of time that Mr. Armstrong had left — from approximately December ‘81 to about May of ‘82?
“A No. Part of them during that — I’m not quite sure. But part of them during that time could have been moved to –
“Q As of Mr. Crago or to Utah?
“A No. Or to the Ralston office.
“Q Okay. And approximately May of ‘82, whenever –
“A I closed the flat and –
“Q And you at that time moved all of the materials either to Mr. Crago’s home or to your home in Utah?
“Q What proportion of the materials, as best you can say, would have been with Mr. Crago?
“A Well, the material that was in Mr. Crago were actually copies. The original binders that I had, I took all of them with me.
Now, the material that was with Mr. Crago was never the original binders that I had received from Mr. Armstrong. They were copies which were made as an insurance against the representatives of the Church of Scientology stealing the original binders.”
MR. LITT: Motion to strike that, Your Honor, that last sentence.
THE COURT: I’ll leave in “they were copies which were made as an insurance.” The rest of it will go out.
“Q I’m not asking you why. I’m just trying to get what was where. I’m not asking you for your reasons.
“A All right.
“Q Okay. Your reasons, I’m not concerned with. I’m just trying to get at the physical location.
“A I understand why you are not, but okay.
“Q So you had a duplicate set of materials?
“A Not all of them.
“Q But a substantial –
“Q What Mr. Crago had was a substantial duplication –
“A Yes. Certain documents that we felt were –
“A Important — to my biography, not to anyone else. That I’d be left high and dry if I didn’t have these to support the biography.
“Q So Mr. Crago’s materials were materials that you felt were particularly important for the biography?
“Q Now, were there materials of Mr. Armstrong’s that were also stored at Mr. Crago’s?
“A I have no idea what Mr. Armstrong stored at Mr. Crago’s other than I know what was there when I went to retrieve it. There was material which I had not stored and I assume this was some that Mr. Armstrong had stored there.
“Q When did you retrieve the materials that you had left with Mr. Crago?
“A I can date it only, again, by reference that it was a short time before Mr. Crago’s deposition was taken. By ’short time,’ I mean a matter of the previous two months, in that time period. I don’t know for certain. But if you know the date of his deposition, you know it was within the previous two months that I had taken the material.
“Q So roughly around the end of 1982, roughly?
A No. You took his deposition later than that. You took it much later. It hasn’t been too later.
“Q So you think it was sometime early in ‘83, this year?
“A I could be wrong, but I believe; that’s my impression.
“Q So far as you were aware were the materials that were left with Mr. Crago materials that Mr. Armstrong needed for his suit?
“A As I said, the materials left with Mr. Crago were partly those that I had stored there and partly those which Mr. Armstrong had taken later. So –
“Q I’m referring to the ones you had stored there.
“A Some of them were related to the case, yes, but not all. But I think most of them.
“Q You think most of them were?
“A I believe so.
“Q What proportion of the materials that you had did you understand were relevant to Mr. Armstrong’s case?
“A Not knowing Mr. Armstrong’s case,
I’m unable to say. I don’t know his case. I don’t know it to this day. So I can’t tell you what’s related to it. I don’t know what Mr. Armstrong’s claiming legally. I’ve never seen any of the legal documents. So I can’t tell you –
“Q Well, he came to you, you testified, and said, ‘I need some things for my case’?
“Q And you, being sympathetic with him, basically agreed to give him what he needed. At the same time you’ve indicated that you did not agree to give him everything –
“Q — is that correct? And you did not agree to give him materials that were important, in your judgment to the biography, especially that which could be used by other writers; correct?
“A Well, that’s not true in exactly the way you say it. I was willing for him to have any material that he needed with the proviso that it was not to be disseminated beyond the legal arena. That was my only restriction. I was protecting my own material.
“Q Now, my question you is, in terms of — I’m not asking for your knowledge of the
law as such. I’m asking for your state of mind. In terms of your understanding of the materials that you had, what percentage did you understand were potentially relevant to Mr. Armstrong’s case?
“A I had no idea. Again, I come back to how could I know? I knew — you see, my concern, as I am trying to get it across, is whatever was necessary in the preparation of a legal case to me was one thing. But to disseminated it beyond the legal arena to other writers or even to the media or to anyone else whatsoever, I was very much opposed to and reiterated this particular restriction over and over. It’s the only one I ever imposed. And it was a general one where the judgment had to be left to someone who knew the case. I didn’t know it.
“Q But you’ve told us that you believed that, in general, the types of materials that he needed were those that related to Mr. Hubbard’s connection with the church –
“A Yeah. But –
“Q — or control over the church?
“A Yes, true.
“Q Give your description of the type of material you understood that he was
interested in, what percentage of that material, in your opinion, would have fit into that category?
“A That’s a difficult question. You are asking for conclusions that presuppose a knowledge of their case and of what they were seeking to prove.
“Q I’m not asking about the case.
No, no, no. I’m asking about –
“A Well, how could I form such a judgment?
“Q Given the standard that you’ve explained to me — forget the case for a moment. Given the standard that you’ve explained of materials related to Mr. Hubbard’s connection to or control over, if you will, the church –
“Q — what percentage of the materials that you had approximately would be in that category?
“A Offhand, I couldn’t estimate. But it would be a considerable — it would be a major portion of the materials. If — if I were a clever attorney, it would be a considerable portion.
“Q Now, sometime in approximately May of 1982 you had a meeting with some — I’ll
use a general phrase — with some Scientologists in connection with re-negotiating your biography contract, which re-negotiation was unsuccessful; is that right?
“A I would say so.
“Q Now, after that point, as I understand it, you continued to work on a biography of Mr. Hubbard?
“A I did.
“Q At that point it was your view, if I understand it correctly, that you were no longer working pursuant to the contract which we’ve referred to earlier; is that correct?
“A That’s correct.
“Q And essentially, from approximately May of ‘82 on, you were writing a biography, not to submit under the terms of that contract, but to submit to a publisher for potential sale?
“A That’s correct.
“Q So that for approximately the last year, your work on the biography has not been to ultimately publish a biography to be published by –
“A Not an — let’s say not an approved biography.
“Q Not the one that was contemplated in the contract?
“A Not the one envisioned.
“Q And not to be published by the publisher that you had signed that agreement with?
MR. LITT: Can we have that marked as plaintiff’s next in order, Your Honor?
THE COURT: 22. All right.
This is what was exhibit 2 at the deposition, counsel?
MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, this brings up a very important matter. And that is that this is not the entire settlement agreement. And Mr. Litt has refused to give us the entire settlement agreement. He is appending merely a portion of it.
MR. LITT: It is not a portion of it.
THE COURT: I don’t know why we have to worry about it at this moment. The only reason for it is that this is to preserve and understand what was done at the deposition. Now, at some point in time if you want to make a motion with reference to something else, we’ll consider it in due course. But at this point we are trying to recreate the deposition that was conducted here. And this is, I assume, what was presented at that time.
MR. FLYNN: I’d just like to have the entire settlement agreement made available to me so I could review
THE COURT: Well, let’s do this first. It is going to take some time.
MR. LITT: (Reading:)
“Q Mr. Armstrong, I am handing you Exhibit 2 –
“A You are handing it to me.
“Q Yes, I’m sorry, Mr. Garrison. The names fly around a bit.
“Can you take a look at that and tell me if you recognize it?
“A That’s my initials that appear at the bottom of each page. I assume that’s the one that I have read and signed.
“Q Well, let’s look at that more closely.
“A Any particular paragraph?
“Q Well, what I would like for starters is for you to look at it and tell me if this is an agreement entered into between you on behalf of yourself and on behalf of Ralston-Pilot, on the one hand, and New Era Publications, on the other hand, which is a public statement of a settlement agreement that has been reached with respect to the October 1980 contract and with respect
to any potential biography to be written by you of L. Ron Hubbard?
“A I fail to see where it’s related to the case of Gerry Armstrong and the Church of Scientology.”
I can read the rest of that page in, but it is a colloquy about why this is relevant.
THE COURT: Do you want it, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: No, it is not necessary, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: Beginning at the top of page 55:
“Q So we still need you to identify that document.
“A I do identify it as one that I’ve signed on the proper date.
“Q You entered into this agreement having been represented by counsel; is that correct?
“Q And you entered into the agreement with New Era Publications as a subsequent name for the publisher that you had originally entered into the October 30, 1980 agreement with; is that correct?
“A No, that is not correct. I entered into it as an agreement with New Era Publications. I don’t know whether it’s a successor or not a successor. I never had any indication that it was.
“Q Well, if you read line 11 of the agreement, you will see that it says this is a –
“A Yeah, I see what it says, but I don’t know whether that’s true or not.
“Q But you signed the document “A I signed it as it’s written.
But as to whether I knew Era is a legitimate successor to Publishers DK, I’m not competent –
“Q I’m not asking you to express an opinion on that.
“Q That was your understanding –
“A Yes. That’s right.
“Q — on the basis of which you negotiated the agreement?
“A Yes. Not an acknowledgement that it was in fact a successor.
“Q And as part of this agreement, you have agreed that you will not publish a biography of L. Ron Hubbard, and you are not working on any biography of L. Ron Hubbard either under the October 1980 contract or on any other basis?
“A Correct. Correct.
“Q And you are in fact not currently working on any such biography?
“A I am not.
“Q And also as part of the agreement, you delivered to the Church of Scientology International all of the documents and materials which had been provided to you by Mr. Armstrong in connection with your preparation of that biography?
“A With the exception as spelled out in the original agreement there, that there may be some still outstanding that I have to locate.
“Q With respect to those that are outstanding –
“A Let’s define it more care-
fully: That there are none that I currently know specifically of, and if they should turn up, they will be promptly returned, and they will not be passed on to a third party.”
Your Honor, why don’t I give this to Mr. Peterson and he can give it to the Court so you will know what is being referred to.
THE COURT: A11 right. Exhibit 22.
MR. LITT: (Reading:)
“Q And you currently make no claim to possess any of these –
“A None whatsoever.
“Q — materials?
“A None whatsoever.
“Q Was Mr. Armstrong ever your agent with respect to possession of these materials?
“A I don’t know what you — if you would define ‘agent,’ I could tell you. Is it in a legal sense or –
“Q Well, let’s take it in a lay sense. When I spoke with you on this subject once before, I believe you told me that as far as you were concerned Mr. Armstrong was not then and has not been
“A Not in the sense that I understand the word ‘agent,’ no. In other words, he was not acting legally on my behalf.
“Q With respect to the materials that had been provided you in connection with the preparation of the biography, was it your understanding that any of these materials were ever personal property of Mr. Armstrong?
“A The question never arose, and I never gave it any consideration one way or another.
“Q Was Mr. Armstrong acting in providing you with the materials in his
capacity as the archivist for the Church –
“Q — in providing you the materials?
“A No. He was providing me — he was acting directly as the representative of L. Ron Hubbard it was my understanding.
“Q You told me that he was the archivist.
“A That’s right, but he had — you must realize the archives belonged to L. Ron Hubbard not to the Church. The Church never had possession of the archives, in my opinion, if you are asking for my opinion.
“Q Well, I’m not asking for your opinion.
“A Well, it seemed to me that you were.
“Q No, no, no. He had the title of archivist; right?
“A Yes, for L. Ron Hubbard.
“Q No. Mr. Garrison, when I went through with you before, you told me you didn’t know what he was the archivist of; do you remember that this morning?
“A Well, no. But it’s my understanding –
I said I didn’t know –
“Q No. My question — let’s just take the title ‘Archivist’ –
“Q — okay? In his having access to these materials –
“Q — he provided them to you in his capacity as archivist; is that right?
“Q Was there anything that indicated that he personally had the independent right of possession of these apart from his position as archivist?
MR. LITT: There is an objection.
THE COURT: Well, I will overrule the objection.
“A Yes. Well, again, it is a conclusion. You said is there anything indicating that, and my answer is — you see, we’re going round and round, but we could resolve it very simply by my telling you that from the very outset, including my first meeting Mr. Armstrong in East Grinstead in Mr. Gaiman’s office, he was represented to me as a person who was putting together all the private papers and materials of L. Ron Hubbard for possibly
not only the biography but a museum.
“Q A church museum?
“A I don’t know whether a church museum or not. That’s your interpretation.
“Q A Scientology Museum?
“A No; an L. Ron Hubbard Museum, because it had nothing to do with the church per se. The church would enter into it –
“Q Who is Mr. Gaiman?”A David Gaiman? He was the assistant and later Acting Guardian Worldwide.
“Q A church –
“A The one –
“Q A church position?
“A Yes, it’s a church position, but representing Mr. Hubbard as well, I assume. In other words, the only attorney that I ever dealt with in this case in the contract or legally –
“Q No, no. You don’t even have a question pending. I’m going to move to strike that.
“A All right.”
THE COURT: It will be stricken.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, Mr. Garrison keeps talking.
I’m going to go down to line 13.
MR. FLYNN: Fine, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: (Reading):
“Q Let me go back to one other question about the documents. Now, you indicated that you were not certain of the amount of documents –
“Q — which were taken by Mr. Armstrong.
You also indicated that you thought you had approximately five feet of documents total.
“A I would guess, yes.
“Q Let me give you one or two figures.
Was it your understanding that Mr. Armstrong, in putting together the materials that he was putting together, that he was getting from you, would have more than a thousand pages of documents that he obtained from you?
“A There was no understanding with regard to amounts.
“Q Two thousand pages?
“A No. There was no — there was never any discussion of the number of pages at all.
“Q If I told you that the materials that Mr. Armstrong had in his possession that were turned over to the court –
“A The ones under seal, you mean?
“Q — the ones under seal were of the the same bulk that you’ve described, that is, approximately five feet or more –
“Q — would that indicate to you that that was a greater amount of material than you had understood he was taking from you?
“A Not necessarily. Because, again, I haven’t the foggiest notion of what is under seal in the court.
“Q I understand that. I’m just asking –
“A I’m not sure they’re the same documents. But if you are just talking about putting a yardstick on it and measuring, well, possibly. I don’t know the amount. I don’t know the identity.
“Q I’m not asking the amount or the identity.
“A What is the question, then?
“Q All right. We’ll try it again.
“Let us presume for purposes of this question, okay, that there are five feet or more of documents that Mr. Armstrong took from you; okay? You don’t have to comment on whether that’s accurate. Just assume that –
“A I have not said that.
“Q I understand that.
“A I have not said that.
“Q I quite understand. Assuming that is true, would that be a greater amount than you had understood that he wanted or needed from you?
“A I would say.
“Q If I were to tell you that and, again, assuming that there are eight to ten thousand pages of documents obtained from you from your materials from you, for purposes of this question –
“A Well –
“Q — by Mr. Armstrong, assuming that that’s accurate –
“A I wonder how you know that; that’s the only thing.
“Q Mr. Armstrong said it in his deposition.
“Q Would that be a greater amount of material that you had understood he had taken from you?
THE COURT: The next page is Ms. Dragojevic.
MR. FLYNN: That’s me, Your Honor. I am not sure I can adopt her voice, but I’ll do the best I can.
“BY MS. DRAGOJEVIC:
“Q Mr. Garrison, when did you first
have contact with the Church of Scientology?
“A My first contact with the Church of Scientology was when — and this is a guess — probably in 1971. At any event, it was when — shortly after the publication of a book of mine called “Spy Government.”
“Q Were you approached by the Church of Scientology, or did you approach them?
“A I was approached by the Church of Scientology as a result of this particular book; because in the book, which is concerned with the illegal activities of government agencies with respect to individuals and organizations, I mentioned in two or three, maybe four pages the incident of the FDA raid on the Church of Scientology in Washington, DC and this was what brought representatives of the Church of Scientology to me to tell me that they had a bigger story than the raid and they would like to submit it for my examination.
“Q Was/it their intention that you write another book or something –
“A Yes. I found eventually it was their intention; that they had material which had been ignored by the establishment media and they wanted me to see all the materials and see if — examine them and see if what they said about the illegal incursions into the church were
in fact true.
“Q Did some type of publication result from this first meeting?
“A Yes, it did. It was a book called The Hidden Story of Scientology.
“Q And that is the first book that you mentioned when you listed those books that you had written about Scientology?
“A Yes, there was.
“Q With respect to these three books that you wrote regarding Scientology did you also enter into contracts for their publication?
“A Enter into contracts with whom?
“Q With the Church of Scientology.
“A Yes. But not for the publication, but for the writing. I was to provide my own publisher. Simply that they would provide me with materials for the writing of the books.
“There was no agreement — I might add there was no agreement in this contract to write the books for any monetary remuneration from the church as such; simply just that they were going to support it with presumably large membership of readers.
“Q Do you remember who you contracted with for The Hidden Story of Scientology, what entity of the Scientology Organization?
“A I believe — and don’t tell me
just because it’s off the top of my head — and it was an organization called — and this might have been the second one, not the first — Religious Research, Religious Research something. Perhaps you know the name.”
MR. LITT: Then there was a comment by Mr. Long:
“THE WITNESS: A Liberian corporation, I believe.
“BY MS. DRAGOJEVIC:
“Q How about the book entitled The Secret World of Interpol?
“Q You contracted with the Religious Research Organization?
“A I think so.
“Q And Playing Dirty?
“A Playing Dirty, quite frankly, I don’t recall. But it’s quite likely it was the same. In other words, they were all church entities, at least that was my understanding.
“Q Did you ever deal with Mr. Hubbard with respect to any of these three publications?
“A Not contractually. After the publication of — after the publication of Hidden Story which was first published in England by Arlington Books and later in this country by Lyle Stuart or Citadel Press,
Mr. Hubbard was very pleased with the book itself. And he sat down and wrote me a letter and included a check for a thousand dollars which he said was a bonus because of the work I had done.
“Q But if I understand you correctly, you were never paid pursuant to any contract for any of these three books; is that correct?
“A Well yes. I was paid, but in a — as an advance on a purchase of books. So they — in other words, the church organization was not out of pocket; on the contrary, they bought books and made a profit through their own book shops. For the money advanced, they received a certain number of books which they in turn sold. Last time I heard, they were selling for some enormous prices in their
“Q Have you ever been a member of the Church of Scientology?
“A I never have.
“Q Were you provided with documentation for the writings of any of these three books that we have just discussed?
“A I was provided with extensive documentation for all three. If you want to put it in the same terms of how high were they, in my flat in London I would say there were twice
as many for Hidden Story as there were for the biography because there I actually stacked them up against the wall. And they were higher than my head.
“Q What was the nature of the documentation that was provided for the writing of Hidden Story?
“A It included everything, starting with 1950 with the publication of Dianetics. And almost immediately after Dianetics was published, there were letters from the AMA that went out within a matter of weeks after publication; letters that went out to all the doctors who were members of AMA attacking Hubbard and starting a campaign against Dianetics. And then it extended right up until the time of the publication including all the legal documents, the court hearings, the FDA.
“THE COURT: You may skip that next comment.
“Q Were you also provided documents for the writing of Secret World?
“A As I said, in each instance I was provided extensive and copious documents.
“Q What type of documents were you provided for the writing of The Secret World of Interpol?
“A Legal documents, correspondence, transcripts of court hearings in Germany and
elsewhere around the world and so on.
“Q What kind of correspondence?
“A There were correspondence, some of it, the correspondence, was between client and attorney with the attorneys in Germany and so on.
“Q What type of documentation were you provided for Playing Dirty?
“A At this time this was a case — I was provided all the material that was obtained by discovery relating to the FBI raid; I was provided entire file of transcripts of all the court hearings before Judge Ritchie. And amusing, however, they were a little more interesting. I’ll say that everything heard before Judge Ritchie had a certain carnival air that at least provided some amusement not ordinarily found in court transcripts. At one point Judge Ritchie got off the bench, laid down full length in his judicial robes on the floor, which I think is an unusual circumstance.
“Q Other than the communication from Mr. Hubbard in which he indicated that he was pleased with the publication and gave you a check for a thousand dollars, have you had any other communication with Mr. Hubbard over the years?
“A I’ve had communications, many of them represented to be from Mr. Hubbard and signed by Mr. Hubbard, but which I believe came from SO-1.
“Q Why do you believe they came –”
THE COURT: Are you making a motion to strike?
MR. LITT: I will let that stand.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Why do you believe they came –
“A You can say at least that I have received communications ostensibly from Mr. Hubbard.
“Q Why do you believe they are from SO-1?”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, at this point there is a whole colloquy here about his belief on SO-1. I mean, I let some of the beginnings come in, but I don’t think it is relevant, and it is all conclusions, basically, through page 69.
MR. FLYNN: I think it goes to his state of mind.
MR. LITT: What does his state of mind have to do with anything?
MR. FLYNN: He believes he was dealing with Mr. Hubbard as he says on lines 5 to 7 on page 69.
THE COURT: Well, I am not really sure of the significance of this in the total picture. But it deals with — the question was asked whether he had other communications with Mr. Hubbard, and he said he had many of them represented to be from Mr. Hubbard and signed by Mr. Hubbard, and which I believe came from SO-1. And then, I guess, he goes on to explain, try to explain how he came to that conclusion.
I think I will let it in. I am not sure that it has any great evidentiary value, but it may shed some light upon his later answers or testimony he may give in this case.
MR. FLYNN: So the next question is:
“Q Why do you believe they were from SO-1?
“A The information that was developed during the course of the writing of the biography indicated to me that Mr. Hubbard was not answering correspondence either directed to him or that was presumably originating with him. And having had — having interviewed some of the people who were in charge, it was indicated to me, also, that they were even intervening in Mary Sue Hubbard’s letters to her own husband and extracting portions
before they passed on the correspondence.”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to move to strike at least that portion. That is clearly hearsay, and I don’t think it goes to any state of mind.
THE COURT: Well, it is his statement with reference to his communications with Mr. Hubbard.
MR. LITT: No, no.
THE COURT: He finally comes to a conclusion that SO-1 has a full discretion as to correspondence with
MR. LITT: Yes, and he says somebody else, not Mr. Hubbard or not any SO-1 communication, somebody told him something about the fact that SO-1 was doing this, that and the other thing.
THE COURT: On second thought, I will agree with you.
It is really getting out into left field. Pretty much hearsay, so we will strike –
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I’d just be concerned with the last sentence between lines 5 and 7 on 69. Whether the other portion goes out on Mary Sue Hubbard, I don’t’care. She’s already testified she didn’t think her correspondence was getting to him. But his understanding as to whether or not SO-1 — “So, SO-1, it appeared to me, had the full discretion as to correspondence with L. Ron Hubbard.”
I think that goes to the state of mind as to who he believed he was dealing with. He believed he was dealing with Hubbard.
THE COURT: All right. I will strike the portion
that deals they were intervening in Mary Sue Hubbard’s letters to her husband and extracting portions. That is on lines 2 through 5 on page 69.
So we will go on.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q What does SO-1 stand for?
“A Standing Order 1, I believe. And it was an organization that was set up, it’s my understanding, to answer — after all, L. Ron Hubbard couldn’t possibly answer all the volume of correspondence that came in to him; it’s humanly impossible. And they had certain — his own family had certain stickers on letters so that they could reach him through SO-1 or through these channels, that they wouldn’t be diverted into — they would reach him personally.
“Q Could you tell . . .” –
THE COURT: Skip down to line 24.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q With respect to the materials which you’ve indicated that led you to believe that Mr. Hubbard was not writing his own correspondence –
“A I was told that by — I was told that by responsible representatives of the Church.”
MR. FLYNN: I don’t care whether that goes out.
MR. LITT: It doesn’t matter. I’d just as soon leave it in.
THE COURT: Okay.
Then the witness begins on line 2.
“A No. She said why was that my understanding.”
MR. LITT: He is just answering my objection, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: Let’s say we go down to line 15, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Wait a second. He’s got some problem with this colloquy here.
MR. LITT: The only thing, I think, that is relevant before line 15 is Mr. Garrison does state that he is not planning to be available for trial.
THE COURT: What about this business of Dede? What does that have to do with it?
MR. LITT: Of Dede?
THE COURT: Have I got the right page?
MR. PETERSON: It is the second half of the page.
MR. LITT: We object to that as just further hearsay, just going on and on, and also it is just not relevant at this point.
THE COURT: Well, let’s go on to line 11, page 71.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Have you ever personally met Mr. Hubbard?
“A Only very briefly many, many years ago when Dianetics first came out. And I did a newspaper series on Dianetics here in Los Angeles, which again is a matter of record.
“Q Can you recall what year that was?
“A 1950 when Dianetics came out.
“Q Was that the first and last time you have ever seen the man?
“Q Were there any other publications after PLAYING DIRTY other than your writing of the biography?
“A Relating to Scientology?
“Q And when was PLAYING DIRTY published?
“A I believe 1980.
“Q Have you ever written any other biographical sketches of Mr. Hubbard?
“Q Have you ever written –
“A Apart — wait a minute. I would correct that. I was provided with the usual Church biography, the official biography which I included briefly in
another book of mine called the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PROPHESY, but this is repeating all the falsehoods that they have propounded over the years. It wasn’t my original material.”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I moved to strike that at that time and still move to strike it.
THE COURT: All right. Everything after “ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PROPHESY” in that one sentence will be stricken. The last sentence can remain.
“THE WITNESS: Anyway, the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PROPHESY.
“Q When you say that you were provided with a Church biography, I assume that you put an LRH biography into the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PROPHESY; is that correct?
“Q Was there something that you wrote yourself or –
“A Something I wrote myself based on material provided to me by Sue Anderson, who was his official PR Personal Public Relations representative at the time. I had no reason to believe that it wasn’t completely true.”
MR. LITT: I am going to move to strike that last sentence.
THE COURT: I will deny the motion.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q When were you first contacted with respect to the biography of Mr. Hubbard?
“A It was approximately two years previous to the signing of the contract.
“Q Who contacted you?
“A David Gaiman — sorry, first Sue Anderson.
“Q And who did she represent?
“A She was Mr. Hubbard’s personal — they call it Pers Pro, Personal Public Relations representative.
“Q What did Miss or Mrs. Anderson request of you at that time?
“A She sent me some correspondence saying that she had submitted this idea to Mr. Hubbard, and he said, ‘Wonderful, good news. Omar is a very good writer.’ So it was passed on to Mr. Hubbard — I am sorry, to Mr. Gaiman to deal with me as he had been the intermediary for the previous books.
“And I was very reluctant to do it, and I rejected the idea on the basis that they wanted what in the trade we call
a ‘puff,’ that is, a laudatory sort of eulogy, and I was unwilling to do that. I felt that a biography — well, I’m an honest reporter, and I felt that they would take out, they would eviscerate my copy because they would take out everything that they regarded as ‘entheta’ or unfavorable to him.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I move to strike after Mr. Garrison’s first sentence in that response as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: I’ll deny the motion.
“Q Mr. Garrison, what was it that made you believe that the representatives of the church wanted a — what you called a ‘puff’ on L. Ron Hubbard?
“A Because I had by this time read all their official biographies and had begun to learn from other sources that they were not accurate and that they were laudatory. And the very term ‘puff’ comes from Hollywood. It means to blow up or exaggerate. They used to do it for stars, change their ages or whatever in order to give them a public image. And I’m not an image maker.
“Q Who did you have these discussions with?
“A I had them with David Gaiman, Jane Kember; I had them with every Scientologist virtually that I came into contact with.”
MR. LITT: I’ll reply verbally where I want to object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I guess I’ll rule. I’ll deny the motion.
“Q What did they say to you in substance regarding what they –
“A Well, they –
“Q Let me finish — regarding what type of biography you were to write?
“A It doesn’t call for hearsay because I have –”
THE COURT: Go down to line 26.
“THE WITNESS: Let me say this. This is all spelled out in correspondence. I have letters, long letters answering my objections, saying in substance ‘we don’t expect you to write a puff.’ Indeed, we want you to write an honest biography. This was back and forth. And ultimately on that basis I agreed that I would do it and it would be a straight-forward honest account.
“Q That was your understanding of –
“A That was my understanding. And that is as a matter of fact their understanding so far as their correspondence to me is concerned.
“Q Do you still have possession of that correspondence?
“A I do have, yes.
“Q Specifically, who was that correspondence from?
“A The — at various times the long eventual, shall we say, summary letter from Sheila Gaiman, who was acting for her husband
David, acting officially. David had gone to France to sort out this, a certain legal case they had there. And she was officially acting in his capacity.
“Q Do you recall the approximate date of that letter?
“A I don’t know. But in looking for materials to return, I saw it as late as last week.
“Q Did you keep that in a specific file?
“Q Does the file have a name?
“A It would be — it was in the file. I had moved it from the correspondence file into a file called the ‘biography-legal.’ This is because I thought I might need it with respect to the instant case.
“Q Can you recall how long these
initial back-and-forth negotiations –
“A Two years.
“Q — took?
“Q This correspondence with Miss Anderson and the Gaimans and various other Scientologists took approximately two years?
“Q Is that ‘yes’?
“Q After this two-year period was it then that you entered into the October 1980 contract?
“A Yes. As I said, upon their agreement that I could, shall I say, tell the truth.
“Q Did you go to England for the purpose of entering into the contract?
“A No. I spent a lot of time in England. We live there off and on.
“Q Was there a specific reason that you did go to England in October of 1980?
A I didn’t go to England in October 1980. In October 1980 the contract was signed here in Los Angeles.
“Q I’m sorry. Who was present when the contract was signed?
“A Larry Brennan. Isn’t his name ‘Brennan’? Laurel Sullivan. I don’t know whether Wertheimer — I think — at least he drew it up, so I assume.
“Q Is that –
“A Alan Wertheimer.
“Q Anyone else present?
“A There could have been, but I don’t recall. I don’t recall.
“Q I believe that you testified
earlier that you first met Mr. Armstrong in East Grinstead sometime before this contract was signed?
“A Yes. A couple of months, at least, before.
“Q What was the purpose of your being in East Grinstead at the time?
“A We were discussing the possibility of my doing the book at that time and finalizing any — it was pretty well decided I would do it at that time.
“Q Was that just one meeting or a series of meetings?
“A One formal meeting in David Gaiman’s office. And then Gerry made — he addressed a meeting. And I was present there. So we talked informally.
“Q Had you had any other meetings regarding your writing a book other than what you’ve already testified to which would have been the correspondence that went on for the two-year period preceding the contract and this one formal meeting that took place in Mr. Gaiman’s office?
“A And the answer is ‘yes.’
“Q What were those meetings?
“A At the time that I was doing Playing Dirty, I had occasion to meet with
Mr. Gaiman several times respecting material for the book. And he showed me a letter from Sue Anderson accusing him of dragging his feet about getting me to do the biography. So that sparked a discussion as to whether I would do it.
“Q Who was present at this first formal meeting with Mr. Gaiman in his office?
“A As nearly as I recall, I think Gerry Armstrong was there. Of course, Mr. Gaiman, Mr. Gaiman’s secretary was — whose name escapes me at the moment, a very attractive girl, too. But also I believe that Herbie — what’s his name? Herbie –
“A Herbie Parkhouse for part of the meeting was present. David called Herbie up with respect to, I think, some sort of financial arrangement. Herbie was the man who was known as the Flag Banking Office or whatever, Worldwide.
“Q How long did this meeting last?
“A Oh, a couple of hours, and we repaired for lunch, and I think altogether about three hours.”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, if I may, we object to the next approximately three pages which are essentially discussions at negotiation meetings, which are — I am not sure what purpose they are introduced for, but I don’t think they are relevant if it is for interpreting the contract. I don’t really think it does anything to do that, and for any other purpose it is not really relevant.
Mr. Garrison wanders on a bit here and makes all kinds of statements about his feelings, about that he
had bad feelings about this and that.
MR. FLYNN: I think, Your Honor, I don’t necessarily request that some of the material on page 79 should go into evidence.
However, on page 80, I believe his feelings with regard to total disclosure regarding Mr. Hubbard’s life was a very important consideration, and as Your Honor will see, a prerequisite of Mr. Garrison was that he be given total access to all of L. Ron Hubbard’s personal files; and it was for this reason that he did request that, which goes to the issue of what he was entitled to have, and therefore what Mr. Armstrong was entitled to have.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, the issue in this case is what was done with it after it was given to Mr. Garrison.
MR. FLYNN: The issue is whether Mr. Garrison is a
bailee and could properly make Mr. Armstrong a bailee.
MR. LITT: Well, I won’t get into that.
THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection.
Basically all he is saying is he had some thoughts about what should be done but they weren’t expressed. So it seems to me it is substantially just his own mental thoughts that he was going through. This isn’t the meeting in England. This is some meeting that he had with Mr. Gayman and somebody else on an earlier occasion. I think the –
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, what that refers to, there earlier had been an individual engaged to write the
biography who discovered the same falsehoods, and he was taken off the project.
THE COURT: Well, he just says that is how he felt.
He might get the same treatment.
“Q Did you discuss that with . . . the individuals . . .?
“A . . . I don’t remember, but it had been the subject of extensive discussion prior to that.”
MR. FLYNN: “But it had been the subject of extensive discussion prior to that.”
THE COURT: He’s already testified. It is cumulative.
I will sustain the objection.
We will take a recess and reconvene, I guess, on page 81, line 24.
(At 11:58 a.m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984; 1:30 P.M.
THE COURT: All right. We are back in session.
Counsel are present.
You may continue where you left off.
MR. FLYNN: Page 81, line 24, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q At that meeting with Mr. Gaiman and the other individuals, was it ever represented to you that Mr. Armstrong would be your research assistant for the biography?
“A It was.
“Q Who represented this to you?
“A Mr. Gaiman.
“Q Anyone else?
“A Well, he was in charge.
“Q Was it also discussed at this meeting what materials you would be provided for the writing of the biography?
“A Not beyond a general saying it — what was needful, because no one knew what there was, I guess.
“Q Prior to your entering into the agreement which is attached as Exhibit 1, was there ever any discussion as to what
materials you would be provided for the writing of the biography?
“A There was not.
“Q Was it your understanding that at that first formal meeting in Mr. Gaiman’s office that Mr. Armstrong in some manner represented the interests of Mr. Hubbard?
“A Yes, I thought he did.
“Q What led you to believe that he represented the interests of Mr. Hubbard?
“A For the simple reason that he had — I was told that he had charge or would have charge — it was unclear in my mind at the time — would have charge of documents pertaining to Mr. Hubbard’s life, documents which would only be properly in the possession of the subject himself.
“Q Was it at that time that you were told that Mr. Armstrong’s title was ‘Archivist’?
“What was the result of the meeting in Mr. Gaiman’s office?
“A The — well, to put it succinctly, it was tentatively agreed that if we came to a meeting of minds with regard to and the terms of a contract, that I would then proceed with a biography.
“Q What terms was it that there was no meeting of the minds on?
“A I wanted two reassurances, first of all, in writing, with respect to a freedom of presenting my material and, secondly, to have — to restrict the vetting of the contract to those persons that I would name as acceptable to me.
“Q Do you mean vetting of the contract or vetting of the biography?
“A Biography. Oh, sorry.
“Q Essentially, those things that you still had to agree upon were that you wanted reassurance regarding freedom in the presentation of your material, and you also wished to restrict the vetting of the biography to persons selected by yourself; is that correct?
“A I insisted upon the latter point, that those acceptable to me would be named in the contract.
“Q Did you eventually reach an agreement
with respect to these two issues?
“Q When was that agreement reached?
“A At the time the contract was drawn in October, 1980.
“Q You’ve testified that Mr. Wertheimer drew up the actual agreement; is that correct?
“A Yes, he did.
“Q Did you have any — ”
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. I objected to that on the grounds that there was no foundation and that it was hearsay. And Ms. Dragojevic then tried, I would say unsuccessfully, to establish such a foundation. So we would move to strike that answer. Mr. Garrison doesn’t know who prepared the contract.
THE COURT: Let’s go on and I will come back to it.
Is there other testimony relating to it?
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q Did you have any contact with Mr. Wertheimer prior to October, 1980?
“A I did not.
“Q When did you first meet Mr. Wertheimer?
“A October, 1980 — ”
MR. LITT: I withdraw my objection. I forgot I had gone over that and it was established. I am sorry. Keep reading.
MR. PETERSON: I think I was in the middle of an answer.
“A October, 1980, when I went to his office first to thrash out the terms of the contract.
“Q Was that prior to October 30, 1980, when the agreement was signed?
“A It was.
“Q Was there anyone else present at that time when you went to thrash out the terms of the agreement with Mr. Wertheimer?
“Q Who else was present?
“A Laurel Sullivan was present. There was some other person, but I don’t recall who it was. Oh, it must — perhaps it was Larry Brennan. I’m not sure, but it was some other representative from — I know — I don’t know who it was.
“Q Were there any meetings that took place between the formal meeting that you had in East Grinstead with Mr. Gaiman and this meeting in Mr. Wertheimer’s office?
“A You mean face-to-face meetings?
“Q At the time you were in Mr. Wertheimer’s office in October of 1980, did you actually sit down with him to write the terms of the agreement?
“A We didn’t write the terms at that time.
We sat down around a conference table and had a rather hyperthyroid session. Strike ‘hyperthyroid’ as being too responsive.
“Q Was it at that time that an agreement was reached with respect to those two issues that you set forth earlier?
“A No. It was agreed prior to that time in substance. Part of it was filled out at that time with respect to who would vet the contract, and that was, indeed, written into the contract.
“Q When was the rest of it decided?
“A In — yes, in correspondence previous to that time.
“Q And who was the correspondence with?
“A Well, as I’ve referred to it, the one immediately preceding was from Sheila Gaiman, but there were others as well.
“Q Who did you understand Mr. Wertheimer to represent?
“A Mr. L. Ron Hubbard.
“Q Did Mr. Wertheimer — ”
MR. LITT: We would move to strike this and the remainder of that. It is all hearsay, Your Honor. The witness has no personal knowledge.
THE COURT: All right. I will strike it.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Did Mr. Wertheimer tell you that he represented L. Ron Hubbard?”
MR. LITT: Same objection; hearsay.
MR. FLYNN: Should I go down to –
THE COURT: Bottom of the page, line 28.
MR. LITT: Line 28.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q And who was it that you understood Larry Brennan represented?
“A He said he had power of attorney for New Era Publications, I believe — sorry, strike that. It was Pubs DK.
“Q And who did you understand Laurel Sullivan to represent?
“A She was at that time, she — to put it in the quaint Scientology terminology, she wore two hats. The one that was related to me was that she was Mr. Hubbard’s I believe, Personal Public Relations representative.
“Q Were there any representatives of the Church of Scientology at this meeting at Mr. Wertheimer’s office?
“A I don’t know.
“Q Was it your understanding that
the Church of Scientology would be a party to the contract?
“A Absolutely not.
“Q On what basis do you feel that they were not a party to the contract?
“A Well, because I discussed it. I had no contractual relationship with the Church of Scientology whatsoever.
“Q Who did you understand your contractual relationship to be with?”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to object to that.
There is no foundation for the remainder of this page through line 18 of the following page. Furthermore, the contract speaks for itself in terms of who the contract was with.
Mr. Garrison expresses an opinion as to whether or not Pubs DK is an alter ego of L. Ron Hubbard. That is the basis of his claim, that he contracted with L. Ron Hubbard for which there is no foundation.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, could I be heard?
THE COURT: Yes, go ahead.
MR. FLYNN: The basis of Mr. Armstrong’s claim is that he had a contract. Mr. Armstrong had a contract with Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Armstrong believed that Mr. Garrison had a contract with Mr. Hubbard based upon the tripartite contract between he and Pubs DK and Pubs DK and L. Ron Hubbard. That is why we feel that that contract is relevant
to interpreting the contract between Pubs DK and the Garrison contract.
THE COURT: It seems to me that your client’s state of mind would have relevance to all of these matters. I don’t really see that Mr. Garrison’s state of mind and who he believed he might be contracting with is all that relevant.
I will sustain the objection.
Let’s go over to line 20, page 88.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Did you essentially hammer out the terms of the agreement at this meeting at Mr. Wertheimer’s office?
“A Not the ones that eventually appeared in the contract, I’m afraid.
“Q Did you ever see a draft of the contract before October 30, 1980?
“A I did not.
“Q Were any changes made to the contract on October 30, 1980 –
“A Yes. Sorry.
“Q — when you signed it?
“A As you will see in the contract itself, I was concerned about the premium edition which I was informed could not be spelled out in detail in the contract at the time because the church was legally holding that they had no contract” –
MR. FLYNN: No contact.
MR. PETERSON: Oh, I am sorry.
“no contact with Mr. Hubbard, and therefore there would be no way of saying that he would sign these books. So when I read the contract, I said nevertheless I’m going to write in and initial a reference to premium editions, which in fact I did.”
MR. LITT: With respect to the first part of that answer, I am going to move to strike it as hearsay.
As to the second part –
THE COURT: I will deny the motion. It seems to me that these were summaries of conversations he had with the people he was dealing with.
Overruled; denied. Go ahead.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Who from the church told you that they had no contact with L. Ron Hubbard?
“A To a man, everyone I talked with.”
MR. LITT: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will deny it.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Did Mr. Wertheimer ever tell you that he had any contact with Mr. Hubbard regarding the biography project?
“A No, he never did.
“Q Did he ever tell you that he had any contacts with Mr. Hubbard regarding the terms of the contract entered into on October 30th –
“A No, he did not.
“Q I want to refer you to Exhibit 1, page 3, at the bottom is a subparagraph b. In the tenth paragraph.”
MR. LITT: For the Court’s reference, that would be Exhibit G.
“If you would please read it.
“A You want me to read it aloud?
“Q No. You can read it to yourself.
“Q There is a reference in subparagraph b. That the publisher would provide the author with a research assistant. Was it your understanding that at that time the contract was entered into that this research assistant was Gerry Armstrong?
“Q Upon what basis do you say that?
“A I was told that.
“Q By whom?
“A By David Gaiman and by Laurel Sullivan.
“Q Also in paragraph b it indicates that the author would be provided with any
needed archival and interview materials in connection with the writing of the work.
“Was it ever discussed at the time the agreement was signed what these particular archival interview materials actually were?
“A No, it was not.
“Q After the agreement was signed on October the 30th, 1980, did Mr. Armstrong immediately begin working with you on the biography project?
“A Almost immediately, yes.
“Q Had you had any contact with Mr. Armstrong since the meeting in Mr. Gaiman’s office in East Grinstead?
“A I had no contact with Mr. Armstrong between the time we met in East Grinstead and the time following this signing of the contract and he began to function as a research assistant.
“Q Where were you living at the time you were working on the biography project?
“A In my various places. I don’t recall the exact address, but it was in Costa Mesa I had a place and in Utah, of course. Let’s say that was my residence.
“Q Did Mary Sue Hubbard play any
role in the contract negotiations?
“A None at all to my knowledge.
“Q Was she one of the individuals who would have reviewed the biography manuscript for authorization?
“A She was not.
“Q Did you have any contact with Mary Sue Hubbard during the time that you were working on the biography?
“A I did.
“Q What form did that contact take?
“Q When did this correspondence pass between the two of you?
“A It was just prior to Christmas of — or just after Christmas — around the Christmas season 1981, I think; could have been ‘82 — I believe ‘81. I don’t know. I have the letter to refer to it if it’s important.
“Q Who initiated the correspondence with Mrs. Hubbard?
“A I did.
“Q What was the purpose of your corresponding with her?
“A I wanted a face-to-face interview to help develop materials for the biography.
“Q Did you receive any reply from Mrs. Hubbard?
“A I did.
“Q What was her reply?”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I object to the description of the reply as being hearsay under the best evidence rule. The defendant does, I believe, have a copy of that correspondence.
THE COURT: Well, the letter is in evidence.
MR. LITT: That particular letter is not in evidence, I don’t believe, at least at this point. This is a response of Mrs. Hubbard to Mr. Garrison.
THE COURT: Well, the witness isn’t here.
MR. LITT: Well, Miss Dragojevic clarifies it. Her question was whether he had the letter, not what it said.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I think it is important to show Mrs. Hubbard’s state of mind.
THE COURT: Well, there is no question that the letter would be the best evidence. The problem is if the document is in the possession of somebody else and nobody asked him to put it into evidence or mark it or anything, secondary evidence would be admissible.
I presume that if he is going to be here he can be cross-examined on it. I will take the position it is secondary evidence and the original wasn’t put in the record, so I will deny the motion to strike. You can read the answer.
MR. PETERSON: (Reading:)
“A The reply was that she was very pleased with the biography going forward and that she would like very much to meet with me, but there were security considerations because there were many people who were trying to serve her subpoenas in various damage suits and that for that reason she didn’t want to, in effect, be interviewed, but that if I would submit a list of questions of what I wanted to know she would be happy to answer them in writing.
“Q You indicated you still have that correspondence?
“A I do have it, yes.
“Q Do you have her reply to you?
“Q Okay. Maybe my question was a little misleading. I wanted to know whether
you have your letter to her?
“A I’m not certain about that. I looked for it because the question came up, and I was asked about this. To my best belief I do have it somewhere. I don’t know where it is. I do know where her reply is.
“Q Did you ever send Mrs. Hubbard any written questions?
“A I did not.
“Q Is there a reason for that?
“A Yes. I never — I won’t submit written questions to a Pope, to a king, to anyone. If they won’t confront me with a face-to-face interview, there’s no interview. I’ve interviewed the Pope; I’ve interviewed kings; I’ve interviewed presidents face-to-face; so why should I not interview Mary Sue Hubbard? Strike that as being unresponsive.
“Q Did you have any other correspondence with Mary Sue Hubbard?
“A I did not.
“Q Did she ever send you any memos or written dispatches of any type?
“A I’m not sure. I would — my first inclination is to say ‘no,’ but I believe there are some memoranda that either came through channels or indirectly to me.
“Q Do you know whether Mary Sue Hubbard played any role in the selection of documents to be provided for the biography?
“A To my knowledge, none.
“Q Did you have any information that Mr. Armstrong was required to seek approval from Mary Sue Hubbard before selecting documentation for the biography?
“A I know nothing of that at all.”
MR. LITT: The next questions, Your Honor, are all pretty straight-forward hearsay, down to –
THE COURT: I don’t think they shed any light on anything either.
Go to page 95, line 8.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Mr. Garrison, going back to that first formal meeting in East Grinstead in Mr. Gaiman’s office, can you recall being provided with a list of materials and a photographic inventory by Mr. Armstrong at that time?
“A I remember a photographic inventory. I’m not sure about a list of materials, but this is possible. I definitely remember a photographic inventory because I commented on how extensive it was.
“Q Was it your understanding that the inventory was of matters in the archives?
“A Well, that would be — yes, that was my understanding, yes.
“Q Also, around the time of the signing of the agreement in October of 1980, can you recall being toured through the archives by Laurel Sullivan?
“A Yes. I have said so in an affidavit.
“Q Were you shown any materials at that time by Miss Sullivan?
“A In a general way. I wasn’t handed something and said ‘read this.’ I was just shown materials in files.
“Q What was the purpose of your being toured through the archives?
“A I don’t know.
“Q Did Miss Sullivan ever indicate to you that the materials contained in the archives through which you were toured would be those provided for the writing of the biography?
“A Yes, she did. They were in an office adjoining a very small office that I was supposed to use for that purpose; and, therefore, she pointed out the convenience of Mr. Armstrong being in an adjoining office.
“Q Did you ever use that office?
“A Very briefly, yes.
“Q Was that in the beginning –
“A In the beginning,yes. Sorry.
“Q Were you told at the time by Miss Sullivan that these were the archives of Mr. Hubbard?
“A I don’t think she described them in words at all.
“Q Whose archives did you believe them to be?
“A In the quick glance I had through the files themselves, I saw all these personal letters, and so who else would it be but those of Mr. Hubbard, so I concluded they were Mr. Hubbard’s private papers.
“Q At any time thereafter, were you told that these were the archives of Mr. Hubbard?
“A Not specifically I don’t believe.
“Q But you believed them to be the archives of Mr. Hubbard?
“A I believed them to be in the archives of Mr. Hubbard.
“Q During the time that you were working on the biography, other than the documents provided by Mr. Armstrong, what did you use for research purposes or for writing purposes?
“A A great deal — not — certain
research, which I did on my own.
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong provide you with any information that was not in the form of documents from archives?
“A Not that I recall.
“Q Did he conduct any interviews of any relatives of the Hubbard family for you?
“A Yes. That was in line with his work as an assistant.
“Q And he provided you with all of this information; is that correct?
“A I don’t know whether it was all, but he provided me with everything that I knew about, certainly.
“Q Was there anything else during the research and writing of the biography that changed the game plan in your mind? Do you understand the question?
“A I assume I do. I had no game plan, number one, other than that stated as a brief quotation in the manuscript, namely that I was going to act as a good historian and relate everything that was in — that was pertinent to this history regardless of whether it added anything to Mr. Hubbard’s stature or not. And that was the only criterion I had for this book.
“Q During the time of the research
and writing, did any differences arise between yourself and the publisher or any other party regarding the criterion that you have just outlined?
“A No. It couldn’t arise because they hadn’t seen the manuscript.
“Q Somewhat earlier you testified that you did write a biography of Mr. Hubbard which you included in an ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PROPHECY; is that correct?
“A That’s correct.
“Q Did the biography that you eventually began writing contain essentially the same facts and information regarding the life of Mr. Hubbard as that original biography?”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, if I may, the next series of questions are all questions relating to questions concerning Mr. Hubbard’s background as Mr. Garrison views it. It is not based on personal knowledge; it is all interpretive. It is beyond the scope. It is all based on hearsay. He had been told that, and he had seen this, and he concluded that.
I have noted it for the court to where it goes.
You can see it goes on quite a ways. And we object to this whole line of questioning. We don’t think it is appropriate. Certainly not appropriate at this stage.
THE COURT: I am just trying to see how far –
MR. LITT: This is the big one, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I am up to page 111.
MR. FLYNN: This is the heart of the defense with regard to what Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Garrison went through and discovered the facts about Mr. Hubbard.
THE COURT: Bear with me. Let me look through this material.
THE COURT: Well, I am of the feeling that we are still on the plaintiff’s case, and I am going to sustain the objection at this time without prejudice, and presumably this gentleman is coming here to testify.
It may be that this will be relevant material on the defendant’s case. I’m not quite sure how his recitations necessarily would relate to the defense of the case, but I think at this stage of the game — I won’t refer to it as a game, but at this stage of the trial I will sustain the objection. And you either present it again and we will rule upon it again when he gets here or perhaps you will have to read it again if it is appropriate. I think we are over to about page 115, line 26.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q You testified earlier that after Mr. Armstrong left the organization he continued working for you; is that correct?
“A That’s correct, yes.
“Q Did he set up an office in your behalf?
“A Yes. It wasn’t quite that formal. He had quarters which — temporarily, and this was very brief; I paid the rent and the telephone bill because it was to be used strictly as a — well, not strictly, I mean he had — he could do what he liked, really, but principally it was to be used as an office for Ralston-Pilot Publishers.
“Q Did he also use the office in connection with his continuing work on the biography project?
“A Yes, for a time he did.
“Q And this was the particular office located in the Costa Mesa dwelling; is that correct?
“A Not the one I occupied. There was another address in Costa Mesa.
“Q This would have been the one occupied by Mr. Armstrong?
“A That’s correct, yes.
“Q You also testified earlier that there were a great number of copies of the archives’ documents kept at the Costa Mesa dwelling; is that correct?
“A My address, you mean, or at the office?
“Q The office of –
“A Yes, from time to time they passed back and forth because I was working on them, and I’d ask Gerry to do something and to bring — they passed back and forth between the two addresses.
“Q Did there ever come a time when you became afraid for the security of the documents?”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I have a similar objection to this line of questioning through the top of page 120.
THE COURT: Well, there’s already been some testimony about it. I am going to overrule the objection.
MR. PETERSON: Would you give me the line again?
MR. FLYNN: Line 4, page 117:
“Q Did there ever come a time when you became afraid for the security of the documents?
“A There did.
“Q Do you recall when that occurred?
“A I couldn’t — well, I couldn’t pinpoint the time as to date, but, again, it was at the time that — I can date it from the time that Mr. Armstrong was first approached at the outside a — outside the post office and handed a letter from an attorney indicating that legal action was pending against him.
“Let me go back, actually.
Let me clarify that answer. My apprehension with regard to the security of the documents even antedated that. It became more acute at that point, but I had misgivings about them from the time that time — I shall refer to it as ‘infamous meeting’ — at which we were to discuss amending the contract but which resulted in my saying that henceforth we would deal through attorneys.”
MR. LITT: If I may, Your Honor, especially this characterization “handed a letter from an attorney indicating that legal action was pending against him.”
This is the best evidence rule and that is in evidence. Those were the letters presumably from Mr. Peterson. Those were the only letters that were sent to
Mr. Armstrong that I am aware of, and that is not what the letters say.
THE COURT: Well, I am going to deny your motion.
Apparently it is hearsay, but it is his state of mind. He is asked about when he became concerned with the security, and I suppose it has to do with evidence that you developed as to his movement of exhibits to and fro to other places.
Let’s go ahead.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Do you recall when this infamous meeting took place? Was it in early 1982?
“A It was in May 1982.
“Q What about the meeting caused you some alarm regarding the security of the documents?
“A Well, the fact that there was — at the termination of the meeting there was complete hostility between me and those present; I’ll except Sherman Lenske because he was an attorney. But as for the Scientologists present, it was obvious that I had become what in Scientology is known as a ‘Suppressive Person.’”
MR. LITT: Well, I would reiterate my objection, if you want to change your ruling.
THE COURT: This is a different situation. I will strike his conclusion of what was obvious because that is a
conclusion on his part.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Who was present at this meeting?
“A I couldn’t tell you everyone there.
“Q You already indicated the name of an attorney.
“A Yes, Sherman Lenske.
“Q I think when we broke I was asking you, Mr. Garrison, who was present at the infamous meeting regarding the amendment of your contract.
“A Apart from this Mr. Lenske, there was — I suppose presiding as he was the attorney there. There was Lyman Spurlock; I believe Terri Gamboa; a girl named Marlowe, surnamed Marlowe — some of these persons I didn’t know. I didn’t even know Spurlock’s name until afterwards, and others whom I didn’t know, actually. Oh, Vaughn Young was present.
“Q What was it that caused the hostility at the meeting?
“A During a discussion of the original contract, I pointed out that there had been gross misrepresentations to me and that I had agreed in the contract to certain terms because of misapprehension
and because of misrepresentation, and for that reason I wanted the contract amended to bring it into line with the ordinary garden-variety publisher-author contract, and that that meant, of course, that I was to receive the customary returns for subsidiary rights and so on, at which point Mr. Spurlock said, ‘You are trying to blackmail us.’ And when he charged me with blackmail, which is, of course, a slanderous term, I terminated the meeting and said thereafter if that’s how they felt, they could deal through attorneys.
“Q What was your exact fear with respect to the security of the documents at that point?”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, this is pure conclusion.
THE COURT: It is his state of mind, for whatever it is worth. Explanation of why he did what he did.
“A If I understand your question correctly, I felt that they — by ‘they,’ I mean representatives of the Church of Scientology, specifically of this organization called B1, who. were trained to break and enter, would come — and in fact my house was entered, whether by them or whoever, that they would come looking for the documents and that I would be left holding nothing to show
for my work.
“Q What did you do with the documents at that point that you had in your home?
“A I began carrying them around with me, much to my wife’s consternation and we found ourselves with tons of documents wherever we went, lugging them into hotel rooms and transporting them over long distances. It was a nightmare. It was like Scrooge with his ledgers.
“Q Did you deliver some of them to Mr. Crago?
“A Those were copies that went to Mr. Crago. Those were copies that were made to insure in the event that the binders which Mr. Armstrong provided me were in fact taken, that I would have these to fall back on.
“Q Did you ask Mr. Armstrong to make copies of the documents that you had in your possession?
“A The ones that went to Mr. Crago?
“A Yes, I did.
“Q Did you ask him to make copies of all of the documents that you had which you believed you would need to support your
“A I believe I did.
“Q Would that have been the majority of the documents in your possession?
“A That was my original intention.
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong in fact make copies for you?
“A Yes, he did make copies.
“Q Did you instruct him as to what he should do with the copies he made?
“A Well, no. I mean I don’t quite follow you.
“Q Did you discuss with him what would be done with the copies?
“A The copies would come to me.
“Q My understanding is that some of the copies went to you, and some of the copies went to Mr. Crago.
“A Well, they came to me, and I took them to Mr. Crago. I took them there for safe keeping.
“Q Did you take all of them there for safe keeping?
“A All the copies. All that I had at the time I took to Mr. Crago.
“Q Were any of them left behind in the office of Ralston-Pilot?
“A I don’t know.
“Q And those were the documents that you retrieved from Mr. Crago a short time before his deposition being taken; is that correct?
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong ever report to you or tell you that he had received a document entitled a ‘Suppressive Person Declare, Gerry Armstrong’”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I will object on hearsay grounds.
THE COURT: Overruled.
“A He showed me such a document.
“Q Do you recall approximately when he showed you that document?
“A No, I don’t recall the date.
“Q Was it around the spring of 1982?
“A Could well have been, yes.
“Q Did you have any discussion with Mr. Armstrong regarding the document?
“A I did, yes.
“Q What was the substance of your discussion with him?
“A The substance was that I said that this is outrageous.
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong tell you how
he obtained the document?
“A No, I never knew.
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong tell you that the document caused him some apprehension?”
MR. LITT: I will object again on hearsay grounds.
THE COURT: It is evidence of Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind; overruled.
“A Yes, he did tell me that.
“Q What did he tell you in that vein?
“A Well, simply that he felt his life was in danger.
“Q Did he tell you why he felt his life was in danger?
“A He referred to the past history of B1 and so on as being extremely — these people that were engaged in that particular department of the organization were extremely vindictive, and that they would carry out any order no matter whether it was legal or illegal; that persons who were declared were to be — could be utterly destroyed.”
MR. LITT: I have the same objection to all of these.
Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind, I don’t think is in issue.
THE COURT: Well, overruled. It is in evidence in the case.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Could you please tell us what the abbreviation ‘B1? stands for?
“A I believe it’s Bureau Information, but it is in fact an intelligence agency.”
MR. LITT: As to the “in fact” –
THE COURT: I will strike that as a conclusion.
MR. FLYNN : (Reading:)
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong ever show you any other ‘Suppressive Person Declares’?
“A Not that I recall.
“Q Do you know whether he received any others?
“A I do not.
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong’s receipt of this Suppressive Person Declare add to your concern regarding the security of the documents?
“A Considerably so, yes.
“Q And can you explain why?
“A Well, because they knew — when I say ‘they,’ again, I am talking about representatives of the church and specifically representatives of the church and B1 and the Guardian’s Office, let us say, as an overall; and since Gerry was declared, and I was obviously also hostile because of following the meeting, that an attempt would be made — as indeed I had information documents had been stolen in the past, not only in the case of Washington but in the case, in certain cases in England that you know nothing of — that they have a past history of breaking and entering, and it was just a
matter of prudence for me to secure the documents for my own protection.”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I assume if this is being received, it is solely for state of mind.
THE COURT: Yes, nothing to do with the truth of what is therein stated.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Do you recall a meeting in April of 1982 in which you accompanied Mr. Armstrong to church premises in Los Angeles where he requested the return of some photographs?
“A I recall it very vividly.
“Q Why was it that you went with Mr. Armstrong that day?”
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to make the same objection here.
I know Mr. Armstrong is going to testify about that in this case, but I do believe that in our case that is well beyond the scope. There was no testimony in our case about it. It has to do with an affirmative defense essentially, and there was no testimony in Mr. Garrison’s deposition that would raise this issue.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, this relates to the damages and the hiring of the private investigator that Mr. Peterson put in yesterday.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, this is way before the private investigators were hired. This is in April.
THE COURT: well, it would bear upon his state of mind. I will overrule the objection.
“A It was in the evening, and I went with him at his urgent request. He told me that he needed me to be with him because he feared for his life if he went alone.
“Q Did he tell you why he feared for his life?
“A No, he did not.”
MR. LITT: All of this is introduced solely as to state of mind?
THE COURT: Yes, or as it may be corroborative of Mr. Armstrong’s testimony as it is later developed or not corroborative.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
“Q Did you know anything about the photographs which Mr. Armstrong sought to obtain from the church?
“A I believe I — I believe I did but not a great deal about them.
“Q Had Mr. Armstrong told you anything about the photographs before you went with him?
“A I — I’m not sure that he had, but it’s possible that he had because — in any event, by the time we arrived there I did know — oh, I knew
because he had gone first to another person’s home with regard to the photographs, and some of the information, I believe, was divulged there.
“Q And what person was that?
“A I believe his name was Wilhite.
“Q And did some conversation regarding the photographs take place at Mr. Wilhite’s?
“A Yes. It was my understanding, in listening to the conversation, that Mr. Armstrong had given Mr. Wilhite these photographs because Mr. Wilhite knew persons who were interested in buying them. And that instead of selling, as in fact he had told Mr. Armstrong, according to Mr. Armstrong, that he had had a buyer that he sold them, in fact and instead he had turned them over to representatives of the Church of Scientology.
“And it was at that point that Mr. Armstrong went to the, I believe, the headquarters of the Commodore’s Messengers in the Cedars Complex, and I accompanied him.
“Q Did you accompany Mr. Armstrong when he spoke to the representative of the CMO?
“A Yes. I sat in the passage outside, just outside the room in which he –
“Q Were you able to overhear any of the conversation?
“A As it was a high decibel conversation and completely at times hysterical, yes, I was able to overhear it.
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong request return of the photographs?
“Q What was the response of the individual CMO member?
“A In substance, and the final word was, ‘Get yourself a lawyer.’
“Q Do you know the name of the individual that Mr. Armstrong was speaking with?
“A There were several, but the one who told him to get a lawyer and who apparently had the — the discretion at the meeting was Terri Gamboa.
“Q Do you know the names of the other individuals present other than Terri Gamboa?
“A I do not.
“Q Did any of the individuals at
the Scientology organization speaking with Mr. Armstrong state or admit that they had the photographs in their possession?
“A I really don’t recall.
“Q Do you recall any discussion in which the members of the CMO refused to turn the photographs back to Mr. Armstrong?
“A Yes. They definitely refused.
“Q And they advised Mr. Armstrong to get an attorney; is that correct?
“A That was their parting word to him, yes.
“Q Did you then leave the church premises?
“A Yes, we did.
“Q Can you describe Mr. Armstrong’s condition when he left the church premises. Was he shaken?
“A Do you really want me to?
“Q Yes, certainly.
“Q Did he indicate to you that he was afraid for his life at that point?
“A Very much so. He was totally distraught. He was virtually incoherent at that point.
“Q Did you have any discussion with him regarding obtaining an attorney to represent him?
“A I don’t recall at that time that I did. I believe not.
“Q Were there any other events that took place in the spring of 1982 which resulted in Mr. Armstrong stating to you that he was in fear of his life, other than the ones we’ve talked about?
“A There were on-going incidents and misadventures and so on. It was a constant source of discussion, constant source of discussion between us.
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong’s wife ever tell you that she was afraid for her life during that period?”
MR. LITT: Objection; Mrs. Armstrong.
THE COURT: I will sustain that objection.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q Did they appear distraught to you during that time?”
MR. LITT: Same objection; asks about both. And it is compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETERSON: (Reading):
“A Very much so.
“Q After this incident with the photographs, do you know whether Mr. Armstrong went to seek counsel?
“A I do not. I was not aware. I do not know.
“Q Can you recall ever taking Mr. Armstrong to the airport for a flight to meet with an attorney by the name of Michael Flynn?
“A Yes, I do recall that. I didn’t know — actually my impression was that Mr. Armstrong was going to Clearwater, Florida,
to attend some sort of hearing that they were having and not specifically to meet an attorney. But apparently — I understood that Mr. Flynn was involved because he had been involved in the Clearwater scene for quite some time, and there was a document I had of some of the proceedings on that.
“Q After you took Mr. Armstrong to the airport, do you recall Mr. Armstrong’s wife staying with you and your wife?
“A She stayed in our flat because she was afraid to stay alone in their dwelling.”
MR. LITT: Objection. I am going to move to strike as hearsay.
THE COURT: Hearsay. Stricken.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q And that was as a result of those events that had occurred with respect to –
“A Previously –
“Q — the Church of Scientology?”
MR. LITT: No foundation.
THE COURT: Strike as well.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong at any time tell you that he had sent documents to Mr. Flynn?
“A Mr. Armstrong was not too forthcoming with me in the early stages of his relationship with Mr. Flynn because I had objected to Mr. Flynn
having any documents except later on what was absolutely necessary for Mr. Armstrong’s defense. I felt that quite –
“See, I did not know Mr. Flynn, and I had great reservation about his having any of the documents, but that if he were to have some he should have only those that pertained to the legal proceedings, because of his relationship with other writers I wanted to protect my material.
“Q I believe that you indicated in your earlier testimony that you were willing that Mr. Armstrong have any of the material he needed provided that it could not be distributed beyond the legal arena.
“A That’s correct.
“Q Do you feel that Mr. Armstrong violated that agreement that you had with him?
“A I don’t think Mr. Armstrong gave any material outside the legal arena. I have the reservation as to whether it ever went outside. I was — to be quite candid, I was never informed in any detail what information Mr. Armstrong gave to Mr. Flynn, and I don’t know to this moment in accurate detail. When the documents came to be sealed by the court, I asked repeatedly; I tried to get information.
“Mr. Armstrong — I asked him specifically
what is all — what is — the press had an exaggerated, apparently an exaggerated estimate of how much material had been taken into court, and this astonished me. So I asked Mr. Armstrong what in hell is all that about 22 cartons or something, and he said that — I said, ‘Was this material that came from my collection?’ And he said only — the only things that were taken to the court, were sealed in the court, were those, as he put it, legal stuff that was necessary for the case.
“Q Do you have any information that any of the documents taken were distributed beyond the legal arena?
“A I have no indication of that whatever.
“Q You testified earlier that in the past you had been provided with an enormous amount of material with respect to the writing of various books and that you had an understanding that the materials would be kept confidential; is that correct?
“A It was a tacit understanding that was never formalized or — it was well understood. Mr. Gaiman and I always had very cordial and amicable relations because he understood me and I understood him; but it was never — no one ever said you are going to observe the confidentiality
of these documents. He simply assumed that I would, and I did.
“Q Was that ever a part of the contract of October, 1980?
“A No, it was not. I don’t think confidentiality was ever mentioned in connection with any of these documents to me.”
MR. LITT: I am going to move to strike that on the basis that the contract, which is in evidence, speaks for itself, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, everything after “No, it was not” will be stricken as nonresponsive.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q Did Mr. Armstrong ever tell you why he thought it was necessary to retain counsel?
“A No. It would have been — ”
THE COURT: You can leave that out. “No.”
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q From Exhibit 2 which is attached to this deposition, it’s apparent that you have recently entered into a settlement agreement with New Era Publications — ”
MR. LITT: I am sorry. For the record, perhaps Mr. Flynn could use Exhibit 22.
THE COURT: That is Exhibit 22.
MR. LITT: Our Exhibit 22 is Exhibit 2 to the deposition. Otherwise there will be some confusion in the record.
THE COURT: No problem.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading:)
” … and that the document which has been attached as Exhibit 2 (22) is simply an Exhibit 2 (22) to the confidential settlement agreement; is that correct?
“A May I see?
“Q I’m referring now to paragraph 1 of Exhibit 2 (22).
“A Yes. The answer is yes.
“Q Who was present during the settlement negotiations?
“A I’d like to know the purpose of the question, first. I mean, how is it related to Mr. Armstrong’s case?”
THE COURT: Let’s not get involved with colloquy.
MR. LITT: The colloquy goes on quite a ways, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I guess, on page 135, line 5.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q Well, let me rephrase the question.
Whose interests were represented at the settlement negotiations?
“A As I understand it, the New Era Publications was represented; Mary Sue Hubbard was represented, and the — I don’t really know whom the other attorneys were representing; I assume they were representing — who are their clients?”
THE COURT: Let’s go down to line 27.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q I believe the question that I had asked before we broke was whose interests were represented during the settlement negotiations, and Mr. Garrison answered New Era Publications and Mary Sue Hubbard.
“A And, of course, my own.
“Q All right. Are those the only interests that you are aware of that were represented?
“A The only ones that I’m aware of, yes.
“Q Are you aware of anyone representing the interests of L. Ron Hubbard?
“A Directly, no, I’m not. In other words, to clarify that, no one has represented to me that he represents L. Ron Hubbard directly.
“Q So as far as you know, Mr. Hubbard was not represented at this settlement?
“A Not at all. Mr. Hubbard may have been represented. I don’t say that. It is my belief that he was, but that’s simply my belief. I think he was very much represented there.”
MR. LITT: I would move to strike starting with the words “it is my belief.”
THE COURT: It will be stricken.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q What was your belief based upon — ”
THE COURT: Well, skip that. I guess, line 19 on page 137.
MR. FLYNN: (Reading):
“Q The document marked as Exhibit 2 (22) paragraph 4 indicates that you delivered all documents and materials obtained in relation to the preparation of the biography to the Church of Scientology International.
“Was it ever represented to you that Mr. Hubbard authorized the delivery of these
documents to the Church of Scientology International?
“Q Did you sign any releases in connection with this settlement agreement?
“A I didn’t sign releases. All I signed was the settlement agreement which was an agreement.
[Missing pages 1334, 1335]
with the Mafia and many other things; I have been through a war. I don’t give any thought to personal danger; and if I did, I’m not easily intimidated.”
THE COURT: I guess we get Mr. Litt back again on page 141.
MR. LITT: Right.
“Q Mr. Garrison, I only have a few questions, and I hope that will be an accurate statement. I have been accused on occasion of saying that and going for an hour, but I’ll see if I can avoid it at this time.
You stated during your testimony, both during the cross-examination and earlier, that the contract that you signed specified individuals who could review the manuscript. I must confess that if it’s there I can’t find it.
“A Well, it may be another case of something agreed to and not put in.
“It wasn’t included, but I can tell if you are interested. It was David Gaiman, L. Ron Hubbard, and there was one other person. Those were the principals, and my impression is there was one other person whom I don’t recall at the moment.
“A It was expected at that time,
actually, that Mr. Gaiman, as he had done previously with the other books, would read the manuscript — and I might say as an aside parenthetically that he never found anything objectionable in the others, and this is why I thought he was intelligent, and he could — also he had a broad and liberal view about what would go in the manuscript — that he would read it, and after he read it he would pass it on to Mr. Hubbard. That was the understanding. But I believe there was some backup for Mr. Gaiman; in case he wasn’t available to do it, someone else could do it in his stead.
“Q Now, regarding the archives, you’ve indicated that the archives appear to you to be archives of Mr. Hubbard. Do you mean by that that the archives were materials that appeared to be Mr. Hubbard’s materials?
“A Yes. There were materials that no person in his right mind — that were so intimate that no person in his right mind would pass on to an organization. Moreover, the reason I assumed that is that they were materials which ran contrary to published biographies of Hubbard, and they were materials which would be deleterious to his image with his followers; therefore, it would follow that he would not have it in the hands of his
followers, I mean, willingly or knowingly or — I just think that they were very, very private papers, as you must have seen if you examined the documents I returned.
“Q The archives themselves were kept not with Mr. Hubbard, to your knowledge, but were kept at the Cedars of Lebanon complex; is that right?
“A Which archives? Do you mean originally or at the time I came on the scene?
“Q When you came on the scene.
“A When I came on the scene, the principal place where archives were kept, as far as I know, was in Cedars of Lebanon near where my office was. For my convenience, I understood that they were moved there so I could be moved next to them. That’s all.
“Q When you have dealt with people — I’m going to try to discuss this in a broad sense. When you have dealt with Scientologists related to the subject of Scientology or Mr. Hubbard, has, in your experience, anyone who is not a Scientologist in good standing ever had the authority to represent either the church or Mr. Hubbard?”
MR. LITT: The answer is on line 26.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I am going to object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LITT: (Reading:)
“A Not to my knowledge.
“Q Now, you stated that Mr. Armstrong, you thought, was representing Mr. Hubbard. Would it be fair to say that your actual knowledge was that he was authorized to gather research for the biography?”
MR. LITT: Going on, there is no answer to that:
“Q You have no knowledge, do you, of any appointment, for instance, of Mr. Armstrong as Mr. Hubbard’s agent?
“A I have only the –
“Q He couldn’t, for instance, transact business for him; is that right?
“A I’ve never seen any power of attorney, if that’s what you mean.
“Q Do you have any information that would indicate that Mr. Armstrong was Mr. Hubbard’s agent for general purposes; he acted as his representative in legal affairs or financial affairs?
“Q It was your understanding, I take it, that Mr. Hubbard had approved the biography and had approved Mr. Armstrong acting as archivist with respect to the biography?
“A That was my understanding.
“Q And it was your understanding that this position that he held was based upon his position in the church as a Scientologist in good standing?
“A That I wouldn’t know, but I would assume that if you want me to assume it.”
MR. LITT: Then the witness adds at line 4:
“But I have no way of knowing that.
“Q Well, aside from whether you were ever told that, would it be fair to say, based on what you observed and your experience, Mr. Armstrong’s position as an archivist was tied to his position as a scientologist in good
“A Well, yes. I would categorically answer yes.
“Q And when Mr. Armstrong left the church and left Scientology, you no longer considered him, did you, a Scientologist in good standing?
“Q And similarly you no longer considered him, did you, someone who continued to be authorized by Mr. Hubbard to be his archivist?
“A No, I had no reason to believe that.
“Q And based on all your experience, you would conclude, wouldn’t you, that given his falling out with the church and with Scientology and with Mr. Hubbard,.that he would no longer act in this capacity?”
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: The objection wasn’t made at the time.
MR. FLYNN: It is hearsay, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: It calls –
MR. FLYNN: It calls for an opinion.
MR. LITT: Based on his experience.
THE COURT: Well, I will overrule the objection.
“A Well, he had no connection when he left the church with the church so he couldn’t
act in that capacity. I mean it’s self-evident that he couldn’t and therefore –
“Q I won’t quarrel with that.
“A Therefore the answer is self-evident, you see. No.
“Q So in his continuing to work with you on the biography, he was basically doing this for you at that point, in your mind, not for Mr. Hubbard; is that right?
“A I never stopped to question that, but if you are bringing the question up now, I would guess he was doing it for me.”
MR. FLYNN: Move to strike or the ground of speculation, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, everything appears to be a guess, so I will strike it.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I don’t think it is a guess. It is a question of your state of mind. If we allow in these things about his state of mind, his state of mind was when Mr. Armstrong left the church he no longer had authority to act for Mr. Hubbard.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t think this is a major issue in this lawsuit.
MR. LITT: Well, I agree with that, but it was gone into at some length in the cross.
MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw my objection.
We will let the guess stand then, Your Honor.
MR. LITT: (Reading):
“Q How long have you worked in various ways with Scientology?
“A Ten years — approximately ten years.
“Q During those ten years, you’ve had extensive experience in dealing with the church working with Scientologists?
“A Yes, I have.
“Q And also you’ve had extensive experience in working with Scientologists who — I won’t use the words ‘representing’ Mr. Hubbard, but you were looking out for Mr. Hubbard’s interests?
“Q And on the basis of that experience, you would concludes, would you not, that Mr. Hubbard always entrusted his affairs or asked people to assist him in one respect or another only in the event that they were Scientologists in good standing; is that correct?
“A My assumption would be yes.
“Q I’m not asking for an assumption, but based on your experience? I’m not asking at this point –
“A Would I conclude that based on my experience, yes.
“Q And did you have experience in which
there were people in positions within the church who upon leaving the church no longer would act for Mr. Hubbard’s interests upon their leaving the church? Did you ever observe that occur?
“A No, I had no contact with such people at all.
“Q You mentioned a Sue Anderson that you had dealt with.
“Q Did there come a point where you no longer dealt with her?
“Q Do you know whether she left the church around that same time?
“A Not that same time. She was reassigned to do something else, and Laurel Sullivan, I believe, took over.
“Q And at some point Laurel Sullivan left the church; is that right?
“A I understood she did. I’ve been told she did.
“Q You indicated that you couldn’t have written the full and complete biography that you did without the assistance of Mr. Armstrong, I believe.
“Q When you say that, answer the following question for me: Assuming that there
was someone else who had done the same work that Mr. Armstrong had done in the archives and you had the same abilities — since I know you have a high regard for his abilities — then, I assume, that in that eventuality that you could have written a similar –
“Q — work?
“A Yes, Obviously.
“Q Now, you mentioned — let me do another thing first. You mentioned something, and I ask this question because it was asked, and I don’t believe it’s admissible, but in the event that it is, I do have some followup questions on it.
“You gave what you considered an instance” –
MR. LITT: Well, that was stricken. Your Honor. This is redirect on things that the court struck.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LITT: We would go over –
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, as I understand what the court struck were representations or misrepresentations that had been made about Mr. Hubbard’s background. This goes to state of mind as to his knowledge of harassment by the B-1 Bureau.
THE COURT: I am not going to get into it at this time. Let’s just go on with this and get it over with.
We are approaching the end of it.
MR. LITT: We go to page 150.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LITT: (Reading):
“Q You mentioned that you read some press reports about the event before Judge Cole that mentioned 22 cartons of material, whatever.
“Q And that you had a discussion with Mr. Armstrong, and he said that the only thing that was sealed was legal material.
“A Material pertaining to the case, that it was limited to the legal consideration.
“Q Are you aware that according to Mr. Armstrong, the sole source of all those documents is your materials?
“A Well, I’m aware of that, yes, and he would have no other source so far as I know of getting those materials except from those I had.
“Q Assuming that the description of 22 cartons of materials is accurate, did you have any description that the volume of material had been taken to you?”
MR. FLYNN: If I can object since we all know there are only five cartons and not twenty-two cartons, and the press misreported the fact that twenty-two cartons were turned over to the court. I think all of this is misleading without foundation based on a false statement.
THE COURT: Well, it is irrelevant. Consider it is irrelevant and go on to line 14.
MR. LITT: (Reading:)
“Q Are you aware that 5,000 pages approximately of materials were provided to Mr. Flynn — that’s by Mr. Armstrong’s estimate — from your materials?
“A No, I’m not aware of that.
“Q Was that volume of material that you had understood that Mr. Armstrong needed for his suit?
“A The volume was never discussed.
“Q Leaving aside –”
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor,/I would continue to object on the same ground, that the 5,000 in the mind of the witness, from what I understand, was that there were 22 cartons of documents.
MR. LITT: It says “5,000 pages.”
THE COURT: Let’s not argue over this. Let’s just go on.
MR. LITT: (Reading:)
“Q Leaving aside whether it was discussed or not — I’m going to your state of mind — did you understand that that kind of scope of material and volume of material was what was needed by Mr. Armstrong?
“A No, I did not.
“Q Are you aware that aside from that there are some thousands of more pages of documents that were provided to
Miss Dragojevic’s firm, Contos & Bunch?
“A No, I am not aware of any of that.
“Q Assuming that that’s accurate –and Mr. Armstrong has testified to that effect — were you aware that that volume of material, in addition to what was given to Mr. Flynn, was being taken by Mr. Armstrong from you?
“A No. I don’t know — I have no knowledge whatsoever of the volume of material that you know — I never did. As I said before, I repeatedly asked what — when I read the account in the press, I was very much alarmed because I thought, ‘Here goes a dissemination.’ You never know what’s going to happen once — even the court seals don’t mean too much as we saw in the case of Judge Ritchie. One judge will seal it, and the other unseals it.
“So I was very much concerned about what was — what was sealed up in the courts, and I still don’t know. I don’t know the volume. I don’t know the contents. I never was able to find out.”
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, from here to the end, based on the 22 cartons, plus thousands of more pages to Contos & Bunch — All of this is totally irrelevant.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I have read in deposition testimony from Mr. Armstrong that corroborates these assumptions.
MR. FLYNN: The witness is under the impression it is 22 cartons, plus another eight to ten thousand –
THE COURT: We could read this while you are arguing about it. Let’s just finish it and chalk it up to experience. Let’s go ahead.
MR. LITT: (Reading:)
“Q Did you ask Mr. Armstrong?
“A I did, yes. He didn’t — I wasn’t sure that he knew.
“Q Can you explain that?
“A Well, he didn’t — I don’t think he personally delivered it to the court, as I understand it. I don’t think he delivered the documents to the court.
“Q But it was your understanding that he had delivered it to the attorneys; right?
“A Yes, but I don’t know how much — I have no idea what he delivered to the attorneys.
“Q Now — and, frankly, this is not going to be a question that is going to be easy for you to answer because I know you are fond of Mr. Armstrong; I know you don’t want to do anything to harm Mr. Armstrong. At the same
time I’m going to ask you for a frank answer on this.
“In all sincerity, did you have any idea — assuming that the description I have given you is accurate, that there were 8 to 10,000 pages, did you have any idea that Mr. Armstrong, was taking that amount of materials from you?
“A I had no such idea and I haven’t now. I’m not aware of it at all.
“Q Was it your intention, in discussing with Mr. Armstrong your making available to him materials that were needed to provide that kind of scope of materials?
“A No, it was not.”
MR. LITT: Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN: I have nothing further.
MR. LITT: I have nothing further if Mr. Flynn doesn’t.
MR. FLYNN: Having spoken to the witness, I believe he was under the impression 22 cartons of materials were turned over, which, as we know, is totally false.
MR. LITT: Mr. Flynn doesn’t want an answer read into the record asked by his co-counsel.
MR. FLYNN: I intend to bring Mr. Garrison in –
THE COURT: All right. You want to read something, go ahead, Mr. Litt.
MR. PETERSON: Give me a page and line.
MR. LITT: Well, I will just finish reading the deposition. It is probably easier.
Actually, the only thing remaining that I am interested in, if the court will go to page 155, beginning at line 10. This is a question asked by Miss Dragojevic.
“Q I believe that you testified earlier that with respect to the documents you would have given Mr. Armstrong whatever was necessary to his legal defense so long as it remained within the legal arena; is that correct?
“Q Would you have denied Mr. Armstrong access to 8 to 10,000 pages of documentation had he specifically told you the amount?
“A Yes, I would.
“Q Why is that?
“A Because I would — I feared for their passing into Mr. Flynn’s hands. I trusted Mr. Armstrong. I didn’t trust Mr. Flynn.”
That is the only remaining thing I have.
MR. FLYNN: I will read the last one, Your Honor, line 24.
“I believe you testified earlier that you had no evidence to indicate that the
documents had actually gone beyond the legal arena.
“A No, I have no such evidence.”
THE COURT: Okay. Let’s take a 15-minute recess.
THE COURT: All right. Let the record show that we are back in session. Counsel are all present.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I have an issue I’d like to raise at this time with the court, and that is the settlement agreement that was referred to of which a public statement of the settlement agreement has now been marked as an exhibit.
Obviously the settlement agreement relates to who owns or who has the right to possess documents that are at issue in this case because under the agreement with Mr. Garrison and his testimony specifically at page 56 of the deposition, it was his understanding pursuant to that agreement, the settlement agreement, that he was to return the documents to the Church of Scientology International which is not a party to this lawsuit.
Now, one of the theories of our defense is that for there to be a conversion, there had to be a conversion, the plaintiff or the intervenor had to have a right to possession at the time of conversion, and we believe that up until at least the summer of 1983, the only one who had the right to possess the documents were Mr. Armstrong pursuant to his contract with Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Garrison pursuant to his contract with PUBS DK. Therefore, the settlement agreement would be relevant to show what Mr. Armstrong’s rights are with respect to who owns or has the right to possess the documents as of the summer of 1983.
Similarly, the contract between PUBS DK and L. Ron Hubbard might also address the issue of the documents
since they are not addressed as Mr. Garrison testified in the contract between him and PUBS DK, so we’d similarly like to have the opportunity to see the agreement and see the settlement agreement to determine whether it might be relevant to the defense of the case.
THE COURT: What page are you referring to?
MR. FLYNN: Page 56, Your Honor, line 14 through line 21.
In fact, he even refers to the agreement, but we don’t even know what he is referring to.
MR. LITT: He refers to exhibit 22, Your Honor, which was expressly written to be a public statement of the agreement that explains all the relevant facts which is that Mr. Garrison entered into an agreement with New Era Publications, the successor to PUBS DK, to return the documents to the custody of the Church of Scientology International.
As to the arrangements made between the various Churches of Scientology, that is irrelevant. This case was brought by the party that had provided the materials to Mr. Garrison, or at least that Mr. Armstrong had gotten them from. The contents are confidential, and the only relevance as to what is contained in that statement is that Mr. Garrison makes no claims to the documents, and it is a confidential agreement and it is not relevant.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t really see that it sheds any light on anything here. Mr. Hubbard, through his letter, has requested that any documents be turned over to the
Church International. That was in February of ‘83.
The fact that there was a settlement is something that might go to the matter of bias or prejudice, I suppose, when the witness is testifying, but precise details seem to me to be irrelevant.
MR. FLYNN: For example, suppose the settlement agreement says that Mary Sue Hubbard is to have no access to the materials. That would totally defeat her interests.
THE COURT: I don’t really see how that would be binding upon her. Unless she was a party to the agreement, she’d have her own rights. People can make their own agreements as between themselves, but they are not binding upon third parties who are not a party to the agreement. If she has rights in those documents and she wants to assert them, hypothetically she could do so.
MR. FLYNN: Suppose the agreement says that L. Ron Hubbard owns the documents and has the right to possess them. That would fulfill the contract that Mr. Armstrong had with him.
We are operating completely in the dark as to what these documents say. They could be vital to the defense.
THE COURT: Oh, I don’t think there is a good enough showing at this point that there is any necessity for that, so I will deny the motion.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, if I may just clarify one point that the court made.
Actually Mr. Hubbard says in his letter, we will
argue this later I suppose, that the materials be returned to the church, and he sent a copy to the Church of Scientology International, which is the mother church as of now, but not the church that had the original custody of the documents. So we just want to have that clear because Mr. Flynn is going to argue that the Church of Scientology International is not a party to this agreement, and the Church of Scientology of California is, and therefore Mr. Hubbard’s statement is returned to the Church of Scientology International. His statement is to the church with a carbon copy to the Church of Scientology International. I just want to clear that up factually.
THE COURT: I don’t think it is necessary to dwell on that particular problem at the moment.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, we would move into evidence exhibit 22.
THE COURT: Any objection, counsel?
MR. FLYNN: Well, only, Your Honor, that it is a public statement of a contract which now you are making relevant to the issues in the lawsuit, and we don’t know what the contract is.
THE COURT: We do know what the settlement agreement says on its face.
I will overrule the objection. Be received for whatever value it may have.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, we would like to inquire whether the defendant is prepared to stipulate that other than the instant suit which was filed on August 3, 1982 he
has not been sued in any court by any Church of Scientology, by L. Ron Hubbard or by Mary Sue Hubbard? We will present testimony –
THE COURT: I suppose you could call him and ask him that.
MR. LITT: Well, we can present it through Mr. Peterson who knows, but we can stipulate to it and save
THE COURT: An offer to stipulate. Do you want to enter into the stipulation on that?
MR. FLYNN: I’d first raise the relevance of it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well –
MR. LITT: This goes to the question of whether or not when Mr. Armstrong took these materials he was a
defendant and was taking them for any case in which he was a defendant.
MR. FLYNN: We will stipulate to it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LITT: We rest, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The case is with the defense.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, at this point we would move for a nonsuit and/or directed verdict.
And I would like to submit a little bit of argument on it, if I could.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, we believe that the evidence shows that Mr. Armstrong was authorized by L. Ron Hubbard or his representative to collect documents for the biography.
In fact, there is no evidence of any nature or description which rebuts the evidence that L. Ron Hubbard or a representative messenger authorized him to collect the documents.
There were, in that authorization, no limitations placed on the circumstances under he could collect documents. He was, in effect, either an agent or an independent contractor working for L. Ron Hubbard, where there was no supervision over his day-to-day activities in terms of what he did in connection with the collection of the documents.
It was understood and agreed by everyone that in this collection process he could bring the documents to
Omar Garrison for purposes of the writing of a biography.
The contract, which we believe is the underlying document in the case, places no limitation on what Mr. Garrison could do with the documents. And, in fact, there is specific evidence, which we have just read, that he allowed Mr. Armstrong to use the documents in the legal arena. There is no evidence that Mr. Armstrong violated that trust or that agreement between he and Mr. Garrison. Namely, that the documents were used outside the legal arena.
There is no evidence that Mr. Garrison placed any restriction on the manner in which Mr. Armstrong collected the documents during the period of time that he was working for L. Ron Hubbard up to December, 1981, per the testimony of Mrs. Hubbard and other representatives of the church, and there is no evidence that Mary Sue Hubbard communicated any restriction to Gerald Armstrong about the specifics of where he could and could not collect documents. No evidence whatsoever.
In fact, the evidence of Mary Sue Hubbard was that she didn’t communicate with Gerald Armstrong. So, in effect, the court has a situation where Mr. Armstrong is engaged by L. Ron Hubbard, or a messenger acting on his behalf, to collect documents from no restricted sources. There is no other source inside the organization that restricts him. In fact, the testimony is precisely the opposite. The testimony of Mr. Vorm was that he gave him permission to have the documents from the so-called control of his archives.
Therefore, I submit to the court that there is no evidence of any nature or description that up to the time of the settlement agreed to in the summer of 1983 Gerald Armstrong did not have the right to possess the documents per his agreement with L. Ron Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard, in fact, to date — no one has heard from Mr. Hubbard. In fact, exhibit 1 doesn’t even state whether or not Gerald Armstrong couldn’t have copies of the documents.
There is no evidence that Omar Garrison — And I specifically asked Mr. Peterson this question. There was no evidence that Omar Garrison was asked to return any documents until he entered into the settlement agreement, which has been a public statement, which has been marked as exhibit 22.
The underlying contractual arrangement between Gerald Armstrong and L. Ron Hubbard and Omar Garrison and PUBS DK, which is also not a party to this action, permitted both Mr. Garrison and Mr. Armstrong to have these documents.
Therefore, under the law of California, the plaintiff and the intervenor had the burden of proving that at the time they brought this lawsuit they had a right to possess the documents or at the time of the alleged conversion they had the right to possess the documents.
The allegations of Mrs. Hubbard, as I understand it, are that when the documents were given to me, Mr. Armstrong’s lawyer, the invasion of privacy and the intrusion took place. Well, I submit, Your Honor, that there is no evidence that either the plaintiff or the intervenor had the right
to possess the documents at that time. In fact, the evidence is precisely the opposite.
Therefore in the conversion counts, under the law of California, I submit that the plaintiff and the intervenor should be nonsuited and/or a directed verdict should be entered in favor of Mr. Armstrong with respect to those counts.
Also, with respect to the conversion counts, we submit that the only way that the court could frame relief in this action with respect to these documents is for Mr. Hubbard to have been a party and to have appeared and to have explained to the court and made claims in this proceeding as to what his contractual rights were under the contract.
There are several California cases, which I will briefly mention to the court, which we feel are specifically relevant to this case. One is Bank of The Orient v. San Francisco Federal Savings & Loan, 136 Trial Reporter at 731.
In that case there was a partial assignment of contractual rights between several parties. And the contractual rights basically — or the assignment basically arose in the following context:
A bank manager apparently stole or embezzled funds, and we will call him the bank manager of Bank A. He then went to his own bank, Bank B, and deposited checks which he had used to embezzle the funds from Bank A. Bank A thereafter, pursuant to an insurance contract that it had,
paid off the claim of Bank B, when Bank B subsequently lost the funds because it had wrongfully deposited them. The issue became whether or not Bank A, after it had assigned its rights pursuant to its insurance contract — but then brought a separate action — needed to bring in as a party the insurance carrier to which it had assigned its rights. And it failed to do so.
And the court dismissed the action, and it relied on, in part, this U-Tex case, a copy of which I have provided to the court, where the failure to join an indispensable party was brought up for the first time in appeal. It wasn’t even raised at the trial level, as we have here. And the court held that where there has been a partial assignment of contractual rights all parties claiming an interest in the assignment must be joined as plaintiff’s in the action involving those rights, since they were indispensable parties and since without them the court lacks jurisdiction.
Now, you have a situation here where right in the middle of this litigation the contractual rights with regard to the possession of these documents in the hands or Omar Garrison, from whom Mr. Armstrong received them, gave them back, apparently, to an organization called New Era Publications pursuant to the settlement agreement public statement which is marked as exhibit 22; New Era Publications is not even a party to this action, and it apparently received an assignment of all the rights of PUBS DK.
Assuming that the real party in interest in this case is really L. Ron Hubbard, there is no indication that L. Ron Hubbard approved of such an assignment. As we know, under the original agreement he had to approve the final biography, and apparently from what Mr. Garrison has testified, there was a completed manuscript. There is no evidence that Mr. Hubbard even considered that manuscript to determine whether it was approved.
So, I submit to the court that this New Era Publications, which is apparently, from the little evidence we know, been assigned the contractual rights under Garrison’s contract is not a party to the action, and therefore the conversion counts should be dismissed because that corporation, whichever it is, under the case law that I have just cited is an indispensible party.
Secondly, there is no provision in the contract that limited Omar Garrison from disseminating the documents to anyone. In fact, if there had been such a provision, if
a provision was written into the contract that if Omar Garrison found in the documents matters that indicated that L. Ron Hubbard had engaged in fraudulent representations over many years or engaged in other criminal acts, if such a clause had been put in under the case of Brown versus Freese, F-r-e-e-s-e, 28 Cal.App.2d 608, the contract would have been void as against public policy.
Also, under the case of Allen versus Jordanos, also relying on the Restatement of Contracts, if such a clause had been put in the contract, it would have been void as against public policy. The Allen versus Jordanos is 53 Cal.App.3d at 162.
So, I submit to the court that you have a situation where the underlying burden that the plaintiff and the intervenor have in this case to prove its conversion count relates to something that goes to the right of possession of these materials at certain critical points in time. Those critical points in time are when the documents were turned over to me because that is their claim when the conversion took place, and under the contract the only one who had the right to possess the documents at the time was either Gerald Armstrong or Omar Garrison.
If a clause had been put in the contract that once Omar Garrison found discreditable information and then disseminated it and that terminated the contract, that clause would have been unenforceable which would have continued the right to possession per the fact that Mr. Hubbard is the individual who originally authorized the
collection of the documents. It would have continued the right to possession in Mr. Armstrong until such time as Mr. Hubbard came forward and entered into a different contractual arrangement either with Mr. Armstrong or with Omar Garrison which was never done. For that reason, Your Honor, we think the conversion counts of both parties should be dismissed.
With regard to the breach of fiduciary duty count, the fiduciary duty was owed to L. Ron Hubbard if it was owed to anyone because it was L. Ron Hubbard that Mr. Armstrong entered into the agreement with. In fact, the evidence has only been that there were no restrictions on the documents. That Mary Sue Hubbard, although she now claims there are restrictions, and I will admit on the witness stand she claims that in her mind she put restrictions in the documents, but she certainly never communicated them to Mr. Armstrong, number one, and number two, the party with whom Mr. Armstrong contracted was not Mary Sue Hubbard. It was with her husband, L. Ron Hubbard, and he never placed any restrictions on the documents nor did the organizational representative, Mr. Vorm, who testified precisely the opposite that he gave the documents to Mr. Armstrong and he got authority from his organizational senior.
So, I submit, Your Honor, that there is no evidence at all of any fiduciary responsibility between Mr. Armstrong and the Church of Scientology of California. Therefore, there is no evidence that he could have breached
With regard to Mary Sue Hubbard, there is absolutely no indication in the record. In fact, Mary Sue Hubbard testified she never spoke to Gerald Armstrong. Never communicated anything to him, so there was obviously not fiduciary duty or relationship that existed between the two of them.
With regard to the invasion of privacy count of Mary Sue Hubbard, as I understand it, the claim is that the intrusion took place without publication, but simply the fact of an intrusion with the documents were turned over to me, although I must confess I don’t presently understand the intervenor’s allegations nor do I believe that there is any evidence whatsoever to support the fact that there can be an intrusion where documents have been given consentually, and where documents have been given pursuant to a contract, and where another party comes forward; namely, Mary Sue Hubbard and claims that her privacy rights have been invaded upon when her husband has appointed someone to collect up the documents and give them to Omar Garrison and then Omar Garrison, who enters into a contract with a third party corporation which places no restrictions on the documents, gives them to Mr. Armstrong, which once the defense of this case begins will show that he was entirely justified, in fact, shockingly justified in doing what he did.
But in any event, if the theory of the case is that there’s been an intrusion, then I submit there can be no intrusion where there’s been consent and that consent
flowed from L. Ron Hubbard, and it, for all intents and purposes based on the evidence that has been presented in this case, the consent continues right up to the present time.
Assuming that exhibit 1 only relates to the state of mind of L. Ron Hubbard under Section 1250 of the Evidence Code as of February 1983, not to the truth of the matter asserted in it, there is no indication that L. Ron Hubbard has terminated his rights in the original contract that was made with Garrison, no evidence whatsoever.
Therefore, I submit to the court that as long as the court is confronted with a situation where the only evidence in the case is that Mr. Armstrong came into the documents consentually, there can be no intrusion.
I don’t believe there was any evidence introduced of publication with with regard to a claimed invasion of privacy. If there is an allegation of publication, and I submit that the only testimony at all was from Mrs. Hubbard and I asked her very specifically as to what the circumstances were under which she claimed that Mr. Armstrong stole the materials, and she said she didn’t know. And I asked her specifically what he did with them, and she said she didn’t know other than give them to me, and I, as his attorney, had placed them under seal in this court.
So not only do I think that there is any claim of publication, if they are claiming that, there is no evidence of publication.
For the court to find that publication was made to an attorney in the context of Mr. Armstrong, per the testimony of Mr. Peterson, retaining counsel to represent him after Mr. Peterson sent the letters to him, then I submit to the court that at that critical point in time Mr. Armstrong giving documents to a lawyer, after a lawyer from the church has contacted Mr. Armstrong, and after he has been told, per the testimony of Mr. Garrison, to get a lawyer, would not under the law constitute an intrusion. In fact, all it would be is Mr. Armstrong doing precisely what he was told by the organization; namely, to get a lawyer.
So I don’t believe that under the law of any state, or under federal law, the fact that an individual gives documents to his lawyer to defend himself, which became the subject of a lawsuit, can constitute invasion of privacy.
For all of those reasons, Your Honor, I believe that a conversion, the invasion of privacy, and the breach of fiduciary duty counts should all go out. And that the balance of the case should only go forward on the issue of equitable issues, where there is a claimed declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to what should be done with the documents.
THE COURT: Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I will argue if the court feels — Frankly, I think it is clear that there is no
nonsuit here, and I am prepared to argue it. I don’t want to unnecessarily take up the court’s time.
Let’s start with what the actual facts that have been shown are.
There is no showing of a contract, Your Honor. There is no contract between Mr. Armstrong and L. Ron Hubbard, and certainly to the extent that one can argue it is a contract it is merely that — an argument.
The evidence is that Mr. Armstrong, a Church of Scientology of California employee, petitioned Mr. Hubbard and got some response in connection to gathering up materials about Mr. Hubbard. No mention of Mr. Hubbard’s private materials. But he is appointed to this post, and somebody who signs the document or whatever that comes back said, “Okay.”
The testimony that the court has heard about Mr. Hubbard’s reverence within the church and whatever clearly means that the fact that somebody communicates with Mr. Hubbard, who is an employee of the church, inquiring of him for his approval to hold a particular post, approval which is ecclesiastical approval — the idea that they become a personal agent of L. Ron Hubbard and that they have entered into a contract with L. Ron Hubbard is, I would suggest, fanciful on its face, and certainly the evidence that has been presented here doesn’t support that.
Mr. Armstrong said that he was on a Scientology post. Mr. Armstrong admitted that he could have been removed by a senior other than Mr. Hubbard from his post.
We introduced records showing that he had been paid by the church on that post, he expended church moneys to go out and buy materials for the archives. The archives were private and confidential. He testified that he had use of them solely for gathering up the archives and providing them to Mr. Garrison; that they were provided to Mr. Garrison on a confidential basis. That is his understanding; they were provided to Mr. Garrison solely for use in the biography. That was his understanding.
First, actually, what is Gerald Armstrong’s position? The evidence is quite clear. Gerald Armstrong is a church employee. He gets posted to a certain position. That position affects the interest of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, therefore is of particular concern to the church, of course, but he is on a church post, he is on a Scientology post, he is being paid by the church, he is expending moneys of that church.
The church, Mrs. Hubbard testified, had been entrusted with certain materials. The church is a bailee.
A bailee has the right, in the absence of the claim of the actual owner, the superior claim of the actual owner, to protect the bailment.
So, therefore, the archives themselves are gathered up with the church as the bailee, for use in building up an archives, which includes, for whatever set of reasons, gathering up private materials of Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard, materials that Mrs. Hubbard herself had packed up some 20 years before. Mixed materials of their marriage.
Now, I think there is absolutely no basis for arguing in this record — and if there is a basis for arguing it, it is certainly not a basis for a directed verdict — that there is any contract.
All the evidence, including the evidence from Mr. Armstrong, is, in fact, that he was on a church position, just like hundreds or thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of individuals.
Then Mr. Armstrong provides these materials to Mr. Garrison for work on the biography; he provides originals. The court has seen some originals. When the court takes a look at the materials, the court will see a large number of originals, which he is not supposed to do because they are originals. He is supposed to be providing copies. But he provides originals. He gives them to Mr. Garrison solely for use on the biography.
He says, in his own words, that what happened later with respect to him taking it is a whole different thing. So when he gives them to Mr. Garrison he is acting as a church agent he gives them to Mr. Garrison for one purpose.
Furthermore, Mr. Garrison testifies, “Yes, they were very, very private, I considered them confidential, I had a 10-year working relationship with the church. It wasn’t even a subject that had to be discussed, it was just assumed that I would not provide them to anyone else.”
So what we have is we have a situation in which the private papers of primarily L. Ron Hubbard and
in part of Mary Sue Hubbard have been gathered up by the church because of Mr. Hubbard’s reverence by the church. They are provided through the church, whether properly or not we don’t really need to really resolve at this point, through Mr. Armstrong — they are provided to Mr. Garrison. Whether Mr. Hubbard knew about that or Mrs. Hubbard knew about that, for purposes of this case, is not dispositive, because regardless of whether either of them knew about it there was a very limited purpose. That purpose had controls on it which insured that the confidentiality would not be violated because the contract required final approval, and the contract had a privacy clause, the contract between PUB DK and Omar Garrison.
That contract says that PUB DK will provide a research assistant. Omar Garrison says it is his understanding that Gerald Armstrong is the research assistant provided pursuant to the contract.
In the records is a communication from PUBS DK to the Church of Scientology saying, “Please appoint an assistant,” and there are board minutes doing so.
Mr. Armstrong is acting as a Church of Scientology of California representative who may have some permission of some vague sort, because it is quite vague — this petition is quite vague — from Mr. Hubbard, and I emphasize “may” because Mrs. Hubbard said she doubted it, to act in this church post. And the confidentiality of all of this material is assumed.
What happens is Mr. Armstrong takes advantage
of his relationship with Mr. Garrison. He goes to Mr. Garrison at one point, after some disputes with the church, in which he had not been sued, and when all of the evidence is out — if we are going to discuss this photo incident, the way it has been characterized, and Mr. Armstrong has had his photos — if we are going to discuss what is not in evidence yet — Mr. Armstrong goes to Mr. Garrison knowing that he no longer is acting on behalf of the church. They claim that he continues to act as agent for L. Ron Hubbard, when he is antagonistic to L. Ron Hubbard, when he is attacking L. Ron Hubbard, when he wants nothing to do with L. Ron Hubbard. I would suggest it is a relative difficult claim to even listen to. It is just — a generous description is disingenuous of any argument that there was a continuing contract that went beyond the time that he left the church.
So he goes back, having now no authorization whatsoever, supposedly — and I will even assume for the purposes of my argument Mr. Garrison is having him help on the biography. However, Mr. Garrison stops in May 1982. Mr. Garrison even says he is not really working under the contract anymore. So there is a question as to whether or not Mr. Garrison has any right to deal with him. But more importantly he gave the documents to Gerry Armstrong, having nothing to do with the work on the biography. He said that in his deposition. He gave the documents to Gerry Armstrong because Gerry Armstrong said “I need them for my legal defense of a lawsuit that doesn’t exist,” and Mr. Armstrong has admitted that that was not what the documents were used for. He has admitted he gave them to Mr. Flynn for use in other cases. That was a request to admit. Cases other than this case.
The private materials were provided by Mr. Armstrong to Mr. Flynn to use them, and when the full evidence is in we will see to what extent and how they have been used. But the evidence is he gave them, he went and got them, knowing that he had no right to them, knowing that they were private, knowing that they were confidential.
He was not entitled to take them for his own case, even if that was the situation. That is what court process is for, but he didn’t even only take it for his own case by his own admission and his own testimony, he took it to use in other cases. He agreed to become a witness for Mr. Flynn in other cases.
So that the claim that there is no basis — certainly in this context without some justification that I suppose they will try to make in their defense that you can go take someone’s papers because you think you need them for your lawsuit, you can’t do that.
Now, then, those are the facts. Those are the facts even after cross-examination. Those are the only possible inferences.
Then, the question becomes well, what is the law in relationship to those facts. Well, original materials were taken. Mr. Armstrong had what now appears to be quite literally hundreds of original materials of substantial economic value which he took, which he didn’t have a right to take, which weren’t supposed to be taken out of the archives at all.
He takes them and he holds them and gives them to these lawyers. He makes copies of a variety of private materials. Mrs. Hubbard has identified large amounts of private materials.
The first time he went to see Mr. Flynn what did he take with him? A document which you have not seen identified as part of the defense in his case, a very
private letter from Mary Sue Hubbard to L. Ron Hubbard in the 1950s. I didn’t see that marked as part of the alleged proof of anything. That is the first thing, the first item that he takes to Mr. Flynn.
That by itself, that alone, leave aside everything else we have heard, establishes invasion of privacy. All you need in California for an invasion of privacy or for a breach of confidence is that you have confidential information that you know it is for one purpose and you use it for another purpose. You give it to any single party not entitled to have it, and you use it for any purpose not within the terms under which you were given it. The terms under which it was given were quite clear. They are admissions from Mr. Armstrong. We don’t even have to introduce other evidence on that. He said it himself.
The invasion of privacy is clear. The conversion is clear. Even if you would accept the notion, which we do not, that making copies of materials is not conversion. The evidence has established and all the court has to do is to take the view that we have asked it to take that there are numerous originals. Mr. Armstrong had them. They got turned in to the court when they were supposed to be returned. They had come from the archives. That sure sounds like pretty straight-forward conversion to me.
The last is breach of fiduciary duty. All that is needed for a breach of fiduciary duty is that one have an obligation. That obligation continues after employment, and that one breached that obligation. Here the obligation was
Mr. Armstrong was given access to extraordinarily private and confidential information. When he was given it, he considered that there were extreme limitations on it. He considered that he was only given it for limited purposes.
In fact, we introduced deposition testimony about how carefully at the time he maintained the security of these materials, about how confidential they were, about how they were kept. Very few people had keys and quote, Hubbard archives were kept under locked file cabinets and all of the security measures taken by Mr. Armstrong, himself.
He then goes out. No longer in the church, antagonistic to Mr. Hubbard, to Mrs. Hubbard and to the church, and he takes these materials and he distributes them for use in cases to Mr. Flynn. He gives them to Mr. Flynn apparently to use in his own case, which is a violation of his fiduciary duty on this record because he has no right to do so.
I don’t have the right if I am going to be in a dispute with my former employer to go in and take their records. If I am entitled to them, and there is a lawsuit, that is what court process is all about. The law does not condone self-help, but that is not even it. That, by itself, is a breach of his obligation of confidentiality.
But what happens is that, in fact, he gets them not only for his own purported suit because he had no lawsuit at the time, and when asked what he was going to be sued for, he said he didn’t know. He also gives them for use in other suits to Mr. Flynn, to Mr. Flynn to use, knowing that Mr. Flynn has suits against L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Sue Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, so that he can use them, and he is a witness for Mr. Flynn in those
suits to use this confidential information against the Hubbards and against the church.
That is as straight-forward a breach of fiduciary duty as one can get. I would suggest even communicating the information in his head is a breach of fiduciary duty, but taking documents which he had no right to is a breach of fiduciary duty clearly.
Mr. Flynn has suggested to the court something about whether or not a limitation on this contract would be in violation of public policy. Mr. Flynn is trying to ague in that respect through the back door.
Now, let me speak to what is perhaps the only issue that still perhaps needs to be dealt with, and that is the terms of the contract. The contract is, it is true, by its terms silent with respect to what happens, what the terms of providing materials are. Since it is silent, the practice of the parties, which Mr. Garrison testified to at length, and the understanding and practice of those carrying out the activities in relationship to it, are the guiding evidence. And on that score all the evidence is that the practice was to maintain the confidentiality, the understanding was provided for only a limited purpose, confidential, private and on and on and on.
From Garrison, from Armstrong and from anybody else we have here there’s been nothing, nothing to the
contrary, and to argue that because the contract doesn’t specify that somehow means that you can take someone’s private materials when you have had a practice and you have
had an understanding with all involved that you will maintain them privately and give them out is clearly not the law. The contract cannot be interpreted that way.
So that whatever the justification issue may be with respect to whether or not Mr. Armstrong has engaged in acts which give rise to liability under the theories that have been advanced in our complaint, technically because I am not arguing all the evidence now in the context of a non-suit, I think that there is no question about that fact. We have made out all of the necessary elements. We have provided ample facts to support them. I would suggest we have provided overwhelming facts to support them, and it is time for Mr. Armstrong to show whether he can, in fact, justify any of this wrongful conduct that he engaged in.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, did you want to add anything?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor, submitted.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, could I just make a very few brief points?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: Very briefly.
The private letter that Mr. Litt referred to by his own admission was not admitted into evidence, so we have no idea what it is, and the extent of the testimony was that Mr. Litt believes it was shown to me, Mr. Armstrong’s lawyer.
With regard to using the documents in other litigation, while this court has permitted that per the terms of the preliminary injunction, number one. Mr. Peterson testified that he couldn’t identify a single document that was used in other litigation.
With regard to the argument that Mr. Armstrong is an employee who took documents from his employer and then attempts to use them against the employer, Mr. Litt has got his facts based on the evidence that’s been introduced wrong. The evidence is that Mr. Armstrong had the documents consentually from Mr. Garrison and from L. Ron Hubbard, and that he had them consentually right up to the time that the lawsuit was brought.
I would submit on that point what the church has basically done and what Mary Sue Hubbard has done is they have dumped the gun, Your Honor. If they wanted the documents that were in Mr. Armstrong’s possession and/or
Mr. Garrison’s possession, then they should have simply sought equitable relief because at that point all Mr. Armstrong had done is sought legal counsel based upon the church telling him to go get a lawyer after they had stolen his photographs. That is the extent of the evidence, so I submit that basically what they did is they brought their tort causes of action before they had them.
If Mr. Armstrong had gone out, for example, and tried to write a book based on these materials, then a different argument might obtain, but I think that if all they sought back were the materials, they simply should have sought equitable relief rather than bringing these various causes of action when all Mr. Armstrong had done was give these documents to his lawyers to defend himself.
THE COURT: Well, of course, the issue really is whether or not this, being a court trial, whether the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts necessary to support their claims for damages upon the various theories that they have alleged in their complaint.
It is really a very simple case, at least on the plaintiff’s case. It appears to me that the plaintiff has preponderated as to whether or not Mr. Armstrong was an employee of the plaintiff church, and it appears to me that while there isn’t any permanent deprivation, there is withholding of property and use of the property outside the scope of what the original purposes were, which he was entrusted with the property, and it seems to me that is really all you need to have, assuming that there is damage
also as a proximate result to establish the plaintiff’s case.
They conversion of property does have value and there is been testimony. Whether it is all of the testimony to be presented, I don’t know. But there are documents that are under seal that the church does not have copies of in their archives.
There has been a withholding of originals of value, and so that would support the conversion theory, and the breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, essentially misuse of the property that would be entrusted to an employee or fiduciary. And the invasion of privacy is a little different; it doesn’t fit into the usual category of publication of private matters. More appropriately, it probably comes under a number of the California Constitutional Provisions that deal with the misuse of property lawfully acquired.
Whether or not that also might be technically an intrusion I don’t know it is necessary to decide so I don’t propose to decide that.
It seems to me that the plaintiff has made out his case at this point and the matter goes to whether or not the defense that will be presented disestablishes or demonstrates that there isn’t a preponderance on any of these issues or establishes a defense of privilege, justification, so forth.
So the motion for judgment will be denied. It is almost 4:00 o’clock, so we will recess until 9:00 o’clock tomorrow morning, at which time the case will be with the defense. Will you have witnesses available ready to proceed?
MR. FLYNN: I will, Your Honor. Mr. Armstrong will be our first witness and I anticipate he could probably be on for several days on direct examination.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LITT: Several days on direct alone?
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, what we have to do in order to establish the defense of privilege is to show what Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind was, what he found the documents –
THE COURT: We will just take it one step at a time, one question at a time, one exhibit at a time.
MR. HARRIS: As a courtesy, we are having a daily transcript. I don’t know if Mr. Flynn is ordering it. It seems to me — I haven’t seen Your Honor getting any. Would there be any objection –
THE COURT: The reporters have provided copies to the court.
MR. HARRIS: I just wanted to make sure that was so.
MR. LITT: We would make one other request. Mr. Flynn submitted a 50-person or so witness list. Perhaps now our case has been presented he could be of some assistance and give us a list somewhat tailored down so we have some idea what we are dealing with here.
MR. FLYNN: At this point I can give the court some indication of who my witnesses are. I submit there will probably be 10 or 15 10-minute witnesses, who will simply say they are all members of the church for the last 10, 15 years, they all relied on the honesty, integrity, moral character of L. Ron Hubbard when they joined and paid money, et cetera, et cetera.
Other than that, there are some basic witnesses, and I think they already know who they are, Laurel Sullivan,
Gerald Armstrong, Omar Garrison, Bill Franks, the former head of the church, Sherman Lenske, the lawyer who has been mentioned, Eugene Denks, the physician of Mr. Hubbard. That is about all I can think of off the top of my head; there may be a few more.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LITT: One last thing is that we did have an agreement that with certain witnesses we would have advance depositions and with others we would deal with it as we went along. All I am asking at this point is Mr. Flynn give us advance notice so the question of a deposition of Bill Franks, who has been specifically designated as a person whose deposition would be taken — that those arrangements could be made. It doesn’t have to be done right now.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I also add Jim Dincalci, who owned the photographs that were stolen from Mr. Armstrong that started this whole thing. He will be a witness.
As far as making any of these people available at this point for deposition testimony, we are in the middle of the defense of our case, Your Honor. If we have to take out time to attend depositions — I have already been in California for five weeks on this case –
THE COURT: There was some discussion about somebody other than Laurel Sullivan –
MR. LITT: Bill Franks and Jim Dincalci specifically.
The court suggested we wait until the defense case and deal with it then.
THE COURT: Where are they coming from?
MR. FLYNN: Franks is coming from New York, and Jim Dincalci is coming from four or five hundred miles from here.
THE COURT: Maybe you could have them come Sunday before Monday. You indicated Franks wasn’t going to testify to very much, was he? No, it was Dincalci.
MR. FLYNN: Franks is probably going to testify that he, per the orders of L. Ron Hubbard, removed Mary Sue Hubbard from her post.
Dincalci is going to testify the photographs that were stolen were stolen from Gerald Armstrong, that they were his photographs, and he is also going to testify that he was with L. Ron Hubbard in 1973 while L. Ron Hubbard was hiding from the French fraud case. And the sole basis for him joining the organization and working for the organization was the honesty, integrity, and moral character of L. Ron Hubbard. It is that simple. If he had known what was in the documents, then he would never have joined.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, we should discuss at some point this question of bringing people in, because we can bring in a thousand for every one that Mr. Flynn brings in, if that is what we are going to do in this case.
If we are going to play a numbers game, Scientologists would flock to the opportunity to come into this trial and testify about anything that could be said about L. Ron Hubbard, and whether they are still Scientologists and so if that is what this case is going to be we may be here an awfully long time.
MR. FLYNN: That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the state of mind of Mr. Armstrong believed that in his mind, in the minds of Scientologists, he knew the honesty, integrity, and moral character, truth of the representations of L. Ron Hubbard were in issue relating to these documents, specifically as related to the SP Declare accusing him of defamation.
THE COURT: I don’t think it is necessary for me to prematurely rule upon whether something is cumulative or unnecessary or whatever. I think we will take one witness at a time and see what happens.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
(At 3:53 p.m. an adjournment was taken until Thursday, May 10, 1984, at 9:00 a.m.)