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|
REPORTER’S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Thursday, May 31, 1984
(See Appearance page)
Pages 3775-3989, incl.
|NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644
HERBERT CANNON, CSR #1923
|For Plaintiff||PETERSON & BRYNAN
BY JOHN G. PETERSON
8530 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, California 90211
|For the Intervenor:||LITT & STORMER
BY: BARRETT S. LITT
3550 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90010
AND BARRETT S. LITT
BY: MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON
The Oviatt Building
617 South Olive Street
Los Angeles, California 90014ANDROBERT N. HARRIS
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
INDEX FOR VOLUME 22 Pages 3775-3989, incl.
|Thursday||May 31, 1984||A.M.||3775|
|MOULTON, Thomas S.
|TINCH, Gene F.||3983-P|
|88 – Copy 3-page document, re X-Mark||3793|
|89 – Copy 4-page document “The Great Wall”||3909|
|90 – Black and white photograph||3909|
|91 – Copy 1-page document 6-8-43, Battle Report||3975|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1984; 9:05 A.M.
THE COURT: Very well, the record will reflect that counsel are present.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor. Our first witness will be Vaughn Young, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
called as a witness in behalf of the plaintiff in rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Be seated, please. State your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Vaughn Young, Y-o-u-n-g.
BY MR. LITT:
Q Mr. Young, what is your occupation?
A I am a writer.
Q And are you a Scientologist?
Q And when did you first become involved with Scientology?
Q Prior to that did you have any academic credentials?
A At the time I —
Q Had you attained any academic credentials prior to that?
A I was working on my PhD at the University of California at Davis. I had obtained my Masters in Philosophy at San Francisco State College.
Q And at some point did you go to work in the Guardian’s Office?
A Yes, I did.
Q When was that?
A In 1971.
Q What was your function?
A I was handling the public relations area in San Francisco.
Q And do you have any background in investigative journalism?
A Yes. I have been doing it, I suppose, for about 13 years.
Q That was your primary function in the Guardian’s Office?
A I started, actually, in late ’71. I began to
basically write and do what is commonly called today investigative journalism or investigative writing.
Q What type of investigative journalism have you done?
A Well, I started on something called the IRS papers which are IRS documents. And I have mainly worked in Federal agencies. I have done stories on drug running; published a book in 1979. While that book was in progress, I testified twice before Congressional Subcommittees.
Q Now, at some point did you go to work with Mr. Armstrong in the archives area?
A Yes, I did.
Q And approximately when was that?
A Well, I had some dealings with Mr. Armstrong prior to my going down there, but it was in — actually on November 1st, 1981 that I went down into the archives area to work.
Q And what were the circumstances as to why you went down there?
A I went down. I was requested by his senior, Sue Anderson, to help sort of unsnarl and to help to sort of sort out some problems on the biography that was ongoing with Omar Garrison since I knew Mr. Garrison and was a writer myself. So I was set up to do that.
Q And we will come back to what you did with respect to sorting out the biography contract, but did you also play any role at all in discussing the archives or research materials with Mr. Armstrong?
A Well, there was just basically only the two of us sitting down there, so we had many occasions to during the day and the evening to have short or long conversations and read materials and discuss the area, yes.
Q Now were you physically working in the archives area at that time?
A I was just a matter of a few feet from Mr. Armstrong at that time at another desk, yes.
Q And were you also working on another project along with this project of trying to sort out the contract?
A Well, a couple of weeks after I was there, I also became involved in the evening in a project which was
basically to assist church members who had difficulties with the church, and that was ongoing also in the evening. It was called a board of review which Gerry knew about. That went on for several weeks.
Q And the function of that was if there were any individuals who had complaints about things, that this was a mechanism by which those could be resolved?
A Yes. There was about, I believe — yes, there was five of us, and basically an issue was put out as broadly as possible. A phone number and an address was widely promulgated so if any people had any difficulties, they could contact us. We would resolve it and we had people from all over the United States contact us.
Some people came in. Some we dealt with in the mail, some by phone and we had everything from — it was almost like an ombudsman type of role, everything from “I lost something in the church,” to difficulties with ethics matters or justice matters or matters of pricing, and we handled — we handled all but one case which had to be actually referred to someone else because it was fairly complex, but all to the satisfaction of the individuals, and it was very successful and I discussed this with Gerry, also.
Q Now when you arrived down in the archives area November 1st, did you spend time discussing with Mr. Armstrong the materials that he had and any system that he had for obtaining them or retaining them, I am sorry?
A Yes, I did. Before he left I became more and
more involved in it so that even to the point that I had actually ended up creating materials in the archives myself and putting them into binders in the system that he was using, so I actually began to function along the way as an archivist myself.
Q And with respect to some materials, you, at Mr. Armstrong’s request, obtained some materials?
Q Now was the indexing — describe the indexing system and how usable it was from a research point of view?
A Well, the indexing system was mainly Gerry’s memory. He mainly pointed out to me that the cabinets — well this cabinet has this and that cabinet has that, and then as things were Xeroxed and put into these binders, of which there was duplicate sets, one set went to Mr. Garrison; one set was retained, they were simply put on shelves in the order that they were made so you had to remember.
At one point I had to do a card system so that we could number them and put down titles, so at least I could go through cards and sign them. Otherwise, it was sort of like remembering where you put your socks in your drawer. It was basically based on memory. It was sort of like knowing which cabinet to go into, which drawer to pull out, which file folder.
They were segregated somewhat like manuscripts would be in one drawer, but you had to remember which drawer among maybe 25, 20 cabinets, and then boxes and then
stacks of papers, and so it was basically a memory system.
Q Now, let’s go back for a moment to the — this assignment that you had to sort out the biography contract with Mr. Garrison, what was your function there? What were you supposed to try to do?
A I was basically to gather up all the material about the discussions and the contract that had been signed, see if I could sort something out that would probably be agreeable to both sides and then proposed so that the attorneys could handle the matter. I was not to enter into any negotiations.
I was not to propose anything to Mr. Garrison that might be implied as an offer.
I was not to interject myself in any way inasmuch as just basically step in as a person that could simply gather it, put it into a coherent form and then propose a solution.
Q Showing you exhibits TT, JJ, KK, and LL, do you recognize these?
A Yes, I do.
Q Are these all — except for — let me leave aside TT for a moment.
Is JJ something that you prepared in the context of carrying out this function of trying to get the biography sorted out?
A This was my first proposal which was basically halfway through.
What I was supposed to do was propose it and help to see if it could be carried out all the way. So this is what I had done which was titled “Re Contracting Biography with Omar Garrison” on 18 November.
Q And exhibit KK and LL, did you also prepare those?
A Yes, I did.
This KK is handwritten and LL is a typed dispatch that I sent.
Q Was Mr. Armstrong aware of what you were doing with respect to trying to sort out the biography contract?
A Yes, he was. He knew about it and had commented
on it. And I had seen other things that he had written where he was actually very supportive of what I was attempting in this capacity.
Q Was he being kept apprised of your activities with respect to it? For instance, would he receive copies of these documents that we have discussed here?
A Well, not directly, since I was basically working with Sue.
I kept him apprised and in a couple of cases, I would give him a carbon copy of something. But basically, my working with Garrison was an adjunct to the archival work. So that it wasn’t something that I was required to do. I did it out of courtesy as well as I did it out of the fact that he might know something; he might know where something else might be; he might know someone that I could contact and ask.
Q Now, when you say your job was to get the contract sorted out, was that on behalf of the Church, or other parties sort of associated with Scientology in relationship to Mr. Garrison?
A Well, yes. And also, my view was to also do it on behalf of Mr. Garrison as much as I could.
Q You wanted to be fair with Mr. Garrison?
A Very much so, since it had to be something that would be agreeable to him.
Q Now, the materials that we have identified here, JJ, KK, and LL, were those materials prepared to be provided to Mr. Garrison?
A No. They were internal.
JJ was my proposal which, if it was approved by the woman who sent me on the project, would then be sent to the attorneys. And this was specifically designed for that purpose; in fact, it had said this in this other project that I was given.
Q When you say another project, are you pointing to exhibit TT?
A TT in which there was one step in here which called for ” . . . get this drawn up and on to the proper legal lines” which basically meant this was going to be given to the attorneys. And this is what this was in compliance to, that particular step.
Q Exhibit TT was basically the document setting up this “Biography Debug” project; right?
A Yes. And a “Debug” I might interject is just getting it unsnarled, you know, getting it sort of smooth and operating. These are the steps I was to go through which had me to go in and meet Gerry, set up my area, get the documents. I had a little check list that I used.
Q Now, did you know that at the time Mr. Armstrong was sending or providing to Mr. Garrison copies of these documents?
A No, I did not. I was quite surprised when I found out that those had been copied without my knowledge or consent.
Q And within your understanding of what the purpose of these materials was, was that something that Mr. Armstrong
was authorized to do?
MR. FLYNN: Objection.
THE COURT: I don’t understand your question; authorized to do what?
MR. LITT: Authorized to provide these internal lists — was there any authority or authorization that Mr. Young was aware of to provide these internal memoranda to Mr. Garrison.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: There was not. Because I was not working under Mr. Armstrong. I was working for Sue Anderson to provide the materials to the attorneys.
This was not something that was being kept from Gerry, since there was information I had to obtain. But clearly this was not something to be disseminated beyond working with the attorneys.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, in doing this biography sort out or debug, there are various comments in here that, presumably, you wrote; I take it that you did a thorough investigation as much as you could of what happened with respect to the biography negotiations and the different parts of the legal matter or contract matters related to the biography?
A I had searched every possible location we had; I had asked Gerry of any place he might know; I had asked Laurel Sullivan of any places.
Q Now, there has also been discussion in this trial concerning the financial arrangements that were made in relationship to the contract. Did you ever have any discussion with Laurel Sullivan concerning those financial arrangements?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did she tell you who it was whose idea it had been for the various financial arrangements in support of Mr. Hubbard, shall we say, where that idea came from?
A Yes, she did. I had very specifically asked her because since money was being discussed quite a bit, I wanted to know and on November 18, I had met her there in the archives, and I specifically asked her had she ever received any instructions of any type from Mr. Hubbard regarding any financial aspects of the biography. She said no.
I then asked her where did this begin because it had been traced to her, and she said that it was her idea.
Q Now, did you reach a conclusion as to whether or not there ever was a contract between Mr. Hubbard and PUBS DK regarding any biography?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. LITT: Do you happen to know or were you able to learn at the time also while you were working on this biography debug whether or not Larry Brennan had any position as a director of PUBS DK?
A Yes, I did. I was fortunate. I happened to find out that he was passing through Los Angeles on something else and managed to garner him one time and discussed at that time, and he had brought this up and — because I wanted to effect more information gathering verbally than I could dealing with him by Telex or telegram or letter.
Q Now, while Mr. Armstrong was still in the archives area before he left, did you have any discussions with him about some of what he had been finding or hadn’t been finding or research techniques, things like that?
A Quite a bit. As I said, the conversations were often and they were wide-ranging, and we covered as much as discussing everything from the types of boxes that you have to put papers in, to acid freeze so that they could be preserved as long as possible, radiation, all the way down to specific investigative techniques that one can use to gather documents, people to talk to. Possibly every such that I could imagine.
Q Were there occasions on which you had discussions with him concerning whether or not a complete research on a particular topic had been done?
A Yes, several times.
Q Do you recall any examples?
A There is one that stands out in my mind that I had an occasion to discuss the matter of brainwashing techniques and things like this with him because of my own work that I had spent in doing some stories on the subject of D.C., and one time he brought me a small card. It was
about four by six and it was very old card. It looked maybe, you know, just judging from it, it had some years to it.
I had been folded like somebody had folded it and shoved it in their pocket. And something was written on the back. And without going into the whole story behind it, it was just that there were some stories about Mr. Hubbard where he had been contacted by the Russians some years before with an offer to buy his research.
And Gerry saw it and said something to the effect that this could be the proof or this could substantiate the story.
On the back of this card on one side was a menu Mimeographed on the card, the kind of thing you would set up on one of these little specials for a day for a restaurant.
It said, “fish cakes and carrots,” and what the dessert was.
But on the back was a Russian name. And I believe it said “Russian Consulate,” something like that, “Gauge of workmen.”
And he pointed this out, that this was relevant to this one incident. This might be the name of one of the Russians that contacted him. And this might be the first independent proof we have that had been found in the files.
I mentioned this, that this was something that could be followed up. It became one of those things which happens several times, just, well, stick it in the files and it just sort of, you know, fell over. And that was it. It was a few times because as an investigator, this is the kind of thing I would like; you find something and that is when you pursue it. That is when you go after it. Once you find
something, that is the one little piece that will give you part of a puzzle. But I couldn’t get him to go on some of these pieces.
Q You weren’t working directly on trying to do research into Mr. Hubbard’s life?
A No. My first responsibility was the biography. And in my spare moments, I worked on —
Q When you say “the biography,” do you mean the contract?
A The contract, debug, with Mr. Garrison.
In my spare moments I began to get more involved in the archives.
MR. LITT: Now, somebody seems not to have brought my set of exhibits today, Your Honor. So I’m a little in the dark on a particular exhibit number. I have the copy here. I’ll go to another subject and then come back to that.
Q Mr. Young, showing you exhibit EEE, do you recognize that exhibit?
Q And have you seen it before?
A Yes. But only the top page or the first page. It is a two-page exhibit.
And when I — what appears to be — this was only the first page and not the second.
Q When you saw it you only saw the first page?
A Just the first page. The second page was not attached.
Q Where did you see the first page?
A In D.C.
Q That is Washington, D.C.?
A Washington, D.C. a few months ago.
Q And did somebody show it to you?
Q Who was that?
A Michael Flynn.
Q And what were the circumstances?
A We were on a TV show. And we were invited on to this TV station.
We had done a TV show in Boston and then we had gone down to D.C.
There was myself and Mr. Flynn and an attorney from Boston, Harry Silverglate and Ron DeWolfe.
And just before a commercial break Mr. Flynn had pulled it out and said very emphatically, he said, “They even have a list of enemies” — and he waived this document — “of which I am on the top of the list.”
And at that moment the lady that was hosting the show that was one of those that sort of wandered in the audience said, “Okay. We’ll take a commercial break right now.”
I was sitting next to Mr. Flynn.
I said, “What is that you are talking about?”
I pulled the document over and looked at it and said, “Come on. That is an index list. That is what they used to file my subject. That is no list of enemies. You
Mr. Silverglate was there. He said, “Well, so it is a CIC sheet.”
And it was sort of like pushed away.
And I said, “Come on. Give me a break.”
It wasn’t what it was being purported to be on the TV show by Mr. Flynn.
MR. LITT: Could I have marked next in order three pages, Your Honor, two of which are documents that have “EU’s” on them and one of which is a newspaper article attached as our next in order?
THE COURT: 88, double 8.
MR. LITT: No. 88 has three pages to it. The first page —
Q Will you look at the first page which has at the top the words “X mark” and on the right-hand side has numbers 20/11/80/28; is this an index sheet?
A Yes, it is. It was used for the cross-filing of documents.
Q All right, and it relates to a newspaper article?
A Yes, in fact, you have given me three pieces of paper, and this first sheet should actually be by itself because you can see at the bottom of the page the article sticking out which is, you can see the first two letters down at the bottom left says A N, and at the top of the page says Anaheim Bulletin, so that is the beginning of the article of the Anaheim Bulletin.
Q But what we have here doesn’t have the whole article; right, as far as you can tell?
Q So when it says subject: Anaheim Bulletin, that refers to something that the index sheet relates to?
A That is your primary subject. In this case they did not pick the subject of the story. They just picked it for the newspaper where it appeared.
Q Now in the right-hand column list there are various names mentioned. Well, underneath the word “subject” there are various names mentioned and there are columns next to them with the letters EUS; do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And was this particular article one that had to do with the case between the Internal Revenue Service and the church?
A Yes. In fact, on the sheet there is a summary which is quite often that would be done unless it was too lengthy. It says, the second line it says, “straight
write up of the church’s suit against the IRS from Scientology’s point of view.”
So there was an article about it and then they have a bit of a summary of what the article contains. It is one that would be considered favorable from the church’s point of view article.
Q I note there is EUS listed next to all the names listed here. Let me start out with the name Robert Harris; who is that?
A Robert Harris is counsel right now, one of the counsel in this proceeding.
At that time he was a church counsel handling the litigation with the IRS.
Q I take it that the designation EUS didn’t mean that Mr. Harris was an enemy?
A Perhaps only if his bill was too high. I mean that only in jest.
Q Right, I understand.
A No. It was not. The EUS was not.
Q There are also names of various organizations here which are mentioned as having supported the church’s position in the IRS suit? is that right?
Q And that includes the National Council of Churches which is No. 3 and the Baptist Joint Committee of Public Affairs, and the United Church of Christ?
Q And I take it that the EUS means — it is a
reference to non-church; is that what it means?
A External outside of the church. That is why Mr. Harris, Anaheim Bulletin et cetera — even though Mr. Harris was employed by the church as an attorney, he was still not a staff member or a parishioner of the church. Therefore he was outside the church.
Q And showing you the other two pages that are part of exhibit 86, this relates to an article, this CIC X mark sheet relates to an article that was in the Alameda Times Star?
Q And this is also an article about the IRS suit; do you know?
A This was the story about a very loose coalition of religious groups and how they had been working for First Amendment rights as an organization loosely put together called First Freedom, and so they were all allied together under this particular constitutional interest, and the church was just one of the groups.
Q And so this article was about a coalition of groups, of which the California church or the Church of Scientology was one, and there were many other churches that were part of the coalition as well?
A Yes. In fact, the story itself is about the coalition more than it is about any one particular church.
Q And again the CIC sheet has all of the members of the coalition listed with the designation EUS next to them; is that right?
A That is true.
Q And these organizations were members of the coalition that the Church of Scientology was also a part of?
Q What is the purpose of it, having all of this indexing going on some simple little newspaper article?
THE WITNESS: It was a manual system, sir, on which basically one would take like an article because the difficulty is sometimes, I know I deal with this, you can’t remember to find something. You might want to be able to find something by subject.
THE COURT: Well, do you audit every newspaper for any article that might relate to religion and then go through this exercise with it?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. Quite often, like the church was involved in a number of organizations, and so we might want to go back and we say let me find all the cases that Dean Kelly, which is one of the names mentioned in the sheet, we are going to put together something. We are going to find all the cases where he spoke about a First Amendment, and since we didn’t have a computerized system, it would be a way to find all the cases where we worked with the National Council of Churches.
Basically, it was the way you could locate your information because there was a number of publications that would be put together. You could use this to write stories and articles. It was just basically a way to access it because there was tens of thousands of newspaper stories
alone. It got to be somewhat bulky because we ended up making 20 copies of everything and putting it in 20 different files, but it was a way we could retain it.
THE COURT: All right, go ahead.
Q BY MR. LITT: Showing you exhibit 68, Mr. Young, do you recognize that?
A Yes, I do.
Q And while you were in the archives area and while Mr. Armstrong was still in the archives area was there sent to the archives area a draft of that document?
A Yes, there was.
Q And was it sent there for purposes of having it reviewed for accuracy and, if possible, for other suggestions?
A Yes. And is it accurate?
A Yes. I had an occasion to read this over, I think it was last week, about seven or eight days ago. And it is — I wouldn’t change anything in it right now. And it is a nice little booklet.
Q What was the purpose of this particular booklet?
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: I do know, sir.
There was a need for a write-up on Mr. Hubbard which would be something other than a piece of paper or appear in another publication so you could lift it out, you know, put it in an envelope; take it to a large meeting; hand it to someone. There was nothing that was sort of like a small carriable in this way. So that this was put together for this purpose. And it could be used internally to the Church and externally to the Church.
So it was drawn up for that specific purpose and to sort of bring it together in one place in a fairly lengthy
fashion other than, say, just a few paragraphs.
Q And this book, this document that was sent for review was designed to be published as a separate booklet; is that right?
A Just as it appears here.
It was to be its first format as its own little booklet which was as it says here was copyrighted 1981 and published right at the end of 1981.
Q And was — if you know, was that booklet designed to be the main piece of literature that would be available to the Church to distribute broadly as a document describing Mr. Hubbard’s background?
A Yes. It was intended to serve as widely as possible. That is why it was published in this way.
Q Now, in some point Mr. Armstrong left the — left his archives post and you were still working down in the archives area when that occurred?
A Yes, I was.
Q And did you, for at least some period of time, try to sort of pick up the pieces, shall we say, of the archives?
A Yes, I did.
Q And how long was that?
A For a few months, from immediately — I was there — I believe I was the last person that saw Gerry.
His wife even mentioned a little before 6 o’clock that night, “Did Gerry see you?”
I said, “No.”
That was it.
Later that evening I got a call that he had apparently left. And that was the last anyone had seen him on the Church premises until he came back. But I continued there that evening and continued on the next day.
Q And in picking up the archives post did you also continue to work on some of the other things you were responsible for?
A Yes. It was a little bit difficult because now there was — you just didn’t sit in there and file. There was — people would send requests in. So now I had to do that and other matters that involved that area. So it was difficult, but I tried to carry them all.
Q Did you have any contact with Mr. Armstrong after he left his post?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you remember when the first time was, as best you recall? Can you give it an approximate date?
A Oh, it would be about 10 days after he left, about then.
Q And was that a telephone call, or in person?
A The first was by telephone call.
He was up in the Portland area. He didn’t say that, but I had offered to call him back. He said it wasn’t a personal expense to him. He allowed it at that point in time. And it turned out it was up in the Portland area.
I had a lot of questions. I had written a letter to him; he had left a letter when he had left and said,
“You can contact me at …” and he left an address.
Because he had just walked out. There were cabinets with combination locks on them. I didn’t know what the combinations were. I didn’t know where certain things were. I was getting requests.
He had just walked out. He hadn’t left anything except basically a good-bye note.
I had sent letters to him trying to spell out my questions.
When we spoke, I asked him the questions, What was the combination to this lock; where can I find this particular file.
Q And when was the next time you saw him?
A The next time he called in again and we ended up having a meeting up on Sunset Boulevard, Sunset and Vermont at a restaurant called “The Grinder.”
Q And who was that meeting with?
A That was with Gerry, his wife, myself and Barbara DeCelle.
Q And did you get any impressions at that meeting about Mr. Armstrong’s attitude toward Scientology or toward Mr. Hubbard?
A He was clearly bitter. It was hard to get even the substance of the conversation. It wandered, but it was bitter and the representations that were being made were — let me just say they were difficult to deal with.
Q At some time subsequently did Mr. Armstrong come into — back into the church, into the archives area and pick up some belongings of his?
A Yes he did.
Q And by that time had you had the opportunity to try to go through the archives materials and attempt to sort it out, sort them out?
A I have spent as much time as possible going through the files and the folders to just be able to find things whenever people had a request, and as I said, there was — it was based upon a memory system so I spent a lot of time trying to read more. I had already read a lot before he had left, but now I specifically went through the files to ascertain what was there.
Q In the course of this visit by Mr. Armstrong to the archives area, did you have any discussion with him concerning a letter of Mrs. Hubbard’s that appeared to be missing?
A Very specifically. Barbara DeCelle had mentioned it to me and asked if I had found this and I said well —
Q Let me interrupt. This is a letter that was
described to you as a very private letter of Mrs. Hubbard’s from the early ’50’s?
A Yes. She said that it was handwritten, apparently ballpoint pen, very personal nature, in an envelope and that Gerry had it, and that — if I saw or spoke to Gerry, to specifically ask him for this letter.
So, when he arrived, I specifically asked him about the letter because that was one that was of concern to Barbara to try to find.
Q And when you asked him about this letter, did you ask him if he had it or if he knew where it was?
A Well the first time — he had come in to pick up a small cabinet and a few of his personal papers that were sitting in this little work area, and I very specifically asked him because I believe Barbara had also said she thought it might be in this little cabinet, and I specifically asked him if he knew about this letter, and I ended up having to ask him four separate times because each time the question was being like evaded, and he says, “Well, look, I have just come in here to pick up my stuff. I am really busy.”
I said, “Gerry, there is this letter. We are trying to find it.”
Now, I had not read the letter or seen it, and I had to ask him again and he kept avoiding the question, which is what I couldn’t understand.
Gerry, whenever you would ask him something about, “Where is the file on flowers?” Or “Where is the file
on anchors?” Or any subject, and he would be able to say, “It is in the third cabinet in the third filing drawer. It is in the back.”
This one was very unusual, a different way that he would respond. So he just wanted to evade it and finally about the fourth time he said, “I don’t know. I don’t know anything about it. I just want to get my material and leave.”
And clearly he didn’t respond.
Q Was a search of the archive area done to try to and locate that letter?
A As well as possible. You have to understand that there was a lot of filing cabinets and a lot of paper, but as well as we could, yes.
Q And did Mr. Armstrong give you the impression that he himself did not have that letter?
A He gave me the impression he knew nothing about the letter whatsoever, and that was the final and fourth attempt when he says, “I really don’t know anything about it.”
At that point I had to go back to Barbara and I said, “He doesn’t know anything about it.” And she said, “That is not true.”
Q Now, when did you next see Mr. Armstrong?
A The next time I saw him was at the home of Mr. Garrison, a place that he was renting in Costa Mesa.
Q After Mr. Armstrong left, among your duties was to be in communication with Mr. Garrison and work out any
continuing arrangements on the biography?
Q And was this meeting where you next saw Mr. Armstrong, was this in Utah or in California?
A It was in California down at Costa Mesa.
Q At Mr. Garrison’s apartment?
Q And what was the purpose of the meeting?
A I don’t recall if I had mentioned earlier, but I had made these three by five cards that there was about 250 of them of all these different binders as well as what else I remembered, and I specifically went down to see Mr. Garrison and specifically told him I wanted to go over with him to find out what Mr. Garrison had since I had no inventory of what Mr. Garrison had been given, and I wanted to go over this with him to see if 1 could find out and was using these cards as my guide by the name of the binder, and so I wanted to simply ascertain what he had in his possession and what he did not.
Q And did you expect Mr. Armstrong to be at the meeting?
A No I had no reason to think that he would be there or not be there. I was very surprised when he showed up about a half hour later, but when I thought about it later, I wasn’t surprised.
Q Approximately when was this meeting?
A The end of February, 1982.
Q Did you get any impressions from Mr. Armstrong as to the attitude toward Scientology or Mr. Hubbard in this meeting?
A Very much so.
Q Why don’t you tell us what happened after Mr. Armstrong arrived at the meeting?
A The conversation became — it is difficult to describe, but it became very bizarre. It got so bizarre that at one point Mrs. Garrison, who was in the kitchen, did something she had never done before.
She had come — she came in; I was sitting on a couch with my wife and Mr. Garrison and Gerry were sitting across from us.
It was a fairly small room, but about as far as from where I am to the court reporter, maybe about 10 feet.
And Mrs. Garrison came in and sat on the arm of the couch where I was and looked over to Omar and Gerry and said, “Now” — she was speaking mainly to Omar because he was her husband. She said, “Let’s just calm down, Omar. He is just trying to do his job. Let’s not get that way.”
The conversation had gotten totally outlandish to where I was simply — everything that I could do to simply carry out my job because there was the most obscene remarks that were being made that I could only describe as basically pornographic, obscene, in which there were statements being made about peoples’ names.
Q When you say “statements,” do you mean plays on words?
For example, one I would cite, for example, the gentleman that testified yesterday, Lyman Spurlock. His name was being characterized as “Hymen Spermloss.” And they would sit there and laugh and cackle.
David Miscavige had become “David Miscarriage.” And there was one tasteless — it was the sort of thing that was so tasteless that it was all I could do to just sit there and say, “Listen, Omar. I just want to get through this.”
And that is when Mrs. Garrison — it became loud, raucous. As I said, it was bizarre, the remarks that were being made about Mr. Hubbard and others were beyond criticism; just into the area of —
It is hard for me to put it into words, but when somebody starts laughing and characterizing somebody else’s name in a way that could be considered obscene, it was just difficult.
That is when Mrs. Garrison came in and tried to quiet it down.
Q All right. Now — by the way, I am not sure I asked: You presently work at the Author Services; is that right?
A Yes, I do.
Q At some point in the — recently were you asked by me and other attorneys working on this case if you could, in light of the issues in this case, do some research into
areas of Mr. Hubbard’s life that Mr. Armstrong has testified about in this proceeding?
Q And approximately when was that?
A I guess it would be about four weeks ago.
Q Prior to that, other than a general familiarity with the archives, had you actually done any extensive research on your own?
A Not as I would call it in my profession, what I would call intensive, which means weeks or months at a time.
I had done some along the way and continued to gather it whenever I could.
Q As a sort of side activity, more or less?
A Basically, since I have got a lot of other things that I was working on.
Q And in connection with undertaking this effort, have you reviewed Mr. Armstrong’s testimony in this case and the testimony that he’s given concerning the documents under seal?
A Yes, I have.
Q And have you had some limited opportunity to review the documents under seal?
A Very limited. Just — not what I would like to spend, but I have had some hours, yes.
Q Now, Mr. Armstrong has testified about a whole range of things concerning Mr. Hubbard’s life. Have you had an opportunity to do your own research into all the things that he’s talked about?
A Not in just a few weeks’ time; not all the things, no.
Q And did you instead pick some selected areas as representative examples?
A I had to narrow it down to just a few areas which were determined by how many statements were made about it and also the accessibility of records that could be obtained or information that could be obtained in a shorter amount of time.
Q And did you have any people who were available to assist you in some of this research activity?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what areas did you pick to try to do some research into?
A Well, one of the main areas was Mr. Hubbard’s
Q Now, taking the Naval career for a moment, you have not been able to research all of the Naval career; is that correct?
A That would require obtaining documents from overseas, for example. We have been able to obtain additional records, but in a short amount of time there’s still more work that has to be done.
Q All right. Well, let’s take the Naval career. Did you pick certain things to try to research?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what were those?
A Well, if I just may back up for the moment.
The first thing we had to do because the records that were under seal in the archives were not — as far as I could work them, weren’t in a proper chronological order. We put them into chronological order and then we put them on word processor computer so at least we could go back and keep inserting this. We didn’t have to work with paper. I personally did that. I did all that typing on that.
The printout, I don’t know how long it is now, but it is quite extensive. At that point then we could begin to see that there were gaps because the way you do it, you begin to put in even where there is no information say for a month, you just put the month on the word processor, so you would begin to see if there is like eight months named, you could see suddenly there is no information named.
If you sit there with paper, you can’t tell.
You flip through, it looks like it is very, very complete, but if you go back and go through it like a detective, you can look down and there is certainly eights months missing, and now in one month you have 200 entries. When you just sit there with a paper, it looks like you have got a lot but when you do it that way, you could see that there were periods missing, so what we do is we took him by his main stations, a couple of the ships that he was on, a couple of main locations because there were some locations where suddenly there would be a flurry of paper and other cases there would be suddenly be an absence of anything.
So, combined with that, coupled with knowing or I could go, we began to select out certain areas that we could concentrate on.
Q All right. So as I understand it, you chose because it was manageable in the time frame that you had to at least try to do some further research into Mr. Hubbard’s station, places he was stationed or ships he was stationed on?
Q And what did you do?
A When I say “you” there were — there was a person working, assisting you; is that right?
Q So when I use the word “you” here, I am referring to you collectively.
A Well, we met every day and there was a few times I put in for about 10 days or 2 weeks solid, I would
put in a full day’s work going through all the documents so then I could then point out to the person what to do.
Q Now you had to familiarize yourself with the documents that were already in the archives as part of this; is that right?
A Yes and also refamiliarize. I had read some of it before.
Q After familiarizing yourself with these, what kind of inquiries were made to try to get further data?
A Well, one of the first places we went to, which is the most obvious, is you go to Naval Archives, so we went to Naval Archives. It is not a difficult task. People that work in libraries and archives, they are the best people to work with. They love people to come in and ask questions and to help them demonstrate their knowledge. So I just had somebody in D.C., in Washington D.C. check up with Naval Archives and start making the requests, and that is when we began to get the information.
Q And had Mr. Armstrong ever contacted Naval archives?
A It had never been named to me specifically that he had gone to Naval Archives and I never saw any documents that were indicated from Naval archives. I don’t know if he ever called them or not.
Q From your familiarity with the archives materials that Mr. Armstrong had collected, most of those were materials that had been actually gathered by someone else and was stored some place and he obtained them from those people;
is that correct?
A There was, with the documents, what has been called the Naval documents, which were — Gerry pointed them out to me one time in the archives. They were sitting over on the floor just sort of stacked. They weren’t even in the cabinets.
I remember one time he pointed them out before they got finally thrown in some binders. He said, “Those are the Naval records.”
From what I could ascertain they were primarily from the Veterans Administration. They weren’t from Naval Archives.
They had been gathered by others and there were cover dispatches and cover letters often by those who had gathered them.
Q Now, were any other activities done in addition to contacting Naval Archives?
A Yes. That was — that is where you pursue it on in this type of work.
I tried to distinguish what I considered research and investigation. It is my own distinction, but it is something that I found in the profession that we distinguish.
Research is where you simply go out and like to a library and gather information. You go into a court and pick up a bankruptcy file. It is basically your first level of data information gathering.
Once you have that and you find certain things of interest, then you begin to pursue those things.
That card I had mentioned earlier, now, you begin to investigate and see what you can find out.
So once the information had begun to be gathered from Naval Archives, we had something to follow.
We got crew lists, action reports. We began to pursue individual instances to try to trace different people to see if we could find anything.
Some cases, the easiest thing in the world,
you just call telephone information and there they are.
MR. LITT: May I have exhibit 60, please?
Q Showing you exhibit 60, is this something that you obtained from the Naval Archives?
A Yes. This is the action report of the PC 815 on which Mr. Hubbard served in 1943 which was on file with the Naval Archives.
Q Now, Mr. Armstrong has said that Mr. Hubbard was never involved in any combat; do you recall that from his testimony?
A Yes, I do.
Q Does this Action Report indicate combat activity?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, he can express an opinion.
I’ll overrule the objection. The witness can express his opinion as to whether or not in fact there was combat, I guess we can look at all the evidence in the record on that and draw our own conclusions.
THE WITNESS: The top page is “Anti-submarine action by surface ship report of.”
Action reports were reports that were filed by the ships, by military personnel when there was anything that was an engagement of that type as opposed to what one might consider nonaction activity.
Q And were you able to locate any of the crew members of the PC 815 who were involved in that incident?
A Yes, we were.
Q What was that gentleman’s name?
A His name is Mr. Moulton, M-o-u-l-t-o-n, Captain Moulton.
Q And had Mr. Armstrong ever contacted him to find out whether Mr. Hubbard was involved in combat?
A According to Mr. Moulton, no one else had contacted him before we had contacted him.
Q Was Mr. Moulton the second in command under Mr. Hubbard of the PC 815?
A Yes. He was the chief officer of the 815.
Q All right. Now —
A By the way, if I may clarify, “Captain” is currently the proper title from the merchant marines. It was not his rank at that time.
Q Now, have you reached some conclusions based upon the preliminary efforts that you have been able to make about the thoroughness of Mr. Armstrong’s research with respect to Mr. Hubbard’s Naval career?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. LITT: In having looked at this area now, in your judgment what additional areas of research remain to be done to answer fully questions concerning Mr. Hubbard’s Naval career?
A Well, first of all, the Naval documents that were on file in the archives do not reflect Mr. Hubbard’s Naval career.
My life for 13 years has been working with
documents. I have obtained from the Federal government tons of thousands of documents under the Freedom of Information Act as well as having worked closely with National Archives and others.
You have to know what to pick up.
A person’s Veterans Administration file is not their Naval career. It is their Veterans Administration file.
It would be like saying you are going down to the bank and pick up a person’s bank statement. That would not give you anything more than a bank statement.
Action reports and what a person did in the Navy are not in Veterans Administration files; nor are they, say, in his pay file. It is a very incomplete picture that one draws.
An action report is never filed with a man’s personnel records. It is filed with the ship records.
So that if you wanted to find out what a person did during a particular tour of duty, if you look at his personnel file, you’ll see that he was assigned to Chicago or he was assigned to Paris, France. That is about the end that you will find at that point. You begin to only speculate.
But then if you find out what was going on at that period of time, what the person was engaged in, you have to find that out from other places; otherwise, it is too early a conclusion to draw as fact.
And there are a number of areas that still have
to be developed that we already have a number of fascinating leads about that I can expand upon if you want.
But the point is that this is what gives you combat.
If a person, for example, were to say I was in Paris, France, you have to find out what year it was; was it the year that the Nazis were tramping into France, or was it a year, last year or something, when you were there for a celebration or a vacation.
Q Did Mr. Armstrong, from what you could determine, do any follow-up at all on these documents that were handed to him with respect to Mr. Hubbard’s Naval career?
A He never discussed any with me.
To the contrary, he mentioned a couple of things that I had urged him to follow-up. There were several documents. I told him, “Gerry, that would be easy.”
I told him how he could find officers. Naval officers are very easy to find. That is true with Army officers as well. But the commission is passed upon by the Congress. Every time a Navy officer gets an advance in rank, basically, there is an act of Congress.
There are Naval Archives; there are so many places you can walk into to find a Naval officer. I am not saying it is the easiest thing in the world, but, at least, there are certain attempts one can make.
And once you know where a person is stationed and if a person had a high enough rank, if you’re dealing
with persons of high rank then you can pick them up from the New York Times or from biographies. There are so many places. And I had urged Gerry to do this.
Q Can you be concrete? For example, what conversation do you recall urging him to do things?
A Well, for example, the card that I mentioned was one. That was very — I remember it very particularly because we had never had anything in that area as far as the Russians contacting Mr. Hubbard.
Another instance that he had, he brought to me a document with somebody’s name on it, and the name was that of Thompson, and there is a Thompson that Mr. Hubbard had referred to a number of times.
Q Now, this Thompson, has Mr. Armstrong stated that this was an example, this Thompson person was an example of misstatements by Mr. Hubbard?
Q All right, you were talking about you had a discussion with Mr. Armstrong about this Mr. Thompson?
A Well, Gerry brought it in. He used to occasionally — I’d be sitting at my typewriter and he’d bring things out of the file and come show me different things that were of interest, and he brought in — he said, “You know, by the way, there is this Lieutenant Commander Thompson that Mr. Hubbard refers to quite often. Well, I have got a name here on a Naval record of a Thompson.” And he showed me this name and I said, “Well, look it, this is what I was basically referring to when I say how you find a Naval officer.”
I told him, I said, “Well, look it, there is ways that you can do this, start tracking it down in D.C.” It just fizzled at that point. Nothing else was done.
Q So, Mr. Armstrong never did anything to try to find out about this Thompson person?
THE COURT: Was this all between November 1 of ’81 and December 11 of 1981?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. We spent sometimes 15, 16 hours
down there together, and so that is like a double day for most people or in some cases a triple day. He was there until 11 o’clock at night, sometimes later with me and we’d start at 9 o’clock in the morning.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, you have tried to do some checking on this Commander Thompson; is that correct?
Q And you haven’t been able to run everything down; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q But have you in this month period that has been available to you, have you been able to find out anything about the question of Commander Thompson?
A I haven’t been able to do the final confirm on it yet. It is not what I would call in my profession a hundred percent confirmed, like I would say this is an action report of the PC 815.
I wouldn’t be able to give a definitive statement. I may be able to in a day or two.
Q What additional information that Mr. Armstrong never located have you been able to find on this subject on the month you had available?
A Well we have been able to find a number of Thompsons that were in the Navy and right now it is running about 98 percent certain that we have our Commander Thompson, all the way down to the cat.
Q When you say “down to the cat,” what are you referring to?
A Mr. Hubbard mentions that Commander Thompson had a cat that he used to train and the Commander Thompson we found willed over his cat in his Will.
Q In Commander Thompson’s Will?
A Yes, but I say I wouldn’t want to give a definitive answer. We have to speak to the surviving relatives.
THE COURT: Why don’t you talk to Mr. Hubbard?
THE WITNESS: Because, sir, in my line of business right now, what’s in conflict is Mr. Hubbard’s word, and what I like to do is deal with documents.
THE COURT: Wouldn’t you like to ask him about whether there are any of these things that he can explain or help you find Thompson or whether there is combat or not combat? Wouldn’t that be of help to you?
THE WITNESS: Not as much help as the number of documents and other people because the nice thing when we finally can confirm a document, because they are better than one’s memory because they do give us greater expertise. I have reports here of Mr. Moulton who I have also spoken to.
THE COURT: We will take a 15-minute recess.
THE COURT: All right. We are back in session. The witness has retaken the stand.
State your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Vaughn Young.
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Now, Mr. Young, you said that you had been able to find out some further information about Commander Thompson; had Mr. Armstrong followed up on any of this information?
A Not that I could ascertain either from discussions with him or from statements he has subsequently made.
Q Now, one of the things that Mr. Armstrong has raised in connection with Commander Thompson is that Mr. Hubbard had said something about Commander Thompson having studied with Freud; have you been able to find anything out about that?
A Well, as I said we are still a bit inconclusive now because we have to interview survivors, next of kin, basically.
But the gentleman that we are fairly certain is Commander Thompson did study with Freud; in fact, we have even found correspondence from Freud to him in Washington, D.C.
Q In the Freud archives?
Q Had, from what you could determine, Mr. Armstrong ever made any inquries into the Freud archives?
A He never informed me of any such archives.
Q Is there anything in the archives indicating any such inquiry?
Q All right. Now, would you consider the research that you have done at this point to be only preliminary research?
A Oh, most definitely. In this type of work the more you get, the more questions you sometimes have to ask because, for example, with Freud being in the United States when he did, he came over in the early 1900’s and gave a series of lectures and set up an institute, and one would want to know more about it because it is more — you don’t just scoff at a certain point. You want to be able to understand the particular topic or the issue. So, there is a lot more questions that I would be asking that we are going to be following up in the time to come.
Q Now, was another area that you looked into was Mr. Hubbard’s eye problems or physical problems after the war or resulting from the war?
Q And I take it on this also you have not been able to do a thorough research job at this point?
A Well the first thing is that in the records
which are under seal which Mr. Armstrong had provided, even in there it says that the likelihood of this officer’s medical records being incomplete, that is within the records themselves as well as being able to piece together the rest of the records and fill them in, there is quite a bit of work because you are covering a span of the actual records of a period of anywhere from five to seven years, so it is quite massive, but we have been doing some work on it.
Q And what kind of work have you done in the limited time you have had?
A Well, for example, I interviewed doctors because there is a great many medical terms that are in there that I couldn’t follow and I wouldn’t want to try to ever interpret. Following the doctors and asking them as far as what these particular terms mean, all the way to speaking with Captain Moulton, as far as a person who was with Mr. Hubbard at the time.
How was his behavior. As far as followup that, for example, I spoke to somebody that was with Mr. Hubbard in 1946 after the war, so that you can get someone to say, “Well, what was he doing? How was he reacting with his eyes?” So you get another person’s input, correlated with the records, correlated with first-hand accounts, and then being able to piece this together with doctors’ reports so you can come up with it.
The difficulty that the records, the Veterans Administration records have is that they are sometimes quite dry. It is like a medical report will give you a pulse rate, temperature, et cetera. But it doesn’t describe often enough how the person feels about themselves.
So that the person says I feel very, whatever word might be used, they will sometimes be very dry.
So we tried to fill this in with first-hand accounts and how other people saw him.
Q And what have you been able to learn about whether or not Mr. Hubbard had serious trouble with his vision?
A In speaking with an optometrist, ophthalmologist, medical doctor, coupled with, for example, Captain Moulton, who was with him on the PC 815, he had eye trouble. He had what is called photophobia, which is an extreme sensitivity to light.
The conjunctivitis was described to me as the watering of mucous coming up in the eyes, inflammation of the lids.
Also, I can’t speak to it, but there was a deterioration that could be seen as far as the vision eye test, constant use — having to use sunglasses; that he used sunglasses quite often, even in the evening on a ship when there happened to be bright lights; that he was very hypersensitive to this; that if there was any light, he would become blinded.
This was what Captain Moulton was relating when
he was on the PC 815.
Q What about any physical disabilities that made him lame or have difficulty walking or anything like that?
A Well, first of all, there is one reference in the documents themselves, in the sealed documents with one doctor — the only doctor who describes how he walked; the rest of the doctors just got into tendons and bones and calcium deposits.
One doctor’s phrase in there was, “This man walks with a hobbled gait.”
All you can speculate about as far as a hobbled gait is clearly a shuffling of feet forward as if your feet were hobbled like a horse. There is that clear reference in there which described how he walked.
Q Now, was another area that you chose to try to do some research on at the time that you had available with respect to an Alaska expedition?
Q Now, regarding this Alaska expedition, what, if you recall, did Mr. Armstrong have to say about that?
A Mr. Armstrong had related that the expedition was simply a trip that he had made up to Alaska and taken some photographs and sent them off to the Hydrographic Office of which the information was of — I don’t know how to characterize it — of negligible value and that was just, I think, one or two letters from the file, from the Hydrographic Office thanking him for it and that there was no substantial contribution that was made as a result of the
Q And did you make any efforts to obtain further information with respect to that?
A Yes, we did. We simply asked the Hydrographic Office what they had.
Q And what did you learn?
A A couple of days ago we got somewhere around 80 pages or so of documents which are correspondence that they had with Mr. Hubbard. There was extensive work and correspondence that they had with him. It was extensive rewriting of the Coast Pilot, a lot of documents that are quite technical, dealing with tides, currents, harbor conditions.
But the main point was there was considerable information sitting in the Hydrographic Office on file as far as the work he was doing with them.
Q Were any such documents contained in the archives?
A No. These are all new documents, not in the archives.
Q From what you could determine had Mr. Armstrong done anything to obtain these documents?
A From what I could gather, he had not.
Q By the way, in the time you have had available, there’s been a document — I am going back to the war period for a moment — it is exhibit 61; did you also obtain exhibit 61 from the Naval archives?
Q And had Mr. Armstrong obtained that document?
A I have not seen this document in the archives before, no. This is about the Algol. The log book of the Algol.
All right, now, was another area that you looked into the limited time that you had available to you Mr. Hubbard’s Asia travels?
Q And do you recall from reviewing the testimony in this case that Mr. Armstrong’s testimony was that Mr. Hubbard had only traveled into China once for two weeks on a YMCA trip?
Q Now have you looked through the archives to see what references, if any, there are to indicate any connection to the YMCA?
A Yes, I have.
MR. LITT: May I have this marked next in order, Your Honor?
THE COURT: 89, I guess. Have you shown counsel this?
MR. LITT: Oh, no. I have a copy for him.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you.
Q BY MR. LITT: And is this document the document that you could find showing — that had any designation on it in relationship to the YMCA?
A Yes. This is — on the cover is the coversheet of the sightseeing trips to the Great Wall following by two pages of the description of the Wall with a photograph.
On the fourth page is — unfortunately this is only because the copy in the archives is very poor, that these are tickets which were basically for the transporting to see the Great Wall from Peking. This says that it was under the direction of the YMCA.
Q Now did this document indicate that the trip Mr. Hubbard was on was a YMCA trip or that there was a trip from Peking to the Great Wall that was a YMCA trip?
A What this is clearly and also evidenced by the tickets that were attached, that this was something that this organization was conducting to the Wall in Peking.
I read the characterization of the transcript that made it sound as if Mr. Hubbard had joined the YMCA in Montana and the YMCA had organized a trip into China, and there is nothing that indicates that whatsoever. The only thing that could be found is something that occurred in China itself which is quite different.
Q And in addition, you have located journals which have already been marked as exhibits at the time of Mr. Armstrong’s testimony showing other trips other than
just the one trip that Mr. Armstrong testified about to China and to Asia?
Q Now have you in the time you have had available been able to get any other leads concerning Mr. Hubbard’s activities in Asia?
A Well there is a number of leads. Some of it is actually in the diaries themselves, of course, which are a bit unique because they are simply one man’s account, in some cases they are very complete and other times he skips over certain periods of time.
It is a period because of the location in which we are talking about, the Far East and the South Pacific as well as the distance in time, that it is difficult to follow down, but what we are able to ascertain is not the way that it has been represented to the court.
Q Now, have you — one of the things that Mr. Armstrong has spoken about is whether or not Mr. Hubbard ever had any contact with any Llama priests; do you recall that?
Q Have you been able to get any leads on that?
A Well there is two things. One, I believe he did mention that there was no question that Mr. Hubbard had heard them chanting or singing to the degree he made a reference of how they sounded, something like bull frogs.
But along the way, we stumbled across someone else quite accidentally that we are still in the process of
pursuing. There was a woman who had gone into the region from the Explorer’s Club during that early years, apparently during the very late ’20’s, that when she met with people back in the far regions they had made an account of the story of a young man from the West with bright red hair who had visited them.
THE COURT: Marco Polo?
THE WITNESS: I don’t know if he had red hair. Your Honor.
Q BY MR. LITT: Mr. Hubbard does have red hair; right?
A At that time he had very bright red hair, yes.
She had related this story to the others upon her return because of basically two reasons; one, that this person stuck out in their mind so much, and secondly, by the fact that it was a young, Western boy.
That was how it was characterized to her. So they didn’t know whether or not he would be British, American, Canadian or Australian. But to them, it was definitely Western with bright red hair.
MR. FLYNN: Are we dealing with triple level hearsay, or quadruple level?
MR. LITT: We are dealing with research methods.
Mr. Armstrong has reached all sorts of conclusions —
THE COURT: I’ll receive it as what it appears to be, a report from somebody else who had a report from somebody else, for whatever it was worth, about a red haired Westerner.
THE WITNESS: It is that method, Your Honor, sort of things that pull you along.
THE COURT: You wouldn’t want to bet your life on it, would you?
THE WITNESS: I wouldn’t want to bet my life on it until I have it in front of me. And then I would take a hedge.
THE COURT: It would have been helpful to talk Mr. Hubbard about it, too; wouldn’t it?
THE WITNESS: It would be helpful to talk to Mr. Hubbard, but my procedure and the way that people that I work with in the field do it, you have your facts and then you go to speak to your subject.
THE COURT: I thought everything that he wrote down was scripture?
THE WITNESS: I didn’t say that, sir.
THE COURT: Pardon me.
You may continue.
MR. LITT: I think, to clarify the record, that refers to things that are contained in policy letters or dictation with respect to Scientology.
THE COURT: I stand corrected. I didn’t know there was a distinction made.
THE WITNESS: In fact, sir, there is a reference, a little work I did find where he does distinguish between where he does express his opinions personally, especially where — well, he said they are my opinions. And he does try to distinguish these at various times.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, by the way, did you have a discussion with Mr. Armstrong — I am going back to the subject of Mr. Hubbard being crippled or blinded — did you have a discussion with Mr. Armstrong while he was working in the archives on the topic of whether from the information available in the archives any conclusions could be reached?
A Very little. It was not a topic that we discussed anywhere near the total amount of time we discussed other topics because there was such a volume of data which he said still had to be gone through and hadn’t been gone through. It was definitely inconclusive.
Q He told you that more work needed to be done in this area?
A Most definitely because the stack of papers that was on the floor stood maybe 14, 16 inches high. And it was
clearly something you would have to sit down and work on for quite awhile.
Q Now, in your training and background as an investigative journalist and doing research in connection with that, can you describe for me the proper methodology in your judgment that should be used in connection with doing research and investigative work?
A Well, the first thing is to basically name the topic or the area that you want to do; then you have to find out anything that you can about it at which point then you gather up the basic information which is usually when a researcher starts, you start with the most obvious, which are libraries. It depends, of course, on your subject.
At that point then once you have got your subject oriented, you have a time frame, you know what you are talking about — this will vary between subjects — you then begin to pursue and go for actual records.
One of the best ways invariably, regardless of what subject, one of the best ways is always the Federal government. Governments tend to keep paper more than anybody else. And you obtain the records.
Then you continue to do it yourself.
The main thing that pulls the researcher along, the things that keep pulling you are things that don’t make sense or things that are not there. And it is a very, very hard thing for a researcher to see what is not there.
That is why I mentioned when we put this on the word processor, we see what is missing. It is very hard to
tell what is missing until you actually work out a method to do this.
At that point you can then institute your search for eyewitnesses. But you have to know it before you get to your eyewitnesses; otherwise, you don’t know what to ask them.
Once you have the subject, like speaking with Captain Moulton, we could only do that once we had found the records, once we knew what to deal with. We could ask an intelligent question of someone who knew something about the subject.
Only then, only after you have covered everything, everybody, can you then say you have covered your subject and begin to draw a conclusion.
Q Regarding the archives as — from the perspective of whether it constitutes a complete or fairly complete compilation of information aside from discussions or information provided by Mr. Hubbard concerning Mr. Hubbard’s life, have you reached any conclusions about the thoroughness of the materials as a basis for making final factual conclusions?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I suppose the question is as broad as it is long. I am sure there may be some areas where there is probably all kinds of documentation; other areas maybe there is no documentation. So it is really too general a question. Sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. LITT: As a researcher and investigative journalist, are the archives as they existed at the time that Mr. Armstrong left or now, for that matter, sufficient to be able to reach final factual conclusions on the variety of topics that Mr. Armstrong has testified about?
A The archives, to take a real simple example, also contained copies of the works that Mr. Hubbard wrote for publication. They weren’t even complete when it came down to his works, let alone when it came down to his life. There are large gaps such as his Hollywood career, such as periods when he was in the Far East.
The main thing that is missing is simply the work to follow it up.
Q When you say things are missing, do you mean by that that the real job for a researcher would be to take these materials as a basis for further investigation and research?
A Well the first thing that should have been done would have been to put them into an order that one could do that which usually is a chronological order, and then as I say, you can see what is missing. At that point you could then follow up and ask your questions and get the
There is areas where you can be very specific and you can draw an exact conclusion and it is quite factual. There is other areas where you are shooting from the hip.
The characterizations that I heard remind me more of the story of the blind man and the elephant, you know, that feels like a wall.
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I guess we have heard everything else in this lawsuit. We might as well hear about the elephant and the blind man. We have heard about bull frogs, bullbaiting, culling PC files. Let’s hear about the elephant. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: I think it is classical enough, sir, that it almost speaks for itself, but it is an instance that one can characterize things too quickly with too little information and come up with actually what appears to be quote true, closed quote. At the same time it is inaccurate because it is very incomplete.
BY MR. LITT: Now, from the discussions that you had with Mr. Armstrong, both before he left his post and in the period of time afterward when you had contact with him, do you feel that he had any bias in the way that he approached the materials?
A After a number of conversations with him when I tried to get him to follow up on certain topics, I couldn’t figure out why he wouldn’t do this because he
would terminate the research and just go on to other subjects, and it is hard, it is very hard. But I know when you are dealing at this level of work you have to let the documents come about from your attitude rather than having your attitude generate it the other way around.
It would be as if you wanted to go research the Chicanos. If you are anti Chicano and you start with that attitude, you will come up with a certain conclusion because you simply cannot allow other documents or other facts in. If you are vividly pro Chicano and you don’t want to have any anti, you will come up with another one, so it requires an unbiased attitude and sometimes I just couldn’t understand until much later why the archives were in a certain state.
Q Now, the information that you have talked about that you gathered that’s been in the course of the past month; is that right?
Q And you have not had the opportunity to research many areas at this point; is that correct?
A There is a number of areas that we didn’t even pick up to pursue simply because it is a big slower. As I say, government document sources are the most readily available. There is other areas we just decided to not pick up because of the amount of time that was involved right now as the basis of the attorney request.
Q And in those other areas are you sufficiently familiar with them to have an opinion about whether there is more research that needs to be done?
A I have read all the documents. I have had an occasion now to read or look at all the sealed documents as well as read additional materials and to have actually been able to lay out the other areas that are going to be followed up on and complete the research that was never done before.
MR. LITT: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: All right, you may cross-examine.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mr. Young, when you say that you have read all the documents under seal, did you do that in the last four weeks?
A Yes, I said I read or looked at.
Q And all the documents in the archives, have you read those?
Q So you have arrived at the conclusions you have arrived at about Mr. Armstrong without reading all the documents in the archives; is that correct?
A Yes. There is — there are documents that have yet to be actually read in the archives.
Q And so you have arrived at your conclusions that you have given as conclusions in this courtroom without thoroughly researching all of those documents; is that correct?
A I think as a professional I have done more
research than he did.
Q Well, I take it that you feel that researchers should be unbiased?
Q And the mark of a good researcher would be the fact that he is unbiased?
Q And the mark of a great researcher would be that there would be great objectivity and almost totally free of bias?
A A great researcher finds what he is looking for in the end.
Q And a researcher should also be thorough; is that correct?
Q And the mark of a good researcher would be how thorough they were?
Q And these conversations you had with Mr. Armstrong about what you perceived to be a demonstrated bias were in the fall of 1981?
A During November, December, ’81.
Q So it was during that period of time that you arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Armstrong was a biased researcher?
Q When did you arrive at that conclusion?
A When I finally had the opportunity to, one, read all the documents. Because I had not had all that many opportunities to read the documents to see what was there.
Secondly, when I began to find the holes, the stuff that had not been found in the documents that were
Finally, when I saw the conclusions that he had drawn and presented in this court case as a result of what he had read and found.
Q You did perceive the bias in the fall of 1981 as you just testified; is that correct?
A I wouldn’t have characterized it as a bias at that time. It was something that I couldn’t understand.
Q In the last four weeks how many of the documents in the archives have you read?
A By inches, or pages?
Q Let’s take pages.
A Additionally beyond what I had originally read, perhaps five to ten thousand pages. It is very hard to give a page count.
Q Five to ten thousand pages in the last four weeks in the archives?
Q In addition to the documents that are under seal?
Q And do you have an estimate as to how many documents there are under seal?
A I have only seen them by bulk or boxes. I have never seen them at one time.
Q And did Mr. Litt ever indicate to you that there were eight to ten thousand pages under seal?
A I don’t think he gave me that figure. I just
saw that was there.
Q In the last four weeks you have read all the documents under seal?
A I said read or looked at.
Q What do you mean when you say “looked at”?
A For example, there are documents there which pertain to a subject in which I would not be interested in pursuing; I would look over the document, glance over it and see if this is something I am not going to pursue. I don’t need to read this document.
I would put it to the side and continue on. I had to select my subjects.
Q So you have arrived at this conclusion about Mr. Armstrong’s research bias which, apparently, makes him a poor researcher in your opinion; is that correct?
A He was quite sufficient in what he gathered. He was insufficient in what he concluded.
Q So are you here to criticize Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Young?
A I am here to basically tell you what I found out when I did my work.
Q You have concluded that he was a poor researcher?
A I said he gathered what he gathered; his conclusions were too shooting from the hip. Basically, you can’t draw those conclusions from those documents when the work is incomplete.
Q Now, the conclusions you have drawn, however,
are based on four weeks of work plus conversations you had with Mr. Armstrong in the fall of 1981; is that correct?
Q And do you know how long Mr. Armstrong worked collecting documents?
Q How long?
A It was a little over a year.
Q Well, do you know whether or not his petition was approved by L. Ron Hubbard in January, 1980 as a time when he began collecting and reading documents?
Q And you know that he left in December, 1981?
Q That is almost two years; is that correct?
I can only respond to that in which I continued the position. And I basically have been reading also that material since 1981 which also gives me over three years.
Q So you have been doing this work over three years?
A No. I said I have had occasion to read it since then.
Q At some point did you petition to write a biography of L. Ron Hubbard?
Q Have you requested any permission from anyone to write a biography of L. Ron Hubbard?
Q Have you intended yourself to write a biography of L. Ron Hubbard?
A I think it would be a very interesting idea.
Q Have you been telling people for the last 4 years throughout the country that you are working on a biography of L. Ron Hubbard?
Q So over these three years you have been reading all of this documentation, is that correct?
A I have had many occasions over those three years to look at it.
Q So it is not limited to the four weeks you testified about?
A Not as far as the archives materials, no.
Q Now, do you know whether Mr. Armstrong read all the documents in the archives?
A I know that he hadn’t.
Q Do you know whether he’s read more documents than you have, Mr. Young?
A No, I don’t.
Q Did you after Mr. Armstrong left the church say that, “You are the best dammed whatever researchist-archivist type I have met.”
A Yes. That was my conclusion after working with him for a month and a half.
Q And after four weeks you have reached now a different conclusion?
MR. LITT: Objection; argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you testified that the documents were not properly indexed; is that your testimony?
A I said there was no index and there was no actual, what you’d call a system by which you could go and find it other than memory.
Q Who do you think Mr. Armstrong was indexing the documents for?
A He was actually indexing them primarily for Mr. Garrison when he put them into the binders. He was doing it for himself when he put them into the files because the files were much longer than the binders.
Q He was indexing them for the biography; isn’t that correct?
Q For Mr. Garrison?
Q And are you aware that Mr. Garrison considered Mr. Armstrong to be an extraordinary researcher?
MR. LITT: Objection; irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether Mr. Garrison praised Mr. Armstrong for his indexing of the materials and collating of the materials for him?
MR. LITT: Objection; irrelevant.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, from the exhibit that was shown to you with Robert Harris’ name on it, Mr. Young, I take it from your testimony that E means external and not enemy?
A The name came to mean that. It originally began as enemy.
Q You are from the Guardian’s office; is that correct?
A Not now, no.
Q Well you were in the Guardian’s office?
A Yes, I was.
Q How long were you in the Guardian’s office?
A About 13 years.
Q And you are trained in public relations to disseminate the PR line about the Church of Scientology; is that correct?
A I am trained in public relations.
Q Well, are you trained to — were you in the public relations bureau of the Guardian’s office?
Q And the public relations bureau had as its purpose, did it not, to disseminate information about the Church of Scientology?
A That is not exactly right. The dissemination of — speaking about the faith itself would fall more to the domain within various churches. We had a different function which I carried such as like the stories that I was writing about.
Q Let’s not talk about areas of faith. For instance, if someone asked you in the public relations bureau whether L. Ron Hubbard was a nuclear physicist, would you deal with that type —
A If it came up in the course of a conversation, yes, of course. Anybody would.
Q In 13 years did you?
A In 13 years I was never asked that question.
Q And do you know whether for a period of 20 years L. Ron Hubbard held himself out as a nuclear physicist, at least on the jackets of some of his books?
MR. LITT: Objection, argumentative and if there is evidence to that, it speaks for itself, and the witness has already said he didn’t have anything to do with whether Mr. Hubbard was a nuclear physicist.
THE COURT: Overruled; preliminary question. You may
THE WITNESS: Could I have the question?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: I will rephrase it.
Do you know whether or not Mr. Hubbard held himself out on the cover of his books as being a nuclear physicist?
A No. In fact, you and I had a conversation about that on that D.C. TV show.
Q Well, Mr. Young, is your answer no, that he did not hold himself out as a nuclear physicist?
A As I told you on the D.C. TV show, the cover on that book was from the publisher.
Q Was the book copyrighted by L. Ron Hubbard?
A I haven’t looked at the copyright.
Q So your answer is that L. Ron Hubbard has not held himself out as a nuclear physicist?
MR LITT: Objection; asked and answered. His answer is what he said, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Was that your answer?
THE WITNESS: My answer was to Mr. Flynn’s question in that particular case. If there was another question —
THE COURT: Are you aware of him ever holding himself out as a nuclear physicist?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, I had not.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Have you read any of the biographical sketches of Mr. Hubbard under seal in this case?
A Yes, I have.
Q And to your knowledge had Mr. Hubbard held himself out as having a Bachelor degree from George Washington University?
A If I may back up for a moment on that.
Q Well, can you answer that question, Mr. Young. Has he held himself out as having a Bachelor degree from George Washington University?
A I would have to respond, Mr. Flynn, that I have difficulty telling who wrote what documents in that file. That is the difficulty.
Some of those sealed documents that are purportedly Mr. Hubbard’s are typed with no name. I cannot tell from those documents who typed what.
I do not have any direct information that he had held himself out in that way, no. I did see a reference of which there was a B S C and also B S C N. Now, there was a Bachelor of Scientology degree and —
THE COURT: Issued by the George Washington University?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. That was issued by the church at that time. I cannot early on distinguish between those in the same way that there was also a reference to C E, which some people took as civil engineering, but which was actually a certificate that was being awarded out of Phoenix.
It is a bit inconclusive for me to be able to tell from those.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Would it be that to someone reading it, it would be a bit ambiguous?
A Reading some of those, I would agree it would
THE COURT: How about misleading?
THE WITNESS: I would say in some cases some of those things that were written were misleading.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, Mr. Litt asked you about your conclusion with regard to whether Mr. Hubbard suffered from eye problems, I think is the way Mr. Litt put it; do you recall that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And I am sure you have read accounts that Mr. Hubbard has held himself out as having been crippled and blinded; is that correct?
A I saw that.
Q What does the word “blinded” mean?
A Blinded —
MR. LITT: Is this what it means to Mr. Young?
THE COURT: He is a journalist; he has probably used that term in some writings.
How is it used in the journalism profession?
THE WITNESS: There is a wide range of meanings which means everywhere from legally blind, where you cannot see anything, down to where you are blinded by the flash of a light bulb.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, suppose — have you ever read accounts by Mr. Hubbard that he was blinded to the extent that he had to study when he couldn’t see?
Q Now, I take it in your inconclusive research you have discovered the eye problems that Mr. Hubbard had about which you have testified in this courtroom; is that correct?
Q Now, do you recall the Court’s question about
whether or not Mr. Hubbard might be a good source of information to answer some of these questions?
Q And you testified you would rather go to documents; is that correct?
A That is true.
Q And you mentioned documents from the Federal government having a high degree of reliability?
A No. I said they are highly accessible.
Q Do they have a high degree of reliability?
A I’ll tell you, I have worked for 13 years with government documents. And sometimes they can really present a serious problem as to reliability, especially when the age of Xerox machines came about and we were able to actually find cases where documents could be changed and then recopied and then put back into a file.
Q Exhibit 60, the Action Report, is that a document?
Q And that is written, for the most part, by L. Ron Hubbard?
A No. There are a number of attachments to it.
Q I know the attachments are there, Mr. Young.
I am talking about the running accounts of the action of Cape Lookout; that is information for the most part written by L. Ron Hubbard?
A I would have to do it by pages. I think it is close to an accurate description.
Q We’ll get to that.
If you don’t deal with Mr. Hubbard directly and ask him the question, would you agree that the next best source might be Mr. Hubbard’s personal writings about, for example, his eyesight?
A They are one source, not the conclusive source.
Q If Mr. Hubbard said, for example, that he used his eyes to avoid school, that he used eye problems as an excuse to avoid school, would that be a research tool that would be significant to you?
A It would be a statement that you would take along the way and have to find out how you were going to use it.
Q Have you read exhibits 4-D through 4-K in this case which have been called the affirmations or the personal notes of L. Ron Hubbard?
Q You have read those?
Q Are you aware that in those notes Mr. Hubbard says that he uses his eyes as an excuse to avoid school?
A There was a statement similar to that.
Q And are you aware that there is a note in there he used his hip as a pose?
A I don’t remember the word “pose” specifically.
Q Now, were those types of representations from Mr. Hubbard or statements of Mr. Hubbard be of greater significance to you as a researcher where he is describing his problems himself than someone else describing his
A No, they wouldn’t.
Q Now, suppose there were notes in there that Mr. Hubbard said that he had a very poor Naval career; would that be of significance to you as a researcher?
A It would be as a statement to put it into a context to find out what the man possibly meant as “poor.” Yes.
Q Are you aware, for example, that he has stated or biographical sketches have stated that he was the first casualty of the Far East and returned in the Secretary of the Navy’s private plane to the United States?
A I have seen those in those sketches, yes.
Q You have read quite a few accounts of Mr. Hubbard’s Naval background, haven’t you?
Q You have seen accounts where he claims he was awarded 28 medals in Palms including the Purple Heart?
A There may be one account. I may have difficulty right now, but I have seen where it is attributed —
Q Isn’t it basically fair to say that Mr. Hubbard in his biographical sketches held himself out as a war hero?
A Actually, the one interview that I know he gave, he actually lessened his participation in the Navy. He never considered it something that he wanted to talk about.
He made that statement very specifically for the one transcript which is in the sealed documents.
Q Among the numerous biographical sketches that
are under seal isn’t it fair to say that the thrust is that Mr. Hubbard or someone on his behalf held him out as a war hero?
A The war hero part is clearly, by even column inches, a very, very small one or two lines of larger pieces. It was represented by someone who had written those up. But it is a very minor portion of the biographical sketches.
Q Well, wasn’t he held out as being the individual “Mr. Roberts”?
A I saw where other people had attributed that to him. His own statement was he didn’t think that it was the case.
In fact, he mentioned, it is in the sealed documents, that he had told the story about the Algol, of which he found out by the way, he spoke to a crew member, of the Algol about “Mr. Roberts.” The Algol was the bucket of “Mr. Roberts” that he was on by the way. He actually dismisses it a bit himself in his own statements.
MR. FLYNN: Could I have 500-A under seal, please?
Q Did you read this biographical sketch which has been marked as exhibit. 500-A or 500-H — 500-A under seal?
THE COURT: It is H and —
THE CLERK: It is what was in the place of 500-A.
THE COURT: Do we have a 500-A?
THE CLERK: No.
THE COURT: Well we will mark it H and in parentheses 500-A.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Have you read that?
A Yes, I have.
Q Now it has at the end the picture of L. Ron Hubbard. It is a four page biographical sketch; is that fair to say?
Q And it has Mr. Hubbard’s picture with a
notation “Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. Accent [Axiom] 38. LRH.”
Q Is that what truth is?
A I think it is a very fine definition.
Q Now, do you know whether this biographical sketch appeared in numerous publications?
A I don’t know.
Q Sold — oh, you don’t know that?
A I have seen it in a couple of publications that I have been able to trace, but I cannot — first of all, this is very rare to have something this lengthy, so it is only a couple of times that I know that that appeared, I think in 1961 and this one is the only one I have seen.
Q Your first answer is you don’t know for sure.
You haven’t done any research as to how many publications that appeared in?
A I wasn’t asked to find all the instances that appeared, but I do know in my time with the church I haven’t seen this particular one that often.
Q How about for people who were joining back in 1969-70. Like yourself and Mr. Armstrong; do you know whether this is part of another exhibit in this case dated 1969?
A I don’t know how this thing is marked in this case, no.
Q Well, let’s start off at the top, “Hubbard,
Lafayette Ronald, author, B S in civil engineering George Washington University.”
Is that construable in your view as a researcher-writer as B S in Scientology from George Washington University?
A No, this would appear to be Bachelor of Science, George Washington University.
Q In civil engineering?
Q So, someone was holding out Mr. Hubbard as a civil engineer with a Bachelor’s degree; isn’t that correct?
A Apparently so.
Q In your four weeks and/or three years of research, whichever it is, did you find out whether or not he had a Bachelor’s degree?
Q And what did you find out?
A He doesn’t have one.
Q Now, holding yourself out as having certain credentials in Scientology when you don’t have them is a fairly significant thing; isn’t it?
A You mean holding out Scientology credentials?
Q If you hold yourself out, for example, as a Class 8 Auditor when, in fact, you have just walked in the door and taken the personality test, that would be a fairly significant misrepresentation; wouldn’t you agree?
Q Now, L. Ron Hubbard in his biographical
sketches basically held himself out as “Combining the wisdom of the East with the science of the West”? isn’t that correct?
Q Held himself out as a scientist?
A I didn’t see scientist. I saw and he discussed it in the book, in the Phoenix Lectures he spoke about trying to combine the East and the West.
Q And one of the ways he was combining it is his absorption of wisdom from the Llama priests and his scientific background from Western universities; isn’t that basically true, Mr. Young?
A I did not see the characterization Llama priests in that way.
Q How about “absorbing the wisdom of the East” in “My Philosophy”; have you read “My Philosophy”?
Q Did he say that between 1925 and 1929 he absorbed the wisdom of the East?
A Words to that effect. I wouldn’t want to be quoted that those are the exact words.
Q Which he combined with the science of the West which he learned in Western universities; is that correct?
Q Now, there is a statement L. Ron Hubbard was raised on his grandfather’s cattle ranch in Montana.
You know his grandfather never had a cattle ranch at this point?
A I haven’t completed that. I do know where the story came from. I —
Q Your answer is you haven’t completed it?
MR. LITT: May the witness finish his answer? Mr. Flynn interrupted him.
THE WITNESS: All I’m saying is I haven’t done land search records myself in Montana. That is one area that hasn’t picked up.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: There are a lot of things that we could go through, but I am not going to take up the Court’s time. But let’s take, for example, his war service. He has a fairly extensive recitation of his war service?
A You have attributed this to Mr. Hubbard; I cannot attribute it to Mr. Hubbard.
Q Why don’t you attribute it to Mr. Hubbard?
A Because this is a publication that is from the Public Relations Bureau.
Q Is that what you are in; right?
A This is from a different area. And this is also apparently — I don’t know if we have a year on this. But there was other areas. We never dealt with things like this.
Q Other public relations people dealt with this; is that correct?
A I am saying there were different sections of public relations areas.
Q You never dealt with this?
A I never wrote anything like this in our area. In our area we never wrote any biographies like this. This is an internal Church publication, which we didn’t do.
Q You don’t know whether or not Mr. Hubbard wrote it or didn’t write it?
A I’m saying that I cannot attribute this to anybody. What it says on the document, I have to — I’m trying to be as exact as possible.
It says it is from them. And I can find nothing else. And I did not see under the sealed documents anything from Mr. Hubbard which said that he wrote this.
Q So you can’t attribute that to Mr. Hubbard, but you can attribute it to some Scientology publication?
A Well, what you have given me is a Scientology
Q Who is referred to in the Church as “Source”?
A Mr. Hubbard.
Q And who would know more about Mr. Hubbard’s life, in your opinion, than Mr. Hubbard?
A That is always a tough question, I think, with anybody’s life.
THE COURT: I don’t know whether what you have there is what — exhibit N, I guess, in this case. Have you ever seen this publication? It is a copy of exhibit N.
THE WITNESS: I have seen the publication. I don’t know if I have seen that particular issue, sir.
THE COURT: On the back page it says “Brief Biography L. Ron Hubbard,” I believe it is identical to that.
THE WITNESS: That is apparently what I have here, this exhibit, sir.
THE COURT: It says, “original imprinted circa 1960.”
THE WITNESS: That is not at the top of mine. Maybe it is cut off.
THE COURT: It says “biographical source is L. Ron Hubbard.”
Wouldn’t that indicate that a source of this material was L. Ron Hubbard?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. It says, “biographical sources, L. Ron Hubbard.”
There are four sources that are listed, encyclopedia and three Who’s Who that are the biographical
sources about L. Ron Hubbard.
THE COURT: Did you contact Who’s Who to find out where they got their information?
THE WITNESS: No. We haven’t pursued those particular biographies yet. We are going to.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, in any event, do you think L. Ron Hubbard would know more about his life and any other person, Mr. Young?
A In some cases, yes; in some cases, no.
THE COURT: You are referring to the prenatal period, or what?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know more about his life than Mr. Hubbard?
A There are more areas — there are some areas of his life I know more about than he does.
I just finished recently an excellent biography of President Johnson. And it is really interesting, I think, that a person would be sometimes interested to know what happened around them because what happens to you, you do not necessarily see the outside circumstances. So that is why I say that in some cases, yes; in some cases, no.
Q For instance, whether or not he had a degree from George Washington University; that is something he would know; right?
Q And whether or not he had served in the South Pacific and was the character Mr. Roberts and contrary to
the script, was not killed at Okinawa; is that something he would know more about than you? Is that right?
A Perhaps on that one.
As I said, I had already responded on Mr. Roberts.
Q Well, this biographical sketch says that L. Ron Hubbard was Mr. Roberts; as Mr. Roberts, was with the ship less than a year; however, contrary to the script, he was not killed at Okinawa; is that correct?
A That is what the text says.
Q Now, you know from looking at the log books on the ALGOL that Mr. Hubbard discovered a gasoline bomb in one of the holds and then the following day was removed from the ship and went to Princeton; you know that, right?
A Yes. And you omitted some facts.
Q That was before the ALGOL went to combat; isn’t that true?
A That is true.
Q Now, did you ever try to — do you know how many days after Mr. Hubbard discovered the gasoline bomb in the No. 1 hold that the ship sailed off into the South Pacific into combat?
A An exact number of days, no. I can’t say,
Q A few days, though, wasn’t it, Mr. Young?
A I would have to look back into the records. It was not something I tried to retain.
Q I believe it was two days later, wasn’t it, Mr. Young?
MR. LITT: Objection. The witness has already said he doesn’t recall.
Q Now what is your definition of “combat”?
A Engagement with the enemy.
Q Now, if it was in L. Ron Hubbard’s mind that he engaged with the enemy when, in fact, he hadn’t, would you as a researcher as you have testified a few minutes ago look at it more from the objective point of view rather than what was just in L. Ron Hubbard’s mind?
A You have lost me on that question.
Q Well, I asked you whether or not L. Ron Hubbard was the best source and you said no, and you gave a little story about Mr. Johnson in looking up things in context and after things actually occur; do you recall that testimony?
Q And under those circumstances I believe you testified that someone such as yourself could know more about areas of a person’s life than the person himself?
A It is the difference between a biography and an autobiography. An autobiography is that person’s attitude of what occurred to them. A biography is much wider ranging subject.
Q So you as an objective researcher and investigative reporter, could look at, for example, a claim to have been in combat with greater objectivity?
A I would hope by the definition of objective or subjective, yes.
Q Now, you have read what has been marked as exhibit 60; have you not?
Q There are several other ships mentioned in exhibit 60 as having participated in this particular event; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Did you get the action reports of those ships?
A We pursued a couple of them, but that hasn’t been completed either. We had to simply move on to other subjects at the time because of the time allowed.
Q Incidentally, this Thomas Moulton, you have got his report attached; is that correct?
A It was attached in what came from Washington.
Q Now, this supposed engagement took place between May 19 and May 20, 1943?
A May 19 and May 21.
Q When does Captain Moulton say it took place?
A Were you referring to a particular part here?
Q Yes, paragraph No. 1.
A This says during the period from 0300, Tuesday, April 18, 1943 to 2400, Friday, April 21, 1943.
Q Well, April is not May; right?
A That is true.
Q And you didn’t read the rest, “PC 815 fought two submarines presumably Japanese.”
A Yes, that is what the text says.
Q That is probably just an error in dates by Mr. Moulton; right?
A Probably. That is one of the things one has
to face sometimes with documents. I have had that trouble when some people do a typo, especially on a year. 1975 turns out to be 1955. It is something you have to work with.
Q Well, when you look at the overall evidence, and you read Mr. Hubbard’s claims, his running account in here, would you look at what the Navy viewed as whether or not this ever took place?
A As another aspect, absolutely.
Q Did you do that, Mr. Young?
Q And you know that the Navy said that no such thing ever took place; don’t you?
Q And incidentally do you know how far off shore the steamer track was for the PC 815 on its way down the coast?
A It was just a few miles.
Q Then you are aware that Mr. Hubbard claims that he sunk two Japanese submarines?
A No. Mr. Hubbard did not say that in the report.
Q He damaged one so that it couldn’t return to base, and he damaged one so it couldn’t leave the area; isn’t that what he said?
A That is a better characterization. It was Mr. Moulton that said sunk.
Q These were Japanese submarines within a few miles off the coast, two of them?
Q And how long had Mr. Hubbard been at sea when he encountered the two submarines?
A That was their second excursion out.
Q Well they were on their way down the coast; isn’t that correct; on a shakedown cruise?
Q How many hours after he left Astoria did he encounter these submarines?
A I would have to look at that. I didn’t get into those fine points. Obviously the point you are making, it was a short amount of time.
Q A few hours; isn’t that correct?
A Probably a few, three, six, eight, definitely less than a day.
Q Now, this was basically the first time that he had ever sailed a ship any distance; is that correct?
Q Oh, had he sailed it before?
A On this particular ship?
Q This particular ship.
A This particular ship, apparently so. You’ll have to ask the crew members about that one.
Q Well, it was just coming out of being outfitted or refitted or whatever they call it to be taken down the coast on a shake-down cruise.
A Again, you are presuming, like Gerry did.
There was an earlier trip of the ship which Captain Moulton told us about.
Q Was Mr. Hubbard on the earlier one?
A No. There was an earlier trip. They went out. The pilot damaged the propeller. They had to come back and replace the propeller and go again.
How many times this ship traveled, I don’t know.
If you are going to end up saying that is the only trip, that is something you can draw —
Q 2116 hours is basically what time in civil time?
A 9:16 p.m.
Q And do you know what time he encountered or supposedly encountered the two subs?
A I don’t remember right now. I would have to go back to the documents.
Q Isn’t it fair to say that is basically the first
time Mr. Hubbard was on the ship with his crew and sailing down the coast, the first time the PC 815 has really been at sea at all with Mr. Hubbard?
A I can’t say that because I don’t know what the ship did before this point in time. I did not draw that — that is not what Mr. Moulton said, but I haven’t fully spoken to him about the earlier trips.
Q You are aware that other people during the incident thought it was quite a fantastic idea that there would be enemy submarines in this area; you are aware of that?
A I am aware of the history. I have been doing some research on it, yes.
Q In fact, when Mr. Hubbard got back to port —
Incidentally, you are familiar with a Lieutenant J.G. Kruepke?
A The name doesn’t ring a bell.
Q He was the commanding officer of one of the other vessels.
A Okay. True.
Q I think it was the SC 536.
A I think that was the ship that was following behind. And they had to make a signal so he could drop depth charges, as they had run out.
Q Did you note in here that a Captain Bonham or Barham or something in the Bonham refused to cooperate at all? Do you remember reading something like that?
Q Do you recall that one of the other vessels also refused to cooperate?
A I don’t remember more than what you have cited. I don’t remember a third one. There was, apparently, citations of difficulty with gear.
Q How, did you read in here that Mr. Hubbard’s boat —
A It was a ship.
Q — ship shot its own antenna off during this engagement?
A May have been, yes.
THE COURT: An aerial submarine?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, right after Mr. Hubbard had this engagement which the Navy said never took place, he sailed down toward the Coronado Islands; is that correct?
A That is true.
Q And on the Coronado Islands he fired on the Mexican Coast; is that correct?
A He did not personally. The ship fired its guns.
Q He wasn’t the CO?
A I’m trying to be very precise. You asked me questions and I tried to deal with documents. I try to get exactly what happened.
He did not fire the guns. There was a gunnery officer; he was the commanding officer. The ship fired its guns.
You know, if you are going to give me a reference that truth is exact time, place, form and event, I tend to agree with that.
Q Such as a Bachelor of Science degree?
THE COURT: Let’s not get argumentative, although it was kind of asked for.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Young, when the ship fired on the Mexican coast, there was a board of inquiry?
A The ship fired off the Mexican coast in a westerly direction.
Q And Mr. Hubbard was removed from command as a result of that board of inquiry; correct?
Q Now do you know how long he had been in command of the PC 815 when he was removed pursuant to that board of inquiry?
A Somewhere between two or three months.
Q And how long during that period of time was the ship basically being fitted in while it was docked; do you know?
A I don’t know. I don’t really know how long it was being fitted, because he came in during the outfitting process. A ship takes quite a while to outfit, and the crew can come on at a certain point. So I can’t respond to that.
Q Isn’t it basically fair to say that roughly only 10 percent of the two to three months, Mr. Hubbard was actually involved in sailing the ship down the coast?
A I would have to look at the actual logs to be able to draw a conclusion.
Q Probably just a matter of days, Mr. Young?
A The incident here was in May. You are talking about the incident about the end of June. Right there is a month and a half.
Q But what we are restricting ourselves to is the time that the vessel was actually at sea, actually sailing down the coast?
A I do not have all those logs. I have an action report here which gives me three days. I know that the ship was down off the Mexican coast the end of June. I do know that. There is six weeks between that period I cannot fill in the rest of the time yet.
Q When he was removed from his command pursuant to this board of inquiry, Captain Moulton took the witness stand; didn’t he, in the board of inquiry?
A You have put the emphasis on the word “Captain.”
Q Well, then. Ensign Moulton.
THE COURT: Whatever the gentleman was, did he testify?
THE WITNESS: Yes. He is currently — that is his current title.
THE COURT: We are not worried about that. Just did he testify or didn’t he?
THE WITNESS: I believe he did.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You have read the board of inquiry?
Q And you have also read the affirmations?
Q And you know that Mr. Hubbard has noted that his men lied for him in the board of inquiry; haven’t you, Mr. Young?
A I saw that statement made.
I withdraw that. Mr. Moulton did not testify at the board of inquiry. He wasn’t with the PC 815 at that time.
Q Which men lied for him, Mr. Hubbard?
A There is no names specified.
Q You haven’t researched that yet?
Q Now do you know whether or not the people who wrote the biographical sketch lied for Mr. Hubbard?
A No, I don’t.
Q About his Bachelor of Science degree?
A No, I don’t.
I take a lie as an intentional misdirection of truth as opposed to somebody who simply gets it wrong.
Q How many years of research do you feel needs to be done for a biography, Mr. Young, of Mr. Hubbard?
A I remember reading one guy said he expected it to take six months to research a biography and six months to write it, and he was only off by six years.
It is hard to tell because it keeps coming up. It would actually take some years, so I can’t really
give an honest estimate.
Q Well, how much time was Omar Garrison given?
A I don’t recall.
Q Well, there was a due date per the contract, was there not, to have the biography written?
A Yes, there was a due date that he agreed upon.
Q Do you know how many hours a day during that period of time that Mr. Armstrong was collecting documents, he was working to provide documents to Mr. Garrison to get the book done?
A I know that he worked the better part of a day certainly. There was other little things that he’d do, but if your point is he worked the better part of a day, that is true.
Q Now, in 1943 during the action off Cape Lookout, did Mr. Hubbard have eye problems based on your research?
A According to Mr. Moulton, yes.
Q And was that when he saw the periscope?
A I don’t recall.
Q Five hundred yards in a rolling sea?
A I don’t recall in the report at this moment without going to it who spotted, and it does not say that. It says that he believed that it was.
Q Well I could be wrong in the number of yards.
Do you know the number of yards, Mr. Young?
A I would like —
MR. LITT: If we are referring to an exhibit, can the witness be told the exhibit number?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You don’t know whether or not Mr. Hubbard spotted the periscope?
A I would like to refer to the document to see exactly who spotted it.
MR. LITT: Can we have a page number, Mr. Flynn?
THE COURT: I assume it is his own records.
MR. FLYNN: Let me see if I can find it.
THE COURT: His Naval record, Commodore Hubbard’s.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Referring you to page 12 where Mr. Hubbard states, “The barrel and lens of the instrument were unmistakable” after saying, “that every man on the bridge saw the periscope rise up through the first oil boil to a height of about two feet.”
Q You see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Was that when Mr. Hubbard was having eye problems if you know?
Q And incidentally this engagement was at night, began at night and then lasted some 55 hours?
A Yes. Of course, you are aware it is standard procedure from a bridge to work with binoculars.
Q Do you realize in this engagement at one point in time Mr. Hubbard had the ship fire on something they saw in the water which turned out to be a log?
A It doesn’t say that.
Q Would you turn to page 3 at the top, ” … no definite conclusion could be reached as to the identity of the object. And the range was closed although very probably this object was a floating log; no chances were taken and the target was used to test the guns which had not heretofore been fired structurally”; do you see that?
A Yes, I do. That is not how I was asked the question. It says “probably.” And also, it was used as target practice.
Q This was in the middle of the engagement with the submarines; right?
A It says they were testing their guns at that point.
Q In the middle of the engagement with the submarines?
Q Also in the middle of this engagement they left the scene for a period of time because they heard the reporting of a sub to the north; do you recall that? And they found that it was a fishing vessel?
A Could I have a page number?
Q Page 11, “A report that the sub had surfaced off Sand Lake caused all vessels except the Bonham to go flying north to that position. But before flank speed was attained, the reported ‘sub’ was reported as a fishing vessel.”
Do you see that?
Q Now, I take it that the biographical sketch that
you have in front of you, you don’t find to be trustworthy or reliable?
A It depends — you would have to ask me more of what you mean by “trustworthy, reliable.”
Q Such as whether or not he had a Bachelor’s of Science degree?
A That is just a report. This is hardly a documentation that I would ever use myself.
Q You know now, do you not, that he does not have a Bachelor of Science degree?
MR. LITT: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In your view was that reliable, that document, Mr. Young?
MR. LITT: Objection. Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: He is a researcher. If he knows, he can state it. If he has an opinion, he can so state.
THE WITNESS: In what sense reliable?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: As far as whether it was true.
A There are things in here which are true and things which are not true.
I cannot say if that document is true or false. I can only point to individual instances or lines as I have been doing with other documents.
Q Where it is not reliable?
A Yes. But I cannot characterize an entire document line by line that way. I have never done that with any of my documents.
Q Now, that document — well, you don’t know how long that document was published by some organization affiliated with Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?
A I only know what it says here.
It says “PRO News 1809 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles.”
Q This story that you heard about the red haired man from the West being in China from someone who heard it from someone, is that more reliable than the biographical sketch that was published?
A I didn’t represent it as such. I simply represented it as the type of information you get that you have to follow down.
Q So you have to do more work on that?
A Absolutely. We are going to obtain the records. We have the person who gave us the name. We are going to track her or her next of kin down to find the records.
Q Do you have a bias toward Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Young?
A I think he is a fine man.
Q Do you have a bias toward Mr. Hubbard?
A Probably, yes.
Q And that is what you criticized Mr. Armstrong about, having one against him; is that correct?
A There is no way that anyone would ever absent themselves from bias. But when it begins to control you where you cannot distinguish facts, then it becomes something else.
Every writer has a bias. You have to shake it off before you get your final out of the typewriter product.
Q I think you testified as fact that L. Ron Hubbard engaged in combat as set forth in exhibit 60; you found that to be fact?
A I was asked for my definition. And this came from Naval Archives. It says what it says.
Q The Navy didn’t consider it to be fact, did it?
A The Navy now is a generality, I have the name of an officer that can attest to it; the Navy didn’t.
Q The Commander Thompson, that is the Commander Thompson who was a doctor at the Oak Knoll Hospital where Mr. Hubbard was undergoing psychiatric care?
A I can’t give a confirmation of that, that that is the Commander Thompson as to the second part of your question, no.
Q It is not the Commander Thompson that was at the Oak Knoll Hospital?
A No, as far as I can tell, no.
Q Did you find records under seal that there was a Thompson who treated Mr. Hubbard at the Oak Knoll Hospital?
A No. There is a document with a Thompson’s signature which does not say “treatment” as far as I remember, it has to do with when he was being separated.
Q Do you know whether this Commander Thompson was a doctor at the Oak Knoll Military Hospital?
A No. I don’t. Because we found the Thompson that seems to be the right one. So we went with him.
Q What about Mr. Hubbard’s Purple Heart; did you find where he got that?
A We haven’t completed that yet.
THE COURT: We’ll take a recess; maybe you can complete something. We’ll reconvene at 1:30. (At 12:00 p.m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1984; 1:32 P.M.
THE COURT: Very well. In the case on trial let the record reflect that counsel is present.
the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: The witness has retaken the stand. Just state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Vaughn Young.
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Flynn.
MR. FL¥NN: Thank you. Your Honor. I just have a few minutes.
BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Mr. Young, do you recall your testimony with regard to Laurel Sullivan originating the idea about money, as you put it, with respect to the contract?
A Yes, I do.
Q Haven’t you previously stated in correspondence that it was Mary Sue Hubbard who insisted on a separate contract with separate royalties for L. Ron Hubbard?
A I don’t believe I said that at all.
Q Well let me show you what has been marked as exhibit JJ. Didn’t you say therein:
“That it is not difficult to see that the money became the primary product and topic of discussion, and this is where the cycle went off the rails for no one was working back from the product after MSH” — Mary Sue Hubbard — “insisted on a separate contract for LRH.”
A Yes, that is what it says.
Q And, again, on page 2, didn’t you say —
MR. LITT: Can I have the paragraph?
MR. FLYNN: Paragraph 8.
“She” — referring to Mary Sue Hubbard — “wanted two contracts, PDK and OVG and another between PDK and LRH for separate royalties.”
You said that; didn’t you?
A I said that.
Q Do you recall a meeting in the spring of 1982 in which you were present with Omar Garrison and Lyman Spurlock?
Q Do you recall when Mr. Spurlock said at that meeting to Mr. Garrison that Mr. Garrison was a blackmailer?
A He did not use those exact words.
Q Did he use the word “blackmail”?
Q And then after that meeting you had the meeting with Mr. Spurlock — with Mr. Garrison at Mr. Garrison’s house; is that correct?
Q And that is when Mr. Garrison used the language against Mr. Spurlock about which you have testified?
Q Now, how long have you worked for ASI?
A It’s about two years now.
Q And before that you worked for the Guardian’s Office for about 13 years?
A Yes, but with the brief period in the archives.
Q So you basically went from 13 years in the Guardian’s Office, a brief period in the archives, and then to Author Services Inc.?
A Basically, yes. Yes.
Q And Author Services Inc. is a company that basically manages the affairs of L. Ron Hubbard; is that true?
A Among our activities, yes.
Q Isn’t that the primary activity?
A The primary activities are the literary affairs dealing with his works, records, and books.
Q Your client is basically L. Ron Hubbard?
A Yes; basically, not all of it.
Q Do I take it that you are appearing here today
as an employee of Author Services Inc.?
A No. I am appearing here because the attorneys asked me because I have worked in the archives and knew the area, knew the documents. They asked me to undertake the research. That is why I appeared.
Q Who transferred you from the Guardian’s Office to Author Services Inc.?
Q Larry Brennen, he was in the Guardian’s Office; wasn’t he?
A He was at one time.
Q And he was the individual who signed the contract for PDK; isn’t that correct, the October 30, 1980 agreement between Garrison PDK?
A I believe he was the one who signed those.
Q Now, in all the years that you were involved with Scientology — strike that.
When you have been doing your research have you uncovered any lies by L. Ron Hubbard about his background?
A No. I wouldn’t say that I turned up anything that I could directly and honestly attribute to him that I would call a lie.
Q And you have been working on and off on this with the archives and the documents for three years and then intensely for the last four weeks; is that it?
Q And you have drawn these conclusions about Mr. Armstrong and his research into the life of L. Ron Hubbard
based on your work during that period of time; is that correct?
Q Now, did you ever consider when you arrived at these conclusions how long Mr. Armstrong had actually worked with or been in the presence of L. Ron Hubbard —
Q — where he had the opportunity to personally observe the man and talk to him?
A No. Because I also have spoken with other people that spoke with him. So I didn’t take that into direct consideration.
Q Have you ever met L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. FLYNN: No further questions.
THE COURT: Redirect examination?
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. LITT:
Q Mr. Young, you were asked whether you had reviewed — to what extent you reviewed archives materials. And you said that you had not reviewed all of them.
For purposes of your work on this case did you review the documents relating to basically the pre-Scientology period of Mr. Hubbard’s life concerning which you were being asked to do some research?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you reviewed the archives documents that related to those time periods and the issues in this case?
A Yes, I did. There were certain records that simply fell outside that purview.
Q Now, you also said that you have indicated you had a desire of writing a biography of Mr. Hubbard at some point; do you recall that?
Q Now are you working on a full-time basis or anything like that in doing a biography of Mr. Hubbard?
A No, I am not.
Q When you say that you have a hope of writing a biography, did that refer to some work that at this point you have just done on the side as time has permitted?
A Very much so. It is the first thing that you have to do before you undertake any topic is you have to see what’s there, get an estimate of how long, and you are never really writing it until you are writing it.
Q Mr. Flynn asked you a couple of questions concerning the affirmations. He asked you questions concerning you had seen statements in there regarding Mr. Hubbard’s eyes being an excuse or his hips as opposed [a pose] — you recall those questions?
Q If you recall, did those arise in the context of where Mr. Hubbard is discussing — I will use the court’s term — a form of positive reinforcement?
THE COURT: I said possible.
MR. LITT: I understand.
Q Was that your understanding of the context?
A Yes, especially given other statements about it in which — I think the court’s description is very adequate. They were short, positive statements.
Q Now, Mr. Flynn asked you about Mr. Hubbard’s transfer from, the Algol; you recall that?
Q And first he asked you about some incident which I don’t recall at this point that happened the day after Mr. Hubbard was transferred; do you recall that?
A Yes, I do.
Q What was that incident again?
A This was what today would be called a Molotov Cocktail, but a gasoline bomb was found aboard material being unloaded aboard the ship.
Q And had Mr. Hubbard been scheduled for this transfer before this incident occurred?
A Yes, he had made the request. I don’t have the dates in front of me, but the request had already been made up to 10 days, 2 weeks before up to the command lines because an officer couldn’t be transferred off a ship without the higher authorities.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, may I take a look at exhibit 500-I for a moment?
THE COURT: If you can locate it. I am sure Rosie can.
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, Mr. Young, Mr. Flynn asked you some questions about statements made by Mr. Hubbard
concerning his war record and you made reference to the fact that the last statement that you were aware of that was known to come directly for him or had been written by him was in connection with Thompkins, something like that; is that correct?
A There was a Thompkins that was pretty much like in the stage that I am right now, considering doing a biography and the material had been supplied to him for that purpose.
Q And when you say material had been supplied to him for that purpose, to your knowledge had Mr. Thompkins posed a series of questions in written form and Mr. Hubbard given or dictated what was then written down?
A We don’t know who posed the topics. They were responded to and were sent off to Mr. Thompkins.
Q Do you know when that was?
A that would have been circa’s ’74-’75.
Q There is a date on this document 500-I that has June ’72.
A That is correct.
Q Now with respect to his war years, what did Mr. Hubbard say in that document regarding his war years?
A This is on page 25 War Years:
“I am the last person in the world to advertise war. I served the U.S. government and the U.S. Navy for several years. Was honorably discharged as an officer. Drew heavy disability compensation to this date and really don’t care to
say much more about it.”
And that is the section of war.
Q And this is from exhibit 500-I?
A That is correct.
MR. LITT: I have nothing — excuse me. Just a moment.
Q Oh, also in the same document — in the same document there is also reference to Mr. Roberts in which Mr. Hubbard is asked, presumably, something about a rumor started about his connection to Mr. Roberts.
A That is correct.
Q And what did Mr. Hubbard say in response to that?
A It is on the same page. It follows the war years’ entry and says:
” … Mr. Roberts, I frankly don’t know how this came about. Many of my friends in New York were playwrights. When I was there after my return from the South Pacific in the middle of 1942 and that is when there were very few people that had been in the war so far; the story must have made it rounds amongst my playwright friends. Later in 1944 I was again on the playwright beat and entertained my friends with the fabulous story of ‘The Bucket.’ Later some of my friends told me I had been immortalized. I didn’t know what they were talking about. This is all the connection that I know about, of course, there may be no connection at all.”
I have nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn.
BY MR. FLYNN:
Q When you were doing your research did you find at some times that Mr. Hubbard said different things to different people?
A Obviously. I don’t find that unusual.
Q Where one statement was inconsistent with the other statement.
A You would have to give me a particular instance to find out exactly what might be meant by that.
Q You can’t think of anything offhand?
A I know that — an incident would be characterized differently to different people. But I never found that there was a flagrant contradiction, if that is what you are driving at.
Q Well, when you read the last document I take it you understood that to be that Mr. Hubbard was disaffirming the Mr. Roberts’ story?
Q Saying that the Mr. Roberts’ story was not true.
A I think it says exactly what it says.
I do know that the ALGOL was the Bucket. And I do know — even in speaking with one of the former crew members who related this, there was an incident of a plant being thrown off the ship of the captain, exactly the way
it occurred. But that is all I know,
Q The question is very simple; did you read the last statement based on the belief that Mr. Hubbard was saying that Mr. Roberts story was not true?
MR. LITT: Objection. That calls for a conclusion. The document speaks for itself as to what Mr. Hubbard said. The Court has heard it; Mr. Flynn has heard it.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In any event, the exhibit that was shown to you this morning was an exhibit in which Mr. Hubbard said or a biographical sketch of Mr. Hubbard in which he said that he was Mr. Roberts; is that correct?
MR. LITT: Objection. The document speaks for itself, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, it does.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: To clarify one other point, I know that Mr. Litt used the term “the day after” in his question; did you say that the gasoline bomb incident happened the day after Mr. Hubbard left the ALGOL?
A No. I didn’t say that.
Q It was Mr. Hubbard who found the Molotov cocktail right?
A According to the log Mr. Hubbard was the one who reported it found. That is exactly what the document says.
Q And then the next day he was transferred?
A I would have to look at the log to see if it was the next day or shortly thereafter. I cannot be that precise.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. LITT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
MR. LITT: Could we have a moment for our next witness, Your Honor? He is right outside.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, the next witness will be Tom Moulton. And Mr. Peterson will do the examination on that.
THE COURT: Please take the stand and be sworn, sir.
The clerk will swear you as a witness.
THOMAS S. MOULTON,
called as a witness in behalf of the plaintiffs in rebuttal, was sworn and testified as follows:
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I’d only note that Mr. Moulton is not named on the witness list, but in view of the witnesses that we didn’t name, I have no objection.
MR. LITT: This is rebuttal. We don’t need to name rebuttal witnesses.
THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: May I get my breath for just a minute?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, Captain Moulton has a little bit of a physical condition. I would request that if during either direct or cross-examination he needs to take a break to stand up, he gets sort of I guess a cramp in his leg and and he’s had a long hike down the hall, with the court’s permission that he could just stand. I think with a cramp —
THE COURT: If you’d rather stand than sit —
THE WITNESS: I’d rather sit, but it may cramp up on me.
THE COURT: Certainly.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. Okay.
THE CLERK: Could you state your name, please?
THE WITNESS: Captain Thomas S. Moulton, M-o-u-l-t-o-n.
BY MR. PETERSON:
Q Mr. Moulton, do you have a rank or position at the current time?
A I am retired as a retired captain. My license is still intact.
Q What type of license is that that you have?
A Master Mariner.
Q And where do you currently reside?
A In Georgetown, Maine.
Q And how long have you lived there?
A All of my life practically.
Q And other than your license as Master Mariner, do you hold any other licenses?
A I hold radar endorsements, of course, on that. I am also a licensed emergency medical technician.
Q And when did you first get your Master’s license?
Q And with a Master’s license, what does that enable you to do?
A My license is endorsed as Master of any vessel, steam or motor, of any tonnage on any ocean.
Q And how long have you held that license?
A Since 1947.
Q And at one time did you hold a position in the
United States Navy?
A I did, sir.
Q And when did you first join the Navy?
A The end of 1940 or the beginning of 1941.
I think it was January of ’41.
Q And prior to joining the United States Navy did you have any other experience on the high seas?
A Not on the high seas. I was a coastwise fisherman for a time.
Q For approximately how long?
A Off and on for two or three years.
Q And when you first joined the United States Navy in January of ’41, I believe, what was your first rank?
Q And where did you first serve?
A I was sent to Jacksonville, Florida at the Naval Air Station.
Q And what course did you take at the Naval Air Station?
A At the Naval Air Station I sat before an examinations board to change the type of classification of my commission from aviation specialist to deck terminal service.
Q Where was that?
A Jacksonville, Florida.
Q And after completing the course of duty in Jacksonville where did you than go?
A I was then sent to Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Q What rank or position did you hold in Cambridge?
A I was then Lieutenant Junior grade.
The Navy had taken over the Harvard yard and some of their buildings as a training school for senior officers.
I was head of the Navigation Department there.
Q Were you an instructor?
A Yes, sir.
Q For how long did you instruct there at Harvard?
A For the first two classes when we reappointed our successors from the class graduates.
I left there in the fall.
Q when you left Cambridge whore did you then go?
A Miami, Florida to the Sub Chasing Training Center.
Q At the Sub Chaser Training Canter, what
was the course of instruction that was offered there?
A Well,a certain amount of ship handling, so forth; primarily it was anti-submarine warfare tactics and quite high qualifications in sonar.
Q How long a course in this instruction was offered at the Sub Chaser School in Miami?
A As I recall, it was 60 or 90 days.
Q While you were at the Sub Chaser School in Miami, what year was that?
A That would have been 1942.
Q Do you recall the month?
A I left there just before Christmas, I think. I think it was Christmas Eve.
Q So it would be safe to say late October is when you first arrived?
A I would think so, yes.
Q And while you were in Miami at the Sub Chaser School did you meet L. Ron Hubbard?
A I did.
Q Was he also attending school?
A Yes. He was in my class.
Q Did you know him socially?
A Quite well.
He was a guest of my wife and me at dinner; we were his guests many times. We were quite close.
Q He was also attending the school?
A He was, sir.
Q And at school he was taking the same courses
you were taking?
A Yes, the same class.
Q And do you recall his rank at that time?
A He was two stripes, full lieutenant.
Q And to your knowledge had he any previous naval experience before attending the Sub Chaser School?
A It was common knowledge that he had been in destroyers for some time before that.
Q You don’t have the exact details?
A Other than hearing the instructors in the classrooms refer to it.
He was used as something an authority in the classroom.
Q Do you know what his position was on these destroyers?
A I am told he was gunnery officer on the EDSEL. I don’t know about the others.
Q You mentioned that you left the Sub Chaser School in December of 1942; where did you go from there?
A I was pulled out of the class a week or ten days ahead of time.
There was a Sub Chaser being completed in Massachusetts that the captain had been taken ill on and they needed a captain. Because I was near the top of the class, I was pulled out ahead of time, I think a week or ten days. And I took over command of the SC767.
Q Did you see any duty on that sub chaser?
A Yes, sir. I brought her — well, several
patrols, quite a few patrols.
I had her for several months. I don’t remember just how long.
I finally brought her to Miami and she was then turned over to the Brazilian Navy under Lend Lease.
Q Now these patrols were along the eastern seaboard of the United States?
A Yes, sir, and offshore.
Q And at that time was there an imminent danger of enemy submarines in the area?
A There were sinkings all up and down at that time.
We were so desperate for ASW vessels.
Q And ASW is?
A Anti-Submarine Warfare.
Q And when did you again have communication with L. Ron Hubbard?
A After my ship was turned over to the Brazilians which would have been sometime in the early spring, perhaps March, I was assigned to a PC as executive officer. We started for the Southwest Pacific, but we were diverted en route to Key West and went through a week or ten day course in anti-submarine warfare at the fleet sound school.
Then I was promoted,was senior to the captain, so I was detached and then I returned to Miami to a subchaser training center for reassignment, and I received a call from Ron Hubbard that his executive officer was either ill or had been transferred or something. I don’t recall the details.
Q You recall at that time where Mr. Hubbard was stationed?
A He was in Portland, Oregon at the Albina Engine and Machine Works with his new ship being built, and although I had a chance to go probably as captain myself on the PC, he asked me as a particular favor would I come out for a
time as his executive officer because he was in serious difficulties, and that I did do.
Q And the serious difficulties, was that as a result of losing his executive officer?
A Mostly that. His executive officer had been transferred for some reason and he had two young ensigns who were not very experienced, of course. He was also ill at the time. He was recovering from, I believe, pneumonia but I am not certain.
Q And then did you travel to Oregon?
A I did.
Q And when you first arrived in Oregon, did you meet with Mr. Hubbard?
A I did. He had just come from the hospital or wherever he had been laid up. I think that was his first day back to duty.
Q Did he seem to be in good physical condition?
A Other than recovering from this illness that he had had, yes, sir.
Q And when you took over duties, had the ship that Mr. Hubbard had been working on, had it been commissioned yet?
A No, sir.
Q What was the status of that ship?
A She was still in building.
Q And is that the ship that was later designated the PC 815?
A That’s correct.
Q And were you also stationed there in Albina?
A Albina Engine and Machine Works was the name of the shipyard.
Q And that is in what city?
A Portland, Oregon.
Q Did you have an opportunity also to visit with Mr. Hubbard on a social basis?
A Yes, he and his wife and I went to dinner several times.
MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
THE COURT: All right, you may.
MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, I am showing the witness a photograph. Could we have that marked as plaintiff’s next?
THE COURT: 90, I believe.
Q BY MR. PETERSON: Captain Moulton, do you recognize either of those two gentlemen?
A I do.
Q And who is the officer on the right?
A On my right?
Q The right-hand side of the picture.
A That is I before the beard.
Q And about what month and year was that taken?
A That was taken in 1943. I would think in April, perhaps March, but probably April.
Q And was that taken in Albina?
A It was taken in the shipyard in one of their offices.
Q And the gentleman on the left, do you recognize that gentleman?
A That is L. Ron Hubbard.
Q And is that the way he looked in April of 1943?
Q And what was the purpose of taking that photograph?
A It was for publicity purposes for the shipyard, I believe.
Q It was actually taken in the office of the shipyard?
A Yes, it was.
Q And have you had that photograph in your possession since 1943?
A I have had the original of that in my possession, yes.
Q And I notice in that photograph that Captain Hubbard is wearing dark glasses; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And in all the times that you knew him in Portland did he wear dark glasses?
A It was necessary for him to wear them, yes.
Q And when you knew him in Miami did he wear dark glasses?
A Yes, he did, the same glasses.
Q Did he ever tell you why he had to wear the dark glasses?
Q What did he say?
A He said that his eyes had been injured in the flash from a large caliber gun. I think it was a four or five-inch gun on a destroyer he had been on.
The gun was fired prematurely. He was standing adjacent to the muzzle and he received a bad flash burn which did not impair his vision, but it was very painful for him to go around in any sort of light without the glasses on.
I saw him try it on one occasion.
Q On this one occasion that he tried to go without his glasses, could you describe that?
A Yes. We were in a place in Seattle, I believe, known as the Seattle Tennis Club. There was this function, a dance or something, going on. And one of the ladies in the party was kidding him about wearing dark glasses in dim light at night.
And he told her why. And for some reason, she thought that was a strange story.
So to go along with it, he took his glasses off.
Within five or ten minutes, even in that dim light, his eyes watered very badly, became red. And I think he said he had a very bad headache.
He put his glasses back on and from then on wore them at all times except on the bridge at night in the dark.
Q Now, at any time when you were with Mr. Hubbard
in Portland did he have any complaints about pain in his low back or any area like that?
A He frequently complained of pain in his right side and the back in the area of the kidneys which he said was due to some damage from a Japanese machine gun very early in the war.
And from that he had considerable difficulty in urination. And upon at least one occasion I saw him urinating bloody urine. He had great difficulty in urinating.
Q Now, at some time I presume that the PC 815 was completed and ready for sea duty; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And do you recall about what time that was?
A That would have been — I would think about — I don’t know the exact date, but about the 1st of May; perhaps the last week in April of ’43.
Q And when the ship was completed, what did you and Captain Hubbard do at that time?
A We stayed in Portland for a week or ten days outfitting and conducted trials, builders’ trials, during which time the propeller was damaged. And we came back and we drydocked to repair that.
The pilot managed to hit a mud lump in the river or something on the trials. That was repaired; we finished outfitting and went down the river some time about the 10th, 11th, perhaps 12th of May.
Q And when the trial runs and the outfitting had been completed, did you at that time receive any orders?
A Yes. We were ordered to proceed to Astoria for loading ammunition. And then we were supposed to go to Seattle to have Radar installed and some other equipment.
Q Did you commence to proceed to Astoria to take on ammunition?
A Yes, we did.
Q Did you make it there?
A When we got to Astoria they only gave us a small quantity of ammunition for structural firing, the tests that had to be made.
Q What are structural firing tests?
A The main gun had to be fired a certain number of rounds, perhaps a half dozen or something. We had to roll ash cans from the racks on the stern and also fire the K-guns.
Q “Ash cans,” are those —
A Depth charges.
Q — used in sinking submarines?
A That is correct.
Q What are “K-guns”?
A They were guns shaped roughly in the shape of the letter K that fired depth charges. There were two of them aft so you could fire depth charges on each side through the air some distance from the ship.
Q The ash cans, would they roll off the back?
A They rolled off two racks in the back.
Q Were there any other armaments on that ship?
A Yes. She carried a 40-millimeter gun; she had three-inch 50, I believe. I may be confusing her with another ship, but I think she had a three-inch 50.
I know she had a 40-millimeter forward and I think the three-inch 50 aft.
She carried two or three 20-millimeters; I think perhaps two.
Q After you had taken on the ammunition in Astoria, then you proceeded to test fire the guns?
A Not at that time. We were due to go to Bremerton to do this at the Navy yard in Seattle.
There was a Navy plane that went down off the coast and all of us were ordered out to search for that ship or that plane. And when we came back in, our orders were then changed. And instead of going to Seattle, because we were already late from this other thing, we would proceed to, I think it was, San Francisco. I have forgotten. I think it was San Francisco or San Diego, one or the other. And then we would conduct these tests en route.
Q Okay. The trip to Seattle and the Bremerton shipyards at that location, I believe you testified that you were going to outfit the ship with radar equipment?
A She was to get radar and also rocket propelled mousetraps which they did not carry at the time.
Q What is a rocket propelled mousetrap?
A They were rockets that could be fired from the foredeck. They were used in ASW attacks. They were a generation ahead of the depth charges. They later became standard equipment on all ships of that type.
Q Okay. So with the test amount of ammunition that you had loaded at Astoria, you then proceeded, I believe it would be south down the coast?
A We were bound south for either San Diego or San Francisco. I don’t recall.
Q And do you recall the approximate date that you had commenced the trip south?
A It would have been, I would think, the last week in May. I am not certain of the date, perhaps the 22nd, 23rd. I am not sure.
Q And that is 1943?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you say “we,” how many other ships were in the group?
A We were alone. We were en route by ourselves.
Q And who was the captain of that ship?
A Ron Hubbard.
Q And that is the PC 815?
A That’s correct.
Q And what was your duty on the ship?
A Well, I had several hats because there were only four officers and quite a few departments. I was executive officer. I was also the medical officer. I was communications officer, and I was also the engineering officer.
Q Did Mr. Hubbard also wear several hats?
A No, sir. He was captain or commanding officer. That was all.
Q That was standard?
A That was standard on all ships with reduced personnel.
Q And did you have any type of sonar detection equipment on that ship?
A Yes, sir. We had the latest sonar equipment at that date that was being used in anti- submarine warfare.
Q Had you personally had any training on sonar equipment?
A Yes, sir, both in Miami and in Key West. I was considered an expert on it. So was Ron, of course.
Q And did you also have a separate officer or enlisted man who held the duty of operating sonar equipment?
A We had either two or three sonar operators, one or two were third class, and I think one was first class or second, and this came under me directly under communications. I was in charge of the sonar.
Q And part of your training in the subchaser school in Miami, did you take instruction on the use of sonar
A Yes, sir. We had what today are known as simulators which were used in the Navy and in the Air Force, also, where the computer duplicated a submarine and his motions, and submarine trained people operated the computer and our bridge crew would operate the ASW team equipment, and we had mock battles.
Then, in Key West we operated on live submarines with test firing equipment and conducted many runs there also.
Q When a submarine is detected on some sonar equipment, does it make a distinctive response or noise of any kind?
A Well, in the equipment of that day, I can’t speak for what is used today, I am not familiar, you sent an outgoing signal and a pinging sound was reproduced as that signal went out. When the signal did not encounter any object, there was no return. It was merely a series of pings which went on day and night when you were underway.
On anything that was picked up in the beam from this, you received an echo coming back which you then had to distinguish as to whether it was metal, such as a ship, a submarine, a whale, a fish or just disturbances in the water. They all had characteristic types of echoes.
Q And part of your training was to distinguish between the different characteristics of the returning sound on the sonar?
A A good part of our training was, a great part
because that was vital to a successful attack.
Q And how could you distinguish the sound, for example, that would be made with sonar bouncing off of a whale versus a submarine?
A Well, when the sonar beam hit the whale, he would naturally have blubber and so forth,and the echo that returned was not as sharp. If you hit metal, other than in bad conditions of sound reception, it came back as a much crisper, sharper echo just as though you had talked to a hard wall as opposed to a padded cell type of wall.
Q And disturbances, for example, bubbles or any other type of disturbance in the water, would that have a sound that was even different from that of a whale or a fish?
A They all had a most characteristic sound under ideal conditions.
Q And the sonar equipment on the PC 815, where was the receptor?
A The equipment was in a small alcove right on the bridge. You could draw a curtain across it so the light at night didn’t bother the bridge crew, but it was essentially on the bridge in a little alcove.
Q Was there some scope on the sonar equipment also?
A There was the operating dial with an arrow which indicated the direction that it was being trained at at the time.
There were numerous operational gauges along with it, but essentially it gave you the bearing that you sent the signal out on. And when it came back, then, of course, you had a receiver much as a loud speaker where you could listen to the echo. The sound man heard the same thing on earphones. And I or whoever wanted to check it also had a pair of earphones which gave you better fidelity.
Q And on the trip south in May of 1943 as an officer you were usually stationed on the bridge?
A I stood a watch on the bridge a four-hour watch.
Then I stood an additional watch because ur two ensigns were not very experienced and usually when they were on watch, except under ideal conditions, I stood by on the bridge or in the chart room with one of them and Ron stayed back on with the other one.
Q And as you were proceeding south in May of 1943 at some point did someone raise an alarm that there was a possible submarine in the area?
A Yes, sir.
Q And to your recollection who first raised that alarm?
A Three of us did.
Ron was on the bridge; I was on the bridge and the sonar man, of course.
All three called out at once. All three of us did, but there was a return echo.
Q And when you heard the return echo what did you then do?
A I immediately went to the sound gear. I probably put on my head set. That would have been routine. And we proceeded to evaluate the echo.
Q And when you say “we,” who were the other people on the bridge?
A The sonar man, man, and myself.
Q And Ron is L. Ron Hubbard?
A That is correct.
Q And did you, after listening to the return sound on the sonar reach a conclusion?
A After we had evaluated it, there was more to it than just listening to the return echo.
You checked the width of the target. Because you knew the tapered width of the beam, you could estimate the length of the target that you were getting a return from.
You also checked it for a doppler which would be an indication of whether the range was opening or closing.
This, you detect in the sound. You listen for screw noises or anything else that could help you evaluate the contact.
In this case, after evaluation, we had determined it was a submarine.
Q You mentioned you listened for screw noises?
A The propeller sound coming from a ship, for
example, or a submarine as opposed to the sound made by dolphins, whales, so forth. They are all more or less characteristic.
Q The screw noises would be the sound of the propeller under water?
A That is correct.
Q Does a propeller under water have a distinctive sound?
A Very definitely.
As a matter of fact, you can almost, if you are active in listening constantly and up to date in your practice, usually you can determine the type of ship it is. They all have a characteristic signature or sound.
Q And after listening to the sonar sounds for some period of time did you make an evaluation regarding the length of the target?
A We decided it was roughly the length of a submarine.
It made noises like a submarine and it was behaving like a submarine.
Q Did you hear screw noises?
A We did.
Q And could you tell if the ship, the under water target was coming toward you, away from you, or moving in what direction?
A We would have been able to know from the doppler effect on the sound as well as once we began an evaluation, sooner or later we would start a time plot and start plotting
what the target was doing, whether it was stopped, whether it was moving, and, if so, what course.
This was done both with what was then a highly classified attack piece of electronics, now, knowledge and obsolete. But it was then the very latest that very few people knew about. We had one of the earliest ones. And we kept that going for a plot along with our own manual plot with a stop watch.
Q And you had determined that the target was a submarine?
A Beyond any question.
Q Did you scan the area for any other under water ships?
A We had been conducting a routine search. Once we picked up on this target we concentrated on that, of course.
Q After making the determination that it was, indeed, a submarine, what did you then do?
A Well, we took some time — it has been so many years I can’t remember how long – but we took some time to evaluate it.
During that time we would know that a submarine would hear our pinging inside its hull.
If he were friendly, he would have made recognition signals.
We received no recognition signals; so we proceeded to attack.
Q What type of recognition signals would a friendly
submarine have made?
A In those days he would have fired a small rocket which gave one or more colored lights and ended up as a smoke signal of a distinctive color.
Q And you didn’t receive any type of —
A We received none, no, sir.
Q What did you then do?
A We commenced our first attack.
Q Was there any kind of an alarm sounded, or was the ship at that point already in readiness?
A Where we were, it was routine to go into what was at night time an assembly, an alert, known as Condition 2.
We sounded the general alarm for general quarters.
The attack, of course, could be started even in Condition 3 because everybody we needed was there.
But with the general quarters, we obtained water tight integrity; alerted the engine room to maneuver and, of course, manned the guns.
Q And you said you commenced an attack; what did you do to commence the attack?
A We made a pass on them and dropped depth charges.
Q And do you recall how many depth charges?
A No, we were rationed because we only had something like 12 or 14 on board. I think in our first attack, if I remember right, we rolled three or four and we fired the K guns, but I think if I remember right one of them didn’t go off. After that we made a series of attacks over several days. Eventually our ammunition was replenished, but it took a lot of doing to get it replenished.
Q When you commenced the first run or attack on the submarine, were you out there alone?
A Yes, sir. Naturally we alerted the shore side people by radio that we were commencing an attack.
Q And do you recall the approximate location of your vessel at the point you commenced the attack?
A We were off the Oregon coast. I think it is called, if I remember right, Cape Mears. It was between there and a head called Tillamook. There is a beach in the area known as, I think it is Silver Sand Beach, something similar to that, and there is another landmark, Haystack Rock. We were somewhere off that. Our battle report would show the position, of course.
Q Approximately how far off the coast did this incident take place?
A I would have to refer to the battle report because we made so many runs over those days. We were, I would think, perhaps 10 or 12 miles, but that is purely my recollection.
Q 10 to 12?
A 10 to 12 miles, I would say, somewhere around there.
MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, could we have exhibit 60?
Q Captain Moulton, I am handing you exhibit 60.
Do you know what that document is?
A I do,sir.
Q And what is it?
A That was our battle report eventually submitted after the action was over.
Q And when it was over, do you recall actually seeing that document before it was submitted?
A I helped write it. It was written primarily by Ron Hubbard, but naturally I contributed to it also as did the other officers.
Q And by referring to that document, can you give us a more exact location of where the incident took place?
A I believe so, sir. I see on the first page it says “just inside the steamer track,” but there is nothing more than that. I imagine it is further on.
Q But to your recollection it was about 10 to 12 miles off —
A I would think so. We were approximately on a hundred thousand curve because it was customary to steam that going up and down the coast.
Q You made a couple of runs dropping depth charges on the target?
A We made several runs that night. This happened that night, and over the course of the next three days or so, two and a half days, we made a great many runs.
Q What was the condition of the seas during the two and a half days of the attack?
A Sometimes it was not bad. At times it got quite rough, and it was difficult to transfer ammunition to us. I remember we had difficulty, but then it smoothed back down again. That is when we finally did get some ammunition brought to us.
Q In the two and a half days during the first group of attacks on the target, were you all alone?
A We had for the first day, perhaps into the second day, we were alone. The first night we were alone. Eventually they were one, two, I believe two blimps came out,and then we had an old Coast Guard cutter, and we had, I think, two SC’s eventually assigned to us. /p>
Q And what is an SC designation?
A That is the sub chaser, the smaller class, the same as I had had before.
Q And did they also join in the attack?
A One did, was considerable help. The other one as very reluctant to do much of anything. He was there, but not voting, so to speak.
Q And what part did the two blimps take part in this attack?
A They had a different type of anti-submarine detection gear, magnetic type of gear, and they confirmed
all of our — whenever we had a contact or we gained contact, we would give them the position. They would then pick it up on their gear and verify it or if they picked it up before we did, they would call us on to the barium range because after depth charge attacks, you lose contact and then you have to pick them up again, so we worked as a team together.
And at least at one point — I can’t remember — at least twice they dropped depth charges on the target. They verified along with the depth charges we dropped.
Q So the blimps were also equiped with depth charges?
A They had depth charges set for shallow surface. They didn’t have the large deep water ones that we carried.
Q How were you in communication with the blimps?
A We had regular radio gear, ship to ship and ship to air.
They had similar equipment, except very weak.
I think it was only five or ten watts.
For that reason, the shore stations could hear us, but they could not hear the blimps.
Q Could you personally hear any of the radio transmissions between the PC 815 and the blimps?
A Yes. Because a great many of them I made myself as communications officer.
Throughout the action I was in charge of all communications.
Q And at any time in the communications that you had with the blimps did they confirm to you that the target was, indeed, a submarine?
A In their opinion it was. They felt so.
Q And how would they form an opinion that it was a submarine? Was it visual, or do they have certain type of equipment?
A I think — I frankly don’t know. I have never been aboard that type of blimp.
How they evaluated, I have no idea; however, at one point when the submarine tried to surface on us we all saw its periscope and what appeared to be perhaps the upper rim of its conning tower.
And the blimps also reported up its periscope to us.
They also reported it on another occasion further away when we had lost contact. They said they saw the periscope then. That one, we did not. We were a little too far away, I think.
So they saw it, I believe, twice. We had it only once.
Q And they made a radio transmission of this location?
A They called us over and I imagine they dropped a smoke float. That is what they had been doing; each time they had a contact they had marked it for us.
Q They you would proceed to the smoke float and start dropping depth charges?
A We would start ranging in that direction with our sonar and close on it until we picked it up.
Q You mentioned that you had made these attacks over a two-and-a-half day period; after that what did you then do?
A I think the total time we were in action was something like 60 hours.
We then returned to Astoria to the section base.
Q After you would make an attack on the target did you stop and try to make a visual observation to see if you had been successful in striking, or —
Q We were usually trying to recover contact with the sub.
Naturally, we were looking for debris or anything else that would help us.
We had a great many lookouts posted at general quarters; everybody was looking in certain assigned sectors.
Q What would a person on lookout be looking for to be able to ascertain whether or not a depth charge had either struck or in some way crippled a submarine?
A Well, if you had blown a big hole in him, you would naturally find, or hopefully find wreckage bodies, or other equipment floating on the surface.
If you had damaged him outside, such as perforating a fuel tank, you would see quantities of oil coming to the surface.
If you damaged the screws or other equipment, you would hear this on the sonar by a different pitch and sound in the gear.
Q And this 60-hour attack on the submarine, did you ever at any time make a sighting or a discovery of any other target in the area?
A Yes. Yes. Oh, I believe it was toward the close of the second day when we made — we had lost contact with
our submarine. And after one of the attacks when the water had been roared up, we were searching around to pick him up and we picked up a second contact which was not where it should have been at all if it had been ours.
We swung our sound gear back and forth and determined that we now had two targets.
We went through the same procedure and identified the second one as a submarine also.
Q And during the period of the 60-hour attack and battle with the submarines, did you ever note any bodies or debris floating on the surface?
A We found no bodies or solid wreckage.
On several occasions we had large quantities of oil surface which was noted both by us and by the blimps.
There was also a semi-solid yellowish sort of glutinous material. We never did identify what that was.
We were too busy to stop and pick it up for samples.
It spread over quite an area, but we never knew what it was.
Q Did you ever form an opinion on what you believed it to be?
A No, sir.
But the oil, we knew was oil, of course.
Q Did you at any time during the 60-hour battle make a determination that there was any change in the sound of the screws on the target?
A Well, of course, they were speeding up, slowing down, and stopping and maneuvering. But eventually we felt
certain that we had damaged both of them. We were quite certain that we had completely wrecked the one who tried to surface on us. He never moved from that position after that for another day or so.
The second one —
Q By not moving from a position for a day or so, what did that indicate?
A We could pick him up with our sound gear. But he never changed position.
Q What did that indicate to you?
A We figured that he was long since past temporary damage. He had been down so long I think he would have been out of air. He’d be unable to manuever because early in that period, he had echo ranged on us. We heard the echo ranging clearly from his gear, and we were at that time fully expecting to have a torpedo sent at us, but the torpedo never came and we felt because of the angle that he was apparently at on the bottom,that he could not bring his stern or bow to bear on us to fire a torpedo.
Q And the other target, did you make a determination as to the ultimate fate of that target?
A In our opinion, the one sub was a definite sinking. We were fully decided on that.
The second one we felt was either sunk or damaged so badly that he could not get away.
Q And at that point did you terminate the attack?
A No, we stayed around. I have forgotten how long. It would be in this report. We and the other ships patrolled the area for quite some time and set up picket lines and so forth to listen for any movement. We never heard any.
Q And did you yourself file a report as part of that exhibit 60?
A Exhibit 60? That is this?
A Yes, I wrote nothing as elaborate as this.
I merely wrote a short report.
Q Could you locate that report in exhibit 60?
A If it is here.
Q I think it is just after the report of Captain Hubbard.
A Yes, here is my report.
Q And would you look down in about the second paragraph, I believe, of that report. Actually it is in the paragraph 3, subsection 1. You indicate that the attack took place in April?
A No. That is an error on my part when I wrote it. That, of course, was May.
Q Why do you think that you wrote April instead of May?
A Well, I notice the report is dated May 25. This attack was over on the 21st. It was at least another day before we got into port.We were sent up to Seattle to report to Admiral Fletcher, and in all of this time we had had very, very little sleep. I was so tired I probably wrote half of this in my sleep. I have a habit of missing months and dates.That is why I keep a watch with a calendar on it because I never can remember dates.
That is not a typographical. It is merely my fault in writing it.
Q In the action report I noticed there was an incident where I believe the 20 millimeter gunners had taken some shots that weren’t directed toward the target but maybe directed in another direction; do you recall such an incident?
A I do. It damn near got me.
Q And could you describe briefly what that incident was?
A How it came about or why it was aimed where it was?
A Well, those 20 millimeters had a real flukey part known as a parallelogram. Was about yay big and it looked as though it could be put into the mechanism either way. In fact, it could be, but when it went in one way, you lost complete control of the trigger mechanism. This was a common fault that was later remedied in 20 millimeter guns, but in the early ones, that was common. And after a firing which we had done a day or so before,the guns naturally had been overhauled by very tired personnel and in the dark. We were showing no lights, and apparently this parallelogram, as we found it, had been put in backwards and for some reason the gun went off.
Q Could you have been firing at the periscope or the conning tower?
A Not at that particular firing. This one when the parallelogram was in, it was subject to going off at any time, and if it did go off, there was no way to stop it unless you could run off and get it and rip off the magazine. Otherwise it would go until the magazine was exhausted.
Q And about how many rounds was in that magazine?
A Oh, I have forgotten, about 100 to 150. The magazine was about yay big, but there were a lot of them, seemed like 10 million to me.
Q When this particular 20 millimeter gun went off, where were you at the time?
A I was up about two-thirds of the way up the mast,
Q About how tall was that mast?
A I don’t know, probably 65 feet,70 feet. I was up there for better visibility. And to continue,these 20 millimeter guns had done so much damage to the ships they were on early in the war because they were a very hard gun to control. If you were in the harness wearing them and you happened to slip, there was no way you could get back on your feet again because the thing was making so much vibration and they frequently kept going.
To accomplish some sort of control on the PC 815, she had one of the primitive methods that they put on to stop this. They had two cans, one that controlled the elevation and the other one controlled the horizontal train, and theoretically these could be set so that there was no part of the ship that you could hit directly with your fire. That was set by approximation in the yard, but until after you had made your trials, done your test firing, you were never sure of the setting and the thing never worked very well anyhow.
Later on they built what was called a bird cage or mouse trap built out of pipe with all sorts of weird curving.
So that no matter where the gun barrel was,it couldn’t be depressed or swung where it would hit the ship.
We didn’t have that.
I was at the mast and the gun went off and went the full round in the magazine. And I was much thinner then, fortunately.
People who saw it say it missed me by about that far.
Q Indicating about ten inches to a foot?
A I would say about that.
I was making love to the mast and was almost out to the other side.
Looking down the barrel, it looked like it was coming right toward me.
In the course of this, it did some small damage to the ship. The cams had never been given their final setting. And I think, if I remember right — it is a long time ago — I know we shot the antenna down.
But I think it hit the insulator at the end, something of that sort.
But outside of that, there was no damage from it.
Q Later on they corrected that problem on the ship?
A I believe. If I remember right, she had the bird cage thing put on her when she got down to San Diego.
Q And in reviewing the action report and accompanying documents, I noted that one of the admirals in
the area had cast some doubt upon the fact that you had engaged in battle with an enemy submarine; do you recall the admiral making that assertation?
A I remember our meeting with Admiral Fletcher, who was quite disparaging at the time we had the meeting, perhaps understandably so.
Q Now,did he give you any factual reason why he believed that there were no enemy submarines involved in that attack?
A The only thing that I know was that at the point where we had been screaming for ammunition for several days without results from shore side people, as communications officer and with Ron’s permission, I originated a message to the commander and chief of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor. It was a very — well, I wouldn’t write it today.
I was younger then.
But it was quite a nasty message asking why in thunder we couldn’t get any help out there and get some ammunition. I coated this and sent it with a carbon copy so it would be equivalent to full copies to everybody on the coast, I guess.
I did see the message that came back immediately from the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral King, with a carbon copy to me asking Admiral Fletcher what was going on out there and why he had not been told of an action taking place.
I saw the carbon copy that went back from Admiral Fletcher to him where he said there was no
I think he said “there were no submarines, repeat, no submarines in the area.”
This was quite a strong statement.
But in view of the political climate on the West Coast at that time, I could see why he might have said that. And having said that he would not deviate from it.
Q Are there any other indications in that Action Report other than your report and Captain Hubbard’s report that indicate that, indeed, the targets that were discovered were submarines?
A Well, there were statements taken from all the crew. I see they are here.
I am sure some of the crew had mentioned that because some of them, I know, sighted the periscope.
The sonar men who, in each case, two or three of them, were very definite in that they had the submarine on their sonar. And we did have, as I said, communications from the blimps.
Q Is there any other record that is kept as part of the action report, any testing or any read outs on equipment that also would indicate that the targets were submarines?
A Yes. Our attack recorder — our attack director made a recording, an electronic recording which anyone competent in reading that could use to determine what type of target it was. Because it would give the type of echo, its strength, general characteristics, and you could plot
courses and distances from it.
It would also contain a record of an attack.
Our recordings were all turned over to Admiral Fletcher at that conference. We did not get them back.
He called a man in on his staff to interpret them. The man was not a ASW man. He was, I believe, a three-striper or four-striper, but he was in Naval Aviation. And they were using a recorder, perhaps similar to this one.
I never saw it, but he said he was not real competent to evaluate this.
There were no submarine people there or any submarine people there at the time who could.
So there was no one there who could look at that and say definitely it was a submarine.
I do know that these reports were later analyzed in, I believe, San Diego or, perhaps, San Francisco by another, I believe, Admiral Braisted, something like that. And he entered his comments concerning some, I think, 19 runs.
He mentioned that some of these runs were mushy; the echos were mushy and could have been due to fish or knuckles in the water, bubbles, but that two may have been submarines.
Well, that was sort of like saying a girl is a little bit pregnant. If the two may have been submarines, it is more than likely that the other 16 or 17 may have been submarines.
THE COURT: We’ll take a 15-minute recess.
THE COURT: All right. We are back in session.
The witness has taken the stand. Please state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Thomas Moulton.
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Peterson.
MR. PETERSON: Thank you.
Q Now, you had mentioned earlier that there was some aspect of the political climate which I believe influenced Admiral Fletcher’s conclusion; what was that?
A Well, I am sure that without that it would have been — at about that time either just before this action or just after, I think it was just after, you had the shelling of a refinery here somewhere in the Los Angeles area, I believe just up the coast.
It was written up in Reader’s Digest a couple of months ago, three months ago.
At that time it caused quite a local panic, so I am told, and the press so indicated, and everybody on the West Coast apparently started a bunch of rumors, became quite upset about it.
I know that the commanders of the various areas received a lot of inquiries from shoreside people.
It wasn’t a panic, but it was getting into that stage.
It got so bad that I remember in Oregon that the papers there, there were several articles. I saw one of them asking people to keep quiet, not start rumors and so forth, and I am quite sure that this was well known to all the commanders up and down the coast, and it was to their
advantage, at least publicly, not to admit that there were some marines [submarines] in the area and, of course, once Admiral Fletcher had sent this message to Admiral King, knowning how the Navy works, I am sure he wouldn’t back down from it.
Q And later on in the summer did you again receive any indication that in fact the submarine or the two submarines had been sunk in the area?
A It wasn’t that summer. It was some time after that.
I was traveling up the Columbia River on a merchant ship and was talking with the pilot who came from somewhere in that area, I believe, in that Sand Beach or Silver Sand Beach. And I happened to discuss this action with him.
He had been living there at the time —
MR. FLYNN: I’ll object to this.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. PETERSON: During the incident with the attack on the submarines, in your opinion, how did Captain Hubbard react?
A Well, he ran a very competent, extremely competent attack throughout the thing. He did a very fine job.
Q And after the incident with the submarines in May of 1943 did the PC 815 continue on its voyage?
A We went back to Astoria for replenishment of ammunition. And at that time there was a new carrier, the first of the Kaiser carriers that came down from the Seattle area. And we went up to meet her and we picked her up in Port Angeles.
We were detailed to escort her because she was very valuable, as the first one and it was felt at the time
that there might be grave damage from submarines and from mining in the area.
We escorted her to San Francisco where she took on stores and then escorted her from there to San Diego.
Q And at some point did you then leave the PC 815?
A Yes; sometime after we completed that escort, I would think within a week or two — I don’t remember exactly.
Q And then from the PC 815 where did you then go?
A I was sent to the Amphibious Center in Virginia and took command — well, I went through the training program and took command of my first LST there.
Q And did you see action at the battle of Saipan?
A Yes. That was the last one.
Q What happened there briefly?
A Well, we were stranded on the — I had been the first ship to land there in the action on D-Day. And we were stranded on the reef for about 10 days.
During that time the Japanese used to run dawn and dusk attacks on us.
We were badly strafed and bombed and one thing and another and quite badly damaged. I lost a substantial part of my crew there.
MR. PETERSON: Nothing further from the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may cross-examine.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Sir, you have a rather remarkable memory after all of these years. I take it before your testimony today you refreshed your memory with regard to the Action Report which you have in front of you there?
A I had a chance to skim through it; that is all, sir.
Q Did you skim through any other documents such as the conference report of Admiral Fletcher?
A If that was his letter of transmittal from this, I saw it, yes.
Q You did see the letter of transmittal from Admiral Fletcher?
A Yes, I did, sir.
Q Is that attached to the exhibit in front of you?
A I think that is where I saw it. It doesn’t seem to be in here.
Q Now that is the letter that summarizes the results of the conference that Admiral Fletcher held with regard to this action?
A Yes that is the one I am looking for, but I so far haven’t come across it.
Q And that is where Admiral Fletcher stated that the action, in fact, never took place?
A Something to that effect, yes, sir.
Q And you can’t find it in that exhibit?
A I am still looking, but I am also listening to you at the same time.
Q Now, the conference report in the transmittal of Admiral Fletcher would have been classified information and Secret at that period of time; is that correct?
A This entire record and everything pertaining to it was classified Secret at that time. It since, I see here, has been declassified.
Q So, Admiral Fletcher’s notation that no such action ever took place would have been secret at that period of time; is that correct?
A Yes, it would have been. I think it said something in there instructing that it be forwarded only by registered letter if I remember right.
Q So if the political climate at the time in 1943 was one of fear on the West Coast, it would have been more helpful to that climate to disclose Admiral Fletcher’s conclusions that there were no submarines; is that correct?
A I am not sure I follow you. It would have been very helpful for him to insist that he had none, yes.
Q But it would have been helpful to disclose his findings to the public that there had been no submarines?
A No, I don’t think so, because I believe the entire action was secret at that time.
Q So, the public didn’t know about it one way or the other?
A Other than people who lived along the shore and saw and heard the things.
Q When did you last see Admiral Fletcher’s report?
A I saw it this morning. I glanced at it. That is why I am trying to find it because I would recognize it if I saw it. I had not seen it before I came out here.
As I recall, it was dated June 23rd, and that was after I left the PC. I don’t find it here, but I am sure it is in here.
Q Who first contacted you, sir, with regard to your appearance as a witness?
A Who first contacted me?
A Mr. — I think it is — Wittle, Tom Wittle.
Q And approximately how long ago was that?
A Last week or early, I think — no, last week. I am sorry.
Q Had you had any prior contact with any representatives of the Church of Scientology at any time in the last three or four years?
A No, sir, not in over 15 years.
Q And they found you in Maine?
Q Now, did you know L. Ron Hubbard as a good storyteller?
A As a good storyteller?
Q A person who told stories.
A What sort of stories?
Q Well, did you know him to have any reputation at the time you knew him during World War II as a good storyteller?
A Do you mean jokes and things of that sort?
Q No; stories about incidents that had taken place in his lifetime.
A No. He was very reticent, as a matter of fact.
Q Did you consider him to be a very honest person?
Q And he told you that he had injured his eyes from a flash burn when a gun unexpectedly went off; is that correct?
Q Did he tell you when that took place?
A It would have been sometime before Pearl Harbor. I don’t know. I seem to remember he told me it was — it was on a destroyer, but I wouldn’t swear to it after all of this time.
Q But you are clear that he injured his eyes from the flash burn of a gun?
A I am clear that he said he did, yes.
Q When you were serving with Mr. Hubbard did you ever see his medical records with regard to his eye condition
in 1942 and 1943?
A No, sir.
I would not have seen him after I left the ship. I have never seen him since then.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I —
Q BY MR. FLYNN: I’m talking about the period now when you were with him.
A When I was with him, I don’t remember him going to a doctor at all.
MR. PETERSON: I object to Mr. Flynn showing the witness something. I have no idea what he is showing the witness.
THE COURT: Just show counsel what it is before you show it to the witness.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, the document that is being shown to the witness appears to be a Veterans Administration document from 1947.
[Printing error in transcript. Next two lines of text overlap.]
MR. FLYNN: Did Mr. Hubbard ever tell you that in February 1942 his eyes were injured from excessive tropical sunlight?
[THE COURT: In February 1942 …]
MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, let’s hear the question.
He is showing the witness the document and pointing to things for the witness to look at before he has even asked his question. I think it is irregular. Why doesn’t he ask the question rather than putting medical records in front of the witness who isn’t a trained doctor?
THE COURT: I don’t see any big question. He has asked him the question.
I’ll overrule the objection.
You can answer whether he ever told you that.
THE WITNESS: He did not, no.
This was a hospitalization in February of ’42 which was before I knew him. He did not — it does not say in here that that was the original injury. This could have been an aggrevation of an old one.
It says ” . . . excessive tropical sunlight,” but it doesn’t say this was the cause of his original trouble.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Does it say anything about a flash burn from a gun?
A No, sir.
Q And with regard to his actual chronological medical history, in May, 1942 this officer states, “While acting as intelligence officer for the Asiatic Fleet he exposed his eyes to strong sunlight and has had to wear tainted glasses ever since.”
Did he ever tell you that?
A No, sir, he did not.
MR. PETERSON: I am not sure I understand what “tainted glasses” are.
THE COURT: For the record, it is what it is. I assume —
Q BY MR. FLYNN: He told you that —
THE COURT: He probably means “tinted.”
Q BY MR. FLYNN: He told you that he was injured
by a Japanese machine gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was that, sir, that he told you that?
THE COURT: When did he tell him, or when did he tell him he was injured?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: First, when did Captain Hubbard tell you that he was injured by a Japanese machine gun?
A This was while we were in Miami which would have been in the fall of ’42. It was the fall of 1942.
Q Is that —
A While we were in Miami.
Q Did he describe the circumstances under which he was injured by the Japanese machine gun?
A Yes, in some detail; not entirely.
Q What did he tell you?
A That he had been in Soerabaja at the time the Japanese came in or in the area of Soerabaja and that he spent some time in the hills in back of Soerabaja after the Japanese had occupied it.
Q Now, Soerabaja was where, sir?
A That is a port on the north part of Java in the Dutch East Indies.
Q So you understood from Captain Hubbard that he had been in Java fighting the Japanese and was hit by machine gun fire?
A Not quite as you put it. He had been landed, so he told me in Java from a destroyer named the Edsel and had made his way across the land to Soerabaja, and that is when the place was occupied. When the Japanese came in, he took off into the hills and lived up in the jungle for sometime until he made an escape from there.
THE COURT: Sounds like the South Pacific, the “Tales from the South Pacific” by Michener.
THE WITNESS: I know of it. I haven’t read it.
THE COURT: Anyway, go ahead.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: When did he tell that this took place, Captain Moulton?
A He was there apparently on the 8th of December which corresponded to December 7th, the other side of the dateline.
Q December 8th —
A At that period when the Japanese occupied all of the Dutch East Indies.
Q That would have been in 1941 or ’42?
Q So this would have been —
A Did I say ’42? I should have said ’41.
THE COURT: Was that Pearl Harbor?
THE WITNESS: That was at the time of Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor was the 7th on one side and the 8th on the other side.
The Japanese came in — I was not in that area at the time so I don’t know the exact time that they occupied Soerabaja, but it was within a day or two after that.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: So he told you he was in the South Pacific in Soerabaja when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor?
A That is correct. He had been landed by the Edsel and she was sunk shortly after that. He was, as far as I know, the only person that ever got off the Edsel because he wasn’t aboard when it happened. She was sunk within a few days after that.
Q And Captain Hubbard told you all this?
A Yes, sir, but I also know that she was sunk.
She is carried in the records as having been sunk with all hands.
Q And all hands were lost except Captain Hubbard?
A He was ashore at the time.
Q And that is when he was hit by the machine gun fire?
A Some time during his chasing up and around through the jungle before he made his escape.
Q Now, when you were working with Captain Hubbard, did you ever look at any of his records with regard to his
military history prior to the time that you met him?
A No, sir, I would have no access to them.
Q So you believed Captain Hubbard at the time?
A Certainly. I had no reason not to.
Q Did he tell you exactly where he was hit by the machine gun fire?
A In the back, in the area of the kidneys, I believe on the right side.
Q And did he tell you what caliber machine gun it was?
A No, sir,he did not.
Q And it damaged his urinary system?
A Somewhere in the urinary system. I know he had a great bit of difficulty in urinating.
Q And did he tell you how long he remained hiding in the hills with these machine gun wounds before he was removed from the combat area?
A I know that he told me he had made his escape eventually to Australia. I don’t know just when it was.
He apparently, he and another chap, sailed a life raft, I believe, to near Australia where they were picked up by a British or Australian destroyer.
Q And that would have been late 1941, early 1942?
A I would imagine it would have to have been early ’42 because it would take some time from December 7.
Q Now, Captain Hubbard gave you all of these details that you are giving the court today; is that correct?
A Well, I have no other knowledge except what he told me.
Q And did he tell you how far he sailed the raft?
A He told me he was picked up — again, I’m trusting my memory — but it was on the order of 75 miles off Australia.
I know it was under 100, but it was somewhere around 75 because it was a remarkable piece of navigation.
Q And had he received any treatment for his wounds during this period of time?
A This, I do not know.
He said that he was very ill in the jungle with the injuries. That is all I know.
Q With machine gun bullets in his back?
A I don’t know if the bullets were in there or had passed through or what. I never saw the scars.
Q Now, did he tell you whether he was an intelligence officer at that time or what type of duty post he had?
A No. He mentioned he had been on the Edsel. And that was all, and that he had previously served in other vessels.
Q You believed this entire story; is that correct?
A I had no reason to disbelieve it, sir.
Q Now, let me show you exhibit 500-II and ask you
if you are familiar with this type of Naval document called “Report of Compliance With Orders.”
A This is a standard form, yes, sir.
Q You are familiar with those forms; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, that relates to the Lieutenant J.G. Lafayette Hubbard; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And it shows that he was ordered to Australia on November 24, 1941; right, and that he left on December 8, 1941 from the United States?
A Let me see.
Received the orders on the 24th and he was dispatched on December 8th; however —
Q He arrived in Brisbane, Australia when, Captain Moulton?
A It says January 16; however, this could be meaningless. It is not to be relied on.
If something you said just now is true, said he was an Intelligence officer, I believe, if that is so, this would be meaningless.
Q That could be false?
A Not false, but an intelligence officer, as far as I know, has all sorts of spurious letters stating where he is sent to, when he got there.
I did not know he was an intelligence officer.
But if he was, this would be meaningless.
Q Now, what about this document, Captain Moulton; do you recognize what that is?
MR. PETERSON; Can we have —
MR. FLYNN; 500-JJ marked, “Confidential” at the bottom.
Q Do you recognize what that is?
A This is a Navy communication stating that there is nothing available for him there and that he is ordered to return to Com 12. I think that was the West Coast.
Q It says, “Lieutenant J.G. ordered returned via Chaumont; report to Com 12; unsatisfactory for any available assignment.”
A That would be routine wording, yes.
Q What is the date of that, Captain Moulton?
A This is dated — let me see — 16 February, ’42.
Q That would be roughly a month after he was shot in the back with a Japanese machine gun?
A Well, it would be anywhere from six to eight weeks on up, yes. If we assume that happened in early December.
Q Let me show you this document from the United States Naval Attache, Melbourne, Australia, dated February 14, 1942, exhibit 500-KK.
Q Now, do you see the part that — let me read part of it to you.
“The subject officer arrived in Brisbane via SS President Polk. He reported
to me that he was ordered to Manila for duty and asked for permission to leave the SS President Polk until a vessel offering a more direct route to his destination was available. I authorized him to remain in Brisbane for future transportation to his destination. [B]y assuming unauthorized authority and attempting to perform duties for which he has no qualifications, he became the source of much trouble.”
Do you see that?
Q “On February 11, 1942 I sent him dispatch orders to report to the commanding officer USS Chaumont” — that’s C-h-a-u-m-o-n-t — “for passage to the United States. And upon arrival report to the commandant 12th Naval District for future assignment. This officer is not satisfactory for independent duty assignment. He is garrulous and tries to give impressions of his importance. He also seems to think that he has unusual ability in most lines. These characteristics indicate that he will require close supervision for satisfactory performance of any intelligence duty.”
Did you see that?
A Does it say when — will you give me just a moment to read this?
A This is dated, as I see, February 14. It says he arrived in Brisbane on the President Polk, but it doesn’t say where he came from.
Q Well, doesn’t the other report of compliance with orders indicate that he came from the United States, Captain Moulton?
A Not necessarily. It doesn’t mention the Polk.
Q Do you know whether the President Polk was a life raft?
A No, but I don’t know where she came from. It merely says he was on her on arrival in Brisbane. If she was on that run, she probably made a lot of ports in Australia. He may have ridden coastwise on her.I can’t tell from this. I was not there.
Q I take it that you like L. Ron Hubbard.
A I served with him. I liked him very well at the time I served with him. It is a great many years ago.
Q And rather than believe those documents, you’d believe what Mr. Hubbard said?
A I never believe or disbelieve them. I merely pointed out that they do not state that he came on to Brisbane from the States.
Q Does it say anything about being wounded by Japanese machine gun fire?
A No, sir.
Q It states that he is garrulous and unsatisfactory for any assignment.
MR.LITT: Objection; the document speaks for itself.
It is argumentative.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, I take it when you were serving with him on the PC 815, you believed the machine gun story?
MR. LITT: Objection; asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: You mean of his being wounded?
MR. LITT: This is the third time.
THE COURT: Yes, it has already been indicated.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you went from an anti-submarine warfare vessel to an amphibious vessel, an LST?
A Yes, sir.
Q So after the incident involving you and L. Ron Hubbard on the PC 815 in May 1943, you never saw any more duty in connection with anti-submarine warfare vessels; is that correct?
A Let me see. No, I did not, sir.
Q You were transferred out of that duty right after that incident?
A No it was, oh, I would say two or three weeks later. I had a request transfer for some time. I had taken it, as I told you, temporarily as a relief executive officer.
Q Now, so, I take it from the time where you dropped all these depth charges with the PC 815 and Mr. Hubbard, you never dropped any depth charges again on any supposed submarine contacts?
A That is correct.
Q Now, I believe you testified that you first heard the sonar contact and you evaluated it and determined
it was a submarine?
A That is correct.
Q Would you turn to page 2 of L. Ron Hubbard’s —
A Page 2? Yes, sir.
Q L. Ron Hubbard’s report of this action.
Now, in the second paragraph you find “Attack One”; is that correct?
A Paragraph 2, no, sir. Are we looking at different things?
Q Page 2.
A We seem to have a different copy or something.
Q We sure do.
This copy was provided to me, Your Honor, by plaintiff’s counsel.
I see, simply a question of different pagination at the bottom of one page with a handwritten number and a typewritten page 2 at the top.
A Oh, I see. You didn’t make that clear. I guess that is why I made a mistake.
Q I guess I didn’t. Typewritten page 2.
Q You see where “Attack One” begins and concludes?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then right next to that, at this point you have dropped all but three of your depth charges; is that correct?
A Frankly I don’t remember. We had dropped
some of them. I don’t remember how many we had left. He had very few to start with. I don’t remember the count.
THE COURT: Are those the ash cans or K guns?
THE WITNESS: Well, the K guns fired ash cans and we also rolled them.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, incidentally, in your Naval career was this the only time that you claimed you sunk a submarine?
A The only time I claimed I sunk a submarine?
It is the only time I sunk a submarine, yes, sir.
Q is it the only time you ever rolled ash cans to sink a submarine?
A I rolled dummy ash cans on tame submarines for a period of two or three weeks from morning until night and in the night also.
Q So this is the first time that you ever suspected a live, enemy submarine and rolled ash cans?
A I had rolled them on tame submarines.
Q So this is the one and only time that you have ever rolled ash cans on supposed enemy submarines, this incident?
THE COURT: I assume it was your men that rolled them and you ordered them?
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you said in the third paragraph after you claim that you found or made solid contact with a submarine, the notation that you have rolled all but three of your depth charges as indicated by the
next page at this point.
“No one, including the commanding officer, could readily credit the existence of an enemy submarine here on the steamer track, and all sound men now on the bridge were attempting to argue the echo ranging equipment and chemical recorder out of such a fantastic idea.”
A That is correct.
Q Now, this was after you had made the solid contact that you testified about; is that correct?
A Well, using your words, I think you are twisting just a bit.
To use an analogy, if you came down a dose of gonorrhea, it would be difficult to credit it, but the evidence is immutable.
This is what happened here; who would expect a submarine off the West Coast of California? But you can’t argue with a machine, your hearing, and your training.
Q Are you testifying that these are my words, or Captain Hubbard’s words about a fantastic idea?
A I just wanted to clarify the way you were wording it. I didn’t know what you were saying.
Q All I did was write the words of Captain Hubbard —
A We’ll try it again and I’ll try to answer.
Q Do you recall testifying that you first made sonar contact; you evaluated it; you determined it was a submarine and rolled depth charges?
Q How many depth charges did you roll?
A I don’t remember. It would be in the attack report. It would be somewhere in the gunnery report.
Q This statement of Captain Hubbard appears after attack one concluded; is that correct?
Q And that is where he says, “No one will argue
for such a fantastic idea”?
A As I told you, the analogy.
Let me point out that we never would have rolled the first ash cans as a matter of routine unless we knew what we were rolling it on. We didn’t go around rolling them on porpoises.
Q That seems to be the question, Captain Moulton.
A Whose question?
Q Now, after you did this first attack on this fantastic idea, there was three depth charges left on the ship; is that correct, on page 3?
A Is that typewritten three?
Q Typewritten three.
A Where does it give the amount — oh, I see.
Q Only three depth charges were now left on the ship?
A At that point, yes.
Q “The next three attacks were therefore parsimonious”; do you see that?
A ” . . . with an eye to harass the submarine”; yes.
Q Now, one of the vessels that came onto the area, the SC 537, refused to even participate; didn’t she?
A She participated very poorly, as I mentioned earlier.
Q She refused to cooperate because she didn’t believe the soundings; is that correct?
A I cannot say it was for any reason. All I know is her actions were not consonant with the orders that were
given to her.
Why she did it, I cannot say.
Q Did Captain Hubbard exceed his orders when he made the initial firings of the ash cans?
A Absolutely not.
This is war time. This is not playing games.
You come across a submarine and he doesn’t identify, you sink him if possible.
You don’t need orders from anybody for that.
Q He didn’t exceed his orders by firing first on the submarine?
A No. He would have been very remiss if he hadn’t done so.
Q Would you turn to page 18, typewritten 18?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the last paragraph just above the signature of L. Ron Hubbard, do you see the statement, “… although exceeding its orders originally by attacking the first contact” —
A Yes, sir.
Q — “this vessel feels only that it has done the job for which it was intended and stands ready to do that job again.”
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, did L. Ron Hubbard — did you help prepare this report with L. Ron Hubbard?
A Yes, part of it, yes. This last paragraph, I don’t recall, though.
Q About his exceeding his orders?
A I still don’t understand it. I think he was trying to perhaps explain something, but what, I have no idea.
You do not need orders to attack a submarine once you identify it.
Q You never saw any further anti-submarine warfare duty after this incident?
MR. LITT: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you recall seeing an object floating in the water that you attack with, I believe, your 40-millimeter guns?
A Yes. I remember that.
Q That turned out to be a floating log?
A Well, we thought perhaps — we eventually saw it, yes. We didn’t know what it was when we opened fire.
Q Do you recall on page 11 taking an oil slick sample, but finding that the slick was too thin for samples?
A No. That, I don’t recall.
Q That is on page 11.
A What paragraph?
Q The fourth paragraph from the top.
A Oh, I see. Yes. I see that.
Q Do you recall that?
A No, I don’t, frankly.
But if that was diesel, that would probably be true. Diesel was very, very thin on the surface.
Q Now, do you see in the two paragraphs below that a report that the sub had surfaced off Sand Lake caused all vessels except the Bonham to go flying north to that position, but then it was determined that that was a fishing vessel? Do you see that?
A Yes, of course.
I believe, if I recall correctly, that Ron sent them up there to investigate. That would be routine.
Q Chasing fishing vessels?
A Pardon me. You chased any contact on the surface until you identify what it is.
We were in battle against a submarine here.
Q Now, when you first picked up the supposed submarine contacts, how long after you had left port did you pick up these contacts?
A It was either — I believe it was the first night.
Q And that was the first shakedown cruise of PC 815?
A She was still on shakedown, yes.
Q So you had pretty much an inexperienced crew at that time; is that correct?
A That is completely incorrect.
Q Well, had the crew seen any duty together prior to that point in time?
A Together? No, except perhaps by coincidence. Some may have come from the same ship. We had a very, very competent group of people on that ship, one of the best crews I have sailed with.
Q How long were you with them?
A I was with them as you know, for what, two months, three months.
Q And in the very first night of the shakedown cruise you had —
THE COURT: This is going to be argumentative, Counsel.
THE WITNESS: The ship had been to sea several times before that.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Captain Moulton, after you left the ship, it proceeded down to the San Diego area?
A After I left the ship, I think that I told you, I am trusting my memory. I believe I left her in San Diego, but I am not certain.
Q Well, did you —
A I left her either in San Francisco or San Diego.
I believe San Diego.
Q So the birdcage that you testified about with regard to that gun was put on in San Diego; is that correct?
A It was supposed to have been put on at the first yard availability, so I would imagine it was done there. It was not on here at the time of our action. She still had the cans.
Q Now, shortly after this incident, in July 1943 do you recall whether Mr. Hubbard was relieved of command for firing on the Mexican coast?
A That did not occur while I was on her, sir. I wouldn’t know.
Q You don’t know anything about that?
Q And do you know anything about Mr. Hubbard’s subsequent Naval career after you served with him?
A No, I never saw him again. I have talked with him, but it has not been in 15 or 20 years.
Q And do you know whether or not subsequent fitness reports were made on Mr. Hubbard as lacking the essential qualifies —
MR. PETERSON: I object to this. He’s testified he has no knowledge.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
THE WITNESS: This covers a period of time I don’t know, so I wouldn’t want to make a comment.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: This is roughly two or three months —
THE COURT: I have already sustained the objection to the things that happened after.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Who paid your way out here, Captain Moulton?
A My expenses are being reimbursed by Mr. Peterson’s firm, but I don’t know who bought it. Actually, it hasn’t been paid. It is on a credit card.
Q So you came out here voluntarily?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now you and Mr. Hubbard were never given credit for sinking or damaging any Japanese submarines; were you?
A I don’t know. There is something quite odd about that and I have never gotten to the bottom of it. I believe we were.
Q Well, Admiral Fletcher in his report never gave you credit?
A I am talking about the Navy Department in Washington. We were allowed, so I was advised, to wear two battle stars on our American Theater ribbon which I wore as long as I was in the service. I was told that they had been allowed by Washington.
Q Now, you saw this report of Admiral Fletcher just before coming into the courtroom?
A Yes, sir.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
I would request the production of that.
MR. PETERSON: It misstates testimony. He said he saw a transmittal letter.
THE COURT: Whatever it was, let’s produce it.
MR. PETERSON: The only thing I have is a copy of some exhibits.
THE WITNESS: Let me take a little time to go through that. I may —
THE COURT: If it is part of that, let’s not worry about it.
THE WITNESS: I think that is where I saw it, but I am not sure.
Can you give me a page number, sir, from your file?
MR. FLYNN: I don’t think it is in there, Captain Moulton.
MR. PETERSON: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
I think this is what you are talking about.
MR. FLYNN: I would move — I would offer this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, he can mark it as an exhibit.
MR PETERSON: What number, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I guess 91.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is this the document you were referring to marked “Secret” in the upper left-hand corner
and signed —
A Yes. This is the letter. That is what I would call second endorsement. So it is a part of the letter transmittal.
Our report was endorsed — first endorsement by somebody and then he was the second. And then it would go to someone else and subsequently it would end up and be sent back.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Redirect?
MR. PETERSON: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MR. PETERSON:
Q You mentioned that you had a Master Certificate; since the end of the war what has your last occupation been?
A Except for a short period ashore where I worked in engineering I have been working almost entirely in the Merchant Marine.
Q And were you involved in sailing ships off the Vietnam coast during the periods of the Vietnam conflict?
A I was captain of ships throughout most of the Vietnam conflict.
Q Have you recently retired?
A As of the 1st of this month officially.
And during that period of time you have been sailing vessels?
A Yes, sir.
Q And during the remainder —
A When did you get out of the Navy?
A I would have to check; either December ’46 or January of ’47.
Q From the period of time that you left PC 815 until the time you left the Navy did you serve basically in combat duty?
A Yes, sir, essentially.
As a matter of fact, until the end of the war it was all combat, in command.
Q In command of LST’s?
A Two LST’s and two repair ships — one repair ship. The second one was after the war.
Q In cross-examination and reviewing certain documents that Mr. Flynn placed before you you indicated that if Mr. Hubbard had been in intelligence, that those particular documents wouldn’t necessarily reflect the true factual situation.
A That is my understanding, sir.
Q That is your understanding of what happened with Officers who were involved in intelligence duty; is that correct?
THE COURT: We are sure getting a lot of speculation.
I don’t know that there was any evidence that he was in intelligence work.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know that he was in intelligence work. Counsel said he was.
THE COURT: Counsel said he may have said he was.
THE WITNESS: I thought he said he was.
THE COURT: He may have said he was. Hubbard may have said that Hubbard was in intelligence work.
THE WITNESS: One of the documents that you were discussing said something about it too. I think one of those that you showed me; didn’t it, the letter from Australia? You mentioned it.
MR. FLYNN: It is not my examination now.
MR. PETERSON: May I see those exhibits, Your Honor?
Q Captain Moulton, in your experience in the Navy did you have yourself personal independent knowledge of how records were kept regarding intelligence officers?
A Yes, sir.
Q It was based upon that personal knowledge that you were answering Mr. Flynn’s question?
A That is correct.
Q And you said that it would not be unusual for certain dispatches or orders, items, to be put into a Naval officer’s file if he were in intelligence operations; is that correct?
A This, we were told in instructions when we were taught how to keep Naval records. And as Captain, of course, I was ultimately responsible. It was common knowledge in the service.
Q Part of it was for security reasons so that a enemy intelligence couldn’t ascertain where certain off[ic]ers or certain people were conducting intelligence operations;
is that correct?
A I would think also to avoid letting people know that an intelligence officer was entering an area.
THE COURT: What do you mean by “an intelligence officer”? Is that somebody that is working with the office of Naval Intelligence?
THE WITNESS: Or related.
THE COURT: Or OSS, or what?
THE WITNESS: I would say or any related organization.
THE COURT: What about just a lieutenant commander in the Navy, a lieutenant JG?
THE WITNESS: If his classification or commission was intelligence, it would be handled somewhat differently.
At the time I knew him, his classification was DVG.
THE COURT: I thought he was aboard a destroyer.
THE WITNESS: DVG would cover that.
THE COURT: Was he an engineering officer, or what?
THE WITNESS: No; a deck officer with the DVG.
THE COURT: That has nothing to do with intelligence, does it?
THE WITNESS: Maybe yes, maybe no. A lot of intelligence officers carry DVG commissions. A lot of them carry special IGS commissions. They were changed frequently.
I don’t know, sir. It is speculation on my part only because another counsel mentioned that he had been in intelligence. I didn’t know this.
MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, the line of questioning is
because Mr. Flynn was using certain documents and the witness indicated that it wouldn’t be inconsistent if the man was in Naval intelligence.
THE COURT: I think we are getting out in left field.
The witness isn’t competent to testify about the way in which Naval intelligence records were kept. He has some knowledge about some things. A lot of it is based upon what somebody might have told him. That is way out in left field. We have no solid evidence that Mr. Hubbard was ever an intelligence officer with Naval Intelligence.
May be somewhere in archives, maybe Mr. Hubbard will come in and tell us he was an intelligence officer.
MR. PETERSON: May I approach the witness, and ask him one question?
THE COURT: You don’t have to approach him.
MR. PETERSON: I would like for it to be off the record.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I don’t understand what is going on now.
MR. PETERSON: It is rather than taking a break.
(Conference between plaintiff’s counsel and witness.)
THE WITNESS: May I continue that with you for just a moment?
MR. PETERSON: No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, anything further?
BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Captain Moulton, you never worked in Naval intelligence; did you?
A I was assigned to intelligence duty at one point in my career.
THE COURT: Well, do you have a CIC on board your ship?
That is an intelligence operation; isn’t it?
THE WITNESS: I was stationed intelligence officer and chief of police for a time at the Bayonne Annex of the Brooklyn Navy shipyards at which time I had charge of security of the Europa when she was captured as a war prize, and I conducted considerable investigation for the Navy, as a result of which City officials were put in prison.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And did you create false records when you did that?
A That type of duty would not require any false records, sir. I was there openly.
Q So the answer is you didn’t create any false records?
A No, sir.
MR. FLYNN: No further questions.
MR. PETERSON: I think the record now stands corrected, that he does understand and know Naval intelligence.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETERSON:
Q Is that correct?
A To some extent, sir.
MR. PETERSON: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Do you have a witness that you can put on in seven minutes, gentlemen?
MR. PETERSON: Not in seven minutes.
THE COURT: Call your next witness.
GENE F. TINCH,
called as a witness by the plaintiffs in rebuttal was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Take the witness stand, please. Please state your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Gene F. Tinch, T-i-n-c-h.
THE CLERK: G-e-n-e?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MR. PETERSON:
Q Mr. Tinch, what is your occupation?
A Private investigator.
Q And with what firm are you associated?
A Tin Goose Investigations.
Q In May of 1982 did you have a partner in that business?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what was his name?
A Eliott Goossen, G-o-o-s-s-e-n.
Q And I presume that the name Tin Goosse is a concoction of the name —
THE COURT: Contraction.
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
Q BY MR. PETERSON: Of Mr. Goossen and Mr. Tinch; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And at that time were you also engaged in the
profession of private investigation?
A Yes, I was.
Q And were you ever in the United States Armed Services?
A Yes, I was.
Q And what branch?
Q And when did you serve in the United States Navy?
A In 1944 to 1946.
Q And you weren’t in submarine warfare by any chance, were you?
A No I was not.
Q What was generally your duties?
THE COURT: Well does it have any relevance to this lawsuit, Counsel?
MR. PETERSON: Background.
THE COURT: We don’t need that. Let’s just go on with the lawsuit.
Q BY MR. PETERSON: After getting out of the Navy, what was your occupation?
A You mean immediately after?
Q Well, were you with the Los Angeles Police Department?
A Yes, I was.
Q For how long?
A Twenty years.
Q And as part of your duties with the Los Angeles Police Department were you a detective in investigations?
A Yes, I was.
Q And approximately how long during that period of time?
A Fourteen, fifteen years.
Q Now did you also work for the District Attorney’s office as an investigator?
A Yes, I did.
Q Are you current — were you in May of 1982 licensed by the State of California as a private investigator?
A Yes, I was.
Q And was it in 1982 when you were first contacted with reference to a matter involving Gerald Armstrong?
A Some time in May, 1982.
Q And who contacted you?
A You did.
Q And after that first contact did you and I ever meet?
A Yes, we did.
Q And approximately when was that?
A Two or three days later after the first initial contact that you had made by telephone.
Q And prior to that contact that I had made to you by telephone had you ever spoken to me before?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was that?
A Oh, some months back, as I recall. I don’t know exactly. In 1982, however.
Q Did it have anything to do with this matter?
A No, it did not.
Q And in our first meeting, what briefly was it that was discussed?
A Briefly, you explained to me that Mr. Armstrong had been a member of the church and had been in charge of the archives, had left the archives and that you believed that he had removed some documents from the archives at the time he left.
That you wanted my firm to conduct some kind of an investigation to determine if he, in fact, had those.
Q And after that briefing, did you submit to me a plan of investigation?
A Yes, I did.
Q And approximately how much later was that?
A Between one and two weeks, I believe.
Q And what was the plan of investigation that you submitted regarding the documents?
A My recommendation was that we do a sub rosa investigation.
Q What is a sub rosa investigation?
A That is where you watch the suspect without his knowledge or attempt to watch him without his knowledge.
Q Anything else?
A No, that is all.
Q And do you recall approximately when the surveillance on Mr. Armstrong began?
A June, the first week. I believe it was the 6th or 7th. I am not sure.
Q And prior to that time had you done any investigation for me with reference to Gerald Armstrong?
A No, I had not.
Q Had your firm done anything?
A Yes, they had.
Q What had they done?
A They had done some background information, checking some license numbers and post office to determine where he was living, that sort of thing.
Q And when we met did you or myself have any idea where Gerald Armstrong was living at the time?
Q Was that part of the investigation, to locate where he was?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Okay. And did I — after receiving and discussing your plan did I give you any instructions regarding contact with Mr. Armstrong?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, it is only received to show what he did, I gather; so for that limited purpose, I’ll overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: You didn’t want us to contact him.
Q BY MR. PETERSON: By “contact,” what did you understand was meant?
A Any type of personal contact with the man.
Q And at some time were you able to locate an address or residence address for Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes, I was.
Q And do you recall where that was?
A Costa Mesa. I can’t tell you the address. I don’t recall.
Q And in starting a surveillance of Mr. Armstrong did you yourself conduct the surveillance?
A No, I did not.
Q How did you proceed to conduct the surveillance?
A I went to the address; drew a diagram of the location, where the house was, where the streets were, where the entrance to the property was; what was around it; basically, that is all.
THE COURT: I guess we’ll take our recess at this time.
We will reconvene tomorrow morning. I guess we’ll make [i]t 9:45 tomorrow morning.
(At 4 o’clock p.m. an adjournment was taken until Friday, June 1st, 1984 at 9:45 a.m.)