IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, and MARY SUE HUBBARD, Intervenor-Appellant, v. GERALD ARMSTRONG, |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case Nos. B025920 & B038975LASC No. C420153
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEAL RECORD ON APPEAL |
Gerald Armstrong
[former address]
DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG
I, Gerald Armstrong, declare:
1. I am the defendant in the case of Church of Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard vs. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Case No. C420153.
I am familiar with the records in this case and related cases or publications.
2. Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following documents:
| Exhibit A | Complaint filed August 12, 1991 in the case of Church of Scientology International vs. C. Phillip Xanthos and 16 Other Agents, No. 91-4302 SVW, in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. |
| Exhibit B | Further Response to Order of July 2, 1985; Request for Stay dated January 22, 1986, and filed in Armstrong. |
| Exhibit C | Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice; Declarations of Sam Brown, Thorn Smith, Edward Austin, Lynn R. Farny and Laurie J. Bartilson, filed August 26, 1991 in the case of Vicki and Richard Aznaran vs. Church of Scientology of California, et al., No. CV 88-1786 JMI in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. |
| Exhibit D | Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Statute of Limitations, filed August. 26, 1991 in Aznaran. |
| Exhibit E | Declaration of Gerald Armstrong Regarding Alleged “Taint” of Joseph A. Yanny, Esquire, filed September 4, 1991 in Aznaran. |
| Exhibit F | Defendants’ Opposition to Ex Parte Application to File Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint with |
1
| Prejudice; Declaration of Laurie J. Bartilson, filed August 30, 1991 in Aznaran . | |
| Exhibit G | Final Adverse Ruling dated July 8, 1988 from the Internal Revenue Service to the Church of Spiritual Technology. |
| Exhibit H | Page 70 of Plaintiff’s Exhibits to Complaint filed October 6, 1988 in the case of Church of Spiritual Technology vs. United States of America, No. 581-88T in the U.S. Claims Court. |
| Exhibit I | Pages 370 – 372 from Miller, Russell, Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard. |
| Exhibit J | Pages 238 – 249 from Corydon, Bent and Hubbard, L. Ron, Jr., L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman? |
| Exhibit K | Pages 328 – 334 from Atack, Jon, A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology. Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed. |
| Exhibit L | Order Allowing the United States of America to Examine and Copy Exhibits 5-K, 5-L, 5-0, 5-P and 6-0 dated August 27, 1991 and filed in Armstrong. |
| Exhibit M | (In a sealed envelope) Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; for Liquidated Damages and to Enjoin Future Violations filed October 3, 1991 in Armstrong. |
3. During the 1984 Los Angeles Superior Court trial in Armstrong I became acquainted with Mrs. Brenda Yates who attended many of the daily proceedings. Mrs. Yates, whose husband owned a copy service in Los Angeles at that time, offered to make copies of the reporters’ transcripts of proceedings, which were being obtained daily by my attorney, Michael J. Flynn. By the end of the trial I learned that Mrs. Yates possessed a complete set of the trial transcripts. At the end of the trial I also provided Mrs. Yates for copying a complete set of the trial exhibits which I had in my possession.
2
This did not include any exhibits from the sealed documents which had been the subject of the trial, as these were segregated and sequestered by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., who presided at the trial, and not copied by my attorneys or made available to the public.
4. Since the trial I have communicated with Mrs. Yates from time to time right up to a few days ago when I talked with her regarding her distribution of the trial transcripts, Judge Breckenridge ‘s June 24, 1984 Memorandum of Intended Decision and the trial exhibits. Mrs. Yates recalls that she sold and distributed approximately twenty-five copies of the complete trial transcript within the year following the trial. She recalls distributing about eight copies of the trial exhibits. She does not recall how many copies of the Breckenridge decision she distributed but felt that it was all over the world.
5. Mrs. Yates also said that she selected out of the complete transcript various parts of the trial testimony totalling about one hundred fifty pages, which she formed into a pack which she also copied, sold and distributed. She recalls that she distributed approximately one hundred of this pack.
Under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California I hereby declare that the foregoing is true and correct according to my first-hand knowledge, except those matters stated to be on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
Executed on October 16, 1991, at San Anselmo, California.
[Signed] G. Armstrong
Gerald Armstrong
3