This excerpt posted with the permission of the copyright holder. Deletions shown with triple asterisks: *** **Biased Journalism** Volume I, issue 6 December 16, 1995. Copyright 1995 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved. contents: Settlement talks in Lerma Case; Revelations from Rogue Agent; Gerry Armstrong, Round Two; The Line in the Sand; Minnesota Annexes the Internet; Rodent Report; A Word from Carnegie Mellon; .sig of the week. Read at your own risk. This is **Biased Journalism**! *** 3. GERRY ARMSTRONG, ROUND 2: San Rafael, December 1, 1995. snip So far the fraudulent conveyance has been severed and the Judge has awarded judgment and fees to the Church. [The fraudulent conveyance action is in progress in bankruptcy court. The Church claims that ARMSTRONG's gift of a house to his former attorney was done in a deliberate effort to keep it out of bankruptcy proceedings. The settlement agreement which is the subject of this litigation before Judge Thomas provides cash penalties for violation of any of the terms of the agreement. The Church believes that ARMSTRONG gave the house away in an effort to keep it out of their hands.] Bartilson wants ARMSTRONG's cross complaint thrown out. Very calmly Ford Greene says that Scientology would like to dispose of the litigation but the Plaintiff has not made an adequate showing. snip rest is ok AFAIK The Judge takes charge. These matters have been addressed. The Plaintiff hasn't met its burden [re. the cross complaint]; he confirms his judgment regarding fees. He sees no reason to change his judgment. Ford Greene has four points on which he wants clarification. Would the judge prefer they do it in the courtroom here, or in a motion? The judge instructs him to talk to the Plaintiffs and see if everyone can come to an agreement. Laurie Bartilson wants a status conference. "Yes, I think a nice status conference would be good," the Judge says. It is set for March 11, 1996. --- We spent a little time perusing the court records. For the curious, Andrew Wilson's time is valued at $245 per hour and Laurie Bartilson's at $200 per hour. We obtained access to the court order which was the subject of this hearing. Plaintiff Church of Scientology International asks for a permanent injunction, citing a long list of public contacts by Armstrong, including "...7. Between 1992 and the present, Armstrong breached paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement by preparing and distributing at least three manuscripts concerning his claimed experiences in and with Scientology, including a treatment for a screenplay which he intends to turn into a film {Sep.St.Nos. 70-71]." "...8. Between 1992 and the present, Armstrong further breached paragraph 7(D) of the agreement by disclosing his claimed experiences in or with Scientology to each of the following persons or groups, not previously identified: Robert Lobsinger {Sep.St.No. 72]'; the New York Times [Sep.St.No. 73]; Toby Plevin, Stuart Culter, Anthony Laing, Kent Burtner, and Margaret Singer {Sep.St.No. 74]; Priscilla Coates [Sep.St. No. 75]; Vaughn and Stacy Young [Sep.St.No. 77]; a Stanford University Psychology class {Sep St.No. 78]..." [now the part with the teeth] "...Accordingly, the Court finds that entry of a permanent injunction in this action is necessary in this action because pecuniary compensation could not afford the Church adequate relief, and the restraint is necesary in order to prevent a multiplicity of actions for breach of contract. Civil Code | 3422(1),(3). A ORDER of injunction is therefore entered as follows: "1. Voluntarily assisting any person (not a governmental organ or entity) intending to make, intending to press, intending to arbitrate, or intending to litigate a claim, regarding such claim or regarding pressing, arbitrating, or litigating it, against any of the following persons or entities: * the Church of Scientology International, its officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel; * the Church of Scientology of California, its officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel; * Religious Technology Center, its officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel; * the Church of Spiritual Technology, its officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel' * All Scientology and Scientology affiliated Churches, organizations and entities, and their officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel; * Author Services, Inc., its officers, directors, agents, representatives, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns and legal counsel; * The Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, its executor, beneficiaries, heirs, representatives,, and legal counsel; and/or * Mary Sue Hubbard; (Hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Beneficiaries"); "2. Voluntarily assisting any person (not a governmental organ or entity) defending a claim, intending to defend a claim, intending to defend an arbitration, or intending to defend any claim being pressed, made, arbitrated or litigated by any of the Beneficiaries, regarding such claim or regarding defending, arbitrating, or litigating against it; "3. Voluntarily assisting any person (not a governmental organ or entity) arbitrating or litigating adversely to any of the Beneficiaries; "4. Facilitating in any manner the creation, publication, broadcast, writing, filming audio recording, video recording, electronic recording or reproduction of any kind of any book, article, film, television program, radio program, treatment, declaration, screenplay or other literary, artistic or documentary work of any kind which discusses, refers to or mentions Scientology, the Church, and/or any of the Beneficiaries; "5. Discussing with anyone, not a member of Armstrong's immediate family or his attorney, Scientology, the Church, and/or any of the Beneficiaries; In addition, it is ORDERED that, within 20 days of the issuance of this Order, Armstrong shall: 1. Return to the Church any documents which he now has in his possession, custody or control which discuss or concern Scientology, the Church and/or any person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 of the "Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement" of December, 1986, other than documents which have been filed in this litigation. It is further ORDERED that during the pendency of this litigation, documents which have been filed in this litigation may be retained by Armstrong's counsel. Those documents are to remain sealed, in the possession of Mr. Greene or any successor counsel, and may not be distributed to third parties. At the conclusion of the instant litigation, it is ORDERED that all documents from this case in counsel's possession which do not comprise counsel's work product will be delivered to counsel for plaintiff. Counsel's work product may be retained by Armstrong's counsel. DATED: Oct 17, 1995 (signed) THE HONORABLE GARY W. THOMAS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE Comments: This is, to our eye, an elegantly written piece of work. It is remarkably comprehensive. We noted that Armstrong is forbidden to voluntarily assist, etc. certain persons and agencies (etc.) without any evident limitation as to context. Hypothetically, Armstrong could not bring suit against a vendor of unsafe hot dogs if said vendor were a volunteer for the Church of Scientology of California (etc.), nor could he work as a paralegal for an attorney who was suing said hot dog vendor. He could not describe an automobile accident to the press if one of the drivers happened to be an employee of one of the Beneficiaries. He cannot mention his past employment with the Church on a job application form. Item 4 gave us pause. Gerry Armstrong may have no media contacts whatever in which scientology, or Scientology, is mentioned. If he had given us an interview [which he did not], our article might have sent him to jail. This was a disturbing thought. People go to jail _for crimes_. We cannot understand why talking with our correspondent should send a man to jail. Why should one man's words be news and another man's recollections be the occasion for a prison term? The notion of crime has evolved somehow, and we are not comfortable with it. Our copy of the Order was obtained from the court clerk's office by traditional and legal means, e.g. the payment of money. We trust it would not have been delivered to us if its distribution to the public were unlawful. Our understanding of the Order is that it applies only to Gerry Armstrong and his counsel, Ford Greene. We could not quite put our finger on it, but there seemed to be a subtle flavor of lawyer gamesmanship. The Order disempowers Armstrong completely, requiring him to turn over "all documents." This presumably includes personal letters and writings. Likewise, Armstrong's attorney is required to turn all documents except his own work product over to plaintiff's counsel. To us, as a non-lawyer, having to hand over the contents of one's briefcase to the opposing attorney seems like a personal assault. We have no idea how Ford Greene feels, but if it happened to us we would not forget it. We assume that the Judge's decision was not a surprise, and that it will be appealed. --- A few minutes after the hearing we unexpectedly encountered Church lawyers Wilson and Bartilson. They had repaired to a distant telephone to tell their clients the good news. Andrew Wilson was in a jovial mood and agreed to talk to us. AW: We won the case. We asked the court to voluntarily dismiss some of our claims because we have won on enough of them to prevail in the action. There are two provision in the contract that were not actually specifically addressed in the various motions. They were two fairly general contract provisions, one of which said that the parties were settling litigation, and one of which said that the parties weren't going to do anything to defeat the contract. Those are technically still alive. I think we can defeat those in another motion. bj: What would it mean by not doing anything to defeat the contract? Isn't that what lawsuits are about? AW: Well, every contract in this state has what is called the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. That means that neither party does anything to defeat the other party's contractual rights. This contract contained an express provision to that effect. bj: I gathered that you wanted to kill off his cross complaint. What is his cross complaint? AW: His cross complaint basically was that the contract be declared invalid. He had made those arguments in response to motions we had made earlier. Those motions had already been granted, so that the court had ruled with respect to certain specific arguments that he had made with respect to certain specific provisions that we had enforced. [Those provisions] had been ruled to be valid. The two provisions we discussed today had never been addressed because they were the general type. Nobody has ever tried to enforce them or said Gerry Armstrong violated either of those two provisions. Gerry Armstrong has never said he violated either of those two provisions. They hadn't been argued. The judge said today, well, you haven't really addressed those provisions. They hadn't been argued. He hadn't ruled on those. So we are left with only those two provisions, which we will address and he will make a ruling on. bj: Is that what happens on March 11? AW: March 11 is a status conference. So if we have our motion before then and if the motion is granted there won't be a status conference. If any part of the case is still alive on March 11, there will be a status conference. You saw some of those today. We intend to make what is called a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which essentially will be that those two provisions are valid. The judge will make a ruling and we'll see what happens. I'm confident that he will rule that they're valid. bj: Now someone mentioned the term fraudulent conveyance. What do they mean by that? AW: There is an action that was filed which contended that Mr. Armstrong's conveyance of his house to his lawyer in 1990 right before he began breaching the agreement and his "gifts" of approximately a couple hundred thousand dollars to various friends at the same time were fraudulent conveyances, mainly he did that to render himself judgment proof because he knew he was going to breach the contract with the Church of Scientology. That action was brought a couple years ago. Mr. Armstrong filed bankruptcy. Because Mr. Armstrong filed bankruptcy, that fraudulent conveyance issue is in the bankruptcy court, is not in this court. So that action is stayed--put on hold--in limbo land until the bankruptcy is resolved. Then, if the bankruptcy isn't resolved--I don't want to get into the technical discussion--but when the bankruptcy court's finished, either the fraudulent conveyance action will have something left to be decided in it or it won't. If it doesn't it'll be dismissed. If it does we'll decide what to do with it afterward. bj: What about that letter that Ford Greene wrote to the Judge? Have you seen it? AW: Yes, I have seen it. He sent a letter to Judge Thomas in which he said that he thought Judge Thomas had prejudged his client's credibility. Mr. Armstrong made certain arguments about religious freedom, and his letter said that because the Judge disagreed with those arguments he felt that he was doing so because he was in a sense anti-religious. And the Judge said that's not the case. I don't know if Mr. Greene has sent you those letters, but I am sure he will. He loves to send people letters. bj: I'll ask him. So, the issue of the paper filed under seal: I gather that Greene filed some papers under seal and the Judge decided they'll stay sealed, but it sounds like he didn't order them stricken. AW: That's right. bj: And something got severed. AW: That was the fraudulent conveyance action, which had already been severed. bj: Because that went to bankruptcy court. [Having graciously taken time to explain the issues to us, which we appreciated, Wilson now wanted to discuss something we had said in the previous issue (**Biased Journalism #5) We had snailed him a copy. He complimented us on our factual reporting. However-- ] AW: I do not believe Mr. Armstrong is a simple, honest, uncomplicated person. I do not sympathize with Mr. Armstrong. I think Mr. Armstrong got a lot of money, made his bargain, you can call it a faustian bargain, but he made his bargain and he decided not to keep it. I am not secretly harboring sympathy for Mr. Armstrong. I secretly harbor no ill will toward Mr. Armstrong, but I am not sympathetic with somebody who gets paid $500,000 [$800,000 less legal fees], gives it all away and decides 'I really can't keep this bargain anymore.' bj: Duly noted. --- It amused and baffled us that the only part of our earlier article that this lawyer objected to was the suggestion that somewhere in his soul there might be a tiny spark of human compassion.