Memorandum of Intended Decision (Breckenridge Decision)

The impulse to believe the absurd when presented with the unknowable is called religion. Whether this is wise or unwise is the domain of doctrine. Once you understand someone's doctrine, you understand their rationale for believing the absurd. At that point, it may no longer seem absurd. You can get to both sides of this conondrum from here.

Memorandum of Intended Decision (Breckenridge Decision)

Postby admin » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:25 am

by Paul G. Breckenridge. Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court
June 20. 1984





No. C 420153


In this matter, heretofore taken under submission, the Court announced its intended decision as follows:

As to the tort causes of action, plaintiff, and plaintiff in intervention are to take nothing, and the defendant is entitled to Judgment and costs.

As to the equitable actions, the court finds that neither plaintiff has clean hands, and that at least as of this time, are not entitled to the immediate return of any document or objects previously retained by the court clerk. All exhibits received in evidence or marked for identification, unless specifically ordered sealed [1], are matters of public record and shall be available for public inspection or use to the same extent that any exhibit would be available in any other lawsuit. In other words they are to be treated henceforth no differently than similar exhibits in other cases in Superior Court. Furthermore, the "inventory list and description," of materials turned over by Armstrong's attorneys to the court, shall not be considered or deemed to be confidential, private, or under seal.

All other documents or objects presently in the possession of the clerk (not marked herein as court exhibits) shall be retained by the clerk, subject to the same orders as are presently in effect as to sealing and inspection, until such time as trial court proceedings are concluded as to the severed cross complaint. For the purposes of this Judgment, conclusion will occur when any motion for a new trial has been denied, or the time within such a motion must be brought has expired without such motion being made. At that time, all documents neither received in evidence, nor marked for identification only, shall be released by the clerk to plaintiffs representatives. Notwithstanding this order, the parties may at any time by written stipulation filed with the clerk obtain release of any or all unused materials.

Defendant and his counsel are free to speak or communicate upon any of defendant Armstrong's recollections of his life as a Scientologist or the contents of any exhibit received in evidence or marked for identification and not specifically ordered sealed. As to all documents, and other materials held under seal by the clerk, counsel and the defendant shall remain subject to the same injunctions as presently exist, at least until the conclusion of the proceedings on the cross complaint. However, in any other legal proceedings in which defense counsel, or any of them, is of record, such counsel shall have the right to discuss exhibits under seal, or their contents, if such is reasonably necessary and incidental to the proper representation of his or her client.

Further, if any court of competent jurisdiction orders defendant or his attorney to testify concerning the fact of any such exhibit, document, object, or its contents, such testimony shall be given, and no violation of this order will occur. Likewise, defendant and his counsel may discuss the contents of any documents under seal or of any matters as to which this court has found to be privileged as between the parties hereto, with any duly constituted Governmental Law Enforcement Agency or submit any exhibits or declarations thereto concerning such document or materials, without violating any order of this court.

This court will retain jurisdiction to enforce, modify, alter, or terminate any injunction included within the Judgment.

Counsel for defendant is ordered to prepare, serve, and file a Judgment on the Complaint and Complaint in Intervention, and Statement of Decision if timely and properly requested, consistent with the court's intended decision.


The court has found the facts essentially as set forth in defendant's trial brief, which as modified, is attached as an appendix to this memorandum. In addition the court finds that while working for L.R. Hubbard (hereinafter referred to as LRH), the defendant also had an informal employer-employee relationship with plaintiff Church, but had permission and authority from plaintiffs and LRH to provide Omar Garrison with every document or object that was made available to Mr. Garrison, and further, had permission from Omar Garrison to take and deliver to his attorneys the documents and materials which were subsequently delivered to them and thenceforth into the custody of the County Clerk.

Plaintiff Church has made out a prima facie case of conversion (as bailee of the materials), breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence (as the former employer who provided confidential materials to its then employee for certain specific purposes, which the employee later used for other purposes to plaintiff's detriment). Plaintiff Mary Jane Hubbard has likewise made out a prima facie case of conversion and invasion of privacy (misuse by a person of private matters entrusted to him for certain specific purposes only).

While defendant has asserted various theories of defense, the basic thrust of his testimony is that he did what he did, because he believed that his life, physical and mental well being, as well as that of his wife were threatened because the organization was aware of what he knew about the life of LRH, the secret machinations and financial activities of the Church, and his dedication to the truth. He believed that the only way he could defend himself, physically as well as from harassing lawsuits, was to take from Omar Garrison those materials which would support and corroborate everything that he had been saying within the Church about LRH and the Church, or refute the allegations made against him in the April 22 Suppressive Person Declare. He believed that the only way he could be sure that the documents would remain secure for his future use was to send them to his attorneys, and that to protect himself, he had to go public so as to minimize the risk that LRH, the Church, or any of their agents would do him physical harm.

This conduct if reasonably believed by the defendant and engaged in by him in good faith, finds support as a defense to the plaintiffs charges in the Restatements of Agency, Torts, and case law.

Restatement of Agency, Second, provides:

"Section 395f: An agent is privileged to reveal information confidentially acquired by him in the course of his agency in the protection of a superior interest of himself or a third person."

"Section 418: An agent is privileged to protect interests of his own which are superior to those of the principal, even though he does so at the expense of the principal's interest or in disobedience to his orders." Restatement of torts, Second, section 271:

"One is privileged to commit an act which would otherwise be a trespass to or a conversion of a chattel in the possession of another, for the purpose of defending himself or a third person against the other, under the same conditions which would afford a privilege to inflict harmful or offensive contact upon the other for the same purpose."

The Restatement of Torts, Second, section 652a, as well as case law, make it clear that not all invasions of privacy are unlawful or tortious. It is only when the invasion is unreasonable that it becomes actionable. Hence, the trier of fact must engage in a balancing test, weighing the nature and extent of the invasion, as against the purported justification therefore to determine whether in a given case, the particular invasion was unreasonable.

In addition the defendant has asserted as defense the principal involved in the case of Willig v. Gold, 75 Cal.App.2d, 809, 814, which holds that an agent has a right or privilege to disclose his principal's dishonest acts to the party prejudicially affected by them.

Plaintiff Church has asserted and obviously has certain rights arising out of the First Amendment. Thus, the court cannot, and has not inquired into or attempted to evaluate the merits, accuracy, or truthfulness of Scientology or any of its precepts as a religion. First Amendment rights, however, cannot be utilized by the Church or its members, as a sword to preclude the defendant, whom the Church is suing, from defending himself. Therefore, the actual practices of the Church or its members, as it relates to the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct and his state of mind are relevant, admissible, and have been considered by the court.

As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the Testimony of Gerald and Jocelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan, Nancy Dincalcis, Edward Walters, Omar Garrison, Kima Douglas, and Howard Schomer to be credible, extremely persuasive, and the defense of privilege or justification established and corroborated by this evidence. Obviously, there are some discrepancies or variations in recollections, but these are the normal problems which arise from lapse of time, or from different people viewing matters or events from different perspectives. In all critical and important matters, their testimony was precise, accurate, and rang true. The picture painted by these former dedicated Scientologists, all of whom were intimately involved with LRH, or Mary Jane Hubbard, or of the Scientology Organization, is on the one hand pathetic, and on the other, outrageous. Each of these persons literally gave years of his or her respective life in support of a man, LRH, and his ideas. Each has manifested a waste and loss or frustration which is incapable of description. Each has broken with the movement for a variety of reasons, but at the same time, each is, still bound by the knowledge that the Church has in its possession his or her most inner thoughts and confessions, all recorded in "pre-clear (P.C.) folders" or other security files of the organization, and that the Church or its minions is fully capable of intimidation or other physical or psychological abuse if it suits their ends. The record is replete with evidence of such abuse.

In 1970 a police agency of the French Government conducted an investigation into Scientology and concluded, "this sect, under the pretext of 'freeing humans' is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by (use of) pseudo-scientific theories, by (use of) 'auditions' and 'stage settings' (lit. to 'create a theatrical scene') pushed to extremes (a machine to detect lies, its own particular phraseology ... ), to estrange adepts from their families and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with this sect." [2] From the evidence presented to this court in 1984, at the very least, similar conclusions can be drawn. In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile. At the same time it appears that he is charismatic and highly capable of motivating, organizing, controlling, manipulating, and inspiring his adherents. He has been referred to during the trial as a "genius," a "revered person," a man who was "viewed by his followers in awe." Obviously, he is and has been a very complex person, and that complexity is further reflected in his alter ego, the Church of Scientology. Notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, this court is satisfied that LRH runs the Church in all ways through the Sea Organization, his role of Commodore, and the Commodore's Messengers. [3] He has, of course, chosen to go into "seclusion," but he maintains contact and control through the top messengers. Seclusion has its light and dark side too. It adds to his mystique, and yet shields him from accountability and subpoena or service of summons.

LRH's wife, Mary Sue Hubbard is also plaintiff herein. On the one hand she certainly appeared to be a pathetic individual. She was forced from her post as Controller, convicted and imprisoned as a felon, and deserted by her husband. On the other hand her credibility leaves much to be desired. She struck the familiar pose of not seeing, hearing, or knowing any evil. Yet she was the head of the Guardian Office for years and among other things, authored the infamous order "GO 121669" [4] which directed culling of supposedly confidential P.C. files/folders for purposes of internal security. In her testimony she expressed the feeling that defendant by delivering the documents, writings, letters to his attorneys, subjected her to mental rape. The evidence is clear and the court finds that defendant and Omar Garrison had permission to utilize these documents for the purpose of Garrison's proposed biography. The only other persons who were shown any of the documents were defendant's attorneys, the Douglasses, the Dincalcis, and apparently some documents specifically affecting LRH's son "Nibs," were shown to "Nibs." The Douglasses and Dincalcises were disaffected Scientologists who had a concern for their own safety and mental security, and were much in the same situation as defendant. They had not been declared as suppressive, but Scientology had their P.C. folders, as well as other confessions, and they were extremely apprehensive. They did not see very many of the documents, and it is not entirely clear which they saw. At any rate Mary Sue Hubbard did not appear to be so much distressed by this fact, as by the fact that Armstrong had given the documents to Michael Flynn, whom the Church considered its foremost lawyer-enemy. [5] However, just as the plaintiffs have First Amendment rights, the defendant has a Constitutional right to an attorney of his own choosing. In legal contemplation the fact that defendant selected Mr. Flynn rather than some other lawyer cannot by itself be tortious. In determining whether the defendant unreasonably invaded Mrs. Hubbard's privacy, the court is satisfied the invasion was slight, and the reasons and justification for defendant's conduct manifest. Defendant was told by Scientology to get an attorney. He was declared an enemy by the Church. He believed, reasonably, that he was subject to "fair game." The only way he could defend himself, his integrity, and his wife was to take that which was available to him and place it in a safe harbor, to wit, his lawyer's custody. He may have indulged in overkill, in the sense that he took voluminous materials, some of which appear only marginally relevant to his defense. But he was not a lawyer and cannot be held to that precise standard of judgment. Further, at the time that he was accumulating the material, he was terrified and undergoing severe emotional turmoil. The court is satisfied that he did not unreasonably intrude upon Mrs. Hubbard's privacy under the circumstances by in effect simply making his knowledge that of his attorneys. It is, of course, rather ironic that the person who authorized G.O. order 121669 should complain about an invasion of privacy. The practice of culling supposedly confidential "P.C. folders or files" to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and or harassment is repugnant and outrageous. The Guardian's Office, which plaintiff headed, was no respector of anyone's civil rights, particularly that of privacy. Plaintiff Mary Sue Hubbard's cause of action for conversion must fail for the same reason as plaintiff Church. The documents were all together in Omar Garrison's possession. There was no rational way the defendant could make any distinction.

Insofar as the return of documents is concerned, matters which are still under seal may have evidentiary value in the trial of the cross complaint or in other third party litigation. By the time that proceedings on the cross complaint are concluded, the court's present feeling is that those document or objects not used by that time should be returned to the plaintiff. However the court will reserve jurisdiction to reconsider that should circumstances warrant.

Dated: June 20. 1984

[Signed] Paul G. Breckenridge. Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court


Defendant Armstrong was involved with Scientology from 1969 through 1981, a period spanning 12 years. During that time he was a dedicated and devoted member who revered the founder, L. Ron Hubbard. There was little that Defendant Armstrong would not do for Hubbard or the Organization. He gave up formal education, one-third of his life, money and anything he could give in order to further the goals of Scientology, goals he believed were based upon the truth, honesty, integrity of Hubbard and the Organization.

From 1971 through 1981, Defendant Armstrong was a member of the Sea Organization, a group of highly trained Scientologists who were considered the upper echelon of the Scientology organization. During those years he was placed in various locations, but it was never made clear to him exactly which Scientology corporation he was working for. Defendant Armstrong understood that, ultimately, he was working for L. Ron Hubbard, who controlled all Scientology finances, personnel, and operations while Defendant was in the Sea Organization.

Beginning in 1979 Defendant Armstrong resided at Gilman Hot Springs, California, in Hubbard's "Household Unit." The Household Unit took care of the personal wishes and needs of Hubbard at many levels. Defendant Armstrong acted as the L. Ron Hubbard Renovations In-Charge and was responsible for renovations, decoration, and maintenance of Hubbard's home and office at Gilman Hot Springs. In January of 1980 there was an announcement of a possible raid to be made by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies of the property. Everyone on the property was required by Hubbard's representatives, the Commodore's Messengers, to go through all documents located on the property and "vet" or destroy anything which showed that Hubbard controlled Scientology organizations, retained financial control, or was issuing orders to people at Gilman Hot Springs.

A commercial paper shredder was rented and operated day and night for two weeks to destroy hundreds of thousands of pages of documents.

During the period of shredding, Brenda Black, the individual responsible for storage of Hubbard's personal belongings at Gilman Hot Sprints, came to Defendant Armstrong with a box of documents and asked whether they were to be shredded. Defendant Armstrong reviewed the documents and found that they consisted of a wide variety of documents including Hubbard's personal papers, diaries, and other writings from a time before he started Dianetics in 1950, together with documents belonging to third persons which had apparently been stolen by Hubbard or his agents. Defendant Armstrong took the documents from Ms. Black and placed them in a safe location on the properly. He then searched for and located another twenty or more boxes containing similar materials, which were poorly maintained.

On January 8, 1980, Defendant Armstrong wrote a petition to Hubbard requesting his permission to perform the research for a biography to be done about his life. The petition states that Defendant Armstrong had located the subject materials and lists of a number of activities he wished to perform in connection with the biography research.

Hubbard approved the petition, and Defendant Armstrong became the L. Ron Hubbard Personal Relations Officer Researcher (PPRO Res). Defendant claims that this petition and its approval forms the basis for a contract between Defendant and Hubbard. Defendant Armstrong's supervisor was then Laurel Sullivan, L. Ron Hubbard's Personal Public Relations Officer.

During the first part of 1980, Defendant Armstrong moved all of the L. Ron Hubbard Archives materials he had located at Gilman Hot Springs to an office in the Church of Scientology Cedars Complex in Los Angeles. These materials comprised approximately six file cabinets. Defendant Armstrong had located himself in the Cedars Complex, because he was also involved in "Mission Corporate Category Sort-Out," a mission to work out legal strategy. Defendant Armstrong was involved with this mission until June of 1980.

It was also during this early part of 1980 that Hubbard left the location in Gilman Hot Springs, California, and went into hiding. Although Defendant Armstrong was advised by Laurel Sullivan that no one could communicate with Hubbard, Defendant Armstrong knew that the ability for communication existed, because he had forwarded materials to Hubbard at his request in mid-1980.

Because of this purported inability to communicate with Hubbard, Defendant Armstrong's request to purchase biographical materials of Hubbard from people who offered them for sale went to the commodore's Messenger Organization, the personal representatives of Hubbard.

In June of 1980 Defendant Armstrong became involved in the selection of a writer for the Hubbard biography. Defendant Armstrong learned that Hubbard had approved of a biography proposal prepared by Omar Garrison, a writer who was not a member of Scientology. Defendant Armstrong had meetings with Mr. Garrison regarding the writing of the biography and what documentation and assistance would be made available to him. As understood by Mr. Garrison, Defendant Armstrong represented Hubbard in these discussions.

Mr. Garrison was advised that the research material he would have at his disposal were Hubbard's personal archives. Mr. Garrison would only undertake a writing of the biography if the materials provided to him were from Hubbard's personal archives, and only if his manuscript was subject to the approval of Hubbard himself.

In October of 1980 Mr. Garrison came to Los Angeles and was toured through the Hubbard archives materials that Defendant Armstrong had assembled up to that time. This was an Important "selling point" in obtaining Mr. Garrison's agreement to write the biography. On October 30,1980, an agreement was entered into between Ralston-Pilot, ncv. F/S/O Omar V. Garrison, and AOSH DK publications of Copenhagen, Denmark, for the writing of a biography of Hubbard.

Paragraph 10B of the agreement states that:

"publisher shall use its best efforts to provide Author with an office, an officer assistant and/or research assistant, office supplies and any needed archival and interview materials in connection with the writing of the Work."

The "research assistant" provided to Mr. Garrison was Defendant Armstrong.

During 1980 Defendant Armstrong exchanged correspondence with Intervenor regarding the biography project. Following his approval by Hubbard as biography researcher, Defendant Armstrong wrote to Intervenor on February 5, 1980, advising her of the scope of the project. In the letter Defendant stated that he had found documents which included Hubbard's diary from his Orient trip, poems, essays from his youth, and several personal letters, as well as other things.

By letter of February 11, 1980, Intervenor responded to Defendant, acknowledging that he would be carrying out the Duties of Biography Researcher.

On October 14, 1980, Defendant Armstrong again wrote to Intervenor, updating her on "Archives materials" and proposing certain guidelines for the handling of those materials. It was Intervenor who, in early 1981, ordered certain biographical materials from "Controller Archives" to be delivered to Defendant Armstrong. These materials consisted of several letters written by Hubbard in the 1920's and 1930's, Hubbard's Boy Scout books and materials, several old Hubbard family photographs, a diary kept by Hubbard in his youth, and several other items.

Defendant Armstrong received these materials upon the Order of Intervenor, following his letter of October 15, 1980, to her in which Defendant stated, at page 7, that there were materials in the "Controller Archives" that would he helpful to him in the biography research.

After these materials were delivered to Defendant Armstrong, Intervenor was removed from her Scientology position of Controller in 1981, presumably because of her conviction for the felony of obstruction of justice in connection with the theft of Scientology documents from various governments offices and agencies in Washington, D.C.

During the time Defendant Armstrong worked on the biography project and acted as Hubbard Archivist, there was never any mention that he was not to be dealing with Hubbard's personal documents or that the delivery of those documents to Mr. Garrison was not authorized.

For the first year or more of the Hubbard biography and archive project, funding came from Hubbard's personal staff unit at Gilman Hot Springs, California. In early 1981, however, Defendant Armstrong's supervisor, Laurel Sullivan, ordered him to request that funding come from what was known as SEA Org Reserves. Approval for this change in funding came from the SEA Org Reserves Chief and Watch Dog Committee, the top Commodores Messenger Organization unit, who were Hubbard's personal representatives.

From November of 1980 through 1981, Defendant Armstrong worked closely with Mr. Garrison, assembling Hubbard's archives into logical categories, copying them and arranging the copies of the Archives materials into bound volumes. Defendant Armstrong made two copies of almost all documents copied for Mr. Garrison -- one for Mr. Garrison and the other to remain in Hubbard Archives for reference or recopying. Defendant Armstrong created approximately 400 binders of documents. The vast majority of the documents for Mr. Garrison came from Hubbard's personal Archives, of which Defendant Armstrong was in charge. Materials which came from other Archives, such as the Controller Archives, were provided to Defendant Armstrong by Scientology staff members who had these documents in their care.

It was not until late 1981 that Plaintiff was to provide a person to assist on the biography project by providing Mr. Garrison with "Guardian Office" materials, otherwise described as technical materials relating to the operation of Scientology. The individual appointed for this task was Vaughn Young. Controller Archives and Guardian Office Archives had no connection to the Hubbard Archives, which Defendant Armstrong created and maintained as Hubbard's personal materials.

In addition to the assemblage of Hubbard's Archives, Defendant Armstrong worked continually on researching and assembling materials concerning Hubbard by interviewing dozens of individuals, including Hubbard's living aunt, uncle, and four cousins. Defendant Armstrong did a genealogy study of Hubbard's family and collected, assembled, and read hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation in Hubbard's Archives.

During 1980 Defendant Armstrong remained convinced of Hubbard's honesty and integrity and believed that the representation he had made about himself in various publications were truthful. Defendant Armstrong was devoted to Hubbard and was convinced that any information which he discovered to be unflattering of Hubbard or contradictory to what Hubbard has said about himself, was a lie being spread by Hubbard's enemies. Even when Defendant Armstrong located documents in Hubbard's Archives which indicated that representations made by Hubbard and the Organization were untrue, Defendant Armstrong would find some means to "explain away" the contradictory information.

Slowly, however, throughout 1981, Defendant Armstrong began to see that Hubbard and the Organization had continuously lied about Hubbard's past, his credentials, and his accomplishments. Defendant Armstrong believed, in good faith, that the only means by which Scientology could succeed in what Defendant Armstrong believed was its goal of creating an ethical environment on earth, and the only way Hubbard could be free of his critics, would be for Hubbard and the Organization to discontinue the lies about Hubbard's past, his credentials, and accomplishments. Defendant Armstrong resisted any public relations piece or announcement about Hubbard which the L. Ron Hubbard Public Relations Bureau proposed for publication which was not factual. Defendant Armstrong attempted to change and make accurate the various "about the author" sections in Scientology books, and further, Defendant rewrote or critiqued several of these and other publications for the L. Ron Hubbard Public Relations Bureau and various Scientology Organizations. Defendant Armstrong believed and desired that the Scientology Organization and its leader discontinue the perpetration of the massive fraud upon the innocent followers of Scientology, and the public at large.

Because of Defendant Armstrong's actions, in late November of 1981, Defendant was requested to come to Gilman Hot Springs by Commodore Messenger Organization Executive, Cirrus Slevin. Defendant Armstrong was ordered to undergo a "security check," which involved Defendant Armstrong's interrogation while connected to a crude Scientology lie detector machine called an E-meter.

The Organization wished to determine what materials Defendant Armstrong had provided to Omar Garrison. Defendant Armstrong was struck by the realization that the Organization would not work with him to correct the numerous fraudulent representations made to followers of Scientology and the public about L. Ron Hubbard and the Organization itself. Defendant Armstrong, who, for twelve years of his life, had placed his complete and full trust in Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard and the Scientology Organization, saw that his trust had no meaning and that the massive frauds perpetrated about Hubbard's past, credentials, and accomplishments would continue to be spread.

Less than three weeks before Defendant Armstrong left Scientology, he wrote a letter to Cirrus Slevin on November 25, 1981, in which it is clear that his intentions in airing the inaccuracies, falsehoods, and frauds regarding Hubbard were done in good faith. In his letter he stated as follows:

"If we present inaccuracies, hyperbole or downright lies as fact or truth, it doesn't matter what slant we give them, if disproved the man will look, to outsiders at least, like a charlatan. This is what I'm trying to prevent and what I've been working on the past year and a half.

"and that is why I said to Norman that it is up to us to insure that everything which goes out about LRH is one hundred percent accurate. That is not to say that opinions can't be voiced, they can. And they can contain all the hype you want. But they should not be construed as facts. And anything stated as a fact should be documentable.

"we are in a period when 'investigative reporting' is popular, and when there is relatively easy access to documentation on a person. We can't delude ourselves I believe, if we want to gain public acceptance and cause some betterment in society, that we can get away with statements, the validity of which we don't know.

"The real disservice to LRH, and the ultimate make-wrong is to go on assuming that everything he's ever written or said is one hundred percent accurate and publish it as such without verifying it. I'm talking here about biographical or non-technical writings. This only leads, should any of his statements turn out to be inaccurate, to a make-wrong of him, and consequently his technology.

"That's what I'm trying to remedy and prevent.

"To say that LRH is not capable of hype, errors or lies is certainly [sic] not granting him much of a beingness. To continue on with the line that he has never erred nor lied is counterproductive. It is an unreal attitude and too far removed from both the reality and people in general that it would widen public unacceptance.

"... That is why I feel the falsities must be corrected, and why we must verify our facts and present them in a favorable light."

The remainder of the letter contains examples of facts about Hubbard which Defendant Armstrong found to be wholly untrue or inaccurate and which were represented as true by the Hubbards and the Scientology Organization.

In December of 1981 Defendant Armstrong made the decision to leave the Church of Scientology. In order to continue in his commitment to Hubbard and Mr. Garrison in the biography project, he copied a large quantity of documents, which Mr. Garrison had requested or which would be useful to him for the biography. Defendant Armstrong delivered all of this material to Mr. Garrison the date he left the SEA Organization and kept nothing in his possession.

Thereafter, Defendant Armstrong maintained friendly relations with Hubbard's representatives by returning to the Archives offices and discussing the various categories of materials. In fact on February 24, 1982, Defendant Armstrong wrote to Vaughn Young, regarding certain materials Mr. Young was unable to locate for Omar Garrison.

After this letter was written, Defendant Armstrong went to the Archives office and located certain materials Mr. Garrison had wanted which Hubbard representatives claimed they could not locate.

At the time Defendant Armstrong left the SEA Organization, he was disappointed with Scientology and Hubbard, and also felt deceived by them. However, Defendant Armstrong felt he had no enemies and felt no ill will toward anyone in the Organization or Hubbard, but still believed that a truthful biography should be written.

After leaving the SEA Organization, Defendant Armstrong continued to assist Mr. Garrison with the Hubbard biography project In the spring of 1982, Defendant Armstrong at Mr. Garrison's request, transcribed some of his interview tapes, copied some of the documentation he had, and assembled several more binders of copied materials. Defendant Armstrong also set up shelves for Mr. Garrison for all the biography research materials, worked on a cross-reference systems, and continued to do library research for the biography.

On February 18, 1982, the Church of Scientology International issued a "Suppressive Person Declare Gerry Armstrong," which is an official Scientology document issued against individuals who are considered as enemies of the Organization. Said Suppressive Person Declare charged that Defendant Armstrong had taken an unauthorized leave and that he was spreading destructive rumors about Senior Scientologists.

Defendant Armstrong was unaware of said Suppressive Person Declare until April of 1982. At that time a revised Declare was issued on April 22, 1982. Said Declare charged Defendant Armstrong with 18 different "Crimes and High Crimes and Suppressive Acts Against the Church." The charges included theft, juggling accounts, obtaining loans on money under false pretenses, promulgating false information about the Church, its founder, and members, and other untruthful allegations designed to make Defendant Armstrong an appropriate subject of the Scientology "Fair Game Doctrine." Said Doctrine allows any suppressive person to be "tricked, cheated, lied to, sued, or destroyed."

The second declare was issued shortly after Defendant Armstrong attempted to sell photographs of his wedding on board Hubbard's ship (in which Hubbard appears), and photographs belonging to some of his friends, which also included photos of L.R. Hubbard while in seclusion. Although Defendant Armstrong delivered the photographs to a Virgil Wilhite for sale, he never received payment or return of his friend's photographs. When he became aware that the Church had these photographs, he went to the Organization to request their return. A loud and boisterous argument ensued, and he eventually was told to leave the premises and get an attorney.

From his extensive knowledge of the covert and intelligence operations carried out by the Church of Scientology of California against its enemies (suppressive persons), Defendant Armstrong became terrified and feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger, and he also feared he would be the target of costly and harassing lawsuits. In addition, Mr. Garrison became afraid for the security of the documents and believed that the intelligence network of the Church of Scientology would break and enter his home to retrieve them. Thus, Defendant Armstrong made copies of certain documents for Mr. Garrison and maintained them in a separate location.

It was thereafter, in the summer of 1982, that Defendant Armstrong asked Mr. Garrison for copies of documents to use in his defense and sent the documents to his attorneys, Michael Flynn and Contos & Bunch.

After the within suit was filed on August 2, 1982, Defendant Armstrong was the subject of harassment, including being followed and surveilled by individuals who admitted employment by Plaintiff; being assaulted by one of these individuals; being struck bodily by a car driven by one of these individuals; having two attempts made by said individuals apparently to involve Defendant Armstrong in a freeway automobile accident; having said individuals come onto Defendant Armstrong's property, spy in his windows, create disturbances, and upset his neighbors. During trial when it appeared that Howard Schomer (a former Scientologist) might be called as a defense witness, the Church engaged in a somewhat sophisticated effort to suppress his testimony. It is not clear how the Church became aware of defense intentions to call Mr. Schomer as a witness, but it is abundantly clear they sought to entice him back into the fold and prevent his testimony.



1. Exhibits in evidence No. 500-40; JJJ; KKK; LLL; MMM; NNN; OOO; PPP; QQQ; RRR; and 500-QQQQ.


2. (Exhibit 500-HHHHH)

3. See exhibit K: Flag Order 3729 - 15 September 1978 "Commodore's Messengers."

4. Exhibit AAA

5. "No, I think my emotional distress and upset is the fact that someone took papers and materials without my authorization and then gave them to your Mr. Flynn." Reporter's Transcript, p. 1006.
Site Admin
Posts: 28787
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Memorandum of Intended Decision (Breckenridge Decision)

Postby admin » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:29 am

8 Jan 1980
M on D
Gerry Armstrong

cc: CO HU
cc: Snr P PRO
cc: HAS Pers Office


Dear Sir,

I am petitioning you to be posted to handle research for your biography and related projects.

I feel it warrants a petition to you because it entails research on your personal time track and the person doing such would have to have your trust.

I wish to do this for the following reason:

1. The future of this planet depends on Scientology. The success of Scientology at this time will depend in no small measure on the success of various of R's personal undertakings; the Purification R/D and Nobel Prize pjt, the R Biography and press/ legal handlings to mention the few I know about.

These projects currently have no one researching, data gathering and collating for them.

2. The finalization of any one of these projects will greatly alleviate current threats to R. His free movement could become possible and his actions, projects and ideas in other spheres will become more accepted.

3. R val docs and writings will be preserved -- this will be a great part of the post.

Currently this is not being done adequately. Just 3 days ago I came across a box of very old papers in Del Sol which were unknown to the PPROS and others here. These included R writings from the 30's and 40's, R grade school English class essays and poems, an R diary from the trip to Asia and many other docs.

These writings are of immeasurable value to an R Biography, future museum and to the billions of Scientologists this planet will see.

Also in Del Sol I found some docs from R's Navy period which will now be used in press legal actions. Document research is a must for success in this legal battle.

I'm sure there are many more such val docs, writings and data around the planet to be found, preserved and used to enhance R's image and viability.

The papers I have just found have been copied as an insurance against their loss and the originals have been put into zip- lock bags and wrapped in plastic.

4. A documented, published biography could become the basis for an R Life film (major production). This will likely be the ultimate step toward universal acceptance of R and his products. Any personnel added to handle these areas at this time will greatly shorten the time to such a production.

5. I believe I have the qualifications to do this job:

I have 9 years of SO track during which I worked with R on the ship, at UCE and WHQ.

I have a decent this lifetime training in PR, legal and Intel, areas in which I worked on the ship between 1971 and 1975. I would not do anything stupid on any line which would damage R or Scientology.

I'm literate. My written English is grammatically adequate. I have little background in creative writing, however this would not be necessary because the biography would be handled by a proven author such as Garrison.

I have had fabulous personal gains and successes from LRH Tech.

6. I do not feel my current post of R Renos I/C and the present functions I'm performing are as vital at this time as those I'm requesting to do. My post is in a condition where it can easily be turned over. There are no immediate demands for R living or office spaces at S.

I have worked in R Renos for a year and have been the I/C for the last 6 months. It has been a relatively flapless period and there have been a number of accomplishments.

I am considerably more trained and gifted in the area of research than I am in building construction.

I know my seniors, the CO HU and D/CO HU, with whom I've worked very well all this time, would not object to my leaving the area to do this function which is so important to R's success.

7. This is something I want very much to do. (It is the first post in the SO I've ever asked for).

I first recognized its need back in 1973 on the ship when I did a project for Mary Sue of time-tracking the Apollo's movements from purchase to that date. I had a hell of a time. Nobody was recording a Ship's History and the QM logs and Nav logs were lost or in terrible shape.

Recent events and the discovery of the old R writings have made the collecting up of R's docs and writings and the Scientology and Sea Org Histories and their preservation and their use in the production of a biography and other projects a vital, vital task.

This is the way I can best serve you.

I'm requesting your approval on creating this post. Likely it would be in the Pers PRO area and be entitled something like "Biography Researcher".

Duties would include:

• collecting up all R val docs from around the world (except those actually needed in a specific location)
• seeing to their proper preservation including vault safe against fire and sabotage.
• collecting up all R manuscripts and R writings of any kind possible.
• surveying for and gathering up personal contact accounts for legal, PR and biographical/anecdotal use
• interviewing people for the same
• sifting through R lectures and writings for usable incidents and contacts
• liaison with the Biographer for documentation and data
• line to R for verification of data and approvals
• false report correction actions

I'm sure there are more and even these are a large undertaking.

Sir, may I have your permission to do the above?

This is okay.

Much love,


R OK_______
R Not OK______
Site Admin
Posts: 28787
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Memorandum of Intended Decision (Breckenridge Decision)

Postby admin » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:29 am

25 Nov 1981
HCO Cope Officer CMO Int
LRH PA Archivist c/o CECP

cc: Spec Pjt Pjt Ops
cc: Spec Pjt IC
cc: Spec Pjt 2nd (NS)

re: Norman's Report/Biog Research

Dear Cirrus:

Thank you for showing me Norman Starkey's report on me. I understand his stand and attitude, although some of the statements presented are not totally accurate. I feel too that he missed the main point I was making, as this was not mentioned in his despatch.

I will go over that "main point" then cover the various points Norman touches on in his report.

What I brought up when talking to Norman, and in fact my working basis as a biographical researcher, is to not present anything for publication on LRH which is not known to be fact.

C of S published biographical sketches, copyrighted in LRH's name, have in the past contained a number of easily disprovable claims. These things have been disproved and shot at by various enemies at various times.

I've attached what is in fact a "false report correction" on some of our claims, prepared by an enemy researcher, Michael Linn Shannon. Much of Shannon's material is accurate. The slant he gives the material is entheta. My emphasis, and I think the emphasis we all must give, to the handling of LRH biographical material is accuracy with a theta slant.

If we present inaccuracies, hyperbole or downright lies as fact or truth, it doesn't matter what slant we give them, if disproved the man will look, to outsiders at least, like a charlatan. This is what I'm trying to prevent and what I've been working on the past year and a half.

I'm sure you've seen examples of this. Take Kima Douglas. For years she claims to be "registered nurse". And for years she handles LRH's medical needs, apparently successfully. Something happens and it is "found out" that she never was an RN. Kima and all that she did are thrown into discredit and she carries her blemish with her. And it doesn't matter even if Kima was better than many certified RN's.

Even in our system it would be severely dealt with if someone pretended certification. Someone claiming to be a Class XII when in fact he had not completed his Academy Levels, or someone claiming to be a C/S when he had only read some HCOBs does not last long. All his work becomes suspect.

It seems to have the effect in people's minds of lessening the stature of not only the person but his work and products when claims he has made, or others have made about him, are debunked.

And that is why I said to Norman that it is up to us to ensure that everything which goes out about LRH is 100% accurate. That is not to say that opinions can't be voiced, they can. And they can contain all the hype you want. But they should not be construed as facts. And anything stated as a fact should be documentable.

We are in a period when "investigative reporting" is popular and when there is relatively easy access to documentation on a person (see Shannon again). We can't delude ourselves I believe, if we want to gain public acceptance and cause some betterment in society, that we can get away with statements, the validity of which we don't know.

The real disservice to LRH, and the ultimate make-wrong is to go on assuming that everything he's ever written or said is 100% accurate and publish it as such without verifying it. I'm talking here about biographical or non-technical writings. This only leads, should any of his statements turn out to be inaccurate, to a make-wrong of him, and consequently, his technology.

That's what I'm trying to remedy and prevent.

To say that LRH is not capable of hype, errors or lies is certainly not granting him much of a beingness. To continue on with the line that he has never erred nor lied is counterproductive. It is an unreal attitude and too far removed from both the reality and people in general that it would widen public unacceptance.

Of course LRH can err. I recall something about Norman being removed from the bridge and as Captain of the "Apollo" by LRH and LRH saying Norman was running the ship aground. Years later Norman disproved this statement. It was an error.

I've attached an item "Data Sheet on Lafayette Ronald Hubbard" in his handwriting which was for use by the PR's and for publication. It contains a number of claims which are not totally accurate, or are flatly untrue.

a. "graduated from Columbia College George Washington University, Washing DC in 1932" He didn't graduate.

b. "attended Princeton University Post Graduate" He didn't.

c. "Led Caribbean Motion Picture Expedition 1933 It was 1932.

d. "West Indies Minerals 1934" It was 1932.

e. "Columbia Pictures 1935" It was 1937.

f. "Many "screen credits" on major stars and pictures". Hyperbole.

g. " Provost Marshall Korea 1945". Untrue

h. " Hollywood Director and writer 1946 on" Untrue, hype and undocumented.

The whole point is that these things are absolutely irrelevant. LRH's contributions to the world, and why we are in this game, are the philosophy and technology he developed. These things stand without false "supporting claims".

When one has a certainty on the validity of the subjects he is not shaken by the personal "flaws" of the man. On the other hand, if the man can be pointed up as false in his personal claims, the subject can be thrown into disrepute to anyone who is not sure in his knowledge of the subject's workability.

That is what the enemy is trying to do, and that is why I feel the falsities must be corrected, and why we must verify our facts and present them in a favorable light.

If LRH's position and PR were strong and secure right now, I could be corrected on this viewpoint, but they aren't, and I can't. Even if all the legal cases are won, the PR must be handled if LRH is to have the freedom and success he deserves.

The fact is, LRH's true life story is far more interesting and poignant than the BS and hype show. They detract from the man and his story. The truth, well presented, is a fabulous story.

It is not logical that I should be targeted for digging up the facts. LRH always has a good reason for doing what he does, so where there are untruths or contrary facts, we'll someday, when there is a line to him, have to ask him. For now, we can't go on making up stories to cover up undocumented "facts", untruths or contrary facts. We don't even know why he said what he said at the time. All we can go on is the documents and what is known for certain.

Now to cover the various points I recall from Norman's report:

1. Commander Thompson. I never said this is a lie. I just said we don't have any supporting evidence, so why use it. We just shouldn't until we get the documentation.

There are contrary facts surrounding Thompson. Eg. VMH: "Between the years 1923 and 1928, he received an extensive education in the field of the human mind from Commander Thompson..." Same article, previous page is the statement: "From 1925 to 1929 L. Ron Hubbard journeyed throughout Asia." Did Thompson accompany him? Was it a correspondence course? We just don't know.

2. LRH's Grandfather's cattle ranch in Montana. Well, it just doesn't exist. I've interviewed LRH's Aunt, Uncle, 4 cousins, all of whom deny the existence of a cattle ranch. Montana State records don't show the existence of a cattle ranch. Yet there it is in the Biographical Sketch attached.

Again, this is not to decry LRH, just the opposite. He doesn't need lies told about him.

3. I believe Norman mentioned something about the claim of being a nuclear physicist. This is just an indefensible claim. It neither accurately describes LRH's status nor his accomplishments. Plus it opens the door to attack. It may have been okay at some point, but not when he is being held up to public scrutiny and ridicule.

Again, it isn't that it is right or wrong that he has said what he has said. That point is irrelevant. It's just a matter of workability. This is not the age for hype and untruths; they haven't worked.

4. Nibs. What I stated was that the situation with Nibs is to a great degree our creation. He has been mishandled and dealt with dishonestly.

Dishonesty begets dishonesty. Nibs has known he was getting SO#1 letters; not LRH letters. That's just not a 100° honest handling of the man's son. It doesn't excuse his own acts and condition, but it helps in their understanding.

I believe that unless there is an understanding and acknowledgement that the guy was mishandled and dealt with dishonestly, even if to a very tiny degree, the situation can't resolve. I'm not saying tell Nibs, just get honest about it. That's all I said.

As far as Omar Garrison's attitude is concerned, I've attached 4 statements:

1. His statement about LRH from "Hidden Story of Scientology". This lays out OVG's opinion of the man.

2. OVG's "LRH Biog -- Workpoints" which show his appreciation for the man and job of doing the book.

3. LRH's response of 16 Mar 1977 to Omar's "Workpoints".

4. LRH's comment in 1976; " Omar is a great writer." This indicates LRH's appreciation of OVG.

As far as I am concerned, I feel the, biography is perhaps the single most important PR action we've ever taken. And I feel it must be 100% accurate. My job is documentation. Facts, not opinions.

Norman's report showed his concern about what data is being given to Omar. I would like it known that I have simply delivered copies of the documents I have here. Omar is intelligent. He is an adult. He draws his own conclusions. And he is writing the book himself. I have not given him one word of advice on the content or direction of his book.

I'm sure he would be very willing to talk to anyone, in fact his complaint has been an apparent lack of concern about the biog.

My integrity leads me in the direction I've laid out above. If this is unsatisfactory and I should not be on the project with this viewpoint, please let me know right away. Omar depends on me to a great degree and I would want to get a replacement grooved in speedily as the book project nears completion.

I'm open to any response from any of the recipients of this note.

And it would be good if Norman got in comm with me. I'd welcome the opportunity to show him the documentation I've assembled.

Let me know back soon as I feel my existence has been unstabilized.

Much love,
Site Admin
Posts: 28787
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Memorandum of Intended Decision (Breckenridge Decision)

Postby admin » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:30 am

18 February 1982


GERRY ARMSTRONG of California is hereby declared a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON for the following Crimes and High Crimes.

1. Violation of HCO PL 7 December 1976 LEAVING AND LEAVES, which states: "Where a person is secretly planning to leave and making private preparations to do so without informing the proper terminals in an org and does leave (blow) and does not return within a reasonable amount of time an automatic Declare is to be issued."

2. Spreading destructive rumours about senior Scientologists.

3. Announcing departure from Scientology (but not by reason of leaving an organization, a location or situation or death).

Gerry took an unauthorized leave at Christmas and has refused to return and route out properly, although he has been contacted and requested to do so. Following his blow he has made statements to the effect that he is no longer a Scientologist and that the tech does not work. He has also made derogatory statements to three staff members concerning a Senior Scientologist. Gerry has also stated that people should leave Scientology.

Should Gerry come to his senses and wish to recant, he is to apply Steps A-E of HCO PL 16 May 80 Iss III ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS. Should he fail to apply these steps he will be expelled from the Church of Scientology and debarred from Advanced Courses. Should he claim the label to be false, he may request a Committee of Evidence, per the above referenced policy.

His only terminal is the Continental Justice Chief PAC.

PO1 Paul Laquerre
International Justice Chief
Authorized by
for the

Site Admin
Posts: 28787
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Memorandum of Intended Decision (Breckenridge Decision)

Postby admin » Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:31 am

18 February 1982
Revised 22.4.82


GERRY ARMSTRONG, now of Costa Mesa, California, is hereby DECLARED A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON according to HCO PL 7 Dec 76 LEAVING AND LEAVES:

"Where a person is secretly planning to leave and making private preparations to do so without informing the proper terminals in an org and does leave (blow) and does not return within a reasonable length of time an automatic Declare is to be issued."

Gerry took an unauthorized leave in December 1981 and has refused to return and route out properly although he has been contacted and repeatedly requested to do so.

Since Gerry was declared on 18 Feb 1982, reports have been made that also bring the following charges against him for Crimes and High Crimes and Suppressive Acts against the Church:



















Since Gerry Armstrong left the Church, he has falsely represented himself to others and said he was on a "secret mission." Representing himself then as a staff member, he then misrepresented the actions of the Church and its members to others. Gerry has chronically misrepresented himself and others.

He has spoken out for LSD and LSD-proponent Timothy Leary knowing full well that such illicit drugs are strictly prohibited by the Church and that Church Founder L. Ron Hubbard has written against their usage or promotion due to their destructive nature. Knowing that LRH also has researched and written how to combat the effects of these illicit drugs, Gerry Armstrong has degraded LRH's research and prefers to promote the research of Timothy Leary.

Gerry has taken and sought to sell Church property. He has also failed to return Church property he obtained. He also falsified his Church financial records by failing to state the nature of the intended purchases and failing to spend the money for the approved items. Records by him show purchases for personal items as well as covering the expenses of non-Church companies.

Gerry was also found to be promulgating false information about the Church, its Founder and members. He used his position to create and transmit erroneous information under the guise of "documentation." Altered documents have been found in his area.

Should Gerry Armstrong come to his senses and wish to recant, he should apply steps A-E of HCO PL 16 May 80 III ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS. Should he fail to apply these steps he will be expelled from the Church and be debarred. Should he claim the label or the charges to be false, he may request a Committee of Evidence per the above referenced policy.

His only terminal is the Continental Justice Chief PAC.

PO1 Paul Laquerre
Int Justice Chief

Authorized by AVC

for the


Site Admin
Posts: 28787
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Return to Religion and Cults

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest