||||| Path: uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news.glorb.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!chi1.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 70.70.44.129 From: Gerry Armstrong Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology Subject: Reporter's transcript, Vol. 5, 1984-05-04, Scientology v. Armstrong, LASC No. C 420153 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 11592 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:25:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.67.253.205 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1105561539 24.67.253.205 (Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:25:39 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:25:39 MST Organization: Shaw Residential Internet Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.religion.scientology:1822940 de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology:111704 Webbed at: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/rt-1984-05-04.html 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, Plaintiff, vs. GERALD ARMSTRONG, Defendant. _______________________________ MARY SUE HUBBARD, Intervenor. _______________________________ NO. C 420153 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Friday, May 4, 1984 APPEARANCES: (See Appearances Page.) VOLUME 5 Pages 598 - 812 NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR 644 HERBERT CANNON, CSR 1923 Official Reporters [page break] APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: PETERSON & BRYNAN BY: JOHN G. PETERSON 8530 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 407 Beverly Hills, California 90211 (213) 659-9965 -and- ROBERT N. HARRIS The Oviatt Building 617 South Olive Street Suite 915 Los Angeles, California 90014 (213) 626-3271 For the Intervenor: LITT & STORMER BY: BARRETT S. LITT Paramount Plaza 3550 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 386-4303 -and- BARRETT S. LITT BY: MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON The Oviatt Building 617 South Olive Street Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90014 (213) 623-7511 For the Defendant: CONTOS & BUNCH BY: MICHAEL J. FLYNN -and- JULIA DRAGOJEVIC 5855 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite 400 Woodland Hills, California 91367 (213) 716-9400 [page break] VOLUME 5 I N D E X Day Date Session Page Friday May 4, 1984 A.M. 598 P.M. 714 ------------------------------------------------------------ W I T N E S S E S PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VORM, Tom (Resumed) 608 665 673 ARMSTRONG, Gerald (Excerpts from the depositions of Gerald Armstrong were read into the record verbatim starting at page 691.) E X H I B I T S DEFENDANT'S IDENTIFIED RECEIVED C - Declaration by Mr. Vorm 610 610 598 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1984; 9:07 A.M. -o0o- MR. HARRIS: Before resumption of cross-examination, Your Honor, pursuant to Your Honor's order, I am producing to the court for in camera inspection, and there are some privileges that will he asserted with respect to these three inventories; one dated 24 September, 1982, inventory of materials turned over to the court by Attorney Michael Flynn; one dated 3 September, 1982, inventory of material turned over to the court by Contos & Bunch; and one undated, summary of materials returned by Omar Garrison. 599 THE COURT: All right. Hand them to the clerk. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, what I am looking for is the inventories prepared by the church. MR. HARRIS: The problem, Your Honor, is that these inventories were prepared pursuant and in some cases prepared by an attorney. But those where the church people participated, it was at the direction of attorneys with attorneys present with the sealed documents in the case of the sealed documents. And in the case of the other items, at the direction of an attorney. In any event, I think we can argue it when the time comes. But for right now, at least, I have complied with the court's order. THE COURT: I am not sure I understand where there is a disagreement. MR. FLYNN: There has been, I am informed, an extensive inventory on computer prepared by the church with regard to almost every single piece of paper that is downstairs. In addition to that, there has been an inventory prepared of the Omar Garrison materials by the church as a well as an inventory of the controller archives prepared by the church. That is what we are looking for. MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I have no knowledge of any computer items. I do have knowledge of these three inventories which is what the court ordered and which I have produced for the court. The court specifically asked us to bring -- I can actually probably find the court's words -- 600 MR. FLYNN: With the church inventories, Your Honor, I submit that we would be able to prove that all the documents under seal are also in possession of the church. MR. HARRIS: That simply isn't true and he can't prove it. THE COURT: There has not been any testimony yet that there is such an inventory of materials that -- all of the materials relating to these different archives have ever been inventoried. 601 MR. FLYNN: The individual who apparently is most familiar with it is Kenneth Long. On the current state of the record if the church and the intervenor go no further and introduce no further evidence with regard to specific documents that they claim are not in their possession, either copies or originals, then I would submit they probably wouldn't have made out their case and I wouldn't need the inventories, but if they are going to persist in the allegations that there are 2- to 3,000 pages of originals that they don't have copies of, and are unable to submit one document, I submit the only way I can prove that they do is through their own inventories. MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, requested, you asked Mr. Flynn: "What is it you want inventories of, materials which are downstairs or files under seal? "MR. FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor. "THE COURT: If you have such an inventory, you are ordered to produce it." I said, "We will produce it tomorrow." I have. That was one inventory requested. The next inventory requested: "MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may that be produced also if an inventory has been done of Omar Garrison's documents? "THE COURT: If there is such an inventory, then the church will be ordered to produce it." I have. 602 THE COURT: Well it appears to be in compliance with the court's order. MR. FLYNN: At this state of the record, Your Honor, maybe I will let the issue rest. THE COURT: Okay. We will let it rest. Put it to sleep. Now, what about these particular inventories? I assume that there is nothing here that in a sense is confidential because these documents, other than -- as to what is in the court's files under seal, either side could have made an inventory. You have got stamped on here "confidential attorney-client privileges." MR. HARRIS: That, Your Honor, was prepared by Mr. Peterson who is here specifically in connection with the litigation in this case. THE COURT: True, I can understand why you might contend it was work product. MR. HARRIS: I do. I contend it is both work product and attorney-client privileged, both. MR. FLYNN: If I could be heard, Your Honor. THE COURT: Don't interrupt my thinking at the moment. Just relax. 603 THE COURT: I have rather hurriedly scanned through this document, the series of documents that deal with the inventory materials turned over to the court by Contos & Bunch. I don't see anything here that would be characterised as attorney-client privileged. I don't see anything that would be absolutely privileged on their work product other than possibly some of the characterizations of the attorney which, I presume would be his interpretation of some of these documents. That, presumably, would be absolutely privileged such as reference to whether something is an original or a carbon copy of what it might be. That would be interpretation and would be absolutely privileged. But certainly, his description of what is there can't be privileged because it is down there. It is in the court's possession. It came from the attorneys Contos & Bunch. I can't see anything other than possibly some interpretation which I could cross out. MR. HARRIS: The problem is, Your Honor, when you are describing documents, you cannot help but put your own thoughts in respect to it; in other words, there is no such thing as as objective inventory of the items because it was being prepared by an attorney in respect to litigation which is in litigation. As far as the privilege aspect, the communication from the attorney to the client, originally only the attorneys were allowed, as you may recall, in to see the documents. 604 Now, I don't particularly wish to press the issue of attorney-client privilege. But I would press the issue of work product which it is fairly clear to me it is. And I don't think that we should have to give it to Mr. Flynn. He has had access to the documents. He could have secured his own inventory. THE COURT: Well, do you need any of these in your cross-examination of this witness? Because my disposition is to review these more carefully and block out anything which might prove to be an interpretation. MR. HARRIS: Might I suggest, your Honor, that you might have to look at the documents in order to do that? THE COURT: You may make that suggestion, but I don't think I have to. MR. HARRIS: Well, I tried. I think in order to determine if it is an interpretation, you must have some objective standard on which to base the determination which is the document itself. THE COURT: I don't think I have to get that essentially involved. It is not that super secret. We have got the documents here. MR. FLYNN: I think we are missing the issue a little bit, Your Honor. THE COURT: I know what you are saying in a sense; in other words, if something is missing, you want to know what is missing and what isn't there. MR. FLYNN: And they are the only ones who have got access to what isn't there. They have got all the access. 605 They are walking into court and saying there are materials, even though the witness could not name one document, down- stairs that they don't have copies of. And they are the only ones I can elicit evidence from since it is in their exclusive possession and control. THE COURT: It is their burden of proof. So if they want to prove something that is not there, I guess other than the 2- to 3,000 pages which are down there which are originals that we don't have, if they can't either with this witness or other witnesses identify specifically at least some of these items, I shouldn't think they would be going through identifying page by page; we could spend years on the case doing that. I can understand how a witness might not be able to say something without having an inventory, but if he is shown an inventory and then asked to identify items -- MR. HARRIS: The problem, Your Honor, is that, of course, that can be done. But we are trying to do this case without getting into the contents of the documents under seal. And even an inventory describes to some extent the contents of the documents which we have contended all along simply should remain under seal. We are not trying to produce any original documents in our case-in-chief or any inventories or copies. MR. FLYNN: If they are going to stipulate that they are not going to try to prove that any particular original is down there or any particular original they don't have possession of in other archives, I would submit that they 606 haven't met their burden of proof if that is what is going on here. MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, if at the time we get through with our case-in-chief we have not done it, met our burden of proof, I an sure Your Honor will do the right and correct thing. But as far as I have anything to do with it, we'll try to do it without producing any of the documents under seal so as to maintain their privacy interest. 607 THE COURT: All right, well, let's do it this way: We are going to proceed at this time with the examination of these witnesses. I will look these natters over when I have a chance and anything which I conclude might be an interpretation of counsel, I will delete from it and counsel will have the right to call any witnesses back for further cross-examination as it relates to any of these inventories if I conclude they should be released or returned to defense counsel for examination. MR. HARRIS: All right, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'd like to get off the dime here this morning. MR. HARRIS: Sure, I understand that. the only thing I wanted to assure the court is that one of the documents, at least, is an internal church summary of items which are not under seal and that is the Omar Garrison one. THE COURT: I realize that. Let's get the record stated. In the case on trial, let the record reflect that all counsel are here and have been here and the witness has retaken the stand. TOM VORM, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows: THE COURT: Just state your name again for the record, 608 sir. You are still under oath. THE WITNESS: My name is Tom Vorm. THE COURT: You may continue. MR. FLYNN: Just before I do that, I have one other witness who is a high church official who came to the court- house named Lyman Spurlock here today. We are going to call him as part of our case, but we have found that we are unable to subpoena anyone from the organization because they won't let you beyond the front door and they won't tell you whether anyone is there, so if the court could simply issue an order that Mr. Spurlock is to return at the beginning of the defendant's case. He is in the court room now. THE COURT: You can put him on call if he will agree to be on call. Otherwise, he will have to remain here until his testimony is required. MR. FLYNN: I have one other problem with this Andrew Lenarcic who filed this original affidavit. THE COURT: Let's do one thing at a time here. MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, I have discussed Mr. Flynn's proposal with the witness. He has to be out of town a couple of days the mid part of next week. We would agree that he would be on call. Whether we can produce him on the first day of Mr. Flynn's defense or some time thereafter, I am not sure. But we will place him on call and at some time during the defense we can make him available. MR. FLYNN: That is fine. THE COURT: As long as he agrees to be on call through counsel. 609 MR. PETERSON: We would like 24 hours' notice. THE COURT: All right, 24 hours' notice. MR. FLYNN: And the second problem is with this Andrew M. Lenarcic. We are going to deliver a subpoena over to the organization, but as I say we can't get by the front door. MR. HARRIS: That is not true, Your Honor, really. THE COURT: I am not going to worry -- MR. HARRIS: I agree. MR. FLYNN: When we get into the issue of Mr. Hubbard's availability, you will hear a little more testimony on that point. But in any event, we are unable to find Mr. Lenarcic and he is a critical witness to the defense because he says precisely the opposite of what this witness says that I am now going to go into. MR. HARRIS: That is a wrongful characterization, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, people are entitled to characterize things as they want to characterize than. It is not evidence and I don't take it as evidence. For whatever it is worth, I think we ought to proceed with the cross-examination of this witness. MR. FLYNN: Fine, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. FLYNN: Q Mr. Vorm, you filed a declaration in this case? A Yes. 610 THE COURT: And is that a copy of the declaration? A It looks like it, yes. Q Is your signature on it, sir? A Yes, a copy of it. MR. FLYNN: May that be marked as an exhibit, Your Honor? THE COURT: Okay. THE CLERK: C. THE COURT: All right, C for identification. Let me see it. MR. FLYNN: And I would offer it, too. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, be received. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Vorm, you testified yesterday that you received from Mary Sue Hubbard a memorandum dated 11 December, '79; is that correct? Q That is true. Q Did that go to you personally, sir? A Yes, it did. Q And was it signed by Mary Sue Hubbard? A It was in her handwriting, the whole thing. Q Well, there was a phrase that said "much love" with a place for a signature underneath that; is that correct? A Could I see the document? THE COURT: Certainly. MR. FLYNN: It is either 10 or 11, I believe. 611 Miss Dragojevic has our copy. She is not here yet. Q She didn't sign that; did she? THE COURT: Well there are two different documents. MR. FLYNN: I am referring to exhibit 10. THE COURT: Do you have 10, sir? Okay, fine. 612 Q BY MR. FLYNN: Referring to exhibit 10, Mr. Vorm, Mary Sue Hubbard did not sign that; did she? A I don't believe she had her name written on the bottom, no. Q Now, in the Guardian's Office was it a practice for people to transmit one document to another without signing them? A Transmit one document -- Q From one person to another without signing them? A Yes, it was. Yes. Q And with regard to communications from L. Ron Hubbard was that also a practice? MR. HARRIS: If he knows. Q BY MR. FLYNN: If you know. A I don't know. Actually, I would take that back. I think it was not the case because I received communications from at a certain point. Q You received communications from whom? A Signed "R" at the bottom. Q Typewritten or handwritten? A Typewritten. Q And did you accept that as a communication from L. Ron Hubbard? A I assumed it to be, yes. Q So that was a practice within the organization, to have a typewritten "R" to signify that it came from Hubbard; is that correct? 613 A Well, in this particular case. The document that came to me was that way. So I assumed it was in that case. Q The question is was that the practice. A I don't know about the practice in general, the organization as a whole. Q In your declaration, which has been marked as exhibit 12 -- THE COURT: C. MR. FLYNN: I offered it -- Oh, exhibit C. Q You state that these materials that you gave to Gerald Armstrong belonged and were the personal property of Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard; is that correct? A That is true. Q Now, did all of the materials that you gave to Gerald Armstrong belong to Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard? A Well, they all came from Mary Sue's trunks; do -- Q Throughout the period of the biography project when you were giving materials to Gerald Armstrong, were there any materials that you gave him that did not belong to L. Ron Hubbard or Mary Sue Hubbard? A I gave him materials on two occasions. Both of them came from the Mary Sue trunks. Q So your testimony is that they belonged to L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard? MR. HARRIS: Calls for a legal conclusion, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. 614 Q BY MR. FLYNN: In your declaration you state that they were the personal property of L. Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard; is that correct? A What number? Q Paragraph No. 3. A That is true. Q Now, your testimony, as I understand it, there were no materials that you gave to Gerald Armstrong that were not the personal property of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard? A Well, aside from the legal definition, they came from Mary Sue's trunks; so therefore -- Q When you prepared this declaration -- Did you prepare it? A Yes. I didn't type it up, no. Q You did put in the declaration, did you not, that they belonged to the Hubbards? A Right. Q It was your testimony on direct examination that they belonged to the Hubbards; is that correct? A I believe so. Q Now, you also testified on cross-examination yesterday that on two occasions you petitioned for and received approval from the controller; one being Mary Sue Hubbard and the other being Gordon Cook to give the materials to Gerald Armstrong; is that correct? A That is correct. Q And you stated in those petitions that those 615 materials should be rightfully in his possession because he was doing the biography project; is that correct? A From the post function, yes. Q Now, in your declaration you state in paragraph 6 that at no time did Mr. or Mrs. Hubbard give you permission to give those documents to Gerald Armstrong; is that correct? A Which document is it referring to? Q Which document were you referring to, Mr. Vorm? A Well, let me read this. That was concerning the documents after Mrs. Hubbard had gone off post. Q So if I understand your testimony correctly, with regard to the materials you gave before Mrs. Hubbard went off post you did have permission from her to give those materials to Gerald Armstrong? A That is true. Q What materials were those? A It was the ones that I listed out in this document here. Q What are they? MR. HARRIS: Referring to exhibit -- THE WITNESS: It is exhibit 11, "Comply re LRH Historical Items." Q BY MR. FLYNN: What documents are they, Mr. Vorm? Take one document at a time, if you would, then I'll ask you a question. 616 A The yearbook, 1928. Q Is that document under seal in this court? A I don't believe so, no. Q In whose possession is it? A I am not sure at the moment. Q Have you seen it in the possession of the church? THE COURT: At what time, counsel? MR. FLYNN: At any time after the beginning of this lawsuit which is August 1982. THE WITNESS: No, I haven't. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know where it is? A No. 617 Q Well you don't know whether is under seal? A I don't think it is under seal. I don't recall seeing it there. Q What is the next document? A Book of photos, gray cloth cover. Q Do you know where those are presently? A No I don't. Q Are they under seal? A I don't believe so, no. Q What is the next item? A Brown mounted photos. Q Do you know where those items are? A No I don't. I am not exactly sure what that is referring to. Q Are they under seal? A I don't know about that one. Q What is the next item? A Brown engraved leather photo binder. Q Do you know where that item presently is? A No I don't. Q Do you know whether it is under seal? A I don't believe so, no. Q What is the next item? A Boy Scout's diary, 1924. Q Do you know where that item is? A I believe that is in the Garrison stuff. Q Is it under seal? A I don't think so, no. 618 Q Is there any material in this list that is presently under seal? A There is one item I am not positive on. Letter from Thomas J. Kelly. Q Letter from Thomas J. Kelly? A Right. Q Do you recall what that item is? A What it is about or what it is concerning? A What it concerns. A No I don't. Q Now, does that basically represent the first group of items that you gave to Gerald Armstrong with Mary Sue Hubbard's permission? A Yes. Q What was in the second group of items that you gave to Gerald Armstrong with the permission of the controller? A Well it was several boxes full. I don't recall each one individually. Q Can you recall any document? A There were quite a few files concerning Rhodesia. There were some telexes. There were various files, some typewritten, some handwritten communications. Q Relating to what? A To LRH's time when he was in Rhodesia. Q So the telex is the sub-category of your first answer to documents relating to Rhodesia? A Yes. 619 Q Other than the telexes, are there any other items that you recall? A There were a lot of, I will say at least five or six files concerning HEC, which is the Hubbard Exploration Company. Q Any other items? A There were some files relating to LRH's horticultural experiments. Q Any other items? A There were some mortgage papers regarding the St. Hill property in England. Q Any other items? A There were various letters. I recall one letter to Richard Nixon. There way have been one to Kennedy, and there were several files of that nature to prominent people. Q Do you recall any other items? A There was a file called Cit, C-i-t, -Wash, stood for Citizen's of Washington. I believe that was taken. Q Any other items? A There was a file or two concerning legal FDA. These weren't individual documents. These were like files of documents, a file with about 30 or 50 pages or documents in the file itself. Q Any other items? A If I had the inventory to go through. We checked them off as we took them. That is all I can recall offhand, though I could probably think of more if I had more time. 620 Q Which inventory? A That is the inventory I kept of the trunks that we checked off as we -- Q At the time you gave them to Gerald Armstrong? A That's right. Q Where is that inventory? A It is in my file. Q Was that an inventory that was prepared at the time you gave them to Gerald Armstrong? A No. Q Was it prepared prior to the time you gave them to Gerald Armstrong; that is, in the trunk? A Yes. Q Do you know whether there was a lawyer present when it was prepared? A I don't believe so. Q Where is that inventory? A It is in my files. Q Do you have it with you? A No, I don't. Q How many pages is it? A Thirty, forty, something like that. Q Now, that is 30 to 40 pages of inventory that just covers the material in the trunk for the second group of materials you gave to Gerald Armstrong, is that correct? A No. Q It covers the contents of the entire trunk? A Did you say "trunk"? 621 Q Did you find that inventory in the trunk? A No. Q Where did you find that inventory? A It was given by me. Q By whom? A By, I think it was, the controller transcriptionist. Q At the time you received the trunk? A Yes. Q Was the inventory done at that time? A No. Q It had been done in a prior point in time? A Evidently, yes. Q And you went through and you checked off the materials you gave to Gerald Armstrong; is that correct? A That's right. Q When you got the documents back from Omar Garrison, did you compare that inventory to the materials you got from Omar Garrison? A No. Q Has anyone done that? A I don't know for sure. It could have been done. It might not have been done. I don't know. Q Did you compare it to the materials that were in the guardian's office archives? MR. HILL: Well -- MR. FLYNN: All right, I will withdraw it, Your Honor. Q Let's get the number of archives that exist 622 in the organization. There is controller archives; is that correct? A Which time period are you referring to? Q Between 1979 and 1981. A Okay. Q There are controller archives? A Right. Q And then there were what we call biographical archives; is that correct? A Right. 623 Q And you testified yesterday that you believed that in biographical archives there were four filing cabinets? A Of -- Well, like original materials. I am not sure exactly how many materials had been copied. Q If I suggested to you that biographical archives would fill almost an entire room that were in the possession of Mr. Armstrong and they were not in the possession of your organization, does that refresh your memory? A Refresh my memory of what size they are? Q Right. A No. I would stick to my testimony. Q The four filing cabinets? A That's right. Q Now, the 50,000 documents that came from Omar Garrison, did those come in filing cabinets or boxes? A Boxes. Q How many boxes were there? A Approximately 15, 20. Q Has anyone done an inventory since receiving those documents from Omar Garrison as to what is in those documents? A I believe so, yes. THE COURT: We have got that here, counsel, I believe. One of these purports to be a summary of materials returned by Omar Garrison. MR. FLYNN: Perhaps Your Honor can state in camera, but I can identify it is the inventory that this witness has 624 seen. THE COURT: It refers to some 20 boxes. MR. HARRIS: There has been no establishment -- THE COURT: Have you ever seen this before, sir? THE WITNESS: I think I recall seeing a copy of it. I am not sure. THE COURT: Does that appear to be the inventory of the material returned from Garrison? THE WITNESS: It would appear to be, yes. Q BY MR. FLYNN: In addition to the biographical archives which were in the possession of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Garrison and in addition to controller archives which are the technical materials you testified about yesterday, there are also Guardian's Office archives; is that correct? A Yes. They were called Guardian's archives. Q And there are Guardian's archives at Worldwide; is that correct? A That is true. Q And have you checked the Guardian's Office World Wide archives to determine whether any of the materials that are downstairs under seal are also in those archives? A Yes. I have. Q Did you do an inventory? A An inventory was done. Q Where is that inventory? A It is in my file or in my office. Q Where did you do that inventory? A I didn't do it. 625 Q Who did it? A It was done by someone over at Worldwide. Q And Worldwide is over in England; is that correct? A That's right. Q But you have that inventory in your possession? A That's right. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may that inventory be produced together with the inventory relating to the contents of the trunks? THE COURT: I'll make such an order -- apparently these are in this witness' possession and he can deliver them to his attorney and his attorney can review them and provide them to the court and we'll do the same thing with that that we are doing with this. MR. HARRIS: Very well, Your Honor. Q BY MR. FLYNN: In your testimony you related -- you testified about documents relating to Rhodesia; in the biographical archives that were either returned by Mr. Garrison or in what you say is the four filing cabinets, are there documents relating to Rhodesia? A Yes. Q How many, if you know? A Several file folders. Q Either in the biographical archives or in the documents returned by Mr. Garrison are there documents relating to the Hubbard Explorational Company? MR. HARRIS: Just so I get this straight, Your Honor, 626 is he talking about the biographical archives presently in the possession of the church and this witness as opposed to the biographical archives taken by Mr. Armstrong which are under seal in this court? MR. FLYNN: Correct, Your Honor. MR. HARRIS: Which is correct, Mr. Flynn? Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Vorm, we'll call the biographical archives under seal as the sealed documents and the biographical archives in general are the biographical archives in the possession of the organization. A Okay. 627 Q Now the biographical archives that are in the possession of the organization, together with the documents from Omar Garrison, do they contain materials relating to the Hubbard Explorational Company? A There may be a few in there. Q Have you checked both places? A I haven't checked specifically for those documents. I have been through most of the materials. Q Did you do a comparative analysis with inventories? A No. Q With regard to the horticultural experiments, are those in the biographical archives in the possession of. the church? A I think they are, yes. Q With regard to the St. Hill property in England, are there are any documents relating to that issue, the St. Hill property in the biographical archives in the possession of the church or the materials returned from Omar Garrison? A I think there may be. Q With regard to the letters to Richard Nixon, are they in the biographical archives in the possession of the church or the materials returned from Omar Garrison? A I haven't seen those. Q Did you check? A Not specifically for those documents, no. Q Did you do a comparative analysis inventory to inventory? 628 A No. Q And same question with regard to letters to Kennedy? A Same answer. Q And letters to other people? A Same thing. Q And the file that says "Cit-Wash"? A I don't recall seeing that. Q You don't recall seeing it where? A In the biographical archives or the Garrison archives. Q Now is that presently under seal? A I don't recall seeing it down there either. Q And the FDA files, have you seen files relating to the FDA lawsuit in the biographical archives in the possession of the organization or in the materials returned from Omar Garrison? A I have seen some documents relating to it in the sealed documents. I don't know that they were the exact file. If I recall, there were two or three files that were taken from the trunks originally. I have seen at least one or two documents, individual documents, and then sealed documents downstairs. Q Now do you know whether those one or two documents are in the biographical archives or the materials returned from Omar Garrison? A I don't recall seeing them in those archives, 629 no. Q Did you do a comparative analysis? A No I didn't. Q When you gave the materials to Mr. Armstrong, was it your understanding that the materials belonged to Ron and Mary Sue Hubbard? A Well I understood they were under Mary Sue's control, and in that respect they were her documents to do with what she wanted to do. Q So it was your understanding at that time that they did not belong to the church? A Right. Q Were you involved in any consultations, just yes or no, with any attorneys for the church at the outset of this lawsuit, beginning of the lawsuit in August 1982? A I became in communication with some attorneys. I am not sure of the exact date that you are referring to. Q Now, are there any materials presently under seal that you have an understanding of as belonging to the church? THE COURT: Well I think you have got an ambiguous word. You have used it several times. It is the word "belonging." A person might have ownership. He might have a right of possession. I don't know what you really mean when you say "belonging." MR. FLYNN: The problem I have got, Your Honor, is they are using ownership and belonging in their affidavits 630 to get legal relief, which they did, and the witness is now coming in and saying that he doesn't know what the legal connotations of these words are, so I am kind of in a never, never land with regard to trying to prove who owned or had possession. THE COURT: Well they are going to have to prove either possession or some right to relief here, and this other business, of course, goes to, I suppose, credibility. But we all know that when affidavits are drafted, they are using lawyer's language. I think now that we are in trial and we are being more specific, you ought to try to be more specific. When you use the word "belong" if you use that word, you can ask him what he meant. MR. LITT: This affidavit was before Mr. Armstrong, who is the only one who knows the documents, testified and the situation was somewhat confused, and Mr. Armstrong has testified they are the Hubbards' documents. There has been no contrary testimony. I don't understand what this has to do with any of the issues that have been presented in our case. THE COURT: Well, you don't need to get involved in rhetorical excesses at this point. The witness is on the stand. He signed a declaration. MR. LITT: He didn't sign this declaration. MR. HARRIS: That is what I wanted to clear up in the record. He pointed to the declaration of Andrew M. Lenarcic. THE COURT: I thought we had exhibit C which is this witness' declaration. 631 MR.FLYNN: We do, Your Honor. Mr. Litt has interjected something foreign to what we were discussing. THE COURT: Didn't you sign this declaration, exhibit C? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Well I assume that is what we are talking about, Counsel. MR. LITT: That is my misstatement. THE COURT: He is entitled to cross-examine as to what he meant or what his words were and so forth, but I think using the word "belonging" in this context -- in that part of a question is a little ambiguous. MR. FLYNN: I will narrow it, Your Honor. Q You stated in your declaration, Mr. Vorm, "I was aware at all times that these trunks were considered to be personal property of Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard." Is that correct? A That is true. Q Where did you get that awareness from? A By the fact that these were Mary Sue's trunks and that she had given me instructions on how to handle them and she was the authority as far as where the material -- where they could go or if they could go anywhere. 632 Q Now, that was your awareness with regard to the first trunk or first group of materials you gave to Mr. Armstrong? A That is true. Q With regard to the second group of materials you gave to Mr. Armstrong, what was your awareness with regard to that group as to whether they were the personal property of Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard? A It would be the same Q And where did you give the authority to give those documents to Mr. Armstrong? A From the new controller Gordon Cook. Q During the period of -- between 1979 and 1981 do you know what the line of authority was in the church hierarchy from L. Ron Hubbard down? A No. Q If L. Ron Hubbard authorized Gerald Armstrong to have the documents that you gave per Mr. Cook's order to Omar Garrison, would that be authority in your awareness superior to any other authority within the organization? MR. HARRIS: I'll object to that, Your Honor. It is compound; it also calls for speculation and is hypothetical in form. THE COURT: Well, it was hypothetical, certainly. People can ask questions that are hypothetical. I think it is somewhat ambiguous. And I think you can reframe it and make it less compound. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was Mr. Hubbard the supreme 633 authority within the Church of Scientology between 1979 and 1981? MR. HARRIS: To this witness' personal knowledge, or is he asking him as an expert? THE COURT: I think the question now becomes ambiguous because we have had testimony that about his writings and how he might be the philosophical underpinning or the theological underpinning of the church. I think you ought to -- as to what matters? Are we talking about control of these documents, or as to other matters, spiritual matters, or what? Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to your disposition of materials from the controller archives you testified you received one order from L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct? A I assumed it to be from L. Ron Hubbard, yes. Q Did you receive any other orders other than the one that you recall from L. Ron Hubbard? A They weren't really orders. Q What were they? A They were dispatches concerning the tape project that was going on; various thoughts that he had about it and how it was going, that type of thing. Q Did he give you any instructions? A Well, he said -- I believe he said I would suggest something or another, that you do this, that type of thing. Q Did you consider that to be -- did you consider L. Ron Hubbard, when you received that order, to be the 634 highest authority within the organization? MR. HARRIS: That mischaracterizes -- THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. It hasn't been established that he treated that as an order. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is it your testimony, Mr. Vorm, that you never received any other orders from L. Ron Hubbard? MR. HARRIS: Asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: It also characterizes what has not been established yet. I'll sustain the objection. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is there any document presently under seal that in your awareness is the property of the Church of Scientology? A I think there is a corporate resolution or a corporate establishment original down there. I am not sure what corporation it is from. If I recall, it was CSC. But I'm not positive about that. Q Can you give me the date? A No, I can't. Q Can you give me any other information so we can find it among the sealed documents? A Well, it seemed -- if I recall it seemed to be on legal-type paper, like it had the numbers down the side type thing. Q Do you know what it related to? A I don't recall. It was like a corporate -- original corporate document. 635 Q And in your understanding or awareness that belongs to the Church of Scientology; is that correct? MR. HARRIS: He is using "belongs" again, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is that the personal property of the Church of Scientology? MR. HARRIS: Corporate property of the Church of Scientology or ecclesiastical property of the Church of Scientology? The problem is it is very ambiguous at this point. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Where did it come from, Mr. Vorm? A I don't know, sir. Q Did it come from controller archives? A It could have. Q Could it have come from Guardian Office archives? A No. Q Could it have come from the biographical archives? A It could have. Q Can you name one other document? A Which -- Q That, according to your understanding, is the personal property of the Church of Scientology. MR. HARRIS: Are we talking about the Church of Scientology of California, the plaintiff here? THE COURT: I assume we are talking about the 636 plaintiff. MR. HARRIS: Very well. So modified, then, I would have no objection. BY MR. FLYNN: Can you name one other document, Mr. Vorm? A Not offhand; just from recall. Also, would have a question about the legality of ownership. I am not sure who owned legally some of the documents here. Q BY MR. FLYNN: The controller archives, is it your understanding that the church owns the controller archives? A No. Q Who owns those? A I am not really sure. I don't think it is the church. 637 Q Is it Mary Sue Hubbard or L. Ron Hubbard? A Could be. Q Well, whose possession have they been in? A They have been in my possession. Q Who do you work for? A I work for a corporation called CST. Q CST? A That is right. Q What corporation is that? A Church of Spiritual Technology. Q. Who gave the Church of Spiritual Technology authorization for you to hold these documents? A I don't know. MR. HARRIS: If -- THE COURT: Are we talking about now or talking about '77 to '81? Were you working for CST at that time, too? THE WITNESS: No, I wasn't. THE COURT: Who were you working for at that time? THE WITNESS: I believe it was Church of Scientology of California. THE COURT: When did you leave Church of Scientology of California and become an employee of CST, if you did? THE COURT: Approximately November '83. THE COURT: You may continue, Counsel. BY MR. FLYNN: So, is it your testimony that in November 1983 CST was the possessor of the controller archives? 638 A Well, I am not sure of the legal things on it. All I know was I started getting paid another corporation Q When you say you started getting paid, did you get a disbursement voucher? A Yes. Q What did it say on it? A Didn't say anything an it. Q It was blank? A Yes. Q How do you know you started getting paid by another corporation? A that is what I was told, and also the checks that -- our weekly checks that came in had CST written on it. Q You received checks? A Yes. Q Do you know whether Mr. Armstrong throughout the period he was involved in the organization received cash? A Well, I happen to handle finances for the archives, so, therefore, I received one check in which I disbursed to the staff. That is how I saw the check. Q How long have you been involved with the Church of Scientology. A About eight years or so. Q When did you first start receiving checks as opposed to cash? A For what? Q For your pay. 639 A For my individual pay? Q Correct. A I never received checks for my individual pay. Q Well, you are now getting checks from CST? A At the treasury terminal or person for the area I work in. Q Is that your pay? A It is a combined pay of all the staff which I then disburse to the staff. THE COURT: Including yourself; is that what you are saying? THE WITNESS: Yes. Q BY MR. FLYNN: And when you pay yourself, do you pay yourself by check or cash? A Cash. Q Where do those funds come from? THE COURT: If you know. MR. HARRIS: I will stipulate they come from a bank account, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well -- MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor. Q Is it your testimony that the controller archives are now in the possession of a corporation called CST? A I believe so. I don't have personal knowledge of the agreement and that type of thing. Q And is it your awareness that these documents 640 do not belong to CST? MR. HARRIS: "Belong"; Your Honor? THE COURT: Well, which documents. Q BY MR. FLYNN: The controller archives that are currently in the possession of the CST who, according to your understanding, owns these documents? A I don't know what to say to that. They are still in my possession. As far as who owns them, it could be Mr. Hubbard. I don't know for sure. Q Who gives you orders with respect to the documents, if anybody? A What kind of orders? Like day-to-day orders type things? Q First, day-to-day orders. A My immediate senior. Q Who does he work for? A I am not sure of his exact command lines. I think it might be Mr. Spurlock. Q Well does he work for Author Services Incorporated? A Who? Q Mr. Spurlock? A Yes. Q Is Author Services Incorporated a for profit corporation? A I don't know. Q Does it handle all the business affairs of L. Ron Hubbard? A I don't have any personal knowledge about that. 641 Q But you do get day-to-day orders from Lyman Spurlock; is that correct? A No. Q You got routine orders from Lyman Spurlock? A No, I get no orders from Lyman Spurlock except maybe very, very occasionally suggestions or something. Q Did you just testify a few moments ago that you get regular orders from Lyman Spurlock? A No. Q Do you know anything about Author Services Inc.? MR. HARRIS: Know by personal knowledqe, Your Honor, or hearsay? MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Have you done any work for Author Services Inc.? THE COURT: If you know. THE WITNESS: That I was paid for? Q BY MR. FLYNN: With or without pay. A I have gotten phone calls now and then from them if I had certain things in the archives, which I would go cheek and let them know. Q Is there anyone between the command lines between you and Lyman Spurlock? A Yes. Q Who? A A person named Dan Pryzbilski. Q How do you spell that? 642 A I am not sure. It is P-r-y-z-b-i-l-s-k-i, something like that. 643 Q What is his position? A He is the CO, LRH archives. Q What does "CO" stand for? A Stands for "commanding officer," the same as executive director. Q "LRH" stands for L. Ron Hubbard? A That's right. Q Where are those archives? A They are with me. Q Approximately how many pages of materials are in those archives? A It is the same archives. Q The same as the archives that Mr. Armstrong had? A It is the same everything we are talking about. The archives Mr. Armstrong had came into my possession. The controller archives are still in my possession and the whole thing is called the LRH archives now. Q Meaning that they belong to L. Ron Hubbard? MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I'll object to the form of the question. THE COURT: Well -- MR. HARRIS: That is the title. THE COURT: I suppose if that is a question, you can answer that if that is what it means. THE WITNESS: My understanding is that it means that it contains materials pertaining to LRH, primarily his 644 writings and his published works. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Does it have his personal materials also? MR. HARRIS: The writings and published works may be personal materials, Your Honor. I object to the form of the question. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Describe, if you can, Mr. Vorm, what is in LRH archives by categories. A There is the original Dianetics Scientology lectures; the written published materials, what you would call the technical materials; what was described earlier in the controller archives. There is the Mary Sue trunks; there are the materials that used to be in Mr. Armstrong's possession. Q If I can stop you right there, that if the four filing cabinets, you say? A Well, I am a little bit confused on the four filing cabinets. I am not sure if my answer yesterday -- what I was answering exactly on, on the four filing cabinets. That is what I meant to be original materials. As far as the other materials in there, I am not sure whether they were copies or exactly what they were. Q There were more than four filing cabinets that came from Mr. Armstrong? A Yes, there were. Q Approximately how much more? A Maybe three, four, five more filing cabinets and some boxes, that type of thing. 645 Q How many boxes? A Eight, ten, maybe more. Q So in addition to the four filing cabinets you testified about yesterday, there are now three to five more filing cabinets and eight to ten, maybe, more boxes from Mr. Armstrong's materials? A Of things from there, yes. Q Have those been inventoried? A Not that I know of. Q To your knowledge no person has inventoried those materials? A It is possible they have been. I am not sure. It could have been done right at the start of this whole thing. Q Do you know of anyone who would have done it? A Possibly Ken Long. THE COURT: Can you say of your own personal knowledge that of those two to three thousand pages that you described of original materials under seal that there are no copies of these within these other four to five filing cabinets and eight to ten other bones? THE WITNESS: I would be fairly certain of it. I have been through it myself. Q BY MR. FLYNN: You have been through it? A Yes. Q But you didn't inventory it? A No. Q Can you name one document in the two to three 646 thousand that may not be in those materials you just described? A Not without looking at the documents. Q Was there any other materials that are now in LRH archives other than what you have already described? A I think that pretty well covers it. Q Did the Omar Garrison documents go in there? A Yes. Q Now, approximately how many pages of material you estimate are now in LRH archives? A I have trouble estimating on the pages, exact number of pages. I mean there are 15, 20 file cabinets, 30 -- maybe 50 file cabinets worth of materials plus 5,000 tape lectures. Q How many boxes? A Oh, boy. Probably 20, 30, something like that. Q How big are the boxes? A Standard, maybe banker's box-type. Q A foot-and-a-half by two feet? A Yes, something like that. Q Have all of those materials been inventoried? A No. Q Would you estimate that the number of pages of materials is in excess of 500,000? A That might be a good figure. Q Have you ever seen, in connection with your duties, any orders stating who those materials belong to, who owns them? 647 A Well -- MR. HARRIS: "Orders," Your Honor? I have an objection to that characterization. How about "communications"? MR. FLYNN: I'll accept that. Q Have you ever seen any communications from anyone as to who owns those materials? A Yes, I have. Q What have you seen? A I saw a paragraph that evidently came from a dispatch that I was told was by Mr. Hubbard, saying that he owned the materials, the technical materials. Q What about the other materials? A I haven't seen anything on that. Q When did the dispatch come from Hubbard? A I don't know. Q Within the last year? A No. Q Two years? A It would have to have been before 1980. Q Before 1980? A June 1980, yes. Q Were these materials all collected in that location in June 1980? 648 MR. HARRIS: "These materials"; ambiguous. THE COURT: I will sustain it. Q BY MR. FLYNN: What was your position in June 1980? A Controller archives, IC. Q So, the dispatch you say you saw in June 1980-- THE COURT: I think he said before, some time before June 1980. THE WITNESS: Right. THE COURT: It had to be some time before June of 1980. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Your best memory was that it was some time before June of 1980? A Yes, that's correct. Q Was it signed? A No. Q Was it in typewritten form? A Yes. Q What was on it? A What was on -- Q Was there as R on it? A No. Q Were there any initials on it or was L. Ron Hubbard's name on it? A No. Q It was just a typewritten form? A Right. Q And it was your understanding it came from 649 Hubbard? A Yes, it was dated when I saw it that it came from Mr. Hubbard, Q And you accepted it as such as coming from him? A I had no reason to question it. Q Well, that was the routine, the command line; is that correct? MR. HARRIS: Well, what was -- "that" -- THE COURT: Sustained. Q BY MR. FLYNN: When you received communications of that nature where there was no signature or initials on it and you were told that it came from Hubbard, you accepted it as such; is that correct? A No, I wouldn't say that is correct. Q You didn't accept it? A Well I never received any communications from Mr. Hubbard that were in the way you just described. Q Well this communication you just testified about was in addition to the other communication you received in connection with the tapes? A No. Q The same communication? A Well it wasn't a communication that I received. Q Did you testify about a communication you received where the letter R was on it? A Yes. Q This communication you just testified about a moment ago where the communication said that these materials 650 belonged to L. Ron Hubbard, you testified, I believe, that that did not have an R on it; is that correct? A That is right. Q So now there are communications which in your understanding came from L. Ron Hubbard? A That is right. Q Did you testify earlier that there was only that you have received from L. Ron Hubbard? A Yes. Q All right. Are there any additional ones that you haven't told us about yet? A No. Q Who showed you that communication, the one that came some time prior to June 1980? A It was written in on the top of the program that I received a copy of. Q What was the program? A I think it was a program to inventory the materials in the archives or something like that. Q In controller archives or all the archives? A I think it was all the archives. Q And do you know whether it went to someone else besides you? A The program or -- MR. HARRIS: Well that assumes facts not in evidence. The witness has stated about three times, Your Honor, he only received one that went to him. He saw this -- MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor. 651 THE COURT: All right. Q BY MR. FLYNN: This communication, did it have a routing form up in the upper left-hand corner? A Of the program? Q Right. A Yes, it did. Q Tell the court what a routing form is. A Well at the top of a dispatch, it is like this, where you want the dispatch to go so you just put the person's post title and draw and arrow to it or something like that. Q And do you recall what the routing was on that program? A I think it was to C from a post title entitled R Account. Q To the controller from R Account? A Yes. Q R meaning L. Ron Hubbard? A I believe so, yes. Q Do you know what that office was, R Account? A No, I don't. Q Do you know where it existed within the organization, physically? MR. HARRIS: It assumes a fact not in evidence that it was an office. THE COURT: Well I believe he said it was an office. MR. HARRIS: He said it was a post. THE WITNESS: It was a post. THE COURT: Not a post office? 652 THE WITNESS: No. Q BY MR. FLYNN: You know that it was a post? A Yes. Q And do you know how many people worked on the duties related to this post? A Not exactly, no. Q Do you know where the post was located? A No. Q At that time did you do an inventory? A Not at that time, no. Q When did you do one? A A little bit later. Q Approximately how long after that? A Year and a half, maybe something like that. Q Now when you did that inventory, did you do it in connection with any lawyers? A No. Q Where is that inventory? A It should be in my files, my post files. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may that be produced? THE COURT: Well, let's see. Is this of materials that were in existence before the materials that you gave to Mr. Armstrong or was this something that was done after the materials -- when in point of time to the event we are talking about here did this inventory occur? THE WITNESS: I think it was done after. 653 THE COURT: Was that after -- before the materials came back from Garrison? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Was it before Mr. Armstrong left the church, or after? THE WITNESS: I think it was after. THE COURT: And did this incorporate all the materials that you had under your control in your job there at that time? THE WITNESS: Yes. But it was very general. It was like -- almost like a number of pages, number of files for the type of inventory as opposed to a specific item-by-item inventory. THE COURT: What would be the relevance of this? I am having a little trouble putting it into perspective. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was this inventory designed to inventory all the materials that Gerald Armstrong left in the biographical archives? A No. Q What was it designed to inventory? THE COURT: If you know. THE WITNESS: It was basically an inventory of controller materials primarily. Q BY MR. FLYNN: What color paper was it on? A White. Q Was it a Guardian Office program? A No, it wasn't. Q Do you know whether LRH accounts was a Church of 654 Scientology post? A No, I don't. Q You don't know? A I don't know. Q Your recollection is that the program was to inventory all of the documents in controller archives; is that correct? A Yes, something like that. I can't remember the exact -- Q Did you do the inventory? A Yes. Q And you previously testified you didn't do it in connection with any lawyers; is that correct? A That is true. Q And did you inventory any materials that were outside controller archives? A Not with this particular inventory, no. Q Did you do an inventory at that time of materials outside controller archives pursuant to another order? A No. MR. HARRIS: Excuse me. That is a mischaracterization, "another" in respect to order, Your Honor. MR. FLYNN: Communication. Q How many inventories have you done, Mr. Vorm? MR. HARRIS: Of anything in his life, Your Honor? MR. FLYNN: Of documents -- 655 Q Between 1979 and the present time of documents relating to the biography archives, the controller archives, how many inventories have you done? A Just this one, I believe. We are actually in progress of putting together a computer index of the technical materials, but that won't be a complete inventory right now. Q Has a computer index been made of the biographical materials? A I don't know. Q Do you know anyone who would have knowledge about that? A Not offhand, no. Q Well, the biographical materials are now all under your possession in CST; is that correct? A That is true. Q Is anybody in there inventorying them? A No. Q To your knowledge has anyone ever inventoried them? A Well, I think I said earlier I think there might have been something done when Gerry first left to go through and try to make some kind of list up. Q Who did that? A I think it was Ken Long. Q So that was an inventory that was done when Mr. Armstrong left before lawyers became involved; is that correct? 656 A I am not sure when the lawyers became involved. Q Have you seen that inventory that Mr. Long did? A I have seen pages of it or parts of it. MR. FLYNN: May that be produced, Your Honor? That is specifically relevant to when Mr. Armstrong left. THE COURT: Is this still something that is within your control over there? THE WITNESS: No. I never had any control over that. THE COURT: How did you happen to see it? THE WITNESS: I think I was just over there in the office for something when some work was being done on it. THE COURT: Is this part of the matters under the Church of Scientology of California's control? THE WITNESS: I think it would be, yes. THE COURT: Well, what is your position on this, Mr. Harris? MR. HARRIS: Since I know of no such thing, Your Honor, I don't have a position. But I'll inquire and let Your Honor know. THE COURT: Maybe you can check with Mr. Long if he is available and find out if there is such. MR. HARRIS: Yes. THE COURT: Let's take a 15 minute break. (Recess.) 657 THE COURT: Very well, in the case on trial, let the record reflect that counsel are all present. The witness has retaken the stand. State your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath. THE WITNESS: My name is Tom Vorm. THE COURT: You may continue, Counsel. MR. FLYNN: A few more questions, Your Honor. Q How many years have you been involved with the organization? MR. HARRIS: The "organization" meaning the religion of Scientology, Your Honor? THE COURT: Well, he's been there since '75; is that right? THE WITNESS: That is correct. THE COURT: One position or another. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did the Guardian's Office during that period, if you know, handle public relations for L. Ron Hubbard? A I don't know. Q Was there a post L. Ron Hubbard personal public relations that also handled public relations for L. Ron Hubbard? MR. HARRIS: Well, "also." MR. FLYNN: If you know. MR. HARRIS: "Also," Your Honor. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection to the use of the word "also." 658 MR. FLYNN: Strike the word "also." Q Was there a post L. Ron Hubbard personal public relations that handled public relations for L. Ron Hubbard while you have been in the church? A That was my understanding of the post title. It was called LRH personal public relations. Q Have you over been through the B-1 archives relating to L. Ron Hubbard? MR. HARRIS: The question assumes facts not in evidence, to wit: That there is such a thing as B-1 archives. MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it. Q Do you know anything about B-1 archives relating to L. Ron Hubbard, Mr. Vorm? A No, sir. Q Have you ever heard of that term? A No. Q I take it then you have never seen any files or documents from any such place? A That is not true. Q So you have seen files or documents from B-1 archives? A I have never heard the term B-1 archives. Q What term have you heard? A B-1. Q Have you seen files from B-1? A Yes. Q Relating to what? 659 A I went in there one time. I was trying to recall what it was about. I think it was the question I had regarding some group or another, whether we had any information on them on who they were, what they were. Q Do you remember when that was? A That was around 1981, something like that. Q And how big of a room was the room that contained B-1 files? A Oh, maybe about a quarter of the size of this courtroom. 660 Q And filled with files? A Rows of files; would be three or four rows of files. THE COURT: Well, so that if somebody wants to know, the courtroom is 30 by 37, 30 feet by 37 feet. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was that floor-to-ceiling, Mr. Vorm? A No. It is just file cabinet-size high. Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not B-1 files contain the master files relating to documents belonging to L. Ron Hubbard? A No, sir, I don't. Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not all the documents currently under seal are in the B-1 files? A No. Q You have no knowledge? THE COURT: Your answer? THE WITNESS: No, I don't. Q BY MR. FLYNN: In 1981 when you went in there do you know who was in charge of B-1 Bureau? A I don't recall at that time, no. Q Who gave you permission to go in there? A I went in with a girl that I knew. Q What was her name? A Her name was Marsha Williams. THE COURT: What does "B-1" signify? THE WITNESS: Bureau 1 of the Guardian's Office. Q BY MR. FLYNN: What does the Bureau 1 Office do? 661 MR. HARRIS: Objection, Your Honor; only if he knows. THE COURT: If you know. Q BY MR. FLYNN: If you know. A My understanding is that it just collects information on things the church was interested in. Q Investigations in intelligence-type activities; is that your understanding? A Possibly. But I don't have any first-hand knowledge of that. Q Do you know whether there were any documents under seal that came from the B-1 files? A No, I don't. Q Do you have any knowledge of the circumstances under which the church conducts investigations? A No, I don't. Q Before you worked for CSC did you work for a corporation called CSI? A For a brief period. I am not sure how the legalities go on it. We were called CSI for a while and then I believe CSC remunerated CSI. Q Did you ever receive any payment vouchers from CSI? A I don't recall. We were paid by CSI for a period of time. Q Did you receive cash? A For my individual pay, yes. I can't quite recall if it was a CSI check. I guess it had to be a CSI 662 check that came in for our expenses and I got disbursed as cash. Q How long did you work for CSI? A Around eight months, something like that. Q So from November of '83 to the present you have worked for CSC? A Correct. Q From November '83 back eight months, you worked for CSI? A No. Q When did you work for CSI? A It was a period from around March, '82 to around December '82. Q And between December '82 to November '83 who did you work for? A CSC. Q Did you get disbursement vouchers for your pay from CSI? A Well, I don't think that the vouchers had anything written on them. The check came in from CSI. I disbursed the pay myself and I just basically bought some disbursement vouchers from the local stationery there. There was no imprint on the voucher itself. Q Have you ever seen any employment payment vouchers for CSI with the name "CSI" embossed on them? A No, I haven't. Q Have you ever seen any wage vouchers with the 663 name CSC embossed on them? A I don't recall. Q Did you ever get a W-2 form from CSC? A Yes. Q Did you ever get a W-2 form from CSI? A I don't -- it is possible, yes. Q Did you get a W-2 form from CST? A I think I did, yes. Q Did you ever get a payment voucher that had the name of any corporation written on it or embossed on it? A I don't recall. It is possible. 664 Q Do you have any knowledge as to the relationship of Mary Sue Hubbard, if any, to CST? A No. Q You have no knowledge one way or the other? A No. Q Do you have any knowledge one way or the other as to the relationship of Mary Sue Hubbard to CSI? A No. Q How many different corporations have you worked for in connection with your Scientology-related activities? A Well, there was Celebrity Center, which I think is a separate corporation; Church of Scientology of California; and then the CSI, Church of Scientology International. I am not really sure, as I say, about the technicalities of that because at the end of the year, CSI was reimbursed for all our pay and expenses, so I believe it would be technically we were CSC for that period also and then for CST at the present time. MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor? THE COURT: Redirect examination? MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor. I abide by my own rule, I don't know if it is the court's rule, not to discuss the witness' testimony while under cross-examination. I wonder if I could take about three minutes to work out a bit of redirect with Mr. -- just areas. THE COURT: All right, take three minutes. 665 THE COURT: we are back in session. You may continue. MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS: Q Mr. Vorm, just so we can try to straighten out the archives aspect, can you tell me, at the time that Mr. Armstrong was at the church and had archives what materials -- strike that. Did you know the nature of the materials that he had? A Yes. Q All right, now to the point where Mr. Armstrong left the church were you aware of the materials that he had that originally came from the trunks? A Yes. I was fairly familiar with these. Q Now, had there been -- you testified, as I recall, that there was an inventory that came into your possession of the items that were in the trunks. A Yes. Q And at the time that you gave the materials to -- you gave Mr. Armstrong materials on two separate occasions; right? A Yes. Q On the second occasion that you gave materials to Mr. Armstrong, did you use the inventory in order to determine what he was going to be taking? 666 A Yes, I did. Q What was done on that inventory? A Well, as we went through the inventory, the procedure for most of the transfer was that I would go through the files and Gerry had the inventory. Then he was checking off the items with a felt pen that he was going to be taking so we would have some record of what left the archives. Q And this inventory with the markings on it is presently in your files? A Yes. Q Did Mr. Armstrong check off items on the inventory that he wanted originals of? A Well, the whole transfer was basically originals. It was primarily all original materials except for the private correspondence and things that I wouldn't give him. 667 Q All right, now, just so I can get this straight, in the trunks were materials that you gave Mr. Armstrong originals of? A yes. Q In the trunks there were also materials that you gave Mr. Armstrong copies of? A Yes. Q Of the materials that you gave him only copies of, what criteria did you use? In other words, why didn't you give him the originals? A Well, as I said yesterday, there were certain items that I just considered very, very private, but that under his insistence they would be needed, like a verification of dates, that type of thing. I let copies go out on them. Q I am showing you my copy of exhibit 10. I didn't realize you had that here, too. Was the communication from Mary Sue Hubbard in exhibit 10 your guideline as to what documents were personal? A Yes. Q Now, when Mr. Garrison -- maybe we should go back and fix times here. When did you become aware that Mr. Armstrong had left the church? A I think it was some time in December of '81, possibly January '82. Q And when if ever did you get the materials that had been in Mr. Armstrong's archives? 668 A I am not sure of the exact date. I think it was either the end of '82, the beginning of '83, some time in that period. Q The period of time from the time that Mr. Armstrong left to the time that you had got the files that had been in his area, do you know who had responsibility for those files? A I think they were under Mr. Lenarcic. Q Now, during that period of time, that is when-- after Mr. Armstrong had left and before you got the files, did you visit the Armstrong file area? A Yes. Q The chart I showed you yesterday which was exhibit 12, the drawing of the archives area, in what building was that? A It is what we would call the main building. It is the seventh story, main building of the Cedars complex. Q And the Cedars complex, do you know what that was prior to being a Scientology organization? A Yes, it was the old Cedars of Lebanon Hospital. Q Now when you visited the area where the Armstrong archives were before you got those, where did you go? A I went to the same area that was on the chart. Q At same point you received the Garrison materials? A Yes. 669 Q And when was that? A The middle of '83 sometime. I'm not sure of the exact date on that. Q Now, when you received the Armstrong materials did you go through them? A I didn't right at first, no. Q Did you at some time? A Yes. Q And when was that? A A few months later. Q And when you went through them -- well, strike that. Why did you go through them? A I was looking for some particular document that someone wanted to know if it was there or not. So I went through all the materials. Q How many times did you go through the materials that were recovered from the Armstrong archives? A I went through those once fully and then over a period of whenever I got them, I probably have been into them maybe 20, 30 times, looking for various items. Q In the process of going through those, you never prepared a written inventory? A No. Q The Garrison documents which you got in the middle of 1983, is that your testimony? A I think so, yes. I'm not sure of the exact date. 670 Q When you received those documents did you go through those? A Not when I first got them, but I did go through them. Q When did you go through them in relation to the time that you got them? A It was a few months later. I'm not sure exactly on that either. Q For what purpose did you go through those? A Through the Garrison documents? Q Yes. A I was looking for particular item. Q How many times did you go through the Garrison documents? A Once fully. Q And, again, on that occasion you did not prepare a written inventory? A Were you generally familiar with the documents that were in both the Armstrong archives and the Garrison materials that were returned by the time you saw the sealed documents here? A Yes. I was fairly familiar with them. Q And when you -- how many times did you look at the sealed documents here? A I came down here twice. A And did you make a cursory or thorough examination on the times you came, if you understand "cursory"? 671 A Some of it was cursory; some it was thorough. It depended on what the particular item was that I was looking at. Q How did you come to your estimate of two to three thousand documents, original documents that are under seal that you do not have in archives? A Well, from what I saw in the sealed documents, the thing that caught my attention was actual originals that I had given to Gerry in the first place. And those just kind of stood out because I recalled giving them to him and they had been in my archives for a while prior to that. And I did not see them when I went through the Garrison stuff previously and in a period of time that I had been into the general category of Armstrong documents that had been given to me earlier. Q Yesterday you testified that you couldn't name one document that was under seal that was an original that you didn't have a copy of; could you tell me why you couldn't name such? A I just couldn't recall the exact name of the document because I handled so many documents and there are so many documents that are concerned in this case, what -- Like I say, what I testified to on the two to three thousand were documents that caught my attention as I was going through the file. But I didn't specifically remember the names of those documents. Q Do you have a present belief that if you had the documents you could pull out ones like that? 672 A Yes. MR. HARRIS: I have nothing further. 673 THE COURT: Any further cross? MR. FLYNN: Just a couple, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN: Q Could you use an inventory to pull out the ones you don't believe the organization has possession of that are under seal? A Probably some of them, but in some cases the actual physical item itself is what caught my attention. Q But you could use an inventory for some of them? A Probably. Q And you have possession of those inventories? A Right here or where? Q In your files. A Which inventories? Q The inventories that could show you what documents the organization does not have possession of that are under seal. A No, I don't. Q You have no such inventory? A No. Q You did have the inventory that you received when you gave the materials to Mr. Armstrong from the trunk which was checked off? A Yes. Q That inventory is in your files? A Yes. 674 Q You do have an inventory of the sealed documents? A No, I don't. Q Have you had access to an inventory of the sealed documents? A I saw it once when it was first made and I saw it one time since then. Q Could you obtain access to this inventory and compare it to the inventory that you had in the trunks? A Yes, I could. Q Have you done it? A No. Q And you don't know what is in the B-1 files relating to L. Ron Hubbard? A No. Q You were asked a question about the guideline that you used which was exhibit 10 with regard to what you should give to Mr. Armstrong; is that correct? A Yes. Q And as to the materials that you didn't give to Mr. Armstrong per the second paragraph of exhibit 10, you sent to the Special Unit at Gilman Hot Springs? A No I did not. Q Did they go to the Special Unit at Gilman Hot Springs? A No. Q Where did they go? A They remained with me. Q Well, was your guideline that those materials 675 should go to the Special Unit for storage? A No, not particularly. Q Did you read exhibit 10 when you received it? A Yes. Q Would you read the second paragraph to yourself. A (Reading.) "So you will have to send over" -- to myself? Q Well, read it out loud. A (Reading.) "So you will have to send over or repack with the trunks all personal possessions and things which really do not belong in archives and route back to SU for storage until I can get to it." Q Did you consider that to be an order to send those materials back to SU? A After I had gone through them and sorted them out, yes. Q And did you do it? A No. Q And did you receive contrary orders not to do it? A Well, the paragraph at the bottom that says "Thank you" was an additional short communication received later which says basically to have the materials sent over as they are gone through to Mary Sue. Q At the Special Unit? A No. 676 Q Where? A I am not sure where she was at that time. Q Did you do that? A I did it on one occasion which was the original two boxes of material that went to Mr. Armstrong. Q Did you do it on any other occasion? A No. Q Why not? A I was told that she was too busy to handle that and it kept getting put off until she could get to it. Q So you received orders from someone else that you obeyed with regard to the disposition of these materials? A With regard to whether should send them to her at that time or later. Q Now your testimony is you used exhibits 10-A, a guidelines is that correct? A Yes. Q Would you look at exhibit 11, please, specifically what is the fourth page of exhibit 11, the last Xerox page. Now, the back three pages of exhibit 11 were instructions from Mary Sue Hubbard; is that correct? A It was a letter from Mary Sue, yes. Q Telling you on three pages what to do with the materials; is that correct? A Well I considered it to be more or less a -- she was telling me what her view should be as to where the materials should be, who should be handling them, how they 677 were going to go, who was going to care for them, that type of thing. 678 Q Well, these three pages, would you agree with me, are much more extensive in terms of instructions of what to do with the materials than exhibit 10? A Not exactly. Because exhibit 10 was a procedural matter. This is a general guideline as to probably what happened with the materials. Q Did you follow the general guideline on exhibit 11? A Yes -- no. exhibit. Exhibit 10, do you mean? Q No; on exhibit 11. A Well, I am not sure exactly what guideline you are referring to. She doesn't really tell me to do anything. Q Does it give you instructions as to what to do with what materials? A No. Q Was it attached to the front page of exhibit 11? A Yes. Q So when you sent exhibit 11 to the controller Mary Sue Hubbard you received back the three-page letter from Mary Sue Hubbard as to what to do with the material; isn't that basically correct? A No, it is not. Q Where did you get the back three pages of exhibit 11? A That was in reply to an earlier communication I 679 sent to Mary Sue just informing her that there was this project being done to sort our the archives at Worldwide. And that is what she writes back, "It would be a waste of time to go back laboriously and lay out what happens with the archives and what should be done with them." Q Where is that document? A Which document. Q The document you sent to get instructions as to what to do with the archives. A It wasn't a document asking for instructions. Q What was it? A It was a note informing her that there was a project going on to sort out the archives. This was what was happening on it, just to let her know that this was going on. Q Where is that document? A It is in my file. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, could we have that document produced? We feel that would be a very important document to the defense in this case. THE COURT: All right. It will be ordered to be produced. Q BY MR. FLYNN: In response to that document you got the back three pages of exhibit 11; is that correct? A That is true. Q If you turn to the last sentence on the bottom of the third page, the top of the fourth page, it states 680 there ". . .then we come to the matter of personal materials of the founder which would be of historical interest." Do you see that? A Uh-huh. Q (Reading:) ". . .There has been no place prior to this where such has been kept except in the areas where he has lived and worked." Do you see that? A Yes. Q Do you recall reading that back in 1980 when you received it? A Yes. Q And then it goes on: ". . .So DC has or had all of these files from when he was there. UK has some of these files as evidenced by the list of some of the materials which were indexed." Do you see that? A Yes. Q And the last sentence: ". . .These are currently being gathered up by LRH Personal Sec PRO Research Unit"; do you see that? A Yes. Q So you knew in the summer of 1980 that Mary Sue Hubbard knew that the LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit was gathering up all the personal materials of the founder; is 681 that correct? MR. LITT: Of historical interest, Your Honor. That is what the document says. THE COURT: Whatever it says. Q BY MR. FLYNN: You knew that, Mr. Vorm? A Whatever it says I am aware of, yes. Q So the second time that you sent materials to Gerald Armstrong when you received permission from Gordon Cook you knew that Mary Sue Hubbard had given you those instructions in August of 1980; isn't that correct? A That is not correct. Q Did you receive this document dated August 26, 1980 in August of 1980? A Yes. Q And you read it? A Yes. Q Did you understand it? A Yes. Q Did you understand it to mean that the personal materials of the founder which would be of historical interest were going to go to the LRH Personal Sec PRO Research Unit? A I understood it to mean that these were being gathered up by that unit. Q You knew it came from Mary Sue Hubbard? A Yes. Q In preparation for your testimony have you talked to Mary Sue Hubbard? 682 A No. Q Do you know whether she has denied giving you permission -- strike that. In your affidavit you state that Mary Sue Hubbard never gave you permission to give personal materials of the founder; is that correct? THE COURT: To the founder? MR. FLYNN: Of the founder to Gerald Armstrong. THE WITNESS: No, that is not correct. Q BY MR. FLYNN: It doesn't say that? MR. HARRIS: It says what it says. It is in evidence, exhibit C. THE COURT: This is cross-examination. Let's get the document before the witness and let the witness look at it. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Would you read paragraph No. 6 on page 2? 683 THE COURT: Paragraph 6. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, doesn't it say there, Mr. Vorm, that: "Although I was uncomfortable with this" -- namely, giving materials to Gerald Armstrong which you say you gave at his insistence -- "as I knew that much of the material pas the personal possession of Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard, I felt obliged under the circumstances to provide the material to Gerry Armstrong. At no time, so far as I am aware, did either Mr. or Mrs. Hubbard personally approve this procedure, but in their absence the situation was confused and I did not know what else to do." A Right. Q Did you state that under oath? A Yes, I did. Q And you knew when you stated that, did you not, that Mary Sue Hubbard had written the back three pages of exhibit 11? A That is true. Q Approving or knowing that the materials were going to the LRH Per Sec PRO Research Unit. MR. LITT: Objection; the materials -- THE COURT: Well, it is argumentative. We know what is in the letter. MR. FLYNN: That is all I have. 684 THE COURT: Anything further? MR. HARRIS: I have nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. You may step down. I am excusing/you subject to your being on call in the event that your further testimony is required in relation to these other documents that are going to be produced, sir. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if I can interject, we have just been served with an application for a stay of these proceedings which has just been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of California. They have filed on this past Wednesday a similar application in the Appeals Court and on page 3 of the application, the plaintiff and intervenor has stated that, "Both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals refused to grant petitioner's request to stay the trial pending a ruling on the petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition." To my knowledge, Mr. Litt represented to this court on Monday that they had not and were not asking this court to grant a stay of these proceedings. MR. LITT: Let me clarify the situation. It was our understanding from the court's ruling that the matter would be continued until yesterday and there would be no further continuances. That the court would not entertain a stay. We said we might seek, but we would not come back to this court on Thursday and seek a further stay. If we got a further stay, we'd get it from the Court of Appeals. It was our understanding that this court would not grant a 685 stay. I think the representation is an accurate representation of what has gone on. We have returned on Thursday. We are proceeding. If the Supreme Court deems fit to grant any of the relief we seek, fine. This is perfectly normal procedure. I don't understand what the problem is. THE COURT: Well, I did say that the case was going to proceed on Thursday short of actually receiving an order staying from the Court of Appeal or some Appellate Court. So, while that isn't I suppose, expressly a denial of a quote stay, I think that is a fair implication of what I was saying. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I understand that there was a motion for a continuance, but I also understood Mr. Litt to say very specifically on Monday that he was not applying to this court for a stay. MR. LITT: What I was meaning to stay, if there was any confusion, is we were not going to come back to the court on Thursday and say, "Your Honor, we want a stay to go to the Court of Appeals." We indicated at the time that we might seek relief in the Court of Appeals, and what I was saying was we are not going to come back to this court and try to continue again on that basis and we have not done so, and that was certainly my intention, and I took it as the court has indicated that the court would not grant the stay, and we construed what had occurred here as a denial by this court of the stay. 686 I think that was a fair reading, as the court has said, and I don't understand what the problem is. MR. FLYNN: The problem is, Your honor, we are in the middle of a trial where in these pleadings they have laid out that they requested continuances which are, I submit, different than a request far a stay pending an emergency appellate review of a claimed constitutional issue. The continuances were predicated upon taking the deposition of Laurel Sullivan and reviewing the documents that are under seal. That was the specific reason that was given for the motions for a continuance, and, in fact, Mr. Litt represented to the court that he had not been down and examined the documents because he thought that they were private. In fact, over the next three days Mr. Litt hardly attended and reviewed the documents. MR. LITT: Your Honor, please. I spent the rest of the day Tuesday and a good portion of the day Wednesday. I had people down there working and getting me notes. I wish Mr. Flynn would just confine himself to what the issue is. THE COURT: I assume that what is bothering Mr. Flynn is he now has to get some kind of response over to the Supremes and the problem I have is we are proceeding to trial, so I don't really know that there is anything else before me. MR. LITT: May I just explain the normal procedure. Mr. Flynn perhaps is not aware. I know that this court is. That is that a petition is filed. If the court wants a 687 reply if it is not going to summarily deny the petition, then it establishes a timetable for the reply. A letter has already been prepared by Ms. Dragojevic's office in response to the writ in the Court of Appeals. With a change of title, the same letter can be submitted by them to the Supreme Court if they choose to do so. Obviously from our point of view if we are going to seek relief, we have to do it as rapidly as possible. That I think is apparent. I don't think there is anything wrong with what has been done here. It is a perfectly normal procedure when you are seeking relief. MR. FLYNN: The problem I have got is a procedural problem. Mr. Litt requested two continuances of the court for reasons that have nothing to do with seeking a legal review. 688 Now, he has informed the Appellate Court that he tried to get a stay for this reason before this court, not for continuance on the ground submitted, but a stay to get an appellate review on these claimed constitutional issues. And that was never brought up before this court. THE COURT: Well, this is not the forum to be making that point. This is the forum to be trying the case. Let's continue with our trial. MR. FLYNN: We are prepared to continue. But we are in the posture of where these papers have been filed in the Appellate Court where they blatantly mischaracterize what is going on here. There was never a request to stay pending appellate review. THE COURT: I suppose that is accurate. It would have been denied if it had been requested. MR. LITT: Your Honor, we said we were going to go to the Court of Appeals. And the court said -- THE COURT: You said you might. MR. LITT: We were considering it. And Your Honor said if there is an order from the Court of Appeal, the case will be stayed; otherwise, it will not. We took that as a denial of the stay on this issue. The court has just said that is a fair reading of it. I don't think we have made any misrepresentations to anybody. If Mr. Flynn is requesting a brief adjournment 689 to prepare a letter to go to the Supreme Court, then he should make that request; otherwise, I don't know what we are discussing. MR. FLYNN: We are ready to proceed, Your Honor. We are discussing the fact that we feel we have been sandbagged. MR. HARRIS: Once we start talking about that, Your Honor, there has been some blatant misrepresentations made by Mr. Flynn to this court in his opening statement yesterday. So let's not get into it. I guess what I am trying to say -- THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. LITT: Your Honor, let me ask the court how it wishes to proceed. The next item of evidence that we'll present is what we'll read into the record, a variety of statements made by Mr. Armstrong in the course of his depositions. I don't think that we'll complete that in the next half hour. We can begin, if the court wishes, and complete it after lunch. THE COURT: You may begin it. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, Mr. Armstrong is available here for testimony. Is this being read in to impeach him? THE COURT: Under the Code of Civil Procedure they can use the testimony of a party given in a deposition for any lawful purpose. And they are offering it, apparently, as it may be an admission of some aspect of the case. It may be to show some other evidentiary element that is relevant to 690 their case in chief. So I assume that is why they are proposing to read this in this fashion. They don't have to put the witness on the stand since he is a party to the lawsuit. MR. LITT: Your Honor, if I may just explain procedurally how I'll do this, I have organized these materials in as logical a way as I could. So they are not organized in the way that they appear in the deposition. What I'll do is read into the record -- these are all from depositions of Mr. Armstrong taken in this case. I'll read into the record the date of the transcript from which I am reading and the beginning line and when I finish reading, I'll say the ending line. Unless the court has some other method which -- THE COURT: I am a little concerned. I don't know. Counsel has to maneuver back and forth around with, apparently, three different transcripts. MR. LITT: I have available for both the court and counsel, if it wishes, copies. I would like the copies returned to me, but I can provide them for purposes of following. Would the court also like a set? 691 THE COURT: Yes, I was wondering if you are just going to be reading and you have these all excerpted, maybe the reporters could just transcribe those from the copies rather than attempt to take it as you are reading it. MR. LITT: I can certainly provide it to the reporters for their reference. I think they could follow it. It moves around quite a bit. THE COURT: Would the reporter prefer to just copy it from those documents or would you want to go ahead and take it? REPORTER HARRIS: Both. MR. LITT: Would Your Honor like a set? THE COURT: It would be helpful. MR. HARRIS: As I get bored, Your Honor, with people reading things in the record, may I be excused? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LITT: The ones that are turned to the side are just because they were recently added so I wanted to make sure when I came to them they were in the right place. THE COURT: All right. MR. LITT: Deposition of August 17, 1982, line 9. THE COURT: You probably should say the page, also. MR. LITT: I am sorry. Page 12: "Q Mr. Armstrong, let's back up for a moment. "When did you begin your career with Scientology? "A 1969. 692 "Q In what capacity did you start with Scientology? "A I read some books. "Q How did you become affiliated with the religion of Scientology? "A I went to a -- what they called in those days a franchise in Vancouver, and I enrolled in the course. "Q Which course was that? "A That was the -- called the Communications Course. "Q Is that an introductory course to Scientology? "A Yes." Ends at line 21. Deposition of August 17 1982, page 19, beginning at line 10 and continuing onto page 20 ending at line 4: "Q Did you apply for membership? "A Yes. "Q When was that application processed? "A From the first I received some promotional materials from the Sea Organization, that was the first step. And then I went to Los Angeles and I signed my contract. "Q What was that contract all about? What was contained in it? "A It was a billion-year contract 693 in which I agreed to support the goal, the purpose of the Sea Organization, which I believe was the creation or maintaining or whatever of highly functioning Scientology and Dianetics organizations. "Q Do you have any specific recollection of that or are you guessing at this point? "A No, I have some good recollection. I can't say verbatim, but that is pretty close. It is a half a page of document. "Q How long were you in the Sea Organization? "A Ten months -- ten years and about ten months. "Q When was the last date that you were a member of the Sea organization, as far as you are concerned? "A December 12th -- around there. It took a day or so to get all of my materials out, but that is really it." Deposition of September 19, 1983, page 152 lines 6-8. "Q Prior to that, you had been a Scientology staff member; right? "A Broadly, yes." Deposition of January 14, 1983, page 16, beginning at line 12 and continuing onto page 17, ending at line 2: 694 "Q Well, when did you assume a staff position? "A Okay. 1969. "Q How old were you at the time? "A Twenty-three. "Q What position was that? "A I gave introductory lectures. "Q Where? "A In Vancouver." Deposition of January 14, 1983, page 46, beginning at line 27, continuing on to page 47,ending at line 1. "Q After January 1980, what position did you assume? "A I became the LRH Pers PRO Researcher." And it is repeated, spelled out. Deposition of August 17, 1982, page 123, beginning at line 21, continuing unto page 124 through line 17: "Q Well, when you first got started, the archives was a new project then, wasn't it? "A Yes. "Q How did you come to be assigned to that project? "A I petitioned L. Ron Hubbard. "Q Was the project basically one of your creations? "A Basically, yes. "Q You saw a need and thought it had to be fulfilled and thought you were the right 695 man for the job isn't that true? "A Yes. "Q What did you say to Mr. Hubbard in your petition? "A I laid out what I wanted to do, that I wanted to get the biography written, that I had found some of his materials and so forth. I asked him if I could do the job, and he responded and said 'Yes.' "Q And then at some point you wrote to Mary Sue Hubbard and explained what you were doing on the project, didn't you? "A Yes. "Q What was her reaction to your letter? "A Her reaction was that -- I don't recall her exact answer. It was a favorable, you know, thing. She was glad that it was being done. I believe she mentioned that there was also other archives around and I should strike up a liaison with those people." Deposition of January 14, 1983, page 53, beginning at line 11, continuing through all of page 54, all of page 55, and page 56 through line 11: "Q And what is your understanding of what your job function was in assuming this position?" -- referring to the researcher position. "A I was to assemble documentation for a biography to be written about L. Ron Hubbard. 696 "Q Who was writing the biography? "A We did not have a writer. "Q Well, were you aware of the existence of some plan to try to obtain a writer? "A Yes. 697 "Q How did you become aware of that? "A I knew about that in conversations with Laurel Sullivan. "Q And in the petition what were your reasons for suggesting that you be assigned to this post? "A It was an area in which I had a lot of interest. I felt that I was fairly good at research-type activities. I had already put in about nine years of service. That's about it. "Q And I take it you felt that you could assist in bringing about this biographical project by your participation? "A Yes. "Q And also assist in gathering various materials to be displayed concerning Mr. Hubbard's life and work? "A Yes. "Q And were you enthusiastic about the project at the time? "A Yes. "Q Did you feel that it would be of value to Scientology and to Mr. Hubbard's work at the time? "A Yes. "Q Were there various people that you copied in on your petition? 698 "A Yes. "Q Do you remember who or what posts? "A I believe they were principally those people who were my seniors at that time, DCO HU, CO HU, Pers PRO. There may have been more. "Q And would it be fair to say that you were, as you understand it, assigned to this post in order to help to develop Scientology and Mr. Hubbard's work? "A Yes. "Q That was your understanding? In fact that was your intention; right? "A Yeah. "Q You would not have been assigned to this post if you were not a Scientologist; correct? "A I can't say that. "Q Give me your opinion based on your experience. "A (No response.) "Q You can't give an opinion? "A No. I think that any outsider would have done it just as well. "Q No. I'm not asking whether you could have performed it. I am asking whether you would have been assigned to it. 699 "A I don't know. "Q Well, let me ask you a question: Do you know of anybody who was ever assigned to a position within the Scientology structure that was not a Scientologist? "A Omar Garrison, who's writing the book. "Q No, no, no. Do you have any information that Omar Garrison was assigned to a Scientology post? "A Oh, if it were a Scientology post, then it would have to be a Scientologist. "Q Well, this was a Scientology post, wasn't it? "A It was a brand new thing. "Q Did you consider it a Scientology post? "A Yes. But it need not have been. That's all I'm saying. "Q Mr. Armstrong, answer my question. As I told you before, your lawyer will have an opportunity to ask you whatever he wants at the time. "You considered it a Scientology post; is that correct? "A Yes. "Q You petitioned for it on the basis of your experience of what procedure one 700 would go through to try to get assigned within the Scientology structure to such a post; is that correct? "A Yes. "Q And in all the years you were in Scientology, you never observed anyone who was not a Scientologist get assigned to a Scientology post; correct? "A Correct." The deposition of January 14, 1983, page 57; lines 18 through 24. (Reading:) "Q So the point is that you understood that in your being assigned to this post, you were trying to help Scientology and Mr. Hubbard? "A Yes. "Q And you understood that, obviously, if that wasn't your intention, you wouldn't have been assigned to this post? "A Yes." The deposition of January 14, 1983, page 56, lines 21 through 25: "Q You were transferred from one position within the Scientology structure to another position within the Scientology structure after your petition was granted; is that correct? 701 "A Yes." The deposition of September 19, 1983, line -- actually, beginning at the end of line 15, going through line 23: "Q Isn't it a fact that if there had been an order by an organization senior, whether signed by L. Ron Hubbard or not, that removed you from your post, you would have been gone from your post; isn't that true? "A I -- the thing is would it ever have occurred? "Q No. The thing is if it had occurred, wouldn't you have been gone? "A If it had occurred, I would have been gone." 702 Deposition of January l4, 1983, page 52, beginning at line 25 and continuing onto page 53, at line 4: "Q Well, was there someone that, in carrying out this position, you in fact reported to? "A Yes. "Q Who was that? "A Laurel Sullivan. "Q What was her position at that time? "A She was the senior LRH Personal Public Relations Officer." Deposition of September 19, 1983, page 232, beginning at line 16 through line 27: "Well, was there anybody who was supposed to review your work? I mean, are you telling me that you wrote weekly reports, and whoever upline, so to speak, was interested would look at it, but there was nobody organizationally responsible? "A No, there may have been, but I never saw the person or had anything to do with the person. "Q Well, one person was Laurel, right? "A Yeah. "Q She was organizationally responsible as being your senior? "A Yeah. Deposition of January 14, 1983, page 61, 703 beginning at line 22 and going through page 62, through line 9: "Q Now, tell me about the post, talking now about the senior PERS PRO Researcher post. After you assumed that position, what steps did you take to begin to carry it out? "A I began to assemble material connected with L. Ron Hubbard. "Q And how did you go about trying to assemble such material? "A I went -- I found a number of boxes which were stored on the property at that time, and I brought them over to the Public Relations Bureau. "Q Where was the Public Relations Bureau? "A That was in the building called the Massacre Canyon Inn. It was an office adjoining the dining room in that building. "Q Was that in Gilman Hot Springs? "A Yes." Deposition of January 14, 1983, page 66, lines 12 through 19: "Q R Storage was personal storage of a variety type of things of Mr. Hubbard; is that right? "A That's right. "Q Also Mrs. Hubbard? 704 "A Yes. "Q Both of their possessions of various kinds were kept there and maintained there together; right? "A Yes." Deposition of January 14, 1983, page 74, beginning at line 11 going through all of page 75 and all of page 76. "Q What was the total number of boxes removed from R Storage pursuant to this effort that you have described? "A I recall I would say about 21, 22, 23 boxes. "Q At some point were these materials removed from where Miss Sullivan had placed them and taken some place else? "A Yes. "Q When was that? "A That was -- I believe it would be in late February of 1980. "Q How many boxes were removed at that time? "A All of those boxes. "Q You had already gone into the R Storage by then? "A Yes. "Q And where were they removed to? "A They were removed to the Cedars Complex. "Q Where in the Cedars Complex? 705 "A On the first floor. "Q Some particular office? "A Yes. There was an office on the east side. "Q Was it somebody's office? Was it somebody else's office? "A It was Laurel's and my office. "Q Did Laurel have offices both at Gilman Hot Springs and at Cedars? "A Yes, she did. "Q And were you the person who transported them? "A Yes. "Q And did you have to go through some procedure before removing them from Laurel's office at Gilman Hot Springs and transferring them to Cedars? "A No. "Q Did you get permission from anyone to do that? "A It was ordered by Laurel. "Q She initiated the order? You didn't suggest it? "A No. "Q 'No' doesn't -- I'll ask it again. Did you suggest that this be done? "A I don't believe so. "Q Did Laurel initiate the idea? 706 "A To my recollection, yes. "Q And is that where the documents were maintained, in that office, until the time that you left? "A No. "Q Were they at some point moved someplace else? "A Yes. "Q Where? "A To another office in the Cedars Complex. "Q Whose office? "A This was Laurel's office. "Q A different office? Laurel's office was moved someplace else? "A Yes. "Q All right. Other than that move, were they maintained in the same office during the time that you remained? "A There were movements within that one office. 707 "Q Physically moving the boxes from one portion of the office to another? "A Yes. "Q Now, what other documents did you collect that were in the possession of the church or on church property -- and I am using 'church' broadly, any property that was Scientology property -- pursuant of this project? "A Documents from controller archives. "Q When did you get documents from controller archives? "A There were two occasions. One was -- one was in early 1981, maybe May or so of 1981 and one was later in the year in 1981. The second occasion involved a number of -- a number of trips to controller archives because there was a number of documents involved." Deposition of January 14, 1983, beginning at line 28 of page 80, going through all of page 81 and page 82 to line 25: "Q From what other church property did you gather up materials? "A From what's called Pers Sec files. "Q And where were those files kept? "A Pers Sec files were kept in my 708 area in the Pers PRO Bureau in Los Angeles. "Q And that was under the authority of Laurel? "A Yes. "Q And how much material did you obtain from there? "A 20 boxes; 20, 30 boxes. "Q What is the nature of that material? "A Those were Mr. Hubbard's personal files which Pers Sec maintained. "Q Can you give me an idea of the nature of the files, what kind of topics they dealt with? "A They dealt with Mr. Hubbard's family, correspondence with his family, pre- Dianetics and Scientology materials, writings, communications two and from the Guardian's office; there were awards; there was correspondence with Expose Club, with groups of which he was a member, that sort of thing. "Q Did these materials relate to any particular time period? "A All time periods from prior to his birth onwards. "Q And what were the materials that you got from the controller archives? Can you describe the nature of those materials? 709 "A They were some of Mr. Hubbard's writings, some materials to do with places where he had lived, to do with correspondence with various companies, with photographic places, with just about anything that -- I don't know. "Q Were there letters between Mr. Hubbard and family members and friends in the controller archives materials? "A Yes. "Q Describe those for me. "A Letters between Mr. Hubbard and Mary Sue, between Mr. Hubbard and his father, his mother, between Mr. Hubbard and friends. That's it. "Q How large a portion of this four linear feet were these letters? "A Very small, probably probably three or four inches. "Q And describe for me the personal letters between Mr. Hubbard and family or friends that were in what you described as the Pers Sec materials or files. "A These was letters between him and his children, between him and his agent, between him and friends, associates, between him and organizations. "Q The letters between Mr. and 710 Mrs. Hubbard -- Mary Sue I am referring to -- that are presently under seal, where did they come from? "A Which ones? "Q Well, all of them. If different ones came from different places, describe them as best you can for me. "A Okay. Some of them from R-Storage and some of them from controller archives, some of them are Pers Sec files." Deposition of January 14, 1983, page 84 beginning at line 24 and going through all of page 85 and through page 856 up to line 13: "Q Now, in addition to gathering information from Scientology facilities, as I understand it, you also gathered documents, other things from private individuals; is that correct? "A Yes. "Q And you purchased documents or photographs or memorabilia from various private individuals? "A Yes. "Q How were these materials paid for? "A Cash. "Q Where did you get the cash? "A Either from Sea Org Reserves or 711 from the CMO. "Q And were you gathering up such private materials throughout this whole period of time of 1908 and 1981? "A No. "Q When did you begin that? "A When I -- whenever I encountered some materials in the course of my work. "Q When did that start? "A Me in 1980. "Q And did you take some trips in order to go about purchasing these materials? "A I purchased material on those trips. 712 "Q Were you performing other functions as well on those trips? "A Yes. "Q What other functions? "A Research, biographical research. "Q What type of research? "A Interviews, going through public records, geneology study. "Q Now, during these years 1980 and 1981, did you receive any salary of any type while you were carrying out these activities? "A I was paid an allowance. "Q Standard allowance for a C Org member? "A Yes. "Q You were a Sea Org member, right? "A Yes. "Q And you were provided room and board? "A Yeah. "Q And you were provided Scientology services? "A Yeah. "Q In other words, the normal arrangement for somebody who was a staff member for a Scientology organization? "A Yes." THE COURT: Well you have come to a change in scenario here, so I think we will take a recess. I have got a medical 713 appointment I have to keep, so I am going to recess until 1:45. (The noon recess was taken until 1:45 p.m. of the same day.) 714 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1984; 1:47 P.M. ---0--- MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if I may just clarify a point of procedure -- THE COURT: Let the record reflect that counsel are present. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, this practice of reading from a deposition transcript or portions thereof when a party is in the courtroom, we have checked the rule and find it to be a somewhat novel rule under California procedure. But in any event -- THE COURT: We like to be novel. MR. FLYNN: In any event, in checking through the transcript at the lunch break, I find that the selection of these portions without reading other portions is presenting inaccurate testimony in the extreme with regard to some of the fundamental issues in this case. For example, on the very next page with regard to the Scientology post structure, Mr. Armstrong is asked more specifically what the Sea Organization is. And he specifically states it is the unit that works personally for L. Ron Hubbard. And then there are many other areas throughout the deposition transcript where specific references are made to items such as that with regard to the structure of the organization. And on many other issues Mr. Litt has selected portions totally out of context which I say are inaccurate in the extreme. 715 THE COURT: Well, Counsel, we have got a daily transcript here apparently and you have got the full transcript. You will have an opportunity when the case turns over to the defense to present what you want to present, either from the direct testimony of the witness or from reading other excerpts from the deposition to put something in context. He has a right to present his case as he sees fit. MR. FLYNN: As I understand it, Your Honor, in reading this rule, there is some ambiguity in my mind whether I can then read portions of the transcript that I see fit to read at the conclusion of his having read what he's read or whether I have to -- and am I entitled to call Mr. Armstrong at the end of his having read from the transcript in his case because as I understand the rule, he's made Mr. Armstrong his witness by reading portions of the transcript. THE COURT: I don't think so. I don't think he's made him his witness. He is reading excerpts for the purpose of presenting his case. It may be that there are things taken out of context. It may be they are not. I don't know, but it seems to me you will have a full opportunity in your case to develop that. He has the right to develop his case as he sees fit. MR. FLYNN: So at the conclusion of his reading these transcripts, will I be able to read portions of the transcript? THE COURT: Well I don't know. If he has an objection, I will have to sustain the objection. 716 MR. LITT: We would object to that, Your Honor. THE COURT: I would sustain the objection. MR. FLYNN: Your Honor will note -- I guess we don't have to note objections. THE COURT: I guess we will continue. MR. LITT: Before we begin, there is one matter we discussed earlier that Mr. Flynn would produce for us from Miss Sullivan letters between Miss Sullivan and Mrs. Hubbard, and I don't have those yet and I just wanted. THE COURT: Mrs. Hubbard? MR. LITT: Letters between Laurel Sullivan and Mrs. Hubbard. MR. FLYNN: I will have them copied this afternoon, Your Honor. We are also waiting for the document that had the portion cut off it to be marked as one of the exhibits, the CSW that Mr. Armstrong referred to and Mr. Harris brought up that had the bottom portion cut off and they have the original. MR. LITT: I will have to check with Mr. Harris on that. THE COURT: We will have to deal with it one step at a time. MR. LITT: Will I have copies of those by the end of the day? MR. FLYNN: Yes, as long as I have them with me and among all these papers I assume I have them with me. THE COURT: You may continue, Counsel. 717 MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor. From the plaintiff's first set of requests for admissions dated August 6, 1982 question No. 28 is as follows: "That in making copies of materials contained in the Archives Project, Defendant, Gerald Armstrong, used supplies and equipment that was the property of Plaintiff, the Church of Scientology of California." From the response to the first set of requests for admissions propounded by plaintiff Church of Scientology dated August 23, 1982, response to request No. 28 which I have just read, "admit." Now, returning to the transcript, this is from the transcript of September 19, 1983, beginning at line 9 of page 224, and continuing through page 225, line 8. 718 "Q Who paid you during the time you were archivist? "A What do you mean by pay? "Q Well, okay. You got a weekly stipend of cash; is that right? "A That is correct. "Q Where did you get that from? "A From the -- what is called the special unit. "Q That is out at Gilman Hot Springs? "A That is correct. "Q And you got it the same as everyone else who was out at special unit? "A Basically, yes. "Q It came from the same place, right? "A I can't say that. "Q Okay. But the same person? How did it work? Would you get an envelope with money in it every week? "A Yes. "Q Who would give it to you? "A Gary Press. "Q And Gary Press held a position of treasury/secretary international; right? "A I don't know what he held at the time. It was something like that. I don't 719 know what the exact post was. "Q He controlled the money out there anyway, right? He was the -- "A That is correct. To some he disbursed the money. Where it came from, I am not sure. My understanding, he was part of something called F & P Consultants." From the transcript of January 14, 1983, page 87 beginning at line 24 and continuing on to page 88 and ending at line 19: "Q Going back to the R Storage for the moment, was it your understanding that it contained the private materials of Mr. and Mrs. Hubbard? "A At the time I only thought of Mr. Hubbard as having anything to do with those materials. "Q Having subsequently gotten into it, did you find things that were Mrs. Hubbard's among those materials? "A Yes. "Q Did you find anything else of Mrs. Hubbard's in LRH Pers Sec files? "A Yes. "Q In your experience in Scientology would Mrs. Hubbard have had the authority to take anything out of those materials if she had wished to? I am referring now to the R 720 Storage, the controller archives and the LRH Pers Sec materials. "A Yes. "Q Would anybody not acting on behalf of one of them have had such authority? "A No." From the transcript of January 14, 1983 beginning at line 28 and continuing -- I am sorry -- page -- line 28 of age 79 and continuing to page 80 through line 11: "Q You heard Mary Sue's explanation on Tuesday of how the controller archives originally came into being; is that right? Do you recall that? "A Maybe you can state it again. "Q She testified that they were originally made up of trunks of materials that were brought from England onto the Apollo, various materials of hers and Mr. Hubbard's do you remember that now? "A Yes. "Q Was that your understanding of what those materials were and it appeared that they were from? "A Yes. "Q From --" May I have a moment, Your Honor? This is from the request for admissions, set No. 3. I don't actually have the date. I can check and put 721 it into the record. "Request for Admission No. 38. "As part of his responsibility with respect to the archives project, Gerald Armstrong was responsible