 Scientology pages index | Contact
A premeditated series of occurrences? -
Scientology under attack or The ’80s conspiracy (?) (2)
|
 The tale of Gerry Armstrong and his ‘affirmations’ (1)
(The source of the ‘affirmations’ (aka ‘admissions’) (1947)) |
 |
(to other Scientology pages) |
>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? << Consult my want list here! Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.
| |
“I'm saying that I can do it. I can type those goddam things and duplicate them and make them look exactly the same. You can't, you would not be able to tell the difference.” |
|
| |
Gerald Armstrong |
|
| |
(captured on video in Nov 1984, using a telephoto lens and a long range microphone) |
|
A premeditated series of occurrences? - Scientology: The ’80s conspiracy (?) (2)
Go to “Scientology under attack or The ’80s conspiracy (?)”
index page
Index:
Foreword and introductory notices
 Origin and consequence of the affair involving Gerry Armstrong
In 1984 Gerry Armstrong hit the headlines in the media because of various lawsuits brought about by the Church of Scientology in where said Gerry Armstrong was accused of basically stealing some 21 boxes of materials, containing in part (so we are told) sensitive information and personal papers of L. Ron Hubbard. It was the intent of the representatives of the Church of Scientology to have these boxes returned, although these representatives did not actually know what they contained as it was Gerry Armstrong that had been handling these all by himself.
There is an obvious irony present here as at one side (1) the Church of Scientology argued that Gerry Armstrong had unlawfully taken papers belonging to them, while (2) Gerry Armstrong argued that he had taken these papers attempting to protect himself from disciplinary and improper actions taken against him by the Church of Scientology. The matter here is that it would have been very unlikely that the Church of Scientology would have taken any action against said Gerry Armstrong if he had not taken materials that did not actually belong to him! That he had done so was the primary and as far as we can tell the only reason why the Church of Scientology prosecuted him. Gerry Armstrong himself provided the very reason why they went after him.
| It is indeed a very strange affair as in the final end (1986) the Church of Scientology ‘negotiated’ an agreement with Gerry Armstrong in where he would receive US$ 800,000 for returning the boxes. His lawyer received US$ 300,000 of this, he was personally to receive US$ 500,000. Now, why would he pocket such funds for having taken papers that were not his to start with? There are rather many odd ingredients and circumstances found all around in this affair. |
| Also the role played by this ruling judge Paul G. Breckenridge Jr. could be deemed to be controversial. It would not appear that a proper investigation or a verification of authenticity of materials had taken place this according to what came forward and that which was argued during the court proceedings. Matters were taken as true pretty much at face value. It is sort of mind-boggling how this judge could come to that ruling as we see in the court decision that he presented in 1984. |
Consequence
| A consequence of the affair was that these materials, that finally were returned, and had been presented during the proceedings had become part of the court record. And this sort of authenticated all of these particular materials. Then gradually this information started to reach the media. We now had various persons writing biography type of books using the information, one of them being Russell Miller, another is Bent Corydon. As time progressed more and more of these pieces and snippets started to hit the media through news reporting agencies, and getting published in newspapers where journalists and the media started to catch up on things. The information was thus floating around. Often all we get is some referral to some document, and if a copy was produced (virtually never occurred) it was of rather poor quality. We find various claims about them being authentic, but there never has been any attempt to properly authenticate any of these papers. The Church of Scientology didn't know what was in the boxes, and they thus also don't know if everything that they received back was actually part of the materials that were said to have been taken! There is thus ample reason to properly authenticate materials particularly if they were damaging, but no one cared. Not the Church of Scientology lawyer or anyone else. At present the Church of Scientology is sitting on all these ‘original’ materials and they are very silent about it. |
| These are thus papers and documents that never had seen the light of day until produced at the trial with Gerry Armstrong and have since been used widely and in particular to smear the person L. Ron Hubbard and through that discredit the topic of Scientology. One of these was a supposed autobiography dating to June 1972 (more info here, separate window). Are these papers really all authentic? We just can't tell. Some of them may, some other may not, and some may be in part. |
Was this a goal accomplished for Gerry Armstrong? He could have retired with the funds he was awarded by the court, but he chose to not stop there. In the year of 2000 he started another, let's call it a campaign, this was also about some supposed papers. Papers that were said deriving from these 21 boxes and that were entered into the court proceedings. These particular papers have since been referred to as ‘The Affirmations of L. Ron Hubbard’. Here Gerry Armstrong basically offers not much more than strange tales and unsupported claims, but this did not discourage some people to take him seriously. This can be explained through that Gerry Armstrong told what people wanted to hear and that would satisfy the preconceptions that these people already had. So, here we may even have to start to refer to him as Sir Gerry Armstrong, the undisputed grand poobah of black PR!
‘Hitler's Diaries’ versus ‘The Affirmations of L. Ron Hubbard’
 Concurrently we have the affair of Hitler's diaries that came to light in April 1983. An obvious correlation can be established between ‘Hitler's Diaries’ on one side and ‘The Affirmations of L. Ron Hubbard’ on the other side. They both come in actual handwriting with the rather crucial difference that from Hitler's diaries we actually do have the diaries, a whole 27 volumes of them, and they come in the original (i.e. not photocopies). Whereas from ‘The Affirmations of L. Ron Hubbard’ we do not have squat, we do not have a single sample of even a snippet of a photocopy! And what was found with these Hitler's diaries? Well, that they were forgeries, and not even particularly good ones. According to the autograph expert they were “bad forgeries but a great hoax” (Kenneth W. Rendell, Forging History: The Detection of Fake Letters and Documents (published 1994), see page 112).
Now, how will you ever be able to expose if ‘The Affirmations of L. Ron Hubbard’ would be such a hoax, if we have no access to any original papers or even photocopies of these original papers! I would rather say that these affirmations are even a greater hoax, as these have never been demanded to be actually presented!  All that ever has been presented was a text, some phrases read in court, some text presented by Ron DeWolf (which he later withdrew), and ‘transcripts’ from Gerry Armstrong (presented in 2000). What is this for an amazingly silly world in where people can and/or dare claim authenticity for particularly damaging papers and think they never have to show anything for it? So, who are these amazingly silly people that claim authenticity without any presentation of a handwriting? It is rather astonishing that there are people arguing where the evidence would be that they are not authentic. Excuse me? Isn't that up to the person that claims authenticity to first provide proof that something would be authentic! How can you possibly ask for any counter-evidence if you yourself have not presented any materials that can be subjected to examination? That which is attempted here is the so-called burden of proof shift.
But even worse, why are people in general and the media even falling for something like that?! Well, mostly this will be because it will confirm preconceptions people already had. This is also a story that can be sold, money that can be pocketed. There was thus already a conditioned state of mind formed by the receiver (the public) of the information. It is not asked of the public to be critical, they are asked to simply consume, and they do, ignorantly and so often very willingly.
| Now, what happened with that one remains innocent prior to having had presented evidence that would prove matters beyond a reasonable doubt that you are anything but innocent? Once again, do realize that from these affirmations we can't even certify the handwriting as not even the tiniest little piece of a photocopy is about! But this is about what people want to believe! It all has turned a convenience! We like the message they tell, and so they have to be real and authentic. And so the members of the anti-Scientologist community will easily testify and very rapidly assure you that they are authentic! Well, we may have to let them enjoy this illusion. It is a pity though that they poison the uncritical part of human population through the media. |
| But for what reason is the Church of Scientology all completely silent about this? For what reason have they not at any time demanded an investigation into verification and authenticity of these materials? It may appear here that the Church of Scientology have done themselves a disservice with their silence. Well, that is to say, a disservice or a planned operation? |
The (fairy) tale of the ‘affirmations’
Introduction of Gerry Armstrong and his ‘affirmations’
Gerry Armstrong in February 2009, in a video he had dedicated to me |
This is still a sort of sensitive matter. I haven't been keen about addressing this. See, if I was to address these writings I could not ignore the person who had spurred them into existence and who had raised public awareness about them. He listens to the name Gerry Armstrong, and one could say that he sort of has been spearheading the anti-Scientology movement for a while. Regarding these affirmations one usually only will see their take being presented. Well, my write-up could be seen as the other side of the coin. To somehow establish who would or would not be the author of these affirmations. It requires that one should very carefully track their actual recorded history and forward the documentation in existence. I have gone through the available materials in rather great detail and I thus forward these and share herewith my observations. I simply figured that someone should report about this story in the way as I have done now. It wasn't available, now it is. These affirmations, as offered by Gerry Armstrong in 2000, are available at some places out on the Internet. My focus here will not be so much on what it says in them, my focus will be on their recorded history and origin and how provable (or not) this may turn out to be.
An observation that can be made about the whole thing is though that it rather effectively has drawn the attention away from what the subject matter of Dianetics and Scientology actually are about. Most particularly the Gerry Armstrong episode is about attacking and discrediting the person L. Ron Hubbard with claimed authentic papers, and therewith to persuade the public to discard of the subject of Dianetics and Scientology wholly, before they got to know anything about it. The Gerry Armstrong episode could thus be perceived as an act of distraction. May be one should keep his in mind a bit. If you can't destroy or discredit a topic, you attack the person that forwarded the topic. This is generally referred to as ad hominem.
What are they? Overview and summary
| Texts are found on the Internet that are mostly referred to as simply affirmations. They are dated to 1947 or thereabouts and are claimed written by L. Ron Hubbard. According to court testimonies from the 1984 case ‘Church of Scientology of California vs Gerald Armstrong’: |
| |
“Affirmations were handwritten materials, handwritten by L. Ron Hubbard, which went over various of his problems, and they were self-hypnotic commands that he was writing to himself, affirmations. And they were from the late 1940's, and they referred to his work career, his physical and mental condition, that sort of thing.” |
|
| Questions however should have been raised regarding their claimed authenticity. And how did they actually ended up being in circulation? The first time they came out into the open is during these court proceedings held in May 1984. During these proceedings 3 selections were quoted and read aloud in court. (see chapter “Court proceedings and overview of developments during 1980-84 & 86”, section: “Court proceedings held in 1984”, the sequences are indicted in bordeaux). These writings were, with this act, made part of the court record. In spite of this the documents were sealed, meaning that they were not made public. Arguments were raised in court to actually have them made public. There is a going forth and back about this according to newspaper coverage in the period Nov 84-Feb 85. Then finally in Dec 1986 a settlement was reached with Gerry Armstrong in where all the documents (21 boxes) were returned to the Church of Scientology. |
| It is not until March 2000 that we once more hear about them. This time around we actually do get these writings themselves presented but from a rather (outright) unverifiable source. Realizing that we are not being presented the actual original writings, what we get is only some version that is claimed being copied by hand from these. It is said the original writings were handwritten, what is being presented is thus not in the original handwritten form. Under these conditions naturally their actual authenticity is rather impossible to positively confirm. In essence anyone could have compiled that which is being presented to us. |
| A notice should be made here that these affirmations in particular are promoted as being authentic by those that actively oppose to the subject matter of Scientology overall and thus therewith wish to target the person L. Ron Hubbard. Neither of these individuals, as I have seen, ask any questions concerning their authenticity or for proper verification. It is as simple as that it is blindly accepted/believed/promoted that they just are! Indeed these affirmations do not give any flattering picture of the person that actually wrote them. The question would however be, who actually has written them! |
The involvement of one Gerry Armstrong
| |
“We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t. We just have to allege it.” |
|
| |
– Gerald Armstrong |
|
| |
(Immortalized on video tape in Nov 1984, using a telephoto lens
and a long range microphone that, amongst other, picked up this quote. |
|
| In both these occurrences (1983-84 & 2000) we see that the name Gerald Armstrong (commonly referred to as Gerry Armstrong) surfaces as the person that brings them forward. At one time a member and employee of the Church of Scientology, today an active advocate that speaks out against this organization and in particular the person L. Ron Hubbard. The story goes that since early January 1980 he was to gather and collect papers (as an archivist) relating to L. Ron Hubbard that were to be used as a basis for an official biography. On 8 January 1980 he had send in a petition to this effect and it got approved by L. Ron Hubbard. A non-Scientologist (Omar Garrison) was approached to then use this material and write this biography. Gerry Armstrong then came to point out discrepancies in actual recorded history as found in the documents and the claims that the organization had been making about L. Ron Hubbard. He tells us that he reported his findings to his seniors in the organization and would have then found himself at odds with them. On 1 December 1981 he chose to leave the organization but not without taking with him a considerable amount of papers and documents (10,000/15,000 or so papers). These affirmations are claimed to have been part of that material. |
| Gerry
Armstrong feared (so he claims) persecution by the Church of Scientology for which reason he took these materials (for self-protection so he says). An inconsistency can be raised here in regards to that if his fear was justified and some church terminals were really on to him, why then was he still permitted to have access to these materials? And how could he take with him materials that would fit in as many as 21 boxes? It is logical to assume that this access would have been denied to him instantly if he was considered a risk factor in some way, let alone taking such an amount of materials with him to elsewhere!! Per this it does not appear that his fear was actually justified! Either way he turned these materials over to an attorney and this resulted into the ‘Church of Scientology of California vs Gerald Armstrong’ trials that started in late April 1984 and stretched out over 9 weeks. In late June 1984 then it was ruled that Gerry Armstrong had done no wrong, it was thus found all right by this judge that he had taken these materials that were not his property to start with. The judge thus ruled that the fear of Gerry Armstrong was justified: |
| |
“He believed that the only way he could defend himself, physically as well as from harassing lawsuits, was to take from Omar Garrison those materials which would support and corroborate everything that he had been saying within the Church about LRH and the Church, or refute the allegations made against him in the April 22 Suppressive Person Declare. He believed that the only way he could be sure that the documents would remain secure for his future use was to send them to his attorneys, and that to protect himself, he had to go public so as to minimize the risk that LRH, the Church, or any of their agents would do him physical harm.”
(from ‘Memorandum of Intended Decision’ by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge Jr., 20 Jun 84)
|
|
| Strictly taken this adjudication could be regarded as being rather nonsensical. It's like you invite someone in your home to look at some things, you go out to get some drinks, then by the time you return you find that your visitor is gone with your personal belongings. Then a judge comes along and says to you: “Sorry guy, you lost ownership! Now they're going public!”. Either way the Church of Scientology wanted these materials back and so the happenings dragged on till a settlement was reached in Dec 1986. And at such time the Church of Scientology had to pay rather heavily -financially- to get these belongings returned to them. |
| The irony here is that Gerry Armstrong very actively made himself him a target for the Church of Scientology (naturally) as he took materials that were not his and that he refused to return. Of course they went after him, who wouldn't! If he had returned them or had not taken them, things may not very likely have evolved as they now had. The Church of Scientology would not have had any particular reason to ‘harass’ him or any other if he simply had returned the properties he had taken or had not taken them in the first place. Then if Gerry Armstrong was so much in fear then why did he repeatedly violate his later settlement deal from Dec 1986? His tale tells that he has persistently provoked the representatives of the Church of Scientology and made himself a target again and again and again. |
| At present he would be unable to actually enter the USA as there is a warrant out for his arrest. On 2 April 2004, a case filed by the Church of Scientology was called for trial. The Church of Scientology alleged 201 breaches of some paragraph in the agreement they had with said Gerry Armstrong that required him to maintain confidentiality about the matter. |
| The court granted the motion and found that as many as 131 breaches of the Dec 1986 settlement had occurred. Per this settlement: “Plaintiff agrees that if the terms of this paragraph are breached by him, that CSI and the other Releasees would be entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of $50,000 for each such breach.”. 131 x $50,000 makes $6,550,000. The court then reasoned that it would be unconscionable to charge Gerry Armstrong damages in excess of the US$ 800,000 he received as a benefit under the settlement agreement. |
| Apparently Gerry Armstrong admitted to this charge. According to a petition send by the Church of Scientology in ‘Church of Scientology International v. The Superior Court of Marin County: Gerald Armstrong, Real Party in Interest, Case A107095’ he is further to have forwarded that “provisions of paragraph 7.D. of the agreement were illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable and raised numerous affirmative defenses including unconscionability of the agreement and invalidity of the liquidated damages provision”. For what reason did he initially agree to the agreement, at the same time cashing in the money that came with the settlement? |
In an article published by Bruce Livesay on 23 June 2008, in where he had visited and interviewed Gerry Armstrong, he relates the following: “Armstrong signed the agreement, the documents about Hubbard were returned to the church, and he pocketed $500,000 US (the rest went to his lawyer).”. Still this is quite a sum of money that he received. Interesting is also that the same article tells about the claim of Gerry Armstrong that it was “his lawyer, who collectively represented about twenty former Scientologists, negotiated a settlement: in return for $800,000 US for himself, Armstrong would sign a confidentiality agreement”. A few sentences later in the article it reads: “‘You have to sign,’ Armstrong recalls his attorney saying. ‘All of these people [the other litigants and former Scientologists] are depending on you to have fair game end for them.’”.
Strangely enough it had earlier in this same article been referring to Gerry Armstrong as “this unemployed, penniless man living on a disability pension in the middle of nowhere in British Columbia”. It is rather unclear what he had done with this settlement benefit amounting US$ 500,000. A bit later in the article it then said: “Financially broke, Armstrong is unable to hire lawyers and has for the past several years represented himself.”. Be it noted here that he was then, as he is at present, residing in Canada escaping court justice. A country where the US has no jurisdiction. As far as known Gerry Armstrong has never accounted for what he had done with his benefit settlement. When I had the opportunity to inquire in person with him a while back, he simply chose to ignore answering to this. It has been proposed to me that these funds would have been spent on expenses for judicial support. This argument however does not appear very plausible simply due to the fact that he all these years has been hiding in Canada. In addition if Gerry Armstrong would actually have been right about matters, then why did he not receive any further earnings from judges that ruled in his favour? As it appears followers of Gerry Armstrong are very quick to only refer to court decisions that had been favourable for him, and with the same ignore all the rest. Or they may resort to simply put the blame on the supposed intimidation of the Church of Scientology at the courts. Subsequently it is ignored that if he today would be penniless, broke, and living from a disability pension, that it casts also doubt on his claimed effectiveness while employed within the Scientology organization. His path in life really hasn't been very successful since after he had left the organization, at the same we do know nothing about how successful or not he had been prior to joining staff in a Scientology organization.
Court proceedings and overview of developments during 1980-84 & 1986
Chronological overview of events according to news media and court
| A selection and synopsis taken from this ‘Appendix’ that folds out a chronology of events, followed with some commentaries and annotations: |
| |
“Defendant Armstrong was involved with Scientology from 1969 through 1981, a period spanning 12 years. During that time he was a dedicated and devoted member who revered the founder, L. Ron Hubbard.” |
|
| |
“On January 8, 1980, Defendant Armstrong wrote a petition to Hubbard requesting his permission to perform the research for a biography to be done about his life.” |
|
| |
“In June of 1980 Defendant Armstrong became involved in the selection of a writer for the Hubbard biography. Defendant Armstrong learned that Hubbard had approved of a biography proposal prepared by Omar Garrison, a writer who was not a member of Scientology.” |
|
| |
“From November of 1980 through 1981, Defendant Armstrong worked closely with Mr. Garrison, assembling Hubbard's archives into logical categories, copying them and arranging the copies of the Archives materials into bound volumes. Defendant Armstrong made two copies of almost all documents copied for Mr. Garrison - one for Mr. Garrison and the other to remain in Hubbard Archives for reference or recopying. Defendant Armstrong created approximately 400 binders of documents.” |
|
| |
“During 1980 Defendant Armstrong remained convinced of Hubbard's honesty and integrity and believed that the representation he had made about himself in various publications were truthful.” |
|
| |
“Slowly, however, throughout 1981, Defendant Armstrong began to see that Hubbard and the Organization had continuously lied about Hubbard's past, his credentials, and his accomplishments.” |
|
| |
“Defendant Armstrong attempted to change and make accurate the various ‘about the author’ sections in Scientology books, and further, Defendant rewrote or critiqued several of these and other publications for the L. Ron Hubbard Public Relations Bureau and various Scientology Organizations.” |
|
| |
“Because of Defendant Armstrong's actions, in late November of 1981, ... Defendant Armstrong was ordered to undergo a ‘security check,’ ...” |
|
| A strange sequence follows here below: |
| |
“In December of 1981 Defendant Armstrong made the decision to leave the Church of Scientology. In order to continue in his commitment to Hubbard and Mr. Garrison in the biography project, he copied a large quantity of documents, which Mr. Garrison had requested or which would be useful to him for the biography. Defendant Armstrong delivered all of this material to Mr. Garrison the date he left the SEA Organization and kept nothing in his possession. |
|
| |
Thereafter, Defendant Armstrong maintained friendly relations with Hubbard's representatives by returning to the Archives offices and discussing the various categories of materials. In fact on February 24, 1982, Defendant Armstrong wrote to Vaughn Young, regarding certain materials Mr. Young was unable to locate for Omar Garrison.
|
|
| |
After this letter was written, Defendant Armstrong went to the Archives office and located certain materials Mr. Garrison had wanted which Hubbard representatives claimed they could not locate.” |
|
| Annotation: These last 3 paragraphs in the above actually make a rather strange claim. If it was true that Gerry Armstrong had actually left the organization then how is it possible that he was allowed to continue to work on that very project?? |
| |
“At the time Defendant Armstrong left the SEA Organization, he was disappointed with Scientology and Hubbard, and also felt deceived by them. However, Defendant Armstrong felt he had no enemies and felt no ill will toward anyone in the Organization or Hubbard” |
|
| |
“After leaving the SEA Organization, Defendant Armstrong continued to assist Mr. Garrison with the Hubbard biography project. In the spring of 1982, Defendant Armstrong at Mr. Garrison's request, transcribed some of his interview tapes, copied some of the documentation he had, and assembled several more binders of copied materials.” |
|
| Annotation: The same note can be made here. Leaving is not considered something in your favour, in particular not within the Scientology organization! Why then was he allowed to still have access to these materials if he had left? |
| And then suddenly (?): |
| |
“On February 18, 1982, the Church of Scientology International issued a ‘Suppressive Person Declare Gerry Armstrong,’ which is an official Scientology document issued against individuals who are considered as enemies of the Organization.” |
|
| Annotation: This is indeed a very strange sequence of happenings... For the very simple reason that if this was ahead of him and he was thus under actual investigation, his access to any church materials would have been restricted instantly and completely! He would also have been ordered to return any materials in his possession saved elsewhere, originals and photocopies. |
| Another very unlikely sequence following is quoted here below: |
| |
“From his extensive knowledge of the covert and intelligence operations carried out by the Church of Scientology of California against its enemies (suppressive persons), Defendant Armstrong became terrified and feared that his life and the life of his wife were in danger, and he also feared he would be the target of costly and harassing lawsuits. ... Thus, Defendant Armstrong made copies of certain documents for Mr. Garrison and maintained them in a separate location. |
|
| |
It was thereafter, in the summer of 1982, that Defendant Armstrong asked Mr. Garrison for copies of documents to use in his defense and sent the documents to his attorneys, ...” |
|
| Annotation: It is rather unclear what extensive knowledge and experience he would have had about some operations. When did he expose about these? If he breaches agreements that easily then why is he silent about some operations? He had been in the organization since 1969, during which time “he was a dedicated and devoted member who revered the founder, L. Ron Hubbard”. Things seems to have turned around almost overnight during 1981. Suddenly he even claims he is fear of his life and his wife's. For what? Because he had left the organization? He had not done very much else, yet! He also admits that he had made advance preparations for possible future happenings for, as he calls it, his defence. When, as we can see from all future happenings that he himself is persistently providing the reason for that the Church of Scientology chooses to target him! |
The Church of Scientology then resorted to file for a civil lawsuit in August 1982 accusing Gerry Armstrong of stealing documents, which at that time were held by the court's clerk and were until then sealed from the public.
| A letter claimed written by L. Ron Hubbard had been send to the courts attempting to retrieve the documents, this letter was dated 3 Feb 83. The letter however failed to achieve its aim. |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
“A Los Angeles Superior Court judge says that a letter purportedly written by Church of scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard can't be used in a legal battle to regain thousands of his personal papers.
The documents – personal letters and journals – allegedly were stolen from the Church by Gerald Armstrong. ...
Armstrong's attorney, Bruce Bunch, said yesterday that Judge L. Cole has told Hubbard's attorneys the letter can't be used to retrieve the 30,000 documents.
|
|
‘Given your lack of standing as counsel and the fact that Mr. Hubbard has not appeared as a party in that action, the request contained in his letter cannot be deemed to be a motion upon which the court can act,’ Cole wrote to Hubbard's attorneys in a letter dated wednesday. The church has filed suit against Armstrong, but Hubbard has not. ...
‘If Hubbard wants to be heard as to what should happen with these documents,’ Bunch said, ‘Hubbard has to present himself and appear.’” |
|
| |
(from ‘Los Angeles Herald’, Friday,11 Feb 83 “Hubbard's ‘Request’ for Papers”)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
“A Los Angeles Superior Court judge tuesday refused to release 21 boxes of personal letters and journals of reclusive Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard to church officials, despite a handwritten letter purportedly from Hubbard claiming them as his property.
The material is the subject of a lawsuit by the Scientologists against their former member and archivist, Gerald Armstrong, seeking permanent return of the documents. The church claims that Armstrong stole the material. He claims that Hubbard had permitted him to use it under a contract to produce a biography of Hubbard. ... |
|
Scientology attorneys Barrett S. Litt and John G. Peterson also argued that Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue, an intervenor in the case, verified that the documents belong to the Hubbards and requested that they be returned to the church.
But Savitch said the fairest course is to leave the documents in the clerk hands until a full trial can determine who should have them. That could take four years because of court backlogs.
Church President Heber Jentzsch said outside court that church lawyers will have to determine whether to appeal Savitch's ruling.” |
|
| |
(from ‘Los Angeles Times’, Wednesday, 27 Apr 83 “Scientologists Fail to Obtain Hubbard's Files”)
|
|
Court proceedings held in 1984 (selections of the ‘affirmations’ read in court)
A rather interesting data that comes to light per the quotations in the previous section is that the materials that came forward into court were no originals. They were simply photocopies that were assembled by Gerry Armstrong into binders. Apparently this is all they were.
| A little over one year later during May-June 1984 the court convened: ‘CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff vs. GERALD ARMSTRONG, Defendant. Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. C 420153.’. We find in the proceedings dated 4 May ’84 on the pages 793-95 that reference was made to an ‘October 28, 1983 deposition’: |
| [Addendum: I have indicated the affirmation quotations in bordeaux] |
| |
“From the October 28, 1983 deposition transcript, page 264, line 2 through line 21: |
|
| |
"QWell, maybe you can explain it to me. Was there within the archives materials that you were working with while you held the archives position some documents that had been labeled or identified 'Affirmations'? |
|
| |
"AThat is correct. |
|
| |
"QCan you explain to me what these were. |
|
| |
"AAffirmations were handwritten materials, handwritten by L. Ron Hubbard, which went over various of his problems, and they were self-hypnotic commands that he was writing to himself, affirmations. And they were from the late 1940's, and they referred to his work career, his physical and mental condition, that sort of thing. |
|
| |
"QThen, were these separate documents, or were they all one document? How were they physically compiled? |
|
| |
"AThey were assorted. There's a number from the same kind of period or same style of writing. |
|
| |
"QAnd these were handwritten -- |
|
| |
"AYes. |
|
| |
"Q-- by Mr. Hubbard? |
|
| |
"AYes." |
|
| |
From page 264 beginning at line 27, going to page 265, through 20 of the same deposition transcript: |
|
| |
"QAnd these were in the nature of personal notes or personal thoughts or ideas? Is that essentially what these documents consisted of? |
|
| |
"APersonal writings. |
|
| |
"QApproximately how many different documents are we talking about? |
|
| |
"AMaybe six. |
|
| |
"QAnd they all come roughly from the late 1940's? |
|
| |
"AYes. |
|
| |
"QWhile you were holding the archives post, where did you obtain these documents? |
|
| |
"AThey originally came from the boxes in Del Sol on the Gilman Hot Springs property.” |
|
| And from the proceedings occurring on 14 May ’84 (pp 1892-94): |
| |
“MR. LITT:Let me clarify it, as Mr. Armstrong knows, does the court have all of the affirmations? Mr. Armstrong, do you know what the affirmations are? |
|
| |
MR. ARMSTRONG:Yes. |
|
| |
MR. LITT:Has the full set of the affirmations, including the book been brought up here and the introductory part to it which is about 30 pages? |
|
| |
MR. ARMSTRONG:Let me give you some numbers; okay? I'll give you some -- it is 4-D, 4-E, 4-F, 4-G, 4-H, 4-I. That is it. 4-I fits in that category. It is not part of that particular set of documents, but -- |
|
| |
MR. LITT:Do those things together constitute the totality of the affirmations? |
|
| |
MR. ARMSTRONG:As far as I know, it does. |
|
| |
MR. LITT:Your Honor, could we take a look for a moment just to determine for ourselves? |
|
| |
MR. FLYNN:Your Honor, if it doesn't we have no objection -- |
|
| |
MR. LITT:We just want to know what the court has. |
|
| |
MR. FLYNN:-- to the plaintiff bringing up whatever they want to bring up. Our feeling, Your Honor, is all the records -- |
|
| |
THE COURT:I know what your feeling is. |
|
| |
MR. FLYNN:-- are relevant. |
|
| |
THE COURT:I have heard it. Well, We are in recess until 9 o'clock. |
|
| |
MR. HARRIS:Very well. |
|
| |
MR. LITT:If Mr. Armstrong could come here for a moment and tell me what document goes with what, I think we can put then in proper order for the court. |
|
| |
MR. FLYNN:We want them it that order, Mr. Litt, for a very specific reason. |
|
| |
MR. LIT:But the order that they appear in is not the order that they were in in the original binders, so I would like for the court's review for them to be in the order that they were in in the original binder. Thank you, Mr. Flynn. |
|
| |
MR. FLYNN:The original binder was created by Mr. Armstrong. |
|
| |
MR. LITT:I am quite aware of this. |
|
| |
THE COURT:Okay, okay, just relax.” |
|
| And from the proceedings occurring on 15 May ’84 (pp 1924-27): |
| |
“QNow, would you read the portion relating to Mr. Hubbard's Naval background and Veterans Administration background that we have selected. |
|
| |
... |
|
| |
THE WITNESS [Mr. Armstrong](reading:) "Your stomach trouble" -- |
|
| |
MR. LITT:Obviously, we object to any reading. I just wanted to make it clear for the record. |
|
| |
THE COURT:I'll deem it that you are objecting to each of these. Overruled so long as Mr. Flynn is continuing the line of what he has already told me he is going to do. |
|
| |
MR. FLYNN:I am limiting it to that. And I have shown it to Mr. Litt. |
|
| |
THE WITNESS:(Reading:)
"Your stomach trouble you used as an excuse to keep the Navy from punishing you. You are free of the Navy. You have no further reason to have a weak stomach.
"Your ulcers are all well and never bother you. You can eat anything.
"Your hip is a pose. You have a sound hip. It never hurts.
"Your shoulder never hurts.
"Your foot was an alibi. The injury is no longer needed. It is well. You have perfect and lovely feet.
"Your sinus trouble is nothing. It is not dangerous. It will vanish. The common cold amuses you. You are protected from further illness. Your cat fever has vanished forever and will never return. You do not have malaria.
"When you tell people you are ill, it has no effect upon your health. And in Veterans Administration examinations you'll tell them how sick you are; you'll look sick when you take it; you'll return to health one hour after the examination and laugh at them.
"No matter what lies you may tell others, they have no physical effect on you of any kind. You never injure your health by saying it is bad. You cannot lie to yourself." |
|
| |
QOn the exhibit 500 quadruple E page 18, subparagraph (g) -- |
|
| |
MR. LITT:Your Honor, before that occurs, Mr. Flynn has chosen out a series -- what is a subsection (g) -- |
|
| |
THE COURT:May I see it? |
|
| |
MR. LITT:-- from this document and at the top of the previous page are the words "by hypnosis I must be convinced as follows:" and then there are a series of subsection (a), (b) at cetera from which Mr. Flynn wishes to read subsection (g). |
|
| |
MR. FLYNN:I'd be happy to have the whole document go into evidence. |
|
| |
MR. LITT:No, no, no. The words “by hypnosis” -- |
|
| |
THE COURT:If you want that read, it may be read. "By hypnosis I must be convinced as follows:" and then skip to subparagraph (g). |
|
| |
MR. LITT:Yes. |
|
| |
THE COURT:The court will deem that the witness has read what I have just read to avoid repetition. |
|
| |
THE WITNESS:This is (g), "That my eyes (which I used as an excuse to get out of school) are perfect and do not pain me ever."” |
|
| And from the proceedings occurring on 16 May ’84 (pp 2033): |
| |
“THE WITNESS [Mr. Armstrong] :Those 4D through 4G are the documents that we have called at various times the affirmations or the admissions, ...” |
|
| And on the same day from these proceedings (pp 2056-57): |
| |
“MR. LITT:Is the Court going to permit a reading from this? |
|
| |
THE COURT:Those excerpts and, of course, if you want in later testimony to develop the context or something to affect it, you may do so.
Please identify the exhibit that you are referring to before you do it. |
|
| |
MR. FLYNN:4D, 500 4D. |
|
| |
QIt states, 'Men are your slaves.' |
|
| |
Is that correct, Mr. Armstrong? |
|
| |
AYes.” |
|
| |
“MR. FLYNN:(Reading:) |
|
| |
'Elemental spirits are your slaves.' |
|
| |
QAnd referring to exhibit 4F it states, 'You can be merciless whenever your will is crossed and you have the right to be merciless'; is that correct, Mr. Armstrong? |
|
| |
AYes.” |
|
| It has been tried in these court proceedings, particularly by Gerry Armstrong himself, to use these affirmations as an argument to confirm or support various accusations in regards to the state of mind of L. Ron Hubbard. Although these proceedings had given rather little attention to these affirmations as seen from the court records. All the occurrences that I could gather appear in the above. The same goes for the newspaper coverage from that time that hardly made any mention of some affirmations. I was only able to find one instance which is in ‘Los Angeles Free Weekly’, 7 Jun 85, in the ‘Personals’ section in where it says: “he hypnotized himself with affirmations such as ‘Men are my Slaves.’” . It would appear that even this was apparently misquoted from the court proceedings (altered from “Men are your slaves.”). This newspaper stated it as if fact and asks no further questions. These forwarded documents were handwritten, an analysis of the handwriting could have been asked for. If no person in court asks for verification of true authenticity of some documents, then of course a newspaper would not give it much attention either. |
| It seems also sort of agreed upon as if some documents may turn authentic, just for reason that these came forward into these proceedings. The only thing we do know is that some papers are claimed to have been found in these boxes taken by Gerry Armstrong and that were referred to as affirmations. It is said that these particular documents originally derived from the personal archives of L. Ron Hubbard, but for this we only have the word and claim of Gerry Armstrong! Everything could have been planted in advance. This really would have been a very easy thing to do. The sole action that could expose it is by demanding verification of authenticity of the forwarded materials. It is duly noted that this has not been asked for by anyone! Not the lawyer for defence of Scientology, not the court, of course not Gerry Armstrong, no one! |
Signing and breach of 1986 settlement
| In Dec 1986 Gerry Armstrong and the Church of Scientology representatives agreed upon a settlement. Gerry Armstrong would return any and all of the materials that he said he had taken, whereupon he would receive a rather large financial sum. The amount apparently was kept confidential in the document. The signing ritual can be watched in the file here below: |
| |
Occurrence of the signing settlement (video) (original rm-file, right-click and download or watch online) |
| We find that the affirmations are mentioned by name in this ‘Settlement Agreement’. The document did list in its Appendix the properties that Gerald Armstrong had agreed to return to the Church of Scientology. It says in this listing: “(b) All originals and copies of documents commonly known as the ‘Affirmations’ written by L. Ron Hubbard”. |
| Some people have been arguing as if this was an acknowledgement that the Church of Scientology does support the authenticity of these properties and these affirmations. The facts are though that very little data is known about these papers. Basically the only person that did know was Gerry Armstrong that had been working with them. Newspapers from the time made mention of 21 boxes of which 5 are said to contain personal papers of L. Ron Hubbard and his family. It would be much more plausible to just assume that the Church of Scientology simply wanted all the material back that Gerry Armstrong had claimed to have taken, if they be authentic or not. They simply had no record of what originally was contained in these boxes. |
| The story does not end here as Gerry Armstrong violated the agreement that he signed. It was amongst other agreed upon in the ‘Settlement Agreement’ from Dec 1986 that: |
| |
“Plaintiff agrees never to create or publish or attempt to publish, and/or assist another to create for publication by means of magazine, article, book or other similar form, any writing or to broadcast or to assist another to create, write, film or video tape or audio tape any show, program or movie, or to grant interviews or discuss with others, concerning their experiences with the Church of Scientology, individuals and entities ...
Plaintiff further agrees that he will maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with the Church of Scientology and any knowledge or information he may have concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any of the organizations, individuals and entities ...” |
|
| In 1992 he was summoned by the Church of Scientology for breaching the above agreement, later claims for breach of contract were forwarded in 1995 and again in 2002. Because of this the amount of the monies that he had received was also no longer kept confidential. |
| It is sort of interesting that Gerry Armstrong was welcomed, heralded and revered, by the anti-Scientologist community, as a true hero. The reason that they provide is that they believed that he had not submitted to supposed intimidation by the Church of Scientology. Gerry Armstrong himself persistently had claimed ever since that he had been persecuted by members of the Church of Scientology. This credibility awarded to him may however not be entirely rightfully earned as after all he had signed an agreement that supplied him with US$ 500,000. If he was not going to follow the agreement then why accepting these funds? Or if he later disagreed with that what he signed, why not returning these funds? Funds he had received for materials that were not his to start with. How credible does that make him really? |
This can also be viewed in an ironical light if we then consult a declaration that Gerry Armstrong wrote on 26 Jan ’97 in where he says at #4: “I have been sued by the Scientology organization five times since
1982 in its continuing effort to prevent me from speaking the truth
and to destroy me financially.”. How could he be destroyed financially, the US$ 500,000 that he personally pocketed from the Church of Scientology should last for a while. At that he resides in Canada, he is a native Canadian, where the US has no jurisdiction. |
| In the same declaration he writes at #3: “I have testified, either in deposition or
trial, over 60 days in approximately 20 Scientology related cases. I
have written and executed dozens of declarations”. Obviously he is openly, and as it seems rather proudly, violating the agreement he signed. Rather conveniently however he kept the funds he had pocketed from that agreement. |
At present he is residing in Canada. He does not earn a living through employment as far as known. He is living a life that appears a full time dedication to discredit the person L. Ron Hubbard and through that the subject matter of Scientology and its affiliated organization. He also frequently appears at demonstrations that target the Church of Scientology. Then he is appearing as a witness at many trials, posts on news groups, makes interviews for radio and television, creates huge anti-Scientology websites on the Internet, and somehow he seems to have the funds to do all these things without having the need to earn a living. It may seem obvious that he is living off the funds he benefited earlier in 1986 from the Church of Scientology.
Mention of the ‘affirmations’ in books published in 1987
The year 1987 saw the release of 2 books that made mention of these affirmations.
‘Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’ by Russell Miller
The first to make mention of the affirmations outside of the courthouse and in a book publication was Russell Miller in his book ‘Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’, released in 1987. He takes them up in passing in chapter 8 entitled: “The Mystery of the Missing Research”, and quotes the bulk of these phrases that were 2 years earlier read in court.
‘L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?’ by Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
“All men shall be my slaves!
All
women shall succumb to my charms!
All mankind shall grovel at my
feet and not know why!”
The above lines we find in this book ‘L. Ron Hubbard:
Messiah or Madman?’ by
Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard Jr. a.k.a. Ronald DeWolf, issued in 1987. This is the 2nd time we get some more phrases that are claimed to be deriving from these affirmations. Interesting and noteworthy is that these phrases are different. Here we find as a noted coauthor L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (aka Ron DeWolf), yet he himself denounced this authorship in an affidavit written prior to the release of the book. In this affidavit (dated 20 May 1987) he writes: “To the extend that any portion of the book is based on my previous manuscripts, ..., the book is complete and utter fantasy without the slightest figment of truth.”.
| The book itself introduces these affirmation quotations as follows: |
| |
“According to Ron Jr. his father used drugs and self-hypnosis in order to beef up his WILL: |
|
| |
For years he used even in the thirties sound scribers. I think you
would call it that....The original dictaphones, and IBM had one tot,
..., And he would read these what he called the ‘Affirmations’
into the dictaphone. This is when they were non-erasable. You know,
the old Edison with the wax cylinder.
He would write these up, or he'd take quotes from the Book of the
Law, and other places; then he'd take whatever he had in the way of
drugs and play ’em back. Usually he used headphones. |
|
| |
Hardly anyone believed Ron Jr. when he told this story; but the
‘Affirmations,’ in their original hand-written version, were brought
into evidence in open court in Los Angeles in mid-1984, and are part
of the court record.” |
|
| Nonetheless today we see in particular these 3 affirmation quotations frequently appearing on the Internet, used by the media, by journalists, posted on anti-Scientology websites, and so on. Fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard and as if being fully authentic. When no one really knows or can provide positive verification where particularly the second and third quotation are really coming from and in whose head they had first popped up. |
| See, we don't find them published anywhere else previously. We just don't have any confirmed or reliable source for them. They are not found in the transcripts made from the Clearwater Hearing testimonies of Ron DeWolf (5-6 May ’82), and not either in the Penthouse interview (June ’83). We would at least have expected to find them there, but they are not. |
| The source seems to have been a supposed transcript of a tape, dated 28 Jun ’84, that was attributed to Ron DeWolf. The source of this ‘Transcript of Tape #1’ is however obscure, all we find is just this transcript. We don't either find mention of this tape recording in the newspapers from that time, not even Ron DeWolf himself refers to it. It sort of repeats the claims of the Clearwater Hearings and the Penthouse interview, and it then adds mention of self-hypnosis and affirmations at the very end of it. Well, authentic or not, take note that the transcript is actually dated after that the trials with Gerry Armstrong were over and done with (Judge's Decision was signed by him 20 Jun ’84). The earliest source thus that these affirmations and/or self-hypnosis activities are named continues to be Gerry Armstrong. In his book Bent Corydon assumed in his book that Ron DeWolf was first, but he can't corroborate that with fact and thus that claim is disputed. |
| We are also facing here that this Ron DeWolf has not shown himself to be any sort of reliable witness. He has made these and similar claims up to 3 times and each time he has retracted them also. |
The ‘affirmations’ emerging in the year 2000
| On 11 March 2000 Gerry Armstrong posted a long message on a particular news group on the Internet which was followed by the actual affirmations. He posted this as his “contribution to the celebrations and protests on the
occasion of the birthday of L. Ron Hubbard in 2000.” (i.e. 13 March). It is introduced as follows: |
| |
“Not all that long ago, someone sent me a copy of the set of writings
which follow, written by L. Ron Hubbard in or about 1947. The
original of these writings was in Hubbard's personal archive which I
assembled and worked with in 1980 and 1981.” |
|
| The quotations that were published in ‘L. Ron Hubbard:
Messiah or Madman?’ (see at previous chapter “Mention of the ‘affirmations’ in books published in 1987”, are not literally found in these affirmations that came to surface in 2000. Although the word ‘slaves’ appears several times in these. The closest we find is “Men are your slaves.”. The word ‘charm’ is found one time used as follows: “so personable no one can resist your charm”. This is about the only resemblance. So, is this an indication that they just inspired some person, and that these fabrications were now given a life of its own in the media and news? |
| We may comfort ourselves with that the 3 phrases that were read aloud in court on 16 May 1984 are all found in this release from 2000. |
Here below I copied some further sections of his lengthy explanation foregoing these affirmations and let them follow with my comments.
| |
 |
| |
“In 1984 I read portions of
them into the record at my trial in $cientology v. Armstrong, Los
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. C 420153.” |
|
|
| Annotation: He factually read a total of 9 phrases in court on 15 may 1984. The next day on 16 May 1984 a total of 3 further short phrases were read aloud by his lawyer. After which Gerry Armstrong was asked, by his lawyer, if that was correct. Then followed with the acknowledgement of Gerry Armstrong. |
| |
 |
| |
“Omar first called these writings Hubbard's ‘Affirmations.’ Later,
after it dawned on him that Hubbard was a stupendous liar, Omar said
he was correcting himself, and thereafter called the writings the
‘Admissions.’ I believe that Omar was right, and that these writings
are ‘Affirmations,’ but more importantly, ‘Admissions.’” |
|
|
| Annotation: The position of Omar V. Garrison however is not particularly clear. From his hand we this “Declaration of Omar V. Garrison”, dated 18 Apr 1983 and a court testimony. Neither of them go into fine details. (see for more info chapter “Inconsistencies”: “The position of Omar V. Garrison (with notices from Larry Brennan)”) |
| |
|
| |
“I don't know who in this recent period sent me the copy from which I
typed that follows. In any event I would not divulge the identity of
the person because of the clear and senseless threat of attack from
the people who now run $cientology. It is sufficient for legal
purposes to state that the copy I received was not made by me. By the
time the Admissions are posted to the internet, I will have, pursuant
to the wishes of the person who made it, destroyed the copy I
received.” |
|
|
| Annotation: Thus their authenticity can not be vouched for in any possible way, other then the unsubstantiated claims of Gerry Armstrong. In 2000 Gerry Armstrong was already residing in Canada conveniently escaping a court sentence ordering him to pay considerable financial sums of money. If this was so the case, then he was already in trouble with the US law, and making public these original documents would not have changed very much, presumably. Weighing the importance of this with the importance of publishing the original documents does not seem that heavy in the balance. In fact by destroying (so he claims) the copy he received for said reason he also destroyed his own credibility. |
| It would be much more plausible though that Gerry Armstrong had simply kept copies of these said affirmations. If he had published them as photocopies from the actual documents he would likely have been jumped on by the court and the Church of Scientology. He would have been forced to explain how he got hold of them. As he only claimed to have transcribed them from original documents he could avoid all that hassle. In effect though, the result for having original copies or transcriptions of these resulted in the exact same thing. The anti-Scientology community adopted them equally easily as they would have have done with real documents. |
| |
|
| |
“Obviously I don't have any desire to profit monetarily by posting
Hubbard's unpublished Admissions.” |
|
|
| Annotation: Considering the past track of Gerry Armstrong this may not all be that obvious. He became wealthy because he returned materials that were not his to start with. The fox may lose his hair, but not his cunning. |
| |
|
| |
“I am also posting the Admissions openly to confirm their authenticity.
The copy I received was not clear in places, and it is now gone. All
words, spellings, punctuation and notations are Hubbard's, except for
brackets [] which are mine.” |
|
|
| Annotation: In fact this statement of Gerry Armstrong is rather of an infantile nature. Him posting these Admissions (affirmations) does not “confirm their authenticity” in any possible way! We have his story and his claim, and that's all we got! If someone was to say that these affirmations as offered are solely a brainchild of the imagination of Gerry Armstrong, who is to prove the contrary? The burden of proving any authenticity is his, but instead he destroys what could have proved that! |
| |
|
| |
“Posting the Admissions, I believe, lessens the threat of harm or
murder to silence me, but it ups the revenge factor ®. The person who
sent me the copy emphatically doesn't want any trouble. Good Lord, I
don't want any trouble, and I'm the guy who typed this copy and will
now post it using my own name to ... [newsgroup]. The person who sent the copy
certainly knew that I would recognize the writings and I'd like to
think wanted me to do with them what I've done and what the person was
in no position to do.” |
|
|
| Annotation: Gerry Armstrong could do no more harm then he had already done during the previous 25 years till this point in time. Thus stating here “lessens the threat of harm or
murder to silence me” is fully absurd. If that really was the case they would have murdered him a long time ago. It appears that Gerry Armstrong persistently has made and still is deliberately making much effort to turn himself into a target. The person he refers to could have posted these writings anonymous to any newsgroup or forum without fearing to have his identity disclosed. People are doing that in public libraries all the time. It could also as easily have been send to various newspapers and other such media. The assertion of Gerry Armstrong that “I've done and what the person was
in no position to do”, appears thus rather silly and ridiculous indeed. It is much more plausible that once again Gerry Armstrong could not refrain from to once again draw all the attention to his person. He posts it then under his name and still tries to convince us that “I
don't want any trouble”. Excuse me? (while I kiss the sky...) |
The incidence of the Nov 1984 tapes, and the defence of Gerry Armstrong
(Includes: The recordings (raw tapes))
| While watching these recording one gets the impression as if Gerry Armstrong was set up to conspire (or contribute) and work out a way some sort of take-over of the Scientology organization. As many as 4 of these meetings had been videotaped in secret. Each of these meetings took place on a bench in some park. |
| Gerry Armstrong does address these tapes on his own website. The matter here is that he does not deny that it is him on these tapes, he also does not deny their authenticity, and he does not deny that he said those things on these tape recordings. What he does say about them though is that they were illegally obtained. Furthermore it is argued that the compilation that the Church of Scientology made of the original 4 raw tapes would be a doctored version, and accordingly would give a misrepresentation. Then it is also argued that the court rejected the tapes as evidence. |
| Gerry Armstrong himself argues as follows about this on this Internet newsgroup on 13 Feb 2009, 4:59: |
| |
“The judge in the Julie Christofferson v. Scientology case, where the
cult broke the Armstrong Op videos, initially would not allow the cult
to use them because they were obtained illegally. He also stated,
after watching them in chambers, that the videos ‘are devastating,
devastating against the church.’ |
|
| |
An attempt to discredit a witness testifying against the Church of
Scientology in a fraud trial hit a snag Thursday when a Portland judge
called surreptitiously made videotapes an ‘amateurish performance’ and
refused to let them be shown to the jury. |
|
| |
‘I think they are devastating, devastating against the church,’
Multnomah Circuit Judge Donald H. Londer said out of the presence of
the jury after viewing 108 minutes of tape recorded in a Los Angeles
park last November. |
|
| |
[...] |
|
| |
After viewing the tapes, Londer told attorneys he thought it was ‘very
questionable’ whether the concealed recordings were made under legal
authority in California by a private investigator. He also said the
method used in the tapes ‘borders more on entrapment than anything
else.’ [from newspaper article ‘Oregonian’, 5 Apr 85] |
|
| |
Because they showed that Scientology's fair game practice was alive
and well, however, Christofferson's attorneys dropped their objection
to the videos being put into evidence, and they were played for the
jury. And the jury returned a devastating judgment for Julie. And the
Judge, a month later, for some reason that he apparently took to his
grave, declared a mistrial. |
|
| |
The cult, of course, after the 1986 ‘settlement’ continued to use the
illegally obtained videos and to twist and wring anything they could
out of them to fair game me. |
|
| |
That worked about as well as the rest of Scientology's tech, didn't it? |
|
| |
© Gerry Armstrong |
|
| Mind though that the Church of Scientology had actually shown documents that would indicate that they had permission to video record these meetings with Gerry Armstrong. This involved an Officer Phillip Rodriquez of the Los Angeles Police Department that had given written permission to video tape, although during the court proceedings we have a Daryl F. Gates, Chief of Police, Los Angeles that says that the Officer was not authorized to do so. |
| Then, is this relevant? Properly authorized or not, the Scientology hired private investigator may either way have thought that he actually had received proper authorization. See, here it doesn't actually bear so much weight if these tapes would have been illegally obtained. It is of more interest to verify to which degree the released doctored version would misrepresent the things that are actually said on these tapes. I am also of the opinion that a person with a clean conscience can not be brought to or persuade to tell things that in some way can be hold against the person. Fortunately the raw tapes are available, and these tapes have been recorded with a time stamp on them (with m/sec), and thus a comparison can be made and this all can be checked and verified. |
| It is nonetheless interesting to note that the focus of Gerry Armstrong and his comrades is entirely placed on the uninteresting circumstances. As an example I received the following response on this Internet newsgroup: (dated 13 Feb 2009, 2:52) |
| |
“Made by police impersonator Eugene Ingram, and edited to hell by OSA*. |
|
| |
They might be part of the court record, but as garbage that was rejected by
the court as evidence. |
|
| |
You lose.” |
|
| For the record it can be said that Gerry Armstrong himself has actually been presenting these very videos through his own website. Then strangely enough he is also hosting scannings from the Scientology periodical ‘Freedom’ Apr/May 85 (Special Edition) that carries a large article about this matter entitled: “Videotapes of Federal informant Reveal Bizarre Government Plot to Destroy Church” (see pages 3-12). Indeed Gerry Armstrong must be very confident about matters as this article goes in rather great depth about this matter and provides for rather extensive transcripts of pertinent sections from these tape recordings. Is Gerry Armstrong bluffing when he does so, I tend to think that this is the reason. He can't deny these things and thus he hosts all these things himself. The matter is then to get them differently interpreted or presented. And this is actually what Gerry Armstrong has been doing from the very beginning. |
| The following text is attributed to Stacy Young Brooks. It is found at some places out on the Internet, although I am unable to find the actual source of it and can thus not confirm its authenticity. I print it here as it bears some significance. Furthermore it is sometimes forwarded as an argument by anti-Scientologists. Does anyone know the actual source of this, and can tell where the original (document) can be found? (if authentic) |
| |
“I went through the transcripts and pulled the ‘best’ parts I could find, doing my best to comply with DM's orders to make Gerry look like a paid informant. Privately I thought it was obvious, even after the editing, that Gerry was being set up, but I dutifully turned in my doctored transcript to DM, who then turned
it over to Ted Horner, a Gold staff member in charge of film editing, to use my edited transcript to do the final edit on the videotapes. |
|
| |
After seeing the videotape, the judge was enraged and told the Scientologists, ‘I have heard about these dirty tactics that you use against your perceived enemies, but now that I have seen it for myself I think you are much, much worse than I had ever imagined!’ And kicked them out of his chambers. |
|
| |
Everyone joined in the delusion that we were simply tightening up the videotape.
DM ordered me and the rest of the FREEDOM staff to turn the edited GA videotape transcripts into a special edition of FREEDOM. If the judge wouldn't listen, then we would take the issue to the people of Portland! That was what DM said.” |
|
| I would question the correctness of the contents of this tale for reasons that I have described elsewhere in this section of my write-up. It may very well be so that “DM” (=David Miscavige) ordered all sorts of things. But the raw tapes simply didn't need much work! “GA” (=Gerry Armstrong) behaved and talked like a “paid informant” (or pretty much so). See, there is just too much raw tape trying to go around that and claim that Gerry Armstrong would have been “set up”! |
| If that judge really responded like that, then it may get a bit silly. It does appear to be on record that the private investigator had written permission to video record, or at least he believed he had. That the earlier mentioned Chief of Police Daryl F. Gates “believed to have been drafted by Ingram [private investigator] himself,” as he claims in his ’Public Announcement, dated 23 Apr 1985’, issued thus a while after conclusion of the Gerry Armstrong trials in June 1984. |
The recordings (raw tapes)
| At this time the original Real Media (RM) files appear not anymore available on the Internet as far as I could establish. They were at one time hosted by Boudewijn van Ingen on his website www.bogie.nl (website not on line since at least 2008). Gerry Armstrong from his own website linked to these files hosted on www.bogie.nl, and he still does today (last checked: 4 Jul 2015), but they are dead links now. We do however find these files on YouTube as flv/mp4-files. Unfortunately the picture and the sound on these files do not run synchronous (which is rather disastrous), whereas the original rm-files did run synchronous. |
| After some consideration I have decided to make the original rm-files available in this listing here below: (right-click and save the files, or watch them online) |
| Day One. Gerry meets with David Kluge (7 Nov 84) |
| |
Time stamp:
0:20-57:15
Total time recorded: 56 min., 55 sec. |
|
| Day Two. David Kluge returns (9 Nov 84) |
| |
Time stamp:
0:20-52:55
Total time recorded: 52 min., 35 sec. |
|
| Day Three. Enter Mike Rinder (17 Nov 84) |
| |
Time stamp:
5:06-(1)25:16
Total time recorded: 2 hrs., 10 sec. |
|
| Day Four. Mike Rinder returns (30 Nov 84) |
| |
Time stamp:
0:23-63:47
Total time recorded: 1 hr., 3 min., 24 sec. |
|
| We are thus looking at a total time of recorded video amounting to 4 hrs., 53 min., 4 sec. This is more than just a fair amount of material that is contained on them. The presentation of the Church of Scientology on the matter of Gerry Armstrong was less than 17 minutes long. This contains 10 snippets taken from these raw tapes with a total time of 8 minutes of video. Now, the raw tapes were recorded with this time stamp in m/seconds. Because of this it is a bit hard to manipulate these tapes. But of course, phrases can be presented out of context. Nonetheless the snippets contained on the Church's presentation are fairly long and do not seem to be taken out of context particularly. And as mentioned previously, the complete raw tapes are actually available. |
| |
The edited version released by the Church of Scientology (20 min). Narrated by Heber Jentzsch and edited by said Stacy Brooks. |
|
These raw tapes that have been available are of a rather reasonable quality, keeping in mind that these were recorded with a telephoto lens
and a long range microphone at considerable distance.
Inconsistencies and annotations
Allowing a hired biographer access to particularly ‘damaging’ papers? Why was an autobiography never an option?
May be the grandest of inconsistencies here may very well be that if L. Ron Hubbard actually knew he had such papers as these affirmations in his archives and evidence for the many other claimed fabrications about his own life, then why, why, oh why would he have allowed someone to have access to papers that would very effectively expose him? Did he forgot about all these? Can you actually forget about all of that? Here the member of the anti-Scientology movement will be quick to tell that L. Ron Hubbard was living his own delusion. It would be rather obvious though that giving anyone (particularly a hired biographer) knowingly and willingly access to materials of this nature, would be an error of gargantuan proportions! See, it would just never work in your favour! What about the person surrounding L. Ron Hubbard, would they also all be living their own delusion? No one of these persons would have spotted or be on the alert for anything? See, that's just not very likely.
Now, the person approached to have the biography written, Omar V. Garrison, he had the repute to be a rather conscientious writer. He would just not write things that he knew could not be supported or were contradicted by existing documentation or that were simply untrue. So, if you want a boasting kind of biography written, as the Church of Scientology since have produced, you would just not turn to Omar V. Garrison. Next we see is that he was given through Gerry Armstrong access to particularly damaging materials. That it at all occurred is in itself a paradox, if not somehow and deliberately orchestrated!
| It all raises some questions and offers scenarios such as: |
| |
(1) |
If it factually was L. Ron Hubbard that had approved a biography to be written, as amongst other Omar V. Garrison apparently believed; |
| |
(2) |
If it would have been some other person that was acting as or in the name of L. Ron Hubbard, a person that would not have known that which was hidden in these archived papers; |
| |
(3) |
The realization that a real L. Ron Hubbard could so very easily have written an autobiography himself. Now, if you already are a very well established author, then why, why, oh why getting into hiring persons like Omar V. Garrison and later L. Fletcher Prouty to do that for you? (more info here, separate window) And of course if it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard that was going around there then he just could not very likely have written that autobiography. It is one thing to have a look-alike, or a person acting as L. Ron Hubbard in name, but quite another being an author and knowing everything about L. Ron Hubbard from a firsthand perspective. You will simply be forced to contract a biographer to have it written for you; |
| |
(4) |
Lastly then, what will we do with this rumour that an attempt for an autobiography had already been undertaken some place during June 1972. Materials that unearthed in court coincidently because of one Gerry Armstrong (details here, separate window). |
| Are we facing here indicators of some sort of stage act? It doesn't all make very much sense. |
| Omar V. Garrison does relate in his Declaration, dated 18 Apr 1983, that “Mary Sue Hubbard was aware of the project and corresponded with me about it and about the materials”. Then “I asked Mrs. Hubbard for a face-to-face interview, which she declined with the excuse that security would not permit it.”. Then he relates that: “I did not have any communication with Mrs. Hubbard after 1981 because I was informed that the Scientology organization was refusing to pass on any communications to her.”. Which makes the situation all the more look very suspect. |
| Not even a face-to-face interview between L. Ron Hubbard with the hired biographer? Isn't that a bit well strange? Because of “security”? What did they think Omar V. Garrison was going to do to L. Ron Hubbard? Kidnap him may be? And what is that about “security would not permit it”, what about L. Ron Hubbard permitting it? Was L. Ron Hubbard under guard may be and was not allowed to act on his own? These are indeed strange indicators that we get! |
| It also is rather noteworthy to mention here that L. Ron Hubbard was never that keen to have a biography written on him. It was considered a distraction from the subject of Dianetics and Scientology. It had always sufficed to have a short biography included at the end of some book publication, and that was about it. An overview of this can be consulted here (separate window). |
| Next is that we hear people saying and assuring that L. Ron Hubbard was involved and was personally approving a biography, but the problem is that L. Ron Hubbard was just not around or in reach. Physically during these years he was always at some distant unknown place. |
| L. Ron Hubbard had all the time in the world to write his own autobiography, that is if he wanted to have that biography. That he didn't do so, what does that tell us? |
Conspiracies
I can't disregard from that it all gives an impression of being a prank that was pulled in this business involving Gerry Armstrong. It really was not worked out terribly well! The inconsistencies are literally scattered all over the place!
| What about that Gerry Armstrong was caught on video making statements like “I'm saying that I can do it. I can type those goddam things and duplicate them and make them look exactly the same. You can't, you would not be able to tell the difference.” and “We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t. We just have to allege it.”. Why is he saying these things? If the Church of Scientology was recording these things, then why did they allow them to fall into the public awareness? Was this deliberately or was that a mistake? |
| Would it be possible that Gerry Armstrong was set up to function as some sort of patsy? A patsy that contrary to the original plan started to speak up and talk back? Was this possibly all staged by some person or entity? If so, then to what end? To effectively discredit the person L. Ron Hubbard and thus, more importantly, put down the subject matter of Dianetics and Scientology? Could one have decided to draw the attention on the founder and away from these subject matters? So, could there be another tale hiding behind the scenery that is shown? |
| What if we give Gerry Armstrong the benefit of the doubt and accept that he himself honestly believes the authenticity of said materials and how he got this material, but instead simply had been had. And he could have been had a second time in the year 2000. What then? It has still to be said though that the whole affair and particularly the irrational behaviour presented by Gerry Armstrong is sort of infantile. Which person in his right mind would destroy materials and discredit himself in ways he has done? |
| There is probably only one thing that can turn matters conclusive about this, and that is getting the actual original materials and do a proper handwriting analysis on them. These papers however are at present kept by the Church of Scientology, so that is not likely going to happen any time soon. |
| In any case, until such time we can properly authenticate any of these materials it may be a good advice to let them reside in the land of the imaginary and simply shelve them for the time being. You just can't build a case with them as it stands. All you can do is create a make-believe situation. It would appear that said Gerry Armstrong is a true expert in succeeding with that! |
| All these hassles with Gerry Armstrong created a considerable consternation in the media. Starting with the newspaper coverage in particular the year 1984, at the time when these incidents occurred, we see that the Church of Scientology steadily establishes itself as being referred to as a sect. It was not until the beginning of the Gerry Armstrong episode that the past of L. Ron Hubbard seriously started to be questioned in regards to his credits and achievements. |
| We had already the occurrences with the Clearwater Hearings (May 1982) and the revelations of the oldest son of L. Ron Hubbard in the magazine Penthouse (June 1983). The Armstrong incident threw even more oil onto a fire that by that time already was burning steadfastly. It was that particularly during this time period that the repute and authority of the person L. Ron Hubbard received a rather serious setback. In a sense this is peculiar as the person L. Ron Hubbard could not be contacted and had not appeared in public for quite some time. Since years it has been said that he was living in seclusion, however various voices were heard that questioned if he actually was still alive at that time. This included his oldest son. These voices frequently appeared in the news media and the newspapers during these early ’80s. |
The members of the anti-Scientology community are quick to quote and point at this ‘Memorandum of Intended Decision’ by Judge Paul G. Breckenridge Jr. (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. C 420153; dated 20 Jun 84). Indeed it does not say very nice things about the Church of Scientology and the personality of L. Ron Hubbard. One should however not overlook that this decision is largely based on the sayings and claims of Gerry Armstrong. Also this court decision is just one out of many rulings that since have been made in regards to Gerry Armstrong. Scientology antagonists out on the Internet as a rule fail to mention all that passed the revue afterwards and those rulings that were not particularly favourable of Gerry Armstrong. The integrity of Gerry Armstrong has been seriously questioned by a variety of courts since the original 1984 ruling. Something to which the anti-Scientologist gives a blind eye.
| An acquaintance of mine proposes: |
| |
“It is easy to figure out how it works: some slimy psychs in the German secret service want to ruin L. Ron Hubbard's reputation and also destroy Scientology. They forge papers and have their international infiltrators planting them in the Scientology orgs*. Gerry stole such planted papers from them. In order to make these forgeries authentic, the German secret service orders the infiltrators in the orgs to sue Gerry to get these papers BACK INSTEAD of suing Gerry of having stolen PLANTED MATERIAL IN OTHER WORDS: FORGERIES. L. Ron Hubbard's and Scientology's enemies know by suing to get the planted forgeries back instead of clearly saying that they are forgeries, they make the forgeries authentic.” |
|
| Which relays an interesting but puzzling concept. |
| Additionally we can note: |
| The Scientology periodical ‘Freedom’, Special Edition April/May 85 carries a lengthy article entitled: “Videotapes of Federal Informant Reveal Bizarre Government Plot to Destroy Church” in where Gerry Armstrong is referred to as a ‘covert government intelligence operative’. In this article a clear connection with the FBI and the IRS is named. |
| Interestingly enough we then find that Mr. David Miscavige (Chairman of the Board, Religious Technology Center) and Mr. Heber Jentzsch (President of the Church of Scientology) appear listed in ‘The Crowley Files’ as ‘CIA sources’ (see http://cryptome.info/0001/cia-2619.htm or http://www.crow96.20m.com (click at ‘CIA source list’)). (both links last checked: 5 Sept 2019) |
| So how are we going to interpret this? |
| Then regarding that the position of the Church of Scientology would be deemed controversial as they threw oil onto the fire that was lit by Gerry Armstrong by never questioning the authenticity of the affirmations of Gerry. |
| It is then suggested to me “that the church and Gerry are paid and instructed by the same 3rd party: the deep state. Its purpose being to destroy the effectiveness of Scientology. So the Church of Scientology is then not allowed to defend themselves in an effective matter.” |
| So, a planned operation? |
Vocabulary:
CSI:
‘Church of Scientology International’. A senior level within the Church of Scientology.
LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AOs) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
Copyright © 2008, 2012, 2015, 2019 Michel
Snoeck. All rights reserved.
This page revised:
10 March, 2024
|
|
|
