**Biased Journalism** #5 Armstrong Hearing
David Smith
> **Biased Journalism** : a net magazine designed to compensate for
> the shortcomings of the professional news media.
> Copyright 1995 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.
> Mail, articles and comment may be directed to <stho...@netcom.com>.
> Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the
> following: harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the
> net immediately.
>
>**Biased Journalism** Volume I, issue 5 November 23, 1995
>Contents: Lerma Trial Date; Milne Spills the Beans; Slam Dunk for
>the Church of Scientology (Armstrong Hearing); An XMAS Gift
>For That Special Someone; Rodent Report (Security Flap at Hemet);
>T-Shirt Update.
>Read at your own risk. This is **Biased Journalism**!
>1. LERMA TRIAL DATE
> The lawsuit brought by Religious Technology Corporation, an arm
>of the Church of Scientology, against Arnaldo P. Lerma (critic), Digital
>Gateway Systems (his service provider), the Washington Post, Richard
>Leiby and Marc Fisher (reporters) will go to trial on January 29, 1996.
>David Miscavige, head of the church of scientology, will be deposed in
>this lawsuit. Last-ditch efforts by the church to quash his deposition
>have failed.
> According to net information, a Motion for Summary Judgment on
>the trade secret charges by defendant Lerma's attorneys will be heard
>on December 1, 1995. [In earlier developments in the Colorado case
>the church apparently abandoned its trade secret claims. As we
>understand it, the heart of the case is in accusations of copyright
>infringement.]
> We thank the sharp-eyed readers of Journal #4 who pointed out
>to us that Leap Year Day is February 29, not January 29. We don't know
>what came over us.
>2. MILNE SPILLS THE BEANS
> On November 16 Andrew Milne <mi...@crl.com>, church spokesman,
>startled alt.religion.scientology by posting a choice exerpt from Arnie
>Lerma's deposition. In the selection quoted, Lerma comments that
>Lawrence Wollersheim has an abrasive attitude. We were freshly reminded
>that Lerma's slogan is "I'd rather die speaking my mind than live
>fearing to speak." The whole document must make interesting reading,
>worthy of a Scamizdat. Did we say SCAMIZDAT?
> No one on ars had previously seen the deposition because it was
>placed under seal by Judge Brinkema at the request of the plaintiffs.
>Milne's post presumably came as a surprise to the attorneys for Lerma
>et al., and we are curious to see what the court will make of the matter.
>3. THE GERRY ARMSTRONG HEARING: Slam Dunk for the Church
>Dispatch from San Rafael: October 6, 1995
> October has been hot and dry. Earlier this week intermittent
>Easterly winds fanned the inevitable grass fire into a major blaze
>near the town of Inverness and the Point Reyes National Seashore.
>The smoke browned the sky in San Rafael. The air smelled of burning
>pine, a sweet and sinister fragrance.
> The county courthouse is a large building extended in wings over
>terraformed hills. The wings are nearly identical in appearance and the
>parking lots are neatly symmetrical, offering hours of entertainment to
>dyslexics and people with a poor sense of direction.
> There were compensations. The corridors of the building were
>wider than some roads and the entire structure was immaculately clean.
>The personnel were white, well dressed and friendly. The plants in the
>atrium were intensely lush and green. There were no crowds.
> The hearing was held in the courtroom of Judge Gary W. Thomas.
>We found our way there through handsome unmarked corridors and mysterious
>floor designations apparently designed to foil terrorists by instilling
>confusion. The courtroom was designed to be almost circular. It was
>richly paneled in dark wood. The jury box and the public seating area
>were semicircular. The light fixtures in the ceiling were circular.
>The room was a masterpiece of psychological design. All attention was
>focused on the judge; all power emanated from his platform.
> The logistics quite were different than in San Jose and enforced
>a different ethic upon the participants. The counsel table was a semi-
>circle of dark wood below the judge, who towered over the cowering lawyers.
>There was a spare piece of table on the side, but no one used it. When a
>case was called, the lawyers from both sides quickly came up to the table
>and stood next to each other to give their presentations. They felt, we
>surmised, very much on the spot. There was no sense whatever of
>territorial hostility as we felt between opposing counsel tables in
>San Jose. [At moments in the Erlich hearings a drawn stiletto would
>scarcely have been out of place.] The lawyers focused entirely on
>the Judge and were very, very polite. They all spoke rapidly, for
>reasons we were soon to discover.
> We had plenty of time to observe the scene. The judge had a
>stack of folders in front of him that was at least eighteen inches
>tall. Everyone waited while each case was dealt with in turn. We
>saw several arguments over attorney's fees, a sexual harassment case
>(the judge threw it out), a constructive termination case which sounded
>bad to us but met the same fate (dentist had a bad hair day and took it
>out on his hygenist, who quit and then sued). We noticed that in many
>of these cases the judge was being asked to change a ruling he had
>previously given. In each instance he refused. Once in awhile an
>attorney tried to put in a last word. "That's all," the judge said,
>in a pleasant conversational tone. And the attorney would say
>"Thank you, Your Honor" and gather up his papers and leave. Fast.
> The public seating was almost filled. The jury box was full of
>spare lawyers, but there were a number of lawyers in the audience as
>well. Gerry Armstrong was easy to find. "He looks like Jesus," we
>were informed. "You won't have any trouble spotting him." Lo, it
>was true.
> We scrutinized the audience for additional participants in the
>netwar, but saw no familiar faces. The, ah, *vibe* was different. This
>audience was very interested in something, but we concluded that it was
>not Scientology.
> The truth surfaced when the judge called a case involving
>easements in Bolinas. A stir went through the audience and the lawyers
>in the jury box sat up. The case was complex, involving landowners,
>contracts, zoning and efforts by an agency of the State of California
>to (we inferred) take possession of the beach in Bolinas in the name of
>The People. Who were The People and what right did they have to tell
>the good citizens of Bolinas what to do? What did the contract really
>say? This was gone over quickly while the audience paid rapt attention.
>The original contract involved some 40 landowners, but the case had now
>expanded to include some 120 parties. In the way of such things it had
>become extraordinarily acrimonous. [Where citizens in poorer places
>reach for their guns, the people of Marin County call their lawyers.
>Issues are as bitterly fought here as in the barrios; merely the weapons
>are different.]
> "There is a status conference this afternoon, Your Honor," one
>of the lawyers reminded. "Yes, there is" the judge sighed. A pause.
>"How's it going?" Everyone laughed. No settlement was in sight.
>Ground zero was expanding daily. People were pledging their homes to
>finance the struggle.
> The lawyers were dismissed to sort it out. Most of the audience
>got up and followed them.
> The next act was a lawsuit involving a restaurant. The judge
>complimented the restaurant: "Well, I did have a good bowl of clam
>chowder there," he declared, startling some members of the audience.
>He deferred the case, as the restaurant's attorney had asked. [Was
>the judge making a clam joke? We could not tell.]
>--intermission--
>
> A brief recess was called. We utilized it to introduce ourselves
>to Gerry Armstrong and have a brief chat with one of the audience. Our
>target was a dark-haired man with a square, somewhat lined face and
>striking, bushy eyebrows. He was neatly dressed in a suit and obviously
>tired (we caught him napping during the sexual harassment case).
> We introduced ourselves, and after due deliberation he gave his
>name as Howard. He was with OSA and had accompanied church lawyers
>Wilson and Bartilson.
> Howard looked surprisingly like an older version of Jeff Quiros,
>[OSA-San Francisco] but the vibe was darker. We guessed he ranked higher
>in the organization. He told us that he had been in scientology for a
>number of years, that he was free to talk to anyone, and that he knew
>very little of what was transpiring on the net. He did not have a
>computer himself.
> We asked if he had attained a lot of rank in the church. (We
>really wanted to know whether he had acquired any OT powers, but were
>embarrassed to ask directly.) He replied that he had been with the
>church since 1971.
> We discussed the netwar. He said "We have to defend our
>copyrights." "Well," we proposed, "before these raids and other
>things happened alt.religion.scientology was a little backwater on
>the net with 30-50 posts per day. Perhaps 500 people read it. Now
>it's one of the most popular groups. Every day more people read
>it and get involved." He nodded. He knew about the expanding furor
>in cyberspace. "Now if the church had ignored Dennis Erlich, and had
>not attacked the net, in all probability ars would still be a small
>backwater populated by a few critics talking mostly to each other."
>We had the sense that he agreed but it had not been his decision to
>make. In a moment of silence we reflected on the fate of a
>corporation that lets lawyers decide policy.
> We wished for a longer intermission, in which to ask some
>pressing questions. The opportunity to talk to a senior church
>member was rare and we found Howard a reasonable human being. Why
>doesn't the church let people of higher caliber represent them on
>the net? -At this point the scientology lawyers returned, giving
>us curious looks, and the hearing resumed.
>--end intermission--
> The next case was the Church of Scientology vs. Gerald
>Armstrong. The judge called it with audible relish.
> Attorneys were Andrew Wilson and Laurie Bartilson for the Church
>of Scientology and Ford Greene for Gerry Armstrong.
>
> Greene had asked for the hearing. He wanted to discuss the
>tentative order.
> The background was this: After several years with the Church
>of Scientology Armstrong resigned. He was subjected to harassment of
>various kinds, including freeway accidents with automobiles driven by
>Scientologists, and together with some other people he sued. The church
>finally offered a cash settlement on the condition that Armstrong
>dismiss his cross complaint and sign an agreement. Essentially the
>agreement stated that Armstrong et al. would not possess any Scientology
>literature and would not discuss Scientology or the Church. Greene
>explains that if the judge's interpretation is followed, this means
>the Church could accuse Armstrong of of being a liar, perjurer, etc.
>and if he defends himself he is in violation of a court order.
>[The cruelty of this arrangement bothered us on the way home. Armstrong
>had given himself completely to the church; scientology was his life.
>To be rid of him the church gave him $800,000 and forced him to
>forswear his past. It was a faustian bargain. We guessed that
>the church knew what they did when they stripped him.]
>Greene wants the judge to find that the contract involved mutual
>confidentiality. He argues that the agreement involved not only
>information possessed by Gerald Armstrong, but pertained also to
>information held by the Church of Scientology as to its former
>parishioner. He complains that the judge has not read evidence
>Armstrong submitted supporting this argument.
>The judge wants to talk about contracts. A discussion ensues with
>respect to duress.
>Greene responds that duress [as the judge sees it, absence of] is not
>the issue. He says that Laurie Bartilson filed documents stating that
>the agreement was mutual. The judge's ruling didn't incorporate those
>facts, he argues.
>The judge and Greene quickly go back and forth on the question. The
>judge sees it as a contract issue. 'You keep your mouth shut, we pay
>you $800,000.' There is an agreement that if he opens his mouth he must
>repay $50,000. "He opened his mouth and they want $50,000 each time."
>Cases are discussed. Greene argues that the court needs to look at
>the object nature and the subject matter of the contract. He brings
>in Judge Breckenridge's ruling, in which Armstrong is judicially
>credited with telling the truth and the Church of Scientology is
>judicially credited with very bad deeds.
>The judge comes back with a comment on the Church's claims: given the
>contract, Greene's argument logically suggests that Armstrong made
>an agreement without the intention of keeping it.
>Greene replies that Armstrong was paid the $800,000 to dismiss his
>cross complaint, which was set to go to trial in three months
>[immediately, as lawyers count time]. The cross complaint dealt with
>harassment, including very serious incidents. He says that both
>parties made an agreement to keep their mouths shut and the Church
>of Scientology broke it.
>The judge reads from a Los Angeles court order. It says that mutuality
>cannot be read into the unambiguous terms of the agreement. [The judge
>is a stickler for unambigious terms.]
>Ford Greene counters that this is unfair. The court order does not
>refer to Armstrong's issues.
>The judge concedes that the court order is not the law in this case.
>Greene wants to build a case, something the judge is unwilling
>to allow. He complains that the judge keeps interrupting him; he is
>right. Greene references another L.A. judge who thought the first
>judge's order was one-sided. He again refers to a document submitted
>in the L.A. case, which Judge Thomas had overlooked in his ruling:
>"...and that's the single most glaring omission, with respect, in your
>tentative order."
>He relates that Armstrong found out that the Church of Scientology was
>appealing his case. He went to the appellate court with a copy of the
>agreement. The appellate court found that Armstrong could participate
>in defending his case on appeal.
>Now the opposition had their say. Andrew Wilson maintains that the
>courts have held that the agreement is not mutual. He lists several
>judges. Courts have granted summary judgment on several provisions;
>they haven't said the agreement is mutual.
>Greene responds quickly. He has Heller's papers "...right here. With
>respect, Mr. Wilson, you're wrong." The court only looked at the
>judgment. It did not make a decision on the enforceability of the
>contract.
>Judge Thomas steps in. The beliefs of any of the participants
>including Gerry Anderson are not relevant, he says. He refers to a
>summary of California law: Rules of Interpretation of Written
>Contracts. Efforts to interpret must concern efforts to elucidate the
>meaning of the words in which the contract is written. Evidence cannot
>be admitted to show intention independent of the instrument. Therefore
>Armstrong hasn't raised a triable issue. His arguments about
>obstruction of justice and the right to free speech are [beside the
>point]. The ITT case shows that it is possible to waive even First
>Amendment, free speech rights.
>Greene won't give in. He states that agreement to a contract must be
>knowing and voluntary. Further, Heller says it's mutual. [Heller, a
>Scientology lawyer, was in the room when Armstrong signed the contract.
>Greene wants his sworn statement considered.]
>Laurie Bartilson tells the judge that there is videotape of Armstrong
>signing the contract. He signed a statement saying he had discussed it
>with attorneys. Etc. This shows that Armstrong signed the agreement
>voluntarily and knowingly.
>Judge Thomas says, as he has done in every previous case that day,
>"There is no reason to change my tentative ruling."
>Ford Greene argues fiercely with the judge. The preliminary injunction
>is broader than the language of the contract itself!
>The judge won't discuss the language. We intuit that something is
>discussable here, but the judge tells Greene that he has had twenty
>minutes and they are done.
>Greene continues to argue. By this point other attorneys had left
>tamely, but he wants to get certain statements into the record.
>Heller comes up again.
>The judge refuses to debate with Greene. He calls the next case.
>The lawyers for the next case array themselves at the table, but
>Greene is still fighting. Wilson and Bartilson come back to pick
>up their Scientologist colleague in audience. They are beaming.
>"That boy's going to jail," Wilson remarks.
>Meanwhile the judge states that Greene is interfering with another
>case and offers to have him "taken away."
>Greene won't quit. He is talking for the record, rapidly, arms
>waving. The judge nods for the bailiffs. A telephone call is made.
>Then, miraculously, it is over. Greene gathers his papers and leaves,
>trailing Armstrong and a few supporters. Greene is disturbed. The
>outcome is not good. He is visibly angry about it. While he is
>collecting himself a crowd of bailiffs materializes in his vicinity.
>They have weapons and cellular telephones, but are amazingly polite and
>low-key. An attractive woman bailiff steps forward to ask if he has
>calmed down. He says he has. They go away, leaving a few of their
>number to watch from a discreet distance. We surmise that Greene is
>no stranger to bailiff interactions.
>It is still hot outside. The smoke has spread out over the city in a
>whitish pall. The fire has gotten worse.
>--Epilog--
>When Wilson and Bartilson came back to their seats at the end,
>looking extremely happy, we and the scientologist had a shared
>moment of rapport. In that instant we both understood that the
>Church has won, this time, but like every previous legal
>action this one will turn into a p.r. nightmare.
>Operation Foot Bullet is well on course.
>--Additional details--
> In a subsequent conversation we talked with Andrew Wilson,
>attorney for the church.
> Since October 6, Wilson said, the judge confirmed his
>preliminary order and issued an injunction. If Armstrong violates
>the injunction he can go to jail, Wilson explained, "but I expect
>he would not violate the injunction." [The image of this gentle,
>stubborn, unworldly man in prison moved us. Some things are visibly
>unacceptable. We suspected that it also moved Andrew Wilson.]
> Wilson confirmed that his remark ("That boy's going to go to
>jail.") indeed referred to Ford Greene. Wilson was unfavorably
>impressed with Greene's aggressive stance in court. He thought this
>behavior was rude to the judge who, Wilson said, had had a stroke
>and was physically impaired. [In fairness we must say that despite his
>infirmity the judge had no trouble asserting himself.] Wilson, we
>gathered, would not have been surprised if Greene had gone to jail,
>which indeed nearly happened.
> We asked Wilson whether he were a scientologist. He laughed.
>"No." He was not offended by the question. Everyone he meets asks
>him this, he said. It comes with the territory. We asked how he felt
>when he was first contacted by the church of scientology.
> Wilson explained that an old high school friend, Jeff Quiros,
>had made the connection for him. He went on to say that every
>scientologist he had ever met had impressed him as a good and
>worthwhile person.
> We had a cognition. Lawyers think quite differently
>than the general public. *Of course* Andrew Wilson was not put off
>by the church's reputation. What better luck could an attorney
>have than an insatiably litigous client with unlimited funds? No
>wonder he looked happy in court.
> Interestingly, Wilson was unfamiliar with some actions of
>the church which took place outside of the courtroom. He seemed
>surprised to hear of the exploits of Eugene Ingram, for example.
>However when we mentioned that Ingram's actions constituted
>a public relations problem for the church, Wilson was unimpressed.
>If it isn't a legal problem, it isn't a problem. [This is, we
>thought, because he does not understand what a p.r. problem on the
>net really means. If the church expects to club its critics into
>silence one by one, it is in for a surprise.]
> Like many of the participants in the church side of the
>netwar, Wilson is unfamiliar with the net. Although there are
>several computers in his office, he has never taken time to go on
>line. We encouraged him to go on line and see what is happening
>for himself.
> We had a brief chat with Ford Greene. He confirmed
>that in the closing moments of the hearing he was desperately
>trying to get certain material into the record, and he knew
>he was pushing the judge to the limit. We asked if attorneys had
>ever been jailed for contempt, and he said that it was not
>unheard of. It had been a very close shave.
>
> The next action in the case will take place on December 1.
>Greene's Motion for Reconsideration will be heard. The court
>will also hear Scientology's Final Motion for Summary Judgment.
> **Biased Journalism** will report this event. Stay tuned.
>4. CHRISTMAS GIFT GALLERY
>For the A.R.S. regular who has everything:
>We opened our latest House of Onyx catalog and were delighted to find
>Opalized Clam Shell Fossils. The ad says "Our Australian Clam Shells
>are fossilized with genuine White Opal...These Opalized Clam Shell
>Fossils are White with spectral flashes of color. Those with more
>color are priced accordingly higher. Most of the Shells are within
>the 20x25 mm range, weigh between 15-25 carats and are entirely
>fossilized with Opal. The physical details of the bivalves are intact."
>[there's a picture. They look beautiful.] The ad continues, "We
>offer four qualities of Opalized Clam Shell Fossils. Those at $50
>and $75 will not be as smoothly covered with Opal as the $100 and
>$125 Fossils and consequently will have slight matrix.
>OPALIZED CLAM SHELL FOSSILS
>15-25 Cts., 20-25 mm $50.00/each
> $75.00/each
> $100.00/each
> $125.00/each."
>Plus a hefty 30% discount for ordering 2 or more.
>The House of Onyx is an old, family-operated company dealing mostly
>in gemstones, art objects and jeweler's supplies. For their free
>catalog and remarkably friendly terms of business, which include a
>guarantee of satisfaction, call 1-800-844-3100 (except in Kentucky,
>where the number is (502) 338-2363). Same number to place an order.
>No, we are not getting paid for this.
>5. RODENT REPORT
> [We take this opportunity to introduce our gossip column,
>compiled by staff member Arlene Fortiori. Send your comments and
>hot tips to her attention at our **BIased Journalism** address.]
>Hotfoot at Hemet
> A deer mouse at Hemet turned in this report: On Monday,
>November 13 there was a security flap at the Scientology base at
>Hemet, which is coincidentally called Gold Base. The deer mouse
>said that it happened in the morning. Concern was raised about a
>possible high-level defector. Security procedures entailed checking
>on a quantity of gold bullion which had been stored in a secure vault.
>When they went to check on it, they found that 7/8 of the gold was
>missing. There was no paper trail. Security personnel almost had a
>shootout over this, but discipline prevailed. There was (they decided)
>probably no connection between the missing gold and the alleged
>defector. The gold had to have been removed beforehand, possibly one
>or two months ago. The deer mouse thought it happened on the night
>shift, and that a high-ranked person in the church gave the order to
>make no records of the transfer. A *very* high ranked person, the
>deer mouse said significantly.
> Security sent a message to higher management asking for
>instructions (it went on). Was this to be considered a theft, or an
>authorized action? If the latter, why were they not informed? They
>heard back, after a delay, but the response was ambiguous. They were
>essentially told to hold their position. A colleague of the deer mouse
>scanned the message and told us, reading between the lines, that the
>author had no idea what had happened to the gold and did not want to
>commit himself.
> The lid is cranked down tight on this incident. Nevertheless
>we hope to hear more about it.
>The I-NET mouse was heard from again.
> "They're looking for me," the mouse said reproachfully. "I had
>to move my nest." It reported that it was running down the hall toward
>the vending machine, intending to have an early lunch, when it happened
>to pass an open door. Jim Settle was in the room with his boss and one
>other person, of whom the mouse could only see the feet. The subject
>of disc6ussion was the justification for the search of Arnie Lerma's
>computer. Judge Brinkema found the search to exceed the scope of the
>writ, sternly rebuked the plaintiffs and ordered the return of the
>computer and all its files. The plaintiffs have refused to comply. The
>mouse overheard Settle saying words to the effect that 'well, we'll
>just say that when we looked at the computer we saw evidence of illegal
>activity and we thought it was our duty to pursue it.' He was
>proposing a kind of citizen's arrest on Lerma's data. The I-NET
>lawyer did not think this would fly in the long run, but thought it
>might delay things for a few months.
> Will this novel theory please Judge Brinkema? Only time
>will tell.
> __A. Fortiori
>6. The California 3-Strikes T-Shirt (Department of Miscellaneous
> Apologies):
> Due to the volume of orders we have had to revise our
>manufacturing plans. Please bear with us. Delivery will take a while,
>but the shirt will be worth the wait.
>------------------------------------------
>**Biased Journalism** is putting together a mailing list. If you
>wish to be on it, please email us at <stho...@netcom.com>.
> The End