It goes without saying I suppose that it's obvious you know a lot more
about me than I know, or I know I know, about you.
(p & m)
On 19 Jan 1998 15:21:34 -0000, Secret Squirrel
>I've been dying to ask you this, for a hell of a long time but I
>didn't know if it was in your best interests to ask.
>Where are all those LRH bio materials??????? Are they ALL sealed under
>court order? (nudge, nudge, wink).
>All we get is snippets here and there. The entire archive would be
>wonderful to have.
First of all, how would you describe your relationship to the person
to whom I am responding in the following post?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Re: Gerry, what does Lyman think?
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:22:36 GMT
Organization: dowco.com internet (ISP)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235
On 20 Dec 1997 23:43:17 +0100, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>Gerry! Buddy! Canada's cold without you!
It goes without saying I suppose that it's obvious you know a lot more
about me than I know, or I know I know, about you. I am aware your
words about Scientology do not necessarily make you, as it is commonly
understood, my friend, or as you say below, buddy.
>We haven't seen you much on the newsgroup since the IRS/Scientology
>Connection story broke. Where ya' been?
I was in Nevada.
I certainly read the (I believe it was) original research post and may
have said a few words in response in a related thread. I'm sure you
keep track of these things.
>I wuz just wonderin' about a few thangs, Ger:
I received as you might know some days ago an email from one or
another anonymous source, I'd say a flame, addressing me "Jer." First
time anyone in this forum has used either.
>1. You say in your "Appendix" that "in January of 1980 there was an
>announcement of a possible raid to be made by the FBI or other law
>enforcement agencies of (Gilman Hot Springs)." Gee, Ger, that "raid" never
>materialized, did it?
There's that "Ger"again.
> Where was Lyman then? (Was he one of your buddies?)
My recollection is that Lyman was at SU. He had a post like
Investments Officer International, or similar. Although he was
undoubtedly traveling here and there, he was, I believe, based at
Lyman was not a close friend, although we knew each other. He had
been, I believe, before joining the SO at La Quinta, an accountant.
He joined, I think, as an auditor (the meter-packing kind), and was
part of Hubbard's auditor training corps at La Quinta. It appeared
that he became trusted as an auditor, and then his accounting
background was drawn upon and at some point around the time of the
move to Gilman he got the investments officer post.
>Where were you? In the "Household Unit?"
I was DCOHU, based at Gilman.
> Ever find out where that
>announcement originated? Who made the announcement, Ger?
I don't know where it originated. I have a recollection of being told
that it came from a tipoff received by the GO, but that may only be
passed on speculation. It was clear that within the Gilman property
the announcment was made by the CMO, and the shredding party ordered
and overseen by the CMO.
Remember, at that time raids and threats of raids were still GO
country. There had been a GO unit at La Quinta, including MSH and her
staff, before the 1977 FBI raid. But because of the FBI/Criminal Case,
the whole GO presence, including MSH, had left the La Quinta property.
Hubbard also, fearing prosecution, left La Quinta for a period of
time. Nevertheless, even at Gilman Hubbard continued to meet
occasionally with MSH. And it appeared that there were other channels
the GO used to protect and keep track of Hubbard and the Gilman
>2. As a result of the "announcement," you say the Commodore's Messengers
>required everyone to "go through all the documents located on the property
>and 'vet' or destroy anything which showed that Hubbard controlled
>Scientology organizations, retained financial control, or was issuing
>orders to people at Gilman Hot Springs." You know, Ger, that's just what I
>would do if I had inside knowledge that Hubbard was about to disappear
>forever (or had ALREADY disappeared forever) and I was going to take over
>everything. Wasn't little Davey Miscavige in the CMO at Gilman right about
Yes, Miscavige was in the CMO at Gilman.
Here's the way it appeared, to the best of my recollection. In early
January, some days after or into the shredding party, I petition
Hubbard to transfer to the Pers PRO Bureau and assemble his papers,
etc. He approves the petition. Now I know what you're saying, "How do
you know he did, Ger?" And I would have to say I don't; all his
correspondence during this period was typed, and often typed for him,
and communications of the nature of his to me were signed with a typed
"R." But Barbara DeCelle, LRH Personel Secretary at the time, later
told me, because I asked, that Hubbard had indeed seen my petition,
and answered it. Everything else that happened during that period also
supports the conclusion that Hubbard was still in close communication
and had not disappeared forever. I would guess that he made his escape
from X in Hemet perhaps two weeks later, taking with him, as far as I
know, Pat and Annie.
> With you?
Yes, with me in the sense that we were both at that time based at
>And, let's see, where did you say Lyman was?
Asked and answered.
>3. What were you working on at the time, Ger? Wasn't it "Mission Corporate
It happened, as far as I was aware, like this:
1. Raid threat.
2. Brenda Black brings me box of old Hubbard papers.
3. I discover a bunch of such boxes.
4. I petition Hubbard.
5. He approves the petition.
6. I transfer to the Pers PRO Bu, and move all the Hubbard archive
boxes to Laurel Sullivan's office (the old pro shop in the Massacre
7. After I'm Laurel's junior she gets me assigned as MCCS 2nd. DM is
MCCS Mission Ops.
8. Because of dealing with Hubbard's lawyers in LA, and for security
reasons, Laurel and I move to the Cedar complex and set up MCCS and
the Hubbard Archive.
> Seems to me that little Davey and his buddy Lyman (and
>whoever their friends are) wound up taking that job over, to make sure that
>Mary Sue couldn't "retain control forever."
First MCCS, based on a number of Hubbard orders, was operating. Then
there was, I believe, a period of time when both MCCS and the mission
which hired Lenske, Lenske and Heller were operating simultaneously.
Then MCCS was terminated, and the second legal mission continued.
Miscavige was, I believe, (essentially) Mission Ops on both missions.
> Hey, Ger, how did you get that
>plum job? But then, I think you got an even better job, didn't you?
As you admit below, coincidences.
Actually, there are two types of occurrences: the ones planned by men
and the ones planned by God. The latter, unacceptable in Scientology,
often are called, in human affairs, coincidences. Hubbard condemned
these, yet was not really being honest about what he was intending, in
HCOPL "The Why Is God."
So, without raising coincidence to Divine Guidance, I got the MCCS job
because I had worked with Laurel when she was decorating Hubbard's
home at Gilman, and I was the HU purchaser. And then because someone
originated the raid threat, Brenda Black found the box, I petitioned
Hubbard, he approved the petition, I transfered to his PR Bureau, and
around the same time (due to Van Schaik, IRS and other legal threats)
Hubbard issues his orders about sorting out _his_ corporate category,
Laurel is assigned to the mission, and I was there and available as
the second missionaire.
I suppose it could be argued that the Archivist post was a better job,
but it was really just different. I didn't get that post after the
MCCS mission. I was the Archivist at the same time as working on MCCS.
Laurel too continued to hold her Pers PRO post while on MCCS. As more
people came onto MCCS (Dick Sullivan, Barbara DeCelle, Ms. (Lisa?)
Britowich, Rick Klingler, Cat Morrow all worked on MCCS) I was able to
work more and more on the archive/biography project, until I did that
>4. Right! The "raid" scare came in January, 1980, all evidence of Hubbard's
>existence got wiped off the face of the earth, and right at the very same
>time, in January 1980 you - you lucky boy, you - "became the L. Ron Hubbard
>Personal Relations Officer Researcher (PPRO Res)." According to your
>"Appendix," you were working on BOTH jobs at the same time. So, let's see -
>you had the inside track on the corporate info, AND you had the inside
>track on all personal information regarding Hubbard? Am I right so far?
>Stop me if I go too fast for you, Ger, or if I get anything wrong. But, you
>know, I'm just using your own "Appendix" for this info.
Your facts are largely correct, but even largely correct facts can be
used to arrive at a wrong conclusion.
In a sense I had a unique position, and came into possession, long
enough to understand what I had and read, a unique set of documents.
I also had a certain set of God-given attributes which gave a certain
value to the information I learned and the experiences I had. I'm not
sure what you have in mind when you say "inside track."
You'll have to stop yourself if you go too fast.
>6. And what stroke of luck came next? L. Ron Hubbard accomodates everybody
>by suddenly DISAPPEARING FOREVER the very next month - February 1980. (With
>luck like that, Ger, you ought to be in Las Vegas!
I am the luckiest person I have ever encountered. Not because others
are therefore unluckier.
I have found thousands of four-leaf clovers, hundreds of fives, dozens
of sixes, and one seven.
I am extremely fortunate in all things.
One of the things I consider great good fortune is rarely gambling.
Another is to know the source of all great good fortune. Although the
source has remained the same, I did not have have an awareness of
great good fortune nor its source in 1980.
I think, although the mathematics is not my province, that a life, and
mine as easy as any other's, can prove God's existence. Hubbardism
could be described as one man's [futile] effort to prove God's
non-existence. But that discussion is for another day and maybe
>But, you already _are_
>in Nevada, aren't you? Doing a little research on a certain research
Well now. I called the "research foundation's" number, which I imagine
everyone saw and some of that everyone must have called. So you broke
"the IRS/Scientology Connection story," but you only responded in this
way to me. Is that because I'm so lucky?
>For whom, Ger? For Lyman? For Meade?
Oh, I get it, it's because we're both paranoid. If I told you who I'm
working for you'd just think I was lying. I'm working for everyone.
> Who's footing the bill for
>your trip? Say, can you hear the airplanes going overhead from where you're
What trip are you talking about?
I can often hear planes that pass overhead no matter where I'm
staying. I think my hearing depends on the planes, their altitude, air
movement, ambient noise and other factors. If I'm very lucky, I don't
hear a thing.
>5. You wrote a letter to Mary Sue - on February 5th 1980 - advising her
>that you had found a bunch of personal stuff on LRH. That doesn't have a
>little ring of blackmail in it, does it? Naw, Ger, you wouldn't do that.
Naw, I didn't do that. I suppose the opportunity was there, although I
never considered it. Again, I was and am astonishingly lucky, lucky
enough to have avoided criminal schemes.
>6. But, by God, Ger, it got you the job, didn't it? She responded, not
>giving you _approval_ to be the Biography Researcher, but "acknowledging"
>that you would be that. What does that mean, Ger?
No, it didn't get me the job. I already had the job, from her boss,
I don't understand your question, "What does that mean." What do you
>7. Hey! Here's a coincidence! (I'm a card-carrying member of the Church of
>Coincidence-ology, Ger. I know everything is just a coincidence.)
The statement "everything is just a coincidence," as you mean it,
doesn't mean anything. Everything is, on the other hand, coincident.
Perhaps that's helpful.
>On February 19th 1980, right after you got your "acknowledgement" from
>Mary Sue, N. Jerold Cohen, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, filed a
>stipulation in United States Tax Court saying "Scientology is and at all
>relevant times was a religion within the purview of the First Amendment
>of the Constitution of the United States. 2. Petitioners' Articles of
>Organization satisfied the 'organizational test' prescribed by Treas. Reg.
>§1.501(c)(3)-1(b)..." This is a very curious coincidence, Ger. Know
>anything about it?
That's nothing. On January 26, 1986, almost 6 years to the day later,
Hubbard himself died (so they say). Talk about a coincidence!
But no, if you mean did I have anything directly to do with the IRS
stip, I didn't. There will probably be something about this in the tax
court decision, the opinion in which I do not have with me. That stip
was probably logically expeditious on the IRS's part, given the case
in which it was made, if it was.
>Boy, those guvmint lines can move _fast_ when they need
>to, huh? (Well, if ya' got friends like Meade, that is.)
Are you ascribing a stipulation in the 1980 CSC tax case trial to
Meade Emory? I wouldn't do so on the evidence I've seen thus far.
>8. By December 1981, Mary Sue had been busted, Lenske was in place, the
>G.O. had been blown apart, all the new corporations were in place (except
>CST - that had to wait so it would look good). So then you "blew," right,
>Ger, taking lots of personal information on the Hubbards?
No. I don't believe the new corps were "in place" when I left in Dec
And no, I didn't take a lot of personal info on the Hubbards. I had
been providing documents to Omar Garrison from about October, 1980.
>Am I getting this right, Ger?
Well, if whatever you're getting is leading you to a conclusion in
which the coincidences are not coincidences, but are human schemes,
then you're getting it wrong.
>I know these are all coincidences, cause I'm a TRUE BELIEVER in
>the Church of Coincidence-ology, but I just want to make sure I don't get
>any of the coincidences out of place.
By there nature it may be that coincidences are never out of place.
I've found that people who are pretending to be something different
from what they are have trouble recognizing coincidences for what they
>9. Then you wind up in a big "fight" with DM and Lyman and those guys,
>right? But you came out of that pretty well set up, financially, didn't
>you, Ger? As I recall, you did better than anyone else in that settlement.
>Oh, I know it was a "great trauma" having to settle with - well, I'll be
>damned! With LAWRENCE HELLER, one of the co-founders of CST. Personally,
>Ger, I think Lyman and Heller and Lenske did okay by you.
The monetary settlement was with Mike Flynn. For all Heller and
Scientology knew, or were supposed to know, I got one thin dime. I
settled for the amount I was willing to settle for. I had enough to
quit the fight, and, if Scientology left me alone, to live in peace
and do my projects.
>Of course, I
>think they should have paid you more, but I think you were pretty well
>rewarded, don't you?
I have never complained about the amount of the settlement. Neither
should Scientology complain, because they got a good deal. They did
not get a deal, however, in which I am their punching bag.
>And look at all that black PR you got to spread about
>Hubbard while you were doing it! Boy, you won both ways, didn't you, Ger?
You will have to be more specific about "all that black PR." I'll
leave a space here for you to fill in. Just list everything I said
that you say is black PR.
>'Cause you had all those "official, bona-fide" documents on the sum-bitch,
>didn't you, Ger? Yowza, you sho' did have the goods on the guy! And, of
>course, you didn't have any help manufactur - I'm sorry, I meant
>_collecting_ them all, did you?
It would be very helpful if you would provide some facts as you're
into standard Scientology black PR here.
>10. Ger, how cum we can't _see_ all these boner-fide documents on that
>sum-bitch? I sure would like to. I mean, of course your word isn't to be
>questioned, but - well, dadgum! Did you slip up and let them all get sealed
>or something? See, if you hadn't screwed up like that, we could all have
>the inside skinny like you do. I mean, it _does_ constitute the Official
>OSA (Office of Scummy Assholes) DA Pack on Hubbard, doesn't it? All the
>very best books on the man, smearing him, use your data, don't they? (You
>know, the books that the very best lawyers in the world somehow couldn't do
No, the essential facts are all readily available. You are in no way
deprived. There is not one fact about Hubbard's life which is not
known which if known would change the conclusion anyone lucky enough
to have a functioning soul would arrive at by studying what is widely
So in that sense, I didn't screw up. I have done my part, with my not
uncommon gifts, and perhaps not as well as many might, in bringing to
light the dark nature of Hubbard and his organization.
I would speculate that if the very best lawyers in the world couldn't
do anything about the Hubbard books they contained, as understood when
considering biographical works about modern day humans, a great deal
>11. So, Ger? Where ya' been, buddy? Long time, no see! You can 'splain all
>this to me, can't you?
There are many things I can explain. And others with which I can be at
> I jezt cain't wait to hear from ya'! Ger? Do ya' got
>a computer down there in Nevada? There's always Kinko's, you know.
Well now that we know you return phone calls with a post to ars, we're
all in a better position to help you sort out your puzzle.
Then, I would say, that perhaps it was the big question meme in your
subject line which gave me some pause.
I've never thought of the question you asked being the big question,
but I suppose, if there are big questions, that could possibly be
questions of that magnitude or nature, why not?
It's actually in my interests that you ask, and indeed that as many
people as possible ask. This would be toward the goal of never again
having to answer. The resolution, in fact, in my legal situation, that
is quicker and more certain than reliance on and prostration before
the courts, is for some well-intentioned people to want to hear what I
have to say.
The LRH bio materials divide up into a number of categories. Here I am
only refering to a category consisting of documents which I delivered
to Omar Garrison outside the organization in 1980 and 1981. Of these,
some are out and have been made publicly available. Some have been
read into the record or otherwise described in various court
proceedings, notably the Armstrong I, Christofferson and Zolin cases
and the record is available, but the documents are not. Some are
quoted or described in the Hubbard biographies of the past thirteen
years. Some were delivered to Scientology by Omar in a settlement
between him and the organization. Some, which had been under seal in
the clerk's office in the Los Angeles Superior Court, were delivered
to Scientology in December, 1986 as part of the settlement of my case
against the organization.
The documents are all available from Scientology through discovery.
Even this post is enough of a basis for anyone engaged in litigation
with the organization to obtain these materials.
Because Scientology has failed to acknowledge and correct the fraud
about Hubbard and about the present day organization's practices and
intentions, the documents will be relevant to any claim brought by
anyone lured into the cult. These documents are also relevant in
practically every case involving Scientology imaginable.
It is certain that I will be moving for production of all of these
documents in the discovery stage of the Armstrong v. Miscavige
I'd bet that Graham will be moving for discovery of these documents,
as would conceivably Dandar. It's unclear to me whether the Court
would, over Scientology's terrible objections, permit that level of
discovery into Lisa's recruitment. I would imagine that deposing the
people who originally disseminated to Lisa, her FSM's or the people
who lured her progressively further out onto the bridge would reveal
that they had been infected with the standard Hubbard lies. That depo
testimony could then lead to an order for Scientology to produce the
archive documents. But, IANAL.
I think the whole set of documents, whatever DM has not had destroyed,
will come out, because I think that there will be a complete revealing
of all of Scientology's secret documents and secret secrets.
There really is nothing more in the Hubbard papers which will be much
of a revelation. It will have legal consequence, but will not be
revelatory news. It was for this reason that I was willing, having
already created a record and obtained the Breckenridge decision, to
let Scientology have Hubbard's papers in the 1986 (Hubbard died in
January, 1986) "settlement."
Perhaps RVY, who also possessed for a period of time, pretty well the
same set of Hubbard papers, can provide his perspective on what they
Copyright © Gerry Armstrong - All Rights Reserved.