Is Scientology breaking the law?

Allegations of obstruction of justice by Scientology

Excerpted from . Please see that page for the full text.

Emphasis added in red . Editorial comments, when added, are in purple .

Gerry Armstrong’s court filing, appealing the ruling in his settlement with Scientology, describes a Scientology lawyer trying to get him to refuse to testify in a case in which Armstrong had been subpoenaed

Note: Scn means Scientology; GA means Gerry Armstrong; SA refers to the Settlement Agreement

From: [email protected] (gerry armstrong)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gerry Armstrong
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 02:17:23 GMT

In October, 1989 GA was served with a deposition subpoena by plaintiff in the case of Bent Corydon v. Scientology, LASC No. C694401. (CT 5925; Subpoena, CT 5990-4). Shortly afterward he was called by Scn attorney Lawrence Heller, with whom he had three telephone conversations over the next month. In these conversations Heller threatened that GA could be sued if he testified, even though he had been subpoenaed, and that he should refuse to answer the deposition questions put to him by Corydon’s attorney. Heller offered to have Scn pay for a lawyer to represent GA at the deposition. Heller requested GA to execute a declaration to assist Scn in preventing GA’s deposition from going forward, and threatened that GA would have hassles if the deposition did go forward.

As a result of Heller’s telephoned threats, which deeply troubled him, GA concluded that the SA and Scn’s efforts to enforce it were acting to obstruct justice, and if he allowed himself to be intimidated by the threats he would be abetting that obstruction. He concluded that he had a right, and even a duty, regardless of whatever the SA said, to not obstruct justice.

This page was last updated on May 8, 1999.