First thing in the morning when my wife and I left our trailer park in our car we were followed by the light blue Ford license #1DKD497 to our place of work. The Ford pulled off just before we entered the parking lot in our work place and waited outside.
When my wife and I drove out for lunch at 12:00 a.m. the same blue Ford followed. We ate lunch near the Mariner’s Park then drove to the phone store on Bristol Street, the Ford following the whole time.
There were two people in the Ford, one of whom was the same man who had driven the white Ford which had struck me the day before.
I dropped my wife off at the phone store on 3033 Bristol then drove further on Bristol, finally pulling off into a shopping center. The blue Ford followed the whole time.
In the shopping center I went to a payphone and attempted to make a call to my attorney to inform him of what was happening. The blond man walked right up to the payphone and would not leave. He commented when he walked up: “I got the phone number.” What he meant by this is that he had observed me punch the number. He may or may not have seen what number I called, but the statement was only harassment.
I was not able to make the call because this man stood right next to the payphone. This act (and many others) belies the claim that these followers were paid only to follow me. He could have watched me from some distance away, but he didn’t. He came right up to where I was trying to make a private phone call. I then made another call, and had to introduce myself with my first name “Gerry.” The man then the said: “Great, I got your first name.” He then called on his walkie-talkie which he carried with him: “I got his first name. It’s Gerry.”
I then moved to another payphone about a hundred yards away in the shopping center. The man followed and again came right up to where I was trying to make the call. This was a flagrant invasion of privacy.
I then got back to my car and drove back to the phone store where I picked up my wife. The car followed the whole time.
We then drove back to our office, the same car following the whole way. After work we drove home and were again followed closely by the blue car, plus the white Ford.
Again the Ford came right on to the trailer park property then moved away and parked just outside.
Another car which I had observed had been following us, a grey car license #1APJ765 came right onto the property and drove around the park driveway. The driver, a white male in his 30’s, glasses, sandy hair, about six feet three inches, very heavy, perhaps 250 lb, stopped right in front of our new trailer. My wife and I approached his car and asked him what he was doing. He said: “I’m visiting my aunt.”
I said, “You’re not following us?” He said, “No.” He then said: “Why, are you security people?” I said, “No, just concerned.”
This car then proceeded around to the other said of the trailer park and parked. My wife and I walked over to the manager’s office to report on what was happening. We saw the grey car driver parked beside a trailer and informed the manager. She came out and observed the car and the driver drove quickly out of the park.
The manager informed us that the man wasn’t visiting his aunt, and that in fact the trailer he was parked at was vacant.
We informed her of what had been occurring with the various cars and she said that the police had been called three times and were watching the place. She also said that the tenants were getting very upset with the harassment, with the people blocking the driveway and with the driving fast in the park and that they had complained to her.
Several times after this I noticed one of these cars come onto the property to observe our trailer.
My wife and I left our place of work at 1617 Westcliff Drive and drove to Mariner’s Park on Dover Street where we had lunch between 12:00 and 12:30 p.m. We then drove north on Irvine to Bristol because we were going to order a new telephone for our new trailer apartment.
I noticed that we were being followed by a white Ford Fairmont licence #1DGK980. I took a number of odd turns and confirmed that we were indeed being followed.
I got close enough to identify the driver as a white male, blond hair and glasses, perhaps six feet in height, heavy build.
I finally arrived at Quail Street off Campus and pulled off the road. The white Ford also pulled off the road and waited. I got out of my car and approached the Ford.The driver then began to move away from the curb and began to leave.
As I wanted to talk to him I signalled to him and ran up to his car. He sped away to the corner and began to turn right. As he had to stop at the corner I cut in front of his car (on foot) and approached from the passenger side. He saw me and pulled the car toward me, hitting me in the elbow. I stood there in shock and quite a bit of pain for a minute or so. The white Ford returned to the spot where it had hit me and the driver got out. He came at me angrily and said: “You do that again and I’ll kill you. I got a witness, a construction worker. You ran into my car.”
My wife had driven up by this time and had heard all this. I got back in our car and she drove to the Costa Mesa Police facility. The white Ford followed closely all the way. When we waited to make a left turn into the Police parking lot, he drove along side and yelled: “It won’t help you going to the police. They won’t help you. See you in fifteen minutes.”
We then went into the Police facility and gave our story of what had just happened and what had been occurring over the past two weeks to a Detective Geisler, a woman. Sgt.Bechtel was not in the station at the time.
Det. Geisler said she would look into the matter and that she would give our report to Sgt. Bechtel. She gave us a form to be filled in. She did not seem surprised by what had been occurring to us. She seemed more interested in what we had done.
She said that there was nothing the Police could do. She said it was perfectly legal for us to be followed and surveilled. Her attitude was one of disinterest. We left and returned to our office. We were tailed all the way from the police station by the same driver in the same car.
When we got to the parking lot outside our office the driver of the white Ford drove up, got out and approached angrily. He stated loudly and angrily: “Hey, what’s your name? You ran into my car, and made a statement to the police. I want your name so I can go make my statement.”
My wife then said: “What’s your name? You hit my husband with your car and I want to know your name.”
The Ford driver said to my wife: “You shut up. I don’t want to hear anything from a mouthy bitch.” He then turned to me and said: “What’s your name? ” I did not answer but began to walk toward my office.
He followed and said: “I’ll follow you right into your office.” When he approached the outer door he said: “Never mind. I got your license number. I’ll run a make on it.”
He then drove off.
When we left work around 5:30 p.m. we were tailed by two cars, the white Ford license # lDGK980 and the blue car license #1DKD497. At times they got in front and behind us and squeezed us very tightly. At times one would pull along side while the other followed closely.
We drove straight to the police facility where we again spoke with Det. Geisler. I told her that the situation of following and harassment continued.f I told her our concerns and described the irresponsible, unrestrained behavior of the followers.
Det. Geisler said that the two people who had been following us had been in to see her that afternoon. She said that they were just college students employed by a private agency to surveil and follow us. I asked her the name of the agency. She said that she wouldn’t tell me.
She said that we had no worry about being “snuffed” by these people. She said they were paid just to follow us because the claim was made that I had stolen materials and was making statements about the organization.
She said that they were perfectly within the law to follow us and watch us. She recommended that we should just continue with our regular routine and ignore them. She also said that we could have “fun with them.” She mentioned that she would, if followed in this manner, make all sorts of stops, phone calls, strange moves, make them use their gas, run up their gas bill, etc.
We asked her if it was legal for the followers to come onto the trailer park property and she said no. She said it was also illegal for them to come up to our trailer and peer into our windows.
She said that the driver of the car that had hit me had said that I had run into his car, so there was nothing they could do about that.
My wife asked if it had been verified that they were employed by a private detective agency to follow us, and Det. Geisler said that it was.
Det. Geisler warned us about getting upset with the followers and trying to elude them. She said that someone, likely an innocent by-stander, would get hurt, or killed. I asked that, if that was the case, then would the police please do something to get these people off my back, and she said that that they couldn’t.
I distinctly got the impression that the police either did not care about what happened to me, or they were in the employ of the people following me or Scientology.
When we left the police station the two cars, the white Ford and the blue Ford, followed. They followed us right onto the trailer park property and I walked back to the white Ford driver and told him that this was private property and that they were not legally on it. He was antagonistic, threatened me, claimed that he was legally on the property.
I then found the manager of the property, let her know that we were being followed and asked her about these cars coming on the property. She said that it was not legal, and that they had no business on the property.
The two cars continued to drive onto the property and that night the manager and another tenant on the trailer park called the Costa Mesa police to complain about the disturbances as the drivers of the cars were blocking the driveway and antagonizing the people who lived in the trailer park.
Later I learned from the manager that the Costa Mesa police had arrived on the property and a Detective Haddock had talked to her that night.
I also learned from her that one of the people, Wally Longridge, had been told by the police, when he called, that the people were surveilling someone in the trailer park who had stolen some important papers from an electronics firm.
At approximately 8:30 a.m. I drove out of the driveway at the Ponderosa Mobile Estates property at 1991 Newport Blvd where I live to get some things at the store. I noticed before I got in my car a late model light blue car parked in the same location on the other side of Newport Blvd. where the yellow VW had parked, and from which I had been surveilled on August 20. I also noticed that there was someone sitting in this blue car at the time.
I drove south on Newport Blvd. then made a turn at 19th Street and drove north on Newport Blvd. When I passed the blue car I noticed that there was no one in it but there was a man with a blue and yellow plaid shirt at the pay phone nearby at the meat market.
I proceeded north on Newport Blvd. then noticed that a light blue car was following me some distance back. I turned right on 22nd Street and drove two blocks east to Orange Street where I turned left.
I proceeded several blocks on Orange during which time I noted that the light blue car followed, approximately a block behind. I turned right on Santa Isabel Avenue, went down about a hundred yards, made a U-turn and proceeded back to Orange Street. The light blue car arrived before me and I was able to get behind it.
I noted that the driver was the same man I had seen at the phone and he was wearing the same plaid shirt. I wrote down the licence plate of the light blue car, which I believe was a Ford model 1DKD497. The car sped up, I followed for a block or so then returned home by 9:00 a.m.
At approximately 10:30 a.m. I noticed that what appeared to be the same light blue car was again parked on the east side of Newport Blvd. in the same location where my apartment could be surveilled.
I asked my wife Joyce to observe what went on and I took my camera, climbed a fence beside the trailer park, made my way along Bay Street to Newport Blvd. east side and to where the light blue car was parked.
I approached within 25 feet of this car and observed the same man in the driver’s seat. He was looking out of the driver’s side window toward my apartment with a pair of binoculars.
I also noted an antenna for a two-way radio sticking out of the passenger side window. When I was within 15 feet of this car the man spotted me and appeared to speak into the two-way radio which was visible, and he withdrew the antenna from the window.
I took a photograph of the car at this point. The man, a white man, approximately 6 feet in height, stocky build, longish kinky hair, wearing cut offs and the plaid shirt I had noted earlier, jumped out of the car and approached me.
I took one more photograph of him before he reached where I was standing. He was visibly angry. He said, very antagonistically, “Are you going to give me the film or am I going to have to smash the camera?”
I said, “Why are you spying on me?”
He: “I’m just listening to the ball game.”
He then began pushing me, first with one hand then the other.
I said, “I saw a pair of binoculars and a walkie-talkie.”
He continued to push me backwards around the little parking space near the Ranch Market. And he began a long series of taunts which appeared to be designed to get me to do or say something which would give him a “valid” excuse to physically beat me or goad me into a fight.
When I protested and told him to keep his hands off me, that he was assaulting me, he then began pushing me with his chest. It seemed he wanted to push me out of the public view behind the buildings nearby.
He pushed his face very close to mine and antagonistically said: “You want a fight do you?”
“So you want to fight me. Are you a fighter? I’m not a fighter. I’ve never had a fight. So fight me.”
“What have you got to hide? What are you running from?”
“You’ve got no right to have my picture. I want the film. Or do I smash your camera?”
“You fucking punk.”
“Who are you? Where do you come from?” repeated over and over.
I tried several times to get him to identify himself and he responded with a verbal attack on me. This went on for perhaps 10 minutes when my wife who had been observing this incident arrived in our car. I asked her to pull up beyond his car so his car was not blocked as I thought he might ram our car.
My wife got out of our car and I asked her to go over to his car and observe that he had a pair of binoculars and a two-way radio in his car. He tried to prevent her from doing that. He said, “No, don’t do that.”
He approached my wife who was looking in his car and I took a photograph of the car again. At one point he came rushing up to me and put his hand over the lens of my camera.
I asked my wife to observe all that was going on and listen to the conversation. I used her name Jocelyn. He said, “Jocelyn, who’s Jocelyn? Some broad you’re living with? Is she your back-up?”
He came back to me and continued to back me up towards the back of the building.
He then spoke to my wife, “I’ve identified myself, what’s your name? ” She said, “Jocelyn.”
She then asked, “Who are you?”
I was then getting photographs and he put out his hand toward my wife as if to shake her hand in a friendly gesture.
He then approached me and said antagonistically, “Mr. Armstrong.”
My wife said, “How do you know his name?”
He replied, “I know everything about you.” He insinuated that he was well briefed on both me and my wife.
I then asked my wife if she had seen the binoculars and the walkie-talkie and she said she had. He then said “I was at the baseball game last night.”
I then asked my wife to go to the pay phone nearby and call the Costa Mesa police. She went and tried but got no answer at the Police number. Before she could place the call he got in his car and drove off.
My wife and I went to the Costa Mesa police facility to speak to a detective and give this report but the desk officer said that there was no one in to whom we could speak. We returned to our apartment.
I believe that this whole operation against me and my wife is being directed by Scientology, specifically L. Ron Hubbard. I also believe that our lives are at risk.
Scientology has a record of harassment, entrapment, and crimes against individuals who leave the organization.
I have been singled out because I possess knowledge concerning misrepresentations and fraud of L. Ron Hubbard and crimes committed by the organization.
August 30, 1982
At approximately 8:30 p.m. I was in bed with the lights out in my apartment at 1991 Newport Blvd., Costa Mesa. With me was my wife, Joyce.
I happened to get up and looked out the window and noticed about two hundred yards away on the east side of Newport Blvd. a yellow Volkswagen, possibly the one which had tailed me on August 18, 1982.
When a stream of traffic passed between the VW and my apartment I slipped out my front door and made my way unseen along a cross street to the east side of Newport Blvd., and walked up to the VW. It was a bright yellow VW with mag wheels and licence number 110 PIP, the same vehicle which had tailed me on August 18, 1982
The driver was about six feet tall, short sandy hair, around 25 years of age. He was sitting in the driver’s seat. He wore a grey sweat shirt with the crest and label “Oxford University.” I walked straight up to the driver’s window. The following conversation ensued:
GA: What’s your name.
VWD (Volkswagen Driver): I’m not going to tell you. (Said very defiantly.)
GA: Are you a private investigator?
GA: Are you a police officer?
GA: Are you a Scientologist?
VWD: No. (pause) I’m a Catholic.
GA: Why have you been following me?
VWD: I can’t tell you that.
GA: Listen you’ve been following me for two days. I’m afraid for my life and my wife’s life, and I have a right to know who you are.
VWD: I can’t tell you.
He then tried to badger me with antagonistically said statements like:
“What are you afraid of?”
“I’m not hurting you. What have you got that you’re afraid of?”
GA: Are you a member of Scientology?
GA: Are you employed by Scientology?
GA: Do you have anything. to do with Scientology?
GA: Why were you tailing me the other night?
VWD: I just like the look of your car.
He pressed the point several times about my fears with questions like “What are you afraid of?” and “Why would anyone be after you?”
GA: Well you have been following me for two days and now you’re spying on me.
VWD: I haven’t done anything. I haven’t hurt you. I’m just sitting here listening to the Angels game.
GA: Is there a contract out on me?
VWD: I’ve never hurt anybody. I wouldn’t hurt you.
GA: Maybe you wouldn’t want to hurt anybody, but within that organization you don’t have a choice in the matter. If you’re ordered to do anything to anybody you do it.
He implied with a snicker that my connecting him with Scientology was just my imagination.
GA: I am going to call the police.
I waved my arms when a motorcycle rider came by. The motorcyclist turned around and came back to where I was. I explained the situation to the motorcyclist and got his agreement to stay with the VW driver while I phoned the Costa Mesa police. The motorcyclist loaned me a dime for the call.
I called the Costa Mesa police, explained the situation and described where I was located. I then returned to where the motorcyclist was standing with the VW driver. The motorcyclist left upon my return from phoning. Then the VW driver said he had to make a phone call. He went to the same payphone I had used and I stayed with the car. There was approximately thirty minutes wait until the arrival of the police officer.
In the meantime I stayed close to the VW driver. He got in and out of the car on a number of occasions. During this period I noticed a pair of binoculars on the front passenger seat and a quantity of clothing and other paraphernalia in the back seat.
During this time the VW driver made a couple of comments about how slow the police were in answering my call. He also said that if he wanted to he could drive off because now that I had his licence number it didn’t make any difference.
I told him that I would lie down in front of his car if he tried to leave. At one point he did get into the car, start up the motor and begin to take off. I put my foot in front of the left front tire and he stopped the car when it rode up on my foot. When he turned off the motor I pulled out my foot from under the tire, making a thud when I did so. He antagonistically accused me of kicking his tire. I did not kick his tire.
Also during this period he walked back over to the payphone and waited by it as if anticipating a call. I accompanied him to the phone. On the way to the phone I spat on the ground. (I was in considerable fear and I had drying saliva in my mouth I wanted to get rid of). He antagonistically said, “Hey, you spat on my foot. Don’t you spit at me.”
I had not done so. This kind of stupid attack is a standard action within the Sea Org and specifically the Guardian’s Office. There are drills which are done which cover exactly this sort of incident. The object is to “introvert” the person, “cave him in,””cave in his anchor points.” Attack, always attack.
GA: I didn’t spit on your foot. That’s standard Scientology intelligence bullshit.
VWD: You’ve got nothing to be afraid of.
GA: I was in the organization for thirteen years. I know how they operate.
VWD: What’s the matter, don’t you believe in freedom of religion?
GA: What I don’t believe in is Scientology’s, the Sea Org’s, or the Guardian’s Office’s harassment of individuals. And I don’t believe they have any right to put my life at risk.
VWD: Why would they want to kill you?
GA: Because I know too much about the lies and coverups on which the organization is based.
When the police had not arrived for some time I went out on the street again and flagged down a bicycle rider, a young Mexican-American who, although he didn’t speak much English agreed to call the Costa Mesa police for me. It was right after this that the police officer arrived in a patrol car.
I approached him, gave him my name and said I had made the call to the police station.
The Police Officer asked for and wrote down my name, phone number, and address. I also gave him my work phone number and the name of my attorneys, Contos & Bunch.
I explained to the officer that the same VW had tailed me for approximately 45 minutes the previous evening (I later realized it was the evening of the 18th), and that the driver was staking out my apartment. I explained to him that I was a former member of Scientology and that I had left the organization and felt that my life was in danger from them.
I asked the police officer if he could also check what kind of surveillance equipment was in the VW and I mentioned to him that I had seen a pair of binoculars in the front seat.
During this conversation the driver of the VW got out of the car and approached the police officer’s car window where I was. The officer told him to get back in his car and wait until the officer was done with me.
When I had briefly explained the situation to the officer he told me to go home which I did. I arrived home at 9:44 p.m. Immediately after my arrival home I told my wife what had occurred and she wrote it all down as I dictated it.
At approximately 9:00 p.m. I left my apartment at 1991 Newport Blvd, Costa Mesa, got in my car, and drove out of the driveway onto Newport Blvd in a southerly direction.
I got into the left turn lane and noted when I did so that a yellow VW had sped up behind me and also turned into the left lane.
I stopped at the light at the corner of 19th and Newport. When it turned green I turned left into a U-turn and proceeded in a northern direction up Newport Blvd. The VW followed.
At the corner of Newport and Del Mar Avenue I turned right, proceeded up Del Mar about 100 yards and turned into the parking lot of a U-Totem store where I parked beside the payphone booths. The VW continued up Del Mar past the store then stopped.
I made a payphone call then got back into my car and drove back down Del Mar to Newport Blvd and turned right, again proceeding north on Newport. I noticed that the VW was again following me.
I turned right off Newport Blvd onto Mesa Drive. The VW followed. I proceeded east on Mesa Drive to Tustin, the VW following about 200 yards behind.
I turned left off Mesa unto Tustin. The VW followed.
I proceeded north on Tustin across Bristol where Tustin becomes Campus Drive. The VW followed.
I continued on Campus and turned right on Quail. I may have lost the VW at the light at the Bristol and Campus corner as it did not make the turn right on Quail Street when I did, but continued north on Campus. I drove east on Quail to Birch Street. When I was within 50 yards of Birch Street I noticed that the VW had turned from Campus onto Quail and was again following me.
I made a U-turn near the Quail and Birch intersection and proceeded in a westerly direction back on Quail toward the approaching VW.
I pulled off the road about half way between Birch and Campus on Quail, parked my car and proceeded on foot to the est facility on Quail where I entered and picked up an event schedule I wanted.
While I was parking my car I noticed that the VW had pulled into a parking lot on the other side of the street and was parked facing out toward Quail Street.
After leaving the est facility I noticed that the VW was still parked in the same place. I walked over to the VW and looked inside. The driver was not in the car.
I walked back to my car, got inside and drove to in front of the VW. I wrote down the licence plate number (110 PIP). The VW was a “bug” type, with dull mag wheels.
I did not wait around for the VW driver to return to the car, but left the scene. I do not know if I was subsequently followed that night.
The following morning I called my attorney Julia Dragojevic at the firm of Contos & Bunch in Woodland Hills, related to her the above described incident and gave her the licence number and description of the VW. She said that she would request the Department of Motor Vehicles run a check on the car.
August 22, 1982
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
a/k/a MO BUDLONG:
Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)1
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America respectfully submits this Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court in imposing sentence in this case.
[The Scientology conspirators] challenged and attempted to undermine the judicial and governmental structure of the United States.
Thus, they perpetrated a fraud upon the American judicial system.
These crimes included: the infiltration and theft of documents from a number of prominent private, national, and world organizations, law firms, newspapers, and private citizens; the execution of smear campaigns and baseless law suits for the sole purpose of destroying private individuals who had attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; the framing of private citizens who had been critical of Scientology, including the forging of documents which led to the indictment of at least one innocent person; and violation of the civil rights of prominent private citizens and public officials.
[T]hese documents establish beyond question that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment.
To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 2 58 Cal. App. 3d 439 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977)]. That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person,” “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. [He m]ay be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Id. This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.
The defendants directed and encouraged a number of covert operations against private individuals and public officials to destroy and discredit these persons because they had either attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights by criticizing Scientology or by attempting to carry out their duties as public officials.
That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law. Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims. The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard. No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds.
These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed. The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.” That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society. These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.