Gerry Armstrong--Deposition Lynn R. Farny Volume II 07-12-1994

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

---o0o---

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a California
not-for-profit religious
corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG; MICHALE
WALTON; THE GERALD ARMSTRONG
CORPORATION, a California for
profit corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 157-680

DEPOSITION OF:

LYNN R. FARNY

Tuesday, July 12, 1994

VOLUME II

Reported by:
PENNY L. GILMORE CSR NO. 4724

PENNY L. GILMORE & ASSOCIATES
DEPOSITION REPORTERS
P.O. BOX 862
ROSS, CALIFORNIA 94957
(415) 457-7899

I N D E X

Witness: LYNN R. FARNY, Volume II
Examination by:		PAGE
Mr. Greene		138
E X H I B I T S
DEFENDANT'S		PAGE
2	Notice of Taking Deposition	137
3	Revised Bylaws of Church of Scientology International	139
4	HCO Policy Letter of 5-1-65	201
5	HCO Policy Letter of 2-9-79	202
6	HCO Policy Letter of February 1979	208
7	HCO Policy Letter of 3-5-65	210
8	HCO Policy Letter of 8-9-72	213
9	HCO Policy Letter of 11-25-70	224
10	Document entitled Suppressive Person Declare [Revised Version 04-22-1982]	240
11	Document entitled Introduction to Scientology Ethics	242
12	Document entitled The Organization Executive Course	244
13	Document entitled Suppressive Persons and Suppressive Groups List	249

134

BE IT REMEMBERED that pursuant to Notice and on

Tuesday, the 12th day of July 1994, commencing at the hour

of 10:15 o'clock a.m. thereof, at the conference room of

900 Larkspur Landing Circle, Larkspur, California, before

me, PENNY L. GILMORE, a Certified Shorthand Reporter

licensed by the State of California, personally appeared:

LYNN R. FARNY

a witness herein, who, being by me previously duly sworn,

was thereupon examined and interrogated as is hereinafter

set forth.

---o0o---

LAURIE J. BARTILSON, Esq., representing the Law

Offices of Bowles & Moxon, 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite

2000, Hollywood, California 90028, appeared as counsel on

behalf of Plaintiff.

MICHAEL L. WALTON, Esq., representing the Law

Offices of Michael L. Walton, 700 Larkspur Landing Circle,

Suite 120, Larkspur, California 94939, a defendant,

appeared in pro per.

FORD GREENE, Esq., representing the Law Offices

of Ford Greene, 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San

Anselmo, California 94960, appeared as counsel on behalf

of Defendant Gerald Armstrong.

135

WILLIAM R. BENZ, Esq., 900 Larkspur Landing

Circle, Suite 185, Larkspur, California 94939, appeared as

the referee in said action.

ALSO PRESENT: Gerald Armstrong, Defendant.

---o0o---

136

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 2
was marked for identification.)

MR. BENZ: On the record.

When we adjourned yesterday I think there was a

request for a ruling regarding whether or not we would

allow questions going into the general area of the

motivation of the plaintiff in bringing the lawsuit, if

that's the proper word. In that area, anyway.

I have reviewed the Appellate Court decision and

the Complaint and the Cross-complaint and in my opinion the

motivation in bringing the lawsuit itself is probably

governed by the laws of malicious prosecution which

requires, and, therefore, would not normally be

admissible. Nonetheless the Cross-complaint does allege

and it has allowed in abusive process and basic

ingredients of abusive process is ulterior motive.

In addition to that, there is the affirmative

defense of unclean hands, which is a very broad

affirmative defense, and, therefore, because it may lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence I am ruling that

defense is entitled to go into the motive.

MS. BARTILSON: Can I ask one question for

clarification? I guess I had considered that the question

before Your Honor was whether, the more narrow question,

whether Mr. Greene may inquire into the personal religious

137

practices of the witness. Is it your ruling here today

that he may do so, because that was the exact question

that was before the witness when we did our little

divergence into argument.

MR. BENZ: I had thought I ruled on the personal

religious practices earlier, and subject to changing my

mind if there is a brief on that. So I am not ruling that

the personal religious practices are involved except as it

may go, since I don't know what the religious practices

are, to the motive of the plaintiff would be admissible

but the witness's personal religious practices are not.

By admissible, I mean you may inquire into. There is

certainly no ruling on evidence.

MR. GREENE: Okay, then we will proceed.

---o0o---

EXAMINATION RESUMED BY:

MR. GREENE: Q. Good morning, Mr. Farny.

A. Good morning, Mr. Greene.

Q. Is there any reason why you are unable to

proceed and give your best testimony today?

A. No.

Q. I've showed you what's been marked as Defendant's

number two, which is a Notice of Taking Deposition.

Actually it's plural, depositions, a three-

page document. Have you seen that document before?

138

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Is it pursuant to that document that you

appeared here yesterday and continue to be here today?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. GREENE: I would like to mark as Defendant's

three the Revised Bylaws of the Church of Scientology

International, which have been Bates-stamped 200012

through 200043 and ask the Court Reporter to please mark

it.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 3
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Back on the record.

Q. Mr. Farny, I've shown you what's been marked as

Defendant's Exhibit three, which is a copy of the Revised

Bylaws of CSI. Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes.

Q. Turning to the last page, 43, that's your

signature there, isn't it?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. As the bylaws of CSI presently exist, isn't it

correct that Exhibit three is a true and correct copy

thereof?

A. Including the addendum on the last page, yes.

Q. So as things currently exist with respect to CSI

there aren't any other bylaws which are in effect aside

139

from Exhibit three; is that an accurate statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Turning your attention to -- I'm going to use

the last two numbers of the Bates stamp mark instead of

referring to the different pages of this exhibit.

On page 12 where it says, "The Church is the

ecclesiastical Mother Church of the many churches within

and without the United States which have been and will be

organized for the purposes of Scientology..." and the

sentence goes on, "...all bound together as elements of

one international and hierarchical church by voluntary and

self-determined agreement and upon adherence to the

following." Then there's a list of things. What I want

to address you to is the term "ecclesiastical Mother

Church." The term -- First of all, let me lay a little

foundation. You are familiar, are you not, with these

bylaws?

A. Yes.

Q. You are familiar with the bylaws in your

capacity as secretary of CSI; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. You have been secretary of CSI since 1988?

A. Also correct.

Q. Did you act in any official capacity within CSI

prior to 1988?

140

A. Certainly.

Q. What was that?

A. I had an ecclesiastical position; I didn't have

any corporate position. I worked in the legal department

since 1984.

Q. When you refer to your working in the legal

department from '84 to '88 as holding an ecclesiastical

position, would you define for me what you mean by your use

of the term "ecclesiastic"?

A. A position that derives from -- sorry, that

derives its authority, if you will, from the ecclesiastic

organization of the Church as opposed to the corporate

organization of the Church. The corporation as a

corporation is organized with directors and officers;

ecclesiastically we're organized otherwise.

Q. So the ecclesiastical organization is separate

and distinct and apart from the corporate organization?

A. Except to the degree --

Q. First if you can agree give me a yes-or-no

answer?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object and ask you to

let him finish answering the question before you interrupt.

I think that was the ground rules yesterday.

THE WITNESS: Except to the degree of this --

and the answer is not going to offend you -- the people

141

that occupy the corporate positions occupy similar

ecclesiastic positions, so there's some relationship to

it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Again, my question is that the

ecclesiastical organization exists separate and apart from

the corporate organization?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

Answer it again.

THE WITNESS: Obviously you are dealing with the

same group of people. There are parallel -- I think a

better way of expressing it, there are parallel

ecclesiastical and corporate organizations that are

separate, but the part in the question I'm having

difficulty with is "distinct." You are talking about the

same Church. In other words, the Church of Scientology

International is organized in an ecclesiastical fashion,

and within those ecclesiastical positions certain

individuals occupy corporate positions. To that degree

they are separate, yes, but you are talking about the same

entity.

Q. We're talking about CSI.

A. That's right.

Q. That's the corporation.

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. That's one subject matter that we're discussing.

142

A. Right.

Q. The other subject matter we're discussing is the

subject matter of ecclesiastical authority.

A. Right.

Q. And there's commonalities between CSI and

ecclesiasticalness but they're not identical, are they?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: I don't exactly understand your

question.

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me try to make it more

clear.

A. Try it again.

Q. Yesterday, if my recollection is right, your

testimony was that there are approximately 1400

Scientology-related organizations, right?

A. Yes, churches, missions and groups.

MR. WALTON: What?

THE WITNESS: Churches, missions and groups.

MR. WALTON: Am I the only one down here not

hearing well?

MR. BENZ: I missed it the first time. I heard it

the second time.

MR. GREENE: Q. So of those 1400 churches,

missions and groups, CSI is one, correct?

A. That's also correct.

143

Q. Now isn't it true that there is ecclesiastical

authority in place in each of those 1400 groups, if you

know?

A. Yes.

Q. Ecclesiastical authority in place in each?

A. Each as its own separate unit or among them?

That's what I don't understand about your question. I think

it's largely irrelevant, though, because the answer is yes

to both questions. I want to make sure which of those two

questions you are asking.

Q. I'll keep asking my questions and we'll do our

best to wend our way through this.

Where officers, directors and trustees of CSI

have authority, that's defined according to the articles

in the bylaws of CSI?

A. Right.

Q. They are also subject to authority that's derived

from an ecclesiastical source, right?

A. Okay, I'll go along with that. All right.

Q. And the ecclesiastical source is the scripture of

the Scientology religion; isn't that right?

A. That's also correct.

Q. And the scripture of the Scientology religion in

part is derived from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?

A. Correct. I would object to your

144

characterization of "in part." It is derived from the

written and recorded spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard on the

subjects of Dianetics and Scientology.

Q. Entirely?

A. Yes.

Q. So then is an accurate definition of your

understanding of the use of the term scripture as used in

Scientology, to define scripture as being the totality of

the written -- of the writings and recordings of L. Ron

Hubbard?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, misstates the

witness's testimony.

MR. GREENE: I'm asking if that's accurate.

THE WITNESS: No, that's not accurate.

MR. GREENE: Q. Then I misunderstood what you

said. Tell me again. I'm sorry.

A. Scriptures of the Scientology religion are

comprised of written and recorded words of L. Ron Hubbard

on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology with the

allowance that theym may have been cancelled over the years

or revised or modified, or whatever. On the subject of

Dianetics and Scientology, what I had told you in the first

answer was given allowances for any cancellations or

revisions that may have been done over the years.

Q. That's part of -- Let me get a bigger picture

145

first before I go more narrowly.

When you make the qualification on the subjects

of Scientology and Dianetics, does that include writings

on organizational administration?

A. That would not be included in the exception.

Q. I'm not focused on the exception; I'm focused on

the scope of the meaning of scripture. So my question is

is it included within the scope of the meaning of

scripture L. Ron Hubbard's writings on administrative

management?

A. Certainly, as it's used in the Church and as

it's used in the organization Executive Courses, First

Volume, certainly that's considered scripture.

Q. You are a Scientology executive yourself; is

that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you have gone through and received some

amount of training in the organization executive courses,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell me what the extent of your

training in that regard has been?

A. I've done the entire Organization Executive

Course, which is the study of the encyclopedic volumes of

Church policy as well as the Flag Executive Briefing

146

Course.

Q. And the OEC, Organization Executive Course

books, those are the green ones?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now directing your attention to what's Bates

stamped as page 13 there's the enumeration of what the

Mother Church has got to adhere to and there's a list of

three items.

A. Yes.

Q. So part of what CSI's corporate mandate is is to

adhere to the goals, tenets, doctrines, codes, creed,

policies and practices set forth in the Scientology

scriptures, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you yourself as an individual Scientology

executive are bound by such things as well, correct?

A. Certainly in the performance of my duties, yes,

of course.

Q. And also in the performance of -- I mean, you

have given your life to Scientology, essentially, haven't

you?

A. I've devoted my life to it, yeah. I think we're

getting into the area of personal religious experience

that's been excluded, but, yes, of course I have.

Q. That's been roughly since 1976, right?

147

A. Roughly.

Q. Now item two talks about recognition of the

ecclesiastical authority of the hierarchy of the Mother

Church, right?

A. That is what it says.

Q. Now making reference to the ecclesiastical

authority that means, if I have understood you -- and I may

not and I know you will correct me if I haven't --

that recognition is of the Scientology scriptures, right?

A. To be precise, the recognition is of the

ecclesiastical authority of the hierarchy of the Mother

Church but it flows, that authority flows from the

scriptures, if that's what you are asking.

Q. That's a good starting point. Then the next point

I want to go to is the phrase "hierarchy of the Mother

Church." My first question is: The hierarchy to which that

phrase makes reference, is that hierarchy contained

within CSI?

A. That appears to be the most logical reading of

point two, yeah.

Q. Let me ask you -- I know that it appears to be

the reading --

A. It would --

Q. It appears that way to me, too.

A. It would match the way things work. So the

148

answer to your question would be yes.

Q. Let me ask you about ecclesiastical authority.

You're familiar with the Sea Organization, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You are a member of the Sea, aren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. You have been a member of the Sea Org since

when?

A. 1981.

Q. Now the Sea Organization -- that's spelled S-E-A,

for the record -- is an organization that's governed by

ecclesiastical authority, is it not?

A. In the general sense, yes.

Q. You know the president of CSI, Hebert Jentzsch?

A. Right.

Q. He's a member of the Sea Org, isn't he?

A. Yes.

Q. The vice-presidents, Leisa Goodman and Janet they

are also Sea Org members, aren't they?

A. Yes.

Q. And your assistant, Leslie Browning, she's Sea

Org, too?

A. Yep.

Q. As is the treasurer Jonathan Epstein?

A. That's also correct.

149

Q. Then the directors Mark Yager, Mike Rinder, Curt

Weiland, Guillaume Leserve and Katherine Rinder are all Sea

Orgs, as well?

A. That's correct.

Q. What we didn't talk about yesterday is who are

the trustees. Actually, that's preliminary. There are

trustees of CSI, aren't there?

A. Yes.

Q. The trustees are those individuals who, among

other things, have the responsibility of appointing the

directors at CSI right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who are the trustees?

A. Mark Yager is one of the trustees; Mark Ebert;

Michael Sutter; Warren McShane, Louise Stuckenbrack.

Q. Would you spell that last one?

A. S-T-U-C-K-E-N-B-R-A-C-K.

Q. All of those individuals are Sea Org members,

aren't they?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now going back to item two on page 13 of Exhibit

three, when you answered the question I asked you with

respect to the meaning about the hierarchy of the Mother

Church there's also a Sea Org hierarchy, too, isn't there?

A. Not necessarily in the sense that it's used

150

here.

Q. Let's escape from the document, just speak

generally for a minute.

There's a hierarchy of authority within the Sea

Orgs, isn't there?

A. Not as the Sea Organization. It's quite

loosely -- I would say probably, but not in the sense it's

used here.

Q. What's your understanding of the sense it's used

here so I make sure I'm on the same wave length?

A. In the sense it's used here there is a

recognition that the Mother Church of the Scientology

religion is at the place that it occupies in the hierarchy

of that religion and there are definite lines of authority

that stem from CSI's position as CSI.

In the Sea Organization there is no authority

that derives from an individual's rank or position or

whatever in the Sea Organization as the Sea Organization

that's independent of their corporate or ecclesiastical

position. You have a Sea Organization member; if you take

away their ecclesiastical position and you take away their

corporate position they are still a Sea Organization member

with a certain status within the Sea Organization but they

have no authority. The authority doesn't flow from the

position in the Sea Organization which is why I

151

say in a loose sense when I refer to hierarchy, because

hierarchy has a concept of authority flowing.

Q. Let's talk about hierarchy just generally so we

can see whether or not we can have a meeting of the minds

here.

There is a hierarchy of authority with respect to

corporations that have a place in the overall constellation

of Scientology, isn't there?

A. Yeah, I believe so, if I'm understanding your

question.

Q. In other words, some corporate organizations

exercise authority over other corporations.

A. Within certain precisely defined limits, yes.

Q. RTC, for example, is charged with maintaining

the purity of Scientology technology -- is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And CSI is charged with the propagation,

ensuring and maintaining the purity and

of the religion of Scientology, page 15, "...as

has been developed and may be further developed

by L. Ron Hubbard."

A. That's correct.

Q. Now in the Sea Organization do you have a rank?

A. Yes.

Q. What's your rank?

152

A. Petty officer second class.

Q. Who's your senior?

A. I don't have one in the Sea Organization, if

we're still on the Sea Organization as the Sea

Organization.

Q. Who designated you to have the classification of

petty officer second class?

A. Officers Council of the Flag Command Bureau.

Q. Who is on the Officers Council of the Flag

Command Bureau?

A. I'm not really certain.

Q. Do you know anybody who's on it?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object at this

point because we're diving into religious practices. The

Sea Organization is a paternal religious order. We're

diving into Mr. Farny's connection to this order and

asking for names of individuals as part of it. He already

testified that it doesn't have any particular authority as

a group; it's simply part of this religious order. I

think we're going really far afield here.

MR. BENZ: What connection does this have to the

lawsuit?

MR. GREENE: The connection it has, this witness

has testified, number one, there's been testimony about how

part of what the job of CSI is and his job as

153

secretary in CSI is to comply with the scriptures of

Scientology and to recognize ecclesiastical authority.

He has also stated that ecclesiastical authority,

that the Sea organization is subject to that, as well. And

I am endeavoring to find out exactly what that means

because that will in turn go to the issue of motive as is

relevant to the matters which bring us here later on in

terms of what Mr. Farny's requirements are and what CSI's

requirements are in following the writings of L. Ron

Hubbard and the policy letters that flow down from some

higher authority. That's what I'm trying to find out is

what is the flow of authority.

This witness has testified, one, that gee, there's

really no flow of authority in the Sea Organization but on

the other hand he stated that he's got a particular rank or

at least classification. So I'm simply endeavoring to find

out how it was that he got such classification and who gave

it to him because he didn't give it to himself. And it's

relevant to finding out who calls the shots and how those

shots are executed.

MR. BENZ: The problem I have at the moment I

don't see what the shots are.

MR. GREENE: I know. This is preliminary to

that.

MS. BARTILSON: But we don't have any foundation

154

that anybody other than the corporate authority for CSI

has called any shots anyplace. There's been no testimony

to the contrary by anybody. I don't think you are getting

that.

MR. GREENE: I'll tell you what, I'll approach it

a different way and --

MR. BENZ: If you can tie it in and go

backwards.

MR. GREENE: That's exactly what I'm going to

do.

MR. BENZ: That will be helpful.

MR. GREENE: Q. There are corporations in

Scientology that are known as Sea Org organizations,

right?

A. There are organizations within Scientology that

are Sea Org organizations and they are housed within

corporations, yes.

Q. What's the Sea Org organization that's housed

within CSI?

A. There's several.

Q. What are they?

A. Watchdog Committee, Commodore's Messenger

Organization International; Golden Era Productions;

Commodore's Messenger Service for Golden Era Productions.

MR. BENZ: Excuse me, that's Golden what?

155

THE WITNESS: Golden Era Productions.

Planetary Dissemination Organization;

International Network of Computer-organized Management,

I-N-C-O-M-M for short; Office of Special Affairs

International and Flag Bureaus, and the Flag Command

Bureau; International Finance Office; L. Ron Hubbard

Personal Public Relations Office; Senior Case Supervisor

International Office. I don't think I've forgotten any.

How many is that?

Q. Twelve.

A. That's what I remember. I think that's all.

Q. Just in terms of numbers, is it your

recollection that there may be other Sea Org units housed

within CSI in addition to the 12 that you enumerated for

us today?

A. Yes. International Training Organization, 13.

I think the list now encompasses all.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I think the list now encompasses them.

Q. Is complete?

A. Yes, I think so.

Q. Now within the Office of Special Affairs

International is housed a legal bureau; isn't that right?

A. That's right.

Q. You have a role within OSA legal, don't you?

156

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. I'm responsible for CSI litigation; also my post

as corporate secretary requires me to do other legal things

from that position.

Q. What's the title of your post in legal?

A. CSI litigation handling officer.

Q. What's the scope of your authority as CSI

litigation handling officer?

A. I'm responsible for the successful resolution of

litigation matters involving CSI as a party or any other

litigation matter concerning the trademarks which CSI has

an obligation to participate in.

Q. Those would be trademarks that CSI has been

licensed by RTC to use?

A. That's correct.

Q. I just wanted to clarify. I didn't mean to stop

you.

A. That's fine.

Q. Are there any other areas of activity that you

are authorized to participate in in addition to those two?

A. To the degree that situations may exist that

might result in litigation that embroil CSI I do have

authority to step in and see to it that they're resolved

prior to it becoming litigation if it's possible to

157

resolve that. That, I think, generally describes it.

Q. Were you hatted on being CSI's litigation

handling officer?

A. Yes.

Q. Who provided you with the hatting materials?

A. I compiled them myself.

Q. Are you telling me that there was no preset

hatting procedure for being CSI's litigation handling

officer?

A. That's correct.

MR. BENZ: What's the term, hatting?

THE WITNESS: Hatting.

MR. GREENE: Q. Hatting means -- Strike that.

In the practice of Scientology very specific definitions

are given to particular words, right?

A. Sure.

Q. In fact, part of being a Scientologist is having

a command of the particular meanings that Scientology gives

to specific words, right?

A. It certainly helps to understand the subject if

you do, yes, of course.

Q. In fact, that understanding of language of --

Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

A. Shall we define the term Mr. Benz asked about?

Q. I'll get there.

158

A. It was what is the definition of the word

hatting.

Q. I understand that, but I have my own way and I

like to do it my way. I'm the one asking the question.

A. You and Frank Sinatra.

Q. Thank you.

Isn't it fair to say that Scientology really has

its own language in a sense? It's English, but it's got

its own language, right?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object to this line

of questioning. We're really far afield in delving into

Scientology as a general subject. I think it's

unnecessary and a waste of time and it's harassing the

witness.

THE WITNESS: There's a terminology that's grown

up with the subject that's unique to the subject, and

that, like any other subject, has its own unique

terminology. I wouldn't describe it as another language.

MR. GREENE: Q. That's fair enough. There's a

terminology that's specific to the practice of

Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, the terminology is so specific that

Scientology has caused to be published a technical

dictionary that people can refer to in order to ascertain

159

the meanings of specific words if they're not clear about

it, right?

A. I don't know if that was the result of it being

so specific. It certainly is helpful, yes.

Q. But there is such a technical dictionary, right?

A. Yes, there is.

Q. And the technical dictionary contains within it

words that have particularized uses and meanings within

Scientology with definitions attached to those words,

right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now hatting means to train for a particular post,

doesn't it, among other meanings?

A. That's correct.

Q. The term "post" means the job to which one is

assigned in Scientology, right?

A. That's correct, like the word position.

Q. Like the word position or like in the military

someone being posted, right?

A. Right, although I think the military uses it for

the base to which an individual is assigned. I think they

use billeted for the specific job duty.

Q. I shouldn't make the comparison. Okay.

Did you assign yourself to the post of

litigation handling officer?

160

A. No.

Q. Who assigned you?

A. Michael Rinder.

Q. Do you know what Rinder's -- Strike that.

What is Rinder's position in OSA legal?

A. His position is outside of OSA legal.

Q. So Rinder is not posted within OSA legal at all,

right?

A. He's the Watchdog Committee member for the Office

of Special Affairs and holds the position as head of the

Office of Special Affairs.

Q. Within OSA, Office of Special Affairs, what other

bureaus are contained in addition to legal?

A. Public relations. There's an Investigative

Support Branch for legal, which is a separate bureau;

there's an Executive Bureau; Hubbard Communications Office

Bureau.

Q. What was the one you said right before Hubbard

Communications Bureau?

A. Executive. Enhancement Bureau, Treasury, Action,

Social Reform.

Q. Any others? No, right?

A. That's right, no.

Q. Now all of these -- I need your help. When you

gave me the list of Officers Council, Flag Command Bureau,

161

Watchdog Committee, CMO International -- that means

Commodore Messenger Organization International, right?

A. Commodore Messenger Organization International

is the correct word for that.

Just, before you go on, I didn't put Officers

Council as one of the organizations under CSI. It meets

yearly to decide on promotions, so I wouldn't consider it

a formal organization. It's made up of individuals within

these other organizations.

Q. So these are the organizations within CSI; they

are Sea Organization organizations?

A. Right, meaning all of the staff members of those

organizations also happen to be members of the Sea

Organization.

Q. Now you know David Miscavige, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And David Miscavige is a Sea Organization

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is his label?

A. Label? Human being.

Q. I know he's a human being. Thank you for

reminding me.

A. You are welcome.

Q. What's his post?

162

A. Chairman of the Board of Directors of Religious

Technology Center.

Q. To your knowledge, is there any individual in the

religion of Scientology who is alive that holds more

authority than David Miscavige?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

Alive to do what?

THE WITNESS: Authority is such an often misused

word, especially in Gerry's counter-claim. I would like to

define the parameters of that question a little bit before

I answer it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Actually, since I am asking the

questions and you are answering, let me try to assist you.

A. Okay.

Q. You have an understanding of the term authority,

right?

A. I do.

Q. Is it fair to say that within your understanding

of that term is included the meaning of one person issuing

an order and another person complying with it?

A. Yes.

Q. Limiting your answer to that understanding, is

there anyone in Scientology who, to your knowledge, gives

orders to David Miscavige?

A. No.

163

Q. To your knowledge, is there any post in the Sea

Organization senior to that of Chairman of the Board of

RTC?

A. There aren't any posts in the Sea Organization as

the Sea Organization. There are posts within the churches

that make up the Sea Organization.

Q. Let me ask it this way: In the overall

Scientology religion is there any post senior to Chairman

of the Board of RTC?

A. No.

Q. So overall in Scientology worldwide the highest

position is Chairman of the Board of RTC?

A. It's the senior position in the religion, yes.

MS. BARTILSON: Is this a convenient time to

request a break? Whenever you have a convenient moment.

(Discussion off the record.).

MR. GREENE: Q. Now, is it fair to say that part

of what OSA legal is charged with doing is handling

ecclesiastical matters?

A. What?

Q. Let me --

A. Vague and ambiguous.

Q. You don't understand? I know your deposition has

been taken before. It's a really difficult subject matter.

If you don't understand me, I know you will tell

164

me. Feel absolutely free to tell me to do it better, do it

again.

A. Do it better, do it again.

Q. Now in referring to the ecclesiastical authority

of CSI as set forth in item two Bates-stamped page 13

Exhibit three, the ecclesiastical authority that's being

recognized as stated in the bylaws is that which you have

enumerated to be the 13 Sea Organization organizations

within CSI, right?

A. Each within their sphere of influence, yes.

Q. Each within their sphere of influence are

charged with handling whatever matters are within their

sphere of influence, right?

A. That's correct, although the ultimate

ecclesiastical authority within CSI is the Watchdog

Committee. It's at the top.

Q. The buck stops at the Watchdog Committee?

A. That's right.

Q. Who are the members of the Watchdog Committee

besides Rinder?

A. Mark Yager, he's the chairman; Mark Ingbert; Greg

Hughs; Pablo Lobato.

Q. Would you spell that?

A. L-0-B-A-T-0. Elizabeth Miscavige. I'm drawing a

blank on the others but there are four or five others.

165

Q. That's fine. Elizabeth Miscavige being the wife

of David Miscavige?

A. No.

Q. Sister?

A. Sister-in-law. She's goes by the name Bitty.

Q. Since 1976 you've worked within other Scientology

corporations in addition to CSI, right?

A. Yes.

Q. CSI, in fact, wasn't even originated until 1981

or so?

A. That's correct, 1981.

Q. You work within Church of Scientology of

California, for example, right?

A. Right.

Q. What other organizations have you worked in

during the time you have been a Scientologist?

A. Church of Scientology, Mission of Riverside; and

I briefly held a position in Cincinatti.

Q. What organization there?

A. Church of Scientology of South Hamilton County,

Ohio. Hamilton County -- no, Columbus, not Cincinatti,

sorry.

Q. Since 1981 you have had occasion to interact with

other -- That's all right, let's break.

Off the record.

166

(Brief recess.)

MR. GREENE: Back on the record.

Q. Mr. Farny, is Michael Rinder your senior?

A. Not directly.

Q. Who is your direct senior?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: Ed Parkin.

MS. BARTILSON: How many times do we have to have

the same question?

MR. GREENE: Excuse me, counsel. Q. Who is Mr.

Partkin's senior?

A. Neil Levin.

MS. BARTILSON: Same objection.

MR. GREENE: Q. Who, is Levin's senior?

A. Jacqueline Kavenaar, K-A-V-E-N-A-A-R.

Q. Who is Ms. Kavenaar's senior?

A. Michael Rinder.

Q. And who is Michael Rinder's senior?

A. Mark Yager.

Q. And who is Mark Yager's senior?

A. Doesn't have one.

Q. What is Ed Parkin's post?

A. Legal activities chief.

MS. BARTILSON: Same objection, asked and

answered.

167

MR. GREENE: Q. And Neil Levin's post?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered

yesterday.

THE WITNESS: Legal aide, A-I-D-E.

MR. GREENE: Q. And Kavenaar?

A. Deputy commanding officer for production.

Q. And Rinder's post?

A. He holds two: He is Watchdog Committee member

to OSA as well as being commanding officer of office of

Special Affairs International.

Q. And Mr. Yager's post?

A. He's the Watchdog Committee chairman as well as

being the commanding officer of Commodore's Messenger

Organization International.

Q. So one way that an order coming from Yager might

be labeled would be COCMO, Int.?

A. Would be labeled COCMO, Int.

Q. Now who is Yager's senior?

A. He doesn't have one.

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you know how Yager was assigned

his post of WDC chairman?

A. No.

Q. Now within OSA, then, the command lines run from

Yager at the top down through the other people that you

168

enumerated?

A. Mr. Yager is not in OSA.

Q. Excuse me, you are right. In CSI?

A. Run that by me again.

Q. The command lines in CSI as they pertain to OSA

run from Yager down through the other individuals that you

enumerated, right?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

If you understand it -- feel free to answer it.

MR. BENZ: Are you asking for a ruling on that?

MS. BARTILSON: Is it vague and ambiguous to

you, too?

THE WITNESS: I'm thinking if I can answer it. The

command lines in OSA run from Mr. Rinder. I think that's

the best answer.

MR: GREENE: Q. When you use the term "command

lines," what you are making reference to is the activity of

giving an order and getting compliance?

A. That's one small part of it, yeah. There is also

coordination among activities and receiving of reports from

activity originated at a lower level on the command lines

such as mine.

Q. So if you receive a command, part of what you

have to do is, one, do whatever the command instructs you

to do, right?

169

A. No, not in the absolute sense, of course not.

Q. I'm not talking in an absolute sense. First of

all -- Wait a minute, I'm sorry. I don't mean to argue

with you.

When you are talking about an absolute sense

what do you mean?

A. You just said if I receive a command I

automatically have an obligation to follow it merely

because I received it.

Q. No, no, I'm sorry if that's what I conveyed. I

wasn't meaning to do that.

A. That would be inaccurate.

Q. Is it fair to say when you receive some sort of

directive from somebody who is senior to you to call that

a command? What would you call that?

A. A communication like that received from the

people who I've listed here on the command channel within

the office of Special Affairs can be a suggestion, an

observation, a request, or it can be an order.

Q. Okay. Is there a hierarchy among suggestion,

observation and order?

A. Suggestions and observations would be merely

that. Those are regular English definitions. An order is

also a regular English definition. An order presumes

there's an expectation of compliance if the order is

170

within the duties of the position receiving it, the

authority of the position issuing it and within general

policy. If it's not within all those, the obligation to

comply with it disappears.

Q. When you say "general policy," you are making

reference to the policy as set forth in the scriptures of

L. Ron Hubbard, right?

A. That CSI officially adopts as its governing

policy, yes.

Q. Going back to my question, let's say you receive

an order from someone senior to you.

A. Anyone in particular?

Q. Not anyone in particular; it's generic and I'm

trying to get a generic understanding.

A. The problem with a generic description, keeping

in mind the statements that are made in the

Cross-complaint, I can't adopt some sort of generic

hypothetical that's then twisted into something that Oh,

here, this applies to the Cross-complaint. I'm a little

better with specifics.

Q. Let me just try and make sure we're on the same

wave length. I'm not trying to twist you up; I'm trying to

get a clear understanding here.

You said that you would comply with an order if

it was within the scope of your duties, right?

171

A. That's correct.

Q. And if it was pursuant to policy, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then there was one other condition.

A. There were two other conditions: It was within

my job duties to perform that request and task and it was

within the authority of the individual requesting it to

issue such an order. Of course, if it was legal.

Q. Let's say those four conditions were satisfied.

A. I get five, but that's fine. The fifth one went

without saying, but generally, fine.

Q. That's fine, five is fine.

Then would you comply with the order?

A. Insofar as I was able to do so I would do so,

yeah.

Q. After you complied with the order would you then

give a report on how you complied with the order?

A. Either verbally or in writing I would let the

individual know I had done it.

Q. Frequently such reports are done in writing,

correct?

A. I don't know about frequently.

Q. In your experience.

A. My experience it's verbal and in writing.

Q. What is the scope of -- what are your job duties

172

as litigation handling officer?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Gee, I guess I won the opportunity

to list them all.

Duties are to see to it that legal situations

that affect, potentially affect CSI or the trademarks and

service marks CSI is authorized to use are resolved

through insuring that competent counsel is obtained to

deal with the situation; that that counsel receives

adequate backup of staff resources necessary to provide

the information that counsel needs to solve the situation;

that adequate planning exists to resolve the situation and

that that planning is executed. And it would be my

responsibility to originate the plan.

MR. GREENE: Q. So part of your job would be to

come up with a game plan on how to approach any given legal

problem; is that fair?

A. It's more counsel's job. It's my job to see to

it that counsel would do such a thing.

Q. In the backup that's provided for counsel, that

would involve, if necessary, paralegal support?

A. That's correct.

Q. It would involve investigatory support as well

if required, right?

173

A. Yes.

Q. And the investigatory support would come from the

OSA Bureau of Investigative Support for legal, right?

A. Yes, or from myself or from the paralegals or

from the attorney's office himself.

Q. Included within investigative support for legal

are private investigators, right?

A. Not within that bureau itself. Any

investigators that are hired would be hired by counsel and

the personnel in that bureau would provide whatever

briefing materials and assistance the investigator would

need much the same way that we would provide paralegal

support for the attorneys.

Q. The particular investigators are recommended by

OSA to counsel employed by OSA, right?

A. Recommends whom? We would agree or not of an

investigator selected by a lawyer, yes.

Q. One of the investigators who has been employed in

the past by OSA is Eugene Ingram, right?

A. No, he's been employed by counsel.

Q. Ingram has been employed by counsel who's been

employed by OSA, right?

A. Represented OSA. Well, represented CSI,

whatever.

Q. Aside from making sure that legal situations

174

that affect or could affect CSI or the trademarks or

service marks that CSI is licensed to use through obtaining

competent counsel –

A. Wait a minute, you left something out.

Q. What was that?

A. I think I said something after "or potentially

affects CSI." Before I said "through," the word " through."

I think I said "competently handled." If not, I should

have.

Q. Part of your job is -- what I'm going to ask you

is aside from what you have told me are components of your

job duties are there any others?

A. I think those are the major components, yeah.

Q. So when you execute the planning then you provide

a written or verbal report to your senior, right?

A. Usually verbal or a copy of the paper that's

filed or the order that results, court order that results

from the action taken, yes.

Q. How long have you held your current post?

A. This post came into existence in the spring of

this year.

Q. And prior to that what was your post?

A. Civil litigation officer. It had essentially the

same duties.

Q. What can you tell me about how the post was

175

changed from civil litigation officer to your current one?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection.

MR. GREENE: Litigation handling officer.

MS. BARTILSON: Requesting a narrative. Improper

question.

MR. GREENE: Is that an instruction?

MS. BARTILSON: It's a request.

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you understand what I am

asking?

A. It's broad. I can go on awhile.

Q. Why don't you give me a few preliminary

comments?

MS. BARTILSON: The objection stands and I'll

ask him not to answer.

MR. GREENE: Then instruct him and we'll

proceed.

MS. BARTILSON: I have.

MR. GREENE: Can we have a ruling?

MR. BENZ: Can I have the question read back

again?

(Record read back.).

MR. BENZ: Objection is sustained.

MR. GREENE: Q. When did you first learn that your

post of civil litigation officer was going to be changed to

litigation handling officer?

176

A. Shortly before it changed.

Q. Which was approximately when?

A. Approximately in the spring.

Q. Of '94?

A. Yes. Maybe a few weeks before spring.

Q. So we're talking March?

A. February-ish, March-ish, with a real big ish.

Q. Late February, early March?

A. Around that general area.

Q. Who told you first?

A. Michael Rinder.

Q. Where were you?

A. In his office.

Q. Which is located where?

A. 6331 Hollywood Boulevard. Now we were in a

different office at the time.

Q. Where were you then?

A. We were in the Cedar's complex.

Q. The blue buildings?

A. Yes.

Q. In Hollywood?

A. Yes.

Q. What did Rinder tell you?

A. That in the at that time upcoming reorganization

that I would be continuing to do the same thing I was

177

doing although the name of the post changed.

Q. Did you ask him how the reorganization had come

about?

A. No.

Q. Did it cross your mind to ask him that question?

A. Not in that conversation, no.

Q. In a later conversation did you ask him?

A. No.

Q. Did it cross your mind -- at any time later to

ask?

A. No.

Q. Now when you receive an order that order comes to

you from a post senior to the post that you hold,

right?

A. It's not going to come from one junior to me, no.

Q. But how the order comes to you is a matter of

policy, isn't it?

A. As in the physical mechanics of what it will do?

Q. Yes.

A. That and a function of the physical universe

there are certain ways one has to communicate.

Q. Orally?

A. Orally is one of them.

Q. In writing?

A. Writing is another.

178

Q. And in some cases physically?

A. I don't recall receiving a physical order, but

you are correct that orders can be issued that way.

Q. That's the scope of my universe. Is that the same

as yours?

A. Ditto.

Q. So, then, when you receive an order, for such an

order to be pursuant to policy that order has got to be in

writing, doesn't it?

A. Policy contemplates the existence of verbal

orders, so the answer to your question is no.

Q. Was the entire legal division of OSA affected by

the reorganization?

A. Yes.

Q. How many people was that, approximately?

A. Thirty to 40.

Q. Now the action bureau of OSA contemplates the

performance of what type of activities?

A. Sending representatives to local areas to assist

them to resolve situations in that area either internally

within the local Office of Special Affairs or Department of

Special Affairs or externally.

Q. When such persons were sent out would that be

called a mission?

A. It would.

179

Q. Would such persons performing such missions

generally be members of the CMO?

A. No.

Q. Did you hold the post of civil litigation officer

within OSA during the original Armstrong

litigation?

A. You mean in 1984?

Q. That was when --

A. 1982 to 1984?

Q. Yes, '82 to '84.

A. No, I did not.

Q. Were you involved in the Armstrong litigation --

Actually, strike that.

What post did you hold in the '82 to '84 time

period, post or posts?

A. It's plural. When the case was first filed and

we obtained the temporary restraining order --

Q. Wait, wait, wait, I want --

A. I have to do it by what was happening. Do you

want to do it by date?

Q. No, you can give me activity and sequence.

A. When the litigation was first filed I was in

supercargo of the Office of Special Affairs, U.S.

MR. WALTON: I'm sorry, what?

THE WITNESS: Supercargo.

180

MR. GREENE: Q. That was your post?

A. Yes.

Q. So then what post next did you have?

A. Then August '82, August '82 I was on that

position. I'm not sure -- no, it wasn't OCS; that was

before the reorg was completed. It was U.S. Guardian's

Office.

Q. So you were supercargo of the U.S. Guardian's

Office in approximately August of '82?

A. That's correct. Then after the reorg I went into

legal. That would have been January of '83 I went into

legal in the mission all clear, and I held various

positions within that until I moved up to the Office of

Special Affairs International in approximately April of

'84. My position was called litigation secretary. I was

the head of what is now the Legal Bureau. At that time it

was the Litigation Bureau.

Q. So you were litigation secretary up through June

of '84 when Breckenridge's decision came out?

A. Yes.

Q. Then were you civil litigation officer?

A. No.

Q. What was next?

A. Next was deputy litigation chief for the United

States; then was litigation chief. I'm not sure it was

181

chief. No, it wasn't chief, it was director of both of

those. Then I was the All Clear legal secretary. My next

post in legal was litigation chief, legal aide.

Q. Legal aide is a different post?

A. It's different.

Q. I just want to make sure I'm clear.

A. Legal quality control officer and then civil

litigation officer.

Q. And all of these positions were all positions

ecclesiastical authority of CSI, right?

A. Not all that I listed.

Q. Let me go through them and check them off and

then you can tell me.

A. You want me just to tell you where the ones

within CSI start?

Q. Sure.

A. Litigation secretary, all the ones thereafter.

Q. Those were the ecclesiastical positions?

A. No, all the ones from that one onward was within

CSI. The ones previously were CSC, Church of Scientology

California.

Q. So when you were supercargo USGO, that was within

CSC?

A. That's right.

Q. Then you made reference to the reorganization

182

and that's what has been called in the past "mission

corporate category sort-out"?

A. No.

Q. That's a different reorganization?

A. Mission corporate sort-out didn't result in a

reorganization; it was abandoned. It was a complete

failure.

Q. The reorganization, then, to which you were

making reference was the reorganization that resulted, at

least in part, with the origination of CSI, RTC, Religious

Technology Center, and CST, Church of Spiritual

Technology, right?

A. In part. It began approximately in the summer of

1981 and was complete with a total disbandment of the

Guardian's Office by October of '83.

Q. Now the list that you gave me of litigation

secretary on, those all were within OSA, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And OSA is an ecclesiastical organization,

right?

A. The Office of Special Affairs International.

Q. Right.

A. What we've been calling OSA.

Q. Yes. Just so we're clear, there's a difference

between the Office of Special Affairs and Office of

183

Special Affairs International, isn't there?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you and I have been talking here saying

the words or the letters OSA, what my understanding has

been is we've been referring to the international

organization; is that the same as what yours has been?

A. I don't think I've used it any other way.

Q. I don't think you have either. I just want to

make sure we're clear.

A. Yes.

Q. So with all that in mind, going back to Bates-

stamped page l3 of Exhibit three, when you are talking

about items two and three there and references made to

ecclesiastical authority and governance in ecclesiastical

matters by said hierarchy, what we're talking about is OSA

International, right?

A. Not exclusively, no.

Q. But in part?

A. Small part certainly, but we're not the main line

of ecclesiastical management of the religion; we're a small

portion of that that deals with external matters such as

this lawsuit. So we're not by any stretch of the

imagination the mainline of activity of the Church.

Q. Right. I'm not meaning to suggest that you are.

A. Within those confines, fine.

184

Q. Because indeed something, to use your term

mainline, the Watchdog Committee would be much more

mainline than OSA; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the Flag Command Bureau, as well?

A. That's right.

Q. And in fact --

A. And the Flag Bureaus.

Q. And the Flag Bureaus.

Now earlier when you described the Flag Command

Bureau, Watchdog Committee, CMO, Int., and on down the

list, was that in order of hierarchy?

A. No, it was in order of how they came to my mind.

Q. Let's look at those in terms of hierarchy, if we

may.

A. All right.

Q. What is primary? What is at the top of the

hierarchy, and I can review them.

A. I just thought of another one that should go in

there, which is the International Executive Strata, rather

a major one to have forgotten. Doing it this way is easier.

So at the top of the hierarchy is the Watchdog

Committee.

Q. Then what's junior to that?

A. Junior to that within what is described as

185

International Management is the Commodore's Messenger

Organization International.

Q. And then junior to that?

A. Well, still at the same echelon, we're still at

the same echelon of international management. You have the

Senior Case Supervisor's Office, International Finance

Office, Golden Era Productions, although they don't have

any management functions; they produce dissemination

materials: Films, video tapes.

Q. Advertisements?

A. Audio tapes and advertisements for Dianetics and

Scientology.

Q. Some of which we see on television?

A. I hope so. They're still at that same echelon

of International Management as is the Commodore's

Messenger Organization, Golden Era Productions and

Planetary Dissemination Organization. And immediately

below the level of the Watchdog Committee, still in

International Management, is the International Executive

Strata.

Q. Is International Finance Office included there,

too?

A. No, they are in the International Management.

Q. So International Finance Office is on par with

International Executive Strata, right?

186

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, misstates.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Generally.

MS. BARTILSON: Sorry.

THE WITNESS: Generally, yes. Now still answering

your question --

MR. GREENE: Q. Okay, go ahead.

A. Next echelon down is the upper middle management

echelon, which contains the Flag Command Bureau and the

organizations within it all of which are of a similar level

in terms of hierarchy. Now that completes the list.

Q. In your knowledge does the Watchdog Committee

have a member who is in RTC?

A. No.

Q. You know that there is not such?

A. I know that there is not such.

Q. Now within the Watchdog Committee there is --

Strike that.

Do you know who the members of the Watchdog

Committee are?

A. I don't have anything to add to my previous

answer.

MS. BARTILSON: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. GREENE: Q. To make sure I've got my

understanding correct, the Watchdog Committee is contained

entirely within CSI?

187

A. That's right.

Q. Directing your attention now to page 14 of

Exhibit three, and under item C where reference is made to

the "Religion of Scientology and Scientology shall mean the

religious doctrines, beliefs, tenets, practices, applied

religious philosophy and technology for its application as

developed by L. Ron Hubbard and as the same may hereafter

be developed by L. Ron Hubbard," is your personal

definition of Scientology the equivalent of what's set

forth in what I just read?

A. Yes.

Q. Does your personal definition of Scientology

include anything more than what is set forth there in

paragraph C?

A. I've used the terms to also include the

individuals who adhere to these beliefs. When I speak of

"in Scientology we do blah blah blah," I would include the

individuals who adhere to these beliefs as well as the

philosophy and religion and stuff.

Q. Directing your attention to paragraph D where

"Scriptures" is in quotes and is defined as "Shall mean the

writings and recorded spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard with

respect to Scientology and organizations formed for the

purposes thereof," we spoke about that briefly earlier and

you adopt that definition personally as well, don't

188

you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And your own personal use of the term scriptures

with reference to Scientology does not include anything in

addition to what's set forth in paragraph D, does it?

A. No.

Q. Now turning to the next page and directing your

attention to the first paragraph, would you take a moment

to read that paragraph to yourself?

A. Subparagraph (g) or the first article under

three?

Q. I apologize, it's following section one. Let me

know when you have had a chance to do that.

A: I've read the first paragraph.

Q. Where reference is made to maintaining the purity

and integrity of the religion of Scientology, what does

that refer to in your understanding?

A. As it's set forth here with reference to CSI's

duties or the Church of Scientology's duties it means to

ensure that the technology developed by Mr. Hubbard for

improving an individual's spiritual awareness is applied in

exactly the manner that LRH said to apply it. It ensures

the organizational structure of the Church is in such a way

that it doesn't lessen the integrity of that technology,

pervert it in any fashion, or use it in such a

189

way that's harmful.

Q. Within Scientology isn't it true that what you

are referring to is encapsulated in the phras that goes

something like: Standard technology standardly applied?

A. Yes, that would be accurate. That would refer to

the audio technology and Mr. Hubbard's philosophy.

Q. Now there are some individuals who have used

Scientology technology without authorization or permission,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. Part of what CSI's responsibility would be --

Well, strike that.

A person who is engaged in the unauthorized use

of such technology would compromise the purity and

integrity of Scientology; is that fair to say?

A. Not in all cases because some use of the

technology is not requiring an authorization. You can buy

a Dianetics book or a self-analysis book at the book store

and use it and that's fine, that's what it's there for,

it's to be used. You can give a touch assist or something

to someone. You can use it, read one of the books, adopt

the principles and use them in your life. So none of that

sort of thing requires any organization.

Q. Any kind of metered activities would, however,

right?

190

A. Probably because you would probably -- if one is

engaging in that for a living being an auditor for a living

or something yes, that would require authorization.

Q. So the record is clear, when I said "metered

activities" what I was referring to was the practice of

employing a device called an E-meter. You are familiar with

such a device, aren't you?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Are you authorized to audit people within

Scientology?

A. Yes.

Q. An E-meter is a device that is used for the

activity of what's called an auditing within Scientology,

right?

A. It's used in most forms of auditing, yes.

Q. Auditing is what Scientology says is its primary

religious practice, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And an E-meter is what Scientology refers to as a

religious artifact, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And an E-meter is a device that incorporates

among other things two electroids which the person who is

being audited holds in his or her hands, right?

A. Those are one of the component parts of it, yes.

191

It's an electrometer that measures the amount of mental

mass present as a guide to the auditor for areas to audit

and the reaction to the questions.

Q. And the rest of the device that's hooked up to

the two electroids, there's a dial with a needle, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then there's actually -- sorry, what do you

call that thing that you look at that the needle goes back

and forth?

A. Dial.

Q. Then there's also a turning thing, right?

A. Turning thing? God.

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object to this line

of question.

THE WITNESS: I'm going to interpose an objection.

This is somewhat demeaning of the religion.

MR. GREENE: Q. I'm not trying to be demeaning.

Sometimes I --

MS. BARTILSON: It's pretty far afield.

THE WITNESS: Tell you what, you want me to give

you a book understanding the E-meter?

MR. GREENE: Q. That's all right. Let me move

on.

My point is when I made reference to a metered activity it

was an activity employing an E-meter and

192

that's how you understood my use of the term metered

activity; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now an individual who engages, who performs

auditing activities without permission would be someone

that would be compromising the purity or integrity of

Scientology; is that fair to say?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered and

misstates the witness's prior testimony.

Go ahead and tell him.

THE WITNESS: To use an E-meter you need to be an

ordained minister of the Scientology religion or a minister

in training. If you are, then fine, with the requisite

amount of training. If you are not, then no; you shouldn't

use an E-meter.

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me approach it this way. You

are familiar with the term squirrel, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And squirrel has particular meaning within

Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. The particular meaning that squirrel has within

Scientology is someone who is utilizing -- I'm speaking

broadly -- someone who is utilizing Scientology technology

without authorization or permission for the purpose of

193

making money from other people, right?

A. I wouldn't define it exactly that way. That's

somewhat imprecise. I would define it in the manner of

someone who is stealing and/or altering or perverting the

aspects of the technology for their own profit.

Q. So such a person who is a squirrel would be

compromising the purity and integrity of Scientology,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then dealing with such person would come

within the scope of authority exercised by CSI, right?

A. Yes, and my job in particular.

Q. And your job in particular.

A. The individual would be spoken with and maybe

somebody who is just out in the field and, you know, is

perfectly willing to come in and train and get licensed,

whatever; it may be through conversation, negotiation,

get the individual to cease what he's doing in an un-

authorized manner; go off and do his own thing, or

whatever; or it might require litigation to enforce the

proper use of the trademarks and service marks that he's

misusing.

Q. Okay. Directing your attention to Bates-stamped

page 16 of Exhibit three at the top of the page, would you

read into the record the first complete sentence?

194

A. The sentence reads: "Scientology technology is a

body of truths and methods of application developed by L.

Ron Hubbard from his observations and research which, when

correctly applied, can reveal the soul of man, extend his

knowledge of the Infinite Being to him, and make known what

is knowable about God."

Q. With that definition in mind, would you

personally add any other definition or alter that in any

way when making reference to Scientology technology?

A. No, I would not.

Q. And Scientology technology in substantial part

involves the written words of L. Ron Hubbard, right?

A. In substantial part. There's also the recorded

spoken words.

Q. Right, tapes.

A. Taped lectures, film.

Q. Within Scientology technology would come Hubbard

Communication office policy letters, right?

A. Correct. Although, wait a minute, time out, no.

What's being referred to here are Hubbard Communications

policy bulletins, not policy letters.

Q. Let's talk about that for a second. Hubbard

Communication office bulletins is one of the written

materials within Scientology, right?

A. That's correct.

195

Q. And Hubbard Communication Office policy letters

are another type of written communications in Scientology,

right?

A. That's also correct.

Q. The policy letters make reference to management

concerns in Scientology, right?

A. They concern organizational matters, yes.

Q. That have to do with management in part?

A. In part, yes.

Q. So what are the bulletins?

A. Majorly auditing, which is Scientology

technology as defined here, although the organizational

policies are a technology for applying Mr. Hubbard's truths

to the operation of groups.

Q. So the policies, then, in Scientology are what

are used to manifest organizationally within the

organization the truths that are revealed through auditing,

right?

A. No, I don't think that's right.

Q. Then I misunderstood you.

A. Hubbard Communication Office bulletins deal with,

as their subject matter, auditing generally that body of

truths that allows one to broaden one's and expand one's

awareness as an individual of himself and of others.

The Hubbard Communication policy letters

196

generally concern organizational or administrative types of

activity, although there are axioms within those that apply

equally well to an individual. I'm just talking about a

general division of the subject matter.

Usually when one hears it colloquially referring

to the technology, it's generally referring to the Hubbard

Communication Office bulletins, although the policy letters

I think would fit within the broader definition --

Q. Of the technology?

A. Of the technology.

Q. Part of the corporate purpose of CSI is the

dissemination of, broadly speaking, the technology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it your understanding that such dissemination

is to deliver Scientology to as many people as possible?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it your understanding that such delivery is

predicated on the belief that the more people, the greater

the numbers of people who adopt Scientology the better off

the planet will be?

A. Yes. I happen to believe that very strongly.

Q. And, in fact, the ultimate objective would be to

have all members of humanity be involved in Scientology; is

that right?

A. The ultimate objective is a sane society.

197

Q. The ultimate objective being a sane society in

your view the most effective route of obtaining said

objective is via Scientology?

A. For me absolutely, of course it is. That's why

I'm a Scientologist.

Q. Also in terms of CSI in terms of delivering

Scientology to as many people as possible?

A. Yes, we want to disseminate the religion to as

many people as possible.

Q. Directing your attention to Bates-stamped 16,

subparagraph (A,) in part that's what (A) refers to when it

says: "Establishment of a religious body and entity to

promote, protect, administer and encourage the religion of

Scientology and its goals," right?

A. You are asking if dissemination is contemplated

within what's listed in (A)?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the next page

Bates-stamped 17 under Section 2, Mother Church, and the

first sentence where it says, quote, "In addition to the

foregoing, the Church, as the Mother Church, shall oversee

and manage the ecclesiastical affairs of all other churches

of Scientology to ensure and maintain the purity and

integrity of the religion of Scientology."

198

A. Are you asking if I see that?

Q. I'm asking if you see that.

A. I do.

Q. And I read that correctly, didn't I?

A. I wasn't paying close enough attention. It

appeared to be, yeah.

Q. So part of CSI's duty is to make sure that other

Scientology organizations properly apply the technology in

a broad sense in the terms we've been speaking is that

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the manner in which that objective is

accomplished is through the exercise of ecclesiastical

authority, right?

A. CSI's right to do that stems from its

ecclesiastical authority and agreement on the part of the

daughter churches that we have that right. I think that's

more what it stems from.

Q. There are no daughter churches that haven't made

that agreement, right?

A. They wouldn't be daughter churches unless they

had. They would be other organizations, or whatever.

Q. Now the next sentence, the one that starts with

"Further," why don't you read that into the record,

please?

199

MS. BARTILSON: Objection. Document speaks for

itself and is an exhibit.

MR. BENZ: Sustained.

MR. GREENE: Q. Looking at the next sentence

that starts with "Further," the part of what CSI's job is

is to make sure that the ecclesiastical tenets of

Scientology that are set forth in the writings of L. Ron

Hubbard are enforced, right?

A. Generally, yes.

Now I said earlier -- I don't want to lose track

of it -- is within that definition I originally gave is

that over the years many of his writings were revised a

number of times or cancelled or replaced with others. I

just want to make sure we're still talking about the same

thing. And the current expression of them would be in the

current volumes of either the Organization Executive

Course or the technical bulletins of Dianetics and

Scientology.

Q. I understand.

A. Great.

Q. With respect to daughter churches or missions or

other Scientology-related groups, to your knowledge does

each such entity have within it an office of Special

Affairs or an Office of Special Affairs liaison?

A. Each daughter church has that function expressed

200

on their organizing board; not necessarily the missions

and groups, no, but for organizations that have achieved

the status of being a class five organization, which is

what we're saying is daughter church as distinguished from

missions and groups, would have a Department of Special

Affairs which would have a representative. That

representative is -- actually representative is a bad

word. It would have a Department of Special Affairs, that

an individual is generally director of that organization

along with two other senior officials in the local

organization.

I see you are reaching for another folder. Is

that something we can do after lunch or --

Q. It's actually the same subject.

Let's go off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: I would like to mark as the next

exhibit, which is HCO Policy Letter of 1 May 1965, a

two-page exhibit as Defendant's four.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 4
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Would you take a moment and

review Defendant's four, please?

A. Can you hand me the complete document?

Q. I apologize.

201

A. I've got part of one document entitled Hubbard

Policy Letter of 1 May '65, the first page of that, then

the frontis piece from a book. Why don't we have the whole

policy letter here?

Q. I agree.

A. It appears to be the frontis piece, you are

right, Gerry. We should have the whole policy.

Q. I'll tell you what, for now I'll go on to

something else and then during lunch we'll put in the whole

thing.

A. I hate to do it without the complete document

being there.

Q. I totally agree with you.

A. And if you can have the book it's copied from

here so I can look at it and see that yes, that's the

page, this is the frontis piece that goes with that volume,

that would speed things up. Obviously I have not memorized

the frontis piece of each Scientology book.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Let's mark the next exhibit as

five, which is an HCO policy letter of 9 February '79

revised 23 August '84.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 5
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to

202

Exhibit five, do you recognize this document?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this document included in the

organization -- did you study this document when you did

the Organization Executive Course?

A. I did the Organization Executive Course before

that current revision of that document, so I studied the

unrevised version.

Q. Are you familiar with the revised version that's

in front of you now?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this an example of Hubbard policy?

A. It's an example of a Hubbard Communication Office

policy letter which is Church policy.

Q. Which is Church policy?

A. Yes.

Q. To your knowledge, has this policy ever been

cancelled?

A. No.

Q. The title of the policy is How to Defeat Verbal

Tech; do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Verbal tech is a term of Scientology art, is it

not?

A. Yes, means verbal technology.

203

Q. Verbal technology which means transmitting

technology verbally, right?

A. Right.

Q. With respect to that, under item one where it

says, "If it isn't written it isn't true," do you see

that?

A. I see that.

Q. Verbal tech in Scientology is something that's

considered to be troublesome, right?

A. I don't know if I would go along with

troublesome.

Q. How would you describe it then?

A. Improper.

Q. Improper, okay. When you say improper, what do

you mean?

A. It would be improper for an individual to say

when instructing a junior, for example, here's how we do

thus and so without reference to the materials that

concern thus and so unless it's something benign and

innocuous. Something that concerns the application of the

technology should be referred to the actual technology. It

would be either in writing or recorded spoken words.

Q. And the reason for that in part is because when people

communicate verbally there can be distortions,

right?

204

A. That's correct.

Q. And if something is written down there's not any

distortion about what's written down?

A. That's right.

Q. And if particular words are used about which

people may have confusion, they can consult a dictionary

for further definition?

A. That's right, even in the instance of a verbal

order I spoke of earlier that's contemplated in the other

issue that we're going to get a complete copy of, in a

perfect world a written record should be kept of it, but

it's not a perfect world.

Q. But if Scientology policy were scrupulously

adhered to, then there would be a written record of a

verbal order, right?

A. At least until the order was complied with, and

then whether anyone bothers to save it or not would be a

function of how important it is and if it actually got

written down. But, of course, it's not a perfect world.

Q. But in terms of your own personal performance of

your post, you endeavor to adhere to Scientology policy to

the utmost, don't you?

A. I do, but I have to say I don't always write

everything down. I try to.

Q. But you do your best?

205

A. I try to write it down, and then it's a matter of

what then happens to it at the end of the day when

everything is done. There would be no reason to keep a lot

of things. It would just accumulate.

Q. There are policies that control what to do with

written terms, are there not?

A. There are general guidelines; doesn't

contemplate all circumstances, no. A certain degree of

judgment is expected.

Q. Now going back to Exhibit five, would you tell me

what your understanding is of item number one where it

says, "If it isn't written it isn't true"?

A. That's a maxim that applies to the technology of

Dianetics and Scientology as originated by Mr. Hubbard,

that if it isn't something he wrote down or uttered in some

other permanent recording, because he gave technology in

media that is not the written word; he gave it in the

spoken word which would have a permanent record, which

would be a recording, or on film.

Q. Video tape.

A. So as applied to that it would mean that if

somebody is telling you this is what Mr. Hubbard wrote you

would have to see it and you would have to determine

whether or not it had been cancelled or revised in some

fashion or such. Now it's applied to an order one would

206

receive on one's post. If there's any controversy to the

order, if you feel the order is in any way inconsistent to

what you should be doing, one uses this to see whether or

not it would meet the definition of a valid order.

And the first step would be okay, get it in writing. So it

happens to be a verbal order that you would be obligated to

get it in writing. So one can use this checklist to either

then get the order validated as something that is

appropriate and proper or document that it isn't, in which

case it would be annulled, cancelled.

Q. Part of the reason for that is a premium value is

placed on accountability with respect to compliance with

orders within Scientology; isn't that right?

A. I would say more emphasis is placed on assuming

responsibility for the job function in originating what to

do as opposed to complying with orders. If you are at the

stage of having to have orders to do a job you are not the

one occupying the post, the one issuing the orders is. I

would say there's more emphasis on the person's sense of

responsibility and origination of what to do.

Q. There's that but there's also an aspect of where

the person who has given the order wants to be able to have

a good record to see what happened after that order was

issued; isn't that right?

A. They would want to know if the order was done

207

what was done. Now, then, its subsequent importance to

history will determine whether or not such things are

kept, but within those guidelines.

MR. GREENE: I would like to mark as Defendant's

six a one-page document that's an HCO policy letter that

was reissued on 12 of April 1983.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 6
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to

Defendant's Exhibit six, do you recognize that document?

A. Let me read it first.

Q. Sure.

A. All right, I've read it

Q. Have you seen this document before?

A. Yes. Absent the Bates stamp.

Q. The title of this document is Verbal Tech:

Penalties, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Has this policy letter, to your knowledge, ever

been rescinded?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. As a Scientology executive is this policy letter

something that you would do your best to comply with?

A. I would do my best to adhere to it, yes,

especially since the second paragraph really exemplifies

208

what we're talking about in term of standard technology.

The materials of Scientology are contained in the materials

and that's the best reference for them.

Q. Then the first paragraph where it says, "Any

person found to be using verbal tech shall be subjected to

a court of ethics." You know what a court of ethics is,

right?

A. That's right.

Q. A court of ethics is a particular procedure

within Scientology; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. Part of Scientology has to do with a realm of

practice that is known as ethics, right?

A. Realm of practice?

Q. Part of Scientology practice has to do with

ethics, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And ethics has got a very specific meaning within

Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. As a general principle if an individual is having

difficulty within Scientology it's because in Scientology

parlance his or her ethics are out, right?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object.

THE WITNESS: I wouldn't adopt that as a general

principle, no. I would not adopt that as a general

209

principle, no . I would not adopt that as a general

principle and you are right, we are getting --

MS. BARTILSON: We are really getting far afield

here and I don't see any relevance to this. General

practice of Scientology is exactly what he said it is.

MR. GREENE: We'll come back to it and it is

quite relevant. I'll lay a better foundation.

MR. BENZ: I think the question has been

answered.

THE WITNESS: It has been. I couldn't let the

misstatement of it stand.

MR. BENZ: That's fine: So no ruling is required

at this point, is what I'm saying.

MR. GREENE: Q. In fact, Exhibit number six has

specifically been adopted by CSI, right?

A. That's what it says.

Q. To your knowledge, that's the truth, isn't it?

A. Yes, to my knowledge that's the truth.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark as Defendant's

seven the HCO policy letter of 5 March '65.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 7
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to seven

and immediately to the obscured part --

A. Sorry, I didn't hear you.

210

Q. I want to direct your attention to the obscured

part.

A. Okay.

Q. When you focus you can read the words, although

they're not as easy to read as the rest of it. On page

one there of Exhibit seven the part that's been obscured,

as I see it it says, quote, "The sense in which we use

policy is the rules and administrative formulas by which

we agree on action and conduct our affairs," close quote.

A. Yes, that's what it looks like to me.

MS. BARTILSON: Do you have the original?

THE WITNESS: Mine is a generation earlier. Just

for the record, the one handed Laurie was a couple of

generations beyond that and couldn't be read.

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you have the original? Take

a look at the original and satisfy yourself that Exhibit

seven is --

MS. BARTILSON: See if it matches because

there's junk all over it.

THE WITNESS: What am I supposed to match, this

sentence?

MR. GREENE: Q. Just the document. You asked

earlier if you could take a look at the green volume to be

able to compare the exhibits.

A. Okay, fine. All right, it appears to match.

211

Q. All right. Exhibit seven, like all the other

policy letters, as a Scientologist the expectation is to

adhere to what is expressed in the policy letters, right?

A. Well, what is expressed in here in terms of the

timeless nature would be adhered to, yes, like the general

laws given up at the top. But, of course, one cannot

continue to adhere to his description at the time he wrote

it of the international board being composed of 336.

Q. Because that doesn't exist anymore.

A. Right.

Q. Of course not.

A. But the general laws and definitions of terms

that are given here, yes.

Q. Which would include the definition hereof a

policy letter right underneath the obscured part?

A. I think -- oh, underneath, not in back of. "One

which contains one or more policies and their explanation

and application." Yes, correct.

Q. Now aside from any organizational inaccuracies

that are set forth in Exhibit seven --

A. Organizational antiquities. They were accurate at

the time.

Q. Aside from those things you would adhere to and

comply with what's expressed in Exhibit seven, right?

A. Yes, aside from any organizational antiquities

212

that have since been revised.

My watch shows quarter to.

Q. I have just one more, so let's do it.

Defendant's Exhibit eight is an HCO Policy Letter of 9

August 72.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 8
was marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: All right, I've read it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Has Exhibit eight been

rescinded -- excuse me, strike that.

Do you recognize Exhibit eight?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a current policy letter that's currently

adhered to in Scientology according to your best

knowledge?

A. Generally, yes, although the organizational

entities referred to in the fifth paragraph have different

names.

Q. That is the International Board Members?

A. I was thinking of the Authority and Verification

Unit as the Authorization and Verification Unit.

Q. Now it's known as that?

A. Yes.

Q. What about the International Board members?

A. Yes. That would apply to CSI at present.

213

Q. What portion of CSI would that apply to?

A. The board members.

Q. So, then, in your practice as a Scientology

executive you adhere to what's set forth in Exhibit eight,

right?

A. Yes, I take the information from HCOBs and HCO

PLs to be senior to other types of policy directors. It's a

matter of interpretation of them.

Q. Okay, great. Let's break for lunch.

(Whereupon the deposition was adjourned

for lunch.)

---o0o---

214

AFTERNOON SESSION

2:10 P.M.

---o0o---

EXAMINATION RESUMED BY:

MR. GREENE: Back on the record.

Q. First of all, what we're going to do is to

replace incomplete Defendant's Exhibit four with a

complete version and that has been done at this point and

we're going to proceed that way.

A. Right, and in looking through it and these other

issues I've been handed they do not appear to be from the

current policy volumes and, unfortunately, I'm not able to

say which may have been amended in the current one or not.

I'll just do the best I can. They do appear in some cases

to be from one revision ago in terms -- one revision ago

in terms of some of them and more than one revision ago in

terms of others.

Q. However, since the state of your knowledge is

that the policy letters which are exhibits four through

eight that have been provided to you today, those came from

a policy volume that was in effect last revised in

1986, right?

A. Some appear to have been from a volume that was

last revised before that. I just don't know which volume.

Some of these were from volume zero last revised -- sorry,

last revised in '86. There's been a revision in '91 and

215

I'm not sure. Some may have been from the volume one

which was not revised in '86; it was only revised in '91.

These appear to be from volume zero. I'm just not

certain.

Q. With respect to Exhibits four through eight, to

the best of your knowledge as you sit here today and

without the benefit of the 1991 revision, have any of those

policies been revised or cancelled?

A. I don't think any have been cancelled. There may

have been some revisions. I can't say without looking at

the volume.

Q. With respect to those exhibits -- there is not any

revision that has taken place which comes to your mind as

you sit here now?

A. That's not what I said.

Q. I'm asking you that.

A. Are you going to twist it around to Gee, he

couldn't testify to any revision so it's not the accurate

one? No, I'm saying we need the current one. I've been

accommodating and said I am not aware of any cancellation

of these, but as far as revisions that may exist in the

current volume I don't know, I have to compare the two.

Q. I know, I'm not asking you about the current

volume, Mr. Farny. What I'm asking you is whether as you

sit here now, based on the state of your knowledge now,

216

whether or not there have been any revisions of Exhibits

four through eight?

MS. BARTILSON: And he's told you he doesn't

know.

THE WITNESS: As I sit here now I would have to

look at the current volume to be sure, otherwise I would

just be guessing.

MR. GREENE: Q. So your answer, then, is "I

don't know"?

A. No, the answer was as I sit here now I would

have to look at the current revision otherwise I would be

guessing.

Q. I'm going to ask you the same question, based on

your knowledge as you sit here now.

A. As I sit here now I would have to guess and I

don't want to guess. You can easily interpose a request for

the volumes once the irrelevance or whatever rulings I are

obtained then you can make the comparison yourself. I just

don't want you to be mislead by not knowing about the '91

revision. And what I'm saying is you have to look at the

'91 revision. You can probably go down to San Francisco

Library and look at the '91 revision and compare them. I

just want it to be clear. That's what my answer

is.

Q. Let me put it to you this way: If there is not

217

any revision in 1991 that applies to Defendant Exhibits

four through eight, your testimony with respect to items

four through eight that you gave before lunch would not

change, would it?

A. With one proviso: If any of four through eight

aren't in there then they aren't current, binding policy.

Q. So then --

A. In the form they are in there they will be

current binding policy on the churches.

Q. So then is what you are telling me that if

there -- Well, start all over.

Is a method of cancellation simply omission from

the most recent volume of policies?

A. The method of adoption of the policies by CSI are

its publication and the current publication of these

policies is in that '91 revision. So its omission would

mean that it's not a current policy of the Church.

Q. So, then, if there was a policy in 1986 that was

published in 1986 and that same policy was not published in

1991, would the fact that said policy was not published

in '91 mean that said policy was rescinded?

A. I'm speaking only of the ones that appeared in

Hubbard Communication office policy volume, the OEC

volumes. Its omission from the OEC volumes would mean it's

no longer part of that body of data that's binding

218

Church policy.

Q. Would that be the equivalent to such policy being

rescinded?

A. As a practical matter, yes.

Q. What about as a technical matter?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

If you understand it, go ahead and answer it.

THE WITNESS: I would think so as a technical

matter, yes.

MR. GREENE: Q. So are you telling me that the

only policies that CSI follows are those that are

published in the OEC volumes currently?

A. You are speaking of Hubbard Communication Office

policy letters? Yes, because the bylaws articulate the

policies of the corporation and we follow our bylaws. But

if you are speaking of HCO policy letters, yes.

Q. What about HCO bulletins?

A. Those would be expressed in the technical

bulletin volumes.

Q. What about executive directives?

A. Those original when issued.

Q. They only last a year, right?

A. They have a year life span unless adopted and

turned into a policy letter to be binding as policy.

Q. Is the same thing true with respect to Flag

219

orders?

A. No.

Q. What's the life span of a Flag order?

A. Until revised or cancelled.

Q. Flag orders apply within CSC -- I'm sorry, CSI,

don't they?

A. Yes, that's why I limited your earlier question

to Hubbard Communication Office policy letters.

Q. As a CSI executive you would be expected to

adhere to Flag orders, right?

A. As they apply to the circumstances, yes.

Q. Is there any policy of which you are aware that

states that the only currently effective policies are those

which are found in Hubbard Communication Office policy

letters that are found in the bound volumes?

A. I'm aware of the policy that to be current

binding policy it has to be approved by the current

international board and by ABC, which was in one of these

earlier ones we discussed; and if those two bodies

designate that publication to be the publication that's

going to express the current policy it would, because that

policy gives them the authority to do so.

Q. But my question is are you aware of any policy

that limits the currently effective policy to those which

are found only in the bound volumes?

220

A. I think I answered it. I don't have anything to

add to the previous answer.

Q. That's a yes-or-no question and you didn't give

me a yes-or-no answer. I would like you to.

MS. BARTILSON: I would object as to badgering the

witness.

MR. GREENE: I would request the referee to

instruct the witness to answer the question yes or no. It's

a yes-or-no question.

MS. BARTILSON: I object. The witness has fully

answered the question. He obviously indicated it's not a

yes -- it's not a yes-or-no question.

MR. BENZ: It's obviously the third answer which

is: "I can't answer that question," which I think is what

the witness said.

THE WITNESS: Any more than I could before. I

can't, no, which is -- What is it?

MR. BENZ: Would you read the question back,

please?

(Record read back.)

MR. BENZ: The answer to that is?

THE WITNESS: I can't answer that yes or no as

phrased because my inference -- where is this line I want

to show you. Here it is. It says in Exhibit eight that if

full authority of the International Board members as

221

well as the Authority and Verification Unit can pass HCO

policy letters and if they so designate they are going to

adopt the current publication in the green volume as the

current publication it would be the current publication.

I don't want to leave you with the wrong

impression that "yes" or "no" gives. So if that had

occurred, and I believe it has because the current

applicable version of the policy letters are contained in

the current publications of those volumes, then that would

be within their authority to do so pursuant to these

policy letters.

MR. GREENE: Q. Aside from the fact that as to

Exhibit eight the International Board members don't exist

anymore; and the Authority and Verification Unit doesn't

exist anymore, right?

A. Wrong. I defined the International Board as the

CSI Board and the Authority and Verification Unit as the

Authorization and Verification Correction Unit which was

renamed pursuant to subsequent Flag order.

Q. Right, I understand that.

A. Thank you.

Q. So what your answer is is that if the approval

has been given by those subsequent named units, right?

A. Finish your question.

Q. That then the authorization for the HCO PL or

222

HCOB would exist?

A. Right.

Q. As to the exhibits of policy letters which have

been identified as exhibits today, if those have been in

any way revised would you be willing to tell me that or to

take a look and find out between today and the next session

of your deposition?

A. Either that or we can leave a blank and I'll fill

it in, certainly.

Q. So then as to Exhibit four, assuming that there

has not been any revision of that exhibit, that policy

letter is still currently -- in effect, right?

A. If there hadn't been it would be, yes, but as I

said, I can't make that assumption.

Q. And all the questions I'm going to have of you

with respect to any HCO PLs will have that built into it.

I understand that they may or may not have been revised. I

don't have the benefit of that so I've got to proceed on

the basis that I am able.

A. I don't necessarily think it would be productive

to adopt that assumption 50 transcript pages before the

question because it makes an incomplete record.

Q. That's fine, I'll proceed, Mr. Farny, with

conducting my deposition as I see fit and I appreciate

your suggestion.

223

A. As you wish.

MR. GREENE: I want to mark as Defendant's nine

an HCO policy letter of 25 November 1970 corrected and

reissued 27 November 1970. Let the reporter mark it

first.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 9
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Would you take a few moments

and read Exhibit number nine, which is a four-page

document?

Actually, rather than have you read every word,

can you tell whether or not you recognize it first?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object and ask the

Witness be allowed to review the document before he can say

if he recognizes it or not. It's a four-page

document. It shouldn't take very long to look at it.

THE WITNESS: It appears to be a 1986

publication of this policy letter, again with the same

caveat as before.

Do you want me to continue reading or is there a

part you want me to focus on specifically?

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me focus on the third page

at the top says, quote, "An order is the direction or

command issued by an authorized person to a person or

group within the sphere of the authorized person's

224

authority," close quote.

A. Okay, I've read that.

Q. That principle applies currently within CSC, does

it not, or CSI, excuse me?

A. Certainly the principle applies as a matter of

the command channel's specific function of a senior post

and junior post such to be totally accurate, but certainly

the principle applies.

Q. Then the next sentence where it says, quote, "By

implication an order goes from senior to juniors," close

quote, that general principle is applicable currently in

CSI, right?

A. Of course.

Q. Now you know an individual named Norman Starkey,

don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. What is Norman Starkey's post?

A. He's the executive director of Author Services

Incorporated, which is Mr. Hubbard's literary agency. He's

the trustee of Mr. Hubbard's estate. Sorry, I did

that wrong. Trustee of his trust and executor of his

estate.

Q. To your knowledge, is David Miscavige senior to

Mr. Starkey?

A. In what way?

225

Q. In the sense of what Mr. Miscavige's post is?

A. Well, Mr. Starkey's post isn't within the

hierarchy of the Church, so there's no direct junior-

senior relationship between the two.

Q. Is Mr. Starkey a Sea Org member?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Mr. Starkey subject to the ecclesiastical

hierarchy of the Church?

A. No, except in matters concerning the practice of

his religion as any other member is, but his job isn't.

Q. Does Mr. Starkey have any kind of post that you

are aware of?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: I've given it to you.

MR. GREENE: Q. Those are the posts, executive

director of ASI; trustee of the LRH Trust?

A. That's not its name, but --

Q. That's the function?

A. That's the description of it.

Q. And the executor of LRH's estate.

A. That's right.

Q. What about Lyman Spurlock, do you know him?

A. Yes.

Q. What is Mr. Spurlock's post, if he has one?

A. He has one. He works in the Religious

226

Technology Center.

Q. What is his post in RTC?

A. Church tax compliance aide.

Q. To your knowledge, is Norman Starkey senior to

Mark Yager?

A. No, neither junior to or senior to.

Q. Is Lyman Spurlock senior to Mark Yager?

A. There's no command relationship between them.

Q. Because Lyman Spurlock is placed in RTC?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is there any ecclesiastical relationship in terms

of authority between Lyman Spurlock and Mark Yager?

A. Not directly, no.

Q. How about indirectly?

A. Not really, but let me just explain for you why

I'm pausing, because RTC licenses CSI to use the marks

there is that relationship between licensor and licensee.

Mr. Yager, as the Watchdog Committee chairman and as the

chairman of CSI's Board of Directors has full authority to

run CSI's affairs. Mr. Spurlock occupies an

administrative position within RTC but it doesn't concern

itself with instructing Mr. Yager what to do in his job;

it's his department's function.

Q. When you were the litigation secretary for CSI

who assigned you to that post?

227

A. It was the individual who was the commanding

officer of Office of Special Affairs at the time, Edith

Buchele.

Q. How do you spell that?

A. B-U-C-H-E-L-E.

Q. Was she the person who changed your post from

litigation secretary to deputy litigation director U.S.?

A. I'm trying to remember. I don't think so.

Q. Do you recall who assigned you the post of deputy

litigation director U.S.?

A. No. Wait, it was her; it was Mrs. Buchele.

Q. Do you recall approximately when that change in

assignment occurred?

A. Around July '84.

Q. Right after Breckenridge's decision or shortly

after?

A. No, no, wait a minute. No, my recollection is it

was just before; it was a couple of weeks before. So that

decision came out in June. It would have been June.

Q. June of '84?

A. Yeah. I think it was after the close of

evidence before the decision was when it changed, right

around that time period, but I remember not being on the

litigation secretary post when that decision came out.

Q. When the change in post took place was the post

228

or did the post that you assume have more or less authority

that went along with it?

A. It had less. It was more focused just on the

U.S. which was one of the difficulties we were trying to

resolve, and the post of litigation secretary was spread

all over the world. We had a seed growing in the U.S. we

needed to focus on, so somebody else came in to take that

other job and I focused just on the U.S. because that's

where I had my experience.

Q. The scene that was growing in the U.S. was at

least in part comprised of the litigation that was being

generated by clients who had hired Michael Flynn, right?

A. That was certainly part of it, yeah.

Q. And the Wollersheim litigation that was being

generated by Charley O'Reily, right?

A. No, at that time that was just floundering

around in discovery, not generating much of a problem. It

was present but not a major factor in 1984.

Q. Then there was ongoing litigation that you had

with various governmental agencies?

A. That was where the major burden was flowing.

Q. That was the Zolan litigation, right?

A. That hadn't been filed yet. The Zolan case

itself wasn't filed until early '85, even though its

predecessor went back to November of '84. Called that the

229

Lynn action based on that case.

Q. And there was also litigation involving the IRS,

right?

A. That's right.

Q. Were there other major -- Strike that, that's

okay.

Now when you were the deputy litigation director

for the U.S. who was the litigation director?

A. For the U.S.?

Q. Right.

A. Ginger Smith.

Q. And then you replaced her, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who assigned you the post of litigation director

U.S.?

Q. I think it might have been Edith, as well.

A. You are not really clear on that, are you?

Q. No, I'm not. I'm about 80 percent sure it was

her.

Q. When did that take place?

A. Late summer '84.

Q. So two or three months after you were assigned

the post of deputy litigation director U.S.

A. Perhaps.

Q. Can you be --

230

A. Yeah, about that.

Wait a minute, that would mean -- that's my best

guess, my best estimate.

MS. BARTILSON: I'll raise an objection to this

line of questioning as to relevance. I'll keep a

continuing objection to this line of questioning. I can

understand Mr. Greene's desire to get some background on

this witness but we're going into it ad nauseam and this

is a busy man.

MR. BENZ: If you are raising it as a continuing

objection I will say that it is -- to my mind it has

reached the point where you are going to have to start

tying this in or the objection on relevance can certainly

be well-founded.

MR. GREENE: What you are telling me is you don't

think it's relevant to find out what his background is as

litigation -- as being in charge of litigation for CSI

which has sued my client, that the extent of his knowledge

and when he held different positions and what the dates

were that those positions changed and who assigned them are

not relevant?

MR. BENZ: The fact that he has sued your client

is basically not relevant except to the extent that

connected with that is an abuse of process and except to

the extent that there is some activity other than the

231

bringing of the suit itself which involves unclean hands.

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me ask you this --

MS. BARTILSON: Connected presumably to Mr.

Armstrong; is that correct? We're now back in 1984. Most of

the abuse of process claim was stricken except for two

events that occurred in 1993 or four.

MR. GREENE: We're not proceeding, Counsel, only

on the Cross-complaint. Don't try to limit the range of

relevance to the Cross-complaint because that's not --

MR. BENZ: It has to be unclean hands arising out

of a related transaction.

MR. GREENE: Right, a related transaction is the

settlement contract that was entered into in December of

1986. So let me ask you this --

MS. BARTILSON: No, it has to be the same

transaction. That's the law in unclean hands. There's no

relevance to what happened in 1984 to what position

Mr. Farny had and who assigned him to it, I'm sorry.

We're way down a long, deep, dark track here.

MR. GREENE: Right.

Q. What was your post in December of 1986?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance.

THE WITNESS: I was on the RPF in December of

'86.

MR. GREENE: Q. RPF stands for Rehabilitation

232

Project Force, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Where were you RPFed?

A. You mean where did I do the program or where was

I assigned? Actually it was the same place, Gilman Hot

Springs.

Q. For how long were you on the RPF?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance. Why are we

here in 1986?

THE WITNESS: About a year.

MR. GREENE: Q. Final question on this: Who

assigned you?

A. Mike Sutter who was at that time the Watchdog

Committee member in the Office of Special Affairs:

Q. Why were you assigned?

A. None of your damn business.

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, this is really getting

into Mr. Farny's personal life, too.

MR. BENZ: Sustained.

MR. GREENE: Sustained on what grounds?

MS. BARTILSON: Privacy.

MR. GREENE: Privacy?

MS. BARTILSON: And relevance.

MR. BENZ: Relevance, primarily.

MR. GREENE: Okay, we'll go back to that.

233

Q. Being assigned to the RPF is an ethics action in

Scientology, isn't it?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance and

privacy.

MR. BENZ: What is the relevance on that?

MR. GREENE: The relevance -- actually for right

now I'll withdraw that question. I'll lay an entire

foundation and go back to it.

Q. Directing your attention back to the bylaws,

which is Exhibit three, the Bates-stamped page 17, and

looking at section two under "Mother Church" and directing

your attention to the second sentence where it talks about

the propagation of the religion of Scientology throughout

the world and for the enforcement of the ecclesiastical

tenets of-the religion as set forth in the scriptures...

A. Yes, I see that.

Q. Part of the enforcement of ecclesiastical tenets

of Scientology involves ethics, does it not?

A. I don't understand your question as raised.

Q. Directing your attention to the next page Bates-

stamped 18 which sets forth the creed of Scientology, would

you tell me whether or not there's anything that's included

in the creed with which you have any personal

disagreement?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, privacy, asking for

234

this witness's personal beliefs as to the creed of the

Church that this member professes to be a member of. I

don't think this has any place in litigation, this or

otherwise.

MR. GREENE: This guy is here as an officer of

CSI. CSI produced him. He was not required to be here. This

is his own bylaws. I'm entitled to find out from this

witness whether as an officer of this corporation,

representing the corporation during the course of this

deposition, has personal agreement with what's set forth

here or whether there's some divergence between what he as

an individual human being and witness and then somebody

whose credibility can be examined and he as an officer of

CSI, whether or not they're the same.

MS. BARTILSON: His religious beliefs are not a

valid basis for establishing credibility of a witness, for

starters. There's a code section on that. And if you take a

look at the creed it's obviously a religious document. His

personal religious beliefs are irrelevant whether he

belongs to or is a member of a religious corporation or

not.

MR. BENZ: As a member of a corporation where

he's a director and officer -- and I haven't seen the

articles -- but typically bylaws are adopted on a majority

vote so the minority, if there is one, doesn't agree with

235

part or all of it.

MR. GREENE: All the more relevant for me to ask

him whether or not he agrees or disagrees.

MR. BENZ: I see no relevance or connection, no

way that that connects him to what we're talking about here

today. So I'll sustain the objection.

MR. GREENE: I'm going to go through it on a

question-by-question basis because it's extremely

important.

MR. BENZ: If you want to tie it in I will

consider it, but whether or not he agrees with something

that's set forth in the bylaws; what connection that has to

the present litigation is not apparent.

MS. BARTILSON: It's just harassment of the

witness to go through his religious beliefs.

MR. GREENE: Also another additional area of

relevance is the question of domination and control that is

exercised over this individual by the Scientology

organization as that relates ultimately to the treatment by

Scientology of my client Gerald Armstrong.

MR. BENZ: We've had testimony at length of the

command and control by the organization and the fact that

orders are given and followed, given by seniors and

followed by juniors. I don't see the necessity of any

further inquiry on this line.

236

MR. GREENE: Q. You would consider yourself a

member of Scientology staff, right?

A. A member of Scientology staff?

Q. Yeah, you are part of Scientology staff?

A. It's vague as phrased. You said before we are

not going to adopt a definition of Scientology being

anything other than in the broad sense of the word the

entire religion.

Q. You consider yourself to be a part of Church

staff, don't you?

A. I'm CSI staff, staff as opposed to public, which

is how we refer to our parishioners.

Q. And public are those individuals who don't work

more or less full time for some component of the

Scientology religion, right?

A. That's right, they're parishioners.

Q. And staff are those which do work more or less

full time for some component of the Scientology religion,

right?

A. Correct.

Q. Employing that definition, when did you first go

on staff for any entity associated with Scientology?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

MR. BENZ: I believe that was covered.

MR. GREENE: I don't think so, I don't think I

237

asked when he went on staff.

MS. BARTILSON: Yes, you did. You asked when he

was first employed by any church. That was the question;

you got an answer.

MR. BENZ: Is there some differentiation? Are you

attempting to draw, Mr. Greene, some difference between

being on staff and being an employee or working for

Scientology or any of its branches?

MR. GREENE: I'm trying to find out if this

witness draws any distinction between that. I want to

know.

MR. BENZ: Why don't you ask him?

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you draw any difference between

when you were first an employee for Scientology and

what you mean when you say that you're on staff?

A. Those mean the same thing to me.

Q. When you first started working for Scientology you went

on staff for Scientology, right?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection to your use of the word

Scientology. It's vague and ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: I was on staff part time in

Riverside Mission.

MR. GREENE: Q. Now are you familiar -- rather,

did you ever execute any document entitled Declaration of

Religious Commitment and Application for Participation on

238

Church staff?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance.

MR. BENZ: What's the relevance, Mr. Greene?

MR. GREENE: The relevance has to do with the

extent to which this witness would be expected to and

himself personally would adhere to senior orders.

MS. BARTILSON: I still object to relevancy. He

hasn't testified he did anything. You haven't produced

any connection that this particular witness has done

anything to anyone on anybody's order.

MR. GREENE: I don't need to.

MS: BARTILSON: There's been no order. I don't

see any relevance.

MR. BENZ: I agree with that and there has

been -- if he did do anything there's been no claim that I

know of so far that he did it against the orders of

someone else. So until we have some foundation that makes

it relevant as to whether or not he's committed the

following orders, we need something that says that he

didn't follow an order.

MR. GREENE: Could you say that again?

MR. BENZ: No, you can have it read back.

MR. GREENE: Would you read that back, please?

(Record read back.)

MR. BENZ: Or that he did follow an order and it

239

was an order from a superior.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark this next document

as Defendant's number ten. It's a document two pages long

entitled suppressive Person Declare, Gerry Armstrong.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 10
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to

Defendant's number ten, have you seen that document

before?

A. I don't remember if I have or not.

Q. Do you know what a suppressive person is?

A: I know what a suppressive person is.

Q. A suppressive person has a particular meaning

within Scientology's lexicon, doesn't it?

A. Yes, it's the equivalent in the Roman Catholic

Church of being excommunicated.

Q. I move that the last comment be stricken. There

is absolutely no standing that this witness is an expert on

religion of the Catholic Church or anything else and that

was not responsive.

MS. BARTILSON: I think it was.

MR. BENZ: Could you read the question back,

please?

(Record read back.)

MR. BENZ: The motion to strike will be denied

240

and he did answer the question. In my mind it's a general

reference. You do not have to have technical detail of

the Church to compare it with something that's generally

known to the public.

MR. GREENE: Q. Now a suppressive person declare

is made in consequence of what's called

Scientology ethics; isn't that right?

A. Not precisely, no.

Q. How about generally?

A. How about still no?

Q. You are telling me that a suppressive person

declare has nothing to do whatsoever with Scientology

ethics?

A. It's a justice action.

Q. It's a justice action and justice actions have

to do with breaches of Scientology ethics; isn't that

right?

A. The subject is ethics and justice. That is a

justice action.

MR. BENZ: I'm sorry?

THE WITNESS: I said the subject is ethics and

justice. It's a justice action, just so we're being

accurate here.

MR. GREENE: Q. So when somebody is designated a

suppressive person that designation can be the result of

241

such individual's breach of Scientology ethics; isn't that

right?

A. That's correct.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark this next exhibit

as 11 and it is a document entitled Introduction to

Scientology Ethics.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 11
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Looking at what's been marked

as Defendant's 11, which is a photocopy of a book entitled

Introduction to Scientology Ethics, have you ever seen

this before?

A. It's not the current publication of this book.

Q. It may not be, but have you ever seen a

publication of the book Introduction to Scientology

Ethics?

A. I have seen a publication of the Introduction to

Scientology Ethics.

Q. Are you familiar with the concept of the anti-

social personality?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it true that somebody who's designated a

suppressive person is considered in Scientology to be one

who is of an anti-social personality?

A. No, not necessarily.

242

Q. But that can be true, right?

A. It's an incomplete answer. I mean --

(Directed to Ms. Bartilson) Excuse me? The

book is not complete? I'm saying his question is not

complete.

MS. BARTILSON: I apologize, I was looking at

the book.

THE WITNESS: Not necessarily, it isn't

necessarily the case. One could be declared a suppressive

person for committing offenses the severity of which

warrant that. Whether as a spiritual matter they are a

dyed-in-the-wool anti-social personality from the get-go

is actually a separate question.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark the next exhibit.

THE WITNESS: Hang on, Ford, before you do that,

Ms. Bartilson points out --

MR. GREENE: Q. She can deal with it when it's her

turn to examine.

A. Hang on a second. First, it's not the current

version of the book and now it may not be complete. This

renders the usefulness of this exhibit to you to nil. If

you want that, that's fine.

MS. BARTILSON: If he doesn't want it useful --

THE WITNESS: It's not the present time

document. Fine, as you wish.

243

MR. GREENE: Q. I would like to mark Exhibit

12, which is a packet of documents that's entitled

Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and

Scientologists, HCO Policy Letter of 23 December 1965,

revised 8 January '91.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 12
was marked for identification.)

(Brief recess.)

MR. GREENE: Back on the record.

Q. Now, Mr. Farny, I want to direct your attention

again back to Exhibit number ten, which is the Suppressive

Person Declare for Gerry Armstrong. In 1982 you were posted

within CSC, Church of Scientology of California?

A. That's correct.

Q. In 1982 CSC sued Gerald Armstrong, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware in 1982, were you not, that

Gerald Armstrong had been declared a suppressive person?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Exhibit number ten purports to be a Suppressive

Person Declare with reference to Gerry Armstrong, right?

A. This is what it purports to be, but I can't

authenticate it because I can't remember what is said at

the time.

Q. Reviewing Exhibit ten is there anything about it

244

which would lead you to conclude that document is not

genuine?

A. It's words on a piece of paper. I have some

knowledge that I don't presently have. I wouldn't be able

to tell one way or the other.

Q. You are well familiar with Gerald Armstrong's

matters regarding Scientology, are you not?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous to

the extent that it seeks knowledge that Mr. Farny may have

gained as a legal employee of the Church dealing with

attorneys. May also call for attorney-client privilege.

THE WITNESS: It's broad.

MS. BARTILSON: It's a little bit broad.

MR: BENZ: I'll overrule the objection and you

might rephrase it. The term well-acquainted might be a

little ambiguous. Acquainted would certainly be a proper

question.

THE WITNESS: "Matters" is a little broad without

some sort of definition.

MR. GREENE: Q. Starting with your employment in

the legal department of CSC, you actively followed the

events regarding the Armstrong litigation, didn't you?

A. Sure, that's a fair statement.

MR. WALTON: I'm sorry, Mr. Farny, I can't hear

you.

245

THE WITNESS: I said sure, that's a fair

statement, yeah.

MR. GREENE: Q. And during the course of your

employment by CSC you came to the conclusion that Mr.

Armstrong had stolen private documents belonging to L. Ron

Hubbard, right?

A. Yes, I came to that conclusion.

Now this is -- I just have a question now, if I

can ask a question, because I'm here for CSI now and

you're asking questions of me personally from prior to

when I worked at CSI. I don't necessarily have a problem

answering them; I'm wondering in which capacity I'm

answering them.

Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit ten, there

are 18 items that are enumerated, right?

A. I see that.

Q. The first one is theft, right?

A. That's what is says.

Q. And the second one is illegally taking or

possessing Church property, right?

A. That's what is says.

Q. And those were things that Scientology had

concluded, according to your understanding, Armstrong had

done, right?

A. The entire religion concluded that?

246

Q. Leaders within scientology?

A. That's a fair statement.

Q. Looking at that list one through 18, would you

tell me whether or not, based on your knowledge, there's

anything enumerated there which the Scientology leadership

in 1982 did not believe Armstrong to have been guilty of

according to your understanding?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous;

calls for speculation as to the viewpoint or understanding

of persons other than Mr. Farny at a time when Mr. Farny

said he didn't even work for CSI but was employed by CSC

concerning a document that was apparently issued by CSI;

asking about, speculatively, about the mental state of

unspecified and unnamed, quote, "leaders," quote unquote. I

don't think it's a question he can answer.

MR. BENZ: Perhaps you can clarify it a little

bit, Mr. Greene?

MR. GREENE: Okay.

Q. Was it your understanding when you were working

on Armstrong litigation matters for CSC that Gerald

Armstrong had resold org material for private gain?

A. I seem to have a recollection from around that

time period of an effort to sell some photographs that I

believe may have been Church property, but I'm just not

sure.

247

Q. Same question with respect to impersonating a

Scientologist or staff member when not authorized.

A. I don't remember, but I would assume that those

who issued this and those who had approved it had a good

faith basis on which to include all of these, and absent

any evidence to the contrary would retain that assumption,

if indeed this does represent this because we still got

the problem with the document itself.

Q. You would be able to go back in CSI's archives

now and determine whether or not this document was

genuine, wouldn't you?

A. Yeah, of course I would.

Q. Because this document was published on behalf of

CSI, according to what it says at the end?

A. Yes, and I do recall there being a Suppressive

Person Declare issued and I would be able to go back and

find it.

Q. Did Gerald Armstrong ever work for CSI?

A. Yes, I believe he did because CSI went into

operation on the 10th of December and all the staff at CSC

who were to be in the management area which is the

archives area he worked for would have switched over. So

unless he was working for -- Strike that. I believe

that's the case, but...

Q. That's December 10th, 1981?

248

A. Yes, 1981 up until the time he left at the end

of the year, although I don't have any personal knowledge

as to his employment at that point.

Q. When Gerald left Scientology were you posted in

the Guardian's Office?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. So with respect to Exhibit ten, you could

determine for us whether or not this is an accurate

exhibit by checking the CSI archives?

A. I think I can do one better; I think we produced

the Suppressive Person Declare on Gerry Armstrong in this

litigation.

MS. BARTILSON: And you should have a Bates-

stamped copy.

MR. WALTON: Speaking of which, did you

determine when that production was sent to me?

MS. BARTILSON: I have not. I have not been back

to my office yet. It's in Los Angeles. I'll check

tomorrow.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark this next document

as Exhibit 13.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 13
was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to

Exhibit 13, which is entitled Suppresive Persons and

249

Suppressive Group List, would you review that, please?

A. I obviously have not read every word. The

attachment is in very small writing in multiple columns for

several pages, but I glanced over it.

Q. Have you seen this document before?

A. I believe so.

Q. This document appears to you to be accurate,

doesn't it?

A. Accurate compared to what? It appears to be what

it says, but I don't know on this list attached

whether -- I have to compare it to the one in the files to

be totally accurate.

Q. Directing your attention to page number four

where there's a section that says "declared suppressive

persons"?

A. Declared suppressive persons, yes.

Q. See where Gerry Armstrong is listed there in the

second column?

A. Yes.

Q. To the best of your knowledge, Gerald Armstrong

in 1992 was considered to be a suppressive person by

Scientology; isn't that right?

A. Again, the imprecise use of Scientology.

Q. Gerald Armstrong was considered by the

Scientology religion to be a suppressive person, wasn't

250

he?

A. I don't want to play word games. That's what his

status is to this day with regard to the Scientology

religion.

Q. That's right, and his status as an SP has been

ever since 1982; isn't that right?

A. That seems right, yeah.

Q. How often are suppressive persons and

suppressive group lists published?

A. I'm not certain. Periodically, and no, I don't

know if one was published since 1992.

Q. Now directing your attention to Exhibit number

12 --

MS. BARTILSON: Can I get a copy?

THE WITNESS: I flipped through it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to the

top of the first page, the actual HCO PL indicates that it

was revised on January 8, 1991?

A. That's what it says.

Q. To your knowledge that's when the green volumes

were revised, right or not?

A. I'm not certain exactly when in '91 they were

revised.

Q. Now directing your attention to the bottom of the

page where it says, "A suppressive person or a group

251

is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage

Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts," do

you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that definition of a suppressive person that

which you currently hold?

A. Yes.

Q. That definition of a suppressive person or group

has not changed over the time that you have been involved

in Scientology in general, has it?

A. It's essentially the same concept, yes.

Q. Now directing your attention to the next item

where it says in capital letter "Suppressive Acts are acts

calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a

Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy

letter," that definition of suppressive acts is that which

you currently hold, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. That definition has also essentially remained the

same throughout your affiliation with Scientology; isn't

that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now turning the page and under the section

entitled Suppressive Acts, again it says, quote,

"Suppressive acts are defined as actions or omissions

252

undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede

Scientology or Scientologists," close quote. That further

definition of suppressive acts is that which you currently

hold, isn't it?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. That has not changed either during the time that

you have been affiliated with Scientology, has it?

A. It's remained essentially the same.

MR. WALTON: Sorry, I didn't hear you.

THE WITNESS: It's remained essentially the same,

yes.

MR. GREENE: Q. Turning the page it indicates that

falsifying records is a suppressive act?

A. The very next page? Oh, I see it there, yes.

Q. Falsifying records is an accurate suppressive act

according to your current understanding, right?

A. Accurate suppressive act?

Q. Sorry, let me be more articulate.

Isn't it true that according to your understanding of what

a suppressive act can be that falsifying records is one

such act?

A. Yes.

Q. I want to go through and specify certain items

here, or perhaps if you would be willing to tell me that

you adopt what is stated on this exhibit without

253

exception, and I want you to read it --

A. I have to read the whole thing. Focus on a

specific --

Q. I'll focus on a specific --

MS. BARTILSON: Let me interpose an objection here

or maybe it's a question for clarification.

Are you asking this witness for his personal

understanding and his personal viewpoint as to whether or

not each of these different things are suppressive acts to

him or are you asking him if the corporation has adopted

the policy?

MR. GREENE: That's a very good distinction and

I'll ask him both.

MS. BARTILSON: If you are going to ask him

personally for his personal opinion, then I'm going to

object and ask for a ruling that he not answer that.

If you want to ask whether the corporation has

adopted this as a policy and follows it you are perfectly

welcome to ask it. I don't believe either one is relevant,

but I'll object on privacy grounds to this individual's

viewpoint of what is and is not a suppressive

act.

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to the

next item that says --

MS. BARTILSON: Can we have a ruling?

254

MR. BENZ: Well, in the first place, suppressive

acts are defined by Scientology so I don't know that the

witness has a particularly individual attitude that would

be divergent with what Scientology, the way Scientology

defines it. If he does, let's get to it at this point, but

I seriously doubt that he does. So I ask what you will be

asking and what he will be answering will be the viewpoint

of SCI, or whatever.

MS. BARTILSON: CSI.

MR. BENZ: Right. Too many initials.

MS. BARTILSON: All right. Then I'll object again

on relevance. I don't see how this is at all relevant.

Continue.

MR. GREENE: Q. From the point of view --

MR. BENZ: We'll overrule that one.

MR. GREENE: Q. CSI's official position with

respect to its technology as it's referenced in Exhibit 12,

isn't it true that testifying against Scientology falsely

or in generalities or without personal matters, personal

knowledge about the matters that one testifies to

constitutes a suppressive act?

A. Are you reading from this?

Q. Yes. That was not a totally word-for-word.

A. Because the last one on the list you gave

testified about matters you do not have personal knowledge

255

of, I would say no because several of your questions have

elicited in hearsay statements from me and those certainly

would be suppressive acts. But testifying in a manner

falsely and with the intention of destroying Scientology

would, yes, be a suppressive act.

Q. Let me just direct your attention specifically to

the item that's right underneath falsifying records.

A. Right. I got you what you are saying.

Q. Now with respect to that which says "Testifying

or giving data against Scientology falsely or in

generalities or without personal knowledge of the matters

to which one testifies," that constitutes a suppressive

act, doesn't it?

A. If the testimony fits within the more embracive

definition of being an act undertaken knowingly to

suppress, impede or destroy Scientology as it says at the

beginning of this list, yes, it would be.

Q. Now going down the column to where it says

"Issuing alter-ised Scientology technical data or

information or instructional or admin procedures calling it

Scientology or calling it something else to confuse or

deceive people as to the true source, beliefs and practices

of Scientology," with respect to that that constitutes a

suppressive act, does it not?

A. Certainly, again within the overall embracive

256

definition at the beginning.

Q. With the overall embracive definition that a

suppressive act is calculated to impede, reduce or destroy

Scientology or a Scientologist?

A. Correct, and the answer to your question is yes,

this one would be.

Q. Going to the broader definition of what a

suppressive act is, when reference is made to impeding,

reducing or destroying, what such impeding, reducing or

destroying refers to is the advancement of an individual

in Scientology or any Scientology organization generally;

isn't that fair to say?

A. You lost me halfway through it.

Q. I'll try it again.

A. Let's do it again.

Q. A suppressive person definition talks about

impeding, reducing or destroying a Scientologist or

Scientology.

A. That's right.

Q. Right?

A. Right.

Q. What my question is is isn't what those -- it's a

diminishing kind of concept, right?

A. No, impeding, reducing and destroying seems to

get more severe.

257

Q. They get more severe but they're talking about

diminishing a person's involvement in Scientology or the

breath of Scientology's influence; isn't that fair?

A. That's not complete. If you shoot somebody in

the head that's murder; that's a suppressive act. That's

not necessarily directed towards his participation in

Scientology. It's his participation in life. That would

be a suppressive act. That's destroying a Scientologist

at their work.

Q. Included within the definition of suppressive

acts, not complete but included within, the discussion of

suppression reducing or impeding Scientology or a

Scientologist can refer to the advancement of a person in

Scientology, right?

A. Yes, it can. It's included in that.

Q. And also included within that definition is the

advancement of Scientology generally, right?

A. It's included within it.

Q. So now going back to the list there

A. Which one?

Q. The next one after "Issuing alter-ised."

A. The court reporter is not going to be able to

tell the difference.

A. Yes, correct, the one after, "Unauthorized use of

the materials of Dianetics and Scientology."

258

Q. That's a suppressive act?

A. That's right. Relating back to what I said

earlier, it would not include picking up a Dianetics book

off the bookshelf.

Q. Right, you don't need permission to do that, but

if I were to take one of these green volumes and go out and

start advertising and open up shop, then that would fall

within the scope of being a suppressive act, right?

A. Sure.

Q. And that also would be acting as what Scientology

calls a squirrel, right?

A. Yes, that would be squirreling.

Q. That would be squirreling?

A. Yeah.

Q. Now going down five categories further where it

says, "Developing and/or using squirrel processes and

checksheets," that's considered to be a suppressive act; is

that right?

A. That's right, though it wouldn't apply to all

checksheets because there's another policy that allows an

individual to compile his own checksheet for his post, and

that policy is approved by the LRH Communicator. That's the

difficulty of taking one or two sentence out of millions of

words.

Q. I appreciate your educating me.

259

Now isn't it true that the reason that

squirreling is suppressive is because the act of

squirreling detracts from the potential that Scientology

has to advance and develop as to those people that are

distracted by such squirreling?

A. I wouldn't say that's precise.

Q. It may not be precise but I'm not a

Scientologist.

A. I recognize that.

Q. How about am I in the ballpark?

A. How about this: Because it stems from our belief

that Scientology should be applied to an individual exactly

as L. Ron Hubbard wrote it so the individual can maximize

their own spiritual awareness. Doing what this thing says

here is destructive to the individual's spiritual

advancement and it's for that reason.

Q. Now the next item following that where it says,

"Knowingly giving testimony that is false, a generality or

not based on personal knowledge to imperil a

Scientologist."

A. Yes, I see that one.

Q. That also would be a suppressive act, right?

A. Yes, it would be.

Q. Then the next one where it says, "Public

disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good

260

standing with Scientology organizations," that's a

suppressive act, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Then the one following that where it says,

"Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists

but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened," that

type of conduct, too, is considered to be suppressive

activity to Scientology, right?

A. Would depend on the severity of the statements,

but, yes, it is on the list; it would be considered

suppressive.

Q. These items we're talking about here, these all

are a matter of ecclesiastical concern to Scientology,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. So all these matters that we've been talking

about here under the category of Suppressive Acts really

fall within the exclusive domain of the ecclesiastical

concern of Scientology, right?

A. Some of them also overlap into the State because

you have your garden variety felonies are also on the

list, but the ones that don't, the ones that specifically

pertain to ecclesiastical offenses are the exclusive

purview of the ecclesiastical authority to adjudicate

this.

261

Q. When we go to the next item, which says, quote,

"Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or

ordinances, rule or laws directed toward the suppression

of Scientology," that, too, would be considered a

suppressive act, right?

A. Yes, it would.

Q. That would be in the blend zone?

A. I don't know that that would be in the blend

zone because in this country to do that would violate the

First Amendment, but I don't think it would amount to

criminal liability. I was thinking of theft or arson or

murder.

Q. Rape, assault, robbery?

A. Right, those things are things that would be,

one, suppressive acts and, two, they would be criminal

offenses, as well.

Q. That's different. I was misunderstanding.

Going on to the next item where it says

"Pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of

standard Scientology," that would be a suppressive act,

right?

A. Yes.

Q. So educate me about that a little bit, if you

would. As I read it what that says is that if someone makes

reference to another being a Scientologist in a

262

pejorative way, would that fall within the scope of this?

Is that what it means when it says "Pronouncing

Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard

Scientology"?

A. No, that's not what it refers to.

Q. What does it mean?

A. What it refers to is -- I'm trying to think of an

example.

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object on the basis

of relevance. It's far afield and I don't see what on earth

that has to do with this.

Go ahead and answer the question, it's Mr.

Greene's deposition.

THE WITNESS: Say an individual was a trustee of

a university and opponents within that university made an

issue of the fact he was a Scientologist and then called

for his resignation as being unfit, not of moral character

to be on the board of the university simply on the basis

of being a Scientologist, that would fit.

MR. GREENE: Q. That's a better definition of

the inarticulate concept I was trying to express.

Okay, let's turn the page. Quote, "Testifying

hostilely before state or public inquiries into

Scientology to suppress it," close quote. That would

constitute a suppressive act, right?

263

A. Yes, it would.

Q. Now hostilely, what that means in the context of

this particular suppressive act is not in support of

Scientology; is that right?

A. Not exclusively. That limits it too much.

Q. Hold on, let me just -- let me do it. I'm not

trying to limit it. Included within the definition

hostilely would be someone testifying who would not be

supportive of Scientology and trying to suppress it right?

A. Well, not supportive could be neutral. It has to

be hostile which to me means communicates an act of attack

to try to suppress. That's much different than just

neutral.

Q. So then hostilely in your view would have to do

with the person's motivation and intent with respect to the

testimony, right?

A. That and how he gives the testimony. If he colors

everything to paint things in the worst possible light so

as to suppress it, as in the last clause of the sentence, I

would say that something like that fits. If they were just

up there telling it like it is, that's different.

Q. So then someone who would be testifying hostilely

in order to suppress Scientology, that would also be

included if that person would be adverse or

264

against Scientology, right?

A. It's implicit in their hostility they are not in

favor of us.

Q. So then in terms of people not being in favor of

you, as you see it, kind of the realms of possibility would

be is that somebody would be in favor of you -- when

I say "you" I'm speaking of Scientology generically as we

are discussing -- this somebody would either be in favor

of or neutral or against; those are like the three areas?

A. I'd have four areas arbitrarily divided into four

people. I would have in favor, neutral, the third one

perhaps having a negative opinion but just having a

negative opinion; and then someone actively going out to

take proactive measures on their part to destroy

Scientology. And the fourth category would be the

suppressive act, if they did something to forward that.

Obviously if they've never been a Scientologist they

wouldn't recognize the authority of the Mother Church to

complain about them having done so.

Q. You can have somebody who's a suppressive person

who's never been a Scientologist, can't you?

A. Certainly you can. Of course.

Q. Let's go on to the next item that defines a

suppressive act, quote, "Reporting or threatening to report

Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities

265

in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from

practicing or receiving standard Scientology."

A. That's what it says, yes.

Q. And that's a suppressive act within the purview

of Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So then would you include within the scope of

that definition someone who would say that Scientology's

process of auditing is brainwashing?

A. It would certainly be an indicator to me that

they're actively hostile because it is the farthest thing

from brainwashing, so, yes.

Q. The next item states, quote, "Bringing civil

suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist

including the non-payment of bills or failure to refund

without first calling the matter to the attention of the

International Justice Chief."

A. That's correct.

Q. So according to that definition, unless I'm

wrong, doesn't it mean that anyone who brought a claim

against Scientology would be considered to have engaged in

a suppressive act in court, a claim in court?

A. Unless they call the attention of the matter to

the International Justice Chief and received a reply.

Q. See, that's what's got me a little bit confused.

266

A. Let me give an example, then.

Q. Let me try to get my own confusion straight. It

talks first about bringing civil suit against any

Scientology organization or Scientologist, comma, and then

says, "including," and then "without first calling the

matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief

and receiving a reply."

A. You dropped an entire phrase between the commas.

Q. Right, "non-payment of bills, failure to

"refund," which is not -- that's included, it's not limited

to that; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. That's why I dropped it.

A: You said "comma; including," without first

calling.

Q. I forgot to put the dot dot dot.

A. All right.

Q. So according to this particular category is it

necessary that for one not to be characterized or

designated as having engaged in a suppressive act to first

bring whatever that person's complaint is to the attention

of the IJC and getting a response?

A. Absolutely. For a Scientologist that's absolutely

required because we have our own internal justice procedure

to assist them to resolve the dispute.

267

If after having done so there's no other resolution but to

seek recourse in a court, fine, then that's the

resolution.

Q. Now skipping down one where it says, "Writing

anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-

Scientology or anti-Scientologist data to the press," that

is considered to be a suppressive act for one to do that,

right?

A. Yes, of course it is. Whether it would warrant

a suppressive person declare would be how much, to whom

and how often and the degree of the conduct. But doing

that, certainly.

Q. And the individual who would make the

determination whether or not the severity and; quantity of

such conduct would merit an SP declare would be the

International Justice Chief?

A. Or a duly convened body of evidence would make a

recommendation and based on that recommendation the

International Justice Chief would decide.

Q. The next item says, "Continued membership in a

divergent group." A divergent group, does that mean a

squirrel group?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it mean any other kind of group besides a

squirrel group?

268

A. No, that's what it means.

Q. So, then, the Cult Awareness Network would not be

considered to be a divergent group?

A. No, it's not a divergent group because it hasn't

diverged from the path offered by Scientology. It is a

religious hate group, an anti-religious hate group, but it

is not a divergent group of Scientology.

Q. So the salient word there is divergent and that

means -- someone who strays from the path or actually a

group that has strayed from Scientology's path, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So that would include like the Advanced Ability

Center, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now the next item states, quote, "Continuous

adherence to a person or group pronounced a suppressive

person or group by HCO," which means Hubbard Communication

Office; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that considered by CSI to be a suppressive

act?

A. Yep.

Q. Now the Cult Awareness Network is considered to

be a suppressive group by CSI, isn't it?

A. Yes.

269

Q. And CSI has considered the Cult Awareness

Network to be a suppressive group to your knowledge since

when?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance.

It's four o'clock, Mr. Greene. How much longer do you

intend to tread down this path?

MR. GREENE: You can see there's lot more left of

this exhibit.

MS. BARTILSON: It's four o'clock. I'm going to

ask that we go for maybe another five or ten minutes and

adjourn and we can reconvene at some later time.

This matter on cult awareness I object to.

THE WITNESS: That's a difficult question, you

see, because the information they represented to the

Internal Revenue Service in order to obtain a tax

exemption speaks of an organization that would not be

suppressive. So had they actually done that, and I'm

aware of individual Scientologists that sought membership

in the Cult Awareness Network so as to attempt to get that

group to do just what it said in its application to the

IRS it would do.

So the period of correction of the situation has

to be taken into account just like continued adherence to a

person or group pronounced a suppressive person or group

by HCO, there's an allowance for a period of correction.

270

So I would modify my answer with that statement.

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me see if I got you right,

then. What you are saying is there is a period of time

where Scientologists attempt to become involved in the Cult

Awareness Network for the purpose of assisting the Cult

Awareness Network to see it change the error of their ways,

right?

A. Reorient themselves back to what they stated is

their original purpose that they had not rescinded or

rearticulated into something else.

Q. And the Cult Awareness Network's failure to allow

that to happen is part of what confirmed the propriety of

designating the Cult Awareness Network as a suppressive

group, right?

A. I don't know if they have been so designated. We

may have been asked to consider that they be.

Q. Or consider, okay. Strike designation and just

put consider.

A. Their conduct since that activity began certainly

has been suppressive in my view, yes.

Q. And so part of their conduct specifically that

was suppressive was the unwillingness to accept input from

Scientologists that the intent of which was to bring the

Cult Awareness Network back to their original purpose,

right, as part of the consideration?

271

A. Perhaps. I think majorly the consideration I

think would be that they engage in deprogramming which

conduct is illegal.

Q. They do more than that. They also provide

information to the press about Scientology that's adverse

to Scientology; is that right?

A. They conduct black propaganda campaigns on a

number of religions including Scientology.

Q. And that would constitute a suppressive act in

the purview of what we're discussing in Exhibit 12?

A. Certainly.

Are we going to go through all of them or just

selected ones?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to raise a continuing

objection. I think we're pretty far afield. I think

certainly the way this is -- you identified the document;

it's a document of the organization. To go through it line

by line asking him to read it and ask if he agrees it's a

suppressive act surely serves no purpose to this point.

MR. BENZ: Is there any question in anyone's mind

that this lists suppressive acts?

THE WITNESS: The only question I have is

whether or not -- and I'll say it whether or not

inadvertently because it's a fax and because it's a

272

smaller format than the book was published in, whether

something has been inadvertently chopped at the top or

bottom. And you can see that by comparing the end of one

page to the beginning of the next. I have no idea; I have

not bothered to do that. But otherwise, it does appear to

be accurate.

MR. BENZ: So if you have a question on a

definition of a particular --

MR. GREENE: That's what I'm doing. It just so

happens that this page is the ugly page and I have a lot

of questions about it. You can see the other pages, they

don't have so much --

MR. BENZ: A number of questions here have been

primarily to read what's written here and ask the witness

if that's considered a suppressive act.

MR. WALTON: If you recall there was an

objection when I was trying to go through the underlying

Complaint and the objection was that I was just reading

and asking confirmation. And I think on two occasions we

got someone to say -- I think one of the attorneys said or

the witness said something like We will agree that it's

accurate; we will agree that it says, since it's verified,

that it's accurate. But by going through it line by line

we did find a 100,000-dollar error. And $100,000 may not

sound like a lot when you're talking about 3.8. So I

273

think --

MR. BENZ: Well, I'm not foreclosing going

through it and asking specific questions. For example,

you asked a specific question and got an additional answer

when you asked for the definition of a divergent group.

However, just going through the list itself and asking is

it or isn't it, I think you have established that these

are suppressive acts. If you need further definition of

something, fine.

MS. BARTILSON: I'm also going to, if I may, put

on the record a continuing objection to relevance. I think

it's harassing the witness. I don't think it has anything

to do with this case or any defense Gerry raised to go

through this and ask questions about what does this

suppressive act mean. There's been no demonstration it has

anything to do with the case.

I for one am intending to shut down and say

good-bye at 4:15. You are warned.

MR. BENZ: The objection is noted and it has not

been tied in to this case. We do have an exhibit where Mr.

Armstrong in 1982 was listed as a -- I forget the

terminology.

MR. GREENE: Suppressive person. And in 1992.

MR. BENZ: So to the extent that's background for

something that's coming I have not ruled it out. So

274

we're still talking about the suppressive part, but I

understand the objection and it's approaching that because

it's been tied in.

MR. GREENE: Q. In the middle of the page

there's an item that says "Being at the hire of anti-

Scientology groups or persons," would the scope of anti-

Scientology persons include persons who are in litigation

with Scientology?

A. Persons, corporate as well as real?

Q. Sure.

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Persons real?

A. Yes. The exclusion I was thinking of was the

United States government.

Q. Now --

A. Wait a minute, I also want to go back a little

bit to bit to that one. "At the hire" seems to me it's not

merely employment, but there's a connotation that while in

Scientology you are actually working for one of these

anti-Scientology persons or groups. That's what "at the

hire" means, it seems to me. If that's the case, then I would

expand it to just a yes answer.

Q Would it include, for example, Gerry Armstrong

being employed as an expert witness on behalf of persons

prosecuting a complaint against Scientology?

275

A. And he's testifying in --

Q. On their behalf.

A. Giving testimony towards supporting their case,

not just objectively giving descriptions of Scientology?

Q. As an expert witness.

A. Yes.

Q. In your use of the term "suppress," do you

include with it curtailing Scientology activities?

A. Probably.

Q. Is there any reason why you are hedging and just

can't say yes?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. Perhaps it is the particular activity the Church

wishes to curtail at that moment.

Q. Assuming the Church did not so wish?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Would you include in the meaning of suppress to

withhold Scientology from the public?

A. Generally yes, I would.

Q. Would you include within the meaning of suppress

conduct that would result in the public having a negative

view of Scientology?

A. If that was the intent of the conduct was to

create that negative view, yeah; otherwise, it could just

276

be an error that resulted in -- may have resulted from

misinformation.

Q. In your view is Scientology technology

infallible?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, calls for the personal

religious beliefs of this witness and it's irrelevant. I'm

raising a privacy objection.

MR. GREENE: Q. Is it the view of CSI?

A. CSI's view is it's a--workable technology.

Q. And is it CSI's view that if the technology

doesn't work it's not because of a flaw that lies with the

technology but there's something, there's a flaw in the

person who's not getting the results?

A. No, that's not our view. There could be a flaw

in the person that's applying the technology and the

manner they're applying it, as well. What I got from your

question is is the person who's receiving the Scientology

services and the flaw would lie in them. That's not

correct.

Q. Assuming it's standard tech being standardly

applied and the person was not getting the anticipated

benefits or gains, would then the cause of that inability

be within the person receiving the services?

A. My assumption is if the person isn't receiving

the gains there has been some misapplication of the

277

standard of technology somewhere or some unwilling

participation in the person receiving it. Whether it's

some problem that's not necessarily of their own

manufacture, or whatever, but there is something wrong and

an effort would be made to find out what that is and

correct it so the person could have benefits of it. If it

merely is the person isn't interested and doesn't agree

that's fine, that's their view; that would be where the

error would be in that instance.

Q. One of the reasons why a person may not be

getting the gains that otherwise would be anticipated could

be a connection to a suppressive person or group,

right?

A. It could be because of the pressure brought to

bear on them by the suppressive person or group because of

their connection.

Q. Because of their connection to Scientology?

A. Scientology.

Q. On one hand, and connection to the suppressive

person or group on the other?

A. They can't sit on the fence; they have to make a

decision, go with this group or go with that group. They

can later change their decision and go from one to the

other, but sitting on the fence they're not being a part of

either group. They should make a decision one way or

278

the other.

Q. Now going back to definitions of suppressive

acts, you have described to us today some of your

ecclesiastical duties as I think its litigation secretary,

but I may have it wrong.

A. That was several years ago. CSI litigation

handling officer.

Q. CSI litigation handling officer. A severe breach

of those duties that resulted in severe harm, loss or

disrepute for Scientology could be considered a suppressive

act?

A. A severe mal breach could, yes.

Q. Such a severe breach would be constituted by

their refusal to comply with an important order, couldn't

it?

A. You are getting too ethereal and hypothetical. I

have no idea.

Q. Now on the list here it talks about suppressive

acts as receiving money, favors or encouragement to

suppress Scientology or Scientologists, and I want to

direct your attention towards the term encouragement.

The way that I read that is that someone who

thinks that Scientology is bad and wants to communicate

that to other people and receives encouragement for those

efforts, that constitutes, the act of actually receiving

279

the encouragement, that is considered to be a suppressive

act, also; is that a fair statement?

A. No, it's too limiting. I think what that is meant

to encompass is some sort of -- I can't come up with

anything other than encouragement -- but some other sort of

remuneration or favor in exchange for suppressing

Scientology. And I can see examples where what the person

receives to suppress it would be something other than a

particular favor or money.

Q. How about just praise, ego gratification from

praise?

A. Undoubtly in that circumstance the individual

would be committing other suppressive acts because

receiving money, favors or encouragement has to be to

suppress Scientology or Scientologists.

Q. So if somebody is suppressing Scientology and

getting patted on the back, the fact they got their back

out there to get the pats, that constitutes a suppressive

act, right?

A. Depends on what they did to warrant the pat on

the back.

Q. Exactly. It's a different angle of the overall

idea of acting suppressively with respect to Scientology in

particular.

A. It's a different angle but I don't think you are

280

going to find one without one or more of the other just in

the real world.

MS. BARTILSON: Mr. Greene, it's getting to be

that time.

MR. GREENE: Let's get a resumption date here.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Let's go on the record.

What we've been discussing and now are in

agreement with respect to is that the deposition of the

witness will continue and recommence at ten o'clock on

July 26th.

MS. BARTILSON: Hold on just a minute, Ford, I

actually have a problem with the 27th.

MR. GREENE: Let's go off the record.

MS. BARTILSON: Never mind, I'll find somebody to

cover on the 27th.

MR. GREENE: So this deposition will recommence

at ten o'clock here on July 26th and proceed on the 27th

with plaintiff objecting to it proceeding any further than

the 27th and Armstrong not acquiescing that objection.

MR. WALTON: I'm not waiving any.

MR. GREENE: In light of the fact that Armstrong has

got to file a -- the parties have to file a Motion for

Summary Judgment on or before the 28th of July in order to

be in compliance with statutory times for service, what

281

we've agreed to is that, number one, we'll clear with

Judge Thomas a date for the hearing of summary judgments

of August 26th, that such motions are to be filed no later

than August 8th with personal or fax service.

MS. BARTILSON: Personal and fax service.

MR. GREENE: Personal and fax. That the

opposition thereto will be served in the same manner on

the 18th of August and any reply on the 23rd. Of course,

this is subject to Judge Thomas's approval.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Does that have your agreement,

Counsel?

MS. BARTILSON: Yes.

Now for reading and signing.

MR. WALTON: It has changed in the sense it can be

faxed to both San Francisco and Los Angeles now?

MS. BARTILSON: If you want to fax all the

exhibits, fax service includes all of the exhibits.

MR. GREENE: Now as to reading and signing, let's

go off the record again.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: The arrangement that we have agreed

to with respect to the reading, correction and signing of

Mr. Farny's deposition will be as follows: One, that

282

Mr. Farny's review may be conducted from a copy of the

deposition on a session-by-session basis with said copy

being mailed to Ms. Bartilson and with the 30 day review

period commencing on the date of mailing as reflected by

the postmark.

Two, for Summary Judgment purposes if Mr. Farny's

corrections have not been made prior to the filing of the

motion, notwithstanding the absence of correction and

signing, plaintiffs may nonetheless use Mr. Farny's

deposition transcript provided, however, that Mr. Farny

retains the right to make his corrections for such portions

of the transcript in conjunction with CSI's filing of its

opposition, right?

THE WITNESS: B+, you said "plaintiff" rather than

"defendant," but otherwise it's very good.

MS. BARTILSON: With that change, so stipulated.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: What you want from Ms. Bartilson is a

date when I will receive production of the supplemental

production of documents in this case. You asked for time; I

gave you time. You represented to me that those documents

would be forthcoming fast week. They weren't.

MS. BARTILSON: It's true, they didn't make it out

last week.

MR. GREENE: I understand that. What I want is

283

a date certain when I can expect to receive them from you.

MS. BARTILSON: Okay, Friday.

MR. GREENE: The day after today? This Friday of

this week?

MS. BARTILSON: Friday of this week.

MR. GREENE: I will have receipt of them at that

point?

MS. BARTILSON: I will mail them that Friday.

MR. GREENE: That's what you told me before.

What I would like, if you would ensure that I receive them

no later than next Saturday. That means putting them in

the mail overnight Federal Express, or whatever it takes

so they're in my office next Saturday.

MS. BARTILSON: I will mail them to you on

Friday and you can get them by Monday, how's that?

MR. GREENE: No, it's not. You said you would

serve them and I have accommodated you, Ms. Bartilson,

and I would ask you to please ensure that you serve them

so we have them by Saturday and can use the weekend to

work.

MS. BARTILSON: I will certainly do my best to get

them to your office next Saturday. I cannot promise they'll

arrive there. I will do my best.

MR. GREENE: Off the record.

284

(Whereupon the deposition was adjourned

at 4:48 p.m.)

---o0o---

_________________

LYNN ROBERT FARNY

285

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION OFFICER

I, PENNY L. GILMORE, duly authorized to

administer oaths pursuant to Section 8211 of the

California Code of Civil Procedure, do hereby certify

that LYNN ROBERT FARNY, the witness in the foregoing

deposition, was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the

whole truth and nothing but the truth in the

within-entitled cause; that said deposition was taken at

the time and place herein stated, that the testimony of

said witness was reported by me, a Certified Shorthand

Reporter and a disinterested person, and was thereafter

transcribed into computer-assisted transcription under my

directon.

I futher certify that I am not of counsel or

attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing

depositon and caption named, nor in any way interested in

the outcome of the cause named in said caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

this 7th day of August 1994.

________________________________

DEPOSITION OFFICER, CSR NO. 4724

I hereby certify this copy is a
true and exact copy of the Original.

[signed Penny L. Gilmore]

DEPOSITION OFFICER, CSR NO. 4724

286

PENNY L. GILMORE & ASSOCIATES
Certified Shorthand Reporters
P.O. Box 862
Ross, California 94957
(415)457-7899

August 8, 1994

Mr. Lynn R. Farny
c/o Laurie J. Bartilson, Esq.

Re: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY vs GERALD ARMSTRONG, et al.

Dear Mr. Farny:

Your deposition in the above-entitled matter taken on
July 11 and 12, 1994 is ready for you to read, correct and
sign in this office by appointment.

The original transcript will be held in this office for 30
days from the date of this letter unless otherwise
ordered.

In the event you have not reviewed your deposition within
the 30 days or by the trial date, whichever is sooner, the
original transcript will be sealed pursuant to the Code of
Civil Procedure 2025(s)(1) and delivered to the attorney
who noticed the deposition.

Very truly yours,

PENNY L. GILMORE, C.S.R.

cc: Original transcript
All counsel

287

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §