§  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; MICHAEL
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 26, 1994

VOLUME III

Reported by:
SUSAN M. LYON
CSR N0. 5829

PENNY L. GILMORE & ASSOCIATES
DEPOSITION REPORTERS
P.O. BOX 862
ROSS, CALIFORNIA 94957
(415) 457-7899
   
 
289

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I N D E X

EXAMINATION BY

MR. GREENE

 

 

---o0o---

PAGE

292

DEFENDANTS FOR

IDENTIFICATION

 

 

 

No. 14

 

 

Suppressive Person Declare, Gerry
Armstrong, 18 February 1982
[ Revised04-22-1982]

 

292

No. 15

Executive Directive, dated 20
September 1984, headed Squirrels

 

292
No. 16

One-page memo, HCO Policy Letter
of 18 October 1967, Issue IV,
Penalties For Lower conditions

 

292
No. 17

One-page memo, HCO Policy Letter
of 21 October 1968, Cancellation
of Fair Game

 

292
No. 18

Notice of Motion and Motion of
Defendant Author Services, Inc.

in Corydon vs. Church of
Scientology case

 

378
No. 19

HCO Policy Letter of 21 November
1972, Issue I, How to Handle Black
Propaganda

 

448
No. 20

HCO Policy Letter of 11 May 1971,
Issue III, Black PR

450
 

---o0o---

 

 

 
 

290

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BE IT REMEMBERED that on Tuesday, July 26,

1994, commencing at 9:55 a.m. thereof, at the Law Office

of William R. Benz, 900 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite

185, Larkspur, California, before me, SUSAN M. LYON,

Certified Shorthand Reporter #5829, personally appeared

 

LYNN R. FARNY,

 

called as a witness, who having been first duly sworn, was

examined and interrogated as hereinafter set forth.

 

A P P E A R A N C E S

 

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM R. BENZ, 900 Larkspur

Landing Circle, Suite 185, Larkspur, California, appeared

as the referee.

LAW OFFICES OF BOWLES and MOXON, 6255 Sunset

Boulevard, Suite 2000, Hollywood, California 90028,

represented by TIMOTHY BOWLES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared

as counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff Church of

Scientology.

LAW OFFICES OF FORD GREENE, 711 Sir Francis

Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California 94960,

represented by FORD GREENE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared as

counsel on behalf of the Defendants Gerald Armstrong,

 
 
291

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

et al.

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL WALTON, 700 Larkspur

Landing Circle, Larkspur, California 94939, represented by

MICHAEL WALTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, appeared as counsel on

behalf of DEFENDANT MICHEAL WALTON.

ALSO PRESENT: Gerald Armstong.

---o0o---

 

 
 
292

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Tuesday, July 26, 1994 9:55 a.m.

---o0o---

(Defendant's Exhibit Nos. 14-17 marked.)

RESUMED BY MR. GREENE

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

A. Good morning.

Q. You are still under oath, you understand that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. I have previously marked a set of exhibits, and the

first one is marked as Exhibit No. 14, which is a SEA

Organization Flag Conditions Order 6664, dated 18 February

1982.

That's before you now, is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And would you describe what that is, please.

Well, actually, let me ask you, have you seen that

before?

A. I'm not certain I've seen this exact document

before. I've seen one or more documents bearing the title

Suppressive Person Declare Gerry Armstrong.

Q. And based on your knowledge, was a suppressive

person declare issued for Gerry Armstrong in and around

February 1982?

MR. BOWLES: Excuse me. Mr. Greene, I want to ask you now

what the purpose of this inquiry as it appears to

   
 
293

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

be part of the cross-complaint that you filed in this

action, which has already been stricken by the court.

MR. GREENE: No, this is -- we've been through this

before, last time, Mr. Bowles.

This is relevant to Mr. Armstrong's affirmative defense,

defenses of unclean hands, of defense based on

first amendment, based on duress, and undue influence.

MR. BOWLES: Paragraph 16 of the second amended

complained specifically alleged that Mr. Armstrong had two

suppressive person declares naming him as such, and goes

on from there to relate other events following that.

So, Mr. Benz, I want to make sure that we're not

going off into discovery in the other action, which

apparently has already encompassed such allegations.

MR. BENZ: Well, I haven't seen Exhibit 14, but

generally the line of objections here, we are allowing it

to progress on the cross-complaint, which is abuse of

process, which goes to malice, and also on the affirmative

defenses that Mr. Greene has mentioned.

MR. BOWLES: All right. Well, I would object to

any extensive discovery, then, it's obviously just going

to be used in another case.

MR. GREENE: Well --

MR. BENZ: Well, if it overlaps with this case,

we're going to do it here, too. To the extent it doesn't

   
 
294

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

overlap with this case, we have no interest in going into

the other case.

MR. BOWLES: All right.

MR. BENZ: But the allegations of the

cross-complaint and the affirmative defenses raised, in my

opinion, are sufficient to encompass this from a discovery

standpoint in this case.

MR. GREENE: Okay.

MR. BENZ: Did you want me to look at 14?

MR. GREENE: I think I have -- our side is

neglectful but I guess you should look at my copy here.

MR. BENZ: That's all right. I think that was a

general objection rather than specific.

MR. BOWLES: It was specific to this particular

document and any testimony regarding it.

MR. GREENE: Okay. So is the objection overruled?

MR. BENZ: Overruled.

MR. GREENE: Q. So, Mr. Farny, based on your

knowledge was a suppressive person declare issued for or

having to do with Gerald Armstrong in and around February

of 1982?

A. I couldn't tell you if it was February or not, but

I recall it being in 1982.

Q. And the document which is Exhibit 14, have you seen

a document that looks similar at least to that document

   
 

295

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

before?

A. How similar are you defining similar? I've seen

other suppressive person declares.

Q. You're familiar -- you're the litigation handling

officer for CSI; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you're familiar with CSI's litigation; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've been familiar with litigation having to

do with Gerald Armstrong since the Church of Scientology

of California originally sued him in 1982; right?

A. That's also correct.

Q. Okay.

A. But I don't happen to have whatever suppressive

declares that were issued on him memorized.

Q. I understand that.

A. I've given that as best as I can.

Q. And based on your testimony as you sit here now,

that appears to be a true and correct copy of the

suppressive person declare on Gerald Armstrong you see

before us now; right?

MR. BOWLES: Asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say one way or the other. I've

given you the best I can.

You know, if you want one or more of the other ones

 
295
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that you've produced authenticated, I would guess the

normal procedure would be to send it to us to admit that

that's an authentic copy of it, then I could go check the

files, or whatever. But insofar as there was no

designation of subject matter here, and insofar as any

discussion of cross-complaints was stricken from the

cross-complaint, I have Mr. Benz's comments in mind, I am

answering your question, I didn't go back and look. It's

been many years since I've read one or the other, or both.

Q. All right. So you're familiar, then, with

suppressive person --

(Off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Let's go back on the record.

Q. Mr. Farny, did you participate in making the

decision that you were the person who was most appropriate

for CSI to put forward to testify about the matters

pertaining to the lawsuit against Gerald Armstrong that

we're here for that's been filed in Marin?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And were there any attorneys involved in that

decision insofar as you were concerned in your

participation?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, directing your attention again to Exhibit 14,

and going back to 1982, do you have any recollection as to

 
 
297

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

why a suppressive person declare was issued with respect

to Gerald Armstrong?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, assumes facts not in

evidence.

MR. GREENE: Which are?

MR BOWLES: Which are that he has any

knowledge whatsoever.

MR. GREENE: I don't think you listened to the

question, Mr. Bowles. The question was --

MR. BOWLES: Restate --

MR. GREENE: -- asking him whether or not he had

any recollection.

MR. BOWLES: Regarding?

MR. GREENE: That's a foundational question.

MR. BOWLES: Go ahead.

MR. GREENE: Do you have the question in mind,

Mr. Farny?

A. Yes, I do have a recollection.

Q. And included in your recollection was one of the

reasons why Armstrong was declared because he left

Scientology without going through the proper procedures?

A. Not that he left Scientology, that he left his

position in the SEA organization without going through the

proper procedures.

Q. Okay.

 
 

297

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. There's a difference.

Q. All right. That's fine.

And the proper procedure in the SEA organization is

designated by the term routing out; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Armstrong failed to route out of the SEA

organization; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And is it your recollection also that Armstrong was

declared a suppressive person because he spread

destructive rumors about senior Scientologists?

A. I have a recollection of destructive rumors being

spread.

Q. Okay.

A. I wouldn't be able to put myself in Mr. Laquerre's

mind.

Q. I understand that. But it was your knowledge at

the time that Armstrong had been reported, at least, to

have been spreading destructive rumors about senior

Scientologists; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, when Gerald Armstrong left Scientology it was

around Christmas time of 1981, wasn't it? Or rather,

excuse me, strike that.

When Gerald Armstrong left his SEA org post, it was

 
 

299

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

around December of 1981, wasn't it?

A. I believe it was in December.

Q. And thereafter he was reported to have made

statements that he no longer was a Scientologist; right?

A. That's my recollection.

Q. And that it was his belief that Scientology

technology did not work, as well; is that true?

A. I don't remember that one one way or the other.

Q. Based on your recollection of events in and around

the end of 1981 and beginning of 1982, is there anything

set forth in Exhibit 14 that you believe to be inaccurate?

A. Not that I recall one way or the other.

Q. And there is a particular file at the Office of

Special Affairs, is there not, wherein the suppressive

person declares relating to Gerald Armstrong are

maintained?

A. I would assume so.

Q. Okay.

A. I know we have copies.

Q. Do you know if you have the original?

A. I'm not sure one way or the other.

Q. Where would the original be, if it wasn't in your

file?

A.In international justice chief's files.

Q.Where is the physical location of that?

 
 

300

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Same building.

Q. And where is that building?

A. Corner of Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles.

Q. And what's the address?

A. 6331 Hollywood Boulevard.

Q. I want to direct your attention now to Exhibit 15,

which is a two-page document entitled Executive Directive,

dated 20 September, 1984.

Now, at this point you were working, in 1984, you were

working in the legal division of CSI, weren't you?

A. That's right.

Q. And do you recognize this document, Exhibit 15?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. BOWLES:, Do you have a copy of that, Mr.

Greene?

MR. GREENE: I don't. I apologize.

Actually, I do. I've got a --

MR. BOWLES: Thanks.

MR. GREENE: -- shrunken copy.

Q. Would. you tell me what Exhibit 15 is, please.

A. It's an executive directive of office of Special

Affairs International purporting to be issued on or about

20 September, 1984.

Q. Now, have you seen this document or a copy thereof

 
 

301

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

before?

A. I've seen a copy of the office of Special Affairs

International executive directive 19 before, yes.

Q. And what is OSA Int executive directive 19?

MR. BOWLES: You want him to describe the document

or --

MR. GREENE: No, just what his --

Q. You say you've seen it before and you're familiar

with it. So if you would tell me what the meaning of the

document is.

A. It was a document that was issued in the fall, late

summer or early fall of 1984 to provide information for

Scientologists concerning the ecclesiastical status of

certain individuals discussed therein.

Q. And the ecclesiastical status with respect to the

individuals set forth in Exhibit 15 is that their actions

were destructive and aimed at the enslavement rather than

the freedom of man; right?

MR. BOWLES: Are you just reading from the document, Mr.

Greene or --

THE WITNESS: He is.

MR. BOWLES: That speaks for itself.

THE WITNESS: That's line two through four, three

and four.

MR. GREENE: Q. You can answer the question.

 

 
 

302

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. It would appear so. That's what the document says.

Q. All right. Now, based on your knowledge of matters

which transpired in the fall of 1984 within CSI, it's

true, is it not, that it was generally known that Gerald

Armstrong had been designated as a squirrel; right?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague. Generally known

where?

MR. GREENE: Within CSI.

THE WITNESS: I don't know how generally known it

was within CSI.

MR. GREENE: Q. It was known to you, wasn't it?

A. I'm not certain that Gerry did much active

squirreling. He was obviously included in this issue

because of his involvement with Lipkin and Ristuccia in

the plot that was revealed in Griffith Park.

Q. Okay.

A. It was -- actually around September was in the

process of being revealed, if I remember right. But it

was around that time period that that went down as well.

So I'm not certain how much active squirreling he

did, but he certainly earned inclusion in this with the

rest of these individuals through that activity.

Q. All right. And there's nothing, to your knowledge,

that's set forth in Exhibit 15 that's false, is there?

A. I'd have to read the whole thing.

 
 

303

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Okay.

A. Now, we're getting into real complicated issues,

opinion and purely ecclesiastical communications meant for

distribution only within a defined ecclesiastical

community and all sorts of things like that. But in any

event, within those parameters, I'm not aware of anything

within this that's --

Q. False?

A. -- either false or not based upon, you know, a good

faith belief and opinion on the part of the church.

Q. And, in fact, this is an ecclesiastical order, is

it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the upper

left-hand corner of Exhibit 15, at the three lines under

OSA INT ED 19 where is says, "All Scientologists Public

Notice Board and Staff Notice Board"; do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. All right. That refers to the distribution of this

particular document, does it not?

A. In a way. Obviously, all Scientologists would not

have been mailed a copy. That would have been a physical

impossibility.

But it meant that it was available for all

Scientologists to read. And the way public parishioners,

 
 

304

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

non-staff would read it, would be on the notice boards

designated for public parishioners of the church at their

local church. The staff would read it on the staff notice

boards.

Q. And the procedure would be that this executive

directive would be distributed to all Scientology

organizations for posting; right?

MR. BOWLES: You're asking him hypothetically or are you

asking him if he actually knows this document was

distributed in that way?

THE WITNESS: He's asking me hypothetically, and I don't

know, I don't know if this one was or not.

MR. GREENE: Q. I'm asking you about the

procedure.

A. I don't know the procedure with this document. I

can see what it says in the upper left-hand corner.

Q. Right.

A. I remember getting one, but I was a little closer

than all of the churches of Scientology.

Q. Right. You were right at the heart of the issuance

of this, right, because you were in CSI?

A. I was in CSI. Let's leave it at that.

Q. Let me ask you this. At that time you were posted

within CSI legal; right?

A. That's correct.

 
 

305

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. And at that time CSI legal was, as it is now,

housed within the Office of Special Affairs; right?

A. That's also correct.

Q. And this was a directive that issued from the

Office of Special Affairs; right?

A. It appears to be, yeah.

Q. And so what I'm asking you about is when an

executive directive issued from the Office of Special

Affairs, to your knowledge, did OSA have a procedure for

the distribution of an executive directive which is

designated such as this?

A. I have to guess. I don't know.

Q. You have no recollection whether the Office of

Special Affairs had any type of procedure for the

distribution of a document that was labeled all

Scientologists, public notice board and staff notice

board; correct?

MR. BOWLES: Is that a question?

It's asked and answered. He just told you that.

MR. GREENE: No. He said, "I would have to guess."

He didn't answer the question, Mr. Bowles.

THE WITNESS: Certainly, I got one. Certainly one

was distributed within the office of Special Affairs I

International. As far as beyond that, I don't remember. I

really don't.

 
 

306

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me ask you currently, are

there executive directives which issue from OSA today from

time to time?

A. Yes, internal to the staff at the Office of Special

Affairs.

Q. Are there executive directives that issue from OSA

that are not -- today, currently, that are not limited in

the scope of distribution to the staff of OSA?

A. Perhaps to other units within Church of Scientology

International, but I'm not aware of any beyond that in

recent years.

Q. All right. So then based on your current

knowledge, when an executive directive issues from OSA

currently its distribution does not go beyond units within

CSI; is that what you're saying?

A. That's what I'm saying is my current understanding.

I'm trying to think of an instance in recent years where

it went beyond that and I can't think of one as I sit

here.

He dives for his folder. Perhaps he has one.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I said, "He dives for his folder. Perhaps

he has one."

Q. I don't know.

Well, I do. Mr. Bowles has got the exhibits from

 
 

307

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

before, although we don't have them yet from the other

court reporter.

Look at Exhibit 13.

Exhibit 13 is a suppressive persons in the

suppressive groups list that we looked at last time;

right?

A. Yes, it is. It's not issued by Office of Special

Affairs International.

Q. It's a flag order, though; right?

A. No, it's a flag executive directive.

Q. That's different, you're saying, from an OSA ED.

A. Certainly.

Q. So then where flag orders --

A. Flag --

Q. -- that issue from CSI --

(Discussion off the record.)

THE WITNESS: Hang on, let me just stop you because you're

talking about flag orders now rather than flag executive

directives.

MR. GREENE: Q. Excuse me. Thank you for calling

that to my attention.

A. I don't think you intended to do that.

Q. No, you're right, I didn't. And I appreciate your

calling that to my attention.

When you've got a flag ED, the distribution of such

 
 

308

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

is unlimited within the realm of Scientology, isn't it?

A. No, that's not the case.

The distribution would generally be noted in the

upper left-hand corner.

Q. Okay.

A. This one said it's to all ethics officers, all

organizations and missions.

Q. So that means that all ethics officers who are

placed in all organizations and missions would receive a

copy of a flag executive directive; right?

A. They would be authorized to receive a copy.

Whether as a matter of practicality and sheer logistics

and mechanics whether they would, one would hope so, but I

can't say that obviously.

Q. Okay, okay. But they would not violate any kind of

Scientology procedure by having access to such an order;

right?

A. No, of course not.

Q. And so, then, in contrast to Exhibit 13, Exhibit

15, which is an OSA International executive directive, the

distribution of an OSA International executive directive,

at least as to 1984, was much broader --

A. No.

Q. -- because --

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague.

 
 

309

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE WITNESS: Not as a general proposition. In

terms of this specific issue, it would seem so from what's

noted on the upper left-hand corner.

MR. GREENE: Q. Okay.

A. But we're back to my having to guess whether it was

actually effectuated that the public notice boards and

staff notice boards in the churches and missions all got a

copy.

I'm thinking back to the logistics lines as they

existed in 1984 and frankly, I would doubt it, but I'm not

here to guess. I'm just saying what my understanding is.

Q. Based on what your understanding in 1984 of the

distribution practices of OSA ED's, was there a procedure

in effect whereby there was accountability whether the

distribution was accomplished?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague. Can you explain

what you mean by accountability, please?

MR. GREENE: Yes, some way to track it.

THE WITNESS: Do you mean this one or posed to the

ED's generally, because as I said, they're mostly internal

documents and it would be very easy to see if they were

distributed in the Office of Special Affairs

International, which at that time occupied one floor of a

building, you could look and see if the -- however many

staff we had at the time --

 
 

310

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: Q. That's obvious.

A. -- had got a copy. That's obvious.

So insofar as that's concerned, yes, it was not

usual for an issue such as this from the Office of Special

Affairs to be issued with a designation public notice

board/staff notice boards. So I don't know what

procedures existed to make sure that they all got one, if

indeed there were such procedures.

Q. Well --

A. As you asked me earlier on this Exhibit 13, would

it have been a violation of any procedures for this to

have appeared on any staff notice boards, no, it would not

have.

I can answer it from that direction. I just can't

answer it from this direction that we've been going on for

some time about.

Q. Was the reason that Exhibit 15 was unusual because

the persons enumerated there were considered to be among

the worst enemies of Scientology?

A. No, because their acts were so destructive, we felt

it important for all church members to know what occurred.

Q. Okay.

A. I wouldn't characterize them the biggest enemies,

the most important enemies, no.

Q. They were nonetheless considered enemies; isn't

 
 

311

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that right?

A. They were considered suppressive persons and

squirrels.

Q. Now, you are also familiar with the global

settlement which took place in 1986 with respect to a

number of clients who were represented by Michael Flynn;

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And among those individuals who were involved in

such settlement were included Kima Douglas; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And was included Laurel Sullivan; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, of course, Gerald Armstrong?

A. We thought so.

Q. Now, you worked closely with the lawyers in

developing and drafting those settlement agreements;

right?

A. As it happens, I did, yeah.

Q. And you are familiar with the terms of those

settlement agreements in consequence, aren't you?

A. Certainly am.

Q. With respect to Kima Douglas and Laurel Sullivan,

as to both of them, their settlement agreements included

non-assistance provisions; right?

 
 

312

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Yes, they do.

Q. And they included provisions whereby they agreed

not to disclose any of their knowledge about Scientology,

its practices, or anything about its founder L. Ron

Hubbard; right?

MR. BOWLES: Hang on for a second. Let me have a

brief --

MR. GREENE: Sure.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you have the question in mind?

A. I've got the question in mind.

MR. BOWLES: I object. It's going into other

settlement agreements. Number one, it's irrelevant.

Number two, it may violate the terms of those agreements.

THE WITNESS: The terms are confidential. I may

have spoke out of turn by answering your first question.

I'm afraid I can't answer your second question because the

terms of the agreements are confidential.

MR. GREENE: I would request a direct to this

witness to answer the question and the reason is this.

One of the affirmative defenses alleged by Armstrong is

that the settlement agreement is a violation of public

policy.

And one of the reasons why it's a violation of public

policy is because it's not only Armstrong that

 
 

313

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

signed one of these agreements whereby former

knowledgeable, highly placed officials of Scientology

were, by virtue of provisions of the agreement, to

maintain silence with respect to their knowledge and were

required not to testify unless subject to service of

subpoena and were required not to make themselves

"amenable to the service of subpoena" in a spirit that was

contrary to the agreement.

Our position is that, looking at the whole

circumstance whereby it was not only Armstrong who was

required to keep his mouth shut and not help anybody who

had been hurt by Scientology, but other people as well,

that in total that that constitutes a violation of public

policy.

Therefore, the question with respect to the

existence of such provisions to this witness are relevant

to this lawsuit and would overcome any kind of concern

that they may be confidential.

That may be true that the terms of the agreements

may be confidential, but that does not mean that a court

is precluded from inquiring into whether or not such terms

exist, and that's why it's relevant.

MR. BOWLES: Mr. Benz, we take the opposite

position.

MR. GREENE: Additionally, there's a waiver.

 
 

314

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BOWLES: The material is irrelevant.He's gone

on for the morning so far into areas that are covered by

portions of the cross-complaint that have been stricken

from this case that are being litigated down in Los

Angeles. He's taking discovery in the other case at this

point.

Not only that, but now he's getting into areas of other

settlements which are clearly beyond even the scope

of that litigation.

But beyond that, this witness is just constrained

by the terms of the contract from discussing terms of the

other agreements.

MR. BENZ: So the objection, as I understand it, is

limited strictly to the particular terms of the settlement

agreements with Kima Douglas, and who else?

MR. GREENE: Laurel Sullivan.

MR. BOWLES: He also makes the argument about

public policy. That argument he's already lost in the

Court of Appeals by the decision that was issued last

month.

MR. GREENE: Well, that was a decision based on an

appeal of a preliminary injunction. And as you know, Mr.

Bowles, a preliminary injunction is, in fact, what it says

it is, preliminary.

MR. BOWLES: That's right.

   
 

315

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: Excuse me, Mr. Bowles, excuse me, I

don't interrupt you.

MR. BOWLES: I was speaking, you interrupted me.

The Court of Appeals has decided that the church

has a likelihood of success on the merits and that, of

course, upholds the soundness of the contract.

MR. BENZ: Well, I would disagree with counsel

about that. I don't think there's been a decision about

that.

My ruling on the particular objection is that I

think at this point the question as to the content of the

other settlement agreements is going beyond the scope of

where we are here, so I'll sustain the objection as to the

particular content of the agreement, of the other

settlement agreements --

MR. GREENE: Okay.

MR. BENZ: -- on the grounds of relevancy.

Now, let me ask one further question, if I may.

Are Kima Douglas or Laurel Sullivan engaged in any

present litigation --

MR. GREENE: Not to my knowledge.

THE WITNESS: No, they are not.

MR. BENZ: -- with Scientology?

MR. GREENE: No.

MR. BOWLES: No, they are not.

 
 

316

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: Q. Also included among the

individuals who entered into settlement agreements that

were represented by Flynn or in that group of individuals

was Edward Walters; right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And also was Nancy Dincalci; right?

A. That's right.

Q. And not only were there of the group or block of

individuals in Los Angeles, but there was also a block of

individuals in Boston, as well, that were represented by

Flynn, the Garretys, they entered into settlement

agreements, didn't they?

A. Carol and Paul Garrety entered into a settlement

agreement.

I don't believe they lived in Boston, to my

recollection.

Q. There was litigation in Boston, wasn't there? That

was where the litigation was centered?

A. Garretys' case was in Los Angeles.

Q. That was in Los Angeles, okay.

Also involved in that group was an individual named

Peter Graves.

A. In that group, you mean the --

Q. The Garrety group.

A. -- the Flynn clients that settled?

 
 

317

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, he was a Flynn client that settled.

Q. And also a group in Florida; right?

A. Not as part of a December '86 settlement, no.

Q. No, but as part of the settlements that took place

in the calendar year 1986.

A. Yes, we settled cases in 1986 in Florida.

(Discussion off the record.)

THE WITNESS: In Florida.

Sorry. I'm getting quieter and quieter.

MR. GREENE: Q. And among those individuals were

included Marjorie Wakefield; right? --

A. That's correct.

Q. Nan McLean?

A. Yes.

Q. Gabriel Cazares; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Tanya Burdon?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there any of those people, to your knowledge,

who had not been declared suppressive persons in the --

referring to the Florida people that I just enumerated?

MR. BOWLES: Again, Mr. Greene, what is the

relevance of this? You're going off into other former

parishioners who have settled cases.

 
 

318

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: The relevance is --

MR. BOWLES: It's pretty remote.

MR. GREENE: -- they were all represented by the

same lawyer, it was all part of the same general plan to

eliminate from any kind of litigation and from the

marketplace of ideas in public persons who were familiar

with and willing to testify about what they saw as the

truth regarding the beliefs and practices of Scientology.

MR. BOWLES: Mr. Benz, I think we're going far afield here.

He's going to be asking questions about Wakefield, McLean,

Cazares and these others, what their experiences were with

the church, what they may have be-en doing outside and

since then.

Why don't we stick to the case at hand.

MR. GREENE: I'm not asking those questions. I'm

asking whether they were included also. He's jumping the

gun. I haven't gone there.

MR. BENZ: Again, obviously, I'm not ruling on

where you're going --

MR. GREENE: Good.

MR. BENZ: -- except to the standpoint you're

getting close to the edge.

MR. GREENE: I understand that, but I don't believe

I've gone over it.

MR. BENZ: Okay.

 
 

319

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BOWLES: You've asked him if they were declared

suppressive persons, and that signals to me that you're

going off into irrelevant areas.

MR. WALTON: Is that an objection?

THE WITNESS: It was, yes.

MR. WALTON: Well, you made it. Can we get going?

MR. GREENE: Q. Would you answer the question,

please.

A. Not without a ruling on the objection.

MR. BOWLES: The objection deals with a specific

question as to whether these people were declared

suppressive persons.

MR. BENZ: That objection is overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

MR. GREENE: Q. You have it within your ability to

find out, though, don't you?

MR. BOWLES: Just as much as you do, Mr. Greene.

MR. WALTON: Would you like to have your deposition

set, sir?

MR. BOWLES: I'm representing the witness. Why

don't you stop interrupting.

MR. WALTON: I believe you interrupted the witness.

MR. BENZ: Just hold it, please.

The questions will be asked. The witness will

answer, if he wishes. If there's an objection, please

 
 

320

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

make it in the form of an objection. We can rule on it.

MR. WALTON: I object to the witness's counsel

answering the questions for him.

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague.

MR. BENZ: Okay.

THE WITNESS: What's your question?

MR. BENZ: Understood, but let's go ahead.

MR. BOWLES: What's your question?

MR. GREENE: Q. The question was and is, you have

it within your ability to ascertain whether or not the

Florida settling individuals were declared suppressive

persons, don't you?

A. Probably.

Q. Now, in Los Angeles also one of the settling

individuals was Howard Schomer; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Also known as Homer; right?

A. Yeah.

Q. And Martin Samuels, as well; right?

A. I don't think he lived in Los Angeles.

Q. He was among those that were settled in the Los

Angeles global agreement; isn't that right?

MR. BOWLES: Objection. What do you mean by global

agreement, Mr. Greene? It's vague. That's your term.

Can you define it, please?

 
 

321

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: The witness knows what I'm talking

about.

THE WITNESS: Actually, I had a problem with the words

global agreement because it presupposes one agreement that

everybody signed on to one document. We settled with him in

December of 1986, yes.

MR. GREENE: Q. And that was in conjunction with a

number of other people, including Armstrong?

A. That's what we've been discussing, yes, of course.

Q. You don't have any problem knowing that that's what

we're talking about, do you?

A. No, I just want to make sure that things are clear

for the record. I'm not intentionally trying to be obtuse

with you.

Q. That's okay. We'll just both do our jobs.

Now, Michael Flynn also had pending litigation

against the Church of Scientology; right?

A. As a party?

Q. As a party.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And Flynn's litigation was settled in

conjunction with Armstrong and the others in L.A., as

well; right?

A. I don't like the phrase "in conjunction with."

Q. It was part of the settlements that were arrived

 
321
 

322

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

at, wasn't it?

A. Settled around the same time, yes.

Q. And the way that you went about settling it was

that you, meaning CSI, did not provide money separately to

Armstrong; right?

MR. BOWLES: Okay, objection.

THE WITNESS: We're getting awful close to specific

terms.

MR. BOWLES: That's right. That's my objection.

THE WITNESS: But I think it's been discussed in this

litigation on the record that what we did was provided a

pool and had the individual parties and Micheal Flynn

decide among themselves who got what part of that pool of

money.

MR. GREENE: Q. Right.

A. As long as that procedure was agreeable to all the

participants.

Q. Right.

A. And whatever they felt among themselves was fair

and equitable, they did, as opposed to us arbitrarily

putting a value on it.

Q. Right. And that pool of money was provided to

Flynn, was it not?

A. No, it was put in escrow.

Q. What was the amount?

 
 

323

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. That's absolutely confidential. You're not getting

it here.

MR. BOWLES: Objection. That's the basis of an

objection. It goes to the content of the settlement

agreements.

MR. BENZ: What's the ---

MR. GREENE: What's the relevance?

MR. BENZ: Yes.

MR. GREENE: One of the affirmative defense was

that Michael Flynn had a conflict of interest in representing

approximately 20 people, including himself, in one

settlement. And that that conflict of interest invalidates

the efficacy of his representation of Armstrong with

respect to the settlement and to the settlement itself.

It's directly relevant.

MR. BOWLES: It has no relevance. He's asking the

question, Mr. Benz, how much was the total settlement

amount given to Mr. Flynn.

MR. GREENE: That's right.

MR. BOWLES: That has nothing to do with whether

Mr. Flynn had a conflict of interest or not.

Beyond that, he's asking for, again, confidential

terms which, by contract, my client is constrained from

revealing. It's also irrelevant.

MR. GREENE: There is no basis -- courts contract

 
 

324

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

rights, do not and cannot supersede a judicial inquiry.

That is certainly within the purview of the court to issue

protective orders and we certainly would be willing to

enter into an appropriate protective order.

My client is entitled to defend himself against the lawsuit

that has been brought against him by Scientology. He

hasn't -raised the issue. That issue is joined. He is

entitled pursuant to discovery to get information that's

relevant to that issue.

And if Gerald Armstrong was one of 20 people who

were settled out by Michael Flynn including, Michael Flynn

himself, it sure as heck is relevant what the pool of

money was that was given to Flynn, which has been admitted

here, that that amount is relevant.

MR. BENZ: Well --

MR. BOWLES: He's taking issue with something that

Michael Flynn may have done. He might have just as well

sued Mr. Flynn if he wants the information.

But how much other people got or how much Mr. Flynn

decided to give others out of a total settlement and the

total amount are irrelevant to this matter. My client again

is constrained. That's our position.

MR. WALTON: It seems to me that Mr. Armstrong

should be considered a party to this contract that's

considered so confidential. And if he's a party to the

 
 

325

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

contract, then certainly telling him what the terms are

doesn't violate any confidentiality.

MR. BENZ: Well --

MR. BOWLES: That's a matter between Mr. Armstrong

and Mr. Flynn. And if Mr. Flynn, if he has a problem with

Mr. Flynn, he should sue Mr. Flynn.

MR. GREENE: That's not what is at issue here.

We're not talking about --

MR. BOWLES: Yes, it is. You're talking about a

conflict of interest. That's your position relative to

Mr. Flynn.

MR. GREENE: And we're talking about a conflict of

client that your client participated-in setting up, Mr.

Bowles, by setting up a procedure whereby Michael Flynn,

which your client knew represented 20 people, including

himself, was given a big pot of money, and he was told to

go settle the cases. That's relevant to whether or not

Flynn had a conflict of interest. And it's also relevant

to whether or not there's unclean hands here, both of

which have been asserted as affirmative defenses in this

case.

THE WITNESS: We are talking about whether Gerry

fraudulently conveyed his assets, are we not? Because we

haven't discussed it in, so far, the three days that I've

been being deposed.

 
 

326

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BOWLES: You're well afield already and now --

MR. BENZ: You want to hold it for just a second.

I just want to glance at this thing.

MR. GREENE: Sure.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. BENZ: I'm going to sustain the objection on the

grounds of relevance, primarily. We know the fact

that Mr. Flynn was involved in this. We know the fact

that he was representing others. And we know the fact

that he was representing Mr. Armstrong in this when the

agreement or whatever it was.

I don't see that at this point the particular

amounts and details would add anything to the defenses.

So I am going to sustain it.

As far as the confidentiality, I would prefer to

recognize that to the extent that it doesn't jeopardize

the parties' case here, but I will not hesitate to pierce

the confidentiality if it becomes otherwise important or

relevant.

MR. BOWLES: I just note for the record on that

point that this is a suit for fraudulent conveyance

alleging that Mr. Armstrong has given away his assets

defrauding my client. How the terms of a confidential

settlement agreement with other parties comes to play on

that is remote, at best.

 
 

327

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: Well --

MR. BOWLES: It's not only that, but it's -- all of

these specific allegations were stricken from his

cross-complaint already.

MR. WALTON: We've already gone through that. This

is the third time we've talked about the cross-complaint

and the affirmative defenses in Mr. Armstrong's complaint,

so let's move on with it.

MR. GREENE: For the record, the reason -- and I

take -- respectfully take exception to your ruling --

MR. BENZ: Sure.

MR. GREENE: -- and the reason is because the

amount of money, particularly that which would accrue to

the benefit of Michael Flynn is directly related and

directly relevant to the extent of the conflict.

And not only that, but also in this lawsuit

Scientology has represented that there was a lump sum and,

that was given to Flynn, that Flynn used to settle his and

other cases.

And it's unfair to allow for such a representation

to be made but not to allow any inquiry as to what that

amount is. So I respectfully disagree with your ruling

based on those grounds and the others stated.

MR. BENZ: Understood.

MR. GREENE: Q. All right. Let's go back here to

 
 

328

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Exhibit 15.

A. All right.

Q. And you have made reference to Gerald Armstrong

engaging in some actions that were destructive and aimed

at the enslavement and not the freedom of man.

And I would ask you now to tell me specifically

what were those actions, to your knowledge?

A. You must be joking. You're asking me that

question?

Q. I am.

A. All right. To the best of my knowledge, making

misrepresentations concerning the background of Mr.

Hubbard, the founder of the religion; the actions he took

to -- in stealing the personal archive documents; his work

with agents of the criminal investigation division of the

IRS to subvert or to undermine the church, specifically,

those actions I referred to earlier. I would think that

they would all be encompassed within that.

It's the lies to try and destroy the church,

destroy the representation of the religion's founder.

That if one believes, as I do, that Scientology frees

people, the attempted destruction of that indicates an

intention to enslave people.

You asked for my opinion. That's my personal

opinion.

 
 

329

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Okay.

A. I assume you were referring to the second sentence

of this issue.

Q. Correct. I certainly was.

A. All right. So we're moving back in time to 1984 --

Q. That's right.

A. -- and the years immediately prior and subsequent

to that.

Q. That's right. And that's what your testimony just

referred to; right?

A. Yes. That's correct.

Q. As a matter of curiosity, you said that you believe

that Scientology was engaged in the freedom of man, or

freeing --

A. Something along those lines.

Q. -- something along those lines?

A. Yes, yes, absolutely.

Q. According to your opinion, are there any other

paths aside from that offered by Scientology that free

people?

A. Are you asking for my personal opinion or an

official church position?

Q. Let me ask you first, official church position.

A. Official church position is it is one of many paths

that is a workable solution.

 
 

330

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Now, were there incidences where Armstrong,

directing your attention on 15 to the second paragraph

under the list of names with Scientology, deliberately

held policy up to scorn that you recall?

A. I don't remember one way or the other.

Q. Do you recall whether he did, even if you don't

recall how he did?

A. Yes.

Q. And what's your recollection whether or not he did?

A. I don't remember how he did.

Q. Okay.

A. You asked me for, you know, if I had a general --

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. So that I'm clear, your

recollection is that Armstrong, in fact, did hold policy

up to scorn; right?

A. My recollection is that he did something that would

fit within this paragraph. What it is specifically a

decade later beyond the general categories of conduct that

I've articulated in response to a couple of questions ago,

I don't remember.

Q. All right. Would then, with respect to what you

enumerated on shortly ago, would it be the -- what you say

are the misrepresentations regarding Hubbard that would

fall within the scope of deliberately holding policy up to

 
 

331

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

scorn?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Okay.

A. They would be -- that would more fit under --

Q. That's okay. Let me ask you another question.

A. -- turning from ethical and moral Scientology

principles so.

Q. Do you have a general recollection about the manner

in which Armstrong deliberately held policy up to scorn?

A. My general recollection, yes, it's through the lies

that were in his declarations through this time period and

the lies that he used in order to obtain a judgment he

didn't even expect from Judge Breckenridge.

Q. Now, as part of the settlement negotiations with

Flynn regarding Armstrong, included in that was an

agreement if a reversal of Breckenridge's decision was

obtained, to limit damages upon retrial to $25,001; right?

A. There was an agreement at that time to limit the

damages to nominal damage, yes --

Q. Okay.

A. -- as we let the Court of Appeals know on the next

time around.

Q. And that amount of nominal damages was one dollar

more than the jurisdictional maximum that then existed for

superior court, right, of $25,000?

 
 
 

332

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Yes, because the issues involved in the case were,

other than damages, were the more important issues.

Q. Right. The issues in the case that were most

important were Judge Breckenridge's characterizations of

Scientology; right?

A. Well, it was the ultimate resolution of the

injunctive relief that was sought.

Q. I'm sorry. You didn't answer my question.

A. No. I told you what was more important. You

asked, wasn't this the important thing. I told you what

was the important thing.

Certainly what you said was among them,

absolutely, without question. I'm not going to sit here

and tell you it wasn't.

But also the ultimate relief we have sought through

the judicial process was very important because that was

the relief we were seeking.

Q. And also included, in addition to that, what was

very important was, would be obtaining a reversal of Judge

Breckenridge's characterizations of L. Ron Hubbard; right?

A. Certainly.

Q. And in your view, Judge Breckenridge's

characterizations of Hubbard were mistaken and erroneously

based upon his crediting Armstrong's misrepresentations;

right?

 
 
 

333

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Not just his, the others who wer there from the

Flynn dog and pony show, yes.

Q. The Flynn dog and pony show, which would include

Laurel Sullivan; right?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Edward Walters; right?

A. That's right.

Q. Homer Schomer; isn't that right?

A. I'm trying to think back what he said specifically,

but as a general proposition, sure.

Q. Okay. And Sullivan, you're familiar with the

litigation Wollersheim versus Church of Scientology;

right?

A. Certainly am.

Q. And witnesses for the plaintiffis in that case also

included Sullivan; right?

A. Not that ever met Wollersheim, no.

Q. No, but she testified on Wollersheim's behalf,

didn't she?

A. Sure, she took her act to his stage and said

generally bad things about the religion, but she had no

relevant testimony whatsoever to give to that case because

she had never met him, and that's part of the

misrepresentations that have been flying around here over

the years, is that witnesses to torts were removed from

 
 

334

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the legal process. That's garbage and you know it.

This paid, hired gun people who would come in and

say bad things just because they were being paid to do so

were removed from the marketplace forcing you guys to deal

with facts, and that appears to be something you can't

tolerate, and that's why you got a problem with it, just

so we're clear.

Q. I really appreciate your expounding, Mr. Farny.

A. Hey, no problem.

Q. Also, Howard Schomer, Homer Schomer was a witness

in Wollersheim, wasn't he?

A. No, he was not allowed to testify. The court ruled

he had nothing relevant to say to any issue and forbade

him from opening his mouth in front of the jury.

Q. You testified in Wollersheim; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Edward Walters testified in Wollersheim as

well?

A. Same category as Sullivan, yes.

Q. And, in fact, he and Sullivan testified not on any

mistreatment of Wollersheim but on the manner in which

Scientology operated; right?

A. No. They made up their schtick and just, you know,

flapped their gums just like they were being paid to do.

Q. Okay. And then you include, with respect to the

 
334
 

335

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

characterization of them making up their schtick and

flapping their gums, you would apply the same type of

characterization to Gerald Armstrong, wouldn't you?

A. In what context?

Q. In the context of his participation in litigation

and his phony declarations?

A. Well, I'll stipulate that the declarations are

phony and that they contain lies.

Q. That's your view of them; right?

A. Certainly.

Q. And that Armstrong's -- he was lying about

Scientology and its founder, as was Sullivan and Walters;

right?

A. All three told things that were not true, that were

lies, yes.

Q. And so did Schomer, didn't he?

A. He even admitted to having lied.

Q. Now, the stipulation whereby if Breckenridge's

decision was reversed by Scientology's unopposed appeal

thereof --

A. Time out, I can't adopt your characterization of it

because the appeal at that stage had already been fully

briefed, there was no further need for an appeal brief --

now just let me finish.

Q. Go ahead.

 
 

336

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. As you know what occurred, the Court of Appeals

sent the case back because the cross-complaint, in their

view, hadn't been disposed of. In reality, it had been

disposed of by way of the settlement.

And because there was a change of circumstances

that Mr. Armstrong felt compelled to communicate to the

court, you'll notice he's not been sued for breaching the

settlement agreement -- by communicating to the court

concerning that appeal, because that was a change in

circumstance neither side anticipated. In fact, we've

gone out of our way to point that out on a number of

occasions and it keeps being raised.

Q. So then in your view -- strike that.

You're familiar with the fact then that Armstrong

sought permission from the Court of Appeal to participate

in the appeal of his own action; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in doing so, Armstrong provided the court of

appeal with a copy of the settlement agreement under seal;

right?

A. I believe it was under seal, that's correct.

Q. And that, so you're stating that you, CSI, does not

consider such action by Armstrong in any way to constitute

I a violation of the settlement agreement; is that right?

A. What I do consider and what I testified to was that

 
 

337

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Armstrong, because of the change of circumstance seeking

leave from the court of appeals to file papers, merely

that fact, not necessarily anything he said in them or

public disclosures he may have made beyond that, but

seeking to participate in the appeal is not and was not

considered by CSI to be a breach that became part of the

Los Angeles action because of the change-in circumstance.

Q. Let me ask you this. Is it the position of CSI

that the manner in which Armstrong participated in the

appeal constituted a violation of the agreement?

A. Well, whether it is or isn't, my opinion, that's

not part of the Los Angeles action.

Q. I'm asking you whether or not the manner in which

Armstrong participated in his own appeal was or is

considered by CSI to be a breach of the agreement.

A. I don't know if CSI has formally articulated a

position on that.

Q. I'm asking you what CSI's position is now.

A. CST's position is that his having sought leave to

appeal, you know, to.participate in the appeal would not

be the subject of the breach action.

Q. All right. And that leave that Armstrong sought

was granted by the Court of Appeal; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And therefore subsequent to that grant, is it CSI's

 
 

338

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

position that Armstrong's participation in his own appeal

in any way constituted a violation of the agreement?

A. I haven't formulated a view on it because I haven't

needed to. It's not a subject that's under current

litigation.

So, I mean, I'd have to go back. As I recall, he also

sought to assist Bent Corydon's effort in unsealing the

court file, which I would have considered certainly not in

the spirit of how the settlement had been arrived at, or

the term -- or what resulted from it.

But that also isn't part of the -- isn't part of

the breach action. The precise reasons for it not being

part of the breach action, well, it's kind of difficult to

talk about because it goes into communications with

lawyers.

Q. Okay.

A. But I just, the point I was trying to make is that

such a big deal was made out of the agreement Gerry made

in December '86 not to further participate in the appeal

and what actually happened, because circumstances

changed --

Q. I understand.

A. -- based on not what we did, not what Gerry did,

but what the Court of Appeals did necessitating a slightly

different operating climate.

 
 

339

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Right. The stipulation for nominal damages, if

there was a retrial of Armstrong One was considered to be

part of the settlement with Gerald Armstrong, wasn't it?

A. Well, I don't know what you mean by -- well, I

don't want to phrase it that way. I don't know what

you're referring to when you say settlement. It is not

within the four corners of-the settlement agreement signed

between the churches and Gerry.

Q. I understand that.

A. It is part of a package of documents that went with

it at the same time.

Q. Now, also included in that package of documents was

an agreement whereby CSI agreed to indemnify Flynn in the

event that there was a judgment for $25,001 against

Armstrong; right?

A. I don't believe CSI is a signatory to that

document.

Q. There was another Scientology organization that was

a signatory if not CSI; is that right?

A. No, I believe it was one of the lawyers.

Q. It was Earl Cooley, wasn't it?

A. Either him or Heller.

Q. And both of whom were counsel for various

Scientology organizations from time to time; right?

A. Certainly.

 
 

340

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. And that indemnification agreement was part of the

package; right --

A. That's right, just, what I said --

Q. -- that you were referring to?

A. -- when I was referring to nominal damages earlier,

I didn't mean $25,001, I meant $1.

Q. You mean zip.

A. No, $1.

The main activity and main intention was on the

injunctive claim.

Q. All right. And the injunctive claim was to keep

Armstrong silent; right?

A. No, it was to get the documents back and seal them.

Q. And during the course of the Armstrong litigation,

there had been a lot of litigation about restraining

Armstrong from talking about what he had claimed to be his

knowledge of Scientology; right?

A. What's a lot?

Q. That's a good question. There was litigation

involving that issue; right?

A. The question was litigated as part of the first

Armstrong case.

Q. Right. And part of the first Armstrong case, which

you worked on, didn't you?

A. Somewhat.

 
 

341

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. And it's part of why you're well familiar with

Gerald Armstrong's circumstances;

A. That's true.

Q. Involved efforts by CSC to obtain court orders that

would prevent Armstrong from disclosing knowledge that he

obtained from the documents that he received from Omar

Garrison; isn't that right?

A. That he received from Omar Garrison?

Q. Let me back up.

A. Why don't you rewind a little bit.

Q. Sure. Let me rewind a tad here.

You're familiar with Omar Garrison; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Omar Garrison was an independent biographer who

was employed to write a biography about L. Ron Hubbard;

correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And Armstrong's role in the creation of the

biography --

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Armstrong's participation in

the --

A. You said role.

Q. I'll take a break.

Armstrong's role in the biography that Garrison was

 

 
 

342

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

employed to write about Hubbard was to act as an

archivist; right?

A. Generally, yes.

Q. And part of what Armstrong did was to

provide documents having to do with Mr. Hubbard's past to

Omar Garrison; right?

A. For Garrison to use in the biography.

Q. Correct.

A. That's right.

Q. And Armstrong did do that, to your knowledge, didn't

he?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when Armstrong blew, when he left without

routing out, he at some point thereafter went to Garrison

and obtained copies of those historical documents

regarding Mr. Hubbard; right?

A. Not exclusively.

Q. In part?

A. If my recollection is correct, he snatched them on

the way out, as well as obtaining some from Mr. -- that

Mr. Garrison was holding temporarily, but which were still

bound within the entire ambit of what the authorization of

possessing them was, which was for the creation of the

authorized biography.

Q. Now, those documents, which both Armstrong, and you

 
 

343

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

say, took and ones that he obtained from Garrison were

considered by CSC to be within the scope of the fiduciary

duty that Armstrong owed to CSC; right?

A. The duty to not disclose the contents in an

unauthorized manner --

Q. Okay.

A. -- was, certainly.

Q. Right.

And that was one area which CSC wanted Armstrong to

keep his mouth shut about; right?

A. In terms of the contents of the specific documents?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. However, the contents of those specific documents

were not the only area that CSC wanted Armstrong to keep

his mouth shut about; isn't that right?

A. At what time, when, under what circumstances?

Q. We're talking about in early 1982.

A. I don't think the issues had arisen yet in early

1982.

Q. How about shortly thereafter?

A. I don't know one way or the other. We're splitting

hairs.

Is there something specific that you're looking

for?

 
 

344

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. What I'm trying to ask you is that not only did CSC

want Armstrong to keep his mouth shut about what was in

the Hubbard documents, but also with respect to his

knowledge of Scientology operations, generally speaking.

MR. BOWLES: Objection to form.

THE WITNESS: Well, if he told the truth, that's different

than spreading lies about the church. Of course, you're not

going to be interested in someone who continues to spread

lies about one. I mean, that's kind of natural.

MR. GREENE: Q. I agree with you: And just so I'm

clear about what we're talking about here in the lie

department, the lies that he spread were the same lies

that were erroneously, in, your view, adopted by

Breckenridge in his decision, in part -

A. In part --

Q. -- right?

A. -- because he doesn't think he developed his

so-called defense yet. So that took a few years to think

of.

Q. You're talking about Armstrong?

A. Um-hum, that he used in front of Breckenridge that

resulted in the Breckenridge decision, that's what we're

talking about.

Q. I just want to make sure we're on the same length.

 
 

345

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. I doubt it, but that's all right.

Q. You're a Scientologist and I'm not.

Now, therefore, as to the Hubbard documents and as

to Armstrong's what you said were lies, CSC made efforts

to obtain court orders keeping Armstrong silent; right?

MR. BOWLES: Asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure whether the initial

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction

covered anything beyond the documents themselves and their

contents.

MR. GREENE: Q. That is Judge Cole's order; right?

A. One of them. What was the other judge's name?

I've drawn a blank right now. Cole was one of them, yes.

So I just don't remember the precise terms of the order

that we sought and obtained.

Q. And also what you were seeking ultimately in the

lawsuit in terms of injunctive relief were the

continuation of such orders; right?

A. Generally, yeah.

Q And --

A. Well, with one large addendum to that. We wanted

the documents back.

Q. Not to mention that. Of course, of course.

A. Yeah. At that time they were impounded in the

court.

   
 

346

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Waddington, that's the TRO judge, Waddington.

Q. Right, Waddington and then Cole?

A. That's correct.

Q. You wanted the documents back and you wanted the

injunctive relief compelling Armstrong to keep his mouth

shut about the contents of the documents to be permanent;

right?

A. Correct.

Q. You also wanted Armstrong to be enjoined from

continuing to utter lies about the church?

A. See, that's what I don't remember, if that was

included or not.

Q. All right.

A. I'm sorry, I just don't remember. Obviously, over

time, what has stuck with me as being the focus were the

documents themselves because, obviously, for the last

dozen years, the documents, of course, received further

attention in litigation.

Q. Going back for a moment to the component of the

package pertaining to nominal damages --

A. Right.

Q. -- Armstrong's signature was not either on the

stipulation or the indemnity agreement; right?

A. It was my understanding he was fully appraised of

it, but I don't think his signature appeared on those two

 
 

347

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

documents.

Q. Now, your understanding that he was fully apprised

on it is based upon what facts?

A. Communications I received from our lawyer that was

talking directly with Michael Flynn.

Q. And what did your lawyer tell you Flynn said?

A. Well, I'm not going to get into the exact words,

but the substance of it was that, I mean, I just came away

with the understanding that what Mike was telling Mike was

getting to Gerry; what Hertzberg and Heller were telling

Mike Flynn was getting to Gerry, because throughout the

entire several months that the settlement negotiations

went on, it was apparent that -- and if this is something

Flynn did and didn't tell his clients, well, I can't help

taht, but it was apparent to us that when Flynn would come

back with a position, he was speaking for his clients. It

seemed like he had discussed things with one or more of

his clients.

Q. Were there discussions between Flynn and Heller

and/or Hertzberg pertaining to the non-assistance

provisions some time in advance of the December signing

date, to your knowledge?

MR. BOWLES: Can you read that back, please.

MR. GREENE: I'll say it again.

Q. To your knowledge were there discussions which

 
 

348

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

transpired between Flynn and/or Heller on one hand and the

Hertzberg and/or Heller on one hand and Flynn on the other

directed toward the non-assistance provisions in advance

of this signing?

MR. BOWLES: Okay. That's vague, Mr. Greene. What

are you talking about non-assistance provisions?

MR. GREENE:--Come on, Tim, you know doggone well

what I'm talking about, how Armstrong -- I think, it's 7G

and 7H.

MR. BOWLES: Thank you.

MR. GREENE: I think, but it's the 7's for sure.

THE WITNESS: Oh, it's in the 7's.

MR. GREENE: Q. It's in the 7's . So --

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And when, according to your best estimation, did

those discussions occur?

A. My recollection is that that was on the table from

the get go. So it would have been for many weeks, I'm

thinking into the summer when the negotiations first

started.

Q. When did they start, roughly?

A. Oh, you would ask me that.

Q. Generally, speaking, your best estimate.

A. We were still doing the Wollersheim trial. I don't

know if it was post-verdict or not. Because I remember

 
 

349

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

most of our own internal discussions took place in the

apartment that Earl

had, so we were still doing the Wollersheim trial. My

sense is it was pre-verdict. So that would be prior to

July of ' 86.

Q. The verdict was actually July 22, 1986, wasn't it?

A. It was 20 something, yeah, I think you're right.

Q. I think so, too. And the verdict in Wollersheim

totalled $30 million; right?

A. At that time.

Q. At that time. Later reduced to $2.5 by the Court

of Appeal?

A. Thank you.

Q. So then the discussions regarding settlement with

Flynn's clients started prior to that verdict, is your

best recollection?

A. That is my best recollection. Not too long prior.

Q. All right.

A. But sometime prior, unless I've completely messed

and we were talking about in the winter, but I don't

think so. I think it started sometime shortly before

that, within weeks or whatever.

Q. Mid July, '86?

A. Yeah, but this is so vague right now I -- at some

period of time before they were consummated in December.

 

 
 

350

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Yeah, well, I know that. I asked you that

question. And I'm getting a little bit more of an

estimation from you.

A. That's right.

Q. Your best estimation was December of '86?

A. That's right. I mean, there were discussions off

and on from 1979 on with Flynn on settlement so --

Q. Now, at the outset, it was CSI's objective, was it

not, to preclude Armstrong from, if possible, from

continuing to lie about Hubbard and the church?

A. Well --

MR. BOWLES: Asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: I would phrase it that it was our

objective that there be peace. And it was our objective

that problems would not continue to be generated which

flowed from the lies he was telling. But there was also

conduct that would be involved, active assistance to

adverse litigants, that sort of thing. It was our

intention that there be a clean slate.

MR. GREENE: Q. Right.

A. Then we also have the difficulty of past usages of

his lies to deal with, which I think is where you're

going, but that's a different question.

Q. Now, in fact, did the whole project have the name

Operation Clean Slate?

 
 

351

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Heavens no. No, it didn't.

Q. Although clean slate was included in the language

of the settlement agreement?

A. I believe those words appear in the settlement

agreement.

Q. So then from the very onset of the settlement

discussions with Flynn, with respect to Armstrong and his

other clients, we covered that base, when did the --

settlement discussions with Flynn started in the summer of

1986. Was the scope inclusive of many, if not all of

Flynn's clients?

A. Well, either right at the beginning or shortly

thereafter.

Q. Okay.

A. The concept was a global settlement. The idea of a

complete break with no assistance came up, and I know I

said earlier from the get go. It was certainly right near

the get go.

Q. Right. And now the reason for that would be that

it wouldn't make any sense, for example, to get a

commitment from Armstrong not to talk or not to assist but

not to get one from Sullivan or Walters, it would just be

like sticking a finger in the dike if you didn't get all

of the ones that were uttering the lies about Scientology

and Hubbard; right?

 
 

352

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Well, that's certainly a logical reasoning.

Q. All right. Now, then, from pretty much the outset

CSI was saying to Flynn, we want confidentiality; right?

A. That's my understanding --

Q. Okay.

A. -- based on discussions I had within our side of

the settlement group.

Q. All right.

A. And just for clarification, at the time I was --

Q. It was CSC?

A. -- I was participating from CSC's perspective.

Q. Which is Church of Scientology of California?

A. Right.

Q. And also from the outset was included the objective

to obtain commitments of non-assistance; right?

A. In some form or another.

Q. And the non-assistance meant that what CSI/CSC

sought was to not have the signing individuals executing

declarations for other litigants voluntarily, among other

things; right?

A. Oh, what we sought was that they would stop what

they had been doing, which was going out of their way to

hire themselves out as hired guns concerning the church.

If they were compelled to testified by lawful process,

fine.

 
 

353

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Right.

A. But look upon it as a retirement of their activity

as hired guns.

Q. Right. You wanted to put the Flynn dog and pony

show to rest?

A. That's right. And unless compelled to do so by

lawful process. There was no need for it, in any case, in

any event. It was just created solely to destroy the

church. And we didn't think that destroying the church

was very pro-survival, to use the Scientology phrase,

thing to do.

Q. Particularly in light of the fact that what

Scientology's primary objective is is the freeing of human

beings; right?

A. Spiritually, yes, of course.

Q. Now, then the provision of non-amenability to

service of process meant, according to CSI, that Armstrong

was just what it said, not to make himself amenable to

service; right?

A. Not precisely. What it meant was that he was not

to go out of his way to voluntarily accept subpoenas just

to cover the fact of voluntarily complying, cooperating,

rendering his active assistance. For example, arranging

to be at a courthouse at a certain time just so that

someone could hand you a subpoena.

 
 

354

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

If he were subpoenaed through no active

participation on his own, so be it. He would need to, you

know, comport his behavior.

Q. You have no control over whether a court ordered

Scientology -- ordered Gerald Armstrong to appear and

testify?

A. No, of course. I mean, unless we objected, filed

for protective order, that sort of thing. But once the

court said the day is done, the man needs to testify, the

day is done, the man needs to testify.

Q. Now, in fact, there was a point where one of

Armstrong's violations, I believe, was having to do with

the first Yanny trial when he appeared and was served with

a subpoena; right?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, irrelevant. I mean, again,

this is all part of the cross-complaint that we had

stricken on motion in this case. And all you're really

doing here is try to litigation and gain discovery in

non-overlapping matters for the other matter.

MR. GREENE: You know, Mr. -- go ahead, I didn't

mean to interrupt you.

MR. BENZ: You're talking about --

MR. BOWLES: Violations of the settlement agreement

now.

MR. BENZ: Right. And violating of the settlement

 
 

355

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

agreement is the basis for the lawsuit here?

MR. GREENE: Absolutely.

MR. BOWLES: No, it's not. The basis for his

cross-complaint -- well, the basis for the plaintiff's

complaint here is fraudulent conveyance, which, if we win

this, will become a tool for collecting on successful

action in Los Angeles.

But the terms of the agreemen and the

circumstances of it are not directly relevant to this

litigation. Now, he's already pled in a cross-complaint

all of his alleged circumstances surrounding events after

the settlement agreements were entered, and that's what

he's getting into now, this so-called Yanny matter.

MR. BENZ: Well, is the question that you're

talking about now intended to be a violation of the

agreement, and as such, the basis upon which you're

claiming potential indebtedness?

MR. GREENE: Yes.

MR. BENZ: Then the objection is overruled.

THE WITNESS: Let's look at the complaint in the

breach action.

MR. GREENE: Q. I'm just asking you of your own

independent recollection.

A. I'd have to look at the document.

Q. So you don't have any independent recollection as

 
 

356

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you sit here today whether or not Armstrong's appearance

at the Yanny trial and accepting the subpoena was

considered by CSI to be a breach of the agreement?

A. That's not your question.

Q. That is my question.

A. No. Your question was whether it's included in the

suit. Whether a breach --

(Discussion off the record.)

THE WITNESS: Your question was whether it is

included in the suit, whether it was a breach that we sued

him for. And I said let's look at the document.

MR. GREENE: Q. Strike that. Does CSI consider

that a breach of the agreement?

A. Could I finish? Could I finish my statement, my

answer to your question?

Q. I withdraw that question. I think -- thank you for

helping me clarify it.

A. Okay. So do you now have a question?

Q. Of course I do.

A. Go ahead.

Q. What my question is is does CSI or did CSI consider

Armstrong's appearance at Yanny's trial in Los Angeles and

receipt of service of a subpoena to testify to be a

violation of the agreement?

A. Well, insofar as my personal observation of how he

   
 

357

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

received the subpoena seemed to have been a sham just to

assist his voluntary cooperation, yes.

Q. Okay.

A. However, whether it's in the complaint, we can

look, we've got copies.

Q. Now, and Joseph Yanny, just to get the little bit

of context, he was a former lawyer for Scientology; right?

A. He was a former lawyer for at least three

Scientology entities, yes.

Q. Right, for RTC?

A. Correct.

Q. And for CSI?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And for CSC?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, your current independent knowledge is that you

are not certain whether included in CSI's complaint in Los

Angeles against Armstrong as a cause of action is the

receipt of the subpoena, right, in Yanny?

A. I'm not certain.

Q. Okay.

A. I would lean toward probably not, but I'd have to

look at it.

Looks like you're about to go on. Do you want to

do lunch, or do you want to do his question first?

 
 

358

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Why don't we do lunch.

A. Okay.

Q. Can we do it in 45 minutes?

MR. BOWLES: No. Go off the record.

(Discussion off the record, followed by the

lunch recess.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Back on the record at

approximately 1:30.

Mr. Farny, you're still under oath.

A. I am.

Q. You made reference to Armstrong's settlement

agreement and the stipulation that we discussed, as well

as the indemnity agreement, as being part of a -- I

believe your term was package. I don't mean to

mischaracterize you.

My understanding was they were all really part of

the same transaction; is that fair to say?

A. That's fair to say.

Q. Now, also included in that transaction was an

affidavit or declaration signed by Armstrong; isn't that

right?

A. An affidavit or declaration, as I sit here, I don't

remember which it was. I tend to think it was a

declaration.

Q. A sworn statement in writing?

 
 

359

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Yes.

Q. Now, that sworn written statement, is the original

of that in the files of CSC, to your knowledge?

A. No, CSI.

Q. I'm sorry, CSI.

A. Yes, to my knowledge, it is.

Q. And that's maintained there at the Office of

Special Affairs?

A. Unless we filed the original somewhere and we have

maintained a copy, but I'm reasonable certain that we

still retained the original. I'm not 100 percent certain.

Q. Now, was there any discussion about under what

circumstances that written sworn statement would be filed

in conjunction with the settlement discussions pertaining

to Armstrong?

A. I seem to recall that there were, although I don't

recall specifics.

Q. Do you recall generalities?

A. The generality that there were discussions of

filing that at some point, but I'm not certain.

Q. Was that filed ultimately in litigation with the

Internal Revenue Service?

A. I'm not certain. I just don't remember.

Q. All right. Do you recall whether or not that

document was filed by CSI or some other Scientology

 
 

360

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

related entity?

MR. BOWLES: At any time?

MR. GREENE: At any time.

THE WITNESS: If it was filed, it would have been

filed by one of the Scientology entities that were a party

to this settlement, which was CSC, CSI, and perhaps

others.

MR. GREENE: Q. All right. Author Services was a

party to that settlement, too, wasn't it?

A. I don't remember. I think there were cases pending

against Author Services Incorporated that Flynn had that

were part of that overall settlement.

Q. And Author Services Incorporated, to your

knowledge, is the corporate entity which handles, at least

in part, Hubbard's writings; isn't that right, Mr.

Hubbard's writings?

A. It's the literary agent for his literary works,

yes.

Q. Now, to your knowledge, one of the primary people,

lawyers, on behalf of Scientology related groups that

participated in the settlement negotiations was Lawrence

Heller; right?

A. He was one of them that participated --

Q. He was one of them.

A.-- yes.

 
 

361

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. And you know Mr. Heller; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, Mr. Heller was present at the point

where Armstrong signed his settlement agreement; isn't

that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, as part of the-settlement package with respect

to Armstrong, was an agreement with Flynn whereby Flynn

would not represent people against Scientology in the

future included, to your knowledge?

A. Such an agreement was not part of the settlement

package with Gerald Armstrong.

Q. Was it part of the settlement package with Michael

Flynn?

A. My recollection is that Mike Flynn decided

unilaterally that he wanted to do something else with his

life. So I wouldn't characterize it as a term of any of

the agreements.

Q. Did Mr. Flynn, to your knowledge, ever make such a

representation, namely, that he would not in the future

represent individuals in litigation against Scientology?

A. I recall him making statements to the effect that

he wished to pursue other activities.

Q. To your knowledge, did any of the Scientology

related individuals or entities state to Flynn the desire

 
 

362

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that he no longer represent individuals in litigation

against Scientology?

A. We desired him to be in other areas of the legal

activities, as well.

Q. So were those concerns part of the settlement

discussions with Flynn?

A. Ours or his? His certainly were.

Q. And what about yours?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Now, those who participated in these discussions

included yourself; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Lawrence Heller?

A. Yes.

A. Earl Cooley?

A. Yes.

You're including the settlement group that was on

our side of the table, as well as people who directly

interfaced with Flynn?

Q. Yes.

A. Because I didn't directly interface with Flynn

during those negotiations.

Q. Right, right. Yes, I am.

In addition to those individuals already

enumerated, who else participated on your side of the

 
 

363

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

table?

A. Mike Sutter for CSI.

Marty Ratbin and David Miscavige for ASI and for

Mr. Hubbard's interests, insofar as he was a named

defendant in any of the suits.

Q. Now, the individual who was primarily responsible

for the interfacing with Michael Flynn was Lawrence

Heller; right?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Who was it?

A. Michael Hertzberg. Thank you, I forgot that name.

Q. So Michael Hertzberg --

A. Exactly. And I also remember Warren McShane from

Religious Technology Center was involved to a certain

degree.

Q. All right. Now, at this point does CSI have any

objection to Michael Flynn assisting Armstrong, if Flynn

so decided?

A. That calls for a legal conclusion I cannot make.

Q. No. I'm not asking you for a legal conclusion.

I'm just asking you for the position of the corporation

that you're here representing whether or not, as I said,

CSI has any objection against Flynn assisting Armstrong

should Flynn so decide.

A. We asked him twice to intervene and help calm

   
 

364

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

things down early on before this blew up completely. He

indicated that he had been unable to make any progress in

that regard. So I don't know if he'd have the ability to

do anything.

Q. I understand that's your opinion of Mr. Flynn's

ability. But my question is directed toward whether or

not CSI would have any objections to Flynn so representing

Armstrong should Flynn make that decision.

A. Well, I'm unaware of a position being articulated

on that beyond what I've said. I'm sorry. I just don't

know.

Q. So you have no objection at this time; right?

A. That isn't what I said. Move on. I said I don't

know. I haven't formulated a position. I said I didn't

know.

Q. All right.

A. Big difference.

Q. What would it take for you to make that decision?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, badgering the witness.

MR. BENZ: Well, I don't know about that, but it calls for

speculation.

THE WITNESS: It certainly does, sir. I'm not able

to make that speculation.

MR. BENZ: So I will sustain on the

ground of speculation, at least.

 
 

365

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: Q. You said that Flynn was asked

twice to intervene and calm things down before everything

really hit the fan, or that's my paraphrasing --

A. Close enough.

Q. -- when first did that take place? And I'll just

incorporate the questions when, who called Flynn, and what

did the person say, to your knowledge.

MR. BOWLES: To the extent that calls for

attorney-client privileged information, there is an

objection raised here.

THE WITNESS: One was in late '87 when there was

information appearing that had originated in the universe

of data that was associated with the Armstrong litigation.

It was appearing in Russell Miller's book, and

there was litigation contemplated, actually, initiated

concerning that. I did not participate in that one

directly. I heard that one after the fact. There was an

indication that nothing could be done, wasn't able to do

anything.

The second time was later, '88, '89 period. And,

again, I believe that time Michael Hertzberg called Mike

Flynn.

And then there was a third instance where Harry

Heller called Gerry directly. But that was the two times I

recalled with Flynn, because things were heating up in

 
 

366

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the late '89 period.

Q. All right. Let me ask you some more questions.

Now, when you're referring to Miller's book, that's the

book -- first of all, you're referring to Russell Miller;

is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the book, is that ultimately published as I

believe it's L. Ron Hubbard, Bald Faced Messiah?

A. Bare Faced Messiah.

Q. Bare Faced Messiah.

And that was litigation that was transpiring in

Great Britian; right?

A. Right.

Q. And that was brought by CSC?

A. I don't remember.

Q. And with respect to that, the concern was that

Miller had access to information which, in your

Scientology -- generally, if you can, if you can't, I know

you'll tell me -- view only could have been derived from

documents sealed in the Armstrong litigation; right?

A. Well, they could have been derived -- the

information could have been derived from documents that

made their way over there prior to the initial temporary

restraining order. But there were other documents that

appeared to have resulted from the trial that couldn't

 
 

367

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

have gotten out any other way. It was our perception that

they originated prior to the December '86 settlement. We

didn't have a sense that they had originated post-December

'86 in terms of new communications.

Q. All right.

A. Although, doubt was cast on that when we didn't

really get anything in response to our request that, hey,

how do we deal with this stuff, what do we do.

Whereas, we were perfectly free, pursuant to the

terms of the settlement agreement to say anything, it was

our desire at least some information go along that channel

of communication prior to having to jump in with both feet

over there.

And even at that point when there was nothing that

could be done, it would appear, we made an effort to

express things in just the purest form we could without

added aggravation.

Q. What do you mean by that, express things --

A. Ken Long's declaration is about as milk toast as it

could possibly express the facts that he was trying to

express. He could have gone on a serious roll. He

didn't.

Q. Right.

A. You know, the information was required to deal with

those false reports that were in that book in that

 
 

368

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

particular case.

It was all that was required, so the effort was

made to confine the remarks just to what was needed at the

time.

Q. When you make reference to false reports, that's

kind of a term of art, isn't it?

A. No.

Q. When you say false reports, you're talking about --

or is it fair to say that what you're referring to is an

inaccurate statement of fact?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you were working on the Armstrong

litigation, while posted within CSC --

A. Okay.

Q. -- working also with you was Ken Long; right?

A. That's right.

Q . And so you and Long worked together on Armstrong's

case that was ultimately tried in front of Judge

Breckenridge?

A. During various periods of time, yes.

Q. And then Ken Long was the individual who submitted,

I think, four declarations in the litigation in Great

Britian involving Russell Miller's book.

A. I don't remember if it was that many, but it was

definitely more than one, certainly.

 
 

369

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Now, when those declarations were submitted, did

you consult with Long prior to him drafting or him signing

that?

A. No, I did not.

Q. But you were aware that that was happening; right?

A. No, I became aware of that after the fact.

Q. After the fact.

A. I became aware of it in December.

Q. Of 1987?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Now, Ken Long currently works as a

paralegal within OSA, doesn't he?

A. Yes.

Q. How -- has he had it?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. What is his post?

A. He is responsible for working with lawyers dealing

with matters that are pre-litigation matters.

Q. So there's --

A. Problem resolution.

Q. -- if there's smoke on the horizon, part of his job

is to try to prevent it from turning into a fire.

A. Exactly.

Q. And he does so currently on behalf of CSI?

A. That's correct.

 
 

370

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Now, going to the second effort to communicate with

Michael Flynn -- actually, let me back up.

The first effort in 1987 regarding the Miller

litigation, do you know who it was that endeavored to

contact Flynn?

A. It was one of the lawyers. I'm not sure which one.

Q. And so when you say one of the lawyers, the

universe would be either Heller, Hertzberg or Cooley?

A. Right.

Q. No others?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. And among those three, would there be a most likely

candidate that you could estimate would be the one?

A. I'd have to guess. I'm sorry.

Q. Don't do that.

Now, with respect to the second effort, or actually the

second contact to Flynn, that was Hertzberg that made

that effort, to your knowledge; right?

A. I think so.

Q. Okay.

A. That's what I testified to a few

minutes ago.

Q. Right.

A. I'm pretty sure it was him. It may have been Earl,

but I'm pretty sure it was Michael.

Q. Now, that contact pertained to the Corydon

 
 

371

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

litigation; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Bent Corydon, he was another author; right? Or

at least he published a book.

A. Correct. Thank you.

MR. BOWLES: That's your characterization, Mr.

Greene.

MR. GREENE: Okay.

Q. And the book that he published was L.

Ron Hubbard, Madman or Messiah; right?

A. I get the two words in the title backwards.

Q. Something like that?

A. It's either that or they flipped around.

Q. Messiah or Madman, one of the two; right?

A. It's not that significant a book.

Q. Okay. And that book is permeated with false

reports, in your opinion; correct?

A. In my view, yes.

Q. When you made reference to matters starting to heat

up, which I understand to be in connection with the court

litigation, was more specifically what you were referring

to was the service of a deposition subpoena on Corydon's

behalf on Armstrong?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Okay.

 
 

372

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. No. Begin in June of '88, one of the things that

Joe Yanny said he was going to do if we didn't resolve

matters was do everything we can to undo all the Flynn

settlements.

And it was shortly after that that we started hearing

rumblings about them from Corydon's lawyers about

efforts they intended to make to unseal the files, to undo

the settlement agreements and such.

And I don't know if the subpoena had been served

yet when the effort was made to communicate with Mike

Flynn. Because subsequent to its service Larry Heller

spoke with Gerry Armstrong directly. So I'm not exactly

sure where it fits in sequence.

But the message we wanted to communicate was, let

us work together on this, let us not allow what we made in

December of '86 to blowup because of somebody else. We've

got a beef and he was just trying to create trouble.

Q. Corydon's lawyers were Toby Plebin and Paul

Morantz, M-o-r-a-n-t-z.

A. Yes.

Q. So given the timing, in your view Yanny was really

trying to stir it up and was having some effect because

all of a sudden then after that Morantz and Plebin started

making motions to unseal the file?

A. Either Yanny or Corydon, or Yanny with Corydon, or

   
 

373

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Yanny having gotten Corydon to do it, yes.

Q. Is it your understanding that the reason that

Hertzberg called Flynn was so as to seek Flynn's

assistance not to -- to prevent Yanny from being able to

screw up the benefits of the settlement?

A. Essentially.

Q. And when Hertzberg made this call, that was

essentially on behalf of all of the Scientology entities

that were the beneficiaries of the settlement; right?

A. I couldn't draw that conclusion. CSI was the one

who asked him to.

Q. All right. CSI asked Hertzberg to make the call?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And then CSI subsequently asked Heller

to call Gerry directly later on down the line?

A. My recollection is he volunteered.

Q. And CSI didn't object?

A. No.

Q. Now, when the call was made by Lawrence Heller to

Gerald Armstrong, one action which preceded said call was

the service of a deposition subpoena on Armstrong by

Corydon's lawyers; right?

A. Yeah, I guess so.

Q. Okay.

A. That's a long way around that question, though.

 
 

374

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Well, some of us --

A. Was it after Gerry was served with the

subpoena? Yes.

Q. That's a better way to put it. Thanks.

All right. And at that time there was a

recognition, was there not, within CSI that the benefits

of the settlement were jeopardized?

A. Hum, the potential existed depending upon the

reaction to it. If it was used as an excuse to get on a

soapbox and start launching on us, so to speak, yes.

Q. All right.

A. If it wasn't, and if the answers were confined to

the questions relevant to the issues legally obligated to

answer, then no.

Q. Now, in that same Corydon litigation Homer Schomer

was served with a deposition subpoena, too;-right?

A. That's correct. I'm glad you bring that up because

that was of difference. There was basically three of them,

there was Gerry's, there was Laurel Sullivan's and there

was Homer's.

(Discussion off the record.)

THE WITNESS: And there are three different

circumstances with each.

MR. GREENE: Q. Right.

A. Homer Schomer asked Larry Heller to represent him

 
 

375

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

so that he could insure of confining his remarks to that

which was legally proper, relevant, felt that he would be

compelled to answer. His was a viewpoint of open

cooperation with us.

We had made peace. He was friendly. We didn't

have anybody else to represent him.

Sullivan wasn't friendly, but in my view she

just -- she answered the questions. It was not

necessarily favorable testimony, no one particularly

enjoyed it, but she didn't go out of her way to start a

war again.

Gerry handled things differently. His I would put

on the other extreme.

Q. So you would characterize Gerry's testimony as that

which started a war again?

A. it certainly contributed to it. And also the

manner in which he was around to be served with a

subpoena, which I believe I covered earlier.

Q. That was basically making himself available; right?

A. Going out of his way to travel from Northern

California to Los Angeles and be there at the courthouse

and have the other lawyer come and meet him there. And it

was beyond that which he would legally be required to do.

He was going out of his way to start things. I'm sure he

had his reasons for doing so, but that's what occurred.

   
 

376

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

None of the three, by the way, had really any

direct knowledge of Corydon's case, which was the whole

point.

Q. Now, so that we're clear, did Gerald travel twice

to Los Angeles so as to be available for service of

process to testify, or was it once? Did he do so both in

Yanny and Corydon?

A. No, no, no. His traveling to Los Angeles was for

the Yanny case, I'm sorry.

Q. So you're wrong there; right?

A. I misspoke, yeah.--Thanks.

If that was the subject of his note, he got it

right. No, that was the Yanny case; that's correct.

I don't remember how the subpoena got served in

Corydon, come to think of it. I mixed the two up. Sorry.

Q. You too?

A. Decidedly so.

Q. All right, now --

A. Because it was part of the same thing, you see. I

think it was at the hearing concerning his deposition in

the Corydon case that Rick Wing showed up with the Yanny

case subpoena. That's why I got the two muddled.

Q. Okay.

A. Sorry.

Q . So insofar as Armstrong's conduct was concerned,

   
 

377

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you considered the two instances wherein he was available

for service of process to be similar, that he was making

himself available?

A. Well, I don't know on Corydon if he was making

himself available or not. It was more his reaction to it

and his reaction to Laurie's call that indicated that all

was not well on the home front. It certainly didn't rise

to the level of us running down to the court to sue him.

Q. Right.

A. Which, you know, it took a lot of activity before

we finally said, okay, this isn't something we're going to

resolve, we've got to enforce.

Q. What is your knowledge of Heller's conversation

with Armstrong?

A. Just what Larry told me.

Q. And what was that?

MR. BOWLES: It's attorney-client privilege.

Objection.

MR. GREENE: Q. So then at that point Larry Heller was

acting as counsel for CSI; right?

A. One or more of the settling parties, including CSI,

yes.

Q. So that would include CSI, CSC perhaps; right?

A. Perhaps.

Q. RTC?

 
 

378

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A.I'm not certain.

Q. ASI?

A. I think so, because I think he was in the Corydon

case for ASI.

Q. So in that regard you had discussions with Heller

pertaining to what was going on with Armstrong; right?

MR. BOWLES: We're not going to get into the

content of his conversations with Heller.

THE WITNESS: I think I can safely say that without a

problem.

MR. GREENE: Q. Yeah, without --

A. Yes, that's why I'm evoking the privilege.

Q. Now, ultimately Larry Heller's efforts to cool

as to Armstrong didn't pan out; right?

A. That's a pretty fair statement.

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

as, I think it's Defendant's 18.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 18 marked.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Now, when Heller's efforts to cool

things out with Armstrong in the Corydon litigation didn't

pan out, he moved for protective order; right?

A. He filed a motion on behalf of Author Services

Incorporated, yes.

Q. And that's what Exhibit 18 is; correct?

A. Let me finish looking through it. It appears to

 
 

379

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

be, certainly.

Q. Take your time and look through it.

A. Perhaps you can help me. I see a reference to

Homer Schomer's subpoena. I don't see a reference to

Gerry's, unless I'm just going totally blind here. I see

a reference in the beginning that says certain third party

depositions, but I don't see the reference to Gerry.

Q. All right.

A. Maybe you can point me to a particular passage.

Q. All right. Well, let me proceed here. You may

be right.

Homer Schomer, as you said he was one of the people

who was subpoenaed in the Corydon litigation; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Exhibit 18 actually is a motion for protective

orders as to Schomer, not as to Armstrong, you're right, I

stand corrected.

A. -- expressed in the plural, motion blah, blah, blah

to delay or prevent the taking of certain third party

depositions.

Q. Depositions.

A. Plural.

Q. Let's approach it this way.

A. I can only see reference to Schomer.

Q. Okay. The third party depositions that were

 
 

380

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

involved in the Corydon litigation, as you said, were

Sullivan, Armstrong and Schomer?

A. Yes, but I don't know as of the date this was filed

which one of -- which one or more of them would have been

in play.

Q. All right. CSI's concerns with respect to the

depositions of those three individuals was generally the

same, wasn't it, namely, all of them had signed settlement

agreements; right?

A. Well, our concerns were different depending upon

what time we're talking about in the process. I'd say our

concerns with respect to Mr. Armstrong's were

heightened --

Q. Right.

A. -- and even more so than our concerns with respect

to Homer Schomer's --

Q. Right.

A. -- because of the way the two of them reacted to

the process.

Q. I understand that.

A. And as regards Laurel Sullivan's --

Q. She was in the middle?

A. -- I think indifference is probably the best

description.

Q. What each of those three people had in common was

 
380
 

381

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

they had signed settlement agreements in December of '86,

at least; right?

A. Yeah.

Q. I'm sorry. One thing that each one of them had in

common was that each of them had been signatories in the

December '86 settlement agreements with Flynn?

A. That's one of the things. The other thing is that

none of them knew buckus about Ben Corydon.

Q. And each one of them had been served in Corydon,

right, they also shared that in common?

A. Yes.

Q.. Now, you were aware that Lawrence Heller was

seeking a protective order to delay or prevent the taking

of third party depositions; right?

A. Certainly.

Q. And you were aware of Mr. Heller's intention to do

that before the actual motion was filed and served,

weren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware of that in the capacity of your

post within OSA legal, weren't you?

A. CSI was.

Q. Sorry?

A. CSI was a defendant in the case, as well as Author

Services Incorporated.

 
 

382

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Okay.

A. The defense team spoke with one another on

occasion.

Q. Okay. All right.

A. So, yeah.

Q. Do you recall whether or not CSI joined in the

motion brought by Mr. Heller on behalf of Author Services?

A. We may have. I don't remember.

Q. The motion brought by Mr. Heller, however, was with

the knowledge and consent of CSI, was it not?

MR. BOWLES: Objection.

THE WITNESS: It certainly was with our knowledge I don't

know whether it required our consent.

MR. GREENE: Q. Okay.

A. It was with our knowledge, yes.

Q. Okay. And there was no objection to the motion,

was there?

A. No.

Q. Based on your involvement in the pre-settlement

planning and negotiation, the two primary attorneys

involved were Michael Hertzberg and Lawrence Heller;

right?

MR. BOWLES: Asked and answered before.

THE WITNESS: Michael Hertzberg's role was probably

paramount because he was the major interface with Michael

 
 

383

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Flynn up until the very end. As far as input into the

decision making process, I'd say the three lawyers I

mentioned before were all, all of them, involved, each on

behalf of their respective clients, et cetera.

Q. All right. Now, one of the objectives of the

universal settlements was to resolve all Wollersheim like

cases; right?

MR. BOWLES: Objection to form. What do you mean by

"Wollersheim like cases"?

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you understand the question?

A. I believe you're referring to an analogy expressed

in Mr. Heller's papers --

Q. Right, indeed I am.

A. -- at page four, line one. I guess I could read

it. And it was probably an accurate description if you

take into account the entire description of what is meant

by that, the tremendous time and financial burden which

litigation of this nature placed not only upon the

litigants and their attorneys but the courts involved, as

well. So I would say yes.

Q. And Wollersheim like cases refers to where former

Scientology staff members or parishioners instituted

litigation against Scientology; right?

A. No, not solely, that's too simplistic.

Q. Such characterization would be included, however;

 
 

384

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

isn't that right?

A. But merely to say yes would be too simplistic. It

would change the definition.

The Wollersheim like cases was one of these where you had a

stable of professional witnesses, without regard to the

merits of a particular case or even the facts, go around

try to trash the church from courtroom to courtroom to

courtroom. It was one of those types of cases.

Merely somebody having a dispute, filing a suit,

the suit gets resolve -- having a dispute, the suit gets

filed, the dispute gets

resolved, the suit gets resolved, I wouldn't describe as a

Wollersheim like case.

And since those two areas of activity are so widely

disparate, they're really to the exclusion of each other,

they both would fit within what you said. So that's why I

can't adopt that characterization.

Q. All right. Now, directing your attention back to

the characterization of Gerald Armstrong as a squirrel,

included as a basis for such characterization was the

assertion that he offered false testimony to the IRS. I'm

looking at the third paragraph below the list of names.

Right?

A. It says in that paragraph, "Some of these squirrels

have offered false testimony to the IRS in order to

 
 

385

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

protect their overts against mankind and their only way

out of this universe."

Q. That's correct. So let me ask you some questions

about that paragraph, if I may, as it relates to Gerald

Armstrong. Is that all right?

A. Except that I'm not sure as of September 1984

whether he had given such testimony. It does say some of

them. If he had, fine. I'm pretty sure he had, so we can

proceed and I'll do the best I can.

Q. All right. Hal Lipkin of the IRS; right?

A. That wouldn't be testimony. It would be,

information.

Q. Information?

A. Right.

Q. False testimony here is testimony, to your

knowledge, used in the legal sense or in a more generic

sense?

A. You got me.

Q. Based on --

A. My guess would be legal, because false testimony

implies perjurious conduct rather than merely lies. And I

think if it was merely lies, we would have said lies or

false statements.

Q. Well, it's your view, is it not, that Armstrong

testified falsely in the course of Armstrong One, isn't

 
 

386

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it?

A. Yes.

Q. And his declarations contained perjurious lies?

A. Yes. And I'm aware of those going to the IRS, so

yes, this paragraph would apply to him.

Q. Now, would you explain to me what your

understanding is of the meaning of the phrase "in order to

protect their overts against mankind"?

A. Each of these individuals had been in a position of

trust with regard to the religion of Scientology.

Gerry had been. in a position of trust with regards to the

personal archives of the founder of the religion.

Kima, Dee Dee, John Nelson, Laurel Sullivan and

David Mayo all had positions of trust, some quite senior

to the position Armstrong had.

What this phrase means is that each of these

individuals committed harmful acts, an overt is a harmful

act, against Scientology in violation of that trust,

rather serious harmful acts to wind them up in the

position that they were in as of the 20th of September,

1984.

Well, it makes those destructive acts a lot more

palatable if one can get the IRS to come down on the

church, and that's what's meant by that.

These people were providing false information to

 
 

387

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the IRS in order to make less of or destroy that which

they had committed serious harmful acts concerning.

Because, otherwise, the severity of their acts if viewed

in the cold light of day would have been very difficult

for them to face. This made it easier for them to face.

In other words, just to give you an example, get in

an argument with a guy, you punch him in the mouth, ah, he

was a bum anyway, makes it easier than if it was a

70-year-old woman who was hobbling in a cane and you

knocked her out.

Q. Right. I think I understand what you mean.

A. All right.

Q. Just like the objectification of something, if you

make it a little bit less than human, it's a heck of a lot

easier to abuse it; right?

A. That's what I'm talking about. The motivation for

that being the harmful acts you have committed against

that which you are trying to dehumanize. It's -- the

dehumanization is to excuse and make less of the severity

of your harmful destructive acts.

Q. Indeed, it's a manner of self-deception; isn't it?

A. Certainly. You could call it that.

Q. It would be like me lying to myself if I'm going to

hurt somebody else and I say to -- I come up with some

demeaning label that makes that person less than a full

 
 

388

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

human being, then it's, aw, didn't really hurt them anyway

because they weren't really human, something like that?

A. Similar, yes.

Q. Now, directing your attention, still with respect

to that paragraph on the phrase "overts against mankind,"

is it correct to say that since part of the affect of

Scientology is the freeing of mankind, that acts that are

harmful to Scientology are harmful to mankind?

What my question is, is that what this phrase

means, essentially?

A. Why don't you ask me what does this phrase mean?

Q. I'll take your suggestion. What does the phrase

"overts against mankind" mean?

A. What it's referring to is the harmful acts that

individuals committed were of such severity because

of the importance of their positions, some less than

others, that it was an overt against mankind, it was a

harmful act against mankind.

Q. And the reason that it was a harmful act against

mankind is connected with the good that Scientology does

for mankind; isn't that right?

A. Of course.

Q. And that's a matter of ultimate ecclesiastical

concern; isn't it?

A. Yes.

 
 

389

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Now, directing your attention to the last section

of that sentence where it says, "Their only road out of

this universe."

Could you explain what that means?

A. It is a belief within the church that one can rise

to a certain level of spirituality and awareness where one

is no longer confined to the laws, trials and tribulations

connected with the physical universe. It is our belief

that we provide a road out of the trap where the physical

universe is.

We're getting into really ecclesiastical matters

here, but what this sentence means is that they were

committing overts, harmful acts against not only mankind

but their own spiritual progress, their own spirituality,

their own peace of mind on a cosmic scale, I guess.

Q. So then would it be fair to say they really kind of

cut-off like their spiritual nose -- no, that's the wrong

way to put it. That by their overts, not only did they

hurt Scientology and mankind, but they hurt themselves,

too?

A. Without a question.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the -- oh, excuse

me, still on this paragraph.

In what litigation had Armstrong filed or submitted

written declarations that then went to the IRS?

 
 

390

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Actually --

A. Armstrong One.

Q. I'm going to withdraw that. Let me withdraw that.

That's a lousy question.

A. You got an answer to it, though. I gave you the

answer.

Q. Let me clean it up.

Earlier you said that declarations executed by

Armstrong went to the IRS and therefore that was offering

of false testimony which caused Armstrong to fall within

the scope of this paragraph that we're discussing.

My question is what declarations, if you can tell

me?

A. My recollection is Armstrong One case and Burdon.

(Short recess.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Going back to overts for

something, I mean, for a minute, the term overts against

mankind, that's overts as used -- this would be the same

thing as what's referred to in the Scientology Technical

Dictionary as an overt act, wouldn't it be?

A. Let me see the dictionary.

Q. Sure.

MR. BOWLES: Your counsel is handing a copy of a

hardbound dictionary to the witness.

This is what, this is a Scientology Technical

 
 

391

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Dictionary?

MR. GREENE: Yes, it is.

THE WITNESS: I was using definition two, although

one and, to a lesser degree three would apply as well.

MR. GREENE: Q. All right. So each one of the

definitions set forth in the technical dictionary more or

less would apply; right?

A. More or less. I think, though, that number one

would probably apply most.

Q. Okay. Would you read the definition into the

record, please? All three.

A. Okay. One, "An overt act is not just injuring

someone or something, an overt act is an act of omission

or commission which does the least good for the least

number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number

of dynamics," and there's a citation for that. You don't

want me to read the citations, do you?

Q. No.

A. Two, "An intentionally committed harmful act

committed in an effort to resolve a problem," and another

citation.

Three, "That thing which you do which you aren't

willing to have happen to you," and another citation.

Q. Thank you.

Okay. Directing your attention now to the next

 
 
 

392

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

paragraph of Exhibit 15 where in a full sentence it says,

"Several of them have misrepresented Scientology practices

to the FBI or justice department in a futile attempt to

taint the minds of the government and the courts against

the Church Scientology."

Based on your knowledge, would conduct that Gerald

Armstrong engaged in fall within the scope of the

definition of that sentence?

A. Probably.

Q. Okay.

A. Although I think what was being referred to at the

time specifically was some specific false testimony some

of these others gave which was used in the CSC v. Linberg

case by the justice department.

Q. Now, do you know whether or not any of Armstrong's

declarations were submitted to the FBI or justice?

A. I don't remember. I think so.

Q. When reference is made in this paragraph to "a

futile attempt to taint the minds of the government and

the courts against the Church of Scientology," would it be

fair to say that inclusive in such efforts were

allegations that have commonly come to be known as

Scientology's so-called practice of fair game?

A. Are you asking me if such allegations were included

within the specific misrepresentations referred to in this

 
 

393

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

paragraph?

Q. No, I think I"m actually asking you a more general

question first.

A. Would you do it again?

MR BOWLES: Rephrase it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me rephrase it, try and make

it better.

A. Okay.

Q. Would you consider individuals accusing Scientology

of practicing something called fair game as being included

as an attempt to taint the minds of government and the

courts against Scientology?

A. Depends on to whom they made the allegation and

when.

Q. If it was made in the course of litigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I believe as Exhibit 16 in front of you --

that's it, okay?

A. Do you need this one anymore?

Q. Yes, we will.

A. All right.

Q. Would you identify Exhibit 16, please.

A. It's a piece of paper with some writing on it

purporting to bear a date of 18 October 1967.

Q. And that particular exhibit is -- you've seen that

 
 

394

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

document before, haven't you?

A. You all have filed it before.

Q. And you've also seen it filed in other litigation,

as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's what purports to be the fair game

policy; right?

A. No.

Q. No?

A. No. There was a specific policy letter called the

fair game law that during the brief window of time that

the term fair game was used in the church, not as you

people define it --

Q. Okay.

A. -- described the fair game doctrine.

Q. This one is entitled penalties for lower

conditions; right?

A. That's what it says.

Q. And there is an HCO policy letter of 18 October,

1967; right?

A. It's a document that has those words on it. It's

not a policy letter that's church policy or that has been

church policy since the '60's, if indeed this particular

document ever was.

Q. I understand that. And in that regard I'd like to

 
 

395

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

direct your attention to Exhibit 17.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you recognize Exhibit 17?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And Exhibit 17 is a single page document that's

entitled HCO policy letter of 21 October, 1968; right?

A. Correct.

Q. And that document is entitled cancellation of fair

game; correct?

A. That's also correct.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the last paragraph

of Exhibit 16, the one that says, "Enemy" -- where it

says, "SP order, fair game" -- "may be deprived of

property or injured by any means by any Scientologist

without any discipline of the Scientologist, may be

tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

Now, that's what it says in this document; right?

A. It's what it says in that document, but we're not

necessarily talking about the same thing in the

cancellation of fair game. There was a specific policy

letter called the fair game law and there was another

policy letter issued at the same time in 1965 explaining

what it was and its genesis. This is not that. This

being Exhibit 16.

Q. Well, let's talk about Exhibit 16 a little bit.

 
 

396

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Now, the condition that is labeled liability, do you see

that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, liability is a condition that is included

within the doctrine of ethics used within Scientology, is

it not?

A. Liability is one of the operating conditions

described in our ethics system.

Q. Yes.

A. It is not described in the manner in this document.

Q. I'm not asking you that.

A. Which, as I've said, if it ever was -- and I've

never been able, by the way, to verify the accuracy of

this particular document, but in any event, it would have

become a nullity in October of 1968.

Q. That's fine. No. I understand that.

A. Approximately a year before Gerry got involved in

Scientology at all, if I remember correctly.

Q. I know. You know, I'm just asking you some

questions.

A. Yeah, but you're asking some questions about

something that isn't. Why don't you ask me questions

about something that is.

This is the sort of nonsense we get in litigation where you

take words and try and twist them around with

 
 

397

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ancient writings that have nothing whatsoever to do with,

one, the fraudulent conveyance at issue in this case, which

we still haven't mentioned today, or, two, the litigation

involving Gerry Armstrong.

You want to bring out the original documents that

described what fair game was during its brief, brief

incarnation, all of which occurred prior to Gerry

Armstrong's involvement in Scientology, I'd be happy to

discuss that with you, and the cancellation, and the

reasons for the cancellation.

But I'm not going to have isolated little bits and

pieces of paper that neither you, nor I, nor anybody can

even verify was authentic 30 years ago when it purports to

have been written and have you make statements about my

church on the basis of that. I'm just not going to do

that.

Q. Okay.

A. So if you want to talk about fair game, since

you've used that in such ominous tones throughout the

deposition, I'd be more than happy to. This is not that.

So I don't know what you want.

Q. To ask you another question.

A. Okay.

Q. All right. My next question for you is that within

the doctrine of Scientology ethics, isn't it true that

 
 

398

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

there's a condition that's known as treason?

A. There are conditions of treason, doubt, enemy,

liability and several others. This is not the formula one

applies in order to deal with those conditions.

Q. I'm not not asking you that.

A. It just isn't.

No what you're-saying-is--- it's just a false

syllogism. You're asking me A, B, C and D and then

jumping to Z as the conclusion.

Q. Okay.

A. Yes, these are ethic conditions. Yes, there was at

one time a doctrine called fair game. Yes, there is such

a thing as an suppressive person disclaimer. That doesn't

make this church policy.

Q. Okay.

A. It's just lawyer word games on your part. And we

can play them all day if you want. It's just going to

make the court reporter tired.

Q. Well, I appreciate that this is an item that makes

you feel defensive.

A. I don't feel defensive at all, Ford. I just don't

want you to waste your time trying to construct a house of

cards that evaporates at the first -- actually, the

sensible question is, is this or has this at any time in

the last 20 years been a policy of the Church of

 
 

399

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Scientology. The answer to which is no, then it doesn't

allow you to build your little house of cards.

Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Farny, to your knowledge

was Exhibit 16 ever submitted in evidence in Armstrong

One?

A. Probably. One of his favorite things.

Q. Okay.

A. Doesn't make it real.

Q. Now, the initials SP, those initials refer to a

suppressive person; isn't that right?

A. I don't know what they refer to here. I've heard

them used and they're generally used in that manner, yes.

Q. Now, directing your attention to Exhibit 17.

A. Um-hum.

Q. Okay. Where SP is used at the end of the last

sentence.

A. Yes.

Q. The use of SP there refers to suppressive person,

does it not?

A. It does, but you -- I know where you're going with

this. You say this policy letter does not cancel any

policy on the treatment or handling of an SP, so you get

magical and you whip out this penalty for lower conditions

and you say, aha, this is the treatment and handling of an

SP, it was never cancelled, ergo, you guys are bad people.

 
  400

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

It's nonsense. That isn't how it goes.

Q. Right. And it makes you angry, doesn't it?

A. It makes me angry to see you constantly try and use

this tactic, which you tried in the Azoran case and you

try here and he tried in Armstrong One, to take advantage

and use as a litigation ploy. It's built on lies.

Q. Right.

A. It's nonsense and you know it.

Q. That's right. And it's all false, right,

Scientology has never had anything that

is like what Exhibit 16 purports to be?

A. Certainly not in my experience.

Q. Right. Okay.

And isn't it true that part of the reason why you

believe Gerald Armstrong to be a suppressive person is

because he has asserted that Scientology practices fair

game within the meaning of Exhibit 16?

A. Me personally?

Q. Yeah.

A. No. He tried to destroy the reputation of the

greatest man who ever walked the face of this earth, that

makes him a suppressive person. The rest is just

litigation games, as far as I'm concerned.

Q. And then in the view of CSI, the reason that

Armstrong sought to destroy the representation of L. Ron

 
 

401

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Hubbard was because Armstrong really couldn't cut the

mustard so far as Scientology is concerned; isn't that

right?

A. Armstrong was an incompetent researcher. He got to

the first --

(Discussion off the record.)

THE WITNESS: Armstrong was an incompetent

researcher. He had no idea what he was doing. He gets to

the first hurdle and gives up. And rather than actually

putting his nose to the grindstone and pulling the string

the entire way and finding out what the truth is, he left,

and then he realized what he did. And his only hope of

keeping his sanity was to try and destroy that which he

had abandoned.

MR. GREENE: Q. Right. And that which he had

abandoned was allegiance to L. Ron Hubbard; right?

A. That, and a set of operating principles and

philosophies and a way of living his life and the

spiritual progress one can make in Scientology, certainly.

Q. Right. He abandoned the technology; right?

A. Certainly did.

Q. And that was his only path out of the constraints

of this physical universe; isn't that right?

A. If he wants to abandon that path, that's between

him and his progress as a spiritual being, that's a

 
 

402

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

decision that's entirely his own to make. If he chooses

not to believe that Scientology is that path, that's his

decision to make.

What is wrong is to pervert that which he was

entrusted, which to try and reap financial gain in order

to excuse the fact that he cannot come to grips with the

fact that he has abandoned that. If he doesn't want to be

a Scientologist, I could care not a wit, I don't even

really care.

Q. All right. All right. What he does which is wrong

is that he can't stomach not being a Scientologist and be

accountable for that all by himself and he has to take it

out by painting Scientology with a black brush; isn't that

right?

A. If that's where he's operating from, his solution

is pretty obvious. I won't make that characterization.

In my view, probably, but that's something only he can

answer.

Q. But that's your opinion of Armstrong, isn't it?

A. My opinion is irrelevant.

Q. That's CSI's opinion, isn't it?

A. CSI is a corporation. It doesn't have an opinion.

Q. Well, CSI issues squirrel declares, doesn't it?

A. No. CSI issues suppressive person declares.

Q. But it also issued the squirrel order that's

 
 

403

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Exhibit 15, didn't it?

A. Certainly, it did. Certainly, it did. We already

covered that.

Q. That's right. And that's what I'm asking you

about, Mr. Farny.

A. Ask me a question about that.

Q. I did.

A. Okay. And what is your question?

Q. And my question is, isn't it true that in CSI's

view what's wrong with Armstrong is that he did not have

and does not have this spiritual wherewithal to cut the

mustard according to Scientology technology and therefore

has got to basically discredit Scientology in order to

keep his own sanity?

A. I don't think that's CSI's view necessarily. It's

his conduct that CSI objects to. His making of an

agreement in good faith on both sides and then keeping the

money and violating that agreement, and while at the same

time making himself judgment proof. Those are the

parameters of the current dispute.

Whether or not what you said correctly represents

his state of mind or my personal opinion about his state

of mind really doesn't matter in the litigation.

What matters in the litigation is the specific

conduct that violated the terms of the agreement, and that

   
 

404

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

he sought to make himself judgment proof concerning, that

are at issue in both of cases. That's the only parameters

of the dispute, you see.

Q. My question to you is whether or not the view that

I expressed is that which CSI holds towards Gerald

Armstrong, that's the question.

A. I don't know that the corporation necessarily holds

that view. I can't speak for the other officers and

directors what view they hold. I just -- it's not a

question.

Q. It is a question.

A. He seems to be -- well, it is a question, but it's

just not a question that can be answered.

Q. It's not a question that you're willing to answer?

MR. BOWLES: He didn't say that. He said --

THE WITNESS: No, not necessarily. I'd be willing

to answer it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Would you answer the question,

please.

A. Yes. As phrased, no, that isn't our view. No. As

phrased what I described as the specific conduct on his

part that's at issue in the litigation is probably the

only view that CSI as a corporation has because that's the view

we've expressed through our communications filed in

the lawsuit.

 
 

405

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. CSI's view towards Armstrong is not restricted only

to matters which have been expressed in the course of the

lawsuit, though; isn't that right?

A. No, we've expressed views in terms of the media.

Q. And you've expressed views in terms of your own

in-house communications, haven't you?

A. Well, certainly, this exhibit here is one such.

MR. BOWLES: You're referring to which --

THE WITNESS: The 1984 document, but the view in

1984 isn't necessarily the view in 1994.

MR. GREENE: Q. Well, let me ask you this, Mr.

Farny. Gerald Armstrong's overts have not gotten any

better from 1984 to 1994, have they?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague. Have overts gotten

better? Can you explain what you're talking about?

THE WITNESS: His ability to do harm is less now

because he has an audience.

MR. GREENE: Q. He may have less of an audience,

but his motivations are just as evil as they were before;

is that right?

A. I can't speak for his motivations. I've read his

declarations. I can't speak for his motivations.

Q. And his declarations, in your view, are saturated

with falsehood; isn't that right?

A. They contain falsehoods.

 
 

406

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. There's a lot of falsehood; right?

A. Sure.

Q. And that falsehood directly attacks Scientology,

does it not?

A. All of the falsehoods probably fall into that

category, yeah. We're not talking about General Motors

here.

Q. No, we're talking about the Scientology

organization.

A. Yes.

Q. CSI doesn't like that; isn't that right?

A. How can a corporation like or not like something?

Come on man. What we have --

Q. Don't play games with me, Mr. Farny.

A. Is that a question, sir?

MR. BOWLES: Wait a minute, objection. This is

getting to be badgering. Philosophical.

MR. BENZ: Sustained. If you have a question, ask

it.

MR. BOWLES: Let's get down to some facts here, Mr.

Greene.

MR. GREENE: Okay.

Q. Part of CSI's corporate purpose is to protect the

purity of Scientology technology, is it not?

A. Sounds more like a description of Religious

 
 

407

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Technology center's purpose but that is among one of the

things we do, yes.

Q. All right. And included within the scope of doing

so is addressing false reports regarding Scientology;

isn't that true?

A. Sure.

Q. And false reports have originated from Gerald

Armstrong; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And part of what CSI's corporate purpose is is to

rectify those false reports that have come from Armstrong

about Scientology; isn't that right?

A. It would be such a small area of activity, but no

one else would be doing it.

Q. That's what part of the purpose of the lawsuit is;

isn't it?

A. This one that we're in? The purpose of the lawsuit

that we're in here is to freeze the fraudulent conveyances

so when we win in L.A. we can collect them.

Q. The purpose of the lawsuit in L.A. is that; is that

right?

A. No. The purpose of the lawsuit in L.A. is to gain

back that which we bargained for and paid dearly for in

1986.

Q. And what you bargained for and paid dearly for in

 
 

408

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1986 was the ability to stop false reports coming from

Armstrong; isn't that right?

A. That was certainly one of the things, yes. Do you

have an objection to the truth?

Q. Of course not.

MR. BOWLES: Next question. Next question.

MR. GREENE: Tell your witness.

MR. BOWLES: I'm telling you, Mr. Greene. Don't

get into arguments with the witness. Just ask the next

question.

MR. GREENE: I'm not getting into arguments --

MR. BOWLES: Yes, you are.

MR. GREENE: -- Mr. Bowles. And thank you very

much for your comments.

Q. Now, directing your attention back to Exhibit 15 --

A. Fifteen.

Q. -- and looking at the last paragraph on page one.

A. "Therefore, be it known"?

Q. Oops, I'm sorry. Looking at the paragraph that

starts, "They have turned."

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Would you read that paragraph into the

record, please.

A. "They have turned from ethical and moral

Scientology principles by demanding no ethics be applied

 
 

409

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to them or by them."

Q. According to your knowledge, did Gerald Armstrong

fall within the scope of this paragraph?

A. I don't know.

Q. Armstrong had turned from Scientology; right?

A. Well, certainly that part.

Q. And he had rejected Scientology's ethics, hadn't

he?

A. Certainly.

Q. And he had rejected Scientology's moral principles

as well, hadn't he?

A. That was obvious. Certainly.

Q. And he basically had said, I don't want any of this

stuff applied on me, didn't he?

A. I suppose so. I just couldn't think of a specific

instance that came to mind that would fit within that

paragraph but, yes, I would suppose so.

Q. And at least Armstrong's statements with respect to

the past credentials and accomplishments of L. Ron Hubbard

would fall within the scope of this paragraph, wouldn't

it?

A. I think it falls within the next paragraph more

than this one.

Q. But it falls within this one as well, doesn't it?

A. I don't know. If you think so, fine.

 
 

410

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Well, I'm not answering the questions.

A. I didn't write this. The document is over 10 years

old. I don't know. I would guess it would seem so.

Q. At the time this document was originated, who was

the commanding officer of OSA International?

A. Mike Sutter.

(Short recess.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Now, directing your attention to

the settlement agreement --

MR. BOWLES: Do you have it in as an exhibit?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

MR. GREENE: Q. What I'd like to do, Mr. Farny,

what I was going to say -- ask you whether or not this is

all right with you, I want to ask you questions about the

meaning of people adverse to or aligned against

Scientology.

A. It would help if I had a copy of the agreement in

front of me --

Q. Okay. We'll, get a copy then.

A. -- not necessarily as an exhibit but just to

refresh.

Q. Okay, that's fine.

(Off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Looking at 7-G on 10.

A. 7-G.

 
 

411

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Okay. Now, the first sentence wherein it states,

"Plaintiff agrees that he will not voluntarily assist or

cooperate with any person adverse to Scientology in any

proceeding against any of the Scientology organizations,

individuals or entities listed in paragraph one above."

A. Okay.

Q. All right. Now --

MR. BOWLES: Excuse me, just for the record, I

understood that you already went through all this before

on prior days; is that right?

MR. GREENE: You understand wrong.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Tim, that's not right.

MR. BOWLES: Okay. Proceed.

MR. GREENE: Q. Now, the meaning of the terms "Any

person, adverse to Scientology," was it the intent of CSI

to include within the scope of that someone who was not in

agreement with Scientology's aims?

A. That as its only criteria in a vacuum?

Q. Whether that was one of the criteria.

A. That's -- it makes it too vague to answer. I can

answer it the other way.

Q. What's your other way?

A. If that is -- if that is the only criteria that

they just don't happen to agree with us, no, it would not

fit.

 
 

412

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. All right.

A. The way it would fit is expressed in the first

sentence of paragraph G is, "Any person who is either a

plaintiff or defendant or intending to become one," like

in actively proceed toward becoming one in litigation or

arbitration.

Q. Then why didn't you just plainly state that in this

agreement?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, calls for a legal

conclusion.

MR. GREENE: No, it doesn't.

MR. BOWLES: Sure it does. He's asking this man

why or why not --

THE WITNESS: That's what it says.

MR. BOWLES: -- a legal agreement was written the

way it was written.

THE WITNESS: It says, "Any person adverse to

Scientology in any proceedings against any of the

Scientology organizations."

MR. BENZ: I'm going to sustain the objection.

MR. GREENE: On interpreting what the intent of the

parties is with respect to one of the central provisions

of the agreement.

MR. BENZ: I have no objection to that question on

the intent, but you're not asking intent, you're asking

 
 

413

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the witness why he didn't put some language in there. I'm

not certain that he was the only author of this. And it

is a document that apparently was drafted in collaboration and

is an end to litigation. And so why someone didn't do

something else I don't believe is an appropriate question.

You can certainly ask what the meaning was.

MR. GREENE: Okay.

Q. Now, in your view, for example in the Corydon

litigation where Armstrong testified as a witness, he was

adverse to Scientology, was he not?

A: He being Corydon?

Q. Armstrong.

A. He was, but not within the meaning expressed in

this first sentence of paragraph 7-G.

Q. So what you're telling me is that the intent of 7-G

was that no person -- that Armstrong should not cooperate

with any person who was a party to litigation with

Scientology; is that right?

MR. BOWLES: He's already testified to something else, Mr.

Greene, so don't put words in his mouth.

MR. GREENE: I'm asking him a direct question, Mr.

Bowles. That's hardly --

MR. BOWLES: You're already asked and answered it.

You've already got an answer to that question.

THE WITNESS: Well, generally, however, since you

 
 

414

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

posited that hypothetical I could think of an instance

where it could apply more broadly, such as if you have

someone like Margaret Singer who for a short time made her

living testifying in certain Scientology cases, were he to

actively assist her to do so, I think it would actually fit

within the parameters of this. Although it is largely

intended to cover plaintiffs and defendants -- future

plaintiffs and defendants, those who are proceedings in

that direction.

MR. GREENE: Q. However, it's not strictly limited

to that, was it?

A. It would cover the other circumstance. As -- now,

assistance then in that circumstance requires amendment

because it's not -- if he changes Margaret Singer's flat

tire on the road, that would not violate the settlement

agreement, but that would be assistance.

If he were to provide her with materials and aid to

further her testimony, hypothetically, that would have.

So in that circumstance, assistance would need to

be modified.

Q: So in that circumstance assistance would be such

activities as would be specific to the provision of

information that Armstrong derived in connection with his

experience in Scientology; right?

A. I don't know where he would necessarily have

 
 

415

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

derived it from. It also encompasses acts which aid the

person in the proceeding against Scientology, as is

modified later in the sentence.

Q. So the point is, though, however, with respect to

paragraph 7-G is that the intent of that paragraph is not

strictly limited to precluding Armstrong from assisting

thosewho are parties to litigation with Scientology; is

that right?

A. No, it is not that limited. It goes a little

broader than that.

Q. And whether or not someone is adverse depends on

the extent of their anti-Scientology activities; right?

A. Well, this paragraph specifically concerns

proceedings against, so it would have to be in that

context in this --

Q. That's fine.

A. Yes.

Q. Assume that context and then answer my question.

A. So in that context the answer is yes.

Q. Now, if an individual were critical of Scientology

practices, would that person be adverse?

A. Well, they could or they couldn't be. I mean, they

would, I think, view themselves as being adverse, but

adverse as it applies to this paragraph, I don't know

because it requires other factors.

 
 

416

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Okay. I'm asking you as a general proposition.

A. We're talking about this paragraph. I don't want

to take a general proposition try and shoehorn it into

this paragraph when it has clearly a different definition

in this paragraph than it would as a general proposition

because "any person adverse to Scientology" is modified by

"in any proceedings against any of the Scientology

organizations," blah, blah, blah.

Q. So let's assume, as we did before, the existence of

a proceeding. And is a person who is critical of

Scientology considered to be adverse thereto?

A. Are they a party --

MR. BOWLES: Objection.

THE WITNESS: -- opposing Scientology in the

litigation?

MR. GREENE: Q. Not necessarily.

MR. BOWLES: The question is too vague, Mr. Greene, to form

an intelligent answer.

THE WITNESS: It would require additional factors.

I think what you're asking me is would they fit within

paragraph G of the first sentence. It would require

additional factors to be able to determine that.

MR. GREENE: Q. And what additional factors would it require

to determine that?

A. They would have to be taking some act, either as a

 
 

417

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

hostile reporter, and then there would be the provision

concerning media, or as a party to the litigation, or even

as an expert witness to the litigation on the side opposing

whatever Scientology organization was, by way of

examples.

See, it's difficult to deal with this in a

hypothetical. It's more easily dealt with in the

concrete. And it's also more easily dealt with, if I may

say, from the conceptual viewpoint of separating one's

self from having anything to do with Scientology

whatsoever. Then the hair-splitting and the walking the

edge of the line just don't come into play because the

subject of aiding an adverse litigant just doesn't come

up, or, gee, does it count if I help this witness but not

the plaintiff, is that really helping the plaintiff. That

kind of hair-splitting just doesn't come into play. So

it's more easily interpreting within the overall spirit of

what this was intended to be to begin with.

Q. Which was to prevent Armstrong from being involved

in any kind of litigation having to do with Scientology,

in part; right?

A. As regards any acts that occurred from that point

to the beginning of time.

Q. Right. And to prevent Armstrong from participating

in any kind of public discourse or debate with respect to

 
 

418

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the conduct or beliefs of Scientology; right?

A. Unless compelled to do so by lawful process.

Q. Now, in your view, does the word cooperate mean

respond to a request for help?

A. Depends on what the request is to do.

Q. Why? I mean, what are you talking about --

A. Why?

Q. -- it depends on what a request is to do?

A. Because you're using cooperate as it's used in

paragraph 7-G.

Q. I didn't talk about paragraph 7-G, Mr. Farny.

A. That's just on the second line here, the third word

in.

Q. I didn't talk about that paragraph.

A. So purely in the hypothetical --

Q. I asked you --

A. -- does the word cooperate --

Q. --to you.

A. -- apply to an offer of help --

Q. Yeah.

A. -- not in terms of draftsmanship of specific

contractual provision?

Q. I'm just asking you what your understanding of

cooperate is.

A. So we're divorcing this question from any

 
 

419

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

application to any drafting or draft or construction of

contractual provisions.

Q. We're not doing anything. I'm asking you a

question.

A. And I can't answer it unless you define it because

I'm not going to have a general definition shoe horned in

to a word that is used with precision in this subparagraph

in a slightly different manner. Just as you're not going

to do that, I'm not going to allow you to play word games

because we'll get an incorrect record here. It will be

misleading, and you wouldn't want that:

MR. BOWLES: Why don't we get on to some concrete

questions, Mr. Greene.

MR. GREENE: You've got concrete questions and a

whole lot of speeches by your client, Mr. Bowles.

MR. BOWLES: Well, don't argue, just ask the next

question and get on with the litigation.

MR. GREENE: I am. I definitely am.

MR. BOWLES: I disagree.

MR. GREENE: I know you disagree generally and

that's your problem.

Q. Mr. Farny --

MR. WALTON: If you have an objection, why don't

you make your objection and let's have a rule on it

instead of pitter-patter.

 
 

420

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BOWLES: Is that your objection?

MR. WALTON: What's the objection?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, no question pending.

MR. GREENE: Q. In your view does the word

cooperate presuppose a request for help?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Mr. Farny, the last sentence of paragraph G does

not restrict plaintiff with respect only to litigation,

does it?

A. Plaintiff as it's used here in the settlement

agreement?

Q. Yes.

A. No, that's not restricted to litigation.

Q. Right.

A. But it is restricted to organizations aligned

against Scientology.

Q. Right. Now, if an organization were critical of

any practice of Scientology, would such organization be

considered to be aligned against Scientology?

A. Not necessarily.

Q . Okay.

A. Aligned against means they have declared themselves

to be on the opposite side, opposed to, seeking to

destroy.

Q. Okay. Then so if they -- if an organization

 
 

421

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

declares itself to be opposed to Scientology openly and

vociferously, that means that it seeks Scientology's

demise, is that what you mean?

A. That's one interpretation of it, sure. I was

explaining in expansive terms here that we're not just

talking about some mild ill will, we're talking

organizations aligned against Scientology.

Q. Would you give me an example of what you would

consider to be mild ill will.

A. Excuse me?

Q: Would you give me an example of what you would

consider to be mild ill will.

A. Perhaps a reporter that has been fed lies and

things and comes to an interview with a negative view but

responds to the truth, comes away with an objective view,

that sort of thing.

Q. If an organization has not declared itself opposed

to Scientology, would you consider such organization not

to be aligned against Scientology?

A. Unless by their conduct they have performed an act

which is the equivalent of such an open declaration,

obviously.

Q. And would the performance of such an act as in your

view would bring an organization into the scope of the

language of it being aligned against Scientology be

 
 

422

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

included in the definitions of what is suppressive

organizations?

A. Probably.

Q. In the way the term organizations is used in

paragraph 7-G, is it required that such organization be

formally established?

MR. BOWLES: Are you talking about the last

sentence as -- were you talking about the last sentence,

Ford, just to clarify?

MR. GREENE: Yes.

Q. Do you have the question in mind, Mr. Farny?

A. I have the question in mind, I'm looking at the

sentence. The sentence doesn't seem to express such a

requirement.

Q. Was it your intent in the manner in which you

participated in the creation of this document to not

require the definition of organization to necessarily

apply to something that's formally organized?

A. I intended it to apply to corporations,

unincorporated associations, partnerships, companies, and

to a large degree, to some degree, certain governmental

agencies of different -- different countries, which have

from time to time acted in this manner.

Q. Was there some reason why you decided not to spell

that out?

 
 

423

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. This was the wording that was arrived at among the

group involved in compiling the papers.

Q. Did you make any recommendation that the specific

organizations that were considered to be aligned against

Scientology be spelled out?

A. I don't remember precisely. My recollection is

that we didn't want to limit it in that manner and we

wanted it to be as clear and comprehensive as possible.

Q. And with respect to the desire for the terms of the

agreement to be as clear and as comprehensive as possible,

was that also part of the basis why the language was

picked otherwise in paragraph G of the prior sentence

about non-cooperation with any person adverse to

Scientology?

A. In any proceeding. I mean, that's got to have the

rest of the sentence there.

That was felt to encompass that which needed to be

encompassed with sufficient clarity and as clearly as it

could be expressed at that time.

Q. And with as broad a scope as possible; right?

A. Well, what we wanted to do is express in writing

that which we were at that time in the process of coming

to an agreement on, which was a cessation of participation

on Gerry's part in the litigation wars as they were

ongoing at the time and the attendant fallout activity

 
 

424

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

thereto.

So an effort was made to construct a document which

defined terms so that it would be perfectly clear what

that agreement was, you see.

Q. And that would be sufficiently broad so as to

encompass as many situations as possible, some of which

you recognized you probably could not foresee?

A. Well, that was the difficulty, is that we didn't

want it to be susceptible to hair-splitting which would

circumvent the intention of the agreement. And the

breadth allows for a sufficient degree of comfort so that

it wouldn't be that hair-splitting, or at least so we

thought at the time.

Q. And as to paragraph 7- G that particular objective

was communicated at the outset to Flynn when serious

settlement negotiations commenced in the summer of '86;

right?

A. I believe my testimony is either there or shortly

thereafter, it certainly was an important consideration

from as close to the get go as my recollection allows it

to be.

Q. And the same objective is true with respect to

paragraph 7-H where plaintiff agrees not to testify or

otherwise participate in any judicial, administrative or

legislative proceeding adverse to Scientology?

 

 
 

425

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. You mean, the same intention to make it

sufficiently clear and sufficiently broad so as to

correctly reflect that he's getting out of the business,

quote unquote.

Q. Communicated to Flynn at the onset or shortly

thereafter of settlement negotiations in the summer of

1986?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. Said to Flynn, we don't want your people testifying

against us anymore; right?

A. Right, within the confines that we are able to, you

know, to agree to something like that. I mean, the courts

have their own say in it and if a court orders somebody to

testify, of course they have to testify. But insofar as

the career that they all embarked on of being professional

witnesses against the church without regard to the facts

of the case, yes, we wanted them to seek another career

that did not involve being professional witnesses against

Scientology --

Q. Okay.

A. -- because they didn't have anything to contribute

to the immediate dispute at hand, they had bigotry and

prejudice to spread from eons past, as it were.

Q. And it infuriated Scientology that the courts

listened to that, didn't it?

 
 

426

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. It infuriated us that some courts listened to it.

Fortunately some others did not.

Q. Right, okay. And the individuals you were making

reference to was Sullivan; right?

A. She was one of them, certainly.

Q. And Walters?

A. Yes.

Q. Schomer?

A. To a lesser degree, but yes.

Q. Armstrong?

A. Yes.

Q. Douglas, Kima and Michael?

A. Not so much, but they happened to be represented by

him.

Q. And Nancy Dincalci?

A. That's correct, she was represented by Flynn.

Q. Peter Graves?

A. Yes, although he didn't come up as much in other

cases as some of the others.

For some of his clients, they weren't active participants

in this dog and pony show. But we wanted as

clean a break as possible so as that they wouldn't want to

become active participants in the dog and pony show.

So I don't recall Peter coming up in much of

anything other than the litigation he was involved in in

 
 

427

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Boston.

Q. Cazares came up in that regard, though; right?

A. Yeah. He still does.

Q. And Wakefield, as well?

A. Yeah. To a limited degree, certainly.

Q. And Burdon to a greater degree; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And McLean also?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, at the outset or shortly thereafter of the

settlement negotiations with Michael-Flynn in the summer

of '86, was the objective communicated to Flynn that

Scientology did not want any of the members of his dog and

pony show to go into some jurisdiction so as to make

themselves able to be served and then consequently

compelled to testify?

A. I don't know if that was right at the outset or

not. What was expressed at the outset was we wanted them

to make a clean break.

As it got refined, the various particular expresses for it

came. And that concept entered in somewhere along

the path that, all right, they've made a clean break, they

would, of course, have to be subpoenaed. However, but we

don't want them going out of their way traveling into

jurisdictions to be subpoenaed because that defeats the

   
 

428

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

clean break concept. So how do we come up with some

language that expresses that?

So the answer to your question is somewhere along

the process that was definitely brought up.

Q. Do you recall whether along the sequence of

the process when that concept was brought up, was it the

beginning, middle or end?

A. The general concept at the beginning, getting

towards more the particular expressions more towards the

middle, but are closer to the beginning, I think.

Q. And it was your understanding that Flynn was, in

turn, conveying this idea of non-amenability to service of

process to his clients; right?

A. That was my understanding at the time, yes.

Q. And it was your understanding as well with respect

to the other contents of 7-H about not agreeing to testify

in any judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding

unless subpoenaed; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And also that Flynn was communicating the 7-G

provisions with respect to non-assistance to his clients,

as well; right?

A. Yes. It was my understanding that he was

communicating all of these provisions to his clients.

Q. Was it your understanding that Flynn ever came back

 
 

429

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and said with respect to any of them, no way, my clients

won't do it?

A. The only thing I recall is he came back and said

Gerry would have a hard time with we can say whatever is

needful and he can't say anything. And that was the

subject of some serious discussion towards the latter few

weeks.

Q. Now, in that regard, what you are making reference

to is the notion that Scientology related organizations

would be free to characterize Armstrong according to the

truth and Armstrong would not be free to so respond to

whatever such characterization might be; right?

A. Certainly. Because of the amount and degree that

his statements had gone out there and the need for

communicating on that, you know, so yes.

Q. And therefore the -- according to CSI the

confidentiality provisions were not mutual; right?

A. Not all of them. Some of them were mutual as to

the terms of the agreement, as to any amounts of money

that exchanged hands and such. But in terms of Gerry not

speaking of Gerry's experiences in Scientology, that last

term was not mutual. We could speak of Gerry and his

experience with Scientology. And that was important at

the time, considering the use to which his statements had

been made.

 
 

430

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. And when you say the use, that's the use in various

litigation, Department of Justice, IRS, et cetera?

A. And media and civil cases, and et cetera.

Q. Now, the intent with respect to 7-I was that those

provisions were mutual; right?

A. Except as modified by the lack of restriction on

our part on making statements, because most of the

statements that were out and about that other people were

using concerned past activity, so we could say that.

What this meant to define is what would be at issue

in any future proceedings. What would be relevant and at

issue which would be just post settlement conduct.

Q. Okay. So the --

A. That is all that is at issue here is, I mumbled it,

is the post settlement conduct.

Q. When you say all that is at issue here, you're

talking about the current litigation brought by CSI

against Armstrong; right?

A. That's right.

Q. Now --

MR. BOWLES: Mr. Greene, we've been going for over

an hour and I notice the court reporter is getting tired.

(Short recess.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Mr. Farny, with respect to the

settlement agreement, part of the intention of that

 
 

431

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

settlement agreement was to dispose of Armstrong's pending

cross-complaint against CSC; right?

A. Against CSC and others, yes.

Q. And others, okay.

And Armstrong's cross-complaint was set for trial

sometime within the first two months of 1987, wasn't it?

A. I think so.

Q. And the scope of the settlement agreement included

matters which pertained to the cross-complaint; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, for a moment I want to go back to Gabrielle

Cazares.

He was the former mayor of Clearwater, Florida;

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And his claim against Scientology was in connection

with Scientology setting him up with a lawyer that they

actually controlled, wasn't it?

MR. BOWLES: Objection, relevance. Again, Mr.

Benz, we are going far afield here with other litigants, other

circumstances that do not concern this case.

MR. BENZ: At this point I would agree. What's --

MR. GREENE: I'll withdraw the question.

MR. BENZ: All right.

MR. GREENE: All right.

 
 

432

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Now, directing your attention -- hold on, actually,

before I do that.

Going back for a moment to the Corydon litigation

and to the motion for protective order brought by Lawrence

Heller.

A. All right.

Q. It was in the course of that litigation wherein

Armstrong was served with the civil subpoena to testify in

the Yanny trial; right?

A. It was at a hearing held in the Corydon case which

I believed concerned, in part, Gerry's deposition.

Q. And that hearing, in fact, had to do with the

motion for protective order. This was the hearing on that

motion, wasn't it?

A. I think so.

Q. And you were present; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were present on CSI's behalf; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Does CSI have any objection to Michael Flynn

representing Armstrong adverse to CSI?

A. I don't know. It would depend on the

circumstances.

Q. Would the circumstances that it depend on be that

you go back and talk to your superiors and they tell you

 
 

433

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

what to say?

A. Of course not. That was a stupid question.

Q. Now, directing your attention back to Exhibit 15,

and looking at the fifth paragraph under the list of names

on page one, would you read that paragraph into the

record.

A. "They have supported psychiatric aims and

principles over Scientology principles in their

misrepresentations to Department of Justice

representatives, as well as Boston lawyer Michael Flyyn."

Q. Now, would it be fair to say that included in the

scope of the assertion that you just read would be the

claim that Scientology was psychologically harmful to some

people?

A. I don't know what the author of this intended by

that.

Q. What's your understanding of it?

A. I don't have any understanding beyond what's

written on the page.

Q. Your understanding is, however, though, that that

paragraph applied to Gerald Armstrong; right?

A. I don't know, actually. I don't remember.

Q. All right. Now, directing your attention to the

paragraph that starts, "Several of them have spoken out."

A. Yes.

   
 

434

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Okay. Would you read that paragraph into the

record.

A."Several of them have spoken out against

Scientologists in good standing to the IRS in a hope that

they might escape from their own destructive acts and

shift attention from themselves and their crimes."

Q. Okay. Now, Armstrong fell within the scope of that

paragraph; right?

A. Certainly.

Q. And how was it that he sought to escape from his

own destructive acts and s hift attention from himself and

his crimes?

A. Didn't I cover this in detail when I was talking

about overts and overts against mankind and their only

road out of this universe as set forth in the third

paragraph?

Q. Okay, then, so what you're saying then is that this

paragraph that we're talking about here, the one that

starts with "several of them have spoken out" is another

way of describing what is set forth in the paragraph that

mentions the overts; is that right?

A. I think they express similar enough concepts that I

wouldn't be able to separate them apart as I sit here.

Q. The next paragraph which states, "They have altered

and assisted in the alteration of tech in an attempt to

 
 

435

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

seal off the bridge to those who have fallen prey to their

destructive intentions."

That applies to Armstrong; right?

A. As I said earlier in the deposition, I'm not

certain how much active squirreling he was involved in.

This, of course, directly applies to Mayo and Vogerdeen

and Nelson because of their activities at the Advanced

Ability Center.

I'm not certain as I sit here that I can recall

anything specifically by Armstrong that would fit in this

one.

Q. So then any squirreling in the sense of offering

Scientology technology to other people in an unauthorized

manner, such assertions do not apply to Armstrong as a

general matter, do they?

A. I didn't say that.

Q. Okay.

A. I just said I wasn't aware, I didn't remember now

the circumstances in September of '84 whether that would

fit with him.

Q. Okay.

A. If you're asking me now am I aware of him doing

that, I don't think so. I don't think he is. He's just,

from what I know, gone either farther -- I've lost the

word -- apart from what would be Scientological

 
 

436

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

principles. You know, he's -- I've seen a letter from him

with either Buddism or yoga type concepts in it. So I

actually don't think he's involved in this at the present.

I don't know if I'm wrong or not.

Q. So if I understand what you just said Armstrong's

adoption of Buddism precepts takes him even further away

from Scientology than he was before, is that what you

meant to say?

A. It's a different subject matter. It's not

squirreling of Scientology, which this is referring to,

it's just a different subject matter. Roman Catholicism,

Hinduism, Judism, it's just a different subject matter.

And he's entitled to pursue whichever religion he believes

in. I wouldn't call it squirreling because it's not an

alternation of Scientology.

Q. Correct. Squirreling is a term of art that, at

least in part is intended to describe those who, without

authorization utilize Scientology technology; right?

A. Alter it or attempt to pervert it in some way.

Q. Or attempt to make money off it; right?

A. Yeah. We covered this in the first or second day.

Q. The answer to that is yes?

A. No. The answer is we covered it earlier. We went

round and round there for about ten minutes at a time, as

well. Squirreling is the alteration and/or attempted

 
 

437

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

rip-off of Scientologist's technology.

Q. Armstrong at this point is not permitted to follow

Scientology, though; right?

A. I don't know what you mean by follow Scientology.

Q. Well, he's not allowed to take any Scientology

courses; right?

A. From a church or mission of Scientology, that's

correct, because he's not in good standing with the

church.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the paragraph that

starts, "Their continued harmful acts," would you read

that in the record, please.

A. "Their continued harmful acts to themselves and

their continued desire to drive others to the level of

beasts and animals devoid of spiritual qualities places

them in the psychiatric camp of those who manufacture

madness for profit."

Q. What is your understanding of what this paragraph

means?

A. I don't have one other than what's written here.

Q. Now, would you read the next paragraph into the

record also.

A. "Therefore, be it known that these acts of

spiritual destruction and cries for no ethics, no morals

and no policy have separated them from the body of the

 
 

438

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ethical and practicing Scientologists of this planet."

Q. Would it be fair to say that the paragraph that you

just read drew a strict line whereby the persons who were

the subject of this directive were placed on one side and

Scientologists on the other?

A. No. I would say it reiterated a circle that it had

drawn --

Q. Okay.

A. -- with them on the outside of the group that they

had renounced and sought to destroy. Of course they were

on the outside of that group. They were no longer part of

it. They had renounced it. They had taken acts seeking

to destroy it. So of course they weren't part of it

anymore.

Q. Directing your attention to the bylaws of this

Exhibit 3.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And looking at Bates stamp page 17.

A. Yes.

Q. And if you would take a couple moments and read to

yourself the Scientology creed.

MR. BENZ: Where are we on this?

THE WITNESS: 17.

MR. GREENE: Bates stamp 17, which is --

THE WITNESS: Page six.

 
 

439

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: -- page six.

THE WITNESS: All right.

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to 19 and that

section there where it says, "And we of the church believe

that the laws of God forbid man to destroy his own

kind, to destroy the sanity of another, to destroy or

enslave another soul, to destroy or reduce the survival of

one's companions or one's group."

Now, the last definition that talks about to

destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions or

one's group, that includes the definition of an overt that

you gave to us earlier, doesn't it?

A. Let me see it.

Q. Handing you the technical dictionary again.

MR. BOWLES: I believe he gave three definitions.

MR. GREENE: You're right.

MR. BOWLES: So is your question addressed to all three

definitions?

MR. GREENE: Yes, it is.

Q. Do any of the definitions of an overt in the

technical dictionary that you read into the record earlier

comport with the tenant of the creed that says that those

in the church believe that the laws of God forbid man to

destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions or

one's group?

 
 

440

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BOWLES: Before you answer, I'm going to object

to this, Mr. Benz, because I think we're a little far

afield, to say the least, of this lawsuit.

Mr. Greene is pursuing a philosophical debate,

discussion with the witness, on the meaning of now the

Scientology creed, which is a part of the ecclesiastical

writings and teaches along with the definitions and in

another published volume. I think we're far afield. I

think it's a waste of time and I don't think it's

relevant.

MR. BENZ: Mr. Greene, on relevance?

MR. GREENE: On relevance, it goes to amis. It goes to

motive. These are the very bylaws of CSI that's a party to

this lawsuit.

MR. BENZ: Well, on the record, as of the moment I see

nothing in this section of bylaws, having heard the

definitions in the technical dictionary before, that are

going to have much relevance in connection with this

particular suit, as far as I can see.

MR. GREENE: Maybe I can lay it out a little more

specifically.

MR. BENZ: Do you have an offer, some kind of an

offer of proof or connection?

MR. GREENE: Sure. Offer of proof has to do with

Exhibit 15, which is the executive directive having to do

 
 

441

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

with squirrels and what the conduct was of Armstrong, that

fell within the definition of the third paragraph

underneath the list of names.

The witness testified as to the meaning of overts,

confirmed that the overts as used in Exhibit 15 comported

with the definition of an overt or definitions of an overt

act as set forth in the technical dictionary. And

depending -- which are all relevant to Armstong's

affirmative defense of unclean hands and affirmative

defense of duress and undue influence. And directly

relate to the pending question which is focused on

specifics of the creed as set forth in the bylaws of CSI,

which is the plaintiff in this lawsuit, and which this

witness has been designated to represent. And it 's right

on and relevant.

MR. BENZ: Well, the creed indicates that the

church believes that the laws of God forbid man to destroy

or reduce the survival of one's companions or one's group,

so I don't see that that goes to any motive of malice or

anything else.

MR. GREENE: Well, this witness has testified that

he believed that what Armstrong's acts have done is to do

exactly that.

MR. BENZ: Exactly what?

MR. GREENS: To destroy Scientology, have been

 
 

442

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

directed at the destruction of Scientology, that

Armstrong's repeated, often repeated falsehoods and

misrepresentations about Scientology and about its founder

are all directed at the destruction of Scientology, and

that's -- Scientology is the group that's referred to here.

It's directly relevant.

MR. BENZ: Well, I think to the extent that you have been

discussing that, it's okay, but I don't think going into a

generalized language of a creed adds anything to it, so

I'll sustain the objection.

MR. GREENE: Okay. Even though the creed is set

forth in the bylaws of the very organization that's

prosecuting this lawsuit? It's not a generalized question

about Scientology, it's specific to the plaintiff in this

lawsuit and to its bylaws that it has produced in

discovery.

MR. BENZ: I don't see the connection, this portion

of the creed with what you're talking about on these other

items.

MR. GREENE: Okay.

MR. BENZ: Objection is sustained.

MR. GREENE: Okay.

Q. Now, going back to the beginning section of the

creed, "We of the church believe," are there -- starting

on page 17 where it says "We of the church believe" and

 
 

443

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

going through to page 18, up to the point where there's

the next capitalized sentence or phrase, and looking at

the subject matter in between those two, my question to

you is on whether or not there are any tenants which are

not adopted by CSI currently?

A. Notwithstanding the fact that the entire creed is

set forth in our bylaws?

Q. That's right. Is this a current and accurate

expression of the bylaws?

A. Yes. Which, by the way, answered your last

question, the answer to your first question is no. The

first question, was there anything in there that we

haven't, and then you, rephrased it to is this the current

expression.

Q. And then directing your attention to 19, where it

says, "We of the church believe that the laws of God

forbid man," and then there are those items that are

enumerated. In your view is it, or in the view of CSI

somebody destroys his own kind or destroys the sanity of

another or enslaves another's soul or reduces the survival

of their companions, does that put the person beyond the

law of God?

A. No, it entirely depends on the person's motivation.

It would be an act which would be in violation and -- not

even in violation, that's not the right word. It would be

 
 

444

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

inconsistent with the creed of the church, which is

something one would try to live by.

Merely because of slipping, or merely because of

happening to do something that was inconsistent with that,

the act would not be correct, the act would not be good,

but the individual wouldn't necessarily have renounced the

creed because he screwed up, basically.

Q. Okay.

A. They screwed up. There are ways of dealing with

that. Nobody's perfect.

Q. Right.

MR. BOWLES: Mr. Benz, I'm going to object to this

line of questioning. I think he's droning on with

philosophical discourse that hate nothing to do with the

lawsuit.

MR. BENZ: The question has been answered.

MR. BOWLES: I understand.

MR. GREENE: One more question.

Q. If the individual did not screw up but engaged in a

deliberate and intentional course of conduct, then would

the view be that such person would be beyond the laws of

God?

A. No man can be beyond the laws of God. It would

merely mean he would have renounced this as a creed to

live by.

 
 

445

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. And among such things that that said person would

have renounced would have been the inalienable right to

think freely, talk freely, write freely on their own

opinions, or to utter, or to counter or utter or write

upon the opinions of others; right?

MR. BOWLES: Same objection.

THE WITNESS: It's a hypothetical.

MR. BENZ: Sustained.

MR. GREENE: Q. Going back just for a moment to

which is the squirrel document --

A. One moment please. Yes.

Q. -- where would all of the information supporting

the assertions in Exhibit 15 that apply to Gerald

Armstrong be stored?

A. I haven't a clue. This document is over a decade

old. I have no idea.

Q. Who would you view as the person most likely to

have an accurate idea?

A. Well, that presupposes that there exists a

collection of documents that was compiled to support this,

rather than information existing within the general body

of information that has grown up over the years concerning

the Armstrong litigation.

Q. Let's talk about that.

A. I could certainly go through the record in the

 
 

446

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

several of the cases and find instances to support the

statements that apply to him. Whether such a body of

compiled knowledge exists or even existed at one time, I

have no idea, and that's what I meant by I have no idea.

Q. What is your understanding at the time that this

document originated, is it that it originated based on a

generalized opinion of Armstrong within CSI or was it

based upon documents?

A. I'm sure it was based upon specific conduct on the

part of Gerry Armstrong and the others mentioned here. I

don't know if there was a specific package of information

compiled annotated to each line or whether it was taken

from the general body of knowledge and specific acts that

Armstrong engaged in that gave rise to this. I just don't

know.

Q. Do you have any recollection going back to the time

that this document originated whether or not there was any

kind of body of written material supporting the claims set

forth in Exhibit 15?

A. You mean, collected together and segregated as its

own body of documents as opposed to whether there existed

at all documentary to support for any of these? I think

you're referring to the former, aren't you?

Q. That is correct.

A. A collected package that says here is the annotated

 
  447

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

version of this issue? I have no recollection of having

done such.

Q. Was it the practice of CSI to have such annotated

collection of documents in support of a declaration such

as is manifested in Exhibit 15?

A. Sometimes, yes.

Q. And the more important the individual with respect

to offering a threat to Scientology, the greater the

documentation as a general rule of thumb; is that right?

A. No.

MR. BOWLES: Objection, vague. What do you mean by

more important?

THE WITNESS: Sorry. I answered it anyway.

The answer is no, not necessarily.

MR. GREENE: Q. Was there any kind of approach or

course of conduct that was -- strike that.

Was there any set standard whereby it was

determined whether or not to support claims made about an

individual who was designated as a squirrel?

A. I don't understand that.

Q. Do you understand the question?

A. No.

Q. What you told me was that sometimes there were

written materials that were correlated together that

supported a claim such as are made in Exhibit 15; right?

 
 

448

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. No. What I said is sometimes the issues, executive

directives specifically, would have annotated packages that

go with them, with the documentary support.

Q. I see.

A. And sometimes they would not.

Q. All right.

A. I just don't know with respect to this one.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark this as Exhibit 19.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 19 marked.)

MR. GREENE: Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 19, which is an

eight-page document, which is entitled HCO policy

letter of 21 November, 1972.

You can take a look at that, please.

A. Do you want me to read the entire thing or focus on

something in particular?

Q. Initially, peruse it.

A. I've perused it.

Q. You're familiar with the term black propaganda, are

you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And looking at the first paragraph of Exhibit 19,

does that appear, to your knowledge, to be an accurate

definition of black propaganda?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in your view, was Gerald Armstrong engaged in

 
 

449

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a campaign of black propaganda against Scientology?

A. Any parameters as to time?

Q. Ever since December 1981.

A. Not the entire time period, but certainly large

portions of that, yes.

Q. What portions of that time period do you exclude?

A. The time between when he walked out the door in

December '81 and his first act and the time after December

'86 up until his first act after that.

Q. And when was his first act after December 1986?

A. To the best of my knowledge, it was in '89

sometime, late '89.

Q. And what specifically was the act to which you were

making reference?

A. Those we've discussed at length over the past three

days.

Q. Which one?

A. The first, the first one in sequence.

Q. Which was the first in sequence, to your knowledge?

A. The Corydon one, I believe, was the first in

sequence.

Q. And with respect to Corydon, what was it that

Armstrong, what did he do?

A. What did he do?

Q. Did he testify? What did he do?

 
 

450

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. Once he got into deposition in the spring, I

believe, he was spreading black propaganda, spreading

lies.

Q. So the black propaganda that he gave and the lies

that he spread were given under penalty of perjury in the

course of the legal proceeding?

A. By no means all of them. He's done a lot of media

in this country and abroad.

Q. And are you familiar with Exhibit 19?

A. I am familiar with the policy letter entitled "How

to Handle Black Propaganda. I haven't read this one word

for word to make a comparison.

Q. Would you take a look at it to whatever extent you

need to tell me, at least generally, it comports with the

policy letter with which you are familiar?

A. I'd say generally it does, but that's not an

authentication.

Q. Okay.

A. Those are easier done in written discovery when

you've got time to do just the word by word comparison.

Anyway, generally it does appear to be that policy

letter, yes.

MR. GREENE: I want to mark another exhibit as 20.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 20 marked.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Exhibit 20 is a four-page document

 
 
451

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

entitled HCO policy letter of 11 May, 1970.

Would you review this document, please.

What I want to know is whether or not, one, you're

familiar with it; two, whether or not it generally appears

to be an accurate copy of that with which you are

familiar.

A. Except for the lines on it --

Q. Okay.

A. -- underlining and bracketing, it appears to be a

copy of this policy letter, yes.

Q. All right. Now, would you describe to me, looking

at the middle of the page where it says, "Intelligence is

covert," and then, oh, I don't know, about five, six lines

down where it says "Black propaganda is in its technical

accuracy a covert operation where unknown authors publicly

affect a derogatory reaction and then remain unknown."

A. Yes, I see that. That does amplify the definition

in the other policy letter that you've had me read of

black propaganda.

Q. And such amplification would not apply to

Armstrong, would it?

A. How's that?

Q. Such amplification as is set forth in Exhibit 20

that I just read and I am directing your attention to,

that would not include Armstrong, would it?

 
 
452

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. You mean, he wasn't doing this at any time in the

last decade since he left?

Q. To your knowledge, yes.

A. Oh, I would dispute that.

Q. And upon what facts would you dispute that?

A. The whole loyalist incident, which he fought, was

hidden from us, and his desire at that point to

infiltrate into the organization and to quote him at that

time, "to spread chaos and destruction."

So I think that very much was designed on his part

to be a black propaganda campaign. That's what he was

attempting to do, including the phonying up of forged

issues that would be planted in our files. So yes, I

would say that's one example, certainly.

Q. When you make reference to a phonied up forged

issue, Exhibit 2 would be characterizable as an issue,

wouldn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And the same with 19; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the same with 15?

(Off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Strike the question pending.

Q. Mr. Farny, while we've been taking a little break

here you've gone through Exhibits 1 through 20. And would

 
 
453

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you tell me which Exhibits of 1 through 20 do not

constitute issues?

A. All right. And issue is a colloquialism that I was

using.

Q. And why don't you describe or define the

colloquialism so that we're clear in the sense that you

were using it.

A. All right. It's one of the authorized forms of

communication of the church on paper that would exclude

books.

Q. Okay.

A. It is an individual sheet or sheets imparting some

data as -- in one of the official forms of communication.

HCO policy letter, HCO bulletin, ethics orders, executive

directives and such.

Q. Then would you just note for the record, since

there are less of them, which of Exhibits 1 through 20 are

not issues.

A. 1, 2, 3, 11, 18, and the book from which 12 is

taken, although the individual documents within, in which

case I think there's only one here, would be an issue.

Q. Would be an issue, okay.

Okay. It's my turn, I've got to take about a

five-minute break.

(short recess.)

 
 
454

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. GREENE: We're back on the record and are going to

conclude today's session and resume tomorrow morning at

9:30.

Thank you, Mr. Farny.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. BOWLES: And, Mr. Greene, so I assume there's a

stipulation for these transcripts that the original is

coming to the witness?

MR. WALTON: No.

MR. GREENE: No.

THE WITNESS: No. There was a stipulation that we

put on the record.

MR. WALTON: We can just do the same stipulation as

before.

MR. GREENE: Let's figure it out off the record.

I'm fine with that. I don't care.

MR. BOWLES: I don't even know what it is.

THE WITNESS: Whatever it is --

MR. GREENE: Thank you.

---o0o---

(Whereupon, the deposition was recessed at 4:45 p.m.

thereof.)

 

___________

LYNN R. FARNY

 
 
455

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I, SUSAN M. LYON, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in

and for the State of California, do hereby certify:

That the witness named in the foregoing deposition

was present and duly sworn to testify the truth in the

within-entitled action on the day and date and at the time

and place therein specified;

That the testimony of said witness was reported by

me in shorthand and was thereafter transcribed under my

direction into typewriting;

That the foregoing constitutes a full, true and

correct transcript of said deposition and of the

proceedings which took place;

That the witness was given an opportunity to read

and, if necessary, correct said deposition and to

subscribe the same;

That I am a disinterested person to the said

action;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my

hand this 8th day of August 1994.

 

[signed]

SUSAN M. LYON

CSR #5829

 

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