Gerry Armstrong--Declaration of Vicki J. Aznaran 05-19-1994 (Exhibit A to Hertzberg Declaration)

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

DECLARATION OF VICKI J. AZNARAN

I, VICKI J. AZNARAN, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State

of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would competently

testify thereto.

2. From 1972 until 1987, I was a member of various Church

of Scientology ("Church") entities. During that time I held a

number of important positions in the corporate and ecclesiastical

hierarchy of the Church. I was also a devout believer in the

religion of Scientology. In March of 1987, my husband Richard

Aznaran and I left our positions with the Church and returned

home to Texas from California. At the time we left, Richard and

I voluntarily executed certain releases and waivers in full

settlement of any and all disputes we had with the Church. In

April of 1988, notwithstanding our execution of those releases and

waivers, Richard and I filed a lawsuit against several Church

entities and individuals in the United States District Court for

the Central District of California.

3. During the time I was a senior Church executive, I

gained first hand knowledge of the manner in which some apostate

former Church members had pursued civil claims against the

Church, and obtained successful verdicts or judgments or

favorable settlements notwithstanding the merits. The courts

consistently allowed the Church's adversaries leeway to introduce

allegations without regard to the normal rules of procedure and

evidence. At the time, this was a source of great concern to me,

both as a Scientologist and a Church executive, particularly

since my staff duties included responsibilities regarding certain

areas of litigation.

4. Thus, having participated in Scientology litigation

both as a Church executive and as a litigant against the Church,

I bring two distinct, but related, perspectives to this

declaration from my personal knowledge and observation. First,

at the time my husband and I brought our own suit I understood

that the legal system could be used to pursue my position.

Later, upon having sued various Scientology churches and having

allied myself with other litigants and their counsel suing

Scientology churches, I observed first hand the ways in which the

legal system is successfully used by litigants and counsel

opposing the Church.

5. The fundamental premise upon which the Church's

adversaries and their lawyers operate is the likelihood that

courts and juries are willing to believe any allegation made

against the Church by a former member, without regard to

plausibility, contrary evidence or the true facts. That concept

was most succinctly expressed, on videotape, by anti-Scientology

litigant, Gerald Armstrong, when he stated that a lack of

documents or evidence was no impediment to litigating against the

Church when the litigant can "just allege it." The active

pursuit of that litigation approach has now led to the formation

of a small group of disaffected Scientologists who are now

employed by an even smaller number of attorneys who are making a

practice of litigating against the Church. This stable of

witnesses can be relied upon to furnish "corroboration" for any

allegation which an attorney wishes to make against the Church in

pleadings at deposition, in affidavits, and ultimately in trial

testimony.

6. The process of "just alleging it" begins with the

complaint. For example, in the complaint which was filed on our

behalf against the Church, there were numerous allegations which

were either false or which we could not substantiate. When I was

initially deposed in our case, I conceded that numerous portions

of the complaint should not have been drafted by counsel in the

fashion they were. Thus, for example, in deposition in June,

1988, I testified that the allegation in paragraph 7 of our

complaint, that the "[Church] organizations were created solely

for the purpose of making money from the sale of copyrights of

the book Dianetics..." was not true. I testified that I did not

create corporate structures within the Church and that I do not

know where this allegation in paragraph 16 of our complaint came

from.

7. There were several other improper or incorrect

allegations which should not have appeared in the complaint that

I had to acknowledge in deposition. As another example, the

complaint alleged in paragraph 16 that I worked for Author

Services, Inc., in managing the sales of copyright of the book

Dianetics. In deposition I testified that I never worked for

Author Services, Inc. and was not aware of any such sale of

copyrights.

8. Paragraph 16 of the complaint included the allegation

that I had been employed as a "missionaire" to remove assets of

Defendant Church of Scientology of California to overseas trusts

where they could not be accessed. This allegation was false, and

it was not an allegation that either my husband or I requested be

included in the complaint. I was definitely not employed for

that reason, and I have never claimed that I was.

9. It was also alleged in paragraph 16 of the complaint

that I was employed as a "missionaire" to "set up sham corporate

structures to evade prosecution generally." This allegation is

also false. I was never employed for that purpose. I had never

even heard of that allegation until I read it in the filed

complaint. I did not make that allegation, and I do not know

where it came from.

10. Paragraph 12 of the complaint contains the false

allegation that my husband and I were forced to "involuntarily

abandon [our] identities, spouses, and loyalties..." My

depostion testimony established that this was not the case. For

example, my husband used to engage in his hobby of target

shooting during his years in the Church. We had pets, including

a German shepherd which my husband trained in his spare time. I

took riding lessons. I also trained in karate, because I was

interested in learning that discipline. These were all ways in

which my husband and I expressed our individuality while on staff

and demonstrate no abandonment, forced or otherwise, of our

individual interests.

11. My husband and I both testified to numerous separate,

factual errors in the complaint. Our attorney firm, Cummins &

White, and later our subsequent counsel, Ford Greene, were aware

of these errors to which we testified. Even though we asked them

to, no attempt to file a corrected or amended complaint was ever

made, nor did any such correction ever occur.

12. The abusive device most consistently utilized by

litigants and counsel adverse to the Church occurs in connection

with the filing of declarations or affidavits. It is common

knowledge among the stable of disaffected ex-Scientologists who

supply such sworn statements that the attorneys dictate the

desired content of such testimony with the primary, often sole,

purpose of presenting inflammatory accusations that prejudice the

Church in the eyes of the court. In such declarations or

affidavits, context, the truth, and relevance to the issues in

the case are disregarded altogether. As time has passed and this

technique has evolved, anti-Church litigants and their counsel

have become more and more emboldened in making such declarations

and affidavits because the tactic has proven to be so effective

in poisoning courts and juries against the Church.

13. The most common and probably the most devastating

manifestation of this tactic is the use of allegations concerning

the so-called "Fair Game" policy of the Church. The term "Fair

Game" has been misrepresented and repeatedly used by the Church's

litigation adversaries as a means to create prejudice against the

Church. To accomplish that end, counsel fashions a declaration

in which the witness identifies an ugly event -- real, imagined,

or just plain invented -- and then alleges that it was a

deliberate act which was committed by the Church. The idea is to

create the false impression that the Church is committing acts of

retribution in pursuit of "Fair Game."

14. A central element of exploiting the "Fair Game" tactic

is to make certain that the allegations are crafted so they

cannot be objectively disproved. In other words, the declarant

makes an allegation of a bad or harmful or harassing act that

cannot be documented in a tangible form and then alleges that it

was done by the Church pursuant to the Fair Game "policy". By so

doing, the declarant has put the Church in the impossible

position of trying to prove a negative and trying to prove it

without documentation. It becomes a matter of the declarant's

word against that of the Church, and by making the act alleged

sufficiently despicable, the result is prejudice against the

Church.

15. The Fair Game policy was a policy to forward

Scientology's belief that any attacks on Scientology by those

seeking to destroy it were to be vigorously defended by legal

means and never ignored. It was not a policy condoning or

encouraging illegal or criminal activities. The policy was

misinterpreted by others and was thus canceled. It has since

been used by litigants over the years as a vehicle to give

credibility to allegations to try to prejudice courts against

Scientology. An event happens such as someone's wife dies in a

car accident, and the allegation is made that this is a murder

committed by the Church pursuant to "Fair Game" policy. This

technique is known to those who attack the Church and so they

continue to use this term to try to prejudice the courts. These

people feel comfortable making scandalous allegations, knowing

that the Church does not have such a policy. I am unaware of any

allegations of "Fair Game" being made by persons who have simply

left the Church. Rather, the charges of Fair Game are invariably

made by parties who have subsequently become involved in

litigation with the Church and who have started working with

other anti-Scientology litigants familiar with this tactic.

16. It has been my experience that these litigants and

lawyers become emboldened because the history of Scientology

litigation demonstrates that virtually any charge leveled against

the Church in litigation by an avowed enemy, no matter how

outrageous or unfounded, will be accepted and believed. Based on

my experience it is a matter of common knowledge that efforts by

the Church to refute such prejudicial allegations have commonly

not been believed in the courts.

17. Thus, it has become a routine practice of litigants to

make accusations against the Church, including even false

allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown

out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation.

They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately

mischaracterizing the term "Fair Game". They do it as an

intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the

context of litigation so that they can win money or force the

Church to settle.

18. The term "fair game" has become a catch phrase for

those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never

heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was

discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being

alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew

that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair

game allegations against us and that those allegations were

nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused

because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them.

From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see

that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my

experiences in suing the Church and from my association with

other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that

"Fair Game" as they portray it is not Church policy. "Fair Game"

exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church.

19. There are other things I have seen and experienced in

anti-Scientology litigation that seem very unusual to me. There

is a group or "team" of anti-Scientology witnesses who are being

paid for their testimony, and based on my experience, this

testimony is being altered and falsified, either by the witnesses

themselves or the attorneys. For example, Graham Berry, counsel

of record for a defendant in the case of CSI v. Fishman, filed

numerous declarations from ex-Scientologists after the lawsuit

was dismissed which had been purchased for many thousands of

dollars. Mr. Berry told me that these payments were made

possible because his client had insurance coverage.

20. In February of 1994, Mr. Berry called my husband and me

and offered to hire us at the rate of $125 per hour for us to

study materials in the Fishman case and to write declarations

supporting issues Mr. Berry wished us to support in the Fishman

case. Mr. Berry gave us an advance of $2,500, which we were

expected to bill against services rendered. He told us that

because his client in the Fishman case had insurance coverage,

the insurance money enabled him to do this. He said he was able

to get the insurance company to pay our salaries by naming us as

"experts", which also enabled the use our declarations without

regard to whether we were actually witnesses to the events at

issue in the Fishman case, which we were not.

21. Mr. Berry told us he had assembled a team of former

Scientologists for use in litigation, all of whom were employed

by him in the Fishman case as so-called experts. Although we

were not eager to get involved in Fishman's litigation, we agreed

to do because the $2,500 advance by Mr. Berry was attractive.

Mr. Berry sent us some documents from the court record in the

Fishman case, which I read, since I was being paid $125 per hour

to do so.

22. I know from subsequent conversations I have had that

Andre Tabayoyon is similarly employed, as are Vaughn and Stacy

Young and others, each paid to create declarations for Mr. Berry

when he needs them. On the basis of my knowledge of the Church

and the declarants, I can state that these individuals are not

"experts' in any recognized sense of the word as I understand it.

They are nothing more than witnesses who are being paid to make

sworn statements against the Church. More than just being paid,

they are actually employed by Mr. Berry as a source of signed

declarations of testimony or as a "source" of allegations, the

need for such is decided by him.

23. Later in February 1994, Mr. Berry called us again. He

said that the Church had dismissed the Fishman case and he needed

declarations from us on an immediate basis for use in his motion

to recover attorneys fees and costs. I thought this was odd,

since it seemed to me that one would support such a motion with

receipts, bills, invoices, and such. Even though it seemed

senseless to provide declarations after the case was dismissed, I

told him I would provide a declaration because he had already

paid and I would rather have done this than return the money he

had paid us. He then told us what areas of testimony he wanted

us to cover in the declarations. Accordingly, I transmitted to

Mr. Berry's firm a eight-page declaration which I had prepared on

my word processor and signed on the last page bearing the date of

February 24, 1994.

24. I recently learned that Mr. Berry actually filed a

nineteen-page declaration purportedly signed by me. Mr. Berry

attached my signature to a declaration which I never saw or

authorized.

25. Passages inserted without my knowledge or authorization

in the version of my declaration filed by Mr. Berry include

statements that are untrue and/or about which I have no personal

knowledge. Not only did I not make these statements, I never

heard of them before. The following are some examples of these

falsities:

a) In my declaration there are statements

concerning "Project Quaker" which are false. In fact I

have never heard of "Project Quaker," and the statement

in the version of my declaration Mr. Berry filed

(paragraph 7) was not in the declaration I sent to Mr.

Berry. It could not have been as I have never heard of

"Project Quaker";

b) The statements in the filed declaration

concerning the death of Michelle Miscavige's mother

were added to without authorization by me. This

included mention of the death of Heber Jentzsch's wife

which is not something I had ever spoken to Mr. Berry

about, and I have no knowledge and never heard anything

that indicated there was anything unusual about Mr.

Jentzsch's wife death. She died of natural causes.

The statement concerning Flo Barnett's death were not

put in context and were not meant to imply that there

was any wrongdoing surrounding her death.

In approximately September 1985, when I was the

Deputy Inspector General of Religious Technology Center

("RTC"), I learned that Mary Florence Barnett, Mrs.

Miscavige's mother, had committed suicide. She had

been involved with a group of disaffected former

Scientologists who practiced altered versions of

Scientology. I only know that after hearing about her

death both David and Shelly Miscavige were very upset

over the fact that Flo Barnett had killed herself. I

also wish to make known that I have seen mention in an

affidavit by Vaughn Young that David Miscavige ordered

the matter "hushed up." This was stated in the context

of indicating wrongdoing on Mr. Miscavige's part and

insinuating he had some participation in the matter. A

careful and literal reading of the statment shows that

Mr. Young never actually says he knows Mr. Miscavige

was involved in this suicide, or that there was any

evidence of such, but by innuendo his statement still

leaves this impression. To my knowledge there was

never any order by David Miscavige or anyone else to

keep the matter quiet. If any such order existed it

would most likely have been given to me. And since I

took actions to make the matter quite well known and

never heard anybody, let alone David Miscavige, ask for

the matter to be hushed up, I know this statement and

the innuendo to be false;

c) the entirety of paragraph 16 on page 10 of the

declaration filed by Mr. Berry concerning L. Ron

Hubbard and the IRS was written by someone other than

me and was inserted into my declaration without my

knowledge or authorization. This entire paragraph

makes unfounded and outrageous allegations intended to

create the impression that David Miscavige or any other

Scientologist would want Mr. Hubbard to die in order to

avoid supposed IRS problems. This is unthinkable to

any Scientologist, and I never heard this or any

similar statement made by anyone in the Church.

d) Paragraph 15 of the declaration claims that "Earle

Cooley Esq. and others convinced the San Luis Obispo coroner

not to do any autopsy on Hubbard's body" implying there was

something hidden or covered up about Mr. Hubbard's death.

This is false. It was not written by me and I know of no

such thing. I was in a position to have knowledge of this

matter and I know that Mr. Hubbard died of natural causes

and the statement attributed to me is a complete

fabrication.

e) There is also a statement made in paragraph 18 that

Mike Rinder's child received "Hubbard's baby care

technology." The implication is that the child's death had

something to do with Scientology which I never believed to

be the case. I did not make this statement and have no

information that this was the case.

f) In fact, paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,

29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35A and 35B were not in the version

of the declaration that I sent to Mr. Berry to be filed. He

added them after the fact, and I never saw them before this

declaration was filed and I never gave authorization for Mr.

Berry to add any of these things to my declaration.

g) The statements concerning the Church of

Scientology International ("CSI") and whether the Time

article concerned CSI, and the corporate structure of

the Church (paragraph 20) were also not in the version

I signed and sent to Mr. Berry. And again, I know the

statement to be entirely false.

h) One other point I wish to clarify concerning

the use of "End of Cycle." There is nothing in

Scientology writings which relates the term "End of

Cycle" to connote murder or suicide. To my knowledge,

this characterization of the term "End of Cycle" was

invented by Steven Fishman. I have never heard this

term used by the Church to mean "suicide" or "murder"

and even though I am a disaffected ex-Scientologist, I

know it to be a false allegation. Its only use is to

smear the Church for litigation purposes as detailed

earlier. I earlier verbally told Mr. Berry this when

he first contacted me for this exact information.

26. I gave no authorization for my declaration to be

changed after I sent the signed copy of it to Mr. Berry and the

changes made to my declaration were made without my knowledge or

consent. Mr. Berry never contacted me after he filed the

manufactured 19 page version of my declaration. Had I not later

obtained a copy of the declaration filed by Mr. Berry from

another source, I never would have found out about any of these

alterations.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the

United States of America, and under the laws of each individual

state thereof, including the laws of the states of California and

Texas, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 19th day of May, 1994 in Dallas, Texas.

[signed]
VICKI J. AZNARAN

Image of signature page

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