Reporters' Daily Transcript (May 29, 1984)
Armstrong 1SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE
| CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, vs. GERALD ARMSTRONG, Defendant. MARY SUE HUBBARD, Intervenor. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
No. C 420153 |
REPORTERS’ DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Tuesday, May 29, 1984
VOLUME 20
Pages 3390 - 3586, inclusive
| APPEARANCES: | |
| (See next page) |
| NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644 HERB CANNON, CSR #1923 Official Reporters |
APPEARANCES:
| For the Plaintiff: | PETERSON & BRYNAN
BY: JOHN G. PETERSON 8530 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 407 Beverly Hills, California 90211 (213) 659-9965 -and- ROBERT N. HARRIS The Oviatt Building 617 South Olive Street Suite 915 Los Angeles, California 90014 (213) 623-7511 |
| For the Intervenor: | LITT & STORMER BY: BARRETT S. LITT Paramount Plaza 3550 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 386-4303 -and- BARRETT S. LITT BY: MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON The Oviatt Building 617 South Olive Street Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90014 (213) 623-7511 |
| For the Defendant: | CONTOS & BUNCH
BY: MICHAEL J. FLYNN - and- JULIA DRAGOJEVIC 5855 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite 400 Woodland Hills, California 91367 (213) 716-9400 |
| Also Appearing for Witness Lyman Spurlock | MR. LARRY HELLER |
INDEX FOR VOLUME 20 Pages 3390-3586, incl.
| DAY | DATE | SESSION | PAGE |
| Tuesday | May 28, 1984 [May 29, 1984] |
A.M. | 3390 |
| P.M. | 3494 |
WITNESSES
| DEFENSE WITNESSES | DIRECT | CROSS | REDIRECT | RECROSS |
| SULLIVAN, Laurel | ||||
| (Resumed) | 3392 | 3400-H | ||
| (Further) | 3412 | 3419-L | ||
| (Further) | 3420 | |||
| SPURLOCK, Lyman | 3429 | 3477-H | 3507 | |
| DINCALCI, Nancy | 3530 | 3537-L | 3563 | 3567-L |
| 3552-H | 3572 | 3568-H | ||
| WALTERS, Edward | 3580 |
EXHIBITS
| PLAINTIFF’S: | FOR IDENTIFICATION |
| 84 - Document “Seven Division Org Board” | 3482 |
| 85 - Document “Church of Scientology Ecclesiastical Structure” | 3486 |
| 86 - Document Confidentiality of PC Folder Data | 3495 |
| 87 - Document “The Bridge” | 3495 |
| DEFENSE: | |
| AAAA - Not described on the record | 3393 |
| BBBB - Not described on the record | 3393 |
| CCCC - Photograph | 3396 |
| DDDD - 2 documents “Re Biography Contract Negotiations” 10-23-80 | 3416 |
| EEEE - Not described on the record | 3467 |
| FFFF - Not described on the record | 3518 |
3390
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1984; 9:l0 A.M.
THE COURT: All right we are back in session. Counsel are all present.
Are you going to continue with Miss Sullivan’s testimony at this time?
MR. FLYNN: I am, Your Honor.
Just so the Court and opposing counsel will know, the approach that we are going to take in light of the Court’s comments on Friday with regard to MCCS is as follows: We see basically two aspects of the problem; one is the admissibility of the tapes, and two relates to issues involving the control mechanisms by Mr. Hubbard and who Mr. Armstrong worked for.
3391
In light of the Court’s current view, what we are going to do — and in light of Plaintiff’s statement that they don’t intend to seek any damages for the tapes, we are basically going to take the view that if the Plaintiff and the Intervenor introduce evidence to rebut the current state of the record that Mr. Hubbard controlled the organizations and that there was no corporate integrity to them, then we see the issue of the admissibility of the tapes as directly contrary evidence because the tapes say precisely the opposite of what they would then introduce evidence on to rebut our case.At that point the issue of the purposes of MCCS with regard to creating the precise type of evidence that the Plaintiff would then be seeking to introduce would indicate to the Court that in effect that was the purpose of MCCS.
So what we are going to do is kind of let the ball bounce over into the other court.
THE COURT: In other words, what you are saying is that you would like to reserve that for surrebuttal in the event that Plaintiff puts on something in their rebuttal which would tend to contradict what the Court perceives as the state of the record at this time?
MR. FLYNN: Correct.
THE COURT: That is agreeable with the Court.
I guess we are still with Miss Sullivan on the stand here on redirect.
You may retake the stand. State your name again
3392
for the record. You are still under oath.THE WITNESS: Laurel Sullivan.
LAUREL SULLIVAN, the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Flynn.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Miss Sullivan, when we ended on Friday we were talking about a policy relating to the purported cancellation of Fair Game; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, I’m showing you a book that says on it, “Organization Executive Course HCO Division 1? copyrighted by L. Ron Hubbard.
This is published in 1970.
Referring to page 489 of that volume, I direct your attention to “HCO policy letter 21 October, 1969? which starts “Cancellation of Fair Game”; do you see that?
A Yes.
3393
Q Now, is that the policy letter you were referring to in your testimony on Friday which purported to cancel it but per your testimony only cancelled the practice of putting the Declares on ethics orders?
A Yes.
Q So, to your knowledge throughout the period of time that you were involved in the organization, Fair Game with regard to the treatment or handling of an SP was never cancelled; is that correct?
A That is correct.
THE COURT: Did you want this marked as an exhibit, Counsel?
MR. FLYNN: May that be marked. Your Honor?
THE COURT: Quadruple A.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Let me show you a magazine — may this be marked next in order?
THE COURT: Four B’s.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Entitled “Advance” issue 12, copyright 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard.
A Are you sure it is ‘72 –
Q Now, I direct your attention to page — the inside of the back cover starting, “Join Ron’s
personal organization”; do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Did you participate in the preparation of that promotion?
A This particular page?
Q Correct.
3394
A I may have, but this magazine came from the ship, so it was published by the ship. Probably printed in Los Angeles but prepared at the ship.
Q Well, to your knowledge in 1972 as indicated in this particular publication, was L. Ron Hubbard promoting the Sea Organization as his quote, personal organization?
A Yes, and the Church of Scientology of California is part of the Sea Organization as a Sea Org organization.
Q Now, let me show you a picture — directing your attention to that picture, Miss Sullivan; do you recognize that?
A Yes.
Q And approximately when was that taken?
A I think early ‘74.
Q And for what purpose was that picture taken?
A It is part of a series. I think it is No. 1 in a series going to staff members. There are other pictures of LRH briefing staff and him at the Telex machine, and I think possibly five others in the series, and it was sent out to organizations for their notice board and published in the Flag Management Newsletter as a cover sheet — as the cover.
Q Was the purpose of that picture and the other ones that you have just described promotional?
A Yes.
Q And promotional in what way?
A It was to inspire staff that LRH was in charge and that he was definitely there on the management
3395
scene, and there was a five times game at that time to increase statistics in the organization by five times, to do that for him.Q Increase the growth income by a factor of five?
MR. HARRIS: Wait a minute. Object to that; leading.
THE COURT: All right, I will sustain the objection. The witness can tell us what five related to, I presume.
THE WITNESS: The five times statistics were all of the international statistics of which the gross income was a major statistic, and that included delivery statistics as well as book sale statistics.
Q Was that promoted on the basis of doing it for Ron?
A In a sense. The do it for Ron was in a 1971 era, so that slogan had kind of fallen out, but it was a similar thing. It was five times. It was a game and there were other posters. We shot one with LRH lighting a rocket which had 10 times on it taken on the ship.
Q Was that promoted in terms of his birthday?
A Yes, it was part of that.
Q What was the correlation between promoting the gross income statistic in relation to Mr. Hubbard’s birth date?
A Birthday gift to him.
3396
Q And organizations throughout the world tried to raise their income by a factor of five as a birthday promotion?
A Yes. That was part of it.
They have had five times and ten times gains. And at this particular time it was a “get-on source promotion” which is do what he says, him being the source.
Q Following Mr. Hubbard’s directive?
A Uh-huh.
MR. FLYNN: May this be marked next in order, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Quadruple C.
MR. HARRIS: We don’t have a copy of it.
MR. FLYNN: That is the only one I have got of it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is this you?
THE WITNESS: That is me.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, Mr. Harris had asked you a question about Mr. Hubbard being a warm, nice human being; do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q In 1978-1979 were you with Mr. Hubbard at La Quinta and Gilman Hot Springs?
A Yes.
Q And would you describe Mr. Hubbard’s activities at that time in terms of the type of person he displayed himself as being to the staff.
A Well, for the most part we were making films
3397
during that period or shooting posters, still photography. And that was the contact that the staff had with him personally. His written communications saturated the organization pretty thoroughly, but not all the staff saw him.He had what I would call a dual personality characteristic. In a sense he was warm and friendly and in a sense he could turn and be erratic, irrational, screaming, yelling and cause a great deal of upset with the staff.
Q Did he curse a great deal at staff members?
A Yes.
Q And –
A As PR, my hands were full.
Q What do you mean by that, Miss Sullivan.
Q Well, you have a person who is being screamed at, told he is a jerk; told that he is stupid or told that he is no good or that he can’t do anything. And he is getting told this in front of 30 other staff members who are going to, obviously, go into agreement with the person who is saying that. And you are trying also to get them to be able to work.
As a public relations person, I would always — my first opportunity of seeing that person alone or being able to kind of let them know that it wasn’t the end of the world and to carry on with their work or they really weren’t that bad or really in the long run L. Hon Hubbard would cool off and they would have their little apologies later. It was something that I did pretty routinely.
3398
Q Did he have a phobia with regard to soap in his clothes?
MR. HARRIS: Phobia, Your Honor? I’ll object. It is beyond the –
MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it.
Q Miss Sullivan, you testified that you believed this conversation you had with Kima Douglas relative to RRF was in 1972; do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q That is your best memory as to when the conversation took place?
A Well, how I recall it having to do with the job that I held, I held that job over ‘72 and ‘73.
Q So it could have been in the summer of ‘73?
A Yes. It could have been.
Q Now, is there any question in your mind but that you had the conversation or the two conversations?
A No, no. It definitely occurred.
Q All right. Now, in some instances you have a very startling memory with regard to precise dates; for example, when you joined a particular post or undertook particular posts; why is that?
A Because of the issues that would get published at those times or — for the most part, when you are carrying out your duties and there are certain issues that you are following, when you making proposals, you attach those issues or letters or statements with their dates to your proposals. And when you make several proposals on different subjects
3399
like I did, you get to know the dates or they get to be very familiar.In fact, I had files that just kept extra copies of issues to hand that I could just attach and submit as a support document to my proposal.
Q In other words, over the years the dates of particular publications would continually arise and you would associate events with those dates; is that correct?
A Sure; like the Founder policy letter 1 September, ‘66. You just remember it because you see it again and again and again. It is something that you do.
Like my issue on my posting, I am pretty sure it is 4 November.
I had another promotion on my birthday, 24 July, 1969.
Those things do not mean necessarily anything to somebody else, but I also remember all the bulletins that came out on that day. It is something that is just unique to me as far as what I can actually remember.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: No, Your Honor; Mr. Harris.
THE COURT: MR. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
3400
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. HARRIS:
Q You testified, Miss Watson [Sullivan], that you had a conversation with Miss Britowich in which she told you that your Fair Game Declare would be lifted or canceled if you testified on behalf of the organization in this case; is that right?
A She said that I should cooperate and work with the organization.
She at that time, I don’t think, said “testify” as such, but it is one and the same as far as cooperating.
Q She used the words “Fair Game”?
A Well, at the time there was an international issue out on me, not specifically naming me, but discussing things that I had done. And there was also an international Declare out on me. So there were two issues being discussed.
Q Let me ask you this: Did she use the words “Fair Game Declare,” when she talked to you, Miss Sullivan?
A She used “Declare” and my suppressive order.
You see, she is the one that read the order to me on the telephone in the first place. X hadn’t actually received a copy until later.
Q You testified on page 3366 last Fridays “Now, did you have a conversation with Miss Britowich in which she told you” –
A Where are you reading?
Q — “In which she told you that your
3401
Fair Game Declare would be lifted or canceled if you testified on behalf of the organization in this case?
“A Yes. She said that.”
That is what you testified to; right?
A Uh-huh.
3402
THE COURT: You said “international issue, international order.”
In non-Scientology terms, what is that?
THE WITNESS: It was a published statement to all organizations and all missions in the world saying that I was suppressive for not disconnecting from Gerald Armstrong, and for a number of other crimes which were the same ones that I had supposedly undergone a justice action for, and then there was another international issue, which is the directive L. Ron Hubbard executive directive that goes to all organizations and all missions, and is also broadly published. That means it can go into promotions or promotional pieces or get published in the newsletter or something that said that an issue that I had written earlier was not all right and unauthorized, which wasn’t so, and I can’t remember all of it, but that I was pretty bad.
MR. HARRIS: Deposition in this case, Mr. Flynn, page 209 lines 17 through 19:
“Q Did someone offer to lift the Declare on you if you testified for the Church?
“A No, they certainly didn’t.”
THE WITNESS: I’d like to explain that. First of all, Lisa called me and was no longer a staff member, and I told her in that telephone call that she didn’t represent me and should not try to negotiate that because) I didn’t care about my Declare being issued — being lifted. This was apparently something she cooked up with Jeff Schievell and I didn’t know who she was representing. She certainly wasn’t
3403
going to represent me, so that is why you have that discrepancy.Q BY MR. HARRIS: That explains the discrepancy; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, Miss Sullivan, you said Advanced Organization Los Angeles was a part of the Church of Scientology of California but was a Sea Org org; is that correct?
A Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You have to answer audibly.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: And the Sea Org org, as you understood it, contained people who were Sea Org people; right?
A Right.
Q And the American St. Hill Organization was also a Sea Org org within the Church of Scientology of California; right?
A Correct.
Q Did you have any personal knowledge of who prepared exhibit BBBB — it is getting out of hand. Your Honor — that is “Join Ron’s Personal Organization”?
A Well I was familiar with the setup and the layout of the Advance magazine from its inception.
Q So you knew personally who prepared this particular item; is that correct?
A It says it in the magazine in the masthead. The editor is David Ziff and the assistant editor is Sylvia Race,
3404
both of whom I know, and both of whom routinely prepared the copy and both of them at that time were on the Flag ship and getting their authority from L. Ron Hubbard.Q So from what you know –
A From my experience.
Q From what you know, it was David Ziff and someone else –
A Sylvia Race.
Q — who prepared this particular item?
A Yes.
Q And you say Mr. Hubbard approved it?
A Well it was routine that he approved it.
Q But you don’t have any personal knowledge that he approved this particular item?
A No, but I know that he often referred to the Sea Organization and the AO as his org.
Q His org?
A He referred to it that way himself.
Q By the way, is an organization different than a corporation so far as you knew at the time that you read his?
A At the time it came out, I didn’t make a distinction.
Q You made no distinction?
A No, not at that time.
THE COURT: What is MEST, M-E-S-T?
THE WITNESS: Matter, energy, space and time. It is an acronym for the physicalness of things.
3405
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Now, Miss Sullivan, gross income was one of how many statistics being kept?
A Well the actual number shifted from time to time. The gross income is the executive statistic, the division 7 statistic along with value of services delivered of division 7, and therefore one of two or three of the seniormost statistics kept internationally.
Q I will ask the question again. How many statistics did the organization keep?
A About — probably about 20, 21.
Q Including Well Done Auditing Hours?
A Yes, that is division 4.
Q And New People Into The Organization?
A New Names to CF, New Public, division 6, yes.
Q And other statistics?
A Yes.
Q Cash Bills?
A Yes. Cash bills is Guardian’s office.
Q And so when you were mentioning this LRH birthday game, is that what it is?
A Uh-huh.
THE COURT: The birthday game was to get all the statistics up five times?
A Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You have to answer audibly.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: By Mr. Hubbard’s birthday?
A Well, yes. At times it was 10 times.
3406
Q And this birthday game, did you have something to do with that?
A Yes I assisted him with the photography of the posters and wrote issues on it and worked with the aides in the promotion of it.
Q Can you tell me when is your best recollection of having this conversation with Kima Douglas about RRF?
A When?
Q When.
A Well I don’t have a date that comes to mind. I just have circumstances to date it.
Q The international issue that you are talking about was your Declare?
A There are two international issues.
Q Is one of the international issues your Declare?
A Yes.
Q Is the other one an LRH ED?
A As I understand it, yes.
Q And when you say as you understand it, have you seen the LRH ED?
A Yes, but I haven’t seen it in the last couple of years.
Q And it didn’t mention you; did it?
A Not specifically by name, but it referred to a person who had authorized an issue, and I am the author of that issue.
Q And –
A I think the person who wrote it very specifically did not mention my name to protect themselves.
3407
Q Well, who wrote it?
A Well, I don’t recall who wrote that.
Q Isn’t your testimony that this HCO Policy Letter of 21 October, 1968 canceled the penalties for lower conditions which is exhibit, I think, RR?
A Well, this particular issue doesn’t say it cancels anything except Fair Game; otherwise, it would say up here, “Cancels HCO Policy Letter,” blah, blah, blah to give you a reference so that if you ran across this you could look up the earlier issue and say that is the one that is canceled. This is the way it goes.
But there is no other notation here that anything is canceled.
And this is way [why] we had that conversation over whether it was actually canceled or revised, because it says this is canceled, but it doesn’t say the — it says this Policy Letter does not cancel any policy in the treatment or handling of the SP.
So there is just that little thing shoved in there that does not cancel anything.
Q Let me ask you this: Have you seen an actual cancellation of the HCO Policy Letter of 18 October, ‘Penalties for Lower Conditions”?
A I probably have, but I don’t recall it offhand.
Q That was a different item than HCO PL 21 October, 1968 which has been marked exhibit quadruple A; is that correct?
A Well, I’ll tell you what: I have probably seen
3408
all the revisions and cancellations of any ethics policy letter including this one. And what I see as the issue here is whether or not Fair Game is canceled for a suppressive person outside the organization. It is not, definitely not; certainly not in practice, despite who wrote what, when.Q That is what I am trying to get at; is it your –
A Penalties have been waived for staff members –
Q Just a second.
Is it your contention that the policy letter which talks about penalties for lower conditions, exhibit, I believe, RR –
A Uh-huh.
Q — is still an existing noncanceled policy letter?
A It has been added to, revised, possibly canceled.
Those conditions still exist even though the sequence for them has changed. It has been updated.
Q The conditions –
A Liability, treason, doubt, enemy are still conditions as far as I know. They certainly were until 1981.
Q Yes.
A And you have now additions of conditions, You have additions as far as the formulas and you [have] revisions as far as the formulas. And so the body of this policy letter has been routinely revised.
3409
Q I am referring specifically to exhibit RR; is it your contention that exhibit RR is an existing noncanceled policy letter?
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, it has been asked and answered five times.
MR. HARRIS: It has not been answered yet.
THE COURT: I don’t think that is her testimony, counsel.
She said as far as her understanding, the policy still exists that suppressive persons outside the organization — it has been changed and revised; other things have happened, apparently, is her testimony relating to other people.
MR. HARRIS: I want to distinguish between a practice which I understand this witness’ testimony relates to, Your Honor, and the actual written policy letter which has been paraded up here.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know, counsel; you represent the church. And I presume that if you have some documents that would impeach the witness on this matter, then you probably should present them to her and cross-examine her on them.
I agree you have a right to test her recollection. But she has attempted, I believe, to answer your question.
THE WITNESS: You see, this says here “. . .applies to both Orgs and Sea Org.”
It is also Issue 4. We don’t have the earlier issue. We also don’t have the subsequent issues for that
3410
series.THE COURT: There is no question pending at the moment.
MR. HARRIS: I did put one in, Your Honor. I am trying to locate it.
THE COURT: We have so many exhibits here.
MR. HARRIS: That is my problem too, Your Honor.
May I have exhibit 55?
Q Directing your attention to what has been marked exhibit 55, I ask you if you recognize that?
A I have seen it before.
Q And you mentioned that the document which you pointed to about cancellation of Fair Game didn’t have any cancellations of any specific policy letters; correct?
A This is written by — this is written in 1981.
Q Yes.
A Signature L. Ron Hubbard — he was not on the scene — assisted by Real LaPlaine, International HCO Exec Sec. And it lists all these.
Q Yes. And up at the top here, particularly, it mentions those issues which remain canceled. And one of them is HCO PL 18 October, Issue 4, Penalties for Lower Conditions; is that correct?
A Why would somebody have to issue that they remain canceled if they were really canceled?
3411
Q Well, there is more than one.
A If they were really cancelled –
Q There is more than one –
A But why did someone have to say “remain cancelled” unless they somehow got uncancelled. I don’t get it. That I don’t get because if you have to say they remain cancelled, then there is getting to be some question about whether they are cancelled or not, so she is trying to do something there which isn’t real clear.
Q You didn’t at the time you read exhibit 55 have some confusion about what it says; did you?
A I don’t know when I read this. At that time I probably would have just shoved it in a drawer. I had no interest really in reading this stuff.
Q Okay. Now, you testified on redirect that your deposition testimony in the St. Petersburg Times case was a shore story; is that correct?
A Essentially.
Q Does that mean, Miss Sullivan, that you lied in the deposition?
A What it means is I left out some important data that I could have said. I chose not to say it and so I shifted emphasis.
I also used a hypothetical example.
Q And you recall me asking you on cross-examination whether at the time that you gave that testimony you believed it and your answer, “Yes”?
A I believed those things that I said were so,
3412
but I also was not so naive as to not — to not know that there were other important facts that could have been stated at that time.MR. HARRIS: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: I have nothing.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: Just a couple, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Miss Sullivan, directing your attention to this conversation you had with Lisa Britowich and the mention of the Jeff Schievell, who is Jeff Schievell?
A Well, he used to be in B-l at Worldwide and/or in the services bureau when I knew him, and then he was associated with B-l, and then he was promoted to assume Jimmy Mulligan’s position of controller assistant intelligence or information, and after I left when they set up ASI and RTC, I assume he took his same position but in a different corporation.
MR. HARRIS: I move to strike that. Your Honor, as speculation.
THE COURT: Be stricken.
THE WITNESS: My familiarity with Jeff Schievell is as an intelligence person.
MR. FLYNN: Just the last part with regard to her assumption?
3413
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, that is all I moved.
Q BY MR FLYNN: Do you know whether Lisa Britowich was in communication with Jeff Schievell?
A Yes.
Q And you also knew at that that time that Lisa Britowich was not in the organization; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q So what you are saying is that you didn’t think in your deposition that Lisa Britowich had the authority to cancel your Declare?
MR. LITT: Objection.
MR. HARRIS: That assumes facts not in evidence, also.
THE COURT: Well you can restate it. I will sustain your objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What if anything did you think. Miss Sullivan, with regard to the authority of Lisa Britowich to cancel your Declare?
A She didn’t have any authority. She was out of the organization.
Jeff Schievell had called her to find out if I would talk to him, and I said, “Well, why doesn’t he call me? He is the one that published my address. Why doesn’t he call me?”
She said, “Well, they don’t know if you will talk to them.”
I said, “Well, there is only one way to find
3414
that out is for then to call me.”She set up this line to me as a via which I objected to and was adding things in or stating them for them, and it wasn’t clear to me so I said, “Lisa, you don’t represent me.”
Q You were at that time friendly with Lisa Britowich; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And in your testimony at the trial did you equate a Fair Game Declare with a Declare where a person who is being declared is out of the organization?
A Yes.
Q So, if Lisa Britowich didn’t say Fair Game Declare but simply Declare, did you understand the two to mean one and the same?
A Yes. It is just staff member lingo. “Lift your Declare.”
Q And with regard to testify and cooperation, did you understand that to mean the same thing?
A Yes.
Q Now, in your conversation with Mr. Litt, did you tell Mr. Litt that –
MR. LITT: Objection; beyond the scope of Mr. Harris’ cross.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection unless you want to reopen.
MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it. Your Honor.
I do have one document which is beyond the
3415
scope, Your Honor, which I overlooked.MR. HARRIS: Do you have a copy?
MR. FLYNN: And I don’t have a copy of it, and I’d like to have the witness identify it.
THE COURT: Have you shown it to counsel?
MR. LITT: No.
MR. FLYNN: It relates to the biography project in the contract negotiations.
3416
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Miss Sullivan, directing your attention to these two documents stapled together –
May they be marked next in order, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I think we are up to quadruple D. Four D’s.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you recognize these two letters?
A Yes.
Q And which of those documents did you personally prepare?
A This one, the second one.
Q The second one which is dated 23 October, 1980 which starts at the top “Re Biography Contract Negotiations”; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And in what way does the first two pages of exhibit quadruple D relate to the second two pages?
A It is a reply.
Q And in the first –
A It is not the complete reply because there were supposedly two phone calls, one from Ann Mulligan to Mary Sue and one from Ann Mulligan to me on this as well.
Q Now, was it the second two pages of the exhibit that initiated the series of phone calls you just referred to?
A Yes.
Q And were those phone calls held on the same day?
A I think the next day.
3417
Q What was — who participated in those phone calls?
A Ann Mulligan and Mary Sue according to Ann Mulligan and Ann Mulligan and myself.
Q Who is Ann Mulligan?
A She was Mary Sue’s assistant for legal which is listed here CAL, Controller Assistant Legal.
Q And what was said in those phone calls, Miss Sullivan?
A Well, I had made this proposal on the biography and Ann –
Q Referring to the back two pages of the exhibit?
A Yes.
And submitted to Ann for forwarding to Mary Sue.
And as I understand it, Mary Sue was not physically available to receive this that day. She was doing something.
But Ann had contact with her. And this reply came back from Ann.
I questioned her. I called her and said, “Where is it?”
She said, “Well, I had wanted to answer you. And I’ll answer you. But here is the result which she related to me.”
And I said, “Did you actually talk to Mary Sue about this?”
And she said, “Yes.”
And this is this dispatch here dated the 24th.
3418
It is really a summary of her communications with Mary Sue in reply.
Q Now, this was shortly before the agreement was entered into; is that correct, the agreement between PDK and Omar Garrison?
A Yes.
Q Now, on the document that begins at the top “Re Biography Contract Negotiations” that you prepared which is the third page of this exhibit, there is a notation in paragraph, numbered paragraph 2 that another contract be drawn up between PUB’s [PUBs] DK and R.
Who is R?
A LRH.
Q To pay royalties to him for his permission to use materials of his, et cetera; what did that mean?
A Well, it meant that — well, first of all, LRH and PDK already had an agreement that was an author-publisher agreement. And there was going to be an addition to that for the use of his materials in compilation of any books and we were going to broaden it. The broadening of it comes under MCCS.
The actual discussion here is to set up a payment to L. Ron Hubbard as the subject for the use of his materials which is the archives.
Q The archives that Mr. Armstrong was collecting?
A Correct.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Counsel, do you want to cross-examine on
3419
this?MR. LITT: Could we have a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Surely.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Miss Sullivan, you referred in Mr. Flynn’s questions to you to something that was supposed to happen; did you ever see a signed contract by Mr. Hubbard and PUBS DK that reached the agreement that you are talking about that was supposed to happen there?
A I saw a framework that a contract would cover. I didn’t see a contract.
I was removed before that could be completed.
Q So you have no personal knowledge as to whether any such contract was ever actually executed or not, do you?
A Well, I was told by Ron Pook that it was, but I never saw it.
MR. LITT: Move to strike the last part, Your Honor. The first part is nonresponsive.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. LITT: You do not have any personal knowledge; correct?
A No.
Q Is that correct?
A No, that is correct.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris?
3420
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FLYNN:
Q You did know at the time that Omar Garrison entered into the contract with PDK that the basis of that contract was the contract that PDK would have with L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?
MR. LITT: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: At this stage it is, but in the interest of getting her off, I don’t mind a leading question. I’ll overrule it.
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
And the contract between Omar and PDK really couldn’t be executed on its own without that agreement.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: Nothing.
MR. HARRIS: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down.
MR. HARRIS: Can she remain on call, Your Honor, in case this MCCS stuff comes up again?
THE COURT: I’ll excuse the witness subject to being on call through Mr. Flynn in the event further testimony is required.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Spurlock is down on the second floor, Your Honor. Mr. Flynn notified us he would be the next
3421
witness.MR. FLYNN: I can put on another short witness before Mr. Spurlock.
In view of this claim that the Fair Game Doctrine has been canceled, I brought a witness in from Las Vegas.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARRIS: Somebody on your witness list, I am sure?
MR. FLYNN: I understand that he may not be on the witness list. He has been sued three times by the organization. His deposition has been taken approximately 20 times.
In light of the position taken by the organization on Friday that the Fair Game Doctrine had been canceled –
I could bring him back on surrebuttal, if necessary, but he is here. I expect him to be fairly short with regard to three or four points that have arisen during the case.
MR. LITT: If I can be heard, Your Honor, as far as I know Mr. Walters is not on the witness list. And there would be preparations to be done to cross-examine Mr. Walters which has not been done because we were given no notice that he was to be a witness in this case.
We would object to him being a witness. But if he is to be a witness, we would ask that it not be now so that, at least, we have an opportunity to do some preparation.
He is, presumably, going to stand up and make all kinds of statements that I don’t know anything about.
3422
And I presume Mr. Harris doesn’t know anything about them either. And we don’t have the opportunity to do any investigation under these circumstances.
3423
MR. FLYNN: Well, Your Honor with regard to Mr. Harris’ knowledge, Mr. Walters was a witness in the IRS case and was cross-examined by Mr. Harris.
MR. HARRIS: No, that is not true. Your Honor. Mr. Walters was a witness in the IRS case and was not cross-examined by me or anybody else on behalf of the church.
MR. FLYNN: Well, he was a witness in the IRS case.
MR. HARRIS: He was, relating to the period 1970 through ‘72.
THE COURT: Well, what is your offer of proof for this witness, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: He would testify that between the years 1970 and as late as 1979 he acted as a Guardian’s office missionaire dealing with the highest members of the Guardian’s office on missions to implement the Fair Game Doctrine against a variety of people and organizations, of which he specifically did, he had direct conversations with the highest members of the Guardian’s office to the effect that the Fair Game Doctrine, of course, was never cancelled and had been implemented for years.
He also was sent out on missions to penetrate the office of a psychiatrist, to tape record conversations, to cull PC files and use the information to blackmail people.
He himself directly particularly in an operation against these people called the Hartwells when they returned to Las Vegas because of their proximity to L. Ron Hubbard, to cull PC files, tape record conversations of Mr. Hartwell,
3424
and then take the tape and splice out portions of the tape which was then taken to the police to make it appear that Mr. Hartwell was extorting money from the organization.He has direct personal knowledge, both as an operative of the Guardian’s office that Fair Game was never has cancelled, and he also has direct knowledge in the way of the policy of the organization to the effect that the Fair Game doctrine was never cancelled.
In addition to that, he was dealing, unlike Miss Sullivan and Mr. Armstrong, dealing with public Scientologists for a period of 10 years and he saw Scientologists pay literally hundreds of thousands of dollars based upon representations about L. Ron Hubbard’s background that they particularly relied on, and the proof of the fact that the L. Ron Hubbard background was probably the most significant thing to a person who was paying this money was the fact that when the Hartwells left Mr. Hubbard in La Quinta and they began to disseminate information about Mr. Hubbard and the type of person he was as they observed when they were with him in La Quinta, many Guardian’s office operations were mounted against the Hartwells because the information was spreading in Las Vegas at the time that Mr. Hubbard was the type of person in reality that he was perceived to be by the Hartwells and people began to leave the organization when they realized the type of individual they were dealing with.
So, those two items are the essence of his testimony. He also sold L. Ron Hubbard’s background and he
3425
saw thousands of people rely on it and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in reliance on it.THE COURT: Well it doesn’t sound like it would be very brief. Sounds like it would be rather extensive.
MR. HARRIS: Also, just in terms of the defense which goes to MR. Armstrong’s state of mind, unless there was a prerequisite established that Mr. Armstrong had spoken to this gentleman before he left or before he sent these items, it doesn’t seen like it would be relevant.
THE COURT: Well, we will take a short recess and you can get this other witness, Mr. Spurlock, and we will deal with that.
I would think that if I were to permit this witness to testify, I’d limit it to the issue of whether or not Fair Game was revoked or not revoked. It would tend to corroborate defense witnesses in the facts and issues and it would be something that would become, I suppose, consistent with your statement that that you were not aware that that was going to be a position taken.
But I think to go into all of these other areas, it seems to me rather cumulative and undue consumption of time.
After all, we have been at this thing for four weeks now and I think we ought to be winding down, I would hope.
MR. FLYNN: My prognosis is, Your Honor, I have got Mr. Spurlock probably 30 to 40 minutes, Nancy Dincalci probably half an hour and Mr. Garrison approximately half
3426
an hour.The problem I have with Mr. Garrison is he can’t be here until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.
THE COURT: I have got a feeling you are going to be occupied until then.
MR. LITT: Could we, while we are sort of having this exchange, there have been some other names that have been mentioned.
Is Mr. Flynn representing that they are not going to be called at this time?
There’s been Michael Douglas and Kima Douglas mentioned, and there’s been Bill Franks mentioned concerning whom there had been discussion of a deposition. Mr. Flynn left out all of those names.
THE COURT: With regard to Miss Douglas and Mr. Pranks, I an going to wait to see what the rebuttal case is. Your Honor.
THE COURT: okay. We will take 10 minutes then. (Recess.)
3427
THE COURT: Very well. We are back in session. Counsel are all present. You may call your next witness.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you. Your Honor.
Mr. Spurlock, please.
MR. HELLER: Good morning, Your Honor. My name is Larry Heller. I’ll be representing the witness Mr. Lyman Spurlock during his testimony.
Your Honor may recall my name from a review of the files. At one time I was the attorney for the Church of Scientology and, in fact, obtained the temporary restraining order and the temporary injunction. I am very familiar with the issues herein and have been updated on the occurrences procedurally that have occurred since I left as counsel of record for the church.
THE COURT: What about the church’s position? There could be a conflict of interest, I presume.
MR. HARRIS: My position in respect to Mr. Spurlock, Your Honor, is that Mr. Flynn is calling him based upon data he has received which is attorney-client privileged and that the witness as such — if we were to use an analogy, fruit of the poisonous tree — in respect to Mr. Spurlock, he did work for the Church of Scientology of California for a period of time pre-1980. So I don’t know what is going to be asked. That is partly the problem.
THE COURT: The only point I raised is whether or not you have any objection on behalf of the church to a former attorney of your client apparently counseling with this
3428
witness as he testifies.MR. HARRIS: No, not as such.
THE COURT: Swear the witness.
THE CLERK: Raise your right hand to be sworn.
LYMAN SPURLOCK, called as a witness by the defense, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE CLERK: Take the witness stand.
THE COURT: If you want to counsel with your lawyer at any time, sir, just advise me. But he has no right to object or to raise any objections. But if you want to counsel with him with regard to any questions that counsel or any counsel asks you, you may do so.
MR. HELLER: Your Honor, I have been retained by Mr. Spurlock because he has some concern relating to privileges which may vest in his principal, who was his principal at the time, Mr. L. Ron Hubbard. And he has retained me to make sure there is not an inadvertent or purposeful waiver of those privileges.
3429
THE COURT: Well you certainly can consult with him and advise him to assert a privilege, but the privilege is his to assert or his principal’s. It is not yours individually. You have no standing in this lawsuit as an attorney to object to any questions.
MR. HELLER: May I stand by the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE CLERK: Will you state and spell your name?
THE WITNESS: Lyman Spurlock.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Where do you live, Mr. Spurlock?
A In Los Angeles.
Q What is your residential address?
A 1404 North Catalina.
Q Is that the premises of the Church of Scientology?
A Yes.
Q You live on those premises?
A Yes, I rent a room there.
Q Do you pay rent?
A Yes.
Q How much do you pay?
MR. HARRIS: What is the relevance. Your Honor?
THE COURT: Well –
MR. FLYNN: Just a little background.
MR. HARRIS: The background of how much he pays for rent?
3430
THE COURT: Do you pay personally pay the rent or does your employer pay your rent?
THE WITNESS: I personally pay ay rent.
THE COURT: You can answer. How much do you pay?
THE WITNESS: $120 a month, I think.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And do you have offices at that location?
A No.
Q Do you know what corporation owns those premises?
A No.
Q What is your current occupation?
A I am deputy executive director of Author Services Incorporated. Deputy executive director for clients affairs specifically.
Q And where are the offices of that corporation, Mr. Spurlock?
A 6463 Sunset Boulevard.
Q How long have you held that position?
A As deputy executive director?
Q Correct.
A Since about February 1983.
Q And who is the executive director of that organization?
A Norman Starky.
Q And what is his title?
A Executive director.
Q Does David Miscavige have a position in that
3431
organization?A No.
Q At any time did he have a position?
A From time to time.
MR. HARRIS: Objection; irrelevant.
THE COURT: Oh, I will let the answer stand.
Q BY MR, FLYNN: From time to time?
A As a troubleshooter we paid him, yes.
Q And what type of troubleshooting did he do?
A Various projects. One that stands to mind is we were having trouble getting “Battlefield Earth” distributed into the bookstores, and he acted as a trouble-shooter to get that done.
Q Is he the communications link between Author Services Inc. and L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. HARRIS: Objection; irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.
MR. HELLER: I think I’d like a moment to confer with my client, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
3432
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, could we have the question –
THE COURT: Read the question, please.
THE REPORTER: The question was taken by the other reporter, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The question was was David Miscavige the communications link between Author Services and LRH.
THE WITNESS: Sometimes yes and sometimes no. It is not — no. The –
If your question means is he the absolute communications link between L. Ron Hubbard and Author Services, the answer is no.
MR. FLYNN: That was not the question.
THE COURT: Then I misstated it.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Between February, 1980 and the present time has he been the communications link between L. Ron Hubbard and Author Services Inc.?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that as irrelevant and calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Well, when did Author Services Inc. come into existence? He could have been the communicator before that time.
MR. FLYNN: I’ll withdraw it and back up a little bit, Your Honor.
Q Before you were the Deputy Executive Director for Author Services Inc. what was your position in that
organization if any, Mr. Spurlock?
A Corporate Affairs Director.
Q And when did you take on that post?
3433
A In March of 1982.
Q And when did you take on the post of Deputy Executive Director?
MR. LITT: Objection. Asked and answered.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: That is February, 1983; is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Do you know when Author Services Inc. was incorporated?
A I believe it was somewhere around October, 1981.
Q Did you play any role in the incorporation of that organization?
A No, I didn’t.
Q Do you know who the incorporators were?
A I believe it was Ron Pook.
Q Was he the only incorporator?
A I don’t know.
Q Is he currently with the organization?
A No.
Q Do you know who the present Board of Directors of the organization are?
A Yes.
Q Who?
A Norman Starky; Fran Harris; John Alcock.
Q Have you ever been a member of the Board of Directors of Author Services Inc.?
A No.
Q Do you know whether or not those individuals have
3434
signed undated letters of resignation?MR. HARRIS: It is irrelevant, Your Honor. Object.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Prior to March, 1982 what was your position, Mr. Spurlock?
A Immediately prior? Way prior? Do you mean –
Q Within the prior year.
A Within the prior year I worked for Church of Scientology of California.
Q In what position?
A Investment Officer International.
Q What were your duties in that position?
A I had a variety of duties.
I was basically an assistant to WDC on investments and financial matters.
Q Did you basically invest the church’s monies?
MR. HARRIS: Church of Scientology of California monies?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Church of Scientology of California; is that what you did?
A I didn’t do it personally.
Q You advised as to investments of the Church of Scientology of California’s monies; is that correct?
A That would be a fair statement.
Q Were those called “Sea Org Reserves”?
A Yes.
Q And how long did you hold that position?
A From about April, 1979 to November, 1981.
3435
Q In November, 1981 what position did you hold after Investment Officer International of CSC?
A I went to work for R accounts or LRH through R accounts to assist in some estate planning matters. There was no formal title.
THE COURT: Is this Author Services now a profit corporation or nonprofit corporation?
THE WITNESS: It is a profit corporation.
THE COURT: Who were the shareholders if you know?
THE WITNESS: The employees. I don’t know the exact breakdown.
THE COURT: What employees?
THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
THE COURT: What employees?
THE WITNESS: Of Author Services.
THE COURT: Does that include you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: How many employees does the company have?
THE WITNESS: 24, 25.
THE COURT: They are each shareholders?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: How many employees are shareholders?
THE WITNESS: I really don’t know.
THE COURT: Is LRH a shareholder?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Does anybody hold shares in his behalf to your knowledge?
THE WITNESS: No.
3436
THE COURT: How about Mary Sue; is she a shareholder?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Does anybody hold shares in her behalf, if you know?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Any trust that holds the shares?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: You may continue, counsel.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: There is no trust, Mr. Spurlock, that holds any shares on behalf of L. Ron Hubbard; is that your testimony?
A That is right.
3437
MR. LITT: Is this in Author Services?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In Author Services, Inc.; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Who appointed you to your position?
MR. HARRIS: Which position, Your Honor?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Your current position.
A Deputy executive director?
Q Correct.
A Norm Starky.
Q Who appointed Mr. Starky to his position?
MR. HARRIS: Objection; calls for a conclusion.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: If you know.
THE COURT: If you know.
MR. HARRIS: Or hearsay, one or the other.
THE COURT: If you know, you can answer. If you don’t, you can so state.
THE WITNESS: I really don’t know.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, how many clients does Author Services, Inc. have?
MR. HARRIS: Objection; that is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: L. Ron Hubbard is the significant client.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are there any others?
A One at the present time, I think.
Q Is the other one a corporation or an individual?
MR. HARRIS: Objection; irrelevant, Your Honor.
3438
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: An individual.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And who is that?
MR. HARRIS: Objection; irrelevant, Your Honor. This is not a discovery proceeding into what ASl’s business is.
THE COURT: Well, I guess I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, is it fair to say that almost all of the duties of Author Services Inc. is to manage the business affairs of L. Ron Hubbard?
A That would be a fair statement.
Q Now, I take it between November 1981 and March 1982 you worked for R accounts?
A Right.
Q And did that position involve investing the money of L. Ron Hubbard?
A No.
Q What did it involve?
A It involved tacking his liaison with attorneys to sort out various corporate and estate matters.
Q And who were you working for at that time?
A I suppose ultimately I was working for LRH.
Q And where was your office located?
MR. HARRIS: Objection; irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: At the Cedars Complex.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And who owned the Cedars Complex at that time?
A I believe C S T [CST] did.
3439
THE COURT: Are the archives owned at this time by Author Services Inc.?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Who owns the archives, Mr. Spurlock?
THE COURT: If you know.
MR. HARRIS: Well, who owns, calls for a legal conclusion; who is in possession doesn’t.
THE COURT: Well I would disagree with you. I think either concept is a legal concept. This witness should have knowledge at least so far as Author Services. I don’t know whether he has knowledge of who owns the archives other than perhaps LRH. I don’t know.
Do you have any personal knowledge?
THE WITNESS: I can tell you this much: The question of ownership of individual archives items has never been fully sorted out. Church of Spiritual Technology has possession of the archives at this time and its job is to preserve them and the question of ownership, I suppose, would revolve around who paid for Xerox materials at certain times. I mean, it is this big massive material, many, many filing cabinets full and sorting out the individual ownership of each item would be a task which we haven’t taken on yet, but C S T [CST] does have possession of them and responsibility for them.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Let me ask you this: Essentially since November 1981, Mr. Spurlock, have you treated
3440
the archives that Mr. Armstrong collected as an asset of L. Ron Hubbard?A I haven’t treated them one way or another, Mr. Flynn.
Q Have you considered them yourself to be an asset of L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. HARRIS: Well, I will object to that as irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, overruled.
Let’s put it this way: Does Author Services consider them as an asset of Author Services?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Does Author Services Inc. consider them to be an asset of L. Ron Hubbard?
A I have never addressed that question.
3441
Q Have you exercised any supervisory authority over the Church of Spiritual Technology in connection with the possession of the archives?
A Yes, I have.
Q On behalf of L. Ron Hubbard?
A On behalf of the Church of Spiritual Technology.
Q Are you an officer or a director of that corporation?
A Yes, I am.
Q And have you signed an undated letter of resignation in connection with your position with that corporation?
A No, I haven’t.
Q Have you been on the board of directors of any other corporations, Mr. Spurlock, involving Church of Scientology corporations?
A No.
Q Only the Church of Spiritual Technology?
A On the Board of Directors, yes.
Q How about Religious Technology; at any time were you on the Board of Directors?
A No.
Q Were you an incorporator?
A I believe I was.
Q Who were the other members of the Board of Directors of the Church of Spiritual Technology?
A Greg Wilhare [Wilhere]. I can’t remember who the secretary is. I can’t remember.
3442
It is one of those things, “Here is my sister,” you know, kind of a mental lapse.
Q Now, prior to November, 1981 did you do anything in connection with investing or managing any assets of L. Ron Hubbard?
A No, I didn’t.
Q Do you know an individual named Michael Smith?
A Yes.
Q And he was in charge of L. Ron Hubbard’s accounts; is that correct, prior to November of 1981?
A That is correct.
Q And did you take over his position?
A No, I didn’t.
Q Do you know who did?
A Jim Isaacson.
Q Do you know a Michael Douglas?
A Yes, I do.
Q And in January, 1980 did you assume any responsibilities from Michael Douglas in connection with investing any of L. Ron Hubbard’s monies?
A No.
Q Who did Jim Isaacson work for, if you know, in November of 1981?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that as calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: If you know you can state it; if you don’t know, you can so state. Don’t guess.
THE WITNESS: What time was that?
3443
Q BY MR. FLYNN: November, 1981.
A My answer would be the Hubbards.
Q And do you know whether at that time he received a weekly allowance from the Church of Scientology of California?
MR. HARRIS: Objection. Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: If you have personal knowledge, you can so state; if you don’t, you can so state, but don’t guess.
THE WITNESS: I don’t have any personal knowledge.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In November, 1981 were you receiving a personal allowance from the Church of Scientology of California?
A No, I wasn’t.
Q When was the last time you received such an allowance?
A When I left.
Q When was that?
A Either late October, early November, 1981.
Q And between November, 1981 and March, 1982 did you get paid?
A Yes.
Q Who paid you?
A Jim Isaacson.
Q And how much did you receive for pay, Mr. Spurlock?
MR. HARRIS: Objection. Irrelevant.
It invades the witness’ privacy.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain it.
3444
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did your pay change in amount between late October, 1981 when you say you last worked for CSC and November, ‘81 when you went to work for R accounts?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object. Irrelevant.
MR. HELLER: It also relates to his privacy and background. I’ll join in the objection on the basis of his background, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I won’t consider you as having any standing, sir, to raise an objection.
However, I don’t see the relevancy. I’ll sustain the objection.
MR. FLYNN: If I may be heard, Your Honor, the relevancy goes to –
THE COURT: If you have to think about it, it can’t be very relevant.
MR. FLYNN: If it remained the same, it would show an identity of interest.
THE COURT: I don’t think his interest is the crux of this lawsuit.
I’ll sustain the objection. Are you a member of Sea Org?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: For a billion years?
THE WITNESS: That’s right.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And in connection with your billion-year contract, Mr. Spurlock, have you signed releases releasing L. Ron Hubbard from any liability in connection with any Sea Org responsibilities or duties?
3445
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that as irrelevant.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Between February, 1980 and the present time have you or Author Services Inc. communicated with L. Ron Hubbard?
3446
MR. HARRIS: Well, I will object to that. Your Honor, as number one, compound.
THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection. It is compound.
this [This] word “communicating,” of course, is subject to ambiguity, also. Was he receiving communications from a messenger? Did he meet him personally? Did somebody telephone him?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In May 1932 was Author Services Inc. in communication with L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. FLYNN: Well –
Q BY MR. FLYNN: By any means?
MR. HARRIS: That calls for a conclusion and also communication is ambiguous.
THE COURT: Well, that is pretty broad. I will overrule the objection.
If he was your client, did you communicate with him or he communicate with you or is this a client that you never communicate with?
THE WITNESS: No, we were in communication.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In May 1982?
A That is correct.
Q And at that time Author Services, Inc. was involved in the preparation of a will and a trust for Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?
MR. HARRIS: Well, I will object to that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
3447
MR. FLYNN: Well, Your Honor, this goes to the statement of Mrs. Hubbard that she knows of no one who is in communication with her husband.
MR. LITT: That was not her testimony.
THE COURT: The fact that she might not know doesn’t mean that somebody else might not know.
MR. LITT: To clarify the words, her testimony was that she knows of no one who has seen her husband.
THE COURT: I still say the fact that she doesn’t know doesn’t mean somebody else might not know. In other words, she doesn’t have all knowledge of communications, I presume.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Is it fair to say, Mr. Spurlock, that since at last May 1982 you have caused to prepare and to transmit to L. Ron Hubbard weekly reports concerning his financial affairs?
MR. HARRIS: I will object to that as irrelevant as the defendant left on December 12, 1981. What happened after that insofar as communications with L. Ron Hubbard is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. You have introduced evidence hare showing that he was unavailable. Concededly the court hasn’t given it much consideration in this trial.
They have always said they wanted to call him as a witness. It is kind of late in the day. I will overrule this objection to this question anyway.
Did you have weekly communications with him.
3448
sir?THE WITNESS: Not at the present time, no.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well in February 1983 and prior thereto back to May 1982 were you preparing and sending weekly reports to Mr. Hubbard concerning his financial affairs?
MR. HARRIS: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. Preparation as distinguished from actually getting them to him.
THE WITNESS: Yes. At that period of time, yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And how were you transmitting those to him, Mr. Spurlock?
A In writing.
MR. HARRIS: I will object; irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, overruled.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And by what means did you transmit them to him?
MR. HARRIS: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HARRIS: Just so we are clear, can I have a continuing objection to the communication line to Mr. Hubbard?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HARRIS: After Mr. Armstrong left the church?
THE COURT: Yes.
Very simple question. How did you attempt to communicate with him?
A The weekly communications were gathered up,
3449
put in a banker’s box and picked up.Q BY MR. FLYNN: Who picked them up?
A I don’t know.
THE COURT: The tooth fairy maybe.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor will note that the letter that has been marked as exhibit 1 is dated February 3, 1983.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: So at that time you were transmitting weekly reports concerning Mr. Hubbard’s financial affairs; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And did you ever see any individual who picked those reports up for transmission to Mr. Hubbard?
A I don’t recall. I mean, no.
Q Did David Miscavige represent to you at that time that he was transmitting communications to Mr. Hubbard?
MR. HARRIS: I will object. That calls for hearsay and also a conclusion about what a representation is.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: No, he didn’t represent it to me one way or the other.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: At that time was David Miscavige notarizing documents that were transmitted to you, Mr. Spurlock, in which he notarized Mr. Hubbard’s name?
MR. HARRIS: I will object as irrelevant. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, overruled. If you know, you can answer.
THE WITNESS: I have seen his notary on documents, yes.
3450
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And that was between May 1982 and February 1983; is that correct?
A I have seen his notary on documents.
THE COURT: I think the question had to do with documents that were signed by L. Ron Hubbard.
THE WITNESS: Right, but I don’t know about the time period.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, after you began work at Author Services Inc., you saw David Miscavige’s notary notarizing L. Ron Hubbard’s signature; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And did you understand Mr. Miscavige to be in the presence of L. Ron Hubbard when that was done?
MR. HARRIS: Well, Your Honor, “understand.” I will object to that.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you rely as a deputy executive director for Author Services Inc. on that notarization?
MR. HARRIS: I will object to that as irrelevant, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You know that David Miscavige was the head of the Commodore’s Messenger Org at some time, Mr. Spurlock; is that correct?
A No, I don’t know that at all.
3451
Q Did you know him to be a Commodore’s Messenger or member at some time, Mr. Spurlock?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you know him to have worked directly for L. Ron Hubbard prior to February, 1980?
A February, 1980? No. I know he worked for the Commodore’s Messenger Org prior to February, 1980.
Q Did you know he worked in the presence of L. Ron Hubbard prior to 1980 as a Commodore’s Messenger Org or member?
A Yes.
Q Is it fair to say that since February, 1980 it has been routinely accepted that David Miscavige as been the communications link to L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that, Your Honor. It has three problems.
One, it is ambiguous.
Two, it calls for some collective reputation –
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. It is too broad.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Since May, 1982 and up to February, 1983, February 3rd, 1983, how many documents have you seen with the notarized signature of L. Ron Hubbard on them?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
MR. FLYNN: I submit, Your Honor, it goes to availability.
THE COURT: I think it is kind of a futile gesture,
3452
counsel.I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do your duties as Deputy Executive Director of Author Services Inc. overlap with your duties regarding the Church of Spiritual Technology in connection with the supervision of the Hubbard Archives?
A In what sense?
Q In any sense.
A I don’t understand the question.
Q Have you done anything to protect the archives since November, 1981 as an asset of L. Ron Hubbard?
A Not specifically, no.
Q Generally?
A Generally, I am interested in the protection of the archives.
Q As assets of L. Ron Hubbard?
A As priceless historical scriptures of the Church of Scientology.
Q And not as assets of L. Ron Hubbard; is that your testimony?
MR. HARRIS: In which role? That is the problem. It is ambiguous, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: That is the problem, Your Honor. He has dual roles.
THE COURT: Did you have anything to do with the filing of this lawsuit?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Spurlock, in any way in
3453
connection with your duties as Deputy Executive Director of Author Services Inc. or in connection with your duties regarding the Church of Spiritual Technology have you sought to protect the archives of L. Ron Hubbard that Gerald Armstrong collected, the personal archives –MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that as multiple, compound –
MR. FLYNN: I haven’t finished.
MR. HARRIS: Then it is continuing compound.
THE COURT: I don’t have any problem with it up to this point. I haven’t heard the rest of it.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Have you sought to protect in those two roles?
THE COURT: I don’t know what you mean by ’sought to protect.” Bring a lawsuit?
MR. HELLER: I was conferring with the witness to see if he understood what that meant.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You are an accountant, Mr. Spurlock?
A That is correct.
Q On any accounting documents have you treated the archives in the possession of the Church of Spiritual Technology, the personal archives that Mr. Armstrong collected, in any way as an asset of L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. HARRISs I’ll object, Your Honor, as vague and ambiguous.
What accounting documents?
THE COURT: I assume that if he is talking about the
3454
Church of Spiritual Technology, he would only be dealing in theory with the assets of the Church of Spiritual Technology, not the, “assets of L. Ron Hubbard” unless they are intermingled in some fashion.Q BY MR. FLYNN: Are they intermingled in some fashion, Mr. Spurlock?
MR. HARRIS: “They” meaning the legal question of the ownership of individual documents, Your Honor, or what? I’ll object as ambiguous.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Spurlock, you earlier testified that who owns what with regard to the documents in the archives has not yet been sorted out; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q So it is your understanding that some of those are owned by L. Ron Hubbard and some of those may be owned by some churches; is that correct?
A That is right.
Q Who has been working on sorting that out?
MR. HARRIS: Objection. It assumes a fact not in evidence, that somebody has.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know if anyone has been working on sorting it out?
A Not a present time project, no.
Q Well, in the past two years has it been a project?
3455
A Not to my knowledge.
THE COURT: Do you hold a post in the Sea Org?
THE WITNESS: I don’t. Sea Org isn’t a post per se.
THE COURT: You don’t have a post within the Sea Org?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. I have a rank. I have a standing, but not a post.
THE COURT: What is your rank and standing?
THE WITNESS: My standing would be a Sea Org member in good standing with the Sea Org. My rank is lieutenant.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, Author Services Inc. collects all the income for Mr, Hubbard? is that correct?
MR. HARRIS: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In April, 1982, Mr. Wilhite — Mr. Spurlock, did you meet with Mr. Wilhite?
A Not that I recall.
3456
Q Did you have any conversations with a Mr. Wilhite?
A Not that I recall.
Q Do you know of Virgil Wilhite?
A I know of a Virgil Wilhite. I don’t know if I’d know him to see him.
Q Are you an attorney?
A No, I am not.
Q Prior to April 1982 did you meet with Mr. Wilhite?
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: Not to my recall.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Have you ever met with Mr. Wilhite?
A Not to my recall.
Q Have you ever talked to Mr. Wilhite on the phone?
A Not to my recall.
Q In the spring of 1982 did certain photographs come into your possession that were in the custody of Mr. Armstrong?
A Certain photographs crossed my desk. I don’t know if they came into my possession or not.
Q And when did they cross your desk?
A First few months in 1982.
Q Where was your desk at the time?
A At the Cedars Complex.
THE COURT: Were they just blowing in the wind as they flew by?
THE WITNESS: I didn’t know what the word “possession”
3457
meant. Somebody showed them to me. They were laying on my desk for a few minutes. I looked at them.THE COURT: Fine.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And your position at that time was R accounts or were you working for Author Services Inc.?
A I believe that was before Author Services Inc. was activated.
Q Author Services Inc. was activated in May 1982?
A March, April, May, somewhere in there.
Q And who brought them to your desk?
A I believe it was Ron Pook.
3458
Q And where did Mr. Poole get them if you know?
A I don’t know.
Q And what did you do with them?
A I looked at them.
Q What else did you do?
A I handed them over to somebody else.
Q To whom, Mr. Spurlock?
A I think it was Terry Gamboa.
Q And what was Terry Gamboa’s position at that time?
A She was working on a special project.
Q What project was that?
A Called Special Project.
Q What did that project relate to?
A Sorting out the GO, getting rid of the criminals.
Q Did she succeed?
A I believe so.
Q One of the criminals was Mary Sue Hubbard?
A She went to jail.
THE COURT: That wasn’t the question.
MR. LITT: I am going to object, Your Honor.
Mrs. Hubbard had resigned her position as she testified well before the events that are being discussed here.
THE COURT: Maybe so. The question was was Mary Sue Hubbard one of those, if you know.
THE WITNESS: I only know what happened at the trials.
THE COURT: Well, you said — well, people who are
3459
criminals are only those who are convicted; is that what you are saying?THE WITNESS: I think maybe I better clarify it. It is a broader term in Scientology.
THE COURT: That is what I thought.
THE WITNESS: Criminal in Scientology would basically be defined as somebody who wants something for nothing, so to the degree that somebody was a — shirked his duties, was lazy or did not fulfill his obligations as a staff member, was letting the group down, he might be considered a criminal in a much broader context and a more philosophical context than the law defines a criminal.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And the wife of L. Ron Hubbard who had worked for the organization for 30 years was considered such by you, Mr. Spurlock?
MR. HARRIS: Well, objection. It is irrelevant what he considered it.
This line of questioning went to what was Terry Gamboa doing.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, Miss Gamboa, does she currently work for Author Services Inc.?
A Yes, she does.
Q And prior to working for Author Services Inc. do you know what her position was?
A She worked on the special project.
Q And you know her to be the ex-wife of
3460
Gerald Armstrong; is that correct?A Yes.
Q Did you have any conversations with Miss Gamboa as to what she did with the photographs after you gave them to her?
A No.
Q Now at that time in the special project was she working for R accounts or was she working for the Church of Scientology of California?
A I don’t have any personal knowledge of that.
Q Did she begin work for Author Services, Inc. about the same time you did?
A When Author Services, Inc. was activated, she came into Author Services, Inc., right.
Q And so that was in, as you have stated it, March, April, May 1982; is that correct?
A Somewhere in that vicinity.
Q So at the time the photographs case into her possession she was working for Author Services, Inc. for L. Ron Hubbard?
A I don’t know.
MR. HARRIS: I will object to the question.
THE COURT: All right, sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you issue any orders with respect to the photographs?
A No, it wasn’t really my area. The answer is no.
THE COURT: Was there anything said while they were
3461
showing these pictures to you?A Ron Pook told me that Armstrong wanted to sell these through Virgil Wilhite at the Flag land base.
THE COURT: Well, what did you say?
THE WITNESS: I thought it was outrageous.
THE COURT: What else did you say?
THE WITNESS: I said I didn’t want it to happen. I mean, that is my recall, my feelings at that time.
THE COURT: Anybody else say anything at the time? I take this statement of yours was not an order on your part to anybody?
THE WITNESS: Expression of personal outrage.
3462
THE COURT: In the form of a question not to return to Mr. Armstrong?
THE WITNESS: No. I think this was Ron Pook’s and my conversation about him at the time.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you agree with either Mr. Pook or Miss Gamboa that the photographs should not be returned to Mr. Armstrong?
MR. HARRIS: I object to that as assuming a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained as to the form of the question.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In this conversation you had with Mr. Pook did the two of you reach an understanding that the photographs should not be returned to Mr. Armstrong?
A I don’t think we reached an understanding at all at that point.
Q Did Mr. Pook represent to you where the photographs came from?
MR. HARRIS: “Represent,” Your Honor?
If he had a conversation, that is fine. But I’ll object to representation as vague and ambiguous.
THE COURT: He understood the word in the previous question; so you can answer it.
THE WITNESS: He told me that he got them from Virgil Wilhite.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was anything said in the conversation with either Mr. Pook or –
THE COURT: Did you mean to say Virgil Wilhite, or Mr. Armstrong?
3463
THE WITNESS: Virgil Wilhite.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was there anything said in the conversation that you had either with Miss Gamboa — let’s start with her first — the conversation with Miss Gamboa was something said that the photographs came from the archives?
MR. HARRIS: That assumes that there was a conversation with Miss Gamboa.
The conversation was with Pook as far as I can tell.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you have a conversation with Miss Gamboa?
A I don’t believe so.
Q You just gave her the photographs?
A I may not have given them to her directly. I believe I handed them to Pook and said, “Take them to Terry.”
I don’t know. It was not a very significant event at the time.
Q It was not a very significant event, but you were outraged; is that correct, Mr. Spurlock?
THE COURT: Well, it is sort of argumentative, counsel.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to Mr. Pook did you have a conversation with Mr. Pook as to whether the photographs came from the archives?
A No, I didn’t.
THE COURT: Do you know where the photographs are today?
3464
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t.
THE COURT: When was the last time you knew?
THE WITNESS: Whenever it happened in 1982. It was just a few minutes that they were on my desk.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In connection with your testimony here today have you met with Mr. Harris?
A Yes.
Q Have you been referred to as Warrant Officer Lyman Spurlock?
A Yes, I have.
Q Was that in November, 1982 after you were working for Author Services Inc.?
A Yes.
Q And at that time were you acting as the Corporate Affairs Director of the Church of Scientology?
A No, I wasn’t.
Q And were you referred to as the Corporate Affairs Director at that time?
THE COURT: If you know.
THE WITNESS: At the mission holders event I was introduced as Corporate Affairs Director.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And did you give a speech in connection with the sorting out of corporate affairs of the Church of Scientology in November, 1982?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, at the time, Mr. Spurlock, in connection with your title Corporate Affairs Director at this mission holders meeting was it your view that the corporations which
3465
comprised the corporations of the Church of Scientology were a bunch of whole spaghetti?A My — I can answer that.
My view was that prior to 1981 the corporation Church of Scientology of California had become unduly complex because it had numerous diverse ecclesiastical subunits within it.
3466
Q And was it your view at that time that in order to make the corporate structure impregnable in regards to the IRS, to change the structure of those sub-units as you just testified?
MR. HARRIS: His personal opinion, Your Honor, or what he said?
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know. Personal view; was that your question? Personal view?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: As corporate affairs director or having that title at the time, was it your view that the restructuring of the sub-units as you put it was to make the whole structure impregnable, especially as regards to the IRS?
A Sure.
THE COURT: What did you mean by that?
THE WITNESS: There had been a history of difficulty communicating the corporate structure of the church to the IRS because there was this confusing Church of Scientology sitting in the middle of it in order to clarify the eclesiastical [ecclesiastical] versus the corporate structure. In other words, what the eclesiastical lines of authority were and how they related to the organization in order to communicate it better to the IRS, it was necessary to present a clear corporate structure to the IRS which was one of the goals of the sort-out which was an outgrowth of MCCS.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: When you gave this speech, you referred to an outline structure of the Church of Scientology and an outline structure of the new corporate structure
3467
which would be impregnable to the IRS.A “Impregnable to the IRS” is one comment in this whole thing. The whole thing was to sort it out so it makes sense.
Q The question is, Mr. Spurlock, did you use these two outlines for the structure as it existed and the structure as it was changed?
A That’s right.
Q And that was in November 1982; is that correct?
A That was the date of my speech or October or November 1982.
Q And that was the date that you used the two structures that I have placed in front of you; is that correct?
MR. HARRIS: Could we have that marked?
MR. FLYNN: May that be marked as next in order.
THE COURT: The whole works or just the two pages?
MR. FLYNN: Why don’t we mark the two pages.
MR. HARRIS: Why don’t we mark the whole bunch, Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: Fine with me.
THE COURT: Quadruple E.
MR. FLYNN: I will offer it into evidence.
MR. HARRIS: I have an objection at this point. When I get finished, I might not, Mr. Flynn.
THE COURT: We will defer ruling on it.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to chart 1, that laid out the structure of the organization before making it impregnable to the IRS; is that correct?
3468
MR. HELLER: Well, if, in fact, there is not going to be an objection from the Church of Scientology, I am going to have to speak up. That is a statement taken out of context which has not been identified.
He can be asked very simply whether this is the structure that existed prior to 1982.
MR. HARRIS: I will adopt that.
THE COURT: I will have to sustain the objection of the church.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, you adopted the statement, Mr. Spurlock, that it was to make it impregnable to the IRS?
MR. LITT: Asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: No, I made that statement, but it is like you are trying to twist it around to, “Do you still beat your wife?”
The question implies to me that prior to this corporate sort-out the Church of Scientology was vulnerable to the IRS, the corporate structure was vulnerable to the IRS, and I am not conceding that at all.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Spurlock, I am simply using your words.
THE COURT: Let’s go on to a different question.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to chart 1, was that the structure which you spoke about in November 1982 as being a structure that had existed prior to the sort-out?
A Yes.
Q And with regard to chart 2, was that the
3469
structure after the sort-out?A That is correct.
Q Now in chart 1 there is no notation under Church of Scientology of California for any group called the Personal Office of L. Ron Hubbard; is there?
A Not on that chart, no.
3470
Q And there is no notation for the Housekeeping Unit or the Household Unit; is there?
A Not in that chart, no.
Q Nor is there a notation for a unit called PDOI; is there?
A Not on this chart, no.
If you’ll read the text of my speech, Mr. Flynn, you’ll find that I was on the blackboard drawing these in. And I did this for purposes of illustration of how many ecclesiastical units were contained within CSC.
At the end of that I said, “I have run out of room, but I haven’t run out of Orgs.”
So the fact that those are omitted here does not mean that they are not contained within the Church of Scientology of California which, per my understanding, they, indeed, were.
Q This was subsequently typed up and distributed throughout the world, was it not, Mr. Spurlock?
MR. HARRIS: ‘This’ referring to the whole of the exhibit?
MR. FLYNN: The whole of the exhibit.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Let me ask you a question about whether or not the document that you have in front of you is a full transcription of everything that was said at this speech or was it edited?
A I don’t know.
Q Did you play any role of any nature or description
3471
in any editing process?A No. I may have — I may have been asked to check my speech for typos or something, but I didn’t edit it.
Q And with regard to Chart No. 2, there is no notation in Chart 2 with regard to the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And there is no notation in Chart 2 with regard to the Housekeeping Unit or the Household Unit or PDOI; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, were you present throughout the speeches of Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Marlowe?
A Yes, I was.
Q Was Mr. Miscavige — incidentally, Mr. Heller spoke at that meeting; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And at that meeting Mr. Heller stated that the trademarks of L. Ron Hubbard had been donated to the Religious Technology Center; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Did you play any role in the donation of those trademarks, Mr. Spurlock?
A Yes.
Q And did you see a notarized document from Mr. Hubbard donating the trademarks?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was the date on the notarized statement?
3472
A May 12, I believe.
Q Of 1982?
A That is right.
Q Now, Mr. Hubbard executed a will in May of 1982; did he not?
MR. HARRIS: I object to that as irrelevant.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you agree with Mr. Marlowe and Mr. Miscavige that the Religious Technology Center had assumed control over Churches of Scientology throughout the world?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that question. Your Honor, as assuming a fact not in evidence, number one.
Number two, the agreement — I don’t know what that means. Did they all sit around and say “I agree, I agree, I agree,” or whatever it is. It is ambiguous.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Spurlock, during the speech of Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Marlowe do you recall that the new leadership in Scientology was referred to as a bunch of ruthless Sea Org members?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object to that, Your Honor, as hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In November, 1982 to your knowledge was there a new breed of management in the Church of Scientology who were ruthless?
MR. HARRIS: Is it calling for an opinion, Your Honor,
3473
or a conclusion, or his state of mind? I’m not sure which — or the fact which would be very –THE COURT: I assume it is his opinion.
THE WITNESS: I’d like Mr. Flynn to explain what he means by “ruthless,” what he means by “ruthless,” and what he is trying to impress you by “ruthless.”
Q BY MR. FLYNN: On page 7 of the speech of your colleague Mr. Marlowe –
Mr. Marlowe is one of your colleagues; is he not?
A I know Steve Marlowe.
Q Did you agree with Mr. Marlowe that the fact of the matter was you had a new breed of management in the Church; they are tough; they are ruthless –
3474
MR. HARRIS: Well, again, “agreement,” Your Honor, is ambiguous. If he is calling for his state of mind or opinion, that is fine if it is relevant.
THE COURT: I will let him answer.
THE WITNESS: I will answer with one point of clarification.
The term “ruthless” when it refers to a Sea Org member or Scientologist, it means somebody who is unreasonable about applying the scriptures exactly as opposed to somebody who is waffling and open-minded about whether or not Scientology technology and administrative policy should be followed, so to that degree, yes, I agree there was a new ruthless breed of management.
THE COURT: Well, you say “scripture’s.” What are scriptures?
THE WITNESS: Those are the writings and recorded word of L. Ron Hubbard with respect to Scientology.
THE COURT: What about policy memorandums or letters?
THE WITNESS: Policy is part of the scriptures.
THE COURT: Well, for example, the policy of 1967 relating to conditions and penalties, was that a scripture?
THE WITNESS: That would be a scripture.
THE COURT: And the 1968 policy memorandum relating to removal of some of those penalties as it related to non-suppressed persons, was that also scripture?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: So, ruthless, and following that would be somebody who literally follows the scriptures to the T;
3475
is that right?THE WITNESS: Yes. But the scriptures as a wide body of materials, yes.
THE COURT: All right.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And with regard to the scriptures, a violation of the scriptures would ultimately make the person who violated subject to criminal prosecution, Mr. Spurlock?
THE COURT: You mean within the church?
THE WITNESS: Depends on what scripture he violated.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, with regard to the scriptures that were embodied in the trademark, was everyone at the meeting told that they would be civilly and criminally prosecuted for violating those religious scriptures?
MR. HARRIS: Wait a minute. Just a minute. That assumes a fact not in evidence and it is also a little crazy that the scriptures would be incorporated in the trademark.
THE COURT: I assume Mr. Flynn has something in the speech. If you have something specific –
Q BY MR. FLYNN: With regard to page 2 in the speech of Mr. Heller, your lawyer here today, Mr. Spurlock, was it your understanding that if the religious scriptures as embodied in the trademarks were violated, there would be civil and criminal sanctions?
MR. HARRIS: I will object as to his understanding as irrelevant.
THE COURT: I don’t understand the relevance of it.
3476
I will sustain the objection.
MR. FLYNN: Well it has to do with whether they are scriputural [scriptural] or religious if they are making them subject to criminal prosecution.
MR. HARRIS: Well, trademarks, Your Honor, the subject of trademarks, you have an obligation as an owner or holder of the trademark to insure the integrity and quality of the services delivered and the like, and if you violate; that is, infringe the trademarks at that point you can seek a civil injunction. If the person violates it again, he goes to jail and a judge puts him there, and if that is what Mr. Flynn means, then I will stipulate that if somebody infringes upon trademarks, there is a possible criminal penalty. That is a legal matter.
THE COURT: I am not really sure what it has to do with this lawsuit.
MR. FLYNN: I will withdraw it, Your Honor. I have one more question.
Q Is the scripture of the Church of Scientology, y [sic] that you referred to as embodied in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard trademarked, Mr. Spurlock, to your knowledge?
A I believe the scriptures are copyrighted, Mr. Flynn.
Q Well, do any part of the trademarks that are referred to in the last exhibit that has been marked constitute scripture?
MR. HARRIS: Well, I will object to the question as unintelligible, Your Honor.
3477
THE COURT: Well –
THE WITNESS: I have –
THE COURT: I don’t know what you refer to “trademarked, I assume that is something that is marketed publicly?
MR. FLYNN: Correct.
THE WITNESS: Trademarks are the symbols, the words and symbols of the religion. It is the eight-pointed cross. It is an S in the double triangle. I don’t have any examples of them here. Those are in my mind very distinct from scriptures.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FLYNN: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: Mr. Harris is going to examine.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Mr. Spurlock, how did it happen that you got into the Sea Organization?
A The short story or the long story?
THE COURT: Shore or short?
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Who recruited you? Let’s put it that way.
A Laurel Sullivan, Richard Cohen and Janice Gillam.
Q And did you speak personally with Laurel Sullivan
3478
about joining the Sea Organization?A Yes, I did.
Q And what did Miss Sullivan tell you at that time about joining the Sea Organization?
A She persuaded me that it was a higher purpose than what I was doing, that it would be a very good thing to do. She was recruiting me.
Q And did you join the Sea Organization pursuant to what she told you?
A Among other things.
Q What was your purpose in joining the Sea Organization?
MR. FLYNN: Object, Your Honor; irrelevant.
THE COURT: I am inclined to sustain the objection. It seems to mc that we’d be opening the door to all sorts of further problems. I am sure the witness joined it in good faith and still belongs in good faith, believing in its goals.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Well, when did you join the Sea Organization, Mr. Spurlock?
A 1977.
Q And what had you been doing prior that?
A I was a public Scientologist taking courses at night and on weekends and I had a CPA practice.
Q All right. Now, showing you what has been marked plaintiff’s exhibit 29, let me ask you if you have previously seen that item?
A Yes, I believe I have seen this before.
3479
Q Now, directing your attention to the last page of exhibit 29, I’m going to ask you if at the Mission Holders Conference the chart — the last exhibit, Your Honor –
You indicated that the chart that is attached to exhibit EEEE was incomplete?
A Yes.
That is also the text of my speech which is earlier in this exhibit.
Q Directing your attention to Plaintiff’s exhibit 29, up under “C of S of C,” will you take a look at that and see if that incorporates the items that Mr. Flynn questioned you about?
A Yes, it does.
Q PDOI is there?
A PDOI is here.
Q HU?
A Yes, it is.
Q Prior to — strike that.
When was this reorganization? When did it actually occur?
A In late 1981.
Q And prior to the reorganization does exhibit 29, the last page up at the top where it says “C of S of C,” of encompass all of the ecclesiastical units that were housed in the Church of Scientology of California?
A Do you mean is this a complete list?
Q Yes.
A I believe it is, but I don’t — let me look at
3480
it a little. There may be some minor ones missing. I don’t see the Cadet Org or — yes. It is. Yes. It is probably complete.Q Okay. And directing your attention back to the Chart on exhibit EEEE, which is Chart 2, I note that RTC is at or above, at least, Church of Scientology International; was that depiction, by the way, drawn by you?
A Yes, it was.
Q And what was — is Religious Technology Center above Church of Scientology International?
A On purposes of policing the use of the trademarks, yes, it is.
Q There have been mentions of a lot of acronyms in this trial; WDC; what is that?
A Watch Dog Committee.
Q And what is its position in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the church?
A It is the senior ecclesiastical body within the hierarchy within the corporation Church of Scientology International.
Church of Scientology International is the mother church.
Q Church of Scientology International was the mother church as of what time?
A As of late 1981.
Q And prior to that what had been the mother church?
A Church of Scientology of California.
3481
Q CMO Int; what does that stand for?
A Commodores Messengers Organization International.
Q What is that?
A Another ecclesiastical unit within the Church of Scientology of California.
THE COURT: How do you define “ecclesiastical” in that sense?
THE WITNESS: Because they deal with matters pertaining to the conduct of a religion. That is what their duties are.
THE COURT: What about the Household Unit; is that an ecclesiastical unit?
THE WITNESS: I would say so.
THE COURT: How does that deal with the religious aspects? In what way?
THE WITNESS: Well, providing facilities for the founder so he can be on the premises.
THE COURT: Which premises?
THE WITNESS: In this case, I think Gilman Hot Springs. Earlier than that, La Quinta. It would be something the church would want to do for its own benefit.
THE COURT: Would there be some inurement problem to that?
THE WITNESS: I don’t believe so.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Well, is there any relationship between what you have termed the ecclesiastical units and
3482
a corporation?A Distinction? Oh, yes.
Q What is the distinction?
A One corporation can house many ecclesiastical units. And each one of these units is self-contained and deals with other ecclesiastical units on what is called an organizing board.
Q An organizing board is what?
A It is a pattern of organization that is common to the various Churches of Scientology and the Orgs.
Q What is an Org? What does that mean?
A It can mean organization. That is generally referred to — the word “Org” generally refers to an
ecclesiastical body.
Q within Scientology, you are talking about?
A That’s right.
Q As opposed to a corporation?
A Right.
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I have something which is titled “Seven Division Org Board.” May that be marked
Plaintiff’s next in order?
THE COURT: 84.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: I am going to direct your attention to what has been marked exhibit 84 and ask you what that depicts.
A That depicts all of the various functions that make up an ecclesiastical unit.
Q Okay. Now, is this Org Board as it is indicated
3483
here which looks like it has the date 1973? Does that appear to be essentially the same up to the end of 1981? In other words, at the end of 1981 was this exhibit 84 what an Org Board would look like?A Yes, generally.
Q What about the Guardian Worldwide here?
A The Guardian — sometime in 1981 the Guardian was removed.
Q And what happened to the Guardian’s Office?
A It was later disbanded.
Q All right. Now, within exhibit 84 the founder is up at the top here in a box; that is L. Ron Hubbard, I take it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And was this Executive Director here, is that a corporate post?
A No. That is an ecclesiastical post.
3484
Q And how about HCO Exec Sec?
A That is an ecclesiastical position.
Q An Org Exec Sec?
A Yes.
Q Does that Sec stand for secretary?
A Yes.
Q And Exec, executive?
A Executive.
Q An Org, organization?
A Right.
Q What about HCO?
A Hubbard Communications Office.
Q And what do these units down at the bottom, what do they do?
A They perform various functions having to do with the running of the ecclesiastical units.
Q Well in this particular case does this depict where the public would come for Scientology services?
A It could.
Q Well, how about — assuming this is a series Org, they would come in either here in Div 6 and then cycle around through — Division 6 — make their donation, get their services in Div 4, get their — either get corrected or verified that they had completed their services in Division 4 and Division 5, and they’d come out there in Div 6 and become a field staff member and cycle back through the Org. It sort of has a flow to it.
Q Okay, and what is the purpose of the Service
3485
Organization, if that is what is depicted here?A To deliver auditing and training to the public.
Q And what is auditing?
A Auditing is the central sacrament of the church. A minister who is trained in the technology asks questions of another in order to guide him to new levels of awareness, get him to find out things about himself that he didn’t know previously.
Q And training?
A Training is to train somebody to become an auditor generally although it could be training in the administrative technology as well.
Q Now, what you have there is a Service Organization or depiction of a Service Organization in
Plaintiff’s 84. I am still somewhat confused.
Does that depict a Service Organization which gives auditing and training?
A Yes, it does.
Q And if you had another ecclesiastical unit such as, for example, the Exec Strata which is listed on exhibit EEEE, Chart 2, would that also be organized in the same fashion as exhibit 84?
A Yes. Things might be adjusted a little bit to fit the exact functions of that ecclesiastical entity, but it would fit on an Org Board very similar to this.
MR. HARRIS: I have another exhibit, Your Honor, Church of Scientology Ecclesiastical Structure. May that be marked exhibit 85?
3486
THE COURT: Yes, 65.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Let me direct your attention to exhibit 85 and ask you if you recognize that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Okay. Church of Scientology International is the mother church?
A That is the corporation which acts as a mother church.
Q Okay, and it contains the items that this box on exhibit 85 up at the top middle contain?
A Yes, it does.
Q And you have got again CBC and CMO Int there, and then you have got ED International and Executive Strata; what’s that?
A Executive Director International and Executive Strata is the ecclesiastical echelon below WDC.
Q What do they do?
A They run — they provide ecclesiastical management to the rest of Scientology.
Q And what is this Flag Command Bureau?
A They are below Executive - the Executive Strata and their job is to gather data and do evaluations and generally monitor the activities of Scientology organizations throughout the world and also act as an execution arm to get management directives and policies implemented.
Q Now, Flag Service, fc’SO is that Flag Service Organization?
A That’s right.
3487
Q And where is that?
A That is in Clearwater, Florida.
Q Is that a separate corporation?
A Yes, it is.
Q And Scientology Missions International; what is that?
A That is the management body which is to oversee the lowest level of the organization known as a Mission.
Q And that also is separately incorporated?
A Yes, it is.
3488
Q What are these missions that are depicted down here?
A They are generally small operations that are set up to deliver basic levels of Scientology services, introductory levels of Scientology services.
Q Did they used to be called a franchise?
A Yes.
Q Beneath Church of Scientology International on a direct line flowing down is “Flag Operations Liaison Office”; what is that?
A That is a middle management ecclesiastical management body which is located in the various geographical locations which deals between Church of Scientology International and the Class 4 Orgs, churches.
Q I don’t understand Class 4; what is that?
A Class 4 refers to a level of services which they can deliver.
Scientology services are on a gradient scale from basic to very sophisticated or high level services. And missions are entitled to deliver one level of service. Class 4 organizations are entitled to deliver a higher level of service. And then you have to go to what are called Saint Hills and Advanced Organizations for another level of services. And only the highest level are delivered at Flag.
Q AOLA, what is that?
MR. FLYNN: This is all after Mr. Armstrong left. This chart, Your Honor, I object –
3489
THE COURT: It seems kind of redundant.
Why don’t you finish with it.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Miss Sullivan spoke about being at AOLA and she also mentioned American Saint Hill
Organization, AOLA.
A It is an Advanced Organization of Los Angeles that delivers advanced courses.
Q And American Saint Hill Organization?
A That is another high level church which delivers high level training.
Q Okay. Now, based upon your experience, is the religion of Scientology a hierarchical religion?
A Yes.
Q Information goes up?
A Yes.
Q And orders and so on come down?
A Yes, that’s right.
Q As opposed to congregational like a local church where A preacher, so on, stand3 up and gives a speech to the congregation?
A Well, services are delivered in Scientology in a much different form than they are in a local church. The policy director — Scientology is a hierarchical religion in terms of policy and programs come down from senior management down to the lower organizations.
Thee [There] is a certain amount of responsibility that the lower organization has to run itself in accordance with policy. Probably the only time that you will ever get orders
3490
is when it fails to apply policy.Q And is there any source of Scientology scriptures other than L. Ron Hubbard?
A Not per the definition.
There are other Scientology issues which, of course, and effects that aren’t written by L. Ron Hubbard.
Q All right. Now, the Church of Spiritual Technology, what is your function in that?
A I am the president and chairman of the board.
Q How, when was that entity formed?
A Sometime in 1982, mid-1982.
Q And what is its purpose, if you know?
A To preserve the scriptures in their original form against any catastrophe.
Q The scriptures being the writings and tape recorded lectures of L. Ron Hubbard?
A That’s right.
Q Was there — well, strike that.
Does the Church of Spiritual Technology presently have under its control the archives that Mr. Armstrong was in charge of before?
A The Church of Spiritual Technology has control over all of the — has responsibility and control over all of the archives.
I don’t know that Mr. Armstrong was over the archives.
3491
Q All right. Well, we had or at least there’s been testimony here that he collected up some items which he put in something called the archives. You understand what body I am talking about, what body of information?
A Yes, I understand.
Q That is what I am trying to figure out now. Is it that body of items that you have under control of the Church of Spiritual Technology?
A That is correct.
Q Now you mentioned that Terry Gamboa was on a mission to do something about crims in the GO.
A That’s right.
Q And did you have any part in that?
A Yeah, peripherally.
Q And how did you get involved in that?
A Because I was part of the team, the people that what we call in management that became aware of what the GO had been up to, how off source and off the rails they had become, and I participated mainly in the corporate sortout, I was pretty much outraged at what had been going on and participated in the general cleanout.
Q And do you have some estimate of the number of people that was got rid of during this cleanout?
A Out of the GO?
Q Yes.
A About 1100.
Q Across the world?
A Yes.
3492
Q And to your knowledge was it broadly publicized that the Guardian’s office was being cleaned up?
A Yes, it was.
Q And do you recall a period of time when Laurel Sullivan was on the RPF?
A I recall a couple of periods when she — I recall a period of time when she was in the RPF and there was a later period of time that she was not in good favor, as it were.
Q When you “not in good favor” –
A I don’t know if she was formally assigned to the RPF at the second time.
Q On the second occasion, who was in the status of not in favor that was with her?
A The GO crims, as I would call them, using criminal in the broad sense, the Scientology sense.
Q Did you become aware at some point that some members of the Guardian’s office had culled PC folders?
A Later.
Q When did you find that out?
A I think I became aware of it maybe late ‘81, early ‘82.
Q And are you trained as an auditor?
A Yes, I am.
Q What is your training?
A Class 8.
Q And what is a class 8?
A It is well up the scale. I think class 12 is
3493
the highest.THE COURT: If we are going to get into a new subject, we will just take a recess at this time. We will reconvene at 1:30.
(The noon recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
3494
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1984; 1:30 P.M.
ooOoo
THE COURT: Very well, in the case on trial, let the record reflect that counsel are present.
LYMAN SPURLOCK, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: The witness has retaken the stand. Just state your name again for the record, sir. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Lyman Spurlock.
THE COURT: You may continue.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Mr. Spurlock, I asked you did you become aware that some members of the Guardian’s office were culling PC folders; do you recall that?
A Yes, I became aware of it in late ‘81 early ‘32, somewhere in that vicinity. I was aware that a handful of people had been culling folders. The best we could tell was for purposes of internal protection.
At the time it was the first time I had become aware of it in my 14 or 15 years as a Scientologist, and I
3495
was personally outraged by it. It was contrary to everything that I had learned about the sanctity of PC folders.MR. HARRIS: I have an exhibit “Confidentiality of PC Folder Data.” May that be marked exhibit 86?
THE COURT: Very well, so marked for identification.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Directing your attention to what has been marked exhibit 86, are you familiar with that?
A Yes, I am.
Q Does that summarize the then existing data on the confidentiality of PC folders?
A Yes, from my understanding this is and always has been the policy of the church with regard to PC folders. This is all various statements compiled in one issue.
MR. HARRIS: Now, I also have an item called “The Bridge,” Your Honor. May that be marked plaintiff’s next in order, exhibit 87?
THE COURT: All right, exhibit 87.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: I will show you exhibit 87 and ask you if you recognize that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Now you mentioned you were a class what auditor?
A Eight.
Q And where is that?
A That is right up here.
Q I see this item 87 is split into training and processing.
A Yes it is.
Q What is this, anyway?
3496
A On the left side of the — basically this grade chart entitled “The Bridge to Total Freedom” summarizes the central activity of the Church of Scientology, which is to take people up to new levels of spiritual awareness through application of Scientology philosophy and technology and — that is on the right side.
3497
Q That is on the right side?
A These different levels signify levels of spiritual awareness.
And on the left side is the classification or the degree of skill and sophistication of techniques needed to audit people on the right side of the grade chart.
MR. FLYNN: Objection, Your Honor. This is all beyond the scope –
MR. HARRIS: Well, I don’t think so.
THE COURT: Well, it is hard to tell what the scope was.
THE WITNESS: Let me just wrap it up real quick.
The idea of Scientology and the reason we were in Scientology is to attain total freedom, to get off the life-death cycle.
The Scientologists believe that they are spiritual beings that have an immortality. That is why the billion-year contract of the Sea Org member.
We have been in body after body after body after body.
MR. FLYNN: Is this a waiver of all of the First Amendment Rights that –
MR. HARRIS: They have raised it in the context of the E-meter; that Scientology is a religion, all manner of things were brought up.
THE COURT: We are going to do one thing at a time. We are not going to be here for the rest of our natural lives or reincarnated to continue this case.
3498
MR. HARRIS: I certainly affirm that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let’s go forward.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Over here on the left-hand side there are all kinds of Hubbards, Hubbards. In fact, it appears all over the chart as Hubbard this, Hubbard that.
What was the role of Mr. Hubbard insofar as the religion of Scientology?
A Mr. Hubbard is the one that founded the subject matter. He is the one that discovered the philosophy and the technology of Scientology and organized it and wrote it down and lectured on it.
And, in fact, you know everything in Scientology having to do with the religious philosophy and technology of Scientology stems from Mr. Hubbard’s personal researches and observations. So the subject matter of the religion was originated by Mr. Hubbard and he is the source of our technology.
That is why we have such terms as “on source” and so forth, to signify how close somebody is adhering to the teachings of Mr. Hubbard.
In the training, for example, if a student is trained in Scientology, he is trained directly from the original writings and spoken words of Mr. Hubbard.
It is not the duty of a course supervisor, the teacher of a course, to interpret the materials at all. It is his job to make sure that the student who is studying duplicates the materials exactly as they are written by Mr. Hubbard so that where he has had success in applying
3499
certain techniques, then the student will have similar successes to the degree that he duplicates how Mr. Hubbard did it.Q When you use the word “technology,” I think of computers; what do you mean when you say “technology”?
A The word technology is used wisely in Scientology because there are precise techniques to applying the religious materials.
For example, in an auditing session there is a very precise communication formula where you ask the person who is being audited, called a pre-clear, you ask the question and you get an answer and acknowledge that answer. There is a one, two, three, four steps that an auditor goes through. And that would be the technology of the communication cycle, for example.
Q I take it you were trained in the use of the E-meter?
A Yes, I was.
Q I am going to show you what has been marked exhibit X and ask you to look at the first item on there and ask you if you recognize it.
A Yes, I do.
Q From where?
A Earlier in my training as an auditor I came across this bulletin.
Q By the way, when you were training as an auditor did you read all of the bulletins on the subject matter?
A Yes, I did, being something called the Saint Hill
3500
speech [special] briefing course in which I read all the written materials in chronological order.Q Okay.
The words “lie detector” is in quotes within exhibit X on the first page. I ask you, what is that?
A Why is it used here?
Q Why is it used in quotes.
A Well, the E-meter –
MR. FLYNN: Is this the interpretation of “scripture”?
THE COURT: I am not sure what we are into. If you know.
THE WITNESS: I do know.
THE COURT: You can answer.
THE WITNESS: An E-Meter generally measures changes in resistance due to the interaction of a thetan, which is a spiritual being, the person himself, his mind which is the record of his past experiences and the body.
When an auditor asks a pre-clear — the person who is receiving the auditing — some question which triggers an area of travail on the person’s past, the E-meter would register and [an] electrical change.
3501
When a person is doing something he shouldn’t do or has done something he shouldn’t have done, that will be an area of spiritual travail which will show up on E meter. At this time period in 1960 when this bulletin was written some of the churches had experienced infiltrators, people who had been sent in to disrupt the activities of the church, it was found that if one got there on an E meter and asked them about their true intentions or what they were actually doing there, that it would start reading on the E meter and this then permitted the organization to detect such individuals within the ranks and to either get them to change their minds about what they were doing there and remain as Scientologists or to kick them out, and that then — because there was difficulties of this sort of a widespread nature, something called a security check was implemented within the organization where they screened people who were coming into the organization, just asked them a series of questions, and then the E meter, if there was a read, a reaction or a certain question like, “Are you here to disrupt the organization?” for example, might be a question. If you get a read on that, the auditor finds out what is behind that read, and that became security checking.
Now, what happened was security checking was being done and what was happening was Mr. Hubbard found out that people who were getting security checking experienced a great deal of relief by getting off withholds and overts on areas of their life that didn’t have anything to do with disrupting the organization, things a person was doing that
3502
he shouldn’t be doing. So, sec checking then became a tool for enhancing somebody spiritually because it was found that the person could be more effective in life and deal better with life if he had gotten his overts and withholds off, transgressions against moral codes, and that later evolved in the confessional processing and now it is part of this grade chart on level 2.Q You used a couple of words “overts” and “withholds”; what is that?
A An overt could generally be defined as a transgression against one’s moral code.
Q I show you what has been marked exhibit RR and ask you if you have seen that before?
A Yes I have.
Q And in what context did you see it?
A I don’t know, somewhere in my studies.
Q All right, now you said because it was written by Mr. Hubbard, that was scriptural?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Now did you have any training in the ethics and justice system of Scientology?
A Yes, I have had several courses.
Q And have you served in any capacity as far as ethics officer or master at arms?
A I have served as a person on an eclesiastical court in Scientology a number of times.
Q You have such courts in Scientology?
A they are called committees of evidence or
3503
comms [comm] evs.Q All right, now, in respect to exhibit RR, do you know if there was a cancelation of this policy letter?
A I believe it was cancelled shortly thereafter.
Q And what is the effect of a cancelation?
A it is no longer in policy.
Q All right now with respect to the last part “enemy,” what does that mean as far as the items in the left-hand side; liability, treason, et cetera?
A These are conditions of existence.
Q And the SP order, Fair Game et cetera that appears to be a penalty if that is on the left-hand side as the condition; right?
A Right.
Q Okay. Now, did you at the time that you read that or since understand that to be a license for Scientologists to trick, sue, lie to or destroy somebody?
A Absolutely not. All it ever meant to me was that a person who had been declared an SP or expelled from the church did not have recourse to the Scientology ethics and justice system.
A Scientologist in good standing can resolve any disputes with another Scientologist or with the organization through the internal Scientology ethics and justice system. Somebody who has been expelled from the church can’t avail themselves of those remedies.
3504
Q And if a Scientologist were to trick, destroy, lie to, et cetera, somebody, that somebody couldn’t have access to the justice system; is that what you’re saying?
A That is what I am saying.
But that person — there is another thing. I mean there is another Scientology ethics policy which applies which listed a whole plane of things which Scientologists are not supposed to do.
Let’s say that person A was expelled from the church and person B was a Scientologist in good standing. If person S went out and cheated that person in some business deal or something like that, person A would not have recourse to Scientology. He would have to go to a civil court.
But person a would probably be disciplined within the group for engaging in conduct unethical and unbecoming a Scientologist, even though the SP was the target of the cheating.
Q All right. Now, you mentioned a special project as being in part designed to clean up the GO, the Guardian’s Office?
A Right.
Q At that time were you aware of whether Mary Sue Hubbard had resigned or not?
A Yes, I was.
I believe she resigned in early ‘81. It was sometime early to mid.
Q She wasn’t included in this clean-up?
A No. She wasn’t. She had already resigned.
3505
Q All right. Have you ever represented yourself as an attorney?
A No, I haven’t, never.
Q Did you have a conversation with Nancy Dincalci about the photos?
A Among other things.
I had a — she called me shortly after the photo incident. And I think part of the conversation was she talked about the photos, how Gerry should get them back or something like that.
I said, “Absolutely he shouldn’t be selling these, especially to Scientologists because he had broken from the church and was out there doing God knows what. We don’t know.”
We hadn’t realized that he had taken all of those materials at that time, I don’t think.
And I think that the balance of the conversation was — Nancy was an old friend from when we were in the Sea Org together at La Quinta. And I tried to persuade her to change her ways and rejoin the church.
I reminded her of the spiritual gain she had had in auditing and so forth and the win she had had as an auditor helping others and tried to get her — you know, the door is always open; tried to get her to come back.
Q Now, were you at La Quinta with Mr. Hubbard?
A Yes, I was.
Q When was that?
A ‘77, ‘78 — ‘78.
3506
Q And what was your post at that time?
A I was an auditor.
I also worked on the films.
Q As a — doing what?
A Unskilled positions.
I helped carry the camera, tripods around, built sets. I acted.
With respect to me, that is also an unskilled position, I think.
Q Did you know Mr. Armstrong at the time?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was his position?
A I believe for awhile he was known as the cine crew chief. It was his job to get everything together, get the sets on the set and actors in costume, that sort of thing; get everything ready to shoot.
Q All right.
Now, did you have some understanding as to who you were working for when you were working at La Quinta?
A I was working for the Church of Scientology of California.
Q And when Mr. Hubbard was there did he have some sort of a house that he was living in?
A Yes, he did.
Q Why did the church provide him a house?
A Because they wanted him there to direct the films. The church always benefits from Mr. Hubbard’s
3507
presence and provides facilities for him as an honored guest so that he can work in a safe and distraction free environment to produce the products which benefit the church.Q In your experience do Churches of Scientology have an office that has a desk that remains empty that is there for Mr. Hubbard?
A All churches do. It is sort of a shrine, you know, to signify that LRU has his religious presence, you know, in every organization of Scientology that –
The organizations are on source and are adhering to the scriptures without alteration.
MR. HARRIS: Nothing further.
MR. LITT: I have nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Did I hear you use the term “confessional processing,” Mr. Spurlock?
A Yes, I did.
Q Is that auditing?
A Yes, it is.
Q The term “processing” is interchangeable with “auditing”?
A Except in the context of an HCO confessional. That would be in the context of an ethics action on that individual to clean him up in which case the auditor would give him — would advise him at the beginning of the
3508
auditing, “I am not auditing you. This is a HCO confessional. What you say in session may be actionable within the organization.”Q As opposed to being actionable outside the organization?
A I am not aware of anything being actionable outside the organization.
3509
Q Well these crimes at the Guardian’s office the 1100 people were committing, were they committing crimes outside of the organization to your knowledge?
A I think a small handful were.
Q A small handful of the 1100 that you got rid of?
A Many of those people were transferred out of the Guardian’s office. When the Guardian’s office was disbanded, many of them were put on lower level posts within the church to reprove themselves along regular church lines.
Q So the answer to my question is yes, the 1100 were engaged in criminal acts, and you put them in other posts to reprove themselves?
A No, that is not the answer to your question. Of the 1100 people in the Guardian’s office, I believe only a small number of them were actually engaged in committing torts or crimes of any sort.
Q How do you know that, Mr. Spurlock?
A Because we sec checked a lot of them to find out what they had been up to.
Q Who was “we”?
A Management, Int.
Q The new breed of management that you are a part of?
A I am not a part of it.
Q Tell me, does most of the new breed of the church think like you, if you know, Mr. Spurlock?
3510
MR. HARRIS: Well, I will object to the question.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Let me show you—you were part of getting rid of the 1100 and sec checking them; isn’t that correct?
A I didn’t sec check any of them personally.
THE COURT: When you say getting rid, were they kicked out?
THE WITNESS: Some of them were dismissed from staff. A few went to jail.
THE COURT: You mean civilian jail?
THE WITNESS: Yes, there was trials in Washington D.C. in which some people were convicted of obstruction of justice.
THE COURT: Well, that was 11. what happened to the other 10,000?
THE WITNESS: Eleven hundred. I think there may have been some that were found to be so off the wall or so off the rails that they were dismissed. What that number is I don’t know. it is probably a percentage.
THE COURT: They weren’t expelled, the bulk of them. You are saying they were simply reprocessed and brought back in?
THE WITNESS: If they were salvagable, When the Guardian’s office was disbanded, they were moved back into the church to assume regular eclesiastical [ecclesiastical] posts on the seven division org board, generally of lower responsibility type posts.
THE COURT: All right.
3511
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now these eclesiastical posts were hierarchical as you testified to earlier?
A Yes. Scientology is a hierarchical religion.
Q And the Guardian’s office was part of that hierarchical religion?
A The Guardian’s office operated as an autonomous unit. That was part of the problem.
Q Let me show you exhibit 84 that you testified was the hierarchical structure, Mr. Spurlock.
A Right.
Q Do you recognize 84 as part of the hierarchical structure?
A Yes, I do.
Q And it all flows up to the Guardian’s office; is that correct?
A Flows up to the founder.
Q And just below the founder is the Guardian’s office?
A Right, from 1973.
Q Was the founder part of the hierarchical structure?
A The founder is the religious leader of Scientology. He is the founder.
Q Is he part of the hierarchical structure, Mr. Spurlock? That was the question.
A The role of L. Ron Hubbard — what can I say? The whole religion of Scientology is based on his writings and researches, He is the religious leader. We hold him in
3512
reverence, deep respect.Q Does exhibit 84 reflect the hierarchical structure as you previously testified with L. Ron Hubbard at the top just above the Guardian’s office?
A 1973. This is what was printed.
Q Well prior to 1981 and ‘02 when you got rid of these 1100 back to 1966, was that the hierarchical structure that you testified about earlier?
THE COURT: Well, let the witness answer. If he wants your consult, he will ask you for it. I don’t want you suggesting to him certain things.
I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong. He is a witness here just like any other person, and if he has a question he wants to ask you, he can do so.
MR. HELLER: I understand that, Your Honor. I am so confused because hierarchical was put in an eclesiastical sense when it was testified to on direct examination.
THE COURT: Well, they are the ones that presented it. He’s answered the question.
MR. HELLER: I see the confusion in his mind.
THE COURT: Well, let’s go forward.
THE WITNESS: As a practical matter, during the ’70’s and all the way up to 1981 Mary Sue Hubbard was
the controller and responsible for the activities of the Guardian’s office. LRH engaged in researches, from time to time became involved in developing management technology and debugging various aspects of the church, and that is how it happened
3513
as a practical matter. That is my understanding.This chart may very well have been valid in 1973. I am certain that if L. Ron Hubbard had been interested in the activities of the Guardian’s office and had gone in there and said, “What the hell is going on?” I am sure somebody would have told him and I am sure somebody would have answered up if he had expressed displeasure.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you think his wife knew what was going on?
MR. LITT: Objection; calls for speculation.
3514
THE COURT: Overruled.
The witness has indicated a certain amount of awareness of what was happening.
THE WITNESS: I don’t really know if she did or not.
I know that she was responsible for the activities of the Guardian’s Office; therefore, I think it was appropriate that she resigned when it turned into such a mess.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You lumped Laurel Sullivan among the 1,100 criminals, did you not, Mr. Spurlock?
A I told you that Laurel Sullivan was out at Gilman undergoing ethics handling along with some of the more infamous GO members.
Q Did you lump Laurel Sullivan among the 1,100 criminals?
MR. LITT: Objection. Argumentative.
THE WITNESS: I didn’t say 1,100 criminals.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you lump Laurel Sullivan among the 1,100 criminals, Mr. Spurlock?
MR. HARRIS: He is asking his opinion now, Your Honor?
THE COURT: There was some testimony about 1,100 people. I thought the whole thing started when somebody was to go clean out the GO and get rid of the criminals. And then we got into 1,100 people that were ousted or something. And then –
THE WITNESS: I didn’t mean to imply there were 1,100 criminals.
3515
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you lump Laurel Sullivan among the criminal types in the Guardian’s Office, the infamous ones that were out at Gilman Hot Springs?
A Yes, I think I do.
Q Did you ever work personally with L. Ron Hubbard as his personal representative for eight straight years disseminating his PR line?
A No, I didn’t.
Q When Laurel Sullivan was working directly with L. Ron Hubbard and not in the Guardian’s Office, Mr. Spurlock, was she among the criminals at that time?
A I think you would have to ask Laurel.
Q You seem to have an opinion on it; do you not?
A My opinion on Laurel Sullivan is that at some point she turned sour.
I have seen it before with people getting disaffected with Scientology.
It is like a divorce. All of a sudden the object of one’s love and affinity become the object of one’s hate and scorn. It is almost incomprehensible to me.
Q Have you looked at the 5,000 documents under seal in this courthouse?
A No, I haven’t.
Q Do you know whether or not she became disillusioned when she looked at those 5,000 documents about the lies that had been disseminated by your founder?
MR. LITT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence and is argumentative, Your Honor.
3516
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection on the ground it is argumentative.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you know whether she became disillusioned in 1980-81 when Mr. Armstrong was collecting the documents that are under seal, Mr. Spurlock?
A I have no knowledge of that.
Q You don’t know when it happened?
A When she became disillusioned?
Q Right.
A No. I really don’t know Laurel’s — what Laurel’s story is.
Q And yet you have an opinion that — lumping her among some of the infamous criminals; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever read any of the documents that are under seal in this case?
A I don’t know.
Q Let me ask you this –
A I have read lots of documents. Whether some were under seal, I don’t know.
Q You gave a definition of a criminal as someone who wants something for nothing; is that your definition?
A Or is not supporting the group or is not aligned with the group and pulling his weight.
Q Is a person who consistently lies to the group a criminal?
A I would say so.
Q So if a person had consistently lied to the group
3517
for some 30 years about his background, you would categorize that person as a criminal, Mr. Spurlock?
A Yes. I would categorize that person as a criminal.
Do I categorize L. Ron Hubbard as a criminal? Absolutely not.
Q Have you read any of the documents under seal, Mr. Spurlock?
THE COURT: You have asked that. He has already answered.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Let me show you this policy letter and I’ll ask you if you consider that to be scripture.
A Yes, I do.
Q L. Ron Hubbard’s scripture copyrighted by him; is that correct?
A That’s right.
Q Would you turn over to the second page of that policy letter, under item J; would you read that to yourself?
A Okay.
Q You have read that before?
A Yes.
Q Do you agree that “policy is very definite; ignore with regard to assisting judges”?
A People attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology.
3518
Q Do you agree you should ignore them, Mr. Spurlock?
A I agree it shouldn’t even be in court.
Q Do you know who brought this suit?
A We did because — the church did, CSC did because documents were stolen.
Q You know how many suits your organization has brought in the last decade, Mr. Spurlock?
A No idea.
Q Have you ever seen a computer printout of the number of suits that your organization has brought against people in the last decade?
A No. Meaning my organization. Church of Scientology of California –
Q Church of Scientology, the hierarchical eclesiastical structure.
MR. HARRIS: Well, it is not a legal entity. Therefore it can’t bring a suit.
THE COURT: Well, sustain the objection.
Did you want this marked as an exhibit?
MR. FLYNN: Yes, please, Your Honor.
THE COURT: FFFF, four times.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you testify that Mary Sue Hubbard was part of the GO cleanup?
A She had resigned.
Q So she was not part of it?
A She had resigned. Therefore, she wasn’t around to be part of it.
Q Did you use the word earlier in your testimony
3519
about Mary Sue Hubbard, “removed”?A No.
Q You didn’t?
A I don’t think so. As far as I know, she resigned.
Q You testified that Mr. Armstrong was out there doing God knows what; do you recall that?
A Right.
Q Well, suppose Mr. Armstrong was out there telling the truth, would that be a reprehensible thing to do?
MR. HARRIS: I will object to that, Your Honor, as being argumentative and calling for speculation and a conclusion.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, Mr. Harris asked two or three hypothetical questions of this nature.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. Truth about what?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Truth about L. Ron Hubbard, Mr. Spurlock.
A I don’t believe Mr. Armstrong has any interest in the truth about L. Ron Hubbard.
Q And when he worked for L. Ron Hubbard for 14 years, six days a week, 80 to a hundred hours a week for 17 to $20 per week, do you think he had interest then?
A I don’t think he ever worked for L. Ron Hubbard.
3520
Q Do you think he ever worked with L. Ron Hubbard?
A I think he worked in the same vicinity.
Q How long were you on the boat Apollo?
A I wasn’t on the boat.
Q What is the total amount of time that you worked with L. Ron Hubbard in the same vicinity?
A A year.
Q And Mary Sue Hubbard, the wife of L. Ron Hubbard do you have any estimate as to the total amount of time she worked with L. Ron Hubbard?
MR. LITT: Is this the same physical vicinity again?
THE COURT: That is a difficult question. I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you have any amount of time that Mr. Armstrong worked with L. Ron Hubbard in the same vicinity?
A No I don’t have any estimate.
Q Or Laurel Sullivan?
A I know she was on the ship for a number of years.
Q Your testimony is that the Fair Game Doctrine was part of an internal ethics system of the church?
A Exclusion of people from the ethics system of the church.
Q What about people who had never been in the organization who were made subject to it, Mr. Spurlock, how does that fit into your ethics system?
3521
A It doesn’t.
Q Take a person like you, Mr. Spurlock, who was involved for how many years before you got on staff?
A Seven or eight.
Q You were paying for auditing then?
A Yes.
Q Fifty, $60,000 you probably paid?
A Probably.
Q And all the time you were paying that you thought that your PC files were confidential?
A That is right.
Q And you considered it a criminal act for the criminals in the Guardian’s office to have culled folders during that –PC folders during that period of time; is that correct?
A Yes.
MR. LITT: Criminal in Scientology?
THE COURT: Well, I assume that is what the question means.
THE WITNESS: Yes. In Scientology context, absolutely.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Those people would have been lied to in any context, is that correct?
A What people?
Q The people whose files were culled when they were told it was confidential.
MR. HARRIS: I will object to the question as ambiguous and calling for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Well I suppose so. I will sustain the
3522
objection.Q BY MR. FLYNN: Mr. Spurlock, during all these years you didn’t know the PC files were being culled; right?
A Even after all these years there was only a few instances of it that were discovered.
Q A few instances.
Well in those few instances were those people lied to with regard to the confidentiality of their folders?
MR. HARRIS: That calls for a conclusion, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, let’s assume, Mr. Spurlock, that there was a policy with regard to culling folders which has been marked as exhibit triple A in this case created by Mary Sue Hubbard in 1969.
Was that policy contrary to the representations made to you of the confidentiality of auditing folders?
MR. LITT: Objection; that calls for a conclusion, Your Honor. There has been different testimony about what the meaning of the policy is which Mr. Spurlock presumably is not privy to.
THE COURT: Well I will sustain the objection to the form of the question. You can rephrase it if you want.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, Mr. Spurlock, you testified that there was a handful of criminals who were committing criminal acts; do you recall that?
A Right.
Q And as part of their criminal act was the culling of PC folders; do you recall that?
A Yes.
3523
Q Now, do you include in your definition of a criminal act lying to someone about the confidentiality of PC folders?
A Yes, I would.
Q So the people who had their PC folders culled per your definition were lied to; is that correct?
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. This assumes facts not in evidence; it’s argumentative and calls for a conclusion as –
THE COURT: The problem with your question is it is not necessarily the person who culled it that was the person who told him it was confidential. Somebody may have said that in good faith and somebody later on may have culled it. And that original person was not lying.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, our position is that it was a dichotomous policy of the organization. One was to represent that it was confidential and the other policy was to cull them.
THE COURT: You have testimony in the record as regards that.
Now, if you are talking about somebody lying, you are talking about somebody who makes a representation and misrepresents or nondiscloses when he or she should say something. I don’t know whether that would be the same person that would have known that there was culling if there was culling.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: In your experience when you found out about the culling, was it the bad people in the Guardian’s
3524
Office that were doing the culling?A Yes. I know of nowhere else that culling occurred,
Q In the Guardian’s Office?
A Yes.
Q And the Guardian’s Office was part of the hierarchical structure you have testified about; correct?
A Let me clarify: The Guardian’s Office sat off by itself. They had the doors locked. They were very mysterious. The bulk of Scientologists didn’t even know what the hell was going on in the Guardian’s Office. And it only came to light in 1981.
Even during the 1977 FBI raid on the church here most of us just thought, oh, hell, here is the government again, you know, another unprovoked attack because there had been a series of attacks on the ship, et cetera.
It was only later that we found out what they were really up to and how off the rails they were. And that is when Scientology management, CMO, Executive Strata, et cetera, said this has got to change. This is not what Scientology is about. So there was a housecleaning.
If I was an auditor and I was telling my PC that everything he says to me in the session is confidential and I found out later that somebody in the Guardian’s Office was culling that folder, I would have been outraged. It would have been a total surprise to me. I wouldn’t have stood for it.
Q How long in your estimate had it been going on,
3525
Mr. Spurlock?A I have no idea.
Q As regards the total secrecy of the Guardian’s Office, how long had that secrecy been going on?
A A period of years.
Q Prior to 1977 when you became involved; is that correct?
A That’s right.
Q At some point in time L. Ron Hubbard left and went into seclusion; is that correct?
A That is correct.
He has done it a number of times.
Q Prior to that he was more or less on the com lines of the organization; is that correct?
A Prior to what time?
Q Prior to the February, 1980 when he went into seclusion?
A Yes.
Q So for the prior 30 years or so L. Ron Hubbard had been more or less around, on board the ship, at Gilman, at La Quinta; is that correct?
A For the 30 years?
Q For the prior 30 years L. Ron Hubbard had been more or less around, involved in the organization; is that correct?
A I can’t give you a time track for the last 30 years.
I know that he would go off by himself and do –
3526
with a small group of people and do research from time to time.I know he went down to Rhodesia in, I think, ‘65 or ‘66.
He went to Las Palmas in ‘67.
The original Sea Org was supposed to be a distraction free environment. The management was at Worldwide which was probably why they were up in this ecclesiastical structure in this position.
And then he left La Quinta for awhile and then came back; was involved in film making on almost a full-time basis, you know. Like he would be on the set for seven, eight, ten hours a day.
Q Roughly between ‘67 and ‘75, you know he was mostly on board the ship except for a period where he might have been hiding in New York; correct?
MR. LITT: Objection. That assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: There is testimony that he was hiding.
MR. LITT: Not that he was hiding. But –
THE COURT: There has been testimony that he was hiding, whether it is true or not. But there has been testimony.
THE WITNESS: My understanding was he was in research in biochemistry and health foods, that sort of thing, in New York.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: The question was in ‘67 he was on board that ship with the Commodores Messengers in Flag;
3527
is that correct?A I believe he was on the ship for extended periods of time.
Q And then was in Clearwater for a period of time; is that correct?
A I don’t know if he was actually in Clearwater or not.
Q Well, then he was out at La Quinta and Gilman Hot Springs for a period of time; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, throughout that whole period of time there was no clean-up of the Guardian’s Office, was there,
Mr. Spurlock?
A The clean-up at the Guardian’s Office occurred in 1981.
3528
Q After Mr. Hubbard had gone into seclusion; is that correct, Mr. Spurlock?A Yes.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: I don’t think I have anything. Your Honor.
MR. LITT: I don’t think so. Could we just have a moment?
THE COURT: What do you do with PC files when a member leaves the church, resigns?
THE WITNESS: They are put in archives.
THE COURT: Why don’t you return them to the individuals?
THE WITNESS: They are not the individual’s property.
THE COURT: Well, you have no use for them; do you?
THE WITNESS: Well if the person ever comes back, we do.
THE COURT: Well, can’t you start from scratch if he comes back?
THE WITNESS: That wouldn’t be a good idea because then he would reduplicate certain things that he had
already gone through.
THE COURT: Nothing further on my part. You gentlemen have anything further?
THE WITNESS: If a person is afraid that their PC files are going to be used against them, he could ask them to be destroyed in his presence. We’d agree to that.
3529
THE COURT: If Mr. Armstrong wanted to have his destroyed, would you do them in his presence?
THE WITNESS; Yes.
MR. FLYNN: We have been trying to get them back continually.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Is a PC who is in the church ever allowed to see his PC folder?
A Not ever.
Q And why is that?
A Because it wouldn’t do him any good. It is contrary to the workability of the technology.
Q So whether he is inside the church or he’s left the church, it is the policy of Scientology that he cannot see the contents of his PC folder?
A That is correct. I have never seen mine.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. HARRIS: Nothing else.
MR. FLYNN: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: All right, then you may step down. You may call your next witness.
MR. HARRIS: Miss Dincalci, please.
NANCY DINCALCI, called as a witness in behalf of the defense, was sworn and testified as follows:
MR. LITT: Your Honor, I would just note that this is one additional witness who was not listed on the witness list, I believe, I am told.
3530
MR. FLYNN: She is on the witness list, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: Would you state your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Nancy Dincalci, D-i-n-c-a-l-c-i.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q At some point in time were you involved in the Church of Scientology, Miss Dincalci?
A Yes.
Q And what were the dates?
A 1973 to 1979.
Q And your husband’s name is what?
A Jim.
Q And was he involved with the Church of Scientology, also?
A Yes.
Q And to your knowledge in 1973 was he with L. Ron Hubbard in New York hiding in an apartment?
MR. HARRIS: Object to that, Your Honor, unless she is present.
THE COURT: Well you can lay a foundation if she has some knowledge, what the source of her knowledge is.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: At some point in time, Miss Dincalci, did you work with L. Ron Hubbard?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?
A 1977 through ‘79, well, ‘78.
3531
Q What briefly did you do?
A I was an auditor at La Quinta and then I worked in the films under him.
Q And what period of time did you work with the films under Mr. Hubbard?
A ‘78.
Q And where was that?
A La Quinta.
Q Now, at some point in time did you try to leave the organization?
A Well, not — I told them I wanted to leave.
Q And when was that?
A Well, originally ‘78 when I first decided I wanted to leave.
Q And what happened at that time when you told them you wanted to leave?
MR. HARRIS: I’ll object as irrelevant to this case, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, we were moved into a stables and then there was a body guard who followed us around all day.
And we were kind of ostracized from the group. And we kind of waited around for a couple of months until they decided that we could go.
Q Before they would let you go?
A Uh-huh.
Q Prior to leaving were you taken into a room where your PC folders were being culled?
3532
A I went through a room where they were.
Q How many people were culling the folders?
A Oh, maybe 30 people.
Q And this was when, in 1978, or 1979?
A 1979, the night before we left when they finally said we could go.
All of the people that were leaving — there were four of us at the time — all of the crew kind of sat around and went through our folders to get any information.
Q Was this during the period ‘78 and ‘79 when Mr. Spurlock was out at La Quinta and Gilman Hot Springs?
A Yes.
Q And who were the four people who wanted to leave?
A My husband, myself, Lee Littler and Bob Littler.
Q And at that time was information taken out of your folders and reduced to writing?
A Yes, it was.
Q And were you made to sign it?
A Yes.
Q And what else were you made to sign?
A A nondisclosure and release bond.
Q And were you made to sign promissory notes?
A I believe so at that time. I am — at some point I was. I’m not sure if it was at that point.
Q And after you were — incidentally, when your folders were being culled, was it being culled — were they being culled by the Guardian’s Office, other Sea Org members, or who?
3533
A Just the general crew, anybody they could get at that point.
Q Were you Sec Checked?
A Yes.
Q And how long did the Security Check last?
A Actually, it was unusually short because it was a very sudden decision that we could suddenly go. I don’t know why that occurred. Maybe an hour.
Q Were you familiar with the practice of the organization to retain people’s belongings when they tried to leave?
MR. HARRIS: Well –
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. It assumes a fact not in evidence.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: After you left the organization were you sent a bill?
A Yes.
Q And how much was the bill for?
A For me it was $62,000.
For Jim it was $92,000; although she said it was incomplete.
Q Did you and your husband have some photographs that you gave to Mr. Armstrong to sell?
A Yes.
Q And when was that?
A It was in 1982, May, 1982.
Q And did you make an agreement with Mr. Armstrong at that time to sell the photographs?
3534
A My husband did, actually.
Q Were you present?
A Yes.
Q And what was the agreement?
A I don’t know if I can recall all the specifics; just basically that he agreed that he was giving them to Mr. Armstrong to sell for a certain amount.
Q Do you remember what the amount was?
A I believe it was $2,000.
Q Now, incidentally, your husband is now working up in San Francisco; is that correct?
A He is going to school near San Francisco.
Q Did you or your husband ever get the photographs back?
A No.
Q Now, in May through September, 1982 did you have the opportunity to observe Gerry Armstrong’s mental state?
A Yes, I did.
Q And on how many occasions?
A Between what period?
Q May, 1982 and September, 1982.
A Oh, 15 to 20 times, maybe.
Q What was your observation of his mental state at that time?
A He was very disturbed and confused and more or less fearful of the organization. He was fearful and sort of harassed.
Q How would you characterize in terms of degree
3535
the level of fear that you observed?A I would say it was very severe at a certain point.
Q Now, on one occasion in September, 1982 did you come and pick Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong up under rather
unusual circumstances?
A During that time period they were being followed and watched continuously.
Q 24 hours per day?
A Uh-huh. And it was obviously getting to them. They really were upset and harassed.
We kind of arranged a rendezvous, as I recall. We even had some kind of a code over the phone.
He called me on a pay phone so I could pick them up so they could get away for a brief period to get out from under that.
So I drove down and I was to meet them not where they lived, but in a pre-arranged location near where they lived at night at a certain hour.
The whole thing, actually, my car broke down. So I ended up walking there.
When I told Gerry, he said, “Get out before they see you.”
He was sort of real spooked. He really –
Q Did you go get a Rent-A-Car?
A Yes. I went to the airport and rented one; picked them up; they sort of dove in the back seat, crouched down. We drove away.
3536
Q When you actually picked them up were they hiding somewhere?
A Yes. They were in a dark corner where I was supposed to meet them.
Q Were they hiding?
A In the park where they lived, just a short location near the laundromat near where they lived. I don’t even remember the specific location, but –
Q Now, when you were wording on the films with Mr. Hubbard did you have the opportunity to observe his behavior?
A Yes, I did.
Q What were your observations?
A My observations were that his behavior was very erratic and abusive to people around him and just very disturbed.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may cross-examine, Mr. Litt.
3537
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Miss Dincalci — Mrs. Dincalci, I am sorry, you actually left the church in 1979?
A Right.
Q And after that were there any occasions on which you returned to the church and had contact with people there?
A Yes.
Q Did that occur at all in 1979?
A Yes.
Q And that was the church here in L.A. at the Cedars Complex?
A Yes.
Q And on how many occasions did that occur?
A I went in there three or four times, I guess.
Q And was that to meet and talk with various people?
A Yes.
Q I take it you didn’t actually engage in any services, but you were just retaining your relations with people?
A I went in to see if I could get the money back that I had paid them for services I never received.
Q And in 1980 — did you go into the church on any occasions in 1980?
A 1980—actually think that is what I was referring to was in 1980.
3538
Q How about after 1980, 1981, did you have any contact with people then?
A Not that I recall.
Q Did you have any social contact with people who had been friends of yours while you were in Scientology during the years 1980 and 1981?
A People that had been friends of mine while I was in Scientology, yes.
Q So you continued to maintain social relations with some people who were still in the church?
A They weren’t still in the church.
Q Now, let’s go to the year 1982.
You described the fact that you and your husband gave photos to Mr. Armstrong to sell; do you remember what that was? Was that in April?
A I think so, yes.
Q And the photos themselves were photos that your husband had. You weren’t present when any of them were taken; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, at the time that Mr. Armstrong took these photos in to be sold, had you had any contact with Mr. Flynn?
A Yes.
Q And had you gone to someplace other than California to meet with Mr. Flynn?
A Yes.
Q Was that at his office in Boston?
3539
A Uh-huh.
Q And did you pay your own way there or did he pay your way?
A He reimbursed us.
Q Do you remember when that meeting occurred?
A I actually am not sure of the month, but it was right around that same time period.
Q Was it before the transaction with Mr. Armstrong concerning the photographs?
A I think so.
Q And before this transaction with the photographs had you told Mr. Armstrong about your meeting with Mr. Flynn?
A Yes.
Q And had you suggested to him that he go see Mr. Flynn as well?
A Yes.
Q Now after the photograph incident occurred, did you go back into the church some time in early May?
A Yes.
Q And you went back into the church, did you not, to once again seek a resolution of your claim for a refund?
A Yes.
Q And did you meet with someone there?
A Yes.
Q And who was that, do you recall?
A You mean for that purpose? I mean, I met –
Q Did you have a discussion with someone at the
3540
church concerning this?A I got– concerning what, though? I had two meetings.
Q Concerning the refund?
A Concerning the refund, yes.
Q Do you remember when that was?
A May.
Q And was your husband with you at the time?
A No.
Q Did you have a second occasion on which you returned to the church?
A Well at the same time I also spoke to Terry Gamboa about the photos at that point and if they would return them.
Q And you and Miss Gamboa had a discussion about the circumstances surrounding the photos and what happened?
A Somewhat, yes.
Q Now, aside from your discussion with Miss Gamboa, did you return to the church to further discuss this question of a refund?
A I returned to the church. They had given me a check and on the back of the check they had agreed to give me a refund of money that I had never spent but was on account, and went back because their bank would not cash the check because on the back they had typed a long disclaimer on the check, and the bank said, “Well, they know that we won’t cash checks like that.”
Q This was a check made out to you?
3541
A To me.
Q And was your husband present during any of these discussions?
A No.
Q And so after you got this check and it had this disclaimer, was the disclaimer a waiver of any claims you might have? Was that your understanding?
A It was a blanket statement that L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard had nothing to do with the church, and a long statement like that.
Q Did it also contain statements concerning the fact that by cashing this check, you relinquished any claims you may have? do you remember that?
A I had to sign a separate form saying that. But I am not sure.
Q So, you returned the church because you weren’t sure you wanted to sign such a waiver?
A I returned to the church because I wanted that money that I had never received.
Q And you had a discussion concerning certain reservations that you had about signing this; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And that included a discussion about this dispute concerning the photographs; is that right? You raised that?
A I don’t believe so.
Q Was there any discussion about the photographs
3542
at all?A To that individual, no.
Q Was there any discussion about the photographs in connection with this waiver that you signed?
A No.
3543
Q And did you, after discussing this waiver, say that you wanted to consult the advice of an attorney before signing it?
A Yes.
Q And you then returned subsequently and signed a waiver?
A That is correct.
You are going back an earlier time period but, yes, that is correct.
Q Now, in May you had some contact with Mr. Flynn at the Bonaventure Hotel; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Mr. Armstrong was present also?
A Uh-huh.
Q And were you — as I understood it, this was a two-day meeting or series of meetings or whatever; were you or your husband present on both days, or just one?
A I think it was just one.
Q Were you present at the same time that Mr. Armstrong was present?
A Yes.
Q And were there some documents there that Mr. Flynn had?
A There were some documents there, yes.
Q And did Mr. Flynn make reference to these documents in the course of your conversations?
A To be honest with you, at that time I don’t recall whether he actually did or not.
3544
I didn’t speak very much with Mr. Flynn at that meeting myself. He may have.
Q There were some documents that were spread out on a table or bed, right, that people were free to take a look at; is that correct?
A Well, I guess they were — I mean –
Q You had the understanding that people were free to take a look at them; is that right?
A No, not particularly. No one made a statement to that effect or anything. I don’t know.
Q Did you take a look at any of them?
A I don’t think I did at that time.
Q Did your husband — strike that.
When you say “at that time,” did you at some other time?
A I had seen some documents.
Q When did you see documents?
A Earlier. Maybe a month or two earlier, maybe a month earlier.
Q Let me see if I understand this.
Mr. Armstrong, I take it, showed you these documents?
A Yes, he did show us some documents.
Q And this was in March or April?
A I would say it was - I think it may have been in April. Give or take a month, I really –
Q This was all before the incident with the photographs that you have described that you saw these
3545
documents?A That I saw some documents, yes.
Q Where was it that you saw these documents?
A At my house.
Q Mr. Armstrong brought there to your house?
A Yes.
Q He brought them there and he showed them to you?
A Yes.
Q And he showed them to your husband?
A Yes.
Q And did you read there?
A I read some documents, yes.
Q And among the documents was what you would agree was a quite private journal of some type of Mr. Hubbard’s that appeared to come from the post-war period, 1945 to 1950 period; is that correct?
A I don’t know what period, but there were some writings of Mr. Hubbard.
Q That were quite private; you thought so, didn’t you?
A Well, I thought they revealed –
Q Aside from what you thought they revealed, you did feel that they were personal; didn’t you?
A I don’t know how you make that distinction.
His books are personal; his stories about — but they were his, you know, in his own handwriting, his own thoughts, you know.
3546
Q His own thoughts; you agree with that characterization?
A Uh-huh.
Q And aside from this document, did Mr. Armstrong show you a letter of Mrs. Hubbard’s to Mr. Hubbard from the early 1950’s?
A No. But –
Q What else besides this one –
You were going to say something more?
A No.
Q What else besides this journal or whatever we call it of Mr. Hubbard’s did Mr. Armstrong show you?
A There was a notebook which contained what seemed to be a Black Magic Ritual or something in his handwriting.
Q And anything else that you recall?
A Those were the two things that stand out in my mind that I recall.
Q Was there any correspondence between Mr. Hubbard and anyone?
A We are speaking about things that he showed me at my house; right?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q Did you see some correspondence on some other occasion other than at your house?
A I do recall that I saw some correspondence at the –
3547
Q At the Bonaventure Hotel?
A Yes.
Q Was that the letter from Mrs. Hubbard to Mr. Hubbard in the early 1950’s as you recall?
A What I recall is a letter — one of his earlier wives to another, a later wife.
Q And did you read that at the time or glanced through it?
A Yes, I did.
Q Going back to this discussion at your house where Mr. Armstrong brought these, do you remember any other documents besides what you have described that Mr. Armstrong brought with him to your house?
A The Excalibur.
3548
Q The manuscript of “Excalibur”?
A The manuscript, uh-huh.
Q Anything else that you recall?
A Nothing else that I recall at the time.
Q And your husband read these at the time, also; is that right?
A To some degree.
Q And you and MR. Armstrong and your husband had a discussion about these documents?
A We discussed them.
Q Was anybody else present?
A No.
Q Was Joyce Armstrong present?
A Oh, yes, I am sorry.
Q Just the four of you?
A Uh-huh.
Q Was there ever any occasion on which Mr. Armstrong brought documents of this type to your house?
A I don’t recall that there was another time that he brought them. I think there was the one instance that he brought them. He may have brought—I did store some things in our garage later. There may have been documents there. I didn’t go through –
Q When did he store things in your garage; do you recall?
A I think it was probably in the end of May. I really don’t know the time. I am not too good on times.
Q Right after this meeting at the Bonaventure
3549
Hotel or somewhere around that time frame?A I think so. I honestly don’t know. I really don’t remember in relation to –
Q Were there any occasions on which you were at Mr. Armstrong’s house and also saw some documents?
A I may have. I don’t remember. I only remember reading them really at my house.
Q Did Mr. Armstrong mention to you who else he had shown these documents to?
A I don’t think he had shown them to anyone except to Omar to my recollection. I don’t believe he had.
Q That is not my question. Did he mention to you anyone else? I take it the answer to that is no?
A That is correct. It is no.
Q Now, going back to the Bonaventure Hotel meeting, some of the same documents that you described having been at Mr. Armstrong’s house were present at this meeting, also; correct?
A Uh-huh.
Q And also more documents; is that right?
A I think so.
Q And do you know if your husband looked through some of these documents on that occasion?
A He probably did. I don’t know. We were mostly talking with others who were present more than we were looking at documents.
Q Other people were looking at documents?
3550
A I am saying we were talking with others rather than looking at documents.
Q Do you recall any other people besides you and your husband looking at any of these documents?
A Kima and Mike Douglas may have looked at some of them.
Q Did you have any discussion with them afterward about whether they had looked at any of them?
A You’d think I would remember this clearly, but — I probably did.
Q And it was your understanding, wasn’t it, that Mr. Flynn was in present possession of those documents?
MR. FLYNN: Objection.
THE COURT: Well I will sustain the objection.
Q BY MR, LITT: Well, do you recall whether or not Mr. Flynn invited people to read them? Do you have any recollection of that?
A No, I don’t.
Q Well, somebody invited people to read them. You felt you had permission from somebody to read them; didn’t you?
A At the Bonaventure?
Q Yes.
A Well, I had already seen them, so I felt like it was okay to look at those things that I had already seen. But as I said, I don’t think I was reading the documents on that occasion. There were some things around.
3551
Q And it was your understanding that whoever wanted to take a look at them was welcome to do so? wasn’t it?
THE COURT: It assumes she had an understanding.
Q BY MR. LITT: Did you have an understanding with respect to whether people were able to look at these documents while they were attending this meeting?
A Well, some people did look at them. They were able to, yes.
Q And did you have an understanding as to whether people were given permission to do so in some form?
A Nothing was said to that effect, but people did. Some people did look at them, so whatever.
Q And it was your understanding that that was okay?
A Not necessarily.
Q Well, you felt if you wanted to look at them, you could; right?
A Not necessarily. I did not know to what degree I could look at what. I didn’t know. I didn’t have a clear understanding of that, no.
MR. LITT: May I have a moment. Your Honor? I have nothing further. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: Briefly, Your Honor.
3552
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Miss Dincalci, you were on the staff of some church from what years?
A I was on staff from 1975 through 1977 at the American Saint Hill Organization.
Then I joined the Sea Org and was at La Quinta from 1977 to 1979.
THE COURT: Well, I think we had better take a recess. (Recess.)
3553
THE COURT: We are back in session. The witness has retaken the stand.
State your name again for the record, ma’am. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Nancy Dincalci.
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Harris.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Prior to going on staff at American Saint Hill Organization were you a public Scientologist?
A That’s right.
Q And when you went on staff at American Saint Hill Organization were you an auditor?
A Yes.
Q And did you hold any other posts?
A No. At that time — I did in the Sea Org later on, but you mean at the American Saint Hill Organization; right?
Q Yes. That was from 1975 to 1977?
A I believe so.
Q And were you auditing public people or staff?
A Both.
Q When you were an auditor you understood what the auditor’s code was?
A Yes.
Q And you abided by it?
A In retrospect, I didn’t later on when I was in the Sea Org and I culled PC folders.
Q When you were on staff at American Saint Hill
3554
Organization did you abide by the auditor’s code?A To the best of my ability, I believe I did.
Q And you joined the Sea Org when?
A 1975 — I’m sorry — 1977.
Q And did you join at the American Saint Hill Organization?
A No.
Q where did you join?
A Where? I just joined under a special project to go to work with LRH and then went to La Quinta.
Q And when did you arrive at La Quinta?
A Approximately June.
Q Of?
A ‘77.
Q And Mr. Hubbard was there?
A At that time he wasn’t there. He returned a little bit later on.
Q And your post at La Quinta was, again, an auditor?
A That is correct.
Q Now, I take that you weren’t auditing any public people there?
A No. There were no public people there.
Q Just the staff members that were there at La Quinta?
A That’s right.
Q By the way, is Mr. Flynn your attorney?
A I have no attorney.
3555
Q All right. Have you spoken to Mr. Flynn during your cross-examination like right out in the hall here?
A Yes.
Q And Mr. Armstrong?
A Yes.
Q And did you discuss your cross-examination?
A You mean what? Previously?
Q Yes.
A To some –
Q Now, did you participate in any of the films as an actress or otherwise?
A I was a makeup — I put makeup on people and I was an actress in one or two scenes.
Q And when you were — I take it you would also be an auditor at the same time?
A No. At that time everyone in the org went to work in the films for a while, so I just did for a while.
Q And these films were what subject matter?
A They were films about Scientology.
Q Now when you left the church, you routed out of the Sea Org; did you?
A That is right.
Q And you did that at La Quinta?
A That’s right.
Q Prior to routing out of the Sea Org, did you understand that there were certain steps that you went through in order to do that?
3556
A Yeah, there is a routing form for everything in the Sea Org.
Q And were you aware of that routing form before you embarked upon routing out?
A I wasn’t aware of what specific steps, but I was aware that I’d be sec checked and that sort of thing.
Q And when you were involved as a staff member in the church, you were aware of the freeloader policy; correct?
A That’s right, I was.
Q And at the time that you received services, you would sign a no charge invoice?
A Uh-huh.
Q And you were aware of the practice of having the services which you received charged if you routed out; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And the bill that you received, did you understand that to be a freeloader bill?
A Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You have to answer audibly.
THE WITNESS: I am sorry; yes.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: And did you also receive other communications which asked you to get back on the bridge?
A Yes, yes.
Q Written communications?
A Typed.
Q And talking you about, “Why don’t you get
3557
your freeloader debt paid off and come back and join us?”A In the first year or so, yes.
Q Nobody has taken any legal action against you for that freeloader debt; have they?
A No.
Q And you are not aware, are you, of anybody that has had any legal action taken against them regarding their freeloader debt?
A Not that I am aware of.
Q Now you saw Mr. Armstrong after you routed out of the Sea Organization. When was the first time that you saw—I will withdraw that.
After you routed out of the Sea Organization, when is the first time you saw Mr. Armstrong?
A Oh, let’s see, ‘80 or ‘81.
Q And where did you see him?
A In the apartment that I was living in at the time in Torrance.
Q And was he still with the church at that point?
A Yes.
Q And subsequently did you see him after he left the church?
A Yes.
Q And when was the first time that you saw him after you left the church as best you can date?
A I think it was January ‘82.
Q Did you have conversations with Mr. Armstrong in January ‘82 respecting his leaving the church?
3558
A Yes.
Q And how many such conversations did you have?
A I recall one that we had dinner together.
Q la January 1982?
A ‘82, uh-huh.
Q Now, who was present, during that conversation?
A My husband, Gerry and Joscelyn [Jocelyn].
Q Now in January 1982 what was Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind that you observed in that conversation?
A Well, I think he was sort of in a state of shock and feeling kind of a betrayal because of all the materials that he had discovered about L. Ron Hubbard, and he was just going through the process of sorting out what was true, what wasn’t true, what he had been through in the Sea Org, that kind of thing.
3559
Q And when you had this conversation — strike that.
This is a state of mind that you observed, that he was in shock?
A I don’t think he was actually in shock like the medical term. But I mean I think he was shocked by the whole experience. I mean he was — yes.
Q When you say he was shocked, is this something that you got from your conversation with him?
A Uh-huh.
Q And when is the next time that you saw him?
A I don’t recall. I mean over the next several months. I don’t know exactly. I know — I only clearly remember seeing him again in April. I probably saw him many other times. I don’t remember.
Q Do you remember him discussing with you his reasons for leaving the church at any time between January and April, 1982?
A Between those times, I don’t recall.
Q And when was it that you observed his state of mind to be fearful?
A Well, the incident I was talking about earlier was in September, I believe.
Q September, 1982?
A Uh-huh.
Q And that is the incident where you went to some dark corner where he was?
A That’s right.
3560
Q Okay. Now, other than that instance where you observed his state of mind to be fearful, did you observe it earlier on any occasion?
A Did I observe him to be fearful?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A Various times that I saw him over the months before that.
I saw him fairly frequently between April and September.
Q All right. At the time that he brought you documents at your house, which was in April, 1982 –
A Actually, I don’t think it was in April. I think it was — I think it was in May, 1982.
Q But prior to the Bonaventure meeting?
A I think it was prior, yes.
Q And who was present at the time that he showed you documents?
A My husband and Jocelyn.
Q And at that time did you observe him to be — did you observe him to be of the state of mind of fear?
A Well, he was — he was at that time, I would say, after the photos were stolen, yes.
Q But this incident where he showed you the documents was before the photos; isn’t that correct?
A No. It was after the photos.
Q After the photos?
3561
A I believe so.
Q Now –
A Let me think.
Q Let me understand this: Was the photo incident in April as far as you remember?
A As far as I remember, the photo incident was the end of April.
Q And his showing you the documents was now, you say, in May at some point?
A I think it was in the beginning of May.
Q All right. Now, when he was with you on this occasion, when he was showing you the documents, did you have conversations with him about the documents?
A Yes.
Q And by the way, the Excalibur that he showed you, that manuscript, was that a carbon copy or a Xeroxed copy?
A I actually don’t know. I don’t know if it was a copy or not.
Q Did he tell you that the materials that he was showing you was from the archives?
A For the most part I — actually, I don’t think he told me. I knew that they were data that he had collected, I know, for Omar to write the biography.
Q And was it your understanding at the time that he showed you the documents that he was doing so because he was in the state of mind of fear?
A No. I don’t think it was because of that. I think it was just because he was kind of trying to figure
3562
out what this whole experience of being in the Sea Org and working for L. Ron Hubbard was about and what the man was about.Q Did you become aware that he was eating nothing but brown rice during that period?
A Was I aware of that?
Q Yes.
A No.
3563
Q He didn’t talk to you about that?
A Eating nothing but brown rice?
Q Did he say that to you? A I don’t recall that.
Q Did he talk to you about walking across the country?
A He talked to me about doing that.
Q And when was that?
A I think that was in April.
Q April of 1982?
A Yes.
MR. HARRIS: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: A couple, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q In connection with the walking across the country, did he tell you why he changed his mind and wasn’t going to do it?
A Yes, because after the photos were stolen, after the photos were stolen I think he did feel fearful, and I think he felt he was fair game from that organization and perhaps he wouldn’t be safe and that he was under attack.
MR. LITT: Objection; move to strike. The witness did not answer the question. The question was what she was told and the answer was what she thinks.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What did he tell you, Miss Dincalci?
3564
A He told me that.
Q Did he tell you that in walking across the country in open spaces he could be murdered?
MR. LITT: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: Well, it is just repeating what she said. Overruled.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: What did he say?
A He felt that way, that he could be.
Q Now, when we were discussing your examination out in the hallway, did you go over in your memory exactly when the documents were stored in your garage and the circumstances?
A Uh-huh.
Q Now, that is a yes?
A Yes, I did, yes.
Q Now, do you associate the storage of the documents in the garage with Mr. Armstrong going anywhere?
A Yes. That is when he went to Clearwater.
Q And that was in early May; is that correct?
A As far as I can recall correctly, yes.
Q Did you notice a shift in Mr. Armstrong after the photos were stolen or taken from him?
A Definitely.
Q What did you notice in the way of a shift in his personality?
A That is when I observed that he did become more fearful and stressed and anxious about the whole situation.
3565
Q Are you certain that when the photographs were stolen that were stored in your garage, it was when Mr. Armstrong went to Clearwater after the photos were stolen?
MR. HARRIS: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Was she certain. I will sustain the objection. Strike it; unclear, ambiguous.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And with regard to the first time Mr. Armstrong showed you any documents, was it after the shift in his personality that you noticed?
A Uh-huh, yes.
Q Did Mr. Armstrong try to talk you out of coming to my office to see me?
A Actually, yes. He didn’t think it was a good idea to go see you at the time that I did.
Q What was the effect on you, Miss Dincalci, of seeing the documents that you saw in May 1982?
MR. LITT: Objection: irrelevant,
THE COURT: Well, overruled.
THE WITNESS: I was shocked and I also found it helpful for me personally to answer some questions in my own mind and just to kind of try to sort it out for myself as to who L. Ron Hubbard was, that kind of thing.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And based on your years of experience in the Sea Organization and people who have left, do you believe it would be helpful to thousands of
3566
such people who were in your position?A I really do.
MR. HARRIS: I object to that. Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Strike it.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now when you were culling PC files, did you do it in a group in which Lyman Spurlock was present?
MR. LITT: Objection; beyond the scope. There was no examination on this.
THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection unless you want to reopen.
MR. FLYNN: I’d like to reopen this one question. Your Honor, that I have learned from the witness at the break.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Was Mr. Spurlock in a group actually culling PC files with Guardian’s office members to your knowledge, Miss Dincalci?
A All auditors there culled PC folders and sent copies to the Guardian’s office after each session.
Q And he was in the group that was doing that?
A He was an auditor there with me, yes.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have.
THE COURT: Mr. Litt?
MR. LITT: May I have a moment?
3567
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Miss Dincalci, I take it after you went and had a discussion with Mr. Flynn and Mr. Armstrong it refreshed your recollection, is that right, during the break about the date of the storage?
A I recall that it was — I mean — yes. I recall that it was when Gerry went to Clearwater. And that is the reason he put them there, because he was going out of town, yes.
Q And it was your understanding that these documents were from among the documents that Mr. Armstrong had had when he was the archivist?
A At that time I had no understanding.
Gerry simply said, “Can I store these in your garage?”
There were some boxes there.
Q Now you have such an understanding?
A I assumed at that time and I assume now that they were documents. But I didn’t even mention to him.
Q And the events during which Mr. Armstrong had brought you the documents to look at that you testified to earlier, that happened before he brought this material to you for storage; right?
A Yes.
Q And I think your testimony was probably a month before?
A No.
3568
Q Something like that?
A No. I don’t think it was that — I think it was really right around the same time period.
Q Did you get your memory refreshed about that too from a conversation with Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Flynn during the break?
A No. They did not refresh my memory on that.
Q Did you discuss it with them?
A Oh, when I saw the documents?
Q Yes.
A Uh-huh.
MR. LITT: I have nothing further.
THE WITNESS: But only in terms of saying in relation to this or that. They helped me sort it out.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris.
RECROSS-EXAMINATIOH BY MR. HARRIS:
Q While you were an auditor at La Quinta, Mr. Spurlock was the Qual Sec; is that right?
A He was an auditor.
Q Was he the Qual Sec at some point?
A I don’t recall him being the Qual Sec while I was there.
Q Now, you yourself culled PC folders?
A Every auditor culled the folders after each session for any crimes and sent them to the Guardian’s Office at La Quinta.
3569
Q You did that?
A I did that, yes.
THE COURT: What did you consider to be a crime or what were your instructions?
THE WITNESS: Actually, it was anything that could be used against somebody, it was not necessarily a crime. It could be an embarrassing fact. It could be anything that was blackmailable.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: And you saw Mr. Spurlock doing this?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A During the period that I was an auditor there or maybe 1977 when we would write sessions up.
Q Who was the Guardian’s Office Representative at La Quinta?
A Ann Mulligan.
Q Anybody else?
A For a time, Mary Sue Hubbard was there, I guess.
Q She was — anybody else?
A Jimmy Mulligan.
Q Anybody else?
A Are you asking me was there anybody else who was in the Guardian’s Office there?
Q At La Quinta, yes.
A Yes.
Q Who?
3570
A Brian Rubenik; Fred Rock; Fred Hare. That is all I recall offhand.
Q So to whom did you route these communications as an auditor?
A To Ann Mulligan.
Q Anyone else?
A One also went to the case supervisor.
Q And the case supervisor, that was who?
A Paulette Cohen most of the time.
Q As a matter of fact, all session write-ups went to the case supervisor; right?
A Uh-huh.
Q And that is something that you did while you were an auditor at the American Saint Hill Organization; right?
A That’s right.
Q And that is for the purpose of programming the next auditing session?
A That is correct.
Q Did you send PC file data to anybody else?
A At that time period?
Q Yes.
A Sometimes you might send it to an ethics officer if there is a situation — if you ever perceived that someone was possibly out security and might leave or might have any sort of feelings that were negative about the group or L. Ron Hubbard or any of the going ons; you might write that up to someone else.
3571
Q In the form of a Knowledge report?
A Uh-huh.
Q And when you were auditing at American Saint Hill Organization did you write up knowledge reports to ethics officers?
A Not in the same way. There was not emphasis on security at that organization.
Q And it was at La Quinta that you began doing this?
A Yes.
Q And while you were at American Saint Hill Organization you did not route anything to the Guardian’s Office?
A I didn’t personally, no.
3572
Q And specifically when did you see Mr. Spurlock culling PC folder data?
A It was an ongoing thing when you wrote sessions up. I can’t give you a specific date where it occurred. It was something — it was a standing rule.
Q And who gave you that rule?
A The CS.
Q And who was the CS?
A Paulette Cohen.
MR. HARRIS: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: Nothing further.
THE COURT: What does CS stand for?
THE WITNESS: Case supervisor.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down.
MR. FLYNN: I have one more question in light of the court’s question.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Culled crimes from PC files did not go to the Guardian’s office for any purposes of improving a person’s auditing; is that correct, Miss Dincalci?
A That is correct.
Q That went for intelligence purposes; is that correct?
A That is right.
MR. FLYNN: That’s all I have.
3573
THE C0URT: Anything further?
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, you may step down. You are excused.
MR. FLYNN: Ed Walters.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, before we proceed with .Mr. Walters, I have, in order to ensure that my memory was correct, looked at the set of witness lists that the court has in its possession. Nancy Dincalci was not on the witness list. Ed Walters is not on the witness list. Lyman Spurlock is not on the witness list, and it just seems that at a certain point that the purpose of these rules seem to be receding into the background. There was a witness list of over 50 people or maybe it was 50, something like that, rather extensive, and this is now the third witness that is being called who was not on the witness list, and it just seems to me with the already existing scope of this case that it is inappropriate to call Mr. Walters. There have already been two witnesses that the court had permitted to testify who are not on the witness list, and we certainly are not prepared at this point and have no way of knowing to be prepared that Mr. Walters was going to be a witness in this case nor does it appear that he has any knowledge that really pertains to the direct issues in the case, at least, or anything having to do directly with Mr. Armstrong.
So we would ask that the court decline to permit Mr. Walters to be called as a witness under the
3574
circumstances.MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I have checked with Miss Dragojevic. Apparently Nancy Dincalci was not on the witness list.
However, the plaintiff and the intervenor in their preparation of this case knew because it was their case what documents they were going to introduce and they introduced innumberable documents that were not listed on their list of documents and, in fact, most of the documents the great bulk were given to me during the course of this case and during the course of cross-examination, and many of the documents on the face of the document it became self-evident that they knew that those documents would be used.
For example, what I characterize as the fish story of L. Ron Hubbard on the action of Cape Lookout. That was something that I am sure has been researched for a great period of time, and there are many such documents that I had no knowledge of until they were handed to me just before the witness was asked the question. The court has allowed many of those documents to be used.
We now come to a point in the case where the issues have been formulated to a more precise degree than they were obviously before the case started, and a lot of those issues relate to documents that have been introduced and the issue of the cancelation of the Fair Game Doctrine has become a significant issue in the case because of Mr. Armstrong’s fear of it and his state of mind.
For the organization to take the position that
3575
the doctrine was cancelled when there is extensive evidence before the court of such things as the culling of PC files, the SP Declare that was issued on Mr. Armstrong, the activities of these private investigators, the criminal activities as Mr. Spurlock put it of the organization over a long period of time which resulted in the removal of 1,100 people from their post or from something raises the issue of what in practice, regardless of what the semantics of some of these writings of L. Ron Hubbard which oftentimes have dual meanings, what in practice took place with regard to Guardian’s office members against perceived enemies, and Mr. Walters in a very short period of time can give very specific testimony of whether or not that policy was ever cancelled and two, ways in which it was implemented against non-Scientology members as well as Scientology members.So I think that the evidence — we have been in trial for some number of weeks. We are in our eighth week now. I think for 20 minutes of examination on an important issue of this type, it would be very illiminating [illuminating] and instructive to the court.
MR. LITT: If I may, Your Honor, two points.
The first is that I think that Mr. Flynn is confusing some things. It is our obligation to list and provide copies of our case-in-chief documents. It is the other side’s obligation to obtain general documents in the course of discovery.
The court required that we provide documents
3576
as expeditiously as we could that we were using in cross, and we tried to do so. I don’t think that has anything to do with the question of people on the witness list.As to the question of the issue of cancelation of the Fair Game only now coming up, I would remind the court that we were arguing the motions in limine at the time that we thought this would be a jury trial. One of the areas that we asked that there be no testimony on was the area of fair game and Mr. Flynn’s was that he would only have limited testimony unless it was contended that fair game would be cancelled or had been cancelled. I am sorry.
3577
So that the notion that the question of cancellation of Fair Game is a new issue in this case, I think is not an accurate reflection of the record in the case. And I think the Court has given Mr. Flynn substantial leeway. And it is just at a certain point it is not fair to list one set of extensive witnesses who we have to then get prepared for because we don’t know whether they’ll be witnesses or not and then to begin calling a completely different set of witnesses.
After all, there have only been — this, I think, is the fifth defense witness and will be the third out of the five who will not have been listed on the witness list. That seems to me to be inappropriate. I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Well, I am not really sure what the Plaintiff’s position on this is. There is a lot of talk about cancellation, but as I recall now the document that was presented was something that came out in ‘82.
MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor. There is — the document –
THE COURT: I have seen so many documents.
MR. HARRIS: The document is — I believe it is 1980. And the reason that that one was chosen is because it came out of the issues file that Mr. Armstrong had which indicated that he had seen it.
If Your Honor wants I can present, you know, numerous intervening documents that — one just re-affirms that it had previously been canceled; it remained canceled.
3578
Now, the problem is the doctrine — see, this is the confusion. And this is what I was trying to clear up.
If Mr. Armstrong had the state of mind that he would be attacked and so on, that is one thing. And, obviously, that has been presented in respect to the defense’s case.
The problem is if it were scriptural and doctrinal that that occur — now, as I understood it, from the testimony in the defense’s case, there was some kind of secret Fair Game thing which the Guardian’s Office did. And it is not associated — and that is really the point that is trying to be made, not associated with a policy letter that has since bean canceled.
THE COURT: Well –
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if Mr. Harris will stipulate to that and Mr. Armstrong’s state of mind, if he knew about the secret policy, then the effect is the same. If Mr. Harris is saying there is the policy for staff members who don’t know about a secret policy, then I’ll accept that.
MR. HARRIS: I am not –
THE COURT: The only point I was trying to get at was your evidence deals, as I understand it, up to 1979. If they are contending the policy wasn’t changed until 1980, this doesn’t rebut that.
MR. HARRIS: No. I’m suggesting there is an earlier cancellation which is within — which shows in the 1980
3579
matter, Your Honor. And the only reason that one was chosen was because it was amongst the issues that were in Mr. Armstrong’s original –THE COURT: It is like parol evidence. It is rather ambiguous. And we’ll have extrinsic evidence.
Proceed. You may call your witness.
MR. FLYNN: Call Mr. Walters, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: This is, I take it, going to Mr. Armstrong’s –
THE COURT: It goes to whether in fact there was such a cancellation — whether in fact there was such a policy. As to whether or not there was any belief that Mr. Armstrong had was a reasonable belief, as I look at it, it is very similar to the doctrine of self-defense in an assault case. You have to have a reasonable and good faith belief. There are two aspects to it. So proceed.
THE CLERK: Raise your right hand to be sworn, please.
EDWARD WALTERS, called as a witness by the defense, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Be seated in the witness stand.
THE COURT: We are going to limit the testimony to this issue. We are not going to get into all the things that Mr. Flynn talked about earlier today.
3580
MR. FLYNN: I’ll try to limit it, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Edward Walters, W-a-l-t-e-r-s.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q Where do you live, Mr. Walters?
A Las Vegas, Nevada.
Q Were you involved with the Church of Scientology for a period of years?
A Yes; from 1970 to 1979.
Q During those years did you became a Guardian’s Office missionary?
A Yes. I was a field intelligence agent.
Q And over how many years were you a field intelligence agent?
A From 1971 — I would say I worked undercover on the death of Quentin Hubbard — that was the last thing I did.
But I would say I was an agent until the day I left. It is hard to tell, you know.
Q During that period of time did you participate in numerous meetings with Guardian Office personnel regarding intelligence activities?
A Yes.
Q Over those years how many such meetings would you estimate you participated in?
3581
A Counting very short ones, I would say a few hundred.
Q Incidentally, like Mr. Spurlock, are you a Class VIII auditor?
A Yes, I am.
Q Who were some of the Guardian’s Office personnel who participated in these meetings with you?
A Susan Reed, who is in Las Vegas; she was AG, assistant Guardian.
Madeline Reese, who was AG PRO. She was Guardian Public Relations.
Chuck Reese, who was AGI, basically for intelligence.
The man that recruited me on behalf of the Hubbards was Bruce Raymond.
Q Who is Mr. Raymond?
A Well, it is not that — Bruce Raymond is a gentleman that I met in Scientology in 1971 who recruited me on behalf of the Hubbards to work on confidential intelligence projects.
Q And was he a Guardian’s Office B-1 operative?
A Yes, he was.
Q And who in addition to the ones you nave mentioned did you participate in meetings with with Guardian’s Office intelligence operatives?
A I had quite a few with Audie [Arte] Marin [Maren].
Q Who is Mr. Marin?
A He was the highest official probably at that
3582
time in the United States in the Church of Scientology. As far as I understood his title, it was assistant Guardian PRO.
Q And how many meetings did you have with Mr. Marin?
A I would say 100.
3583
Q And do you know whether at some point Mr. Marin served time in prison while he was in the Church of Scientology?
MR. LITT: Objection; what is the relevance of that?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Who else did you meet with Mr. Walters, in connection with Guardian office operations?
A That is all I can think of at the moment.
Q In connection with these meetings, did you have numerous discussions relative to the Fair Game Doctrine?
A Yes, very many.
Q And what in general was the nature of those discussions?
A Basically it was that we in the Guardian’s office felt that in order to protect L. Ron Hubbard from the enemies, the policy was that the suppressive had crimes and were criminals, and that these criminals, whether they be in the Better Business Bureau or the doctors, lawyers — we had one or two operations against judges — local political officials, health officials in Las Vegas are things that should be destroyed. It was just a matter of the discussions I was involved in was how to do it. How severe it should be done. How serious the flap was.
A flap is something going on that is a possible danger, a legal danger to Scientology and the Hubbards.
Q And was there discussions relative to the fact that the Fair Game Doctrine as set forth in exhibit double R in this case was uniformly applied against enemies
3584
throughout the years that you were involved?A Yes it was standard. In fact, it was standard that if anybody asked us, we would show them the cancelation and the viewpoint of the Guardian’s office was that the people on lines, the general people on lines weren’t bright enough to see the difference between that we wouldn’t label them suppressive or fair game, but any attack on the organization or the Hubbards we will apply the Fair Game Doctrine and we did.
Q And can you give the court just some indication on how many operations you personally went out on in connection with intelligence activitie [activities]?
A The ones that I accepted would probably be 10 that accepted.
Q And what was the nature of those operations?
A We bugged –
MR. HARRIS: It is now beyond the scope of what Your Honor said would be allowed.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. If the plaintiff wants to go into it on cross, they can. Otherwise it stands as the testimony of the witness.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, were these operations that you directly participated in operations to destroy people?
A Yes, to destroy their reputation, to destroy their business. The concept, the GO tech is that if you destroy their reputation, they cannot show up in court to testify. In other words, if I planted dope on an individual,
3585
which I was asked to do, then you’d call the police and the police would arrest him. He would not longer be a credible witness to either go to a court or go to a lawyer.Q Now, in connection with your Guardian’s office activities, did the Hartwells at some point return from La Quinta after being with Mr. Hubbard?
MR. LITT: Now, we are getting into the specifics. I will object.
THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Just one more question, Mr. Walters. In connection with the implementation of the Fair Game Doctrine, was it standard practice as part of the Fair Game Doctrine to cull PC files of both staff members and public?
A Yes. I did it and others did it on a routine basis.
Q Was that for the purpose of obtaining blackmailable information?
A Yes, to be sent to newspapers. I can give examples if you want, but it was to destroy the reputation so that they would not get help from lawyers or the courts.
MR. FLYNN: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may cross-examine, Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, it is five to 4:00 and we would ask that since we did not expect this witness, that we adjourn these few minutes early and begin cross in the morning if that is agreeable with the court.
THE COURT: Well, he’s only been on about five, ten
3586
minutes and he comes from Las Vegas if we could wind it up this afternoon.MR. LITT: I don’t think we can do that without having an opportunity to do some investigation. I just don’t feel, having not had any idea that he would testify, that I could make a determination as to even the reasonable scope of what should be inquired of. I realize he is here. He has been in and out, I understand, for the past several days and I think under the circumstances, that that is fair.
THE COURT: Well, I suppose it is fair, but it kind of a problem here.
You want to say something?
THE WITNESS: Yes. There is nothing I am going to say he has not heard before. They have done 10 to 20 depositions on me.
MR. LITT: This is the first time I have seen the gentleman in my life except, I guess, he’s been here the last few days. I am sorry.
THE COURT: Well, I guess I will have to order you back tomorrow.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Take the recess at this time. I will make it 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The proceedings were adjourned until Wednesday, May 30, 1984 at 9:30 a.m.)
