Deposition of Lynn R. Farny (Volume 2 of 4)

Armstrong 4




CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California not-for-profit religious corporation,
GERALD ARMSTRONG; MICHALE WALTON; THE GERALD ARMSTRONG CORPORATION, a California for profit corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,



Tuesday, July 12, 1994


Reported by:
CSR NO. 4724
P.O. BOX 862
(415) 457-7899



Witness: LYNN R. FARNY, Volume II

Examination by:

Mr. Greene








Notice of Taking Deposition




Revised Bylaws of Church of Scientology International
HCO Policy Letter of 5-1-65





HCO Policy Letter of 2-9-79
HCO Policy Letter of February 1979



HCO Policy Letter of 3-5-65



HCO Policy Letter of 8-9-72



HCO Policy Letter of 11-25-70





Document entitled Suppressive Person Declare [Revised Version 04-22-1982]



Document entitled Introduction to Scientology Ethics



Document entitled The Organization Executive Course
Document entitled Suppressive Persons and Suppressive Groups List


BE IT REMEMBERED that pursuant to Notice and on Tuesday, the 12th day of July 1994, commencing at the hour of 10:15 o'clock a.m. thereof, at the conference room of 900 Larkspur Landing Circle, Larkspur, California, before me, PENNY L. GILMORE, a Certified Shorthand Reporter licensed by the State of California, personally appeared:


a witness herein, who, being by me previously duly sworn, was thereupon examined and interrogated as is hereinafter set forth.


LAURIE J. BARTILSON, Esq., representing the Law Offices of Bowles & Moxon, 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 2000, Hollywood, California 90028, appeared as counsel on behalf of Plaintiff.

MICHAEL L. WALTON, Esq., representing the Law Offices of Michael L. Walton, 700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 120, Larkspur, California 94939, a defendant, appeared in pro per.

FORD GREENE, Esq., representing the Law Offices of Ford Greene, 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California 94960, appeared as counsel on behalf of Defendant Gerald Armstrong.


WILLIAM R. BENZ, Esq., 900 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 185, Larkspur, California 94939, appeared as the referee in said action.

ALSO PRESENT: Gerald Armstrong, Defendant.



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

MR. BENZ: On the record.

When we adjourned yesterday I think there was a request for a ruling regarding whether or not we would allow questions going into the general area of the motivation of the plaintiff in bringing the lawsuit, if that's the proper word. In that area, anyway.

I have reviewed the Appellate Court decision and the Complaint and the Cross-complaint and in my opinion the motivation in bringing the lawsuit itself is probably governed by the laws of malicious prosecution which requires, and, therefore, would not normally be admissible. Nonetheless the Cross-complaint does allege and it has allowed in abusive process and basic ingredients of abusive process is ulterior motive.

In addition to that, there is the affirmative defense of unclean hands, which is a very broad affirmative defense, and, therefore, because it may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence I am ruling that defense is entitled to go into the motive.

MS. BARTILSON: Can I ask one question for clarification? I guess I had considered that the question before Your Honor was whether, the more narrow question, whether Mr. Greene may inquire into the personal religious


practices of the witness. Is it your ruling here today that he may do so, because that was the exact question that was before the witness when we did our little divergence into argument.

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

religious practices earlier, and subject to changing my mind if there is a brief on that. So I am not ruling that the personal religious practices are involved except as it may go, since I don't know what the religious practices are, to the motive of the plaintiff would be admissible but the witness's personal religious practices are not. By admissible, I mean you may inquire into. There is certainly no ruling on evidence.

MR. GREENE: Okay, then we will proceed.



Q. Good morning, Mr. Farny.

A. Good morning, Mr. Greene.

Q. Is there any reason why you are unable to proceed and give your best testimony today?

A. No.

Q. I've showed you what's been marked as Defendant's number two, which is a Notice of Taking Deposition.

Actually it's plural, depositions, a three-page document. Have you seen that document before?


A. Yes, I have.

Q. Is it pursuant to that document that you appeared here yesterday and continue to be here today?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. GREENE: I would like to mark as Defendant's three the Revised Bylaws of the Church of Scientology International, which have been Bates-stamped 200012 through 200043 and ask the Court Reporter to please mark it.

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

MR. GREENE: Back on the record.

Q. Mr. Farny, I've shown you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit three, which is a copy of the Revised Bylaws of CSI. Do you recognize that document?

A. Yes.

Q. Turning to the last page, 43, that's your signature there, isn't it?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. As the bylaws of CSI presently exist, isn't it correct that Exhibit three is a true and correct copy thereof?

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

Q. So as things currently exist with respect to CSI there aren't any other bylaws which are in effect aside


from Exhibit three; is that an accurate statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Turning your attention to -- I'm going to use the last two numbers of the Bates stamp mark instead of referring to the different pages of this exhibit. On page 12 where it says, "The Church is the ecclesiastical Mother Church of the many churches within and without the United States which have been and will be organized for the purposes of Scientology..." and the sentence goes on, "...all bound together as elements of one international and hierarchical church by voluntary and self-determined agreement and upon adherence to the following." Then there's a list of things. What I want to address you to is the term "ecclesiastical Mother Church." The term -- First of all, let me lay a little foundation. You are familiar, are you not, with these bylaws?

A. Yes.

Q. You are familiar with the bylaws in your capacity as secretary of CSI; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. You have been secretary of CSI since 1988?

A. Also correct.

Q. Did you act in any official capacity within CSI prior to 1988?


A. Certainly.

Q. What was that?

A. I had an ecclesiastical position; I didn't have any corporate position. I worked in the legal department since 1984.

Q. When you refer to your working in the legal department from '84 to '88 as holding an ecclesiastical position, would you define for me what you mean by your use of the term "ecclesiastic"?

A. A position that derives from -- sorry, that derives its authority, if you will, from the ecclesiastic organization of the Church as opposed to the corporate organization of the Church. The corporation as a corporation is organized with directors and officers; ecclesiastically we're organized otherwise.

Q. So the ecclesiastical organization is separate and distinct and apart from the corporate organization?

A. Except to the degree --

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

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object and ask you to let him finish answering the question before you interrupt.

I think that was the ground rules yesterday.

THE WITNESS: Except to the degree of this -- and the answer is not going to offend you -- the people


that occupy the corporate positions occupy similar ecclesiastic positions, so there's some relationship to it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Again, my question is that the ecclesiastical organization exists separate and apart from the corporate organization?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

Answer it again.

THE WITNESS: Obviously you are dealing with the same group of people. There are parallel -- I think a better way of expressing it, there are parallel ecclesiastical and corporate organizations that are separate, but the part in the question I'm having difficulty with is "distinct." You are talking about the same Church. In other words, the Church of Scientology International is organized in an ecclesiastical fashion, and within those ecclesiastical positions certain individuals occupy corporate positions. To that degree they are separate, yes, but you are talking about the same entity.

Q. We're talking about CSI.

A. That's right.

Q. That's the corporation.

A. Mm-hmm.

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


A. Right.

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

A. Right.

Q. And there's commonalities between CSI and ecclesiasticalness but they're not identical, are they?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: I don't exactly understand your question.

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

A. Try it again.

Q. Yesterday, if my recollection is right, your testimony was that there are approximately 1400 Scientology-related organizations, right?

A. Yes, churches, missions and groups.


THE WITNESS: Churches, missions and groups.

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

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

MR. GREENE: Q. So of those 1400 churches, missions and groups, CSI is one, correct?

A. That's also correct.


Q. Now isn't it true that there is ecclesiastical authority in place in each of those 1400 groups, if you know?

A. Yes.

Q. Ecclesiastical authority in place in each?

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

That's what I don't understand about your question. I think it's largely irrelevant, though, because the answer is yes to both questions. I want to make sure which of those two questions you are asking.

Q. I'll keep asking my questions and we'll do our best to wend our way through this.

Where officers, directors and trustees of CSI have authority, that's defined according to the articles in the bylaws of CSI?

A. Right.

Q. They are also subject to authority that's derived from an ecclesiastical source, right?

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

Q. And the ecclesiastical source is the scripture of the Scientology religion; isn't that right?

A. That's also correct.

Q. And the scripture of the Scientology religion in part is derived from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?

A. Correct. I would object to your


characterization of "in part." It is derived from the written and recorded spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology.

Q. Entirely?

A. Yes.

Q. So then is an accurate definition of your understanding of the use of the term scripture as used in Scientology, to define scripture as being the totality of the written -- of the writings and recordings of L. Ron Hubbard?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, misstates the witness's testimony.

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

THE WITNESS: No, that's not accurate.

MR. GREENE: Q. Then I misunderstood what you said. Tell me again. I'm sorry.

A. Scriptures of the Scientology religion are comprised of written and recorded words of L. Ron Hubbard on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology with the allowance that they may have been cancelled over the years or revised or modified, or whatever. On the subject of Dianetics and Scientology, what I had told you in the first answer was given allowances for any cancellations or revisions that may have been done over the years.

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


first before I go more narrowly.

When you make the qualification on the subjects of Scientology and Dianetics, does that include writings on organizational administration?

A. That would not be included in the exception.

Q. I'm not focused on the exception; I'm focused on the scope of the meaning of scripture. So my question is is it included within the scope of the meaning of scripture L. Ron Hubbard's writings on administrative management?

A. Certainly, as it's used in the Church and as it's used in the organization Executive Courses, First Volume, certainly that's considered scripture.

Q. You are a Scientology executive yourself; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you have gone through and received some amount of training in the organization executive courses, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell me what the extent of your training in that regard has been?

A. I've done the entire Organization Executive Course, which is the study of the encyclopedic volumes of Church policy as well as the Flag Executive Briefing



Q. And the OEC, Organization Executive Course books, those are the green ones?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now directing your attention to what's Bates stamped as page 13 there's the enumeration of what the Mother Church has got to adhere to and there's a list of three items.

A. Yes.

Q. So part of what CSI's corporate mandate is is to adhere to the goals, tenets, doctrines, codes, creed, policies and practices set forth in the Scientology scriptures, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you yourself as an individual Scientology executive are bound by such things as well, correct?

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

Q. And also in the performance of -- I mean, you have given your life to Scientology, essentially, haven't you?

A. I've devoted my life to it, yeah. I think we're getting into the area of personal religious experience that's been excluded, but, yes, of course I have.

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


A. Roughly.

Q. Now item two talks about recognition of the ecclesiastical authority of the hierarchy of the Mother Church, right?

A. That is what it says.

Q. Now making reference to the ecclesiastical authority that means, if I have understood you -- and I may not and I know you will correct me if I haven't -- that recognition is of the Scientology scriptures, right?

A. To be precise, the recognition is of the ecclesiastical authority of the hierarchy of the Mother Church but it flows, that authority flows from the scriptures, if that's what you are asking.

Q. That's a good starting point. Then the next point I want to go to is the phrase "hierarchy of the Mother Church." My first question is: The hierarchy to which that phrase makes reference, is that hierarchy contained within CSI?

A. That appears to be the most logical reading of point two, yeah.

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

A. It would --

Q. It appears that way to me, too.

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


answer to your question would be yes.

Q. Let me ask you about ecclesiastical authority.

You're familiar with the Sea Organization, right?

A. Yes.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. 1981.

Q. Now the Sea Organization -- that's spelled S-E-A, for the record -- is an organization that's governed by ecclesiastical authority, is it not?

A. In the general sense, yes.

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

A. Right.

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

A. Yes.

Q. The vice-presidents, Leisa Goodman and Janet they are also Sea Org members, aren't they?

A. Yes.

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

A. Yep.

Q. As is the treasurer Jonathan Epstein?

A. That's also correct.


Q. Then the directors Mark Yager, Mike Rinder, Curt Weiland, Guillaume Leserve and Katherine Rinder are all Sea Orgs, as well?

A. That's correct.

Q. What we didn't talk about yesterday is who are the trustees. Actually, that's preliminary. There are trustees of CSI, aren't there?

A. Yes.

Q. The trustees are those individuals who, among other things, have the responsibility of appointing the directors at CSI right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who are the trustees?

A. Mark Yager is one of the trustees; Mark Ebert; Michael Sutter; Warren McShane, Louise Stuckenbrack.

Q. Would you spell that last one?

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

Q. All of those individuals are Sea Org members, aren't they?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now going back to item two on page 13 of Exhibit three, when you answered the question I asked you with respect to the meaning about the hierarchy of the Mother Church there's also a Sea Org hierarchy, too, isn't there?

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



Q. Let's escape from the document, just speak generally for a minute.

There's a hierarchy of authority within the Sea Orgs, isn't there?

A. Not as the Sea Organization. It's quite loosely -- I would say probably, but not in the sense it's used here.

Q. What's your understanding of the sense it's used here so I make sure I'm on the same wave length?

A. In the sense it's used here there is a recognition that the Mother Church of the Scientology religion is at the place that it occupies in the hierarchy of that religion and there are definite lines of authority that stem from CSI's position as CSI.

In the Sea Organization there is no authority that derives from an individual's rank or position or whatever in the Sea Organization as the Sea Organization that's independent of their corporate or ecclesiastical position. You have a Sea Organization member; if you take away their ecclesiastical position and you take away their corporate position they are still a Sea Organization member with a certain status within the Sea Organization but they have no authority. The authority doesn't flow from the position in the Sea Organization which is why I


say in a loose sense when I refer to hierarchy, because hierarchy has a concept of authority flowing.

Q. Let's talk about hierarchy just generally so we can see whether or not we can have a meeting of the minds here.

There is a hierarchy of authority with respect to corporations that have a place in the overall constellation of Scientology, isn't there?

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

Q. In other words, some corporate organizations exercise authority over other corporations.

A. Within certain precisely defined limits, yes.

Q. RTC, for example, is charged with maintaining the purity of Scientology technology -- is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And CSI is charged with the propagation, ensuring and maintaining the purity and of the religion of Scientology, page 15, " has been developed and may be further developed by L. Ron Hubbard."

A. That's correct.

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

A. Yes.

Q. What's your rank?


A. Petty officer second class.

Q. Who's your senior?

A. I don't have one in the Sea Organization, if we're still on the Sea Organization as the Sea Organization.

Q. Who designated you to have the classification of petty officer second class?

A. Officers Council of the Flag Command Bureau.

Q. Who is on the Officers Council of the Flag Command Bureau?

A. I'm not really certain.

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

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object at this point because we're diving into religious practices. The Sea Organization is a paternal religious order. We're diving into Mr. Farny's connection to this order and asking for names of individuals as part of it. He already testified that it doesn't have any particular authority as a group; it's simply part of this religious order. I think we're going really far afield here.

MR. BENZ: What connection does this have to the lawsuit?

MR. GREENE: The connection it has, this witness has testified, number one, there's been testimony about how part of what the job of CSI is and his job as


secretary in CSI is to comply with the scriptures of Scientology and to recognize ecclesiastical authority. He has also stated that ecclesiastical authority, that the Sea organization is subject to that, as well. And I am endeavoring to find out exactly what that means because that will in turn go to the issue of motive as is relevant to the matters which bring us here later on in terms of what Mr. Farny's requirements are and what CSI's requirements are in following the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and the policy letters that flow down from some higher authority. That's what I'm trying to find out is what is the flow of authority.

This witness has testified, one, that gee, there's really no flow of authority in the Sea Organization but on the other hand he stated that he's got a particular rank or at least classification. So I'm simply endeavoring to find out how it was that he got such classification and who gave it to him because he didn't give it to himself. And it's relevant to finding out who calls the shots and how those shots are executed.

MR. BENZ: The problem I have at the moment I don't see what the shots are.

MR. GREENE: I know. This is preliminary to that.

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


that anybody other than the corporate authority for CSI has called any shots anyplace. There's been no testimony to the contrary by anybody. I don't think you are getting that.

MR. GREENE: I'll tell you what, I'll approach it a different way and --

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

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

MR. BENZ: That will be helpful.

MR. GREENE: Q. There are corporations in Scientology that are known as Sea Org organizations, right?

A. There are organizations within Scientology that are Sea Org organizations and they are housed within corporations, yes.

Q. What's the Sea Org organization that's housed within CSI?

A. There's several.

Q. What are they?

A. Watchdog Committee, Commodore's Messenger Organization International; Golden Era Productions; Commodore's Messenger Service for Golden Era Productions.

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


THE WITNESS: Golden Era Productions.

Planetary Dissemination Organization; International Network of Computer-organized Management, I-N-C-O-M-M for short; Office of Special Affairs International and Flag Bureaus, and the Flag Command Bureau; International Finance Office; L. Ron Hubbard Personal Public Relations Office; Senior Case Supervisor International Office. I don't think I've forgotten any.

How many is that?

Q. Twelve.

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

Q. Just in terms of numbers, is it your recollection that there may be other Sea Org units housed within CSI in addition to the 12 that you enumerated for us today?

A. Yes. International Training Organization, 13.

I think the list now encompasses all.

Q. Excuse me?

A. I think the list now encompasses them.

Q. Is complete?

A. Yes, I think so.

Q. Now within the Office of Special Affairs International is housed a legal bureau; isn't that right?

A. That's right.

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


A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. I'm responsible for CSI litigation; also my post as corporate secretary requires me to do other legal things from that position.

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

A. CSI litigation handling officer.

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

litigation handling officer?

A. I'm responsible for the successful resolution of litigation matters involving CSI as a party or any other litigation matter concerning the trademarks which CSI has an obligation to participate in.

Q. Those would be trademarks that CSI has been licensed by RTC to use?

A. That's correct.

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

A. That's fine.

Q. Are there any other areas of activity that you are authorized to participate in in addition to those two?

A. To the degree that situations may exist that might result in litigation that embroil CSI I do have authority to step in and see to it that they're resolved prior to it becoming litigation if it's possible to



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

Q. Were you hatted on being CSI's litigation handling officer?

A. Yes.

Q. Who provided you with the hatting materials?

A. I compiled them myself.

Q. Are you telling me that there was no preset hatting procedure for being CSI's litigation handling officer?

A. That's correct.

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


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

In the practice of Scientology very specific definitions are given to particular words, right?

A. Sure.

Q. In fact, part of being a Scientologist is having a command of the particular meanings that Scientology gives to specific words, right?

A. It certainly helps to understand the subject if you do, yes, of course.

Q. In fact, that understanding of language of -- Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

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

Q. I'll get there.


A. It was what is the definition of the word hatting.

Q. I understand that, but I have my own way and I like to do it my way. I'm the one asking the question.

A. You and Frank Sinatra.

Q. Thank you.

Isn't it fair to say that Scientology really has its own language in a sense? It's English, but it's got its own language, right?

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

of questioning. We're really far afield in delving into Scientology as a general subject. I think it's unnecessary and a waste of time and it's harassing the witness.

THE WITNESS: There's a terminology that's grown up with the subject that's unique to the subject, and that, like any other subject, has its own unique terminology. I wouldn't describe it as another language.

MR. GREENE: Q. That's fair enough. There's a terminology that's specific to the practice of Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, the terminology is so specific that Scientology has caused to be published a technical dictionary that people can refer to in order to ascertain


the meanings of specific words if they're not clear about it, right?

A. I don't know if that was the result of it being so specific. It certainly is helpful, yes.

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

A. Yes, there is.

Q. And the technical dictionary contains within it words that have particularized uses and meanings within Scientology with definitions attached to those words, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now hatting means to train for a particular post, doesn't it, among other meanings?

A. That's correct.

Q. The term "post" means the job to which one is assigned in Scientology, right?

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

Q. Like the word position or like in the military someone being posted, right?

A. Right, although I think the military uses it for the base to which an individual is assigned. I think they use billeted for the specific job duty.

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

Did you assign yourself to the post of litigation handling officer?


A. No.

Q. Who assigned you?

A. Michael Rinder.

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

What is Rinder's position in OSA legal?

A. His position is outside of OSA legal.

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

A. He's the Watchdog Committee member for the Office of Special Affairs and holds the position as head of the Office of Special Affairs.

Q. Within OSA, Office of Special Affairs, what other bureaus are contained in addition to legal?

A. Public relations. There's an Investigative Support Branch for legal, which is a separate bureau; there's an Executive Bureau; Hubbard Communications Office Bureau.

Q. What was the one you said right before Hubbard Communications Bureau?

A. Executive. Enhancement Bureau, Treasury, Action, Social Reform.

Q. Any others? No, right?

A. That's right, no.

Q. Now all of these -- I need your help. When you gave me the list of Officers Council, Flag Command Bureau,


Watchdog Committee, CMO International -- that means Commodore Messenger Organization International, right?

A. Commodore Messenger Organization International is the correct word for that.

Just, before you go on, I didn't put Officers Council as one of the organizations under CSI. It meets yearly to decide on promotions, so I wouldn't consider it a formal organization. It's made up of individuals within these other organizations.

Q. So these are the organizations within CSI; they are Sea Organization organizations?

A. Right, meaning all of the staff members of those organizations also happen to be members of the Sea Organization.

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

A. Yes.

Q. And David Miscavige is a Sea Organization correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What is his label?

A. Label? Human being.

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

A. You are welcome.

Q. What's his post?


A. Chairman of the Board of Directors of Religious Technology Center.

Q. To your knowledge, is there any individual in the religion of Scientology who is alive that holds more authority than David Miscavige?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

Alive to do what?

THE WITNESS: Authority is such an often misused word, especially in Gerry's counter-claim. I would like to define the parameters of that question a little bit before I answer it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Actually, since I am asking the questions and you are answering, let me try to assist you.

A. Okay.

Q. You have an understanding of the term authority, right?

A. I do.

Q. Is it fair to say that within your understanding of that term is included the meaning of one person issuing an order and another person complying with it?

A. Yes.

Q. Limiting your answer to that understanding, is there anyone in Scientology who, to your knowledge, gives orders to David Miscavige?

A. No.


Q. To your knowledge, is there any post in the Sea Organization senior to that of Chairman of the Board of RTC?

A. There aren't any posts in the Sea Organization as the Sea Organization. There are posts within the churches that make up the Sea Organization.

Q. Let me ask it this way: In the overall Scientology religion is there any post senior to Chairman of the Board of RTC?

A. No.

Q. So overall in Scientology worldwide the highest position is Chairman of the Board of RTC?

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

MS. BARTILSON: Is this a convenient time to request a break? Whenever you have a convenient moment.

(Discussion off the record.).

MR. GREENE: Q. Now, is it fair to say that part of what OSA legal is charged with doing is handling ecclesiastical matters?

A. What?

Q. Let me --

A. Vague and ambiguous.

Q. You don't understand? I know your deposition has been taken before. It's a really difficult subject matter.

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


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

A. Do it better, do it again.

Q. Now in referring to the ecclesiastical authority of CSI as set forth in item two Bates-stamped page 13 Exhibit three, the ecclesiastical authority that's being recognized as stated in the bylaws is that which you have enumerated to be the 13 Sea Organization organizations within CSI, right?

A. Each within their sphere of influence, yes.

Q. Each within their sphere of influence are charged with handling whatever matters are within their sphere of influence, right?

A. That's correct, although the ultimate ecclesiastical authority within CSI is the Watchdog Committee. It's at the top.

Q. The buck stops at the Watchdog Committee?

A. That's right.

Q. Who are the members of the Watchdog Committee besides Rinder?

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

Q. Would you spell that?

A. L-0-B-A-T-0. Elizabeth Miscavige. I'm drawing a blank on the others but there are four or five others.


Q. That's fine. Elizabeth Miscavige being the wife of David Miscavige?

A. No.

Q. Sister?

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

Q. Since 1976 you've worked within other Scientology corporations in addition to CSI, right?

A. Yes.

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

A. That's correct, 1981.

Q. You work within Church of Scientology of California, for example, right?

A. Right.

Q. What other organizations have you worked in during the time you have been a Scientologist?

A. Church of Scientology, Mission of Riverside; and I briefly held a position in Cincinatti.

Q. What organization there?

A. Church of Scientology of South Hamilton County, Ohio. Hamilton County -- no, Columbus, not Cincinatti, sorry.

Q. Since 1981 you have had occasion to interact with other -- That's all right, let's break.

Off the record.


(Brief recess.)

MR. GREENE: Back on the record.

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

A. Not directly.

Q. Who is your direct senior?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.


MS. BARTILSON: How many times do we have to have the same question?

MR. GREENE: Excuse me, counsel. Q. Who is Mr. Partkin's senior?

A. Neil Levin.

MS. BARTILSON: Same objection.

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

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

Q. Who is Ms. Kavenaar's senior?

A. Michael Rinder.

Q. And who is Michael Rinder's senior?

A. Mark Yager.

Q. And who is Mark Yager's senior?

A. Doesn't have one.

Q. What is Ed Parkin's post?

A. Legal activities chief.

MS. BARTILSON: Same objection, asked and answered.


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

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered yesterday.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. And Kavenaar?

A. Deputy commanding officer for production.

Q. And Rinder's post?

A. He holds two: He is Watchdog Committee member to OSA as well as being commanding officer of office of Special Affairs International.

Q. And Mr. Yager's post?

A. He's the Watchdog Committee chairman as well as being the commanding officer of Commodore's Messenger Organization International.

Q. So one way that an order coming from Yager might be labeled would be COCMO, Int.?

A. Would be labeled COCMO, Int.

Q. Now who is Yager's senior?

A. He doesn't have one.

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you know how Yager was assigned his post of WDC chairman?

A. No.

Q. Now within OSA, then, the command lines run from Yager at the top down through the other people that you



A. Mr. Yager is not in OSA.

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

A. Run that by me again.

Q. The command lines in CSI as they pertain to OSA run from Yager down through the other individuals that you enumerated, right?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous.

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

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

MS. BARTILSON: Is it vague and ambiguous to you, too?

THE WITNESS: I'm thinking if I can answer it. The command lines in OSA run from Mr. Rinder. I think that's the best answer.

MR: GREENE: Q. When you use the term "command lines," what you are making reference to is the activity of giving an order and getting compliance?

A. That's one small part of it, yeah. There is also coordination among activities and receiving of reports from activity originated at a lower level on the command lines such as mine.

Q. So if you receive a command, part of what you have to do is, one, do whatever the command instructs you to do, right?


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

Q. I'm not talking in an absolute sense. First of all -- Wait a minute, I'm sorry. I don't mean to argue with you.

When you are talking about an absolute sense what do you mean?

A. You just said if I receive a command I automatically have an obligation to follow it merely because I received it.

Q. No, no, I'm sorry if that's what I conveyed. I wasn't meaning to do that.

A. That would be inaccurate.

Q. Is it fair to say when you receive some sort of directive from somebody who is senior to you to call that a command? What would you call that?

A. A communication like that received from the people who I've listed here on the command channel within the office of Special Affairs can be a suggestion, an observation, a request, or it can be an order.

Q. Okay. Is there a hierarchy among suggestion, observation and order?

A. Suggestions and observations would be merely that. Those are regular English definitions. An order is also a regular English definition. An order presumes there's an expectation of compliance if the order is


within the duties of the position receiving it, the authority of the position issuing it and within general policy. If it's not within all those, the obligation to comply with it disappears.

Q. When you say "general policy," you are making reference to the policy as set forth in the scriptures of L. Ron Hubbard, right?

A. That CSI officially adopts as its governing policy, yes.

Q. Going back to my question, let's say you receive an order from someone senior to you.

A. Anyone in particular?

Q. Not anyone in particular; it's generic and I'm trying to get a generic understanding.

A. The problem with a generic description, keeping in mind the statements that are made in the Cross-complaint, I can't adopt some sort of generic hypothetical that's then twisted into something that Oh, here, this applies to the Cross-complaint. I'm a little better with specifics.

Q. Let me just try and make sure we're on the same wave length. I'm not trying to twist you up; I'm trying to get a clear understanding here.

You said that you would comply with an order if it was within the scope of your duties, right?


A. That's correct.

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

A. That's correct.

Q. And then there was one other condition.

A. There were two other conditions: It was within my job duties to perform that request and task and it was within the authority of the individual requesting it to issue such an order. Of course, if it was legal.

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

A. I get five, but that's fine. The fifth one went without saying, but generally, fine.

Q. That's fine, five is fine.

Then would you comply with the order?

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

Q. After you complied with the order would you then give a report on how you complied with the order?

A. Either verbally or in writing I would let the individual know I had done it.

Q. Frequently such reports are done in writing, correct?

A. I don't know about frequently.

Q. In your experience.

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

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


as litigation handling officer?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Gee, I guess I won the opportunity to list them all.

Duties are to see to it that legal situations that affect, potentially affect CSI or the trademarks and service marks CSI is authorized to use are resolved through insuring that competent counsel is obtained to deal with the situation; that that counsel receives adequate backup of staff resources necessary to provide the information that counsel needs to solve the situation; that adequate planning exists to resolve the situation and that that planning is executed. And it would be my responsibility to originate the plan.

MR. GREENE: Q. So part of your job would be to come up with a game plan on how to approach any given legal problem; is that fair?

A. It's more counsel's job. It's my job to see to it that counsel would do such a thing.

Q. In the backup that's provided for counsel, that would involve, if necessary, paralegal support?

A. That's correct.

Q. It would involve investigatory support as well if required, right?


A. Yes.

Q. And the investigatory support would come from the OSA Bureau of Investigative Support for legal, right?

A. Yes, or from myself or from the paralegals or from the attorney's office himself.

Q. Included within investigative support for legal are private investigators, right?

A. Not within that bureau itself. Any investigators that are hired would be hired by counsel and the personnel in that bureau would provide whatever briefing materials and assistance the investigator would need much the same way that we would provide paralegal support for the attorneys.

Q. The particular investigators are recommended by OSA to counsel employed by OSA, right?

A. Recommends whom? We would agree or not of an investigator selected by a lawyer, yes.

Q. One of the investigators who has been employed in the past by OSA is Eugene Ingram, right?

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

Q. Ingram has been employed by counsel who's been employed by OSA, right?

A. Represented OSA. Well, represented CSI, whatever.

Q. Aside from making sure that legal situations


that affect or could affect CSI or the trademarks or service marks that CSI is licensed to use through obtaining competent counsel –

A. Wait a minute, you left something out.

Q. What was that?

A. I think I said something after "or potentially affects CSI." Before I said "through," the word " through." I think I said "competently handled." If not, I should have.

Q. Part of your job is -- what I'm going to ask you is aside from what you have told me are components of your job duties are there any others?

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

Q. So when you execute the planning then you provide a written or verbal report to your senior, right?

A. Usually verbal or a copy of the paper that's filed or the order that results, court order that results from the action taken, yes.

Q. How long have you held your current post?

A. This post came into existence in the spring of this year.

Q. And prior to that what was your post?

A. Civil litigation officer. It had essentially the same duties.

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


changed from civil litigation officer to your current one?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection.

MR. GREENE: Litigation handling officer.

MS. BARTILSON: Requesting a narrative. Improper question.

MR. GREENE: Is that an instruction?

MS. BARTILSON: It's a request.

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

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

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

MS. BARTILSON: The objection stands and I'll ask him not to answer.

MR. GREENE: Then instruct him and we'll proceed.


MR. GREENE: Can we have a ruling?

MR. BENZ: Can I have the question read back again?

(Record read back.).

MR. BENZ: Objection is sustained.

MR. GREENE: Q. When did you first learn that your post of civil litigation officer was going to be changed to litigation handling officer?


A. Shortly before it changed.

Q. Which was approximately when?

A. Approximately in the spring.

Q. Of '94?

A. Yes. Maybe a few weeks before spring.

Q. So we're talking March?

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

Q. Late February, early March?

A. Around that general area.

Q. Who told you first?

A. Michael Rinder.

Q. Where were you?

A. In his office.

Q. Which is located where?

A. 6331 Hollywood Boulevard. Now we were in a different office at the time.

Q. Where were you then?

A. We were in the Cedar's complex.

Q. The blue buildings?

A. Yes.

Q. In Hollywood?

A. Yes.

Q. What did Rinder tell you?

A. That in the at that time upcoming reorganization that I would be continuing to do the same thing I was


doing although the name of the post changed.

Q. Did you ask him how the reorganization had come about?

A. No.

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

A. Not in that conversation, no.

Q. In a later conversation did you ask him?

A. No.

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

A. No.

Q. Now when you receive an order that order comes to you from a post senior to the post that you hold, right?

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

Q. But how the order comes to you is a matter of policy, isn't it?

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

Q. Yes.

A. That and a function of the physical universe there are certain ways one has to communicate.

Q. Orally?

A. Orally is one of them.

Q. In writing?

A. Writing is another.


Q. And in some cases physically?

A. I don't recall receiving a physical order, but you are correct that orders can be issued that way.

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

A. Ditto.

Q. So, then, when you receive an order, for such an order to be pursuant to policy that order has got to be in writing, doesn't it?

A. Policy contemplates the existence of verbal orders, so the answer to your question is no.

Q. Was the entire legal division of OSA affected by the reorganization?

A. Yes.

Q. How many people was that, approximately?

A. Thirty to 40.

Q. Now the action bureau of OSA contemplates the performance of what type of activities?

A. Sending representatives to local areas to assist them to resolve situations in that area either internally within the local Office of Special Affairs or Department of Special Affairs or externally.

Q. When such persons were sent out would that be called a mission?

A. It would.


Q. Would such persons performing such missions generally be members of the CMO?

A. No.

Q. Did you hold the post of civil litigation officer within OSA during the original Armstrong litigation?

A. You mean in 1984?

Q. That was when --

A. 1982 to 1984?

Q. Yes, '82 to '84.

A. No, I did not.

Q. Were you involved in the Armstrong litigation --

Actually, strike that.

What post did you hold in the '82 to '84 time period, post or posts?

A. It's plural. When the case was first filed and we obtained the temporary restraining order --

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

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

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

A. When the litigation was first filed I was in supercargo of the Office of Special Affairs, U.S.

MR. WALTON: I'm sorry, what?

THE WITNESS: Supercargo.


MR. GREENE: Q. That was your post?

A. Yes.

Q. So then what post next did you have?

A. Then August '82, August '82 I was on that position. I'm not sure -- no, it wasn't OCS; that was before the reorg was completed. It was U.S. Guardian's Office.

Q. So you were supercargo of the U.S. Guardian's Office in approximately August of '82?

A. That's correct. Then after the reorg I went into legal. That would have been January of '83 I went into legal in the mission all clear, and I held various positions within that until I moved up to the Office of Special Affairs International in approximately April of '84. My position was called litigation secretary. I was the head of what is now the Legal Bureau. At that time it was the Litigation Bureau.

Q. So you were litigation secretary up through June of '84 when Breckenridge's decision came out?

A. Yes.

Q. Then were you civil litigation officer?

A. No.

Q. What was next?

A. Next was deputy litigation chief for the United States; then was litigation chief. I'm not sure it was


chief. No, it wasn't chief, it was director of both of those. Then I was the All Clear legal secretary. My next post in legal was litigation chief, legal aide.

Q. Legal aide is a different post?

A. It's different.

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

A. Legal quality control officer and then civil litigation officer.

Q. And all of these positions were all positions ecclesiastical authority of CSI, right?

A. Not all that I listed.

Q. Let me go through them and check them off and then you can tell me.

A. You want me just to tell you where the ones within CSI start?

Q. Sure.

A. Litigation secretary, all the ones thereafter.

Q. Those were the ecclesiastical positions?

A. No, all the ones from that one onward was within CSI. The ones previously were CSC, Church of Scientology California.

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

A. That's right.

Q. Then you made reference to the reorganization


and that's what has been called in the past "mission corporate category sort-out"?

A. No.

Q. That's a different reorganization?

A. Mission corporate sort-out didn't result in a reorganization; it was abandoned. It was a complete failure.

Q. The reorganization, then, to which you were making reference was the reorganization that resulted, at least in part, with the origination of CSI, RTC, Religious Technology Center, and CST, Church of Spiritual Technology, right?

A. In part. It began approximately in the summer of 1981 and was complete with a total disbandment of the Guardian's Office by October of '83.

Q. Now the list that you gave me of litigation secretary on, those all were within OSA, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And OSA is an ecclesiastical organization, right?

A. The Office of Special Affairs International.

Q. Right.

A. What we've been calling OSA.

Q. Yes. Just so we're clear, there's a difference between the Office of Special Affairs and Office of


Special Affairs International, isn't there?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you and I have been talking here saying the words or the letters OSA, what my understanding has been is we've been referring to the international organization; is that the same as what yours has been?

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

Q. I don't think you have either. I just want to make sure we're clear.

A. Yes.

Q. So with all that in mind, going back to Bates-stamped page l3 of Exhibit three, when you are talking about items two and three there and references made to ecclesiastical authority and governance in ecclesiastical matters by said hierarchy, what we're talking about is OSA International, right?

A. Not exclusively, no.

Q. But in part?

A. Small part certainly, but we're not the main line of ecclesiastical management of the religion; we're a small portion of that that deals with external matters such as this lawsuit. So we're not by any stretch of the imagination the mainline of activity of the Church.

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

A. Within those confines, fine.


Q. Because indeed something, to use your term mainline, the Watchdog Committee would be much more mainline than OSA; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the Flag Command Bureau, as well?

A. That's right.

Q. And in fact --

A. And the Flag Bureaus.

Q. And the Flag Bureaus.

Now earlier when you described the Flag Command Bureau, Watchdog Committee, CMO, Int., and on down the list, was that in order of hierarchy?

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

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

A. All right.

Q. What is primary? What is at the top of the hierarchy, and I can review them.

A. I just thought of another one that should go in there, which is the International Executive Strata, rather a major one to have forgotten. Doing it this way is easier. So at the top of the hierarchy is the Watchdog Committee.

Q. Then what's junior to that?

A. Junior to that within what is described as


International Management is the Commodore's Messenger Organization International.

Q. And then junior to that?

A. Well, still at the same echelon, we're still at the same echelon of international management. You have the Senior Case Supervisor's Office, International Finance Office, Golden Era Productions, although they don't have any management functions; they produce dissemination materials: Films, video tapes.

Q. Advertisements?

A. Audio tapes and advertisements for Dianetics and Scientology.

Q. Some of which we see on television?

A. I hope so. They're still at that same echelon of International Management as is the Commodore's Messenger Organization, Golden Era Productions and Planetary Dissemination Organization. And immediately below the level of the Watchdog Committee, still in International Management, is the International Executive Strata.

Q. Is International Finance Office included there, too?

A. No, they are in the International Management.

Q. So International Finance Office is on par with International Executive Strata, right?


MS. BARTILSON: Objection, misstates.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Generally.


THE WITNESS: Generally, yes. Now still answering your question --

MR. GREENE: Q. Okay, go ahead.

A. Next echelon down is the upper middle management echelon, which contains the Flag Command Bureau and the organizations within it all of which are of a similar level in terms of hierarchy. Now that completes the list.

Q. In your knowledge does the Watchdog Committee have a member who is in RTC?

A. No.

Q. You know that there is not such?

A. I know that there is not such.

Q. Now within the Watchdog Committee there is --

Strike that.

Do you know who the members of the Watchdog Committee are?

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

MS. BARTILSON: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. GREENE: Q. To make sure I've got my understanding correct, the Watchdog Committee is contained entirely within CSI?


A. That's right.

Q. Directing your attention now to page 14 of Exhibit three, and under item C where reference is made to the "Religion of Scientology and Scientology shall mean the religious doctrines, beliefs, tenets, practices, applied religious philosophy and technology for its application as developed by L. Ron Hubbard and as the same may hereafter be developed by L. Ron Hubbard," is your personal definition of Scientology the equivalent of what's set forth in what I just read?

A. Yes.

Q. Does your personal definition of Scientology include anything more than what is set forth there in paragraph C?

A. I've used the terms to also include the individuals who adhere to these beliefs. When I speak of "in Scientology we do blah blah blah," I would include the individuals who adhere to these beliefs as well as the philosophy and religion and stuff.

Q. Directing your attention to paragraph D where "Scriptures" is in quotes and is defined as "Shall mean the writings and recorded spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard with respect to Scientology and organizations formed for the purposes thereof," we spoke about that briefly earlier and you adopt that definition personally as well, don't



A. Yes, I do.

Q. And your own personal use of the term scriptures with reference to Scientology does not include anything in addition to what's set forth in paragraph D, does it?

A. No.

Q. Now turning to the next page and directing your attention to the first paragraph, would you take a moment to read that paragraph to yourself?

A. Subparagraph (g) or the first article under three?

Q. I apologize, it's following section one. Let me know when you have had a chance to do that.

A: I've read the first paragraph.

Q. Where reference is made to maintaining the purity and integrity of the religion of Scientology, what does that refer to in your understanding?

A. As it's set forth here with reference to CSI's duties or the Church of Scientology's duties it means to ensure that the technology developed by Mr. Hubbard for improving an individual's spiritual awareness is applied in exactly the manner that LRH said to apply it. It ensures the organizational structure of the Church is in such a way that it doesn't lessen the integrity of that technology, pervert it in any fashion, or use it in such a


way that's harmful.

Q. Within Scientology isn't it true that what you are referring to is encapsulated in the phras that goes something like: Standard technology standardly applied?

A. Yes, that would be accurate. That would refer to the audio technology and Mr. Hubbard's philosophy.

Q. Now there are some individuals who have used Scientology technology without authorization or permission, right?

A. Yes.

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

Well, strike that.

A person who is engaged in the unauthorized use of such technology would compromise the purity and integrity of Scientology; is that fair to say?

A. Not in all cases because some use of the technology is not requiring an authorization. You can buy a Dianetics book or a self-analysis book at the book store and use it and that's fine, that's what it's there for, it's to be used. You can give a touch assist or something to someone. You can use it, read one of the books, adopt the principles and use them in your life. So none of that sort of thing requires any organization.

Q. Any kind of metered activities would, however, right?


A. Probably because you would probably -- if one is engaging in that for a living being an auditor for a living or something yes, that would require authorization.

Q. So the record is clear, when I said "metered activities" what I was referring to was the practice of employing a device called an E-meter. You are familiar with such a device, aren't you?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Are you authorized to audit people within Scientology?

A. Yes.

Q. An E-meter is a device that is used for the activity of what's called an auditing within Scientology, right?

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

Q. Auditing is what Scientology says is its primary religious practice, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And an E-meter is what Scientology refers to as a religious artifact, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And an E-meter is a device that incorporates among other things two electroids which the person who is being audited holds in his or her hands, right?

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


It's an electrometer that measures the amount of mental mass present as a guide to the auditor for areas to audit and the reaction to the questions.

Q. And the rest of the device that's hooked up to the two electroids, there's a dial with a needle, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then there's actually -- sorry, what do you call that thing that you look at that the needle goes back and forth?

A. Dial.

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

A. Turning thing? God.

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

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

This is somewhat demeaning of the religion.

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

Sometimes I --

MS. BARTILSON: It's pretty far afield.

THE WITNESS: Tell you what, you want me to give you a book understanding the E-meter?

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

My point is when I made reference to a metered activity it was an activity employing an E-meter and


that's how you understood my use of the term metered activity; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now an individual who engages, who performs auditing activities without permission would be someone that would be compromising the purity or integrity of Scientology; is that fair to say?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered and misstates the witness's prior testimony.

Go ahead and tell him.

THE WITNESS: To use an E-meter you need to be an ordained minister of the Scientology religion or a minister in training. If you are, then fine, with the requisite amount of training. If you are not, then no; you shouldn't use an E-meter.

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me approach it this way. You are familiar with the term squirrel, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And squirrel has particular meaning within Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. The particular meaning that squirrel has within Scientology is someone who is utilizing -- I'm speaking broadly -- someone who is utilizing Scientology technology without authorization or permission for the purpose of


making money from other people, right?

A. I wouldn't define it exactly that way. That's somewhat imprecise. I would define it in the manner of someone who is stealing and/or altering or perverting the aspects of the technology for their own profit.

Q. So such a person who is a squirrel would be compromising the purity and integrity of Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then dealing with such person would come within the scope of authority exercised by CSI, right?

A. Yes, and my job in particular.

Q. And your job in particular.

A. The individual would be spoken with and maybe somebody who is just out in the field and, you know, is perfectly willing to come in and train and get licensed, whatever; it may be through conversation, negotiation, get the individual to cease what he's doing in an un-authorized manner; go off and do his own thing, or whatever; or it might require litigation to enforce the proper use of the trademarks and service marks that he's misusing.

Q. Okay. Directing your attention to Bates-stamped page 16 of Exhibit three at the top of the page, would you read into the record the first complete sentence?


A. The sentence reads: "Scientology technology is a body of truths and methods of application developed by L. Ron Hubbard from his observations and research which, when correctly applied, can reveal the soul of man, extend his knowledge of the Infinite Being to him, and make known what is knowable about God."

Q. With that definition in mind, would you personally add any other definition or alter that in any way when making reference to Scientology technology?

A. No, I would not.

Q. And Scientology technology in substantial part involves the written words of L. Ron Hubbard, right?

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

Q. Right, tapes.

A. Taped lectures, film.

Q. Within Scientology technology would come Hubbard Communication office policy letters, right?

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

What's being referred to here are Hubbard Communications policy bulletins, not policy letters.

Q. Let's talk about that for a second. Hubbard Communication office bulletins is one of the written materials within Scientology, right?

A. That's correct.


Q. And Hubbard Communication Office policy letters are another type of written communications in Scientology, right?

A. That's also correct.

Q. The policy letters make reference to management concerns in Scientology, right?

A. They concern organizational matters, yes.

Q. That have to do with management in part?

A. In part, yes.

Q. So what are the bulletins?

A. Majorly auditing, which is Scientology technology as defined here, although the organizational policies are a technology for applying Mr. Hubbard's truths to the operation of groups.

Q. So the policies, then, in Scientology are what are used to manifest organizationally within the organization the truths that are revealed through auditing, right?

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

Q. Then I misunderstood you.

A. Hubbard Communication Office bulletins deal with, as their subject matter, auditing generally that body of truths that allows one to broaden one's and expand one's awareness as an individual of himself and of others.

The Hubbard Communication policy letters


generally concern organizational or administrative types of activity, although there are axioms within those that apply equally well to an individual. I'm just talking about a general division of the subject matter.

Usually when one hears it colloquially referring to the technology, it's generally referring to the Hubbard Communication Office bulletins, although the policy letters I think would fit within the broader definition --

Q. Of the technology?

A. Of the technology.

Q. Part of the corporate purpose of CSI is the dissemination of, broadly speaking, the technology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it your understanding that such dissemination is to deliver Scientology to as many people as possible?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it your understanding that such delivery is predicated on the belief that the more people, the greater the numbers of people who adopt Scientology the better off the planet will be?

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

Q. And, in fact, the ultimate objective would be to have all members of humanity be involved in Scientology; is that right?

A. The ultimate objective is a sane society.


Q. The ultimate objective being a sane society in your view the most effective route of obtaining said objective is via Scientology?

A. For me absolutely, of course it is. That's why I'm a Scientologist.

Q. Also in terms of CSI in terms of delivering Scientology to as many people as possible?

A. Yes, we want to disseminate the religion to as many people as possible.

Q. Directing your attention to Bates-stamped 16, subparagraph (A,) in part that's what (A) refers to when it says: "Establishment of a religious body and entity to promote, protect, administer and encourage the religion of Scientology and its goals," right?

A. You are asking if dissemination is contemplated within what's listed in (A)?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the next page Bates-stamped 17 under Section 2, Mother Church, and the first sentence where it says, quote, "In addition to the foregoing, the Church, as the Mother Church, shall oversee and manage the ecclesiastical affairs of all other churches of Scientology to ensure and maintain the purity and integrity of the religion of Scientology."


A. Are you asking if I see that?

Q. I'm asking if you see that.

A. I do.

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

A. I wasn't paying close enough attention. It appeared to be, yeah.

Q. So part of CSI's duty is to make sure that other Scientology organizations properly apply the technology in a broad sense in the terms we've been speaking is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the manner in which that objective is accomplished is through the exercise of ecclesiastical authority, right?

A. CSI's right to do that stems from its ecclesiastical authority and agreement on the part of the daughter churches that we have that right. I think that's more what it stems from.

Q. There are no daughter churches that haven't made that agreement, right?

A. They wouldn't be daughter churches unless they had. They would be other organizations, or whatever.

Q. Now the next sentence, the one that starts with "Further," why don't you read that into the record, please?


MS. BARTILSON: Objection. Document speaks for itself and is an exhibit.

MR. BENZ: Sustained.

MR. GREENE: Q. Looking at the next sentence that starts with "Further," the part of what CSI's job is is to make sure that the ecclesiastical tenets of Scientology that are set forth in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard are enforced, right?

A. Generally, yes.

Now I said earlier -- I don't want to lose track of it -- is within that definition I originally gave is that over the years many of his writings were revised a number of times or cancelled or replaced with others. I just want to make sure we're still talking about the same thing. And the current expression of them would be in the current volumes of either the Organization Executive Course or the technical bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology.

Q. I understand.

A. Great.

Q. With respect to daughter churches or missions or other Scientology-related groups, to your knowledge does each such entity have within it an office of Special Affairs or an Office of Special Affairs liaison?

A. Each daughter church has that function expressed


on their organizing board; not necessarily the missions and groups, no, but for organizations that have achieved the status of being a class five organization, which is what we're saying is daughter church as distinguished from missions and groups, would have a Department of Special Affairs which would have a representative. That representative is -- actually representative is a bad word. It would have a Department of Special Affairs, that an individual is generally director of that organization along with two other senior officials in the local organization.

I see you are reaching for another folder. Is that something we can do after lunch or --

Q. It's actually the same subject.

Let's go off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: I would like to mark as the next exhibit, which is HCO Policy Letter of 1 May 1965, a two-page exhibit as Defendant's four.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Would you take a moment and review Defendant's four, please?

A. Can you hand me the complete document?

Q. I apologize.


A. I've got part of one document entitled Hubbard Policy Letter of 1 May '65, the first page of that, then the frontis piece from a book. Why don't we have the whole policy letter here?

Q. I agree.

A. It appears to be the frontis piece, you are right, Gerry. We should have the whole policy.

Q. I'll tell you what, for now I'll go on to something else and then during lunch we'll put in the whole thing.

A. I hate to do it without the complete document being there.

Q. I totally agree with you.

A. And if you can have the book it's copied from here so I can look at it and see that yes, that's the page, this is the frontis piece that goes with that volume, that would speed things up. Obviously I have not memorized the frontis piece of each Scientology book.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Let's mark the next exhibit as five, which is an HCO policy letter of 9 February '79 revised 23 August '84.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to


Exhibit five, do you recognize this document?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this document included in the organization -- did you study this document when you did the Organization Executive Course?

A. I did the Organization Executive Course before that current revision of that document, so I studied the unrevised version.

Q. Are you familiar with the revised version that's in front of you now?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this an example of Hubbard policy?

A. It's an example of a Hubbard Communication Office policy letter which is Church policy.

Q. Which is Church policy?

A. Yes.

Q. To your knowledge, has this policy ever been cancelled?

A. No.

Q. The title of the policy is How to Defeat Verbal Tech; do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Verbal tech is a term of Scientology art, is it not?

A. Yes, means verbal technology.


Q. Verbal technology which means transmitting technology verbally, right?

A. Right.

Q. With respect to that, under item one where it says, "If it isn't written it isn't true," do you see that?

A. I see that.

Q. Verbal tech in Scientology is something that's considered to be troublesome, right?

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

Q. How would you describe it then?

A. Improper.

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

A. It would be improper for an individual to say when instructing a junior, for example, here's how we do thus and so without reference to the materials that concern thus and so unless it's something benign and innocuous. Something that concerns the application of the technology should be referred to the actual technology. It would be either in writing or recorded spoken words.

Q. And the reason for that in part is because when people communicate verbally there can be distortions, right?


A. That's correct.

Q. And if something is written down there's not any distortion about what's written down?

A. That's right.

Q. And if particular words are used about which people may have confusion, they can consult a dictionary for further definition?

A. That's right, even in the instance of a verbal order I spoke of earlier that's contemplated in the other issue that we're going to get a complete copy of, in a perfect world a written record should be kept of it, but it's not a perfect world.

Q. But if Scientology policy were scrupulously adhered to, then there would be a written record of a verbal order, right?

A. At least until the order was complied with, and then whether anyone bothers to save it or not would be a function of how important it is and if it actually got written down. But, of course, it's not a perfect world.

Q. But in terms of your own personal performance of your post, you endeavor to adhere to Scientology policy to the utmost, don't you?

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

Q. But you do your best?


A. I try to write it down, and then it's a matter of what then happens to it at the end of the day when everything is done. There would be no reason to keep a lot of things. It would just accumulate.

Q. There are policies that control what to do with written terms, are there not?

A. There are general guidelines; doesn't contemplate all circumstances, no. A certain degree of judgment is expected.

Q. Now going back to Exhibit five, would you tell me what your understanding is of item number one where it says, "If it isn't written it isn't true"?

A. That's a maxim that applies to the technology of Dianetics and Scientology as originated by Mr. Hubbard, that if it isn't something he wrote down or uttered in some other permanent recording, because he gave technology in media that is not the written word; he gave it in the spoken word which would have a permanent record, which would be a recording, or on film.

Q. Video tape.

A. So as applied to that it would mean that if somebody is telling you this is what Mr. Hubbard wrote you would have to see it and you would have to determine whether or not it had been cancelled or revised in some fashion or such. Now it's applied to an order one would


receive on one's post. If there's any controversy to the order, if you feel the order is in any way inconsistent to what you should be doing, one uses this to see whether or not it would meet the definition of a valid order.

And the first step would be okay, get it in writing. So it happens to be a verbal order that you would be obligated to get it in writing. So one can use this checklist to either then get the order validated as something that is appropriate and proper or document that it isn't, in which case it would be annulled, cancelled.

Q. Part of the reason for that is a premium value is placed on accountability with respect to compliance with orders within Scientology; isn't that right?

A. I would say more emphasis is placed on assuming responsibility for the job function in originating what to do as opposed to complying with orders. If you are at the stage of having to have orders to do a job you are not the one occupying the post, the one issuing the orders is. I would say there's more emphasis on the person's sense of responsibility and origination of what to do.

Q. There's that but there's also an aspect of where the person who has given the order wants to be able to have a good record to see what happened after that order was issued; isn't that right?

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


what was done. Now, then, its subsequent importance to history will determine whether or not such things are kept, but within those guidelines.

MR. GREENE: I would like to mark as Defendant's six a one-page document that's an HCO policy letter that was reissued on 12 of April 1983.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to Defendant's Exhibit six, do you recognize that document?

A. Let me read it first.

Q. Sure.

A. All right, I've read it.

Q. Have you seen this document before?

A. Yes. Absent the Bates stamp.

Q. The title of this document is Verbal Tech: Penalties, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Has this policy letter, to your knowledge, ever been rescinded?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. As a Scientology executive is this policy letter something that you would do your best to comply with?

A. I would do my best to adhere to it, yes, especially since the second paragraph really exemplifies


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

The materials of Scientology are contained in the materials and that's the best reference for them.

Q. Then the first paragraph where it says, "Any person found to be using verbal tech shall be subjected to a court of ethics." You know what a court of ethics is, right?

A. That's right.

Q. A court of ethics is a particular procedure within Scientology; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. Part of Scientology has to do with a realm of practice that is known as ethics, right?

A. Realm of practice?

Q. Part of Scientology practice has to do with ethics, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And ethics has got a very specific meaning within Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. As a general principle if an individual is having difficulty within Scientology it's because in Scientology parlance his or her ethics are out, right?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object.

THE WITNESS: I wouldn't adopt that as a general principle, no. I would not adopt that as a general


principle, no . I would not adopt that as a general principle and you are right, we are getting --

MS. BARTILSON: We are really getting far afield here and I don't see any relevance to this. General practice of Scientology is exactly what he said it is.

MR. GREENE: We'll come back to it and it is quite relevant. I'll lay a better foundation.

MR. BENZ: I think the question has been answered.

THE WITNESS: It has been. I couldn't let the misstatement of it stand.

MR. BENZ: That's fine: So no ruling is required at this point, is what I'm saying.

MR. GREENE: Q. In fact, Exhibit number six has specifically been adopted by CSI, right?

A. That's what it says.

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

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

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark as Defendant's seven the HCO policy letter of 5 March '65.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to seven and immediately to the obscured part --

A. Sorry, I didn't hear you.


Q. I want to direct your attention to the obscured part.

A. Okay.

Q. When you focus you can read the words, although they're not as easy to read as the rest of it. On page one there of Exhibit seven the part that's been obscured, as I see it it says, quote, "The sense in which we use policy is the rules and administrative formulas by which we agree on action and conduct our affairs," close quote.

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

MS. BARTILSON: Do you have the original?

THE WITNESS: Mine is a generation earlier. Just for the record, the one handed Laurie was a couple of generations beyond that and couldn't be read.

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you have the original? Take a look at the original and satisfy yourself that Exhibit seven is --

MS. BARTILSON: See if it matches because there's junk all over it.

THE WITNESS: What am I supposed to match, this sentence?

MR. GREENE: Q. Just the document. You asked earlier if you could take a look at the green volume to be able to compare the exhibits.

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


Q. All right. Exhibit seven, like all the other policy letters, as a Scientologist the expectation is to adhere to what is expressed in the policy letters, right?

A. Well, what is expressed in here in terms of the timeless nature would be adhered to, yes, like the general laws given up at the top. But, of course, one cannot continue to adhere to his description at the time he wrote it of the international board being composed of 336.

Q. Because that doesn't exist anymore.

A. Right.

Q. Of course not.

A. But the general laws and definitions of terms that are given here, yes.

Q. Which would include the definition hereof a policy letter right underneath the obscured part?

A. I think -- oh, underneath, not in back of. "One which contains one or more policies and their explanation and application." Yes, correct.

Q. Now aside from any organizational inaccuracies that are set forth in Exhibit seven --

A. Organizational antiquities. They were accurate at the time.

Q. Aside from those things you would adhere to and comply with what's expressed in Exhibit seven, right?

A. Yes, aside from any organizational antiquities


that have since been revised.

My watch shows quarter to.

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

Defendant's Exhibit eight is an HCO Policy Letter of 9 August 72.

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

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Has Exhibit eight been rescinded -- excuse me, strike that.

Do you recognize Exhibit eight?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a current policy letter that's currently adhered to in Scientology according to your best knowledge?

A. Generally, yes, although the organizational entities referred to in the fifth paragraph have different names.

Q. That is the International Board Members?

A. I was thinking of the Authority and Verification Unit as the Authorization and Verification Unit.

Q. Now it's known as that?

A. Yes.

Q. What about the International Board members?

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


Q. What portion of CSI would that apply to?

A. The board members.

Q. So, then, in your practice as a Scientology executive you adhere to what's set forth in Exhibit eight, right?

A. Yes, I take the information from HCOBs and HCO PLs to be senior to other types of policy directors. It's a matter of interpretation of them.

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

(Whereupon the deposition was adjourned for lunch.)



2:10 P.M.



MR. GREENE: Back on the record.

Q. First of all, what we're going to do is to replace incomplete Defendant's Exhibit four with a complete version and that has been done at this point and we're going to proceed that way.

A. Right, and in looking through it and these other issues I've been handed they do not appear to be from the current policy volumes and, unfortunately, I'm not able to say which may have been amended in the current one or not.

I'll just do the best I can. They do appear in some cases to be from one revision ago in terms -- one revision ago in terms of some of them and more than one revision ago in terms of others.

Q. However, since the state of your knowledge is that the policy letters which are exhibits four through eight that have been provided to you today, those came from a policy volume that was in effect last revised in 1986, right?

A. Some appear to have been from a volume that was last revised before that. I just don't know which volume. Some of these were from volume zero last revised -- sorry, last revised in '86. There's been a revision in '91 and


I'm not sure. Some may have been from the volume one which was not revised in '86; it was only revised in '91. These appear to be from volume zero. I'm just not certain.

Q. With respect to Exhibits four through eight, to the best of your knowledge as you sit here today and without the benefit of the 1991 revision, have any of those policies been revised or cancelled?

A. I don't think any have been cancelled. There may have been some revisions. I can't say without looking at the volume.

Q. With respect to those exhibits -- there is not any revision that has taken place which comes to your mind as you sit here now?

A. That's not what I said.

Q. I'm asking you that.

A. Are you going to twist it around to Gee, he couldn't testify to any revision so it's not the accurate one? No, I'm saying we need the current one. I've been accommodating and said I am not aware of any cancellation of these, but as far as revisions that may exist in the current volume I don't know, I have to compare the two.

Q. I know, I'm not asking you about the current volume, Mr. Farny. What I'm asking you is whether as you sit here now, based on the state of your knowledge now,


whether or not there have been any revisions of Exhibits four through eight?

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

THE WITNESS: As I sit here now I would have to look at the current volume to be sure, otherwise I would just be guessing.

MR. GREENE: Q. So your answer, then, is "I don't know"?

A. No, the answer was as I sit here now I would have to look at the current revision otherwise I would be guessing.

Q. I'm going to ask you the same question, based on your knowledge as you sit here now.

A. As I sit here now I would have to guess and I don't want to guess. You can easily interpose a request for the volumes once the irrelevance or whatever rulings I are obtained then you can make the comparison yourself. I just don't want you to be mislead by not knowing about the '91 revision. And what I'm saying is you have to look at the '91 revision. You can probably go down to San Francisco Library and look at the '91 revision and compare them. I just want it to be clear. That's what my answer is.

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


any revision in 1991 that applies to Defendant Exhibits four through eight, your testimony with respect to items four through eight that you gave before lunch would not change, would it?

A. With one proviso: If any of four through eight aren't in there then they aren't current, binding policy.

Q. So then --

A. In the form they are in there they will be current binding policy on the churches.

Q. So then is what you are telling me that if there -- Well, start all over.

Is a method of cancellation simply omission from the most recent volume of policies?

A. The method of adoption of the policies by CSI are its publication and the current publication of these policies is in that '91 revision. So its omission would mean that it's not a current policy of the Church.

Q. So, then, if there was a policy in 1986 that was published in 1986 and that same policy was not published in 1991, would the fact that said policy was not published in '91 mean that said policy was rescinded?

A. I'm speaking only of the ones that appeared in Hubbard Communication office policy volume, the OEC volumes. Its omission from the OEC volumes would mean it's no longer part of that body of data that's binding


Church policy.

Q. Would that be the equivalent to such policy being rescinded?

A. As a practical matter, yes.

Q. What about as a technical matter?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous. If you understand it, go ahead and answer it.

THE WITNESS: I would think so as a technical matter, yes.

MR. GREENE: Q. So are you telling me that the only policies that CSI follows are those that are published in the OEC volumes currently?

A. You are speaking of Hubbard Communication Office policy letters? Yes, because the bylaws articulate the policies of the corporation and we follow our bylaws. But if you are speaking of HCO policy letters, yes.

Q. What about HCO bulletins?

A. Those would be expressed in the technical bulletin volumes.

Q. What about executive directives?

A. Those original when issued.

Q. They only last a year, right?

A. They have a year life span unless adopted and turned into a policy letter to be binding as policy.

Q. Is the same thing true with respect to Flag



A. No.

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

A. Until revised or cancelled.

Q. Flag orders apply within CSC -- I'm sorry, CSI, don't they?

A. Yes, that's why I limited your earlier question to Hubbard Communication Office policy letters.

Q. As a CSI executive you would be expected to adhere to Flag orders, right?

A. As they apply to the circumstances, yes.

Q. Is there any policy of which you are aware that states that the only currently effective policies are those which are found in Hubbard Communication Office policy letters that are found in the bound volumes?

A. I'm aware of the policy that to be current binding policy it has to be approved by the current international board and by ABC, which was in one of these earlier ones we discussed; and if those two bodies designate that publication to be the publication that's going to express the current policy it would, because that policy gives them the authority to do so.

Q. But my question is are you aware of any policy that limits the currently effective policy to those which are found only in the bound volumes?


A. I think I answered it. I don't have anything to add to the previous answer.

Q. That's a yes-or-no question and you didn't give me a yes-or-no answer. I would like you to.

MS. BARTILSON: I would object as to badgering the witness.

MR. GREENE: I would request the referee to instruct the witness to answer the question yes or no. It's a yes-or-no question.

MS. BARTILSON: I object. The witness has fully answered the question. He obviously indicated it's not a yes -- it's not a yes-or-no question.

MR. BENZ: It's obviously the third answer which is: "I can't answer that question," which I think is what the witness said.

THE WITNESS: Any more than I could before. I can't, no, which is -- What is it?

MR. BENZ: Would you read the question back, please?

(Record read back.)

MR. BENZ: The answer to that is?

THE WITNESS: I can't answer that yes or no as phrased because my inference -- where is this line I want to show you. Here it is. It says in Exhibit eight that if full authority of the International Board members as


well as the Authority and Verification Unit can pass HCO policy letters and if they so designate they are going to adopt the current publication in the green volume as the current publication it would be the current publication.

I don't want to leave you with the wrong impression that "yes" or "no" gives. So if that had occurred, and I believe it has because the current applicable version of the policy letters are contained in the current publications of those volumes, then that would be within their authority to do so pursuant to these policy letters.

MR. GREENE: Q. Aside from the fact that as to Exhibit eight the International Board members don't exist anymore; and the Authority and Verification Unit doesn't exist anymore, right?

A. Wrong. I defined the International Board as the CSI Board and the Authority and Verification Unit as the Authorization and Verification Correction Unit which was renamed pursuant to subsequent Flag order.

Q. Right, I understand that.

A. Thank you.

Q. So what your answer is is that if the approval has been given by those subsequent named units, right?

A. Finish your question.

Q. That then the authorization for the HCO PL or


HCOB would exist?

A. Right.

Q. As to the exhibits of policy letters which have been identified as exhibits today, if those have been in any way revised would you be willing to tell me that or to take a look and find out between today and the next session of your deposition?

A. Either that or we can leave a blank and I'll fill it in, certainly.

Q. So then as to Exhibit four, assuming that there has not been any revision of that exhibit, that policy letter is still currently -- in effect, right?

A. If there hadn't been it would be, yes, but as I said, I can't make that assumption.

Q. And all the questions I'm going to have of you with respect to any HCO PLs will have that built into it.

I understand that they may or may not have been revised. I don't have the benefit of that so I've got to proceed on the basis that I am able.

A. I don't necessarily think it would be productive to adopt that assumption 50 transcript pages before the question because it makes an incomplete record.

Q. That's fine, I'll proceed, Mr. Farny, with conducting my deposition as I see fit and I appreciate your suggestion.


A. As you wish.

MR. GREENE: I want to mark as Defendant's nine an HCO policy letter of 25 November 1970 corrected and reissued 27 November 1970. Let the reporter mark it first.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Would you take a few moments and read Exhibit number nine, which is a four-page document?

Actually, rather than have you read every word, can you tell whether or not you recognize it first?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object and ask the Witness be allowed to review the document before he can say if he recognizes it or not. It's a four-page document. It shouldn't take very long to look at it.

THE WITNESS: It appears to be a 1986 publication of this policy letter, again with the same caveat as before.

Do you want me to continue reading or is there a part you want me to focus on specifically?

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me focus on the third page at the top says, quote, "An order is the direction or command issued by an authorized person to a person or group within the sphere of the authorized person's


authority," close quote.

A. Okay, I've read that.

Q. That principle applies currently within CSC, does it not, or CSI, excuse me?

A. Certainly the principle applies as a matter of the command channel's specific function of a senior post and junior post such to be totally accurate, but certainly the principle applies.

Q. Then the next sentence where it says, quote, "By implication an order goes from senior to juniors," close quote, that general principle is applicable currently in CSI, right?

A. Of course.

Q. Now you know an individual named Norman Starkey, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. What is Norman Starkey's post?

A. He's the executive director of Author Services Incorporated, which is Mr. Hubbard's literary agency. He's the trustee of Mr. Hubbard's estate. Sorry, I did that wrong. Trustee of his trust and executor of his estate.

Q. To your knowledge, is David Miscavige senior to Mr. Starkey?

A. In what way?


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

A. Well, Mr. Starkey's post isn't within the hierarchy of the Church, so there's no direct junior-senior relationship between the two.

Q. Is Mr. Starkey a Sea Org member?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Mr. Starkey subject to the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church?

A. No, except in matters concerning the practice of his religion as any other member is, but his job isn't.

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

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: I've given it to you.

MR. GREENE: Q. Those are the posts, executive director of ASI; trustee of the LRH Trust?

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

Q. That's the function?

A. That's the description of it.

Q. And the executor of LRH's estate.

A. That's right.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. He has one. He works in the Religious


Technology Center.

Q. What is his post in RTC?

A. Church tax compliance aide.

Q. To your knowledge, is Norman Starkey senior to Mark Yager?

A. No, neither junior to or senior to.

Q. Is Lyman Spurlock senior to Mark Yager?

A. There's no command relationship between them.

Q. Because Lyman Spurlock is placed in RTC?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is there any ecclesiastical relationship in terms of authority between Lyman Spurlock and Mark Yager?

A. Not directly, no.

Q. How about indirectly?

A. Not really, but let me just explain for you why I'm pausing, because RTC licenses CSI to use the marks there is that relationship between licensor and licensee.

Mr. Yager, as the Watchdog Committee chairman and as the chairman of CSI's Board of Directors has full authority to run CSI's affairs. Mr. Spurlock occupies an administrative position within RTC but it doesn't concern itself with instructing Mr. Yager what to do in his job; it's his department's function.

Q. When you were the litigation secretary for CSI who assigned you to that post?


A. It was the individual who was the commanding officer of Office of Special Affairs at the time, Edith Buchele.

Q. How do you spell that?

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

Q. Was she the person who changed your post from litigation secretary to deputy litigation director U.S.?

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

Q. Do you recall who assigned you the post of deputy litigation director U.S.?

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

Q. Do you recall approximately when that change in assignment occurred?

A. Around July '84.

Q. Right after Breckenridge's decision or shortly after?

A. No, no, wait a minute. No, my recollection is it was just before; it was a couple of weeks before. So that decision came out in June. It would have been June.

Q. June of '84?

A. Yeah. I think it was after the close of evidence before the decision was when it changed, right around that time period, but I remember not being on the litigation secretary post when that decision came out.

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


or did the post that you assume have more or less authority that went along with it?

A. It had less. It was more focused just on the U.S. which was one of the difficulties we were trying to resolve, and the post of litigation secretary was spread all over the world. We had a seed growing in the U.S. we needed to focus on, so somebody else came in to take that other job and I focused just on the U.S. because that's where I had my experience.

Q. The scene that was growing in the U.S. was at least in part comprised of the litigation that was being generated by clients who had hired Michael Flynn, right?

A. That was certainly part of it, yeah.

Q. And the Wollersheim litigation that was being generated by Charley O'Reily, right?

A. No, at that time that was just floundering around in discovery, not generating much of a problem. It was present but not a major factor in 1984.

Q. Then there was ongoing litigation that you had with various governmental agencies?

A. That was where the major burden was flowing.

Q. That was the Zolan litigation, right?

A. That hadn't been filed yet. The Zolan case itself wasn't filed until early '85, even though its predecessor went back to November of '84. Called that the


Lynn action based on that case.

Q. And there was also litigation involving the IRS, right?

A. That's right.

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

Now when you were the deputy litigation director for the U.S. who was the litigation director?

A. For the U.S.?

Q. Right.

A. Ginger Smith.

Q. And then you replaced her, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who assigned you the post of litigation director U.S.?

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

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

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

Q. When did that take place?

A. Late summer '84.

Q. So two or three months after you were assigned the post of deputy litigation director U.S.

A. Perhaps.

Q. Can you be --


A. Yeah, about that.

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

MS. BARTILSON: I'll raise an objection to this line of questioning as to relevance. I'll keep a continuing objection to this line of questioning. I can understand Mr. Greene's desire to get some background on this witness but we're going into it ad nauseam and this is a busy man.

MR. BENZ: If you are raising it as a continuing objection I will say that it is -- to my mind it has reached the point where you are going to have to start tying this in or the objection on relevance can certainly be well-founded.

MR. GREENE: What you are telling me is you don't think it's relevant to find out what his background is as litigation -- as being in charge of litigation for CSI which has sued my client, that the extent of his knowledge and when he held different positions and what the dates were that those positions changed and who assigned them are not relevant?

MR. BENZ: The fact that he has sued your client is basically not relevant except to the extent that connected with that is an abuse of process and except to the extent that there is some activity other than the


bringing of the suit itself which involves unclean hands.

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

MS. BARTILSON: Connected presumably to Mr. Armstrong; is that correct? We're now back in 1984. Most of the abuse of process claim was stricken except for two events that occurred in 1993 or four.

MR. GREENE: We're not proceeding, Counsel, only on the Cross-complaint. Don't try to limit the range of relevance to the Cross-complaint because that's not --

MR. BENZ: It has to be unclean hands arising out of a related transaction.

MR. GREENE: Right, a related transaction is the settlement contract that was entered into in December of 1986. So let me ask you this --

MS. BARTILSON: No, it has to be the same transaction. That's the law in unclean hands. There's no relevance to what happened in 1984 to what position Mr. Farny had and who assigned him to it, I'm sorry. We're way down a long, deep, dark track here.

MR. GREENE: Right.

Q. What was your post in December of 1986?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance.

THE WITNESS: I was on the RPF in December of '86.

MR. GREENE: Q. RPF stands for Rehabilitation


Project Force, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Where were you RPFed?

A. You mean where did I do the program or where was I assigned? Actually it was the same place, Gilman Hot Springs.

Q. For how long were you on the RPF?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance. Why are we here in 1986?

THE WITNESS: About a year.

MR. GREENE: Q. Final question on this: Who assigned you?

A. Mike Sutter who was at that time the Watchdog Committee member in the Office of Special Affairs.

Q. Why were you assigned?

A. None of your damn business.

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, this is really getting into Mr. Farny's personal life, too.

MR. BENZ: Sustained.

MR. GREENE: Sustained on what grounds?


MR. GREENE: Privacy?

MS. BARTILSON: And relevance.

MR. BENZ: Relevance, primarily.

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


Q. Being assigned to the RPF is an ethics action in Scientology, isn't it?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance and privacy.

MR. BENZ: What is the relevance on that?

MR. GREENE: The relevance -- actually for right now I'll withdraw that question. I'll lay an entire foundation and go back to it.

Q. Directing your attention back to the bylaws, which is Exhibit three, the Bates-stamped page 17, and looking at section two under "Mother Church" and directing your attention to the second sentence where it talks about the propagation of the religion of Scientology throughout the world and for the enforcement of the ecclesiastical tenets of-the religion as set forth in the scriptures...

A. Yes, I see that.

Q. Part of the enforcement of ecclesiastical tenets of Scientology involves ethics, does it not?

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

Q. Directing your attention to the next page Bates-stamped 18 which sets forth the creed of Scientology, would you tell me whether or not there's anything that's included in the creed with which you have any personal disagreement?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, privacy, asking for


this witness's personal beliefs as to the creed of the Church that this member professes to be a member of. I don't think this has any place in litigation, this or otherwise.

MR. GREENE: This guy is here as an officer of CSI. CSI produced him. He was not required to be here. This is his own bylaws. I'm entitled to find out from this witness whether as an officer of this corporation, representing the corporation during the course of this deposition, has personal agreement with what's set forth here or whether there's some divergence between what he as an individual human being and witness and then somebody whose credibility can be examined and he as an officer of CSI, whether or not they're the same.

MS. BARTILSON: His religious beliefs are not a valid basis for establishing credibility of a witness, for starters. There's a code section on that. And if you take a look at the creed it's obviously a religious document. His personal religious beliefs are irrelevant whether he belongs to or is a member of a religious corporation or not.

MR. BENZ: As a member of a corporation where he's a director and officer -- and I haven't seen the articles -- but typically bylaws are adopted on a majority vote so the minority, if there is one, doesn't agree with


part or all of it.

MR. GREENE: All the more relevant for me to ask him whether or not he agrees or disagrees.

MR. BENZ: I see no relevance or connection, no way that that connects him to what we're talking about here today. So I'll sustain the objection.

MR. GREENE: I'm going to go through it on a question-by-question basis because it's extremely important.

MR. BENZ: If you want to tie it in I will consider it, but whether or not he agrees with something that's set forth in the bylaws; what connection that has to the present litigation is not apparent.

MS. BARTILSON: It's just harassment of the witness to go through his religious beliefs.

MR. GREENE: Also another additional area of relevance is the question of domination and control that is exercised over this individual by the Scientology organization as that relates ultimately to the treatment by Scientology of my client Gerald Armstrong.

MR. BENZ: We've had testimony at length of the command and control by the organization and the fact that orders are given and followed, given by seniors and followed by juniors. I don't see the necessity of any further inquiry on this line.


MR. GREENE: Q. You would consider yourself a member of Scientology staff, right?

A. A member of Scientology staff?

Q. Yeah, you are part of Scientology staff?

A. It's vague as phrased. You said before we are not going to adopt a definition of Scientology being anything other than in the broad sense of the word the entire religion.

Q. You consider yourself to be a part of Church staff, don't you?

A. I'm CSI staff, staff as opposed to public, which is how we refer to our parishioners.

Q. And public are those individuals who don't work more or less full time for some component of the Scientology religion, right?

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

Q. And staff are those which do work more or less full time for some component of the Scientology religion, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Employing that definition, when did you first go on staff for any entity associated with Scientology?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, asked and answered.

MR. BENZ: I believe that was covered.

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


asked when he went on staff.

MS. BARTILSON: Yes, you did. You asked when he was first employed by any church. That was the question; you got an answer.

MR. BENZ: Is there some differentiation? Are you attempting to draw, Mr. Greene, some difference between being on staff and being an employee or working for Scientology or any of its branches?

MR. GREENE: I'm trying to find out if this witness draws any distinction between that. I want to know.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Do you draw any difference between when you were first an employee for Scientology and what you mean when you say that you're on staff?

A. Those mean the same thing to me.

Q. When you first started working for Scientology you went on staff for Scientology, right?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection to your use of the word Scientology. It's vague and ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: I was on staff part time in Riverside Mission.

MR. GREENE: Q. Now are you familiar -- rather, did you ever execute any document entitled Declaration of Religious Commitment and Application for Participation on


Church staff?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance.

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

MR. GREENE: The relevance has to do with the extent to which this witness would be expected to and himself personally would adhere to senior orders.

MS. BARTILSON: I still object to relevancy. He hasn't testified he did anything. You haven't produced any connection that this particular witness has done anything to anyone on anybody's order.

MR. GREENE: I don't need to.

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

MR. BENZ: I agree with that and there has been -- if he did do anything there's been no claim that I know of so far that he did it against the orders of someone else. So until we have some foundation that makes it relevant as to whether or not he's committed the following orders, we need something that says that he didn't follow an order.

MR. GREENE: Could you say that again?

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

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

(Record read back.)

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


was an order from a superior.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark this next document as Defendant's number ten. It's a document two pages long entitled suppressive Person Declare, Gerry Armstrong.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to Defendant's number ten, have you seen that document before?

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

Q. Do you know what a suppressive person is?

A: I know what a suppressive person is.

Q. A suppressive person has a particular meaning within Scientology's lexicon, doesn't it?

A. Yes, it's the equivalent in the Roman Catholic Church of being excommunicated.

Q. I move that the last comment be stricken. There is absolutely no standing that this witness is an expert on religion of the Catholic Church or anything else and that was not responsive.

MS. BARTILSON: I think it was.

MR. BENZ: Could you read the question back, please?

(Record read back.)

MR. BENZ: The motion to strike will be denied


and he did answer the question. In my mind it's a general reference. You do not have to have technical detail of the Church to compare it with something that's generally known to the public.

MR. GREENE: Q. Now a suppressive person declare is made in consequence of what's called Scientology ethics; isn't that right?

A. Not precisely, no.

Q. How about generally?

A. How about still no?

Q. You are telling me that a suppressive person declare has nothing to do whatsoever with Scientology ethics?

A. It's a justice action.

Q. It's a justice action and justice actions have to do with breaches of Scientology ethics; isn't that right?

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

MR. BENZ: I'm sorry?

THE WITNESS: I said the subject is ethics and justice. It's a justice action, just so we're being accurate here.

MR. GREENE: Q. So when somebody is designated a suppressive person that designation can be the result of


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

A. That's correct.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark this next exhibit as 11 and it is a document entitled Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

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

MR. GREENE: Q. Looking at what's been marked as Defendant's 11, which is a photocopy of a book entitled Introduction to Scientology Ethics, have you ever seen this before?

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

Q. It may not be, but have you ever seen a publication of the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics?

A. I have seen a publication of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

Q. Are you familiar with the concept of the anti-social personality?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it true that somebody who's designated a suppressive person is considered in Scientology to be one who is of an anti-social personality?

A. No, not necessarily.


Q. But that can be true, right?

A. It's an incomplete answer. I mean -- (Directed to Ms. Bartilson) Excuse me? The book is not complete? I'm saying his question is not complete.

MS. BARTILSON: I apologize, I was looking at the book.

THE WITNESS: Not necessarily, it isn't necessarily the case. One could be declared a suppressive person for committing offenses the severity of which warrant that. Whether as a spiritual matter they are a dyed-in-the-wool anti-social personality from the get-go is actually a separate question.

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

THE WITNESS: Hang on, Ford, before you do that, Ms. Bartilson points out --

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

A. Hang on a second. First, it's not the current version of the book and now it may not be complete. This renders the usefulness of this exhibit to you to nil. If you want that, that's fine.

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

THE WITNESS: It's not the present time document. Fine, as you wish.


MR. GREENE: Q. I would like to mark Exhibit 12, which is a packet of documents that's entitled Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, HCO Policy Letter of 23 December 1965, revised 8 January '91.

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

(Brief recess.)

MR. GREENE: Back on the record.

Q. Now, Mr. Farny, I want to direct your attention again back to Exhibit number ten, which is the Suppressive Person Declare for Gerry Armstrong. In 1982 you were posted within CSC, Church of Scientology of California?

A. That's correct.

Q. In 1982 CSC sued Gerald Armstrong, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware in 1982, were you not, that Gerald Armstrong had been declared a suppressive person?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Exhibit number ten purports to be a Suppressive Person Declare with reference to Gerry Armstrong, right?

A. This is what it purports to be, but I can't authenticate it because I can't remember what is said at the time.

Q. Reviewing Exhibit ten is there anything about it


which would lead you to conclude that document is not genuine?

A. It's words on a piece of paper. I have some knowledge that I don't presently have. I wouldn't be able to tell one way or the other.

Q. You are well familiar with Gerald Armstrong's matters regarding Scientology, are you not?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous to the extent that it seeks knowledge that Mr. Farny may have gained as a legal employee of the Church dealing with attorneys. May also call for attorney-client privilege.

THE WITNESS: It's broad.

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

MR: BENZ: I'll overrule the objection and you might rephrase it. The term well-acquainted might be a little ambiguous. Acquainted would certainly be a proper question.

THE WITNESS: "Matters" is a little broad without some sort of definition.

MR. GREENE: Q. Starting with your employment in the legal department of CSC, you actively followed the events regarding the Armstrong litigation, didn't you?

A. Sure, that's a fair statement.

MR. WALTON: I'm sorry, Mr. Farny, I can't hear you.


THE WITNESS: I said sure, that's a fair statement, yeah.

MR. GREENE: Q. And during the course of your employment by CSC you came to the conclusion that Mr. Armstrong had stolen private documents belonging to L. Ron Hubbard, right?

A. Yes, I came to that conclusion.

Now this is -- I just have a question now, if I can ask a question, because I'm here for CSI now and you're asking questions of me personally from prior to when I worked at CSI. I don't necessarily have a problem answering them; I'm wondering in which capacity I'm answering them.

Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit ten, there are 18 items that are enumerated, right?

A. I see that.

Q. The first one is theft, right?

A. That's what is says.

Q. And the second one is illegally taking or possessing Church property, right?

A. That's what is says.

Q. And those were things that Scientology had concluded, according to your understanding, Armstrong had done, right?

A. The entire religion concluded that?


Q. Leaders within scientology?

A. That's a fair statement.

Q. Looking at that list one through 18, would you tell me whether or not, based on your knowledge, there's anything enumerated there which the Scientology leadership in 1982 did not believe Armstrong to have been guilty of according to your understanding?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, vague and ambiguous; calls for speculation as to the viewpoint or understanding of persons other than Mr. Farny at a time when Mr. Farny said he didn't even work for CSI but was employed by CSC concerning a document that was apparently issued by CSI; asking about, speculatively, about the mental state of unspecified and unnamed, quote, "leaders," quote unquote. I don't think it's a question he can answer.

MR. BENZ: Perhaps you can clarify it a little bit, Mr. Greene?


Q. Was it your understanding when you were working on Armstrong litigation matters for CSC that Gerald Armstrong had resold org material for private gain?

A. I seem to have a recollection from around that time period of an effort to sell some photographs that I believe may have been Church property, but I'm just not sure.


Q. Same question with respect to impersonating a Scientologist or staff member when not authorized.

A. I don't remember, but I would assume that those who issued this and those who had approved it had a good faith basis on which to include all of these, and absent any evidence to the contrary would retain that assumption, if indeed this does represent this because we still got the problem with the document itself.

Q. You would be able to go back in CSI's archives now and determine whether or not this document was genuine, wouldn't you?

A. Yeah, of course I would.

Q. Because this document was published on behalf of CSI, according to what it says at the end?

A. Yes, and I do recall there being a Suppressive Person Declare issued and I would be able to go back and find it.

Q. Did Gerald Armstrong ever work for CSI?

A. Yes, I believe he did because CSI went into operation on the 10th of December and all the staff at CSC who were to be in the management area which is the archives area he worked for would have switched over. So unless he was working for -- Strike that. I believe that's the case, but...

Q. That's December 10th, 1981?


A. Yes, 1981 up until the time he left at the end of the year, although I don't have any personal knowledge as to his employment at that point.

Q. When Gerald left Scientology were you posted in the Guardian's Office?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. So with respect to Exhibit ten, you could determine for us whether or not this is an accurate exhibit by checking the CSI archives?

A. I think I can do one better; I think we produced the Suppressive Person Declare on Gerry Armstrong in this litigation.

MS. BARTILSON: And you should have a Bates-stamped copy.

MR. WALTON: Speaking of which, did you determine when that production was sent to me?

MS. BARTILSON: I have not. I have not been back to my office yet. It's in Los Angeles. I'll check tomorrow.

MR. GREENE: I'd like to mark this next document as Exhibit 13.

(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit 13 was marked for identification.)

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit 13, which is entitled Suppresive Persons and


Suppressive Group List, would you review that, please?

A. I obviously have not read every word. The attachment is in very small writing in multiple columns for several pages, but I glanced over it.

Q. Have you seen this document before?

A. I believe so.

Q. This document appears to you to be accurate, doesn't it?

A. Accurate compared to what? It appears to be what

it says, but I don't know on this list attached whether -- I have to compare it to the one in the files to be totally accurate.

Q. Directing your attention to page number four where there's a section that says "declared suppressive persons"?

A. Declared suppressive persons, yes.

Q. See where Gerry Armstrong is listed there in the second column?

A. Yes.

Q. To the best of your knowledge, Gerald Armstrong in 1992 was considered to be a suppressive person by Scientology; isn't that right?

A. Again, the imprecise use of Scientology.

Q. Gerald Armstrong was considered by the Scientology religion to be a suppressive person, wasn't



A. I don't want to play word games. That's what his status is to this day with regard to the Scientology religion.

Q. That's right, and his status as an SP has been ever since 1982; isn't that right?

A. That seems right, yeah.

Q. How often are suppressive persons and suppressive group lists published?

A. I'm not certain. Periodically, and no, I don't know if one was published since 1992.

Q. Now directing your attention to Exhibit number 12 --

MS. BARTILSON: Can I get a copy?

THE WITNESS: I flipped through it.

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to the top of the first page, the actual HCO PL indicates that it was revised on January 8, 1991?

A. That's what it says.

Q. To your knowledge that's when the green volumes were revised, right or not?

A. I'm not certain exactly when in '91 they were revised.

Q. Now directing your attention to the bottom of the page where it says, "A suppressive person or a group


is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts," do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that definition of a suppressive person that which you currently hold?

A. Yes.

Q. That definition of a suppressive person or group has not changed over the time that you have been involved in Scientology in general, has it?

A. It's essentially the same concept, yes.

Q. Now directing your attention to the next item where it says in capital letter "Suppressive Acts are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter," that definition of suppressive acts is that which you currently hold, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. That definition has also essentially remained the same throughout your affiliation with Scientology; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now turning the page and under the section entitled Suppressive Acts, again it says, quote, "Suppressive acts are defined as actions or omissions


undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists," close quote. That further definition of suppressive acts is that which you currently hold, isn't it?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. That has not changed either during the time that you have been affiliated with Scientology, has it?

A. It's remained essentially the same.

MR. WALTON: Sorry, I didn't hear you.

THE WITNESS: It's remained essentially the same, yes.

MR. GREENE: Q. Turning the page it indicates that falsifying records is a suppressive act?

A. The very next page? Oh, I see it there, yes.

Q. Falsifying records is an accurate suppressive act according to your current understanding, right?

A. Accurate suppressive act?

Q. Sorry, let me be more articulate.

Isn't it true that according to your understanding of what a suppressive act can be that falsifying records is one such act?

A. Yes.

Q. I want to go through and specify certain items here, or perhaps if you would be willing to tell me that you adopt what is stated on this exhibit without


exception, and I want you to read it --

A. I have to read the whole thing. Focus on a specific --

Q. I'll focus on a specific --

MS. BARTILSON: Let me interpose an objection here or maybe it's a question for clarification.

Are you asking this witness for his personal understanding and his personal viewpoint as to whether or not each of these different things are suppressive acts to him or are you asking him if the corporation has adopted the policy?

MR. GREENE: That's a very good distinction and I'll ask him both.

MS. BARTILSON: If you are going to ask him personally for his personal opinion, then I'm going to object and ask for a ruling that he not answer that.

If you want to ask whether the corporation has adopted this as a policy and follows it you are perfectly welcome to ask it. I don't believe either one is relevant, but I'll object on privacy grounds to this individual's viewpoint of what is and is not a suppressive act.

MR. GREENE: Q. Directing your attention to the next item that says --

MS. BARTILSON: Can we have a ruling?


MR. BENZ: Well, in the first place, suppressive acts are defined by Scientology so I don't know that the witness has a particularly individual attitude that would be divergent with what Scientology, the way Scientology defines it. If he does, let's get to it at this point, but I seriously doubt that he does. So I ask what you will be asking and what he will be answering will be the viewpoint of SCI, or whatever.


MR. BENZ: Right. Too many initials.

MS. BARTILSON: All right. Then I'll object again on relevance. I don't see how this is at all relevant. Continue.

MR. GREENE: Q. From the point of view --

MR. BENZ: We'll overrule that one.

MR. GREENE: Q. CSI's official position with respect to its technology as it's referenced in Exhibit 12, isn't it true that testifying against Scientology falsely or in generalities or without personal matters, personal knowledge about the matters that one testifies to constitutes a suppressive act?

A. Are you reading from this?

Q. Yes. That was not a totally word-for-word.

A. Because the last one on the list you gave testified about matters you do not have personal knowledge


of, I would say no because several of your questions have elicited in hearsay statements from me and those certainly would be suppressive acts. But testifying in a manner falsely and with the intention of destroying Scientology would, yes, be a suppressive act.

Q. Let me just direct your attention specifically to the item that's right underneath falsifying records.

A. Right. I got you what you are saying.

Q. Now with respect to that which says "Testifying or giving data against Scientology falsely or in generalities or without personal knowledge of the matters to which one testifies," that constitutes a suppressive act, doesn't it?

A. If the testimony fits within the more embracive definition of being an act undertaken knowingly to suppress, impede or destroy Scientology as it says at the beginning of this list, yes, it would be.

Q. Now going down the column to where it says "Issuing alter-ised Scientology technical data or information or instructional or admin procedures calling it Scientology or calling it something else to confuse or deceive people as to the true source, beliefs and practices of Scientology," with respect to that that constitutes a suppressive act, does it not?

A. Certainly, again within the overall embracive


definition at the beginning.

Q. With the overall embracive definition that a suppressive act is calculated to impede, reduce or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist?

A. Correct, and the answer to your question is yes, this one would be.

Q. Going to the broader definition of what a suppressive act is, when reference is made to impeding, reducing or destroying, what such impeding, reducing or destroying refers to is the advancement of an individual in Scientology or any Scientology organization generally; isn't that fair to say?

A. You lost me halfway through it.

Q. I'll try it again.

A. Let's do it again.

Q. A suppressive person definition talks about impeding, reducing or destroying a Scientologist or Scientology.

A. That's right.

Q. Right?

A. Right.

Q. What my question is is isn't what those -- it's a diminishing kind of concept, right?

A. No, impeding, reducing and destroying seems to get more severe.


Q. They get more severe but they're talking about diminishing a person's involvement in Scientology or the breath of Scientology's influence; isn't that fair?

A. That's not complete. If you shoot somebody in the head that's murder; that's a suppressive act. That's not necessarily directed towards his participation in Scientology. It's his participation in life. That would be a suppressive act. That's destroying a Scientologist at their work.

Q. Included within the definition of suppressive

acts, not complete but included within, the discussion of suppression reducing or impeding Scientology or a Scientologist can refer to the advancement of a person in Scientology, right?

A. Yes, it can. It's included in that.

Q. And also included within that definition is the advancement of Scientology generally, right?

A. It's included within it.

Q. So now going back to the list there --

A. Which one?

Q. The next one after "Issuing alter-ised."

A. The court reporter is not going to be able to tell the difference.

A. Yes, correct, the one after, "Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology."


Q. That's a suppressive act?

A. That's right. Relating back to what I said earlier, it would not include picking up a Dianetics book off the bookshelf.

Q. Right, you don't need permission to do that, but if I were to take one of these green volumes and go out and start advertising and open up shop, then that would fall within the scope of being a suppressive act, right?

A. Sure.

Q. And that also would be acting as what Scientology calls a squirrel, right?

A. Yes, that would be squirreling.

Q. That would be squirreling?

A. Yeah.

Q. Now going down five categories further where it says, "Developing and/or using squirrel processes and checksheets," that's considered to be a suppressive act; is that right?

A. That's right, though it wouldn't apply to all checksheets because there's another policy that allows an individual to compile his own checksheet for his post, and that policy is approved by the LRH Communicator. That's the difficulty of taking one or two sentence out of millions of words.

Q. I appreciate your educating me.


Now isn't it true that the reason that squirreling is suppressive is because the act of squirreling detracts from the potential that Scientology has to advance and develop as to those people that are distracted by such squirreling?

A. I wouldn't say that's precise.

Q. It may not be precise but I'm not a Scientologist.

A. I recognize that.

Q. How about am I in the ballpark?

A. How about this: Because it stems from our belief that Scientology should be applied to an individual exactly as L. Ron Hubbard wrote it so the individual can maximize their own spiritual awareness. Doing what this thing says here is destructive to the individual's spiritual advancement and it's for that reason.

Q. Now the next item following that where it says, "Knowingly giving testimony that is false, a generality or not based on personal knowledge to imperil a Scientologist."

A. Yes, I see that one.

Q. That also would be a suppressive act, right?

A. Yes, it would be.

Q. Then the next one where it says, "Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good


standing with Scientology organizations," that's a suppressive act, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Then the one following that where it says, "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened," that type of conduct, too, is considered to be suppressive activity to Scientology, right?

A. Would depend on the severity of the statements, but, yes, it is on the list; it would be considered suppressive.

Q. These items we're talking about here, these all are a matter of ecclesiastical concern to Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So all these matters that we've been talking about here under the category of Suppressive Acts really fall within the exclusive domain of the ecclesiastical concern of Scientology, right?

A. Some of them also overlap into the State because you have your garden variety felonies are also on the list, but the ones that don't, the ones that specifically pertain to ecclesiastical offenses are the exclusive purview of the ecclesiastical authority to adjudicate this.


Q. When we go to the next item, which says, quote, "Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rule or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology," that, too, would be considered a suppressive act, right?

A. Yes, it would.

Q. That would be in the blend zone?

A. I don't know that that would be in the blend zone because in this country to do that would violate the First Amendment, but I don't think it would amount to criminal liability. I was thinking of theft or arson or murder.

Q. Rape, assault, robbery?

A. Right, those things are things that would be, one, suppressive acts and, two, they would be criminal offenses, as well.

Q. That's different. I was misunderstanding.

Going on to the next item where it says "Pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology," that would be a suppressive act, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So educate me about that a little bit, if you would. As I read it what that says is that if someone makes reference to another being a Scientologist in a


pejorative way, would that fall within the scope of this?

Is that what it means when it says "Pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology"?

A. No, that's not what it refers to.

Q. What does it mean?

A. What it refers to is -- I'm trying to think of an example.

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to object on the basis of relevance. It's far afield and I don't see what on earth that has to do with this.

Go ahead and answer the question, it's Mr. Greene's deposition.

THE WITNESS: Say an individual was a trustee of a university and opponents within that university made an issue of the fact he was a Scientologist and then called for his resignation as being unfit, not of moral character to be on the board of the university simply on the basis of being a Scientologist, that would fit.

MR. GREENE: Q. That's a better definition of the inarticulate concept I was trying to express.

Okay, let's turn the page. Quote, "Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it," close quote. That would constitute a suppressive act, right?


A. Yes, it would.

Q. Now hostilely, what that means in the context of this particular suppressive act is not in support of Scientology; is that right?

A. Not exclusively. That limits it too much.

Q. Hold on, let me just -- let me do it. I'm not trying to limit it. Included within the definition hostilely would be someone testifying who would not be supportive of Scientology and trying to suppress it right?

A. Well, not supportive could be neutral. It has to be hostile which to me means communicates an act of attack to try to suppress. That's much different than just neutral.

Q. So then hostilely in your view would have to do with the person's motivation and intent with respect to the testimony, right?

A. That and how he gives the testimony. If he colors everything to paint things in the worst possible light so as to suppress it, as in the last clause of the sentence, I would say that something like that fits. If they were just up there telling it like it is, that's different.

Q. So then someone who would be testifying hostilely in order to suppress Scientology, that would also be included if that person would be adverse or


against Scientology, right?

A. It's implicit in their hostility they are not in favor of us.

Q. So then in terms of people not being in favor of you, as you see it, kind of the realms of possibility would be is that somebody would be in favor of you -- when I say "you" I'm speaking of Scientology generically as we are discussing -- this somebody would either be in favor of or neutral or against; those are like the three areas?

A. I'd have four areas arbitrarily divided into four people. I would have in favor, neutral, the third one perhaps having a negative opinion but just having a negative opinion; and then someone actively going out to take proactive measures on their part to destroy Scientology. And the fourth category would be the suppressive act, if they did something to forward that.

Obviously if they've never been a Scientologist they wouldn't recognize the authority of the Mother Church to complain about them having done so.

Q. You can have somebody who's a suppressive person who's never been a Scientologist, can't you?

A. Certainly you can. Of course.

Q. Let's go on to the next item that defines a suppressive act, quote, "Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities


in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology."

A. That's what it says, yes.

Q. And that's a suppressive act within the purview of Scientology, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So then would you include within the scope of that definition someone who would say that Scientology's process of auditing is brainwashing?

A. It would certainly be an indicator to me that they're actively hostile because it is the farthest thing from brainwashing, so, yes.

Q. The next item states, quote, "Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist including the non-payment of bills or failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief."

A. That's correct.

Q. So according to that definition, unless I'm wrong, doesn't it mean that anyone who brought a claim against Scientology would be considered to have engaged in a suppressive act in court, a claim in court?

A. Unless they call the attention of the matter to the International Justice Chief and received a reply.

Q. See, that's what's got me a little bit confused.


A. Let me give an example, then.

Q. Let me try to get my own confusion straight. It talks first about bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist, comma, and then says, "including," and then "without first calling the matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief and receiving a reply."

A. You dropped an entire phrase between the commas.

Q. Right, "non-payment of bills, failure to "refund," which is not -- that's included, it's not limited to that; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. That's why I dropped it.

A: You said "comma; including," without first calling.

Q. I forgot to put the dot dot dot.

A. All right.

Q. So according to this particular category is it necessary that for one not to be characterized or designated as having engaged in a suppressive act to first bring whatever that person's complaint is to the attention of the IJC and getting a response?

A. Absolutely. For a Scientologist that's absolutely required because we have our own internal justice procedure to assist them to resolve the dispute.


If after having done so there's no other resolution but to seek recourse in a court, fine, then that's the resolution.

Q. Now skipping down one where it says, "Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist data to the press," that is considered to be a suppressive act for one to do that, right?

A. Yes, of course it is. Whether it would warrant a suppressive person declare would be how much, to whom and how often and the degree of the conduct. But doing that, certainly.

Q. And the individual who would make the determination whether or not the severity and; quantity of such conduct would merit an SP declare would be the International Justice Chief?

A. Or a duly convened body of evidence would make a recommendation and based on that recommendation the International Justice Chief would decide.

Q. The next item says, "Continued membership in a divergent group." A divergent group, does that mean a squirrel group?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it mean any other kind of group besides a squirrel group?


A. No, that's what it means.

Q. So, then, the Cult Awareness Network would not be

considered to be a divergent group?

A. No, it's not a divergent group because it hasn't diverged from the path offered by Scientology. It is a religious hate group, an anti-religious hate group, but it is not a divergent group of Scientology.

Q. So the salient word there is divergent and that means -- someone who strays from the path or actually a group that has strayed from Scientology's path, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So that would include like the Advanced Ability Center, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now the next item states, quote, "Continuous adherence to a person or group pronounced a suppressive person or group by HCO," which means Hubbard Communication Office; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that considered by CSI to be a suppressive act?

A. Yep.

Q. Now the Cult Awareness Network is considered to be a suppressive group by CSI, isn't it?

A. Yes.


Q. And CSI has considered the Cult Awareness Network to be a suppressive group to your knowledge since when?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, relevance.

It's four o'clock, Mr. Greene. How much longer do you intend to tread down this path?

MR. GREENE: You can see there's lot more left of this exhibit.

MS. BARTILSON: It's four o'clock. I'm going to ask that we go for maybe another five or ten minutes and adjourn and we can reconvene at some later time.

This matter on cult awareness I object to.

THE WITNESS: That's a difficult question, you see, because the information they represented to the Internal Revenue Service in order to obtain a tax exemption speaks of an organization that would not be suppressive. So had they actually done that, and I'm aware of individual Scientologists that sought membership in the Cult Awareness Network so as to attempt to get that group to do just what it said in its application to the IRS it would do.

So the period of correction of the situation has to be taken into account just like continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a suppressive person or group by HCO, there's an allowance for a period of correction.


So I would modify my answer with that statement.

MR. GREENE: Q. Let me see if I got you right, then. What you are saying is there is a period of time where Scientologists attempt to become involved in the Cult Awareness Network for the purpose of assisting the Cult Awareness Network to see it change the error of their ways, right?

A. Reorient themselves back to what they stated is their original purpose that they had not rescinded or rearticulated into something else.

Q. And the Cult Awareness Network's failure to allow that to happen is part of what confirmed the propriety of designating the Cult Awareness Network as a suppressive group, right?

A. I don't know if they have been so designated. We may have been asked to consider that they be.

Q. Or consider, okay. Strike designation and just put consider.

A. Their conduct since that activity began certainly has been suppressive in my view, yes.

Q. And so part of their conduct specifically that was suppressive was the unwillingness to accept input from Scientologists that the intent of which was to bring the Cult Awareness Network back to their original purpose, right, as part of the consideration?


A. Perhaps. I think majorly the consideration I think would be that they engage in deprogramming which conduct is illegal.

Q. They do more than that. They also provide information to the press about Scientology that's adverse to Scientology; is that right?

A. They conduct black propaganda campaigns on a number of religions including Scientology.

Q. And that would constitute a suppressive act in the purview of what we're discussing in Exhibit 12?

A. Certainly.

Are we going to go through all of them or just selected ones?

MS. BARTILSON: I'm going to raise a continuing objection. I think we're pretty far afield. I think certainly the way this is -- you identified the document; it's a document of the organization. To go through it line by line asking him to read it and ask if he agrees it's a suppressive act surely serves no purpose to this point.

MR. BENZ: Is there any question in anyone's mind that this lists suppressive acts?

THE WITNESS: The only question I have is whether or not -- and I'll say it whether or not inadvertently because it's a fax and because it's a


smaller format than the book was published in, whether something has been inadvertently chopped at the top or bottom. And you can see that by comparing the end of one page to the beginning of the next. I have no idea; I have not bothered to do that. But otherwise, it does appear to be accurate.

MR. BENZ: So if you have a question on a definition of a particular --

MR. GREENE: That's what I'm doing. It just so happens that this page is the ugly page and I have a lot of questions about it. You can see the other pages, they don't have so much --

MR. BENZ: A number of questions here have been primarily to read what's written here and ask the witness if that's considered a suppressive act.

MR. WALTON: If you recall there was an objection when I was trying to go through the underlying Complaint and the objection was that I was just reading and asking confirmation. And I think on two occasions we got someone to say -- I think one of the attorneys said or the witness said something like We will agree that it's accurate; we will agree that it says, since it's verified, that it's accurate. But by going through it line by line we did find a 100,000-dollar error. And $100,000 may not sound like a lot when you're talking about 3.8. So I


think --

MR. BENZ: Well, I'm not foreclosing going

through it and asking specific questions. For example, you asked a specific question and got an additional answer when you asked for the definition of a divergent group.

However, just going through the list itself and asking is it or isn't it, I think you have established that these are suppressive acts. If you need further definition of something, fine.

MS. BARTILSON: I'm also going to, if I may, put on the record a continuing objection to relevance. I think it's harassing the witness. I don't think it has anything to do with this case or any defense Gerry raised to go through this and ask questions about what does this suppressive act mean. There's been no demonstration it has anything to do with the case.

I for one am intending to shut down and say good-bye at 4:15. You are warned.

MR. BENZ: The objection is noted and it has not been tied in to this case. We do have an exhibit where Mr. Armstrong in 1982 was listed as a -- I forget the terminology.

MR. GREENE: Suppressive person. And in 1992.

MR. BENZ: So to the extent that's background for something that's coming I have not ruled it out. So


we're still talking about the suppressive part, but I understand the objection and it's approaching that because it's been tied in.

MR. GREENE: Q. In the middle of the page there's an item that says "Being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons," would the scope of anti-Scientology persons include persons who are in litigation with Scientology?

A. Persons, corporate as well as real?

Q. Sure.

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Persons real?

A. Yes. The exclusion I was thinking of was the United States government.

Q. Now --

A. Wait a minute, I also want to go back a little bit to bit to that one. "At the hire" seems to me it's not merely employment, but there's a connotation that while in Scientology you are actually working for one of these anti-Scientology persons or groups. That's what "at the hire" means, it seems to me. If that's the case, then I would expand it to just a yes answer.

Q Would it include, for example, Gerry Armstrong being employed as an expert witness on behalf of persons prosecuting a complaint against Scientology?


A. And he's testifying in --

Q. On their behalf.

A. Giving testimony towards supporting their case, not just objectively giving descriptions of Scientology?

Q. As an expert witness.

A. Yes.

Q. In your use of the term "suppress," do you include with it curtailing Scientology activities?

A. Probably.

Q. Is there any reason why you are hedging and just can't say yes?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that?

A. Perhaps it is the particular activity the Church wishes to curtail at that moment.

Q. Assuming the Church did not so wish?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Would you include in the meaning of suppress to withhold Scientology from the public?

A. Generally yes, I would.

Q. Would you include within the meaning of suppress conduct that would result in the public having a negative view of Scientology?

A. If that was the intent of the conduct was to create that negative view, yeah; otherwise, it could just


be an error that resulted in -- may have resulted from misinformation.

Q. In your view is Scientology technology infallible?

MS. BARTILSON: Objection, calls for the personal religious beliefs of this witness and it's irrelevant. I'm raising a privacy objection.

MR. GREENE: Q. Is it the view of CSI?

A. CSI's view is it's a--workable technology.

Q. And is it CSI's view that if the technology doesn't work it's not because of a flaw that lies with the technology but there's something, there's a flaw in the person who's not getting the results?

A. No, that's not our view. There could be a flaw in the person that's applying the technology and the manner they're applying it, as well. What I got from your question is is the person who's receiving the Scientology services and the flaw would lie in them. That's not correct.

Q. Assuming it's standard tech being standardly applied and the person was not getting the anticipated benefits or gains, would then the cause of that inability be within the person receiving the services?

A. My assumption is if the person isn't receiving the gains there has been some misapplication of the


standard of technology somewhere or some unwilling participation in the person receiving it. Whether it's some problem that's not necessarily of their own manufacture, or whatever, but there is something wrong and an effort would be made to find out what that is and correct it so the person could have benefits of it. If it merely is the person isn't interested and doesn't agree that's fine, that's their view; that would be where the error would be in that instance.

Q. One of the reasons why a person may not be getting the gains that otherwise would be anticipated could be a connection to a suppressive person or group, right?

A. It could be because of the pressure brought to bear on them by the suppressive person or group because of their connection.

Q. Because of their connection to Scientology?

A. Scientology.

Q. On one hand, and connection to the suppressive person or group on the other?

A. They can't sit on the fence; they have to make a decision, go with this group or go with that group. They can later change their decision and go from one to the other, but sitting on the fence they're not being a part of either group. They should make a decision one way or


the other.

Q. Now going back to definitions of suppressive acts, you have described to us today some of your ecclesiastical duties as I think its litigation secretary, but I may have it wrong.

A. That was several years ago. CSI litigation handling officer.

Q. CSI litigation handling officer. A severe breach of those duties that resulted in severe harm, loss or disrepute for Scientology could be considered a suppressive act?

A. A severe mal breach could, yes.

Q. Such a severe breach would be constituted by their refusal to comply with an important order, couldn't it?

A. You are getting too ethereal and hypothetical. I have no idea.

Q. Now on the list here it talks about suppressive acts as receiving money, favors or encouragement to suppress Scientology or Scientologists, and I want to direct your attention towards the term encouragement.

The way that I read that is that someone who thinks that Scientology is bad and wants to communicate that to other people and receives encouragement for those efforts, that constitutes, the act of actually receiving


the encouragement, that is considered to be a suppressive act, also; is that a fair statement?

A. No, it's too limiting. I think what that is meant to encompass is some sort of -- I can't come up with anything other than encouragement -- but some other sort of remuneration or favor in exchange for suppressing Scientology. And I can see examples where what the person receives to suppress it would be something other than a particular favor or money.

Q. How about just praise, ego gratification from praise?

A. Undoubtly in that circumstance the individual would be committing other suppressive acts because receiving money, favors or encouragement has to be to suppress Scientology or Scientologists.

Q. So if somebody is suppressing Scientology and getting patted on the back, the fact they got their back out there to get the pats, that constitutes a suppressive act, right?

A. Depends on what they did to warrant the pat on the back.

Q. Exactly. It's a different angle of the overall idea of acting suppressively with respect to Scientology in particular.

A. It's a different angle but I don't think you are


going to find one without one or more of the other just in the real world.

MS. BARTILSON: Mr. Greene, it's getting to be that time.

MR. GREENE: Let's get a resumption date here.

(Discussion off the record.)

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

What we've been discussing and now are in agreement with respect to is that the deposition of the
witness will continue and recommence at ten o'clock on July 26th.

MS. BARTILSON: Hold on just a minute, Ford, I actually have a problem with the 27th.

MR. GREENE: Let's go off the record.

MS. BARTILSON: Never mind, I'll find somebody to cover on the 27th.

MR. GREENE: So this deposition will recommence at ten o'clock here on July 26th and proceed on the 27th
with plaintiff objecting to it proceeding any further than the 27th and Armstrong not acquiescing that objection.

MR. WALTON: I'm not waiving any.

MR. GREENE: In light of the fact that Armstrong has got to file a -- the parties have to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on or before the 28th of July in order to be in compliance with statutory times for service, what


we've agreed to is that, number one, we'll clear with Judge Thomas a date for the hearing of summary judgments of August 26th, that such motions are to be filed no later than August 8th with personal or fax service.

MS. BARTILSON: Personal and fax service.

MR. GREENE: Personal and fax. That the opposition thereto will be served in the same manner on the 18th of August and any reply on the 23rd. Of course, this is subject to Judge Thomas's approval.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: Does that have your agreement, Counsel?


Now for reading and signing.

MR. WALTON: It has changed in the sense it can be faxed to both San Francisco and Los Angeles now?

MS. BARTILSON: If you want to fax all the exhibits, fax service includes all of the exhibits.

MR. GREENE: Now as to reading and signing, let's go off the record again.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: The arrangement that we have agreed to with respect to the reading, correction and signing of Mr. Farny's deposition will be as follows: One, that


Mr. Farny's review may be conducted from a copy of the deposition on a session-by-session basis with said copy being mailed to Ms. Bartilson and with the 30 day review period commencing on the date of mailing as reflected by the postmark.

Two, for Summary Judgment purposes if Mr. Farny's corrections have not been made prior to the filing of the motion, notwithstanding the absence of correction and signing, plaintiffs may nonetheless use Mr. Farny's deposition transcript provided, however, that Mr. Farny retains the right to make his corrections for such portions of the transcript in conjunction with CSI's filing of its opposition, right?

THE WITNESS: But you said "plaintiff" rather than "defendant," but otherwise it's very good.

MS. BARTILSON: With that change, so stipulated.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. GREENE: What you want from Ms. Bartilson is a date when I will receive production of the supplemental production of documents in this case. You asked for time; I gave you time. You represented to me that those documents would be forthcoming fast week. They weren't.

MS. BARTILSON: It's true, they didn't make it out last week.

MR. GREENE: I understand that. What I want is


a date certain when I can expect to receive them from you.

MS. BARTILSON: Okay, Friday.

MR. GREENE: The day after today? This Friday of this week?

MS. BARTILSON: Friday of this week.

MR. GREENE: I will have receipt of them at that point?

MS. BARTILSON: I will mail them that Friday.

MR. GREENE: That's what you told me before.

What I would like, if you would ensure that I receive them no later than next Saturday. That means putting them in the mail overnight Federal Express, or whatever it takes so they're in my office next Saturday.

MS. BARTILSON: I will mail them to you on Friday and you can get them by Monday, how's that?

MR. GREENE: No, it's not. You said you would serve them and I have accommodated you, Ms. Bartilson, and I would ask you to please ensure that you serve them so we have them by Saturday and can use the weekend to work.

MS. BARTILSON: I will certainly do my best to get them to your office next Saturday. I cannot promise they'll arrive there. I will do my best.

MR. GREENE: Off the record.


(Whereupon the deposition was adjourned at 4:48 p.m.)






I, PENNY L. GILMORE, duly authorized to administer oaths pursuant to Section 8211 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, do hereby certify that LYNN ROBERT FARNY, the witness in the foregoing deposition, was by me duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and place herein stated, that the testimony of said witness was reported by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and a disinterested person, and was thereafter transcribed into computer-assisted transcription under my directon.

I futher certify that I am not of counsel or attorney for either or any of the parties in the foregoing depositon and caption named, nor in any way interested in the outcome of the cause named in said caption.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of August 1994.



I hereby certify this copy is a true and exact copy of the Original.

[signed Penny L. Gilmore]



Certified Shorthand Reporters
P.O. Box 862
Ross, California 94957

August 8, 1994

Mr. Lynn R. Farny
c/o Laurie J. Bartilson, Esq.


Dear Mr. Farny:

Your deposition in the above-entitled matter taken on July 11 and 12, 1994 is ready for you to read, correct and sign in this office by appointment.

The original transcript will be held in this office for 30 days from the date of this letter unless otherwise ordered.

In the event you have not reviewed your deposition within the 30 days or by the trial date, whichever is sooner, the original transcript will be sealed pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure 2025(s)(1) and delivered to the attorney who noticed the deposition.

Very truly yours,

cc: Original transcript
All counsel