I, MICHAEL J. FLYNN, hereby state and declare as follows:

1) I am an attorney and a member of the Massachusetts Bar. Since 1979 I have represented numerous individuals involved in litigation with the Church of Scientology, including Paulette Cooper, LaVenda Van Schaick, Gerald Armstrong and others.

2) LaVenda Van Schaick was my first Scientology client. Her complaint included claims for fraud, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Federal RICO Statute and other claims. There is little doubt that LaVenda was a victim of Scientology and was the subject of substantial Scientology harassment. Nonetheless, she was a difficult client to represent for several reasons. First, she had a highly selective memory. She seemed to remember only what she wanted to and we had a difficult time obtaining the full story from her. She is also prone to exaggeration and distortion. In researching her tort claims, we sometimes found out that what actually occurred was the exact opposite of what she told us.

3) LaVenda's emotional state was also very delicate. Although she had suffered serious Scientology harassment, she believed that everything bad that had happened to her since she

1

left the organization was attributable to Scientology agents. She was very emotional and prone to breaking down when questioned about the details of her case. In 1981, after about a year and a half of litigation, she could no longer stand the pressure of being in Boston and returned to Florida to live with her parents. She then had what appeared to be a nervous breakdown and was unable to work for about a year. Despite our urging, Ms. Van Schaick never sought professional help.

4) In early July 1982, Ms. Van Schaick returned to Boston for her deposition. This was the first time she had been back to Boston since leaving for Florida. The deposition was scheduled for the 4th of July weekend and I only attended the first morning of the deposition, Saturday, July 3, 1982. David Banash, an associate of my co-counsel, Wayne Hollingsworth, handled the remainder of the deposition while I and my family went to Lake Placid for the holiday. I do not remember if I returned to Boston before LaVenda's deposition was completed and she returned to Florida.

5) At about the same time, Gerry Armstrong began to send me documents concerning L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. Many of these documents were similar or identical to other documents I had already collected regarding Hubbard and Scientology. I received about three boxes of materials from Mr. Armstrong. These materials at all times were kept in my office in front of my couch. I don't recall any Armstrong documents being stored in the small office next to my office nor in other

2

parts of our offices at 12 Union Wharf. Nor were there ever 20 boxes of documents.

6) When LaVenda came to Boston for her deposition, I probably showed her some of the Armstrong documents and told her who Mr. Armstrong was. I do not recall permitting LaVenda to browse through the documents on her own and do not believe I would have allowed her to do so. The documents, however, were plainly available to anyone who had access to my office, and if my office were open she would have had no problem examining the materials.

7 ) In August 1982, more than a month after LaVenda's deposition, the California Superior Court ordered us to return all of the documents Mr. Armstrong had given to me. My staff and I put together all of the documents we could find and sent the documents, in their original boxes, to the Los Angeles Superior Court. As I have stated in my prior Declarations, we complied to the best of our ability with the Temporary Restraining Order entered by this Court with regard to the Armstrong documents. We intended to fully comply with that order and I am aware of no violation of the Sealing Order, deliberate or inadvertent, by anyone in our office. To the best of my knowledge, all of the documents Mr. Armstrong sent me were sent to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

8) LaVenda returned to Boston in December 1983 for a

///

3

continuation of her deposition. This too was a hysterical affair, with LaVenda frequently breaking down in the middle of the examination, sometimes for no particular reason. My co-counsel and I had to fight each day to get her to return to the deposition.

9) She returned again in March 1984 for a court ordered mental and psychiatric examination pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35. LaVenda refused to cooperate in taking the basic psychological tests, and was hostile and abusive to the doctors. After an evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate in LaVenda's case found that she had "deliberately and wilfully attempted to obstruct discovery" and had made a sham and mockery out of the entire proceeding." Magistrate DeGiacomo recommended that LaVenda's case be dismissed as a sanction for her deliberate obstruction. A copy of Magistrate DeGiacomo's recommendation is annexed as Exhibit 1 to my deposition. Judge Garrity agreed that LaVenda had deliberately intended to obstruct discovery, but disagreed with the sanction. LaVenda was required to pay for the costs of a re-examination. Since LaVenda had no money, I paid the money for her. A copy of Judge Garrity's Order is annexed as Attachment 2.

10) In September 1984, LaVenda returned once again to Boston for re-examination. At that time, we no longer had any Armstrong documents in our possession, so LaVenda could not possibly have examined them. I have never had numerous boxes of documents scattered across the floor of my office or the floor

4

of the office next to mine. Nor have I ever had boxes labelled "Armstrong Case".

11) The conversation that LaVenda described in Paragraph 10 of her Affidavit never occurred. Except for Court documents and public records, I have never received any materials from the Internal Revenue Service. I have never reviewed any financial documents for them. At no time do I ever recall discussing any financial documents concerning the Church of Scientology with LaVenda. I do not recall allowing LaVenda to copy any materials in September 1984, and I do not believe that I discussed documents with her at all. When LaVenda returned to Boston in September 1984 we were very concerned about making sure she could get through the second psychiatric examination. Most of the time I spent with her related to preparing her for the examination. I had her see Dr. John Clark, a psychiatrist, who I thought might be able to assist her in handling the stress of the examination. I have no memory of LaVenda seeing any documents during this visit and I am certain that she could not have copied 3500 pages.

12) I never requested David Banash to obtain documents from LaVenda that I had previously given to her. Nor did I ever call LaVenda and ask her to return documents. I, in fact, never knew that she had any Armstrong documents. I do know, that if she did obtain any Armstrong documents from my office, she could only have obtained them before any sealing order was entered. I never received any package in the mail from LaVenda containing

5

any Armstrong documents.

13) In June 1985, LaVenda returned to Boston for trial of her case. We discussed many things during that weekend in preparation for trial. At no point did LaVenda tell me that she had any of the Armstrong documents in her possession. The day before we were scheduled to go to trial, June 9, 1985, LaVenda decided to settle the case. LaVenda, my co-counsel, LaVenda's family and I had lengthy discussions regarding whether we should go to trial or not. The pros and cons of going forward were debated at length and the decision was not an easy one. Nonetheless, once LaVenda decided to settle the case she was extremely happy. She was very content to have the matter resolved and she was pleased with the amount of money she, herself, would be receiving. Both her father and myself compromised the amount of money LaVenda owed us in order to make sure there was sufficient money for LaVenda. She willingly accepted the amount and returned to Florida extremely happy.

14) A few days after the settlement, LaVenda called me to let me know that she was very happy with the settlement and to thank me. The next few times she spoke with persons in our office she seemed happy and content. She told us she was planning to buy a house with her settlement proceeds and the future looked rosy. Shortly thereafter, however, LaVenda's calls became more demanding and suspicious. She wanted a detailed accounting of the expenses in her case, which we sent to her. She seemed unhappy that so much money had been spent on

6

her case, but did not make any specific complaints. She then let us know that she was now unhappy with the settlement and she felt the case should have gone to trial. She believed she should have received more money. She also let us know that she was having a lawyer review the documents we prepared and that, for some reason, she no longer trusted us.

15) It became apparent that LaVenda quickly went through the money she received in settlement of her case. The deal to buy a house fell through. She began moving around a great deal again. She began to make hysterical calls to my office, claiming that she was being harassed worse than ever and hoping that we too were being harassed because we had settled her case against her will. This later claim was ridiculous.

16) The conversation LaVenda claims occurred in August, 1985 never happened. I never requested has to return any documents, nor did I ever tell her she could go to jail if she possessed any documents. As I have stated before, I had no indication at that time that LaVenda even had any Armstrong documents. In fact, during this time, I am not certain I had a way to get in touch with Lavenda. She began to move around a lot and our office did not have her telephone number.

17) One Saturday afternoon in June 1986 I received call from Gerry Armstrong, who was working as a paralegal in our office. Mr. Armstrong told me that LaVenda had called and claimed she had Armstrong documents which she was going to

7

expose to the press. LaVenda had left a number and I called her back. She repeated the threats she had made to Mr. Armstrong to me. I told her that the allegations were false, that she never received any Armstrong documents from me under improper circumstances. I told her I suspected the Scientologists had put her up to this and then I told her that I assumed she was being paid for making up these false stories. Indeed, the similarity between the false tales LaVenda was manufacturing and the perjurious claims made by Paulette Cooper in the affadavits Scientology purchased from Cooper made it plain that no mere coincidence was involved. I told LaVenda that she could say whatever she wanted and file whatever she felt she had to file. I also let her know, however, that if I discovered that she had been paid for perjury, I would notify the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

18) It is very ironic the Church of Scientology is now relying upon LaVenda's affidavits. For years, the Church of Scientology publicly claimed that LaVenda was a liar and that her affidavits could not be trusted. Annexed is Attachment 3 to my Affidavit is a Guardian's Office program relating to LaVenda. The first page makes it clear that the Guardian's Office itself considered LaVenda to be a "chronic liar". I am also enclosing a copy of a press release the Guardian's Office circulated in response to LaVenda's Affidavit filed in her case. The release accuses LaVenda of theft, dishonesty and other crimes. Its entire import is that LaVenda's affidavits cannot be trusted under any circumstances.

8

19) LaVenda has been unstable, mercurial and emotional. Nonetheless, I believed she had been harmed by the Church of Scientology and my co-counsel and I did our best to try and help her. We recognized, however, that her instability made her an unpredictable client, at best, and one who could not be trusted with sensitive information. While we kept her informed with the progress of her lawsuit, neither my colleagues nor myself would trust her with sensitive information. I cannot believe any of my co-counsel would ever violate a court order and have no reason to suspect any of them have. Nonetheless, the last person any of us would give sensitive information to would be LaVenda Van Schaick due to her unpredictability.

20) Similarly, the allegation that I or my co-counsel may have sold sealed Armstrong documents to Der Spiegel or other media outlets is ridiculous. Since I began litigating against the Church of Scientology, Church employees have stolen 20,000 documents from my trash, have infiltrated my office with phony clients, have placed me under extensive surveillance by their own Guardian's Office members and by private detectives hired by them, and have even tried to frame me for the forgery of a 2 Million Dollar check. For years I have suspected my telephone is being tapped. The Church of Scientology has made it clear that they want to eliminate me from this litigation by any means whether through disqualification motions, lawsuits filed against me, or framing me for crimes. Under such circumstances, I would have to be insane to violate a court order for money,

9

particularly by giving sealed documents to media outlet where there would be very few other sources for the documents. I have never given any sealed documents to any media organizations, nor would I allow any of my associate attorneys to do so. My office has documents sealed in other Scientology cases and we have always taken the greatest care to insure those documents are not disseminated. In this case, of course, when we do not even possess the Armstrong documents, it would have been impossible for us to sell sealed documents to Der Spiegel.

I DECLARE UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

EXECUTED THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 1986, IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.