Deposition of David Miscavige, the Witness, July 19, 1990 - Part 1

From David Miscavige Go Home

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BENT CORYDON, )

PLAINTIFF, ) CASE NO.

)

VS. ) C 694401

)

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ) VOLUME 1

) INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., ) (PAGES 1-311)

DEFENDANTS. )

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

DEPOSITION OF:

DAVID MISCAVIGE THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1990 10:05 A. M.

OUR FILE NO. 02266

REPORTED BY DAWSHA LAYLAND BAKER

C.S.R. NO. 5166

DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE, THE WITNESS, TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, AT 10:05 A. M., THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1990, AT 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE

DAWSHA LAYLAND BAKER, C.S.R. NO. 5166, PURSUANT TO NOTICE.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

FOR PLAINTIFF & CROSS-DEFENDANT: LAW OFFICES OF TOBY L. PLEVIN BY: TOBY L. PLEVIN,

ATTORNEY AT LAW

10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SUITE 4300

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025

FOR DEFENDANTS & CROSS-COMPLAINANTS, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, SCIENTOLOGY MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, HEBER JENTZSCH AND TIMOTHY BOWLES:

WYMAN BAUTZER KUCHEL & SILBERT

BY: WILLIAM T. DRESCHER ESQ.

2049 CENTURY PARK EAST

15TH FLOOR

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

FOR DEFENDANT DAVID MISCAVIGE:

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG

BY: MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG, ESQ.

740 BROADWAY

FIFTH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003

-- AND --

RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD,

KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN

BY: ERIC M. LIEBERMAN, ESQ.

740 BROADWAY AT ASTOR PLACE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003-9518

FOR DEFENDANTS AUTHORS SERVICES, INC., AND BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS: TURNER, GERSTENFELD, WILK, TIGERMAN & HELLER

BY: LAWRENCE E. HELLER, ESQ.

8383 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD

SUITE 510

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211

ALSO PRESENT:

MARTY RATHMAN

INDEX

WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE

DAVID MISCAVIGE

BY MS. PLEVIN 6

(P.M. SESSION) 130

QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED BY COUNSEL NOT TO ANSWER

PAGE LINE PAGE LINE PAGE LINE

26 8 27 25 28 17

29 5 34 17 112 7

141 10 213 10 215 12

216 6 242 14 247 10

248 11

EXHIBITS

NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION

1 91 SEA ORGANIZATION FLAG ORDER, DATED 9-15-78

2 96 DOCUMENT ENTITLED "COMMODORE'S MESSENGER ORG"

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1990, 10:05 A. M.

DAVID MISCAVIGE, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: EXAMINATION BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD.

A. DAVID MISCAVIGE.

Q. AND MR. MISCAVIGE, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE?

MR. DRESCHER: I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

BY MS. PLEVIN: Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE?

A. NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q. I TRUST YOU'VE HAD SOME TIME TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL REGARDING DEPOSITION PROCEDURE?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "SOME TIME" OR "DEPOSITION PROCEDURE."

Q. WELL, HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH MR. HERTZBERG ABOUT WHAT IS ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE TODAY?

MR. HERTZBERG: WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO CONTENTS OF CONVERSATIONS. I THINK WE CAN SKIP THE PRELIMINARIES. I THINK MR. MISCAVIGE KNOWS ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS SO WE CAN MOVE TO THE SUBSTANCE. MS. PLEVIN: I'D LIKE TO PUT THE ADMONITIONS ON THE RECORD.

MR. DRESCHER: IS THAT A TAPE RECORDER?

MS. PLEVIN: YES, IT IS.

MR. DRESCHER:IS THAT THE COURT REPORTER'S?

THE REPORTER:NO, SIR.

MR. DRESCHER: THAT'S A PRIVATE TAPE RECORDING BEING MADE?

MS. PLEVIN: THERE'S OTHER EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE.

MR. DRESCHER: IT WAS NOTICED FOR AUDIOTAPE AND THAT DOESN'T FIT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT THE REQUISITE ANNOUNCEMENT AND REQUISITE IDENTIFICATIONS SO TO THE EXTENT THAT'S AN AUDIOTAPE, AT THIS POINT IT'S STRICTLY INFORMAL. IS THAT THE PURPOSE FOR

IT?

MS. PLEVIN: YES. IT'S NOTICED PURSUANT TO STATUTE.

MR. DRESCHER: THE STATUTE REQUIRES CERTAIN FORMALITIES AND IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT IF IT'S TO BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE, IT MUST BE DONE THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT NOTARY.

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, I'LL ASK THE COURT REPORTER TO TAKE CARE OF IT AND WE'LL GIVE HER PLENTY OF TIME TO DO IT AND WE'LL MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS PURSUANT TO STATUTES ON THE RECORD AND ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT WE HAVE, WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE TAPE RECORDING IN THAT FASHION. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THIS DEPOSITION IS BEING TAKEN PURSUANT TO NOTICE, THAT THE NOTICE INCLUDED A NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE AN AUDIOTAPE AND AN AUDIOTAPE IS PRESENT, AND THAT THE COURT REPORTER HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO HANDLE THE AUDIOTAPE PURSUANT TO STATUTE.

WE WILL NOW IDENTIFY OUR PRESENCE HERE FOR THE RECORD. LET'S START WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE CUSTODY OF THE TAPE, WHAT IS YOUR INTENTION WITH RESPECT TO CUSTODY OF THE TAPE?

MS. PLEVIN: THE CUSTODY OF THE TAPE ORIGINALLY GOES TO THE COURT REPORTER AND COPIES CAN BE MADE IF YOU SO DESIRE.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. SO JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, THE TAPE IS GOING TO REMAIN AT ALL TIME -- THE ORIGINAL IS GOING TO REMAIN AT ALL TIMES IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COURT REPORTER? MS. PLEVIN: THAT IS MY INTENT.

MR. HERTZBERG: FINE.

THE REPORTER: DAWSHA BAKER OF KERNS AND GRADILLAS.

MS. PLEVIN: TOBY L. PLEVIN, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF. TO MY LEFT IS BENT CORYDON, PLAINTIFF. BENT, WOULD YOU SIMPLY IDENTIFY YOUR VOICE FOR THE RECORD.

MR. CORYDON: YES, BENT CORYDON.

MS. PLEVIN: BILL, WHY DON'T YOU START ON THAT END.

MR. DRESCHER: MY NAME IS WILLIAM DRESCHER OF WYMAN BAUTZER KUCHEL & SILBERT. I REPRESENT THE DEFENDANTS, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, SCIENTOLOGY MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL, HEBER JENTZSCH AND TIMOTHY BOWLES, AS WELL AS THE CROSS-COMPLAINANTS IN THIS ACTION. SEATED IMMEDIATELY TO MY LEFT IS MARTY RATHMAN. HE IS THE CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF MY CLIENT, RTC.

MR. HELLER: LAWRENCE HELLER, LAW FIRM OF TURNER, GERSTENFELD WILK, TIGERMAN & HELLER, REPRESENTING AUTHORS SERVICES INC., AND BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS. MR. LIEBERMAN: ERIC M. LIEBERMAN, THE FIRM OF RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN IN NEW YORK. I'M HERE AS CO-COUNSEL TO MR. MISCAVIGE. MR. HERTZBERG: MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, COUNSEL FOR DAVID MISCAVIGE.

THE WITNESS: DAVID MISCAVIGE, AN INDIVIDUAL.

BY MS. PLEVIN: Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, SINCE YOU HAVEN'T BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE, I WILL GO THROUGH SOME BASIC INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PROCEDURE AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND IT FOR THE RECORD.

A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE IS A COURT REPORTER. SHE WILL BE TAKING DOWN QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND ANYTHING THAT IS NOT TAKEN OFF THE RECORD EXPRESSLY. SHE WILL ALSO MARK THE TRANSCRIPTS -- I'M SORRY. SHE WILL ALSO MARK THE EXHIBITS, AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEPOSITION, SHE WILL PREPARE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HERE TODAY.

THAT TRANSCRIPT WILL BE FORWARDED TO YOU BY YOUR ATTORNEY FOR YOUR REVIEW. AT THAT TIME YOU CAN MAKE ANY CHANGES YOU THINK ARE NECESSARY TO YOUR TESTIMONY. HOWEVER, YOU HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER OATH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND, THEREFORE, CHANGES MADE IN YOUR TESTIMONY MIGHT BE COMMENTED ON AT SOME APPROPRIATE TIME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

A. YES.

Q. YOU NEED TO SPEAK FOR THE RECORD, AS THE COURT REPORTER CANNOT TAKE DOWN SHAKES OF THE HEAD AND SO FORTH, AND THAT COULD BE DONE IF SHE ATTEMPTED TO TAKE THAT DOWN, IT COULD BE A MISCONSTRUAL OF WHAT YOU INTENDED. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? A. YES.

Q. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE BEEN PLACED UNDER OATH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA?

A. YES.

Q. AND THAT THAT OATH HAS THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS IF WE WERE IN A COURT OF LAW; IS THAT RIGHT? YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

A. I THINK SO, YES.

Q. OKAY. NOW, THE DEPOSITION WILL PROCEED SO LONG AS IS NECESSARY. THERE WILL BE BREAKS AS NECESSARY. IF YOU AT ANY TIME NEED A BREAK, PLEASE SAY SO. IF YOU NEED TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL, YOU MAY DO SO, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PROCEDURE, THAT YOU MAY WANT TO TALK TO COUNSEL ABOUT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO NOW OR AT ANY TIME.

A. RIGHT NOW?

Q. YES.

A. NO.

Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON WHY YOU CANNOT PROCEED TODAY? A. NO.

Q. YOU CAN GIVE YOUR BEST TESTIMONY TODAY?

A. I'M HERE.

Q. YOU'RE NOT TAKING ANY MEDICATION OR UNDER ANY PHYSICAL PROBLEM THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM FOCUSING IN AND HEARING CLEARLY? A. OF COURSE NOT.

MR. HERTZBERG: ARE YOU FINISHED WITH THE ADMONITIONS?

MS. PLEVIN: I THINK SO.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. I WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID IN ONE OF THE ADMONITIONS. YOU SAID THIS DEPOSITION IS GOING TO CONTINUE AS LONG AS NEEDED. THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT OUR POSITION OR OUR UNDERSTANDING. YOU NOTICED THIS DEPOSITION FOR TWO DAYS, TODAY AND TOMORROW. WE'RE HERE FOR THAT. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IN CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD, THAT THE DEPOSITION WOULD BE A TWO-DAY DEPOSITION, AND THAT'S REFLECTED BY YOUR NOTICE, AND OUR POSITION, JUST SO THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING, IS WE'RE WILLING TO PROCEED, AS THE DEPOSITION IS NOTICED, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE FOR SOME INDEFINITE EXERCISE.

MS. PLEVIN: SO NOTED. HOWEVER, DEPOSITIONS QUITE OFTEN TAKE LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED. YOU YOURSELF, I BELIEVE, NOTICED MR. CORYDON'S DEPOSITION WITH THE EXPRESS UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE TWO DAYS, THAT ARE NOW FIVE DAYS, AND ARE FAR FROM BEING FINISHED, SO I THINK THAT HOPEFULLY WE DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE. IF WE DO SO, WE SHALL DO SO AT A LATER TIME.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME RESPOND TO YOUR LAST REMARK. I NOTICED MR. CORYDON'S DEPOSITION DAY-TO-DAY UNTIL COMPLETED AND NEVER REPRESENTED AT ANY TIME THAT IT WOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME SO I DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT, WHICH IS INACCURATE AND INCORRECT, TO PASS UNNOTICED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, DO YOU HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION? A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT QUESTION MEANS.

Q. DID YOU GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL?

A. NO, I DIDN'T.

Q. WHAT IS THE LAST GRADE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION THAT YOU HAD, MR. MISCAVIGE? A. TENTH.

Q. AND WHERE WAS THAT?

A. PENNSYLVANIA.

Q. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY GED COURSES?

A. NO.

Q. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSES OF ANY KIND?

A. OF COURSE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF PROBING INTO MR. MISCAVIGE'S EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND. HE TOLD YOU WHEN HIS FORMAL EDUCATION IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM CEASED, AND I'M NOT SURE WHY WE NEED TO INQUIRE INTO OTHER ASPECTS OF THAT AND CAN'T POSSIBLY IMAGINE IT RELATES TO THIS LAWSUIT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY BUSINESS COURSES, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Q. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY COURSES IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES OR COLLEGES OR BUSINESS SCHOOLS REGARDING MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES? A. YOU MEAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

Q. IN ANY SCHOOL.

A. I'M NOT SURE I GET IT YET.

Q. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. WELL, I THINK I KNOW A LOT ABOUT BUSINESS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

Q. DID YOU EVER ENROLL IN ANY COURSES IN ANY BUSINESS SCHOOLS?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU EVER ENROLL --

A. NO.

Q. OKAY. YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY?

A. YES.

Q. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU, PLEASE, TO IDENTIFY, IF YOU WOULD, YOUR CHRONOLOGY OF YOUR POSTS AND POSITIONS IN ANY STAFF POSITION OR ORGANIZATIONAL POSITION IN ANY SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION, STARTING FROM THE EARLIEST FORWARD OR FROM NOW BACKWARDS, WHICHEVER WAY YOU FEEL IS MORE CONVENIENT.

A. I'M NOT SURE I GET IT. TENURE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

Q. OKAY. YOU HAVE BEEN ON STAFF WITH SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS FOR SOME TIME; IS THAT CORRECT? A. VARIOUS ONES, YES.

Q. OKAY. LET'S START WITH THE VERY FIRST STAFF POSITION YOU HELD AT ANY TIME.

A. OKAY.

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT THAT WAS?

A. AT ANY TIME?

Q. MM-HMM.

A. YES.

Q. WHAT WAS THAT POSITION?

A. AUDITOR.

Q. WHEN WERE YOU FIRST AN AUDITOR?

A. FIRST, 1972.

Q. AND WITH WHAT MISSION OR ORGANIZATION WERE YOU AN AUDITOR?

A. SAINT HILL, UNITED KINGDOM.

Q. AND FOR HOW LONG WERE YOU IN THAT POSITION?

A. I DIDN'T HAVE AN EXACT START AND FINISH. ON AND OFF --

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HOW LONG WERE YOU AT SAINT HILL?

A. A YEAR THAT YEAR, BUT I WAS NOT AN AUDITOR THE WHOLE TIME.

Q. WHAT OTHER POSITIONS DID YOU HAVE?

A. PUBLIC SCIENTOLOGIST. EXCUSE ME, THERE WAS ONE OTHER POSITION. DTS, ACTING DTS.

Q. AND WOULD YOU STATE FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, WHAT THAT MEANS?

A. DIRECTOR OF TECH SERVICES.

Q. NOW, PRIOR TO TAKING THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF TECH SERVICES, DID YOU DO ANY CHECK SHEETS OR COURSES OR TRAINING FOR THAT POSITION? A. NO.

Q. WHEN YOU COMMENCED THAT POSITION, DID YOU DO ANY TRAINING FOR THAT POSITION?

A. YES.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THAT TRAINING?

A. HAT TURNOVER.

Q. AND WOULD YOU EXPLAIN FOR THE RECORD WHAT A HAT TURNOVER IS?

A. THE HOLDER OF THAT POST BRIEFS YOU ON THAT POSITION. I WAS HOLDING IT TEMPORARILY WHILE SOMEBODY WAS ON VACATION.

Q. WERE THERE ANY OTHER PERIODS OF TIME DURING THAT FIRST YEAR THAT YOU WERE AT SAINT HILL, OTHER THAN AUDITOR AND DIRECTOR OF TECH SERVICES? A. NO.

Q. AFTER YOU LEFT SAINT HILL, DID YOU GO TO ANOTHER POST OR STAFF POSITION?

A. OF COURSE.

Q. WHERE DID YOU GO?

A. NUMEROUS PLACES.

Q. WHERE DID YOU FIRST GO?

A. FIRST PENNSYLVANIA.

Q. AND WHAT POSITION DID YOU TAKE IN PENNSYLVANIA WHEN YOU LEFT SAINT HILL IN APPROXIMATELY 1973?

A. SCHOOL CHILD.

Q. HOW OLD WERE YOU AT THE TIME?

A. 13 OR 14.

Q. WERE YOU ON LEAVE FROM SCHOOL DURING THE 1972 -- '73 YEAR WHILE YOU WERE AN AUDITOR AT SAINT HILL?

A. YES, I WAS. OH, WHILE I WAS AN AUDITOR. EXCUSE ME.

MR. HERTZBERG: I REALLY -- AS I INDICATED BEFORE, WE'VE COVERED THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECT OF THIS. NOW, I THINK THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING A POINT IN TIME WHICH PREDATES THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT RELEVANCY MR. MISCAVIGE'S POSTS MAY HAVE TO THIS LAWSUIT.

MS. PLEVIN: LET THE RECORD REFLECT WHILE MR. HERTZBERG IS STATING HIS OBJECTION, THE WITNESS IS CONFERRING WITH OTHER COUNSEL THAT'S PRESENT.

WITH REGARD TO MR. HERTZBERG'S STATEMENT, I INTEND TO INQUIRE INTO MR. MISCAVIGE'S HISTORY IN ALL POSTS AND POSITIONS HE HAS HAD IN ANY ORGANIZATION OF SCIENTOLOGY, TO HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF HIS BACKGROUND, WHICH I'M CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO HAVE.

MR. HELLER: YOU'RE ENTITLED TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF HIS BACKGROUND, BUT WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO SUCH MINUTIAE, "WERE YOU ON LEAVE FROM JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AT THAT TIME," THAT GOES BEYOND THE BALANCE OF BACKGROUND PERMISSIBILITY, AND YOU HAVE A CERTAIN WAY TO GO, BUT BEYOND THAT, I THINK YOU'RE GETTING TOO PARTICULAR.

MS. PLEVIN: IF YOU MAKE SUCH MINOR POINT, UNNECESSARY OBJECTIONS AT THIS STAGE, I'M QUITE CONCERNED YOU'RE GOING TO EAT UP A GREAT DEAL OF TIME UNNECESSARILY. I SUGGEST THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE DEPOSITION AND IF SUCH THINGS GET OUT OF HAND, WE CAN DEAL WITH THEM AT THAT TIME. I'M SIMPLY ATTEMPTING TO CREATE A CHRONOLOGY HERE AND DO NOT INTEND TO GET INTO EXTENDED BYPLAY ON THE RECORD.

MR. HELLER: I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION, IN THAT CASE, WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE TOO PARTICULAR, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE'RE WASTING TIME --

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE IS THE ONE WHO IDENTIFIED THAT HIS NEXT POST WAS A SCHOOL CHILD. THAT IS WHY I NEEDED TO ASK HIM ABOUT THAT. IF HE CONSIDERS THAT A POST, MR. HERTZBERG, I NEED TO ASK HIM ABOUT IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME FINISH MY STATEMENT WITHOUT BEING INTERRUPTED, PLEASE. MY CONCERN, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON, IS THAT WE NOT WASTE TIME WITH THINGS THAT REALLY DON'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE LAWSUIT. I'M INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE COMPLAINT AND I JUST DON'T SEE -- BUT LET'S PROCEED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AFTER YOU LEFT SAINT HILL, MR. MISCAVIGE, WHAT WAS THE NEXT POST YOU HELD WITH ANY STAFF, AS A STAFF MEMBER, OR WITH ANY ORG? A. SUPERVISOR.

Q. AND YOU WERE SUPERVISOR OF WHAT?

A. ACADEMY COURSE.

Q. AT WHAT MISSION OR ORG?

A. PHILADELPHIA.

Q. PHILADELPHIA? WHAT IS THE COMPLETE NAME, PLEASE?

A. ORG.

Q. AND HOW LONG WERE YOU SUPERVISOR AT THE ACADEMY FOR PHILADELPHIA ORG?

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T GUESS. IF YOU DON'T RECALL, DON'T GUESS.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T REMEMBER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU RECALL THE APPROXIMATE YEARS?

A. YES.

Q. WHAT WERE THEY?

A. 1975, I THINK. I'M NOT -- 1975, I BELIEVE.

Q. APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR YOU WERE SUPERVISOR OF THE ACADEMY COURSE?

A. APPROXIMATELY A FEW WEEKS.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THE NEXT POSITION YOU HAD WITH ANY ORG OR WHATEVER STAFF POSITION YOU HAD?

MR. HERTZBERG: I JUST WANT TO NOTE, FOR THE RECORD, SINCE MR. MISCAVIGE GAVE A 1975 DATE, THAT THE EARLIEST ALLEGATION OF ANYTHING IN THE COMPLAINT THAT I'M AWARE OF IS SOMETIME IN 1978. MS. PLEVIN: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, MR. MISCAVIGE.

THE WITNESS: EPF.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND WOULD YOU STATE FOR THE RECORD WHAT EPF IS?

A. ESTATES PROJECT FORCE.

Q. AND AT WHAT ORG WERE YOU ON THE ESTATES PROJECT FORCE?

A. CMO, CW.

Q. WOULD YOU STATE FOR THE RECORD WHAT CMO, CW IS?

A. COMMODORE'S MESSENGER ORGANIZATION, CLEARWATER.

Q. WERE YOU A MEMBER OF THE CMO AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU WERE ON THE ESTATES PROJECT FORCE?

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T GUESS.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. APPROXIMATELY WHEN DID YOU JOIN THE CMO?

A. 1976.

Q. WAS THIS YOUR FIRST CMO ASSIGNMENT?

A. YES.

Q. HOW LONG WERE YOU ON THE ESTATES PROJECT FORCE?

A. I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY.

Q. MORE THAN A YEAR? MORE THAN A COUPLE OF YEARS?

A. NO.

Q. LESS THAN A YEAR?

A. YES.

Q. AND WHAT WAS YOUR NEXT POST OR STAFF POSITION?

A. PHOTO SHOOT ASSISTANT.

Q. TO WHOM?

A. THE PHOTO SHOOT TEAM.

Q. AND WHERE WAS THIS POSITION?

A. CLEARWATER.

Q. AND HOW LONG WERE YOU IN THAT POSITION?

A. ONE TO TWO MONTHS.

Q. AND DURING THE TIME YOU WERE IN ANY OF THE POSITIONS WE'VE DISCUSSED SO FAR, EXCEPT AS YOU'VE NOTICED THAT YOU MAY BE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH DIRECTOR OF TECH SERVICES WHILE YOU WERE AT SAINT HILL, WAS THERE ANY OTHER TEMPORARY POSITION YOU HELD SIMULTANEOUSLY OR IN BETWEEN THESE OTHER POSITIONS?

A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PART ABOUT DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. I MISSED WHAT YOU SAID THERE.

Q. YOU SAID WHILE YOU WERE AT SAINT HILL, YOU WERE PRETTY MUCH AN AUDITOR, BUT THERE WAS A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME YOU WERE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES? A. NO, I DIDN'T.

Q. YOU SAID YOU WERE ACTING DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES?

A. NO. THE STATEMENT YOU GAVE ME IS NOT ACCURATE OF WHAT I SAID.

Q. WHAT DID YOU SAY?

MR. HELLER: OBJECTION TO HAVING HIM TESTIFY. IT'S IN THE RECORD WHAT HE SAID.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

MS. PLEVIN: IT SURE IS.

Q. OKAY. WERE THERE ANY OTHER POSITIONS YOU HELD SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE POSITION OF PHOTO SHOOT ASSISTANT, OR WAS THAT A FULL-TIME POSITION?

A. YES.

Q. WHAT WAS THAT?

A. YES IS AN ANSWER TO "OTHER POSITION."

Q. OKAY. WHAT WAS THE OTHER POSITION?

A. EPF.

Q. SO THAT WAS GOING ALONG WITH YOUR BEING ON THE EPF, WHICH YOU MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO?

A. 50-50.

Q. OKAY.

A. BUT, THE ANSWER IS NO TO YOUR QUESTION AS STATED. AT A CERTAIN POINT IT WAS. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.

Q. DID YOU HOLD ANY OTHER POSITIONS AT THE TIMES THAT YOU WERE HOLDING THE POSITION OF PHOTO SHOOT ASSISTANT AND A POSITION ON THE EPF?

A. NO.

Q. WERE YOU ALSO TAKING COURSES AT CLEARWATER AT THAT TIME?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOW STILL TALKING ABOUT EVENTS THAT BY A NUMBER OF YEARS, PREDATE THE EARLIEST ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND NOW YOU'RE NOT EVEN ASKING HIM ABOUT HIS -- WHAT JOBS OR FUNCTIONS MR. MISCAVIGE HAD. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HIS RELIGIOUS PRACTICES.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER, MR. HERTZBERG?

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO KNOW -- I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONS LIKE THAT ARE, WHAT COURSES -MS. PLEVIN: THERE ARE --

MR. HELLER: I'M GOING TO JOIN IN THE OBJECTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'D LIKE TO KNOW, BECAUSE THAT WILL DETERMINE WHAT INSTRUCTION I GIVE.

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL JOIN.

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE HAS A NUMBER OF POSITIONS HAVING TO DO WITH -- OR TECHNICAL END OF THINGS, WHICH ARE PROMOTED AND STATED TO BE ECCLESIASTICAL POSITIONS AND PRESUMABLY HE HAS HAD TRAINING FOR THOSE POSITIONS. I INTEND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THAT. IF YOU INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER, LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO KNOW HOW THAT RELATES TO THE COMPLAINT. HOW -- WHAT COURSES AN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE TOOK IN YEARS -- OR AT ANY YEARS, REALLY, BUT IN THIS CASE, ANY YEARS THAT PREDATE THE COMPLAINT, WHERE IS THAT RELEVANT TO THIS LAWSUIT?

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE NOT GOING TO INDICATE?

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER THE LAST QUESTION. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU TAKE ANY TRAINING WHILE YOU WERE AT CLEARWATER, IN THESE POSITIONS, WHILE YOU WERE TRAINING AT CLEARWATER, DURING THE TIME YOU WERE IN THE EPF AND A PHOTO SHOOT ASSISTANT? MR. HERTZBERG: I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THAT QUESTION. DO YOU WISH TO AMPLIFY ON HOW THAT IS RELEVANT TO MR. CORYDON'S CLAIMS?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.

MR. HERTZBERG: SAME INSTRUCTION.

MR. HELLER: I'LL JOIN IN THE OBJECTION AND ADD THAT THE WORD "TRAINING" IS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS.

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL JOIN WITH BOTH OBJECTIONS.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. DID YOU DO ANY LEVELS WHILE YOU WERE AT CLEARWATER DURING THE TIME WHILE YOU WERE ON THE EPF AND PHOTO SHOOT ASSISTANT?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "LEVELS," FIRST OF ALL?

MS. PLEVIN: OT-3, NOTS. I DON'T KNOW.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU DON'T KNOW? SAME INSTRUCTION.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M ASKING HIM.

Q. ANYTHING ON THE --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S MOVE ON.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU DO ANYTHING ON THE TRAINING GRADE CHART, MR. MISCAVIGE, WHILE YOU WERE AT CLEARWATER DURING THE PERIOD WHILE YOU WERE ON THE EPP AND PHOTO SHOOT ASSISTANT? MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE "CHART"? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

MAY THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNSEL IS BEING ADVISED BY HER CLIENT AT THIS POINT. WOULD YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT, BY THAT QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, WHY DON'T WE ASK MR. MISCAVIGE WHAT THE GRADE CHART IS, PLEASE.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. NOW, WHEN YOU -- ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THE LAST QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE NOT WITHDRAWING IT? LET'S ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT I OBJECTED TO.

MS. PLEVIN: THERE ARE A SERIES OF TRAINING GRADES ON THE GRADE CHART OF SCIENTOLOGY, FROM BOTTOM TO TOP. I'M ASKING MR. MISCAVIGE WHEN -- IF HE TOOK ANY OF THOSE COURSES DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME AND I INTEND TO ASK HIM WHEN HE TOOK ANY AND ALL OF THOSE COURSES ANY TIME.

MR. HERTZBERG: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HIS RELIGIOUS TRAINING COURSES?

MS. PLEVIN: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER UNLESS YOU CAN INDICATE TO ME HOW THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. MISCAVIGE BY BENT CORYDON. MR. DRESCHER: I'LL JOIN IN THAT SAME OBJECTION.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. AS I BELIEVE I STATED PREVIOUSLY, MR. MISCAVIGE'S POSITION ENCOMPASSES BOTH ECCLESIASTICAL AND CORPORATE MATTERS. IF HE HAS ECCLESIASTICAL TRAINING FOR THOSE POSITIONS AS THEY RELATE, AND MAY RELATE TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, I'M ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. IF YOU'RE REFUSING TO ANSWER, THAT'S FINE. I WILL GO ONTO ANOTHER QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER:I WANT TO TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR LAST REMARK.

MS. PLEVIN: WE'LL DO IT OFF THE RECORD --

MR. HERTZBERG: NO.

MR. DRESCHER: I'M ENTITLED TO REPRESENT MY CLIENTS, MISS PLEVIN.

MS. PLEVIN: EXCUSE ME. WHAT YOU'VE DONE NOW, GENTLEMEN, COLLECTIVELY, IS IN LESS THAN 20 MINUTES, DOMINATED WHAT MUST BE MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE TEXT WITH YOUR OBJECTIONS. AS YOU KNOW, MR. DRESCHER, AND AS MR. HELLER KNOWS AND AS THE NEW YORK ATTORNEYS HERE MAY NOT KNOW, I CAN AND I WILL SEEK, AT THE VERY LEAST, YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE COST OF THIS DEPOSITION BASED ON UNNECESSARY, LONG ON-THE-RECORD OBJECTIONS, ESPECIALLY SINCE I'M GOING TO ASK SPECIFICALLY THAT WE GO OFF THE RECORD, AND FURTHERMORE, THAT THESE EXTENDED OBJECTIONS, OVER WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE ISSUES OF RELEVANCE AND NOT ISSUES OF -- AT THE BEST, ISSUES OF RELEVANCE WHICH ARE IMPROPER OBJECTIONS TO RAISE SO FREQUENTLY AND AGGRESSIVELY DURING THE DEPOSITION, THERE'S NO CALL FOR IT. THERE'S NO CALL FOR IT WHATSOEVER. WE COULD HAVE GONE THROUGH A GREAT DEAL MORE AT THIS POINT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU SEE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE -- THE POINT PRECISELY IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH A HARASSIVE DEPOSITION WHICH DOES NOT RELATE TO THE CONTENTS OF MR. CORYDON'S COMPLAINT.

ONE THING THAT I'M MINDFUL OF, AND I MIGHT AS WELL MAKE THAT CLEAR TO YOU AT THE OUTSET, IS THAT MR. CORYDON HAS TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT HE IS WRITING OR INTENDS TO WRITE SHORTLY ANOTHER BOOK ABOUT THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY AND I HAVE HAD GRAVE QUESTIONS IN MY MIND ABOUT WHAT THE REAL PURPOSE OF THIS DEPOSITION IS, AND WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING HAS VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPLAINT.

WE ARE HERE TO DEAL WITH THE COMPLAINT. AND WE ARE GOING TO OBJECT, OR I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO ANYTHING WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE TOTALLY REMOTE, AS THESE QUESTIONS ARE, WHICH FAR PREDATE ANY EVENTS IN THE COMPLAINT THAT WOULDN'T BE RELEVANT ANYWAY, AND FORTUNATELY THERE ARE JUDGES WHO WILL DECIDE WHETHER WE ARE --

MS. PLEVIN: OH, THERE CERTAINLY ARE.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- WHETHER WE ARE WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO OBJECT.

MR. DRESCHER: AND I WILL FURTHER RESPOND BY SAYING I INTEND TO OBJECT, TOO, WHEN THE SUBJECT MATTER APPEARS SELF-EVIDENTLY FROM THE QUESTIONS, TO BE AN INTENT IMPROPERLY TO PROBE THIS WITNESS'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, HIS RELIGIOUS TRAINING OR ANY PART OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS --

MS. PLEVIN: MR. DRESCHER, YOUR CLIENTS HAVE OBJECTED TO DISCOVERY AND TO MANY MATTERS IN THIS COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE EFFORTS INVADE ECCLESIASTICAL MATTERS, AND THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE IS INHERENTLY PART OF AN ECCLESIASTICAL STRUCTURE AND I

CAN'T GET AT ANY OF THAT STUFF BECAUSE OF THE 1ST AND 14TH AMENDMENTS, ALL OF WHICH I THINK IS GARBAGE.

MR. DRESCHER: IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN WE'LL JUST PROCEED, BECAUSE YOU'VE JUST ADMITTED YOU CAN'T GET AT IT.

MS. PLEVIN: WHICH YOU CLAIM I CAN'T GET AT, WHICH IS TOTALLY IN ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW. HOWEVER, THE -- AS I'VE MADE QUITE CLEAR, FREQUENTLY ENOUGH, THE CONTROL AND THE BACKGROUND OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF THE SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND I INTEND TO INQUIRE INTO THEM.

MR. DRESCHER: IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR SOME AGENDA OTHER THAN THIS LAWSUIT. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO ASSERT THE OBJECTIONS AS NECESSARY.

MS. PLEVIN: FOR THE APPROPRIATE -- THE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED THAT OUR INQUIRY INTO THE ALTER EGO THEORY IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE.

MR. DRESCHER: HE HAS NOT.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M GOING TO SAY AGAIN THAT I WISH THAT THIS DISCUSSION WERE OFF THE RECORD. THIS IS PROLONGING. THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE. THIS IS COSTLY. I'M GOING TO GO ON WITH THE QUESTIONS. MR. HELLER: NEXT QUESTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. HE'S RECEIVED THE INSTRUCTIONS. ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE --

MR. HERTZBERG: AND BY THE WAY, I'M INSTRUCTING HIM ON A QUESTION-BY-QUESTION BASIS, LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR. THERE WAS A QUESTION PENDING. ON THAT QUESTION, AS THE RECORD WILL REFLECT, I INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO ANSWER. NOW ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WAS THE NEXT POST YOU HELD WITHIN THE ORG, OR STAFF POSITION, AFTER YOU COMPLETED YOUR WORK AS A PHOTO SHOOT ASSISTANT AND AFTER YOU COMPLETED YOUR ESTATES PROJECTS FORCE POSITION AT CLEARWATER?

A. I CAN'T RECALL THE NEXT ONE.

Q. DO YOU REMEMBER WHERE IT WAS LOCATED?

A. YES.

Q. WHERE WAS IT LOCATED?

A. I WAS IN CLEARWATER.

Q. FOR HOW LONG WERE YOU IN CLEARWATER?

A. UNTIL 1977.

Q. AND WAS THERE SOME TIME WHILE YOU WERE STILL AT CLEARWATER, BETWEEN THE TIME YOU CONCLUDED YOUR POSITION AS PHOTO SHOOT ASSISTANT AND THE TIME YOU LEFT CLEARWATER, TO WHEREVER YOU WENT NEXT?

A. YES.

Q. BUT YOU DON'T RECALL WHAT POST YOU HELD AT THAT TIME?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE VERY NEXT ONE WAS. THAT'S WHAT I STATED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE IMMEDIATE NEXT ONE WAS, WHAT WAS THE NEXT ONE AFTER THAT, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. I DON'T RECALL IT THAT WAY.

Q. WAS IT -- I'M SORRY?

A. YOU'RE ASKING ME AN EXACT, THIS ONE, THAT ONE.I DON'T -- THE EXACT, I CAN'T ANSWER THE NEXT ONE IF I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS.

MR. HERTZBERG: I THINK THE DIFFICULTY, MISS PLEVIN, WAS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVENTS SO REMOTE IN TIME, MR. MISCAVIGE IS INDICATING HE CANNOT REMEMBER THEM IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE THAT YOU APPARENTLY ARE SEEKING.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HOW DO YOU REMEMBER THE NEXT CHANGE IN YOUR STATUS WITHIN SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS?

MR. HELLER: OBJECTION. THAT QUESTION IS UNINTELLIGIBLE, "HOW DO YOU REMEMBER IT."

MS. PLEVIN: HE SAID IT'S NOT THE WAY HE RECALLS IT, SO I'M ASKING HIM: WHAT IS THE WAY YOU DO RECALL IT?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM THE NEXT POST THAT HE REMEMBERS. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE EASIEST.

MS. PLEVIN: YOU CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION.

MR. HELLER: IF YOU'RE ABLE.

MR. HERTZBERG: SHE WANTS TO KNOW HOW YOUR MIND WORKS TO REMEMBER --

THE WITNESS: I REMEMBER IN MY MIND. I CAN TELL YOU NUMEROUS. THAT'S MY ANSWER TO YOU.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU CAN TELL ME NUMEROUS WHAT?

A. POSTS.

Q. YOU JUST DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE WAS THE NEXT ONE?

A. PRECISELY.

Q. WHICH IS THE NEXT ONE THAT STANDS OUT IN YOUR MIND?

A. NUMEROUS. NONE OF THEM STAND OUT IN MY MIND.

Q. YOU CAN'T PUT THEM INTO ANY ORDER?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ALL RIGHT. THEN LET'S TAKE EACH OF THEM. LET'S TAKE EACH POST YOU'VE HELD.

A. OKAY. LET'S SEE. ASSISTANT ECFH, PROGRAM CMO --

Q. LET'S TAKE THEM ONE -- ALL RIGHT.

A. STEWARD EPF, FMO 1672, 73, TELEX OP.

Q. THESE ARE ALL THE POSITIONS THAT YOU RECALL THAT YOU EVER HELD IN ANY SCIENTOLOGY ORG OR POST?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I'M CLARIFYING. YOU --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION. YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS THE ONLY -- THOSE ARE THE ONLY POSTS HE CAN EVER RECALL EVER HOLDING IN THE CHURCH THAT HE HASN'T MENTIONED SO FAR. IS THAT THE QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: HE LISTED THESE ORGANIZATIONS, MR. HERTZBERG, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION OF "WELL, WHAT NEXT STANDS OUT IN YOUR MIND. YOU TELL THEM TO ME THE WAY YOU WANT TO TELL THEM TO ME." AND THEN HE STOPPED. I DIDN'T ASK HIM TO STOP AT CLEARWATER OR WHATEVER. WHERE --

Q. YOU LISTED THESE ORGANIZATIONS TOGETHER, MR. MISCAVIGE. HOW -A. THEY'RE NOT ORGANIZATIONS.

Q. OR, I'M SORRY. YOU LISTED THESE POSITIONS IN A UNIT.

A. MM-HMM.

Q. NOW, WHY ARE THEY PART OF A SINGLE UNIT?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "UNIT"?

MS. PLEVIN: IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION.

MR. HELLER: ASSUMES FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN EVIDENCE. I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING IN THE PRECEDING QUESTION THAT HE WAS TO LIST ANYTHING TOGETHER. YOU ASKED HIM TO LIST CERTAIN POSTS AND HE DID SO AND THEY'VE INDICATED IT WASN'T ANY UNIT. MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S --

MS. PLEVIN: MR. --

MR. HERTZBERG: I THINK HE CAN CLARIFY THINGS.

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING HIM TO DO.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE QUESTIONS ARE VERY CONFUSING.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY WHY YOU LISTED THESE -- WHAT'S THE COMMON DENOMINATOR?

A. THEY'RE IN CLEARWATER.

Q. AND THESE WERE ALL POSITIONS YOU HELD BEFORE YOU LEFT CLEARWATER SOMETIME IN 1977, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, SO THAT IT IS CLEAR, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE THE FULL MEANING OF ASSISTANT ECFC?

A. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID ASSISTANT ECFH.

Q. I'M SORRY. FH. WHAT IS THAT?

A. ASSISTANT IN EXTERNAL COM, FORT HARRISON. THAT'S THE NAME OF A HOTEL.

Q. AND DID THAT POSITION INVOLVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE NONSCIENTOLOGY WORLD? WHAT DOES "EXTERNAL COM" MEAN, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. IT MEANS COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE EXTERNAL AND NOT INTERNAL.

Q. OH, INTERNAL TO WHAT?

A. THE BUILDING.

Q. SO IN THAT POSITION, IT WOULD INVOLVE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THAT BUILDING AND OTHER SCIENTOLOGY ENTITIES; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. NO.

Q. WHAT DID IT INVOLVE?

A. WHAT DID -- I'M NOT SURE I KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW, "WHAT IT INVOLVED." WHAT?

Q. POSITION OF BEING ASSISTANT EXTERNAL COM, WHAT WAS INVOLVED IN THAT POSITION?

A. OH, IN THE POST POSITION?

Q. YES.

A. BEING A COM RUNNER.

Q. FOR WHOM?

A. FOR WHOM?

Q. BETWEEN WHO AND WHO WERE YOU RUNNING COMMUNICATIONS?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN YOU WANT HIM TO NAME EVERY PERSON?

MR. HELLER: IF INDEED IT ENTAILED PERSONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: IS THAT YOUR QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT ASKING HIM TO NECESSARILY NAME EVERY PERSON. WAS IT BETWEEN A CERTAIN GROUP OF ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER GROUP OF ORGANIZATIONS?

THE WITNESS: WELL, YOU ASKED WHO I -- PEOPLE I RAN BETWEEN?

MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: NONE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT ENTITIES DID YOU RUN BETWEEN?

MR. HERTZBERG: IF HE RAN BETWEEN ANY ENTITIES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHO WERE YOU COMMUNICATING WITH? WHO WERE YOU RUNNING COMMUNICATIONS FOR?

A. IT'S AN UNANSWERABLE QUESTION.

Q. ALL RIGHT. DESCRIBE WHAT THE FUNCTION OF A COM RUNNER IS, PLEASE.

A. OKAY. YOU HAVE A COMMUNICATION PARTICLE, AND I GUESS YOU COULD RUN, BUT YOU BASICALLY DELIVER IT TO ITS RECIPIENT.

Q. WAS THAT A MESSENGER AT FORT HARRISON?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU WORK FOR ANY SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT?

A. EXTERNAL COM FH.

Q. DID YOU TAKE --

A. EXCUSE ME. COULD I GO TO THE BATHROOM REAL QUICK?

MS. PLEVIN: YES, OF COURSE.

(RECESS TAKEN.)

MS. PLEVIN: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. WAS THERE A QUESTION PENDING?

(RECORD READ.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE FUNCTION OF COM RUNNER AS TO HOW YOU WERE FACILITATING COMMUNICATIONS?

A. AS A GENERAL SUBJECT ON COM RUNNERS OR IN THAT POSITION?

Q. IN THAT POSITION.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT I WANT TO NOTE THAT WE'RE NOW GETTING INTO MINUTIAE UPON IRRELEVANCY, I, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY QUITE A WASTE OF TIME. BUT YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: COULD I HAVE THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE

(RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND WOULD YOU DO SO, PLEASE?

A. DELIVERING TELEXES.

Q. DID YOU HAVE A CERTAIN ROUTE THAT YOU WERE DELIVERING TELEXES TO?

A. NO.

MR. DRESCHER: I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCY --

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, MR. --

MR. DRESCHER: I'M ALLOWED TO MAKE AN OBJECTION, MS. PLEVIN, AND I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU'D LET ME DO IT AND WE'LL MOVE MUCH QUICKER. I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCE TO ANY OF THIS, WHAT ROUTES HE MIGHT HAVE HAD OR MIGHT NOT HAVE HAD I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS MAY BE IN RELATION TO THE COMPLAINT, AND I BELIEVE WE'RE STILL IN THE TIME PERIOD PREDATING THE EARLIEST ALLEGATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE ARE INDEED, AND I DON'T -- I ALSO NOTED THAT WHEN YOU START INTERRUPTING MR. DRESCHER, YOU VOICED SOME PERSONAL OPINION THAT MR. MISCAVIGE WAS OBSCURING SOMETHING PURPOSEFULLY. WE DON'T NEED THAT KIND OF COMMENT AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT KIND OF COMMENT AGAIN BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S USEFUL OR PROPER.

MS. PLEVIN: THE FACT THAT A DEPONENT FAILS TO FULLY ANSWER WHAT IS CLEARLY AN INTELLIGIBLE QUESTION, IS SUBJECT FOR A MOTION TO COMPEL.

MR. HELLER: I THINK I CAN --

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL BE MOVING TO COMPEL A GREAT DEAL.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU CAN MOVE TO COMPEL. WHAT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE IS A RECORD WITH YOUR EDITORIAL COMMENTS AND YOUR INTERPRETATIONS AND I ALSO DON'T WANT TO HAVE ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTIONS. WHY DON'T WE PROCEED. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, NOW, DID YOU HOLD THAT POSITION WHILE YOU WERE PROGRAM CFO?

A. NO, BUT I WASN'T PROGRAM CFO.

Q. IT WAS WHAT?

A. CMO.

Q. ALL RIGHT. WHAT DOES "PROGRAM CMO" STAND FOR, PLEASE?

A. PROGRAMS, COMMODORE'S MESSENGER WORK.

Q. DID THAT INVOLVE YOU IN PLANNING PROGRAMS OF SOME KIND?

A. NO.

Q. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES YOU HAD AS PROGRAM CMO?

MR. HERTZBERG: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN 1976?

MS. PLEVIN: WHENEVER IT WAS.

MR. HERTZBERG: WAS IT IN 1976?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT FUNCTIONS DID THAT INVOLVE?

A. GETTING A SERIES OF STEPS ON A PROGRAM DONE. YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A PROGRAM -- MORE LIKE, YOU KNOW, AN ADMINISTRATOR THAT YOU WOULD NOTE IF THE TARGETS WERE DONE ON A PROGRAM AND IF NOT, BASICALLY KEEP YOUR ATTENTION ON THE PROGRAM, SO ATTENTION WAS KEPT ON THE PROGRAM AND IT WOULD BE COMPLETED.

Q. OKAY. WERE YOU SUPERVISING OTHER PEOPLE IN THEIR PERFORMANCE OF PROGRAMS? A. NO.

Q. THESE WERE YOUR PROGRAMS, THE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WERE COMPLETING?

A. OH, NO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND -- I WAS, AND SO WERE OTHER PEOPLE.

Q. I'M SORRY?

A. BOTH IS THE ANSWER.

Q. YOU WERE AND SO WERE OTHER PEOPLE?

A. CORRECT.YOU SAID DOING THE PROGRAM?

Q. YES.

A. YES, BOTH.

Q. OKAY. WERE THESE SPECIFIC PROGRAMS OR PROGRAMS THAT COULD BE GENERATED AT ANY TIME BY ANYONE?

A. THE LATTER.

Q. OKAY. WERE THEY --

A. BUT CLARIFY THAT. NOT ANYONE AT ANY TIME, BUT THEY'RE RANDOM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I MEAN -- I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME. Q. WERE THEY GENERATED BY A SENIOR TO YOU IN CMO?

A. OH, NO.

Q. WERE THEY GENERATED BY A SENIOR TO YOU?

A. NO.

Q. WHAT WAS THE POSITION OF STEWARD EPF, PLEASE?

A. THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT POSITIONS.

Q. OH, OKAY. THE WAY YOU SAID IT, IT WASN'T QUITE CLEAR.

A. I'M SORRY.

Q. STEWARD FOR --

A. STEWARD, SERVING FOOD.

Q. AND EPF IS BACK ON THE ESTATES PROJECT FORCE?

A. PRECISELY.

Q. WHAT'S FMO 1672 AND 1673?

A. FLAG MISSION ORDER 1672; FLAG MISSION ORDER 1673.

Q. AND WOULD YOU EXPLAIN FOR THE RECORD WHAT THAT'S ABOUT?

A. A MISSION IS WHEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE ON A SET OF MISSION ORDERS TO HANDLE A SPECIFIC SITUATION TO IDEALLY ACHIEVE A SPECIFIC END RESULT, AND THAT'S THEIR FUNCTION. Q. OKAY. AND YOU WERE A MISSIONAIRE?

A. I WAS FMO 1673, WORKING WITH FMO 1672.

O. OKAY.

A. IN THAT CAPACITY. YOU COULD HAVE CALLED ME THEN A MISSIONAIRE.

Q. OKAY. NOW, GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION HOPEFULLY TO CLARIFY, WHILE YOU WERE PROGRAM CMO, WHO DID GENERATE THE PROGRAMS THAT YOU WERE -- SEEN GOT DONE?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU WANT THE NAMES OF ALL THE PEOPLE?

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHO DID GENERATE THOSE PROGRAMS?

A. PROGRAMS -- I DON'T REMEMBER ALL OF THE PROGRAMS. I CAN REMEMBER ONE IN PARTICULAR, JUST I DON'T KNOW WHY I DO, BUT I REMEMBER ONE, AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE PERSON, BUT I KNOW IT WAS SOMEBODY IN THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT IN THE FLAG SERVICE ORG AND IT HAD TO DO WITH GETTING SEVERAL ADDITIONAL WATTS TELEPHONE LINES INSTALLED.

Q. AND YOU OPERATED A TELEX AT THAT TIME?

A. I WAS A TELEX OP, TYPED. I TYPED TELEXES.

Q. OKAY. OUTGOING TELEXES FROM FORT HARRISON? A. NO. I DIDN'T DO THAT FROM FORT HARRISON, NO. Q. WHERE DID YOU DO THAT FROM?

A. THE CB.

Q. WHAT IS A CB, PLEASE?

A. CLEARWATER BUILDING.

Q. AND WERE THEY FOR ANY PARTICULAR DIVISION AT THE CLEARWATER BUILDING? A. THE ONES THAT I TYPED?

Q. MM-HMM.

A. NO.

Q. ANYBODY WHO HAD OUTGOING TELEXES?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. WHILE YOU WERE AT CLEARWATER, DID YOU TAKE ANY OEC COURSES, ORGANIZATIONAL EXECUTIVE COURSE? A. NO.

Q. AFTER YOU LEFT CLEARWATER, WHERE DID YOU GO?

A. LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA.

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR POST OR STAFF POSITION IN LA QUINTA?

A. WHEN?

Q. WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE.

A. DIR OF I&R, I THINK.

Q. WOULD YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

A. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS. CMO, SU -- THAT'S STANDING FOR SPECIAL UNIT.

Q. NOW, THE SPECIAL UNIT WAS -- WHAT WAS THE SPECIAL UNIT?

A. WHAT WAS --

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION. WHAT WAS THE SPECIAL UNIT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION THAT YOU -- WHATEVER YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS. WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT --

Q. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SPECIAL UNIT IS.

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LA QUINTA. WE WERE TALKING, I ASSUME NOW -MS. PLEVIN: IN 1977 WHEN HE GOT THERE, WHAT WAS THE SPECIAL UNIT?

MR. HELLER: I'LL OBJECT. THAT'S AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHAT WAS. IT'S NOT INTELLIGIBLE.

MR. HERTZBERG: GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: NUMEROUS THINGS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. INCLUDING SUCH AS?

A. OKAY. GROUNDS MAN, ENGINEER, MEANING PLUMBER, MOTOR POOL, ORCHARD, ESTATE TYPE FUNCTIONS. THAT'S WHAT SU WAS, AT THAT PROPERTY. Q. AT THAT PROPERTY?

A. RIGHT.

Q. AND THAT PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED SPECIAL UNIT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE L. RON HUBBARD WAS AT THE TIME; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q. WAS L. RON HUBBARD THERE AT THE TIME?

A. YES.

Q. AND WHO DID YOU REPORT TO AS DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS?

A. I CAN'T RECALL.

Q. HOW LONG WERE YOU IN THAT POSITION, APPROXIMATELY?

A. OFF AND ON, MAYBE A FEW MONTHS.

Q. WHO WAS YOUR SENIOR?

A. I CAN'T RECALL. I THINK YOU JUST ASKED ME THAT, TOO.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE NOT THERE DURING THOSE FEW MONTHS THAT YOU SAID WERE OFF AND ON, WERE YOU ON ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT OR WERE YOU JUST TEMPORARILY ABSENT FROM LA QUINTA? A. I WAS NOT TEMPORARILY ABSENT, SO I DIDN'T SAY I WAS GONE AT ALL.

Q. OKAY. YOU WERE OFF AND ON DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS; IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT?

A. YES, EXACTLY.

Q. WHEN YOU WERE NOT DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS, WHAT WAS YOUR FUNCTION?

A. THAT'S DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS CMO AT SU. AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I'M NOT TRYING TO NITPICK. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. WHAT WERE THEIR FUNCTIONS?

Q. YES.

A. OFF AND ON, AS CMO AT SU AND PROJECT OPS, AND THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.

Q. NOW, PROJECT OPS, EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS ABOUT?

MR. HERTZBERG: HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT JUST NOTE MY CONTINUING OBJECTION TO QUESTIONS ABOUT POSTS AND FUNCTIONS THAT WERE HELD BY MR. MISCAVIGE AT LEAST A YEAR, IF NOT MORE, PREDATING THE EARLIEST DATE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. WELL, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A PROJECT IS.I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE EXAMPLE. FOR INSTANCE, JUST TO TAKE A COMPLETELY BLAND EXAMPLE. LET'S TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAD -- IF SOMEBODY HAD THEIR LAWN NOT MOWED AND GARBAGE OVER THE YARD, AND THEY HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO HANDLE THEIR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY, WELL INSTEAD OF GOING ABOUT PICKING UP THE GARBAGE AND MOWING THE LAWN THEY MIGHT DECIDE THEY WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR AREA AND HANDLE THEIR LANDSCAPING -- YOU WOULD BREAK THIS DOWN INTO PROJECT FORM SO THAT IT COULD BE LISTED OUT STEP BY STEP BY STEP. AND THERE'S AN EXAMPLE. FOR INSTANCE, PICK UP THE GARBAGE, MOW THE GRASS, VACUUM UP THE GRASS, SWEEP OFF THE SIDEWALK NEXT TO IT THOSE ARE ALL INDIVIDUAL AREAS.

SO THE DUTY OF THE PROJECT OPS WOULD BE -- FOR INSTANCE, A SIMILAR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WAS A PROJECT, FOR INSTANCE, TO PREVENT THE GRAPEFRUIT ORCHARD AT THE BASE FROM BEING FROSTED IN THE WINTER AND BEING SUNBURNED IN THE SUMMER, YOU HAVE TO PAINT THE BARK ON THE SIDE OF THE GRAPEFRUIT ORCHARD BECAUSE THE SUN IS SO INTENSE AND YOU HAVE TO GET THE WINDMILLS OPERATIONAL. YOU WOULD BASICALLY SEE THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. IT'S SORT OF LIKE A REMINDER, EITHER THEY DROP IT OR FORGET ABOUT IT; AND THE IDEA IS EITHER TO HANDLE A SITUATION LIKE THAT OR PREVENT A FUTURE ONE, SO THE DUTIES -- I MEAN YOU TAKE THE PROGRAM, YOU GO OVER AND FIND OUT IF THERE ARE ANY POTENTIAL BUGS IN COMPLETING THIS, AND IF THERE WERE, SORTING IT OUT, SO IT WAS DEBUGGED AND THE PROJECT WOULD GET DONE. THAT'S THE FUNCTION OF A PROJECT OP IN THAT POSITION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. APART FROM ANY ESTATES AND ORCHARD RELATED PROJECTS, WHAT OTHER KINDS OF PROJECT OPS WERE YOU INVOLVED WITH WHILE AT LA QUINTA? MR. HERTZBERG: EXCUSE ME. I WANT TO BE CLEAR. I'M NOT SURE MR. MISCAVIGE IS SAYING THAT HE -- THERE WERE SPECIFIC --

MS. PLEVIN: NO, AGREED.

MR. HERTZBERG: MAY I FINISH, PLEASE, WITHOUT HAVING MY OBJECTION CUT. I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE WERE SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT MR. MISCAVIGE MENTIONED. I'M NOT SURE HE TESTIFIED THAT THOSE WERE DONE WHILE HE WAS ON THAT POST. I THINK HE WAS GIVING THEM FOR EXAMPLES.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE. I'LL CLARIFY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I THOUGHT YOUR QUESTION ASSUMED --

MS. PLEVIN: IT DID NOT INTEND TO. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR.

Q. PUTTING ASIDE ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH ESTATES MANAGEMENT, WHAT KINDS OF PROJECT OPS WERE YOU INVOLVED WITH WHILE YOU WERE AT LA QUINTA? A. CAN I CLARIFY THIS? YOU WERE ASKING ME WHEN I WAS ON AND OFF DIR OF I&R?

Q. YES.

A. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW?

Q. YES.

A. ASIDE FROM ESTATES PROJECTS?

Q. YES.

A. NONE.

Q. NOW, WHEN YOU CONCLUDED BEING --

A. AND I'LL ADD TO THAT THAT THE GRASS WAS NOT AN EXAMPLE THAT HAPPENED BUT THE ORCHARD WAS, SO THAT'S A LITERAL EXAMPLE.

Q. THAT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY. NOW I KNOW THERE WAS AN ORCHARD OUT THERE.

MR. HELLER: MISS PLEVIN, I TAKE IT THAT REMARK WAS A SARCASTIC ONE, SO LET'S GO FORWARD.

MS. PLEVIN: IT WAS INTENDED TO BE LIGHT, NOT NECESSARILY SARCASTIC. YOU MAY HAVE WANTED TO INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.

Q. NOW, YOU WERE AT LA QUINTA FOR A FEW MONTHS YOU INDICATED; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. NO.

Q. HOW LONG WERE YOU AT LA QUINTA ALTOGETHER FROM 1977, PERIOD, EXCLUDING ANY SMALL PERIODS AWAY?

A. APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS.

Q. OKAY. AND APART FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS POSITION, WHICH YOU HAD ON AND OFF FOR A FEW MONTHS, WHAT WAS THE NEXT POST YOU HAD? A. I THINK THAT'S HCO SECRETARY, CMO AT SU.

Q. AND WHAT FUNCTIONS DID THAT ENTAIL, MR. MISCAVIGE, PLEASE?

A. BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HCO DIVISION, CALLED THE CMO UNIT.

Q. AND, FOR THE RECORD, HCO DIVISION MEANS WHAT?

A. HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE.

Q. NOW --

A. THAT'S WHAT THE INITIALS MEAN, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

Q. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, THAT CLARIFICATION IS NECESSARY. WHAT DID IT MEAN IN FUNCTION?

A. WHAT IT MEANT IN FUNCTION WAS THAT I WAS OVER THE DEPARTMENT 1, WHICH WAS DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, AND ROUTING, AND DEPARTMENT 2, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, AND DEPARTMENT 3, DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND REPORTS. Q. WHO DID YOU REPORT TO IN THIS POSITION?

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T GUESS.

THE WITNESS: GAIL IRWIN.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HOLD ANY OTHER POSITIONS IN THE TWO YEARS THAT YOU WERE AT LA QUINTA, OTHER THAN THE ONES YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED?

A. OF COURSE.

Q. WHAT WERE THOSE?

A. ALL OF THEM. LET'S SEE. CAMERA CHIEF, JBCIC, VIDEO IC, ACTION CHIEF, CMO SU, PROJECT OPS, CMO SU, EPF WHQ, GUARD, WHQ, NIGHT WATCH WHQ, INSTRUCTION, IN CHARGE WHQ, AND I WAS A MESSENGER.

Q. TURNING TO CMO SU, WHAT DID THAT ENTAIL?

A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT. THERE'S MISCOMMUNICATION.

MR. DRESCHER: THERE MAY BE A DROPPED COMMA, MISS PLEVIN. I THINK IT WAS A DESIGNATION DESCRIBING AN ACTUAL POST.

THE WITNESS: I THINK I SAID THERE WAS A POSITION IN THAT ORGANIZATION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. CMO AT SU?

A. IS THERE SOMETHING RIGHT BEFORE THAT?

Q. ACTION.

A. CHIEF CMO.

Q. SO IT'S ACTION CHIEF CMO?

A. I WAS GIVING YOU THE ORG DESIGNATION.

Q. OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE ACTION CHIEF ROLE?

A. THE ACTION CHIEF WAS IN CHARGE OF THE ACTION BRANCH THAT WOULD HANDLE SEA ORG MISSIONS AND IN THE INSTANCE OF THAT POST, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS RELATED IN SOME DEGREE TO SU OR IN TOTAL DEGREE.

Q. WHICH MEANT IT WAS RELATED, IN SOME DEGREE, TO SOMETHING THAT L. RON HUBBARD WANTED DONE?

A. ABSOLUTELY NOT. I DID NOT SAY THAT. YOU'RE PUTTING WORDS THERE. I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL.

Q. PLEASE CLARIFY.

A. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT. THERE'S A CLARIFICATION.

Q. WE WON'T QUIBBLE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THEN?

A. IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IT MEANT.

MR. HERTZBERG: IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. COG MISSIONS AT SU?

A. HAVING TO DO WITH SU, AT SU.

Q. SUCH AS?

A. OKAY. SUCH AS NEW PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED,AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, SEEING THAT THAT WAS SET UP, THAT ALL THE ROOF LEAKS WERE HANDLED, THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ABLE TO BE MOVED INTO BY A CREW, SUCH AS THAT. THERE'S AN EXAMPLE.

Q. OTHER EXAMPLES?

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER, BUT WE'RE GETTING FAR AFIELD. WE'RE ASKING FOR EXAMPLES THAT HAPPENED AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS COMPLAINT, EVEN ARGUABLY. THEY PREDATE THE COMPLAINT AGAIN, BUT GO AHEAD AND FINISH, IF YOU CAN THINK OF ANY OTHER EXAMPLES.

THE WITNESS: I CAN REMEMBER ONE OTHER. THAT'S GETTING VIDEO EQUIPMENT REPAIRED. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT --

A. OKAY. FINE. I WASN'T DONE. BUT THAT'S OKAY, IF THAT WILL DO.

Q. WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU GOT?

A. NOTHING ELSE YET. I WAS TRYING TO THINK FOR YOU, BUT THERE YOU GO.

Q. THE ACTION BRANCH CMO, ONE OF ITS PROJECTS WAS HANDLING THE NEW PROPERTY PURCHASED? A. NO. I DIDN'T SAY "NEW PROPERTY PURCHASED." IT WAS ALREADY PURCHASED.

Q. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED, TO PURCHASE IT. DO YOU KNOW WHO PURCHASED IT?

MR. HELLER: OBJECTION ON RELEVANCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING IS HE AWARE, YES OR NO, OF SOME CORPORATE ENTITY PURCHASING SOMETHING IN DATES THAT PREDATE THE COMPLAINT? MS. PLEVIN: YES.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO NOTE AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, THAT WE'RE -- IN MY VIEW, WASTING TIME, BUT HE MAY ANSWER.

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL JOIN IN THAT OBJECTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO PURCHASED IT?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO AUTHORIZED THE FUNDS TO PURCHASE IT?

MR. DRESCHER: SAME OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHERE DID YOU GO WHEN YOU LEFT LA QUINTA?

A. WHERE DID I MOVE TO?

Q. MM-HMM.

A. TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

Q. WHAT WERE YOUR POSTS THERE?

A. WHEN? THEN WHEN I MOVED THERE? THE SAME.

Q. SO YOU STAYED THE SAME, MEANING WHICH ONE?

A. ACTION CHIEF.

Q. ACTION CHIEF. AND HOW LONG WERE YOU IN THAT POST?

A. I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY.

Q. OKAY. NOW, IS ACTION CHIEF -- I'M SORRY?

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU CAN'T RECALL, YOU CAN'T RECALL.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THAT POST YOU'RE ASKING ME IS ACTION CHIEF CMO SU.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. DID SU MOVE TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY.

A. THAT'S A BIT OF A MISNOMER THOUGH. THE TITLE WENT WITH IT. OBVIOUSLY THE PROPERTY COULDN'T MOVE THERE. IT WAS A DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY. Q. SURE. BUT THE TITLE AND THE FUNCTION OF THE SPECIAL UNIT?

A. EXACTLY. THE ESTATES FUNCTIONS PARTICULARLY. I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL OF THEM DID.

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR NEXT POSITION AFTER ACTION CHIEF CMO SU?

A. ACTION CHIEF CMO INT.

Q. HOW DID THAT DIFFER?

MR. DRESCHER: HOW DID THAT DIFFER --

MR. HERTZBERG: FROM WHAT?

MS. PLEVIN: ACTION CHIEF CMO SU.

THE WITNESS: IT'S A BIT OF AN ODD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. FOR INSTANCE, YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU MOVE FROM ONE FIRM TO ANOTHER, YOU'RE STILL AN ATTORNEY, AND I ASK YOU "HOW DOES THAT DIFFER." IN THAT CONTEXT, THAT'S THE TROUBLE I'M HAVING ANSWERING THIS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. CMO INT, CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS.

A. COMMODORE'S MESSENGER ORG INTERNATIONAL.

Q. SO THE FUNCTIONS OF CMO INTERNATIONAL, THEY HAVE A BROADER REACH THAN CMO SU IN TERMS OF THE POSSIBLE AREAS THEY MIGHT BE ACTING IN? IS THAT REASONABLE? MR. HERTZBERG: IS THAT A QUESTION?

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECT TO THE FORM. IT'S VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS, WHETHER IT'S REASONABLE OR NOT.

MR. HELLER: JOIN IN THE OBJECTION AND IT'S VAGUE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, PUTTING ASIDE THE WORD "REASONABLE."

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T ANSWER IT AS PHRASED. WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE IT THEN.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. NO.

Q. CMO SU RELATED TO THE SPECIAL UNIT?

A. THAT'S IT.

Q. OKAY. CMO INTERNATIONAL RELATES TO WHAT?

A. THEN? WHEN ARE YOU ASKING ME?

Q. WELL, LET'S -- THEN. WE'LL TAKE IT AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

MR. HERTZBERG: "THEN" BEING A YEAR OR TWO BEFORE THE COMPLAINT, THE FIRST ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT.

MS. PLEVIN: "THEN" BEING WHEN HE MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THEN? WHEN I MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. RIGHT.

A. CMO DIDN'T EXIST WHEN I MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

Q. OKAY. BUT IT WAS THE NEXT POSITION YOU TOOK, ACCORDING TO YOUR TESTIMONY?

A. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE WAS SOME LAPSE IN TIME AFTER YOU GOT TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, WHILE YOU WERE NOT ON POST?

A. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID.

THE WITNESS: YOU ASKED ME --

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S FINE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE NEXT POSITION YOU TOOK AFTER CMO SU WAS CMO INT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. NO.

Q. WHAT WAS THE NEXT POSITION AFTER CMO SU?

A. THAT'S NOT A POSITION I EVER HELD.

Q. ACTION CHIEF CMO SU?

A. OKAY.

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR NEXT POSITION?

A. ACTION CHIEF CMO INT.

Q. ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED, CMO INT WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL WHEN YOU FIRST --

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. CHA; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. PRECISELY.

Q. OKAY. SO WAS THERE SOME -- WAS THERE ANY GAP IN TIME BETWEEN ACTION CHIEF CMO SU AND ACTION CHIEF CMO INT?

MR. HELLER: ANSWER THE QUESTION AS PHRASED.

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN --

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE GAP IN TIME, IN TERMS OF YOUR HAVING A POST, WAS THERE A PERIOD WHEN YOU WERE NOT ON POST?

A. NO.

Q. SO YOUR NEXT POSITION WAS CMO INT?

A. NO, NO. MY NEXT POSITION AFTER ACTION CHIEF CMO SU WAS ACTION CHIEF CMO INT. THE MISUNDERSTANDING HERE IS YOU KEEP CONFUSING FUNCTIONS OR DUTIES OR POST POSITIONS WITH ORGANIZATIONS, SO -- AT ANY RATE, I WAS TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT THERE. Q. THAT'S FINE. THE DEPOSITION IS TO CREATE CLARITY AND INFORMATION, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. VERY WELL.

MR. DRESCHER: NO. IT'S TO PHRASE QUESTIONS THAT ARE INTELLIGIBLE. AND HE'S HELPING THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, TOO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT KINDS OF PROJECTS WERE YOU INVOLVED WITH AS ACTION CHIEF CMO INT?

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU WERE INVOLVED IN ANY PROJECTS.

THE WITNESS: RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "INVOLVED"?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. PARTICIPATE IN, SUPERVISE, REVIEW, PLAN, ALL OF THE ABOVE.

A. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS -- GET TELEPHONES INSTALLED, GETTING INTERCOMS SET UP ON THE BASE, GETTING MEMEOFILES CREATED, PUTTING TOGETHER HAT PACKS -- LET'S SEE -- GETTING THE BUILDINGS PAINTED, GETTING A STUDIO BUILT, GETTING A CAMERA MAN

TRAINED.

Q. ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, OKAY. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION WAS GIVE EXAMPLES. ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOUR QUESTION IS CAN HE REMEMBER ANY OTHERS, OTHER THAN THE ONES HE MENTIONED. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE THERE A GREAT NUMBER OF OTHERS?

A. WHAT EXACTLY WAS YOUR QUESTION THOUGH, SO I'M SURE I'M ANSWERING THE RIGHT ONE HERE?

Q. AS ACTION CHIEF CMO INT, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS THE KIND OF PROJECTS YOU WERE INVOLVED IN.

A. PROJECTS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME?

MR. HERTZBERG: HE ANSWERED THAT.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT OTHER KIND OF FUNCTIONS DID YOU HAVE AS ACTION CHIEF CMO INT?

A. WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF FUNCTIONS?

Q. YES.

A. RUNNING MISSIONS, SEEING THAT MISSIONS WERE BRIEFED, SEEING THAT MISSIONS WERE PREPPED, SEEING THAT MISSIONS WERE FIRED, SEEING THAT BRIEFING PACKS WERE PUT TOGETHER, SEEING THAT MISSION ORDERS WERE WRITTEN, ARRANGING TRANSPORTATION. Q. FOR MISSIONAIRES?

A. PRECISELY; SEEING THAT MISSIONAIRES WERE WORD CLEARED ON THE MATERIALS NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR PURPOSE IN LIAISON WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS.

Q. OKAY. FOR CLARITY ON THE RECORD, WHEN YOU SAY "MISSIONS" IN THIS CONTEXT, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT IS, PLEASE?

A. YES, A MISSION IS -- I THOUGHT I DESCRIBED THIS ALREADY ACTUALLY.

MR. HERTZBERG: UNLESS IT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE, IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MS. PLEVIN: IT'S SIMPLY TO CREATE A RECORD AT THIS POINT THAT'S CLEAR. I'M NOT --

MR. HERTZBERG: IS IT THE SAME AS WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU WANT TO AMPLIFY? GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: WHAT IS A MISSION? OKAY. WELL, YOU HAVE A SITUATION AND A SITUATION IS DEFINED AS A DEPARTURE, MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM THE IDEAL SCENE, AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT THERE'S SOME Y. Y IS DEFINED AS AN EXPLANATION THAT OPENS A DOOR TO A HANDLING, AND

IF YOU HAVE ACTUALLY PULLED THE STRINGS ON THE SITUATION, ALL THE WAY DOWN, YOU WILL NOW HAVE A Y, WHICH MEANS THAT THAT SITUATION CAN BE RESOLVED.

A MISSION WOULD TAKE A SITUATION, KNOWING WHAT THE Y IS, AND THEREFORE, KNOWING WHAT EXACT HANDLING STEPS ARE THUS POSSIBLE AS A RESULT OF THE DOOR BEING OPENED BECAUSE THE Y WAS FOUND BY EVALUATION, AND THEY WOULD BE ON -- THEY WOULD OPERATE ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS A SET OF MISSION ORDERS, AND THE SET OF MISSION ORDERS IS AN EXACT SERIES OF STEPS, SOMETIMES CONSECUTIVE, SOMETIMES NOT, SOMETIMES THEY CAN BE DONE CONCURRENTLY WITHIN EACH OTHER. THEY ARE NUMBERED IN EACH STEP.

THEY LIST OUT THE PRECISE ACTIONS THAT THESE PERSONS WOULD DO, KNOWING, OF COURSE, THAT ONCE THEY ARE PERFORMING THEM, THEY ARE TO BE SENSIBLE ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING, IF THEY COME UPON ANY OTHER INFORMATION, AND THEY NEED TO RESOLVE SUCH MATTERS TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR MISSION PURPOSE. THESE MISSION ORDERS HAVE AN EXACT PURPOSE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, EXACT MAJOR TARGETS, EXACT PRIMARY TARGETS EXACT VITAL TARGETS, EXACT OPERATING TARGETS; THEY HAVE LISTED THE MEANS OF MISSION COMMUNICATION, AND THEY ALSO HAVE LISTED THE TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION.

THE MISSIONAIRES -- THERE WOULD BE A SERIES OF PEOPLE SELECTED TO DO THIS. IDEALLY AT LEAST TWO, AND HIGHER, GENERALLY YOU WOULD THINK TWO TO THREE, ALTHOUGH AT TIMES YOU MIGHT HAVE AN ADDITIONAL MISSIONAIRE KNOWN AS AN INSURANCE MISSIONAIRE. THEY WOULD READ THESE MISSION ORDERS. THEY WOULD READ ANY APPROPRIATE MATERIALS THAT WERE RELEVANT TO THESE MISSION ORDERS SO THAT THEY WERE THOROUGHLY SKILLED IN WHAT SITUATION THEY WOULD BE DEALING WITH. THEY WOULD ALSO REVIEW THEIR MAJOR TARGETS AND HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THEM IN CLAY TO GIVE A PERFECT EXAMPLE THAT THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, AND THAT WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THEIR MISSION OPERATIONS WANTED THEM TO ACCOMPLISH AND WHAT WAS STATED ON THE MISSION ORDERS.

AT SUCH A POINT AS ALL THIS BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED, THEY WOULD THEN FIRE AND THEY WOULD BE OPERATED WHEREBY THEY WOULD REPORT ON THEIR OT TARGETS, DONE, IP, BUG, AND THE MISSION OPS WOULD KEEP TRACK OF THESE MISSION TARGETS THAT WE DONE IP OR BUG, AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR MISSION STAY DEBUGGED, THAT THEY COMPLETED THEIR MISSION TARGETS, THAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED THEIR MISSION PURPOSE AND ACHIEVED THE MAJOR TARGETS OF THEIR MISSION, AT WHICH POINT THEY RETURNED HOME.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE MISSIONAIRES WERE PRINCIPALLY MEMBERS OF THE SEA ORG; IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? A. YES -- NO. THAT'S ENTIRELY INACCURATE. ALWAYS.

Q. ALWAYS MEMBERS OF THE SEA ORG?

A. YES.

Q. WOULD THEY INCLUDE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CMO SOMETIMES?

A. POSSIBLY.

Q. CMO MEMBERS ARE SEA ORG AS WELL AS CMO; IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

A. NO, THAT'S NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT.

MR. DRESCHER: I'M LOST ON THE TIME FRAME. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BACK THEN?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HELLER: THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED.

MR. HERTZBERG: SHE'S ASKING AT THE TIME THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE 1978, THE OPERATIVE DATE OF THE COMPLAINT, WERE THE MEMBERS OF THE CMO AND SEA ORG, AS UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER THEY'RE MEMBERS OF BOTH? MS. PLEVIN: NO. I WAS ASKING WHETHER -- TO SIMPLIFY, I WAS ASKING WHETHER A MEMBER OF THE CMO IS ALWAYS A MEMBER OF THE SEA ORG. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

MR. DRESCHER: AT THAT TIME?

MS. PLEVIN: AT THAT TIME.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND AT THE PRESENT TIME, HAS IT CHANGED?

A. NO.

I MEAN SEA ORG MEMBERS ARE WHAT MAKE UP -- THEY ARE SEA ORG MEMBERS. I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THIS ISSUE BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING IF THEY'RE BOTH. THEY'RE --

Q. CAN A PERSON BE A CMO WITHOUT BEING A MEMBER OF THE SEA ORG TODAY?

A. NO, NO.

Q. OKAY. THAT CLARIFIES THAT. BUT NOT ALL SEA ORG MEMBERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CMO?

A. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. OKAY. THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH.

A. OKAY.

Q. AT THE TIME YOU WERE RUNNING MISSIONS, SUCH AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED, PRIOR TO THAT TIME, HAD YOU TAKEN OEC COURSES, ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE COURSES, OR DONE ANY TRAINING ON THE OEC?

A. YES.

MR. HELLER: OBJECT ON RELEVANCE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU DONE THE WHOLE SERIES?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY HAVE I DONE THE WHOLE SERIES.

MR. HERTZBERG: FIRST SHE'S ASKING YOU, AT THE TIME, HAVE YOU DONE THE WHOLE SERIES. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, MAYBE SHE CAN CLARIFY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU INDICATED YOU HAD STUDIED -- DONE SOME OF THE OEC STUFF? HAD YOU COMPLETED THE OEC COURSE MATERIALS --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT "OEC STUFF." LET'S NOT USE THAT. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COURSES, LET'S TALK ABOUT COURSES.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE

(RECESS TAKEN.)

MS. PLEVIN: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. WAS THERE A QUESTION PENDING?

(RECORD READ.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU EVER STUDY ALL THE ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE COURSES, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. WELL, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? LET ME ASK YOU THAT.

Q. WELL, THERE'S A SET OF GREEN VOLUMES --

A. MM-HMM.

Q. -- GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS THE OEC VOLUMES.

A. HMM.

Q. THERE ARE STUDIES THAT GO ALONG WITH STUDYING THE ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT FUNCTION WITH THOSE VOLUMES; IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

A. NO, IT'S VERY INACCURATE.

Q. OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU DESCRIBE TO ME HOW A PERSON GOES AROUND STUDYING THE OEC MATERIALS?

A. GOES AROUND --

Q. GOES ABOUT STUDYING THE OEC MATERIALS. IS IT A CHECK SHEET FORMAT?

A. HOW A PERSON GOES AROUND STUDYING THE OEC MATERIALS.

Q. IS IT A COURSE FORMAT, A CHECK SHEET FORMAT?

A. THE OEC VOLUMES?

Q. THE OEC VOLUMES.

A. NO, THEY'RE IN VOLUMES; THEY'RE IN BOOKS.

Q. SO IT'S SELF STUDY?

A. I DON'T -- NO. I'M REALLY NOT TRACKING WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE, I'M SORRY.

Q. WHEN YOU STUDY THE OEC VOLUMES, IT'S A COURSE THAT YOU TAKE, ISN'T IT?

A. THERE IS A COURSE, BUT YOU SAY WHEN YOU STUDY THE OEC VOLUMES, IT'S A COURSE THAT YOU TAKE, AND I'M TELLING YOU IT'S ENTIRELY INACCURATE.

Q. OKAY. OKAY. THE OEC COURSE IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THE OEC VOLUMES?

A. YES. MAYBE. THAT'S 50-50. NO, I MEAN -- NO, IT'S NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

Q. THERE'S SOME INTERPLAY ON THE OEC COURSE, GREEN VOLUMES?

A. POSSIBLY.

Q. ARE THERE SEVERAL DIFFERENT COURSES OFFERED FOR STUDYING THE OEC MATERIALS OR THE OEC COURSE -- IS IT A SINGLE COURSE? LET'S START THERE. IS IT A SINGLE COURSE, SEVERAL COURSES? YOU HAD IT ONCE AND THAT'S IT?

MR. DRESCHER: WHICH QUESTION --

MR. HERTZBERG: WHICH QUESTION DO YOU WANT HIM TO ANSWER?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I'M TRYING TO HELP HIM FORMULATE HOW BEST TO RESPOND.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE HAVE TO FORMULATE THE BEST QUESTION FIRST BEFORE HE CAN RESPOND. WHAT QUESTION ARE YOU ASKING? YOU ASKED THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THERE IN SEQUENCE. WHICH QUESTION DO YOU WANT HIM TO RESPOND TO?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M TRYING TO GET HIM TO RESPOND TO A SIMPLE QUESTION, IF HE STUDIED THE OEC COURSE.

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION, MR. MISCAVIGE? DID YOU STUDY THE OEC COURSE? DID YOU TAKE THAT COURSE, AND IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE COURSE, LET'S CLARIFY THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE TESTIFIED TO THAT ALREADY.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. LET ME --

MR. HERTZBERG: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "THE OEC COURSE."

THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT -- YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT "OEC" MEANS. OEC MEANS ORG EXEC COURSE. SO YOU'RE ASKING ME IF I TOOK THE ORG EXEC COURSE, COURSE. OF COURSE, I DIDN'T BECAUSE THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS THE ORG EXEC COURSE, COURSE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. BUT THERE'S AN ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE?

A. YES.

Q. DID YOU TAKE THAT COURSE?

A. WHICH ONE? THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS ENTERING HERE.

Q. ALL RIGHT. HOW MANY ARE THERE?

A. WHEN, NOW?

Q. HOW MANY ORG EXECUTIVE COURSES ARE THERE NOW IS FINE.

A. ARE THERE NOW?

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, TODAY?

MS. PLEVIN: NOW, TODAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT'S RELEVANT TO ANYTHING IN THE COMPLAINT, BUT YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. I REALLY DON'T. YOU'RE CONFUSING A SET OF VOLUMES WITH A COURSE. WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ASKING ME?

MS. PLEVIN: I THINK THE QUESTION STANDS FOR ITSELF.

MR. HELLER: WELL, IF YOUR RESPONSE IS YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND, THAT'S YOUR RESPONSE. DON'T ANSWER A QUESTION YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT IS IT YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND?

A. YOU ASKED ME HOW MANY ORG EXECUTIVE COURSES ARE THERE.

Q. NO. I SAID HOW MANY --

A. I DON'T GET IT. HOW MANY ORG EXECUTIVE COURSES.THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS. THAT'S MY ANSWER.

Q. HOW MANY HAVE YOU TAKEN SINCE -- EVER?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT. YOU MEAN IN THE ENTIRE TIME THAT MR. MISCAVIGE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY?

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, IF THERE ARE TOO MANY TO MENTION, I'M SURE HE'LL TELL ME THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: FIRST OF ALL, I'M BEGINNING TO PERCEIVE A LITTLE SARCASM. LET'S KEEP THIS ON AN EVEN KEEL, MISS PLEVIN. HE CAN ANSWER. I THINK THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPLAINT, BUT IF YOU CAN APPROXIMATE OR -- IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, AND YOU CAN APPROXIMATE, TELL --

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: OKAY. I'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THERE ARE A SET OF VOLUMES CALLED THE OEC VOLUMES, MEANING THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE VOLUMES. THEY GO 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. THEY WERE PUBLISHED SOMETIME IN THE EARLY 1970'S. THERE IS OR HAS BEEN A COURSE CALLED THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE. THAT ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE HAS NOT NECESSARILY BEEN THE SAME COURSE, ALWAYS.

INDIVIDUALLY THERE ARE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE VOLUMES, AS I SAID, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. FOR EXAMPLE, 0 NOW, TODAY, IS NOT THE SAME AS 0 FIVE YEARS AGO. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VOLUME?

A. PRECISELY.

Q. ALL RIGHT.

A. FURTHERMORE YOU ASKED -- THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE IS NOT, AND HAS NOT, ALWAYS BEEN JUST THE VOLUMES, OR PARTICULARLY WHAT'S IN THE VOLUMES, SO YOU ASKED ME -- I DON'T KNOW. HAS THAT CLARIFIED IT FOR YOU? DO YOU SEE WHAT MY CONFUSION IS, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME?

Q. MM-HMM.

A. THEIR MATERIALS -- I DON'T KNOW HOW -- WELL, YOU COULDN'T, BUT A SCIENTOLOGIST COULD BUY A SET OF OEC VOLUMES. YOU ASKED ME HOW WOULD HE STUDY THESE? I DON'T KNOW. Q. HAVE YOU STUDIED THE OEC VOLUMES?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? REALLY, I'M SERIOUS. CLARIFY FOR ME --

Q. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICIES THAT ARE IN THE OEC VOLUMES?

A. EVERY SINGLE --

MR. HERTZBERG: I WAS GOING TO ASK --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. GENERALLY, NOT EVERY SINGLE ONE.

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'VE CLARIFIED THAT THE COURSE HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME. I TAKE IT THAT PERHAPS THE COURSE GETS REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME.

A. NOT AS A MATTER OF COURSE, NOT AS A MATTER OF ABSOLUTE NECESSITY EVERY SIX MONTHS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME, BUT IT HAS, YES. IF YOU WERE TO PICK UP A SET OF OEC VOLUMES TODAY, THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME VOLUMES THAT WERE PUBLISHED IN THE EARLY 1970'S, SO I WOULDN'T CALL THEM COMPLETELY ACCURATE OR COMPLETE.

Q. OKAY.

A. THERE YOU GO.

Q. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE COURSE NOW, THE COURSE HAS BEEN REVISED? A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AND THE COURSE --

A. I WOULDN'T SAY REVISED. I'D SAY UPDATED OR CHANGED. ALL RIGHT. IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, YES, EVEN HOW YOU GO ABOUT STUDYING IT. Q. OKAY.

A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST TAKE THE ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE COURSE? WHENEVER --

A. AS THE ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE COURSE?

Q. YES.

A. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YOU ASKED --

Q. YOU DON'T REMEMBER?

A. YOU'RE ASKING ME WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME I EVER READ A POLICY?

Q. NO. WHEN WERE YOU FIRST ON COURSE FOR --

A. EVER?

Q. FOR THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE.

A. FOR THE ORG --

MR. DRESCHER: IF THE ANSWER IS NOT ANSWERABLE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRY TO INTERPRET IT.

THE WITNESS: LET ME EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU. FOR INSTANCE, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.I THINK YOU'RE ASKING ME AS IF THERE WAS A DATE WHEN I SAT DOWN AND NOW ON THE OEC COURSE? MS. PLEVIN: MM-HMM.

THE WITNESS: THE FIRST TIME EVER, I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A DATE ON THAT.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

Q. BUT YOU'VE TAKEN THE OEC? YOU HAVE TAKEN A COURSE ENTITLED THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE?

A. NO. TAKEN? NO, I DON'T -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, TAKEN -- NO.

Q. REGISTERED FOR THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE, BEEN CERTIFIED AS HAVING TAKEN THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE?

MR. HERTZBERG: THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS, UNLESS THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN BY "TAKEN."

THE WITNESS: LET ME EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU --

MS. PLEVIN: LET ME ASK THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: GOOD, FINE. GO AHEAD.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU BEEN CERTIFIED AS HAVING TAKEN THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE?

A. I DON'T THINK SO.

Q. HAVE YOU GRADUATED FROM THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE?

A. NO.

Q. BUT YOU'VE DONE THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE?

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT "DONE" MEANS.

MS. PLEVIN: WE'LL GO ON AND COME BACK TO IT. FOR SOME REASON THIS IS -- WELL, MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF GETTING AT IT.

Q. HAVE YOU BEEN CHECKED OUT OR STAR-RATED ON THE ORG EXECUTIVE COURSE?

A. NO, S-T-A-R, DASH, RATED.

Q. NOW, WHILE YOU WERE GOING BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE THE LAST BREAK, WHILE YOU WERE ACTION CHIEF CMO INT RUNNING MISSIONS --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- DID YOU PERFORM ANY OTHER FUNCTIONS, OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY INDICATED, WHICH IS RUNNING MISSIONS AND -- SUCH AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED?

A. DO YOU MEAN DURING THE WHOLE TIME PERIOD? WHEN?

Q. DURING THE WHOLE TIME PERIOD THAT YOU WERE ACTION CHIEF CMO INT --

A. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT I DID THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THAT, THAT WAS CONCURRENT WITH IT.

Q. OKAY. WERE THERE OTHER FUNCTIONS THAT YOU PERFORMED WHILE YOU WERE ACTION CHIEF CMO INT?

A. AT TIMES.

Q. AT TIMES. SUCH AS?

A. BUT NOT WHILE I WAS BEING ACTION CHIEF CMO INT, BUT DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD.

Q. AND WHAT WERE THOSE?

A. I WAS A MESSENGER. LET'S SEE.

Q. YOU CAN'T THINK OF ANY? WE'LL GO ONTO SOMETHING ELSE -- YOU CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER FUNCTIONS, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. IS THAT A QUESTION?

Q. I'M ASKING -- YES, IT IS A QUESTION. CAN YOU --

A. WELL, I WAS THINKING.

Q. OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU.

MR. HELLER: YOU DID.

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE I GAVE YOU ONE THERE,TOO, BY THE WAY. YOU SAID I DIDN'T THINK OF ANY. I THINK I DID GIVE YOU ONE THERE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, IF YOU THINK OF ANY OTHERS, YOU LET ME KNOW.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL WAIT A MOMENT. WAIT A MOMENT. IS HE SUPPOSED TO BE THINKING OF THE OTHERS DURING THE DEPOSITION, AFTER THE DEPOSITION? YOU WANT HIM TO TELL YOU NOW, BEFORE WE MOVE ONTO THE NEXT QUESTION, IF HE CAN THINK OF ANY OTHERS? MS. PLEVIN: IF HE CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHERS, HE CAN SAY SO AND WE'LL GO ON.

THE WITNESS: I CAN'T. I'LL HAVE TO REVIEW -- I HAVE TO TRACK -- THIS BEGINS WHEN I WAS ACTUALLY CHIEF CMO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHEN YOU WERE ACTING AS A MESSENGER DURING THIS PERIOD, YOU MEAN AS A MESSENGER OF THE COMMODORE?

A. YES, L. RON HUBBARD.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M HANDING YOU A DOCUMENT ENTITLED SEA ORG FLAG ORDER 3729. COUNSEL IS LOOKING AT IT, ANOTHER ONE.

MR. HELLER: DO YOU HAVE COPIES AS WELL?

MS. PLEVIN: I HAD NO IDEA HOW MANY WERE GOING TO BE HERE. I HAD ONE FOR COUNSEL FOR MR. MISCAVIGE, MR. MISCAVIGE AND MYSELF.

THE WITNESS: YOU CAN LOOK OVER MY SHOULDER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T ANSWER.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. I'LL READ THE WHOLE DOCUMENT.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. THE PENDING QUESTION IS: IS HE FAMILIAR WITH THE DOCUMENT.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S THE PENDING QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND "FAMILIAR"?

THE WITNESS: I THINK SO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE?

A. NOT IN THIS FORM, I HAVEN'T, NO, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS WRITING.

Q. OKAY. AND DOES THIS WRITING -- STRIKE THAT. THIS IS THE CONTENT OF FLAG ORDER 3729?

A. I'D HAVE TO VERIFY THAT'S THE NUMBER, BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT THAT THIS IS OFFICIAL, RIGHT.

Q. THIS IS ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS WHICH DESCRIBES THE FUNCTION OF A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER?

A. THE FUNCTION OF A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER?

Q. SUCH AS IN THE FIRST LINE, A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER CARRYING AN ORDER OR RUNNING A PROJECT OR OTHERWISE ON DUTY AS AN EMISSARY OF THE COMMODORE, AND SO FORTH.

A. NO. THIS DOESN'T DESCRIBE "FUNCTION" AT ALL. THERE'S NOT ONE MENTION OF "FUNCTION" IN HERE, NO.

Q. WELL --

A. YOU'RE MISREADING IT. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.

Q. OKAY. THE DOCUMENT WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF?

MR. DRESCHER: THAT'S CORRECT, IT WILL.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S RIGHT. IT WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: WHY DON'T WE MARK THIS AS PLAINTIFF'S 1, PLEASE.

(THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS MARKED BY THE C.S.R. AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF THIS DEPOSITION.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND TAPE OF THE DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE. ON JULY 19, 1990 -- DID WE MARK THAT?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, MR. MISCAVIGE, WAS THIS WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING DOES HE HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT L. RON HUBBARD WROTE IT?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M ASKING HIM TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE, WAS IT WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD.

MS. PLEVIN: SECOND TAPE, DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE, JULY 19, 1990.

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PLAINTIFF'S 1, WHICH IS SEA ORG FLAG ORDER 3729 --

A. RIGHT.

Q. -- IS THIS WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE?

Q. WELL, DO YOU HAVE A BELIEF THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD?

A. YES.

Q. AND AS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER, WOULD YOU BE GUIDED BY MR. HUBBARD'S WRITINGS REGARDING COMMODORE'S MESSENGERS?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN WHEN HE WAS A COMMODORE MESSENGER?

MS. PLEVIN: WHEN YOU WERE A COMMODORE MESSENGER.

THE WITNESS: GUIDED. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "GUIDED"?

MS. PLEVIN: I THINK I'LL LET THE QUESTION STAND.

MR. HELLER: IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT, TO ANSWER IT, ANSWER IT, OR JUST SAY YOU CAN'T --

THE WITNESS: I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WOULD YOU BE GUIDED IN YOUR PERFORMANCE, IN YOUR DUTIES AS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER, BY THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN WAS HE -- LET'S BE CLEAR HERE. AGAIN, JUST FOR STARTERS, I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW THIS IS RELEVANT AT ALL TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT. I WILL LET HIM ANSWER THE QUESTION. I THINK WE'RE WASTING A LOT OF TIME.

I WILL LET HIM ANSWER IT IF HE CAN UNDERSTAND IT, AND I ASSUME YOU'RE -- ARE YOU ASKING HIM WHETHER -- WHEN HE WAS A COMMODORE MESSENGER, HE WAS GUIDED BY THIS DOCUMENT?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: OR ACTED ACCORDINGLY?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE'S --

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "GUIDED," NO, I DON'T.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU COMPLY WITH THE --

A. THERE'S NOTHING TO COMPLY TO. THERE'S NOTHING TO COMPLY TO. IT'S A STATEMENT.

Q. OKAY.

A. OKAY.

Q. OF THE COMMODORE'S FUNCTION, COMMODORE'S MESSENGER'S FUNCTIONS?

A. NO.

Q. OKAY. IT WILL STAND FOR ITSELF.

A. OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: SHOWING YOU A FOUR-PAGE -- OH, THE LAST ONE IS A DUPLICATE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF.

Q. IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND,

MR. MISCAVIGE, TURN TO THE LAST PAGE OF THIS. THERE'S AN EXTRA PAGE BECAUSE ONE HAD BEEN POORLY COPIED.

A. THIS ONE?

Q. YES. THAT'S AN IMPROPER DUPLICATE OF THE SECOND PAGE IN THIS --

MR. DRESCHER: DO YOU WANT HIM TO REMOVE IT, THE LAST PAGE?

MS. PLEVIN: YES. IT'S NOT NECESSARY. IT'S A DUPLICATE OF A PRIOR PAGE. HERE, TAKE THIS ONE.

MR. DRESCHER: HERE. CAN I READ IT?

MS. PLEVIN: OH, ALL RIGHT. I DO HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF THAT.YES, THAT'S FINE.

MR. DRESCHER: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE?

A. NO, I HAVEN'T.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: I DID. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE.

MR. DRESCHER: ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE IT MARKED?

MS. PLEVIN: YES. WE'LL MARK THIS AS PLAINTIFF'S 2.

(THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS MARKED BY THE C.S.R. AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF THIS DEPOSITION.)

MR. HERTZBERG: HE HASN'T IDENTIFIED IT. THE QUESTION --

MR. DRESCHER: IT CAN BE MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE DEPOSITION TO SHOW WHAT HE'S NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

MS. PLEVIN: EXACTLY. AND I'M NOW SHOWING YOU A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE ED92 CMO WITH A SUBTITLE OF CMO REGULATIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: WITH A SUBTITLE OF WHAT?

MS. PLEVIN: CMO REGULATIONS IN THE CENTER.

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU WANT HIM TO LOOK AT IT?

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU MEAN ASIDE FROM HIS HAVING JUST READ IT NOW?

MS. PLEVIN: YES, OF COURSE.

THE WITNESS: VAGUELY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE CONTENT REGARDING CMO REGULATIONS, WERE THESE REGULATIONS OF -- WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONDUCT AS A CMO -- AS A MEMBER OF THE CMO WHILE YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE CMO, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. LET ME ASK --

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT. CAN I HAVE THE QUESTION AGAIN?

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE READ THE QUESTION BACK.

(RECORD READ.)

MS. PLEVIN: THAT WAS PRETTY GARBLED.

MR. HERTZBERG: I THINK THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE POWERS AND RIGHTS OF A MEMBER OF THE CMO AS DESCRIBED IN THIS DOCUMENT, WERE THE POWERS AND RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE CMO DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE CMO; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. HELLER: I'LL OBJECT. IT ASSUMES THESE WERE POWERS AND RIGHTS -- THAT THESE ARE THE POWERS AND RIGHTS THAT WERE IN EFFECT WHEN THIS DOCUMENT WAS WRITTEN OR THAT IN FACT EMBODIES THE POWERS AND RIGHTS OF SOMEONE FROM THE CMO.

MS. PLEVIN: OH, WE CAN TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME, MR. MISCAVIGE.

THE WITNESS: WELL, I CAN'T -- YOU WANT THE ANSWER TO THE GENERAL?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: IT'S ODD. WHEN THIS CAME OUT, I WASN'T DIRECTLY WORKING IN THE CMO. YOU'RE ASKING ME A HISTORICAL QUESTION. THAT'S MY PROBLEM.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHEN DID YOU JOIN THE CMO?

A. 1976.

Q. OKAY. AND THIS WAS ISSUED IN 1978?

A. APPEARS TO BE, 11 JANUARY 1978.

Q. OKAY. TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, WAS THIS DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS OF THE CMO AT THAT TIME?

A. I WOULD GUESS IT WAS.

MR. HERTZBERG: "AT THAT TIME" MEANING IN 1978?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T GUESS. IF YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS, YOU CAN'T GUESS.

MR. HELLER: YOUR ANSWER IS, "I DON'T KNOW."

THE WITNESS: I CAN ONLY GUESS. SO I COULD ONLY ANSWER I DON'T KNOW, NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS THIS, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, CURRENTLY IN FORCE AS CMO REGULATION ED92 TODAY?

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER, BUT I -- IT'S -- I'M HARD PRESSED TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE -- THESE QUESTIONS AND THE PRECEDING QUESTIONS ARE BEING ASKED. WE HAVE A LAWSUIT. IT DEALS WITH THINGS THAT MR. CORYDON CLAIMS WERE DONE AGAINST HIM.

WHETHER THIS -- AND BY THE WAY, THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEPOSITION IS TO FIND OUT WHAT MR. MISCAVIGE DID OR DIDN'T DO WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR. CORYDON. HOW -- WHETHER THIS 1978 EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE IS IN FORCE TODAY IN THE CMO STRIKES ME AS THE HEIGHT OF IRRELEVANCE. YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. I CONSIDER THE QUESTION SORT OF SILLY. THIS ISSUE APPEARS TO TALK ABOUT COMMODORE'S MESSENGER HAVING AN ORDER AND ALSO IN RELATION TO THE COMMODORE. THE COMMODORE IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE, L. RON HUBBARD AND AS YOU PROBABLY ARE AWARE, ON 24 JANUARY 6, HE PASSED AWAY.

SECONDLY, THIS IS AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE AND IT IS BASIC POLICY OF THE CHURCH THAT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVES HAVE, AT MOST, A ONE-YEAR TIME FRAME WHEREBY THEY'RE IN FORCE. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF POLICY. THERE'S A GRADIENT SCALE OF ISSUES AND POLICIES WITHIN THE CHURCH AND AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE EXPIRES AFTER ONE YEAR, SO SINCE THIS IS 11 JANUARY 1978, I WOULD ASSUME NOT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THIS HAS BEEN ADOPTED OR REISSUED? MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU KNOW.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW -- WHAT YOU MEAN BY READOPTED? MS. PLEVIN:

Q. LET'S LIMIT IT TO REISSUED.

A. ARE YOU ASKING ME IF THIS IS A CURRENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE? Q. YES.

A. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE?

Q. YES.

A. NO.

Q. IS THERE A CURRENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE REGARDING CMO REGULATIONS, TO THE BEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE? A. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. WHO WOULD?

A. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS. I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY WHO WOULD.

Q. AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE IN THE CMO, LET'S PUT SOME TIME FRAME ON IT, MISCAVIGE. YOU SAID YOU JOINED THE CMO IN APPROXIMATELY 1976? A. YES.

Q. AND HOW LONG WERE YOU IN THE CMO? I TAKE IT BY MR. HERTZBERG'S COMMENT, THAT YOU'RE NO LONGER IN THE CMO?

MR. HERTZBERG: I DIDN'T MAKE ANY COMMENT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS OR HE WASN'T. BUT YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MR. HELLER: WHICH I THINK IS: ARE YOU PRESENTLY IN THE CMO?

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. WHEN DID YOU CEASE BEING IN THE CMO?

A. OKAY. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "BEING IN THE CMO"? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO YOU, BEING IN THE CMO? I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IN AGREEMENT HERE ON WHAT I'M ANSWERING. Q. THE COMMODORE MESSENGER ORGANIZATION STILL EXISTS, EVEN THOUGH HUBBARD PASSED AWAY IN 1986?

A. RIGHT.

Q. ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE COMMODORE'S MESSENGER ORGANIZATION?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU RESIGN FROM THE COMMODORE'S MESSENGER ORGANIZATION?

A. NO.

Q. WERE YOU --

MR. HERTZBERG: NOTE MY CONTINUING OBJECTION TO THE RELEVANCE OF THESE QUESTIONS. YOU MAY ANSWER.

MS. PLEVIN: HE HAS.

Q. ALL RIGHT. IN WHAT WAY WAS YOUR MEMBERSHIP IN THE CMO TERMINATED?

A. THE QUESTION IS SENSELESS. I DON'T GET IT. I NEVER HAD A MEMBERSHIP CARD OR MEMBERSHIP -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.

Q. YOU WERE A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER?

A. YES.

Q. WHEN DID YOU CEASE BEING A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER?

A. WELL, THE -- OKAY. CEASE TO BE A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER? I WAS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER WHEN I WAS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER. YOU'RE ASKING DIFFERENT QUESTIONS HERE. THIS IS NOT THE SAME QUESTION YOU ASKED BEFORE. YOU ASKED CMO. COMMODORE'S MESSENGER IS NOT THE SAME AS CMO. ARE YOU ASKING ME WHEN I WAS -- I DON'T --

Q. OKAY. YOU WERE IN THE COMMODORE'S MESSENGER ORGANIZATION FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME? A. YES, I WAS.

Q. AND WHICH --

A. SEVERAL DIFFERENT ONES THOUGH.

Q. TELL ME THOSE PERIODS OF TIME.

A. IN 1976, ON AND OFF, I'D SAY, 50-50 THAT YEAR. 1977 I'D SAY PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE YEAR. 1978, I'D GIVE IT A 70-30 OR 80-20. 1979, THE WHOLE YEAR. 1980, THE WHOLE YEAR. 1981, 80 TO 90 PERCENT. THAT'S IN THE CMO ORGANIZATION, COMMODORE'S MESSENGER ORGANIZATION.

Q. MM-HMM?

A. OKAY. THAT'S YOUR ANSWER.

Q. AND NOT SINCE '81?

A. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE, BUT I THINK -Q. MAYBE YOU DID SOME --

A. I DON'T THINK SO, BUT I'D HAVE TO REALLY WORK MY MIND OUT TO FIGURE OUT -- I THINK IT WAS NEAR THE END OF '81, LIKE THE FALL. Q. CAN YOU BE A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER WITHOUT BEING IN THE CMO?

A. YES.

Q. WELL, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME, PLEASE?

MR. DRESCHER: CLARIFY WHAT? I'M SORRY? CLARIFY WHAT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HOW ONE IS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER WITHOUT BEING A MEMBER OF THE COMMODORE'S MESSENGER ORG?

A. COMMODORE'S MESSENGER HAS MANY DIFFERENT MEANINGS, AND TO CLARIFY IT FOR YOU, I'M NOT SURE, I THINK --

Q. SO NOT ALL COMMODORE'S MESSENGERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CMO; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

A. "MEMBERS" IS THE WRONG WORD. I DON'T KNOW -- THAT'S THE WORD I HAVE TROUBLE WITH.

Q. WHAT IS THE RIGHT WORD, IF YOU ARE --

A. POSTED IN CMO.

Q. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT DURING THESE VARIOUS YEARS, '76 THROUGH '81, WHERE YOU'VE GIVEN US THE PERCENTAGES OF THE TIME THAT YOU WERE WITH PART OF CMO, YOU MEAN THAT YOU WERE POSTED IN CMO FOR THOSE PERIODS OF TIME? A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER, YOU WOULD CONTINUE, AS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER, TO HAVE THAT DESIGNATION?

A. NOT ALWAYS, AND NOT ALWAYS THERE EITHER, AND JUST TO FURTHER CLARIFY, PEOPLE CAN IN THE CMO AND NOT BE A MESSENGER, EITHER A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER, AND ON THOSE DATES NOT WAYS WAS I A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER.

Q. BUT YOU WERE POSTED IN THE CMO IN IS SERIES OF DATES, 1976-81?

A. YES, AND YOU PRETTY MUCH COULD STATE AT I HAD THE STATUS OF A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER RING THOSE DATES I GAVE YOU THERE.

Q. OKAY. WHEN WERE YOU A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER, APART FROM BEING POSTED IN THE CMO?

A. WELL, WHAT DATES DO YOU HAVE THERE AT I GAVE YOU?

Q. WELL, A GREAT --

A. IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. I GAVE YOU -- WHAT DID I SAY HERE FOR 1986?

Q. ON AND OFF, 50-50.

A. RIGHT. OKAY. THERE'S AN EXAMPLE. AT YEAR I WAS ON FMMO 1672 AND 1673, AND I WASN'T OPERATING OUT OF CMO AND THE PERSON WHO WAS MY MISSION OPERATIONS WAS NOT IN THE CMO, BUT I SORT OF STILL CONSIDERED I WAS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER. Q. WAS THAT GAIL IRWIN YOU WERE OPERATING UNDER IN THOSE --

A. NO, IT WASN'T.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO IT WAS?

MR. DRESCHER: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE WITNESS: I WAS OPERATING UNDER WHEN?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ON FMO IN '76, '77.

A. YES, JOHN HORWITZ. ALSO YOU HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER DISTINCTION THERE, JUST SO I'M REALLY CLEAR FOR THE RECORD HERE. AT THAT TIME I'D NEVER MET L. RON HUBBARD, BUT I WAS STILL CONSIDERED A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER. I'D NEVER SPOKEN TO HIM. Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST MEET L. RON HUBBARD? LET ME SEE IF I CAN HELP YOU OUT. WAS IT BEFORE GOING TO LA QUINTA?

A. NO, IT WAS AT LA QUINTA.

Q. AT LA QUINTA. WHILE YOU WERE AT LA QUINTA, DID YOU SEE HIM ON A FREQUENT BASIS?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT YEARS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, HE WAS AT LA QUINTA FOR TWO YEARS, '77, '78.

MR. HELLER: I OBJECT AS TO VAGUENESS OF THE WORD "FREQUENT."

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?

A. THE ANSWER IS YES AND NO.

Q. OKAY. TELL ME HOW IT'S "YES."

A. SOMETIMES YES, SOMETIMES NO.

Q. DIFFERENT PERIODS OF TIME YOU MIGHT SEE HIM FREQUENTLY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS OR SEVERAL MONTHS, AND THEN YOU MIGHT NOT SEE HIM AT ALL? IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN, FOR SEVERAL MONTHS?

A. SOMETIMES, BUT -- NO, BUT SOMETIMES --

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU KNOW -- GO AHEAD. FINISH THE ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: SOMETIMES I WOULD SEE HIM FREQUENTLY, SOMETIMES NOT.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. THAT ANSWERS IT.

THE WITNESS: AND "MONTHS" MAYBE ISN'T NECESSARILY THE CASE AND MAYBE IT IS. IT VARIED.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S FINE.

Q. WHAT ABOUT AFTER SPECIAL UNIT MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS?

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, I JUST WANT TO NOTE MY CONTINUING OBJECTION ON RELEVANCY GROUNDS TO THESE QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY RELATE TO THE COMPLAINT. I HAVE YET TO HEAR, THROUGH NEARLY THREE HOURS THIS MORNING, I HAVE YET TO HEAR THE NAME BENT CORYDON, YOUR CLIENT'S NAME, ANY REFERENCE TO HIS MISSION. I HAVE YET TO SEE A SINGLE QUESTION EMANATING FROM THE COMPLAINT, AND I REALLY THINK THAT WE'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE REMOTE AND WASTING MORE AND MORE TIME.

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, I'LL STATE FOR THE RECORD WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN OTHER DEPOSITIONS, MR. HERTZBERG, AND I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS MY POSITION. IT IS CENTRAL IN THIS COMPLAINT TO EVALUATE -- MR. MISCAVIGE IS LEAVING THE ROOM, TO THE BATHROOM. I

ASSUME HE'LL BE BACK IN A FEW MINUTES. WE'LL NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD. GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: SHOULD I WAIT HERE?

MS. PLEVIN: NO. GO AHEAD. THE CLAIMS IN THIS COMPLAINT ISSUE -- AND ISSUES IN THIS COMPLAINT INCLUDE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE SCIENTOLOGY DEFENDANTS IN THIS MATTER ARE RUN AS A SINGLE ENTITY, AND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, AND ARE RUN ACCORDING TO THE WISHES OF MR. MISCAVIGE, AS THEY MAY BE EXPRESSED DIRECTLY OR THROUGH HIS AGENTS TO OTHER PEOPLE, AND THOSE AGENTS BEING INVOLVED WITH HIM AS A MANAGING CADRE OF SCIENTOLOGY, IF YOU WILL. MUCH OF THE DISCOVERY TO DATE, INCLUDING DISCOVERY WHICH HAS BEEN ORDERED PRODUCED BY THE COURT, IS DESIGNED TO ELICIT INFORMATION REGARDING THE ISSUE I'VE JUST DESCRIBED. MR. MISCAVIGE'S BACKGROUND AS A PERSON WITH POSTS IN VARIOUS ORGS AND CORPORATIONS IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT BACKGROUND WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISHING HIS ROLE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

IT MAY TAKE ME ALL DAY TO EXPLORE MR. MISCAVIGE'S BACKGROUND, AND I INTEND TO EXPLORE MR. MISCAVIGE'S BACKGROUND. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. WITHOUT ACQUIESCING IN ANYTHING YOU SAID, MY POINT HERE IS EVEN IF THAT IS WHAT YOUR PURPOSE IS AND EVEN IF YOUR -- WHAT YOU CALL THE EXPLORATION OF HIS BACKGROUND IS PERMISSIBLE IN THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU'VE PROCEEDED THIS MORNING, QUITE APART FROM THAT, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT MR. MISCAVIGE MAY REMEMBER THAT HE SAW MR. HUBBARD AT A GIVEN PERIOD IN TIME, THE NUMBER OF WHO WAS A SENIOR IN 1976 IN SOME UNIT IN FLORIDA, WHICH PREDATES A TIME PERIOD THAT PREDATES THE COMPLAINT BY TWO YEARS, THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS CAN'T POSSIBLY BE DESIGNED TO RELATE TO THE COMPLAINT. IF YOU WANT TO EXPLORE WHAT MR. MISCAVIGE SAID OR DID, HOW HE MAY HAVE ACTED WITH RESPECT TO MR. CORYDON OR EVEN SQUIRRELS, GENERALLY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, BUT NOT TO TALK ABOUT THESE IRRELEVANCIES. THAT'S MY POSITION.

MS. PLEVIN: YOU'VE MADE YOUR POSITION CLEAR, MR. HERTZBERG.

MR. HERTZBERG: FINE. OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: WAS THERE A QUESTION PENDING?

(RECORD READ.)

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE THAT HAS TO RELATE TO A PRIOR QUESTION. DO YOU WANT TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: YES, I WILL.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AFTER SPECIAL UNIT MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, DID YOU HAVE FREQUENT CONTACT WITH MR. HUBBARD IN THE FIRST YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO THAT MOVE? MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. NOW, WHAT AR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT YEAR WOULD THAT BE?

THE WITNESS: 1979.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU INDICATED IT WAS ABOUT TWO YEARS AFTER GOING TO LA QUINTA. THAT WOULD BE ABOUT

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS. I AM GOING TO PERMIT MR. MISCAVIGE TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT CONVERSATIONS THAT HE HAD, COMMUNICATIONS THAT HE HAD WITH MR. HUBBARD ON THE SUBJECT OF BENT CORYDON, ON THE SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS, ON THE SUBJECT OF MISSIONS, BUT TO HAVE HIM SIT HERE AND START GUESSING WHETHER HE SAW HIM AT A PARTICULAR MONTH, A PARTICULAR DAY, YEARS AGO IS -- WE ARE CROSSING THE LINE HERE TERMS OF RELEVANCE AND IN TERMS OF PERMISSIBLE ENQUIRY AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASK HIM IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ULTIMATELY INTEND TO GET TO, LET'S GET TO THE POINT. ASK HIM ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS HE DID WITH MR. HUBBARD, ABOUT MR. CORYDON, ABOUT SQUIRRELS, ABOUT MISSIONS, AREAS THAT ARE ARGUABLY RELEVANT TO THE COMPLAINT, BUT LET'S NOT PLAY THESE NUMBER GAMES ANYMORE.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: I AM.

MR. HELLER: I'LL JOIN IN THE OBJECTION OF RELEVANCE.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT AREA OF MR. HUBBARD. Q. NOW, HOW LONG, IF YOU RECALL, WERE YOU ACTION CHIEF CMO INT? A. A YEAR TO A YEAR AND A HALF.

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER POSTS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME?

A. NO.

Q. SO --

A. OH, WAIT. YES.

Q. WHAT WERE THOSE?

A. WATCHDOG COMMITTEE MEMBER.

Q. LET'S TRY TO PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT SO WE CAN MOVE SMOOTHLY. YOU SAID CMO -- ACTION CHIEF CMO INT FOR ABOUT A YEAR, A YEAR AND A HALF, FROM WHAT YOU STATED BEFORE THAT YOU STARTED THAT SOMETIME IN '79. WE'RE UP TO PROBABLY SOMEWHERE MID-'81, APPROXIMATELY.

A. TO A MEETING ON ACTION CHIEF?

Q. YES.

A. THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE, BUT IN THAT BALLPARK, YES.

Q. THAT'S FINE. AND AT SOME PERIOD OF TIME, WHILE YOU HAD THAT POST, YOU BECAME A WATCHDOG COMMITTEE MEMBER? A. YES.

Q. DO YOU REMEMBER, WAS THAT TOWARDS THE LATTER PART OF THIS PERIOD OF TIME? DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENED? A. WHAT WAS THE EXACT QUESTION?

Q. WHEN YOU BECAME A WATCHDOG COMMITTEE MEMBER.

A. DO I KNOW WHEN THAT WAS?

Q. APPROXIMATELY.

A. YES.

Q. AND APPROXIMATELY WHEN WAS THAT?

A. I'D SAY LIKE THE -- MAYBE FALL OR WINTER OF 1979.

Q. OKAY. AND DO YOU --

A. THAT'S TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT EARLIER OR A LITTLE BIT LATER, BUT, YOU KNOW, IN 1979. Q. DO YOU RECALL HOW YOU WERE APPOINTED TO THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE?

A. YES.

Q. AND HOW WAS THAT?

A. I WAS TOLD, "YOU'RE ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE."

Q. BY?

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, I WOULD LIKE A PROFFER, MISS PLEVIN, AS TO WHAT THE RELEVANCE IS TO THIS LAWSUIT OF WHO APPOINTED MR. MISCAVIGE TO THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE. YOU HAVE HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE BECAME A MEMBER OF THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE. YOU HAVE HIS TESTIMONY

AS TO WHEN THAT OCCURRED. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THE PENDING QUESTION IS TO THIS COMPLAINT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WANT TO KNOW IF HUBBARD APPOINTED HIM. THAT'S VERY SIMPLE.

Q. DID MR. HUBBARD APPOINT YOU TO THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT A MOMENT. AND HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO THE LAWSUIT?

MS. PLEVIN: BECAUSE THE LAWSUIT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT "MR. MISCAVIGE AND OTHERS FOLLOWED MR. HUBBARD IN HIS ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF SCIENTOLOGY," AND YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR HERE, MR. HERTZBERG.

MR. HERTZBERG: HOW WOULD AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER, FOR EXAMPLE, HYPOTHETICALLY THAT MR. HUBBARD APPOINTED MR. MISCAVIGE TO THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, ESTABLISH THAT MR. HUBBARD HAD ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER MR. MISCAVIGE? HOW WOULD -- HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THAT? MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO EXTENDED BYPLAY ON THIS ISSUE. ARE YOU INSTRUCTING MR. MISCAVIGE NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HELLER: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT'S PENDING, BEFORE MR. HERTZBERG DETERMINES THERE'S AN INSTRUCTION OR NOT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID MR. HUBBARD APPOINT YOU TO THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, MR. MISCAVIGE?

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO OBSERVE AGAIN THAT I THINK WE'RE GETTING VERY FAR FLUNG. HE MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHO DID?

A. I BELIEVE IT WAS EITHER LOIS REISDORF OR GAIL IRWIN OR D.D. REISDORF, ONE OF THOSE THREE.

MR. LIEBERMAN: 33 AND A THIRD PERCENT ON EACH.

THE WITNESS: NO. I'D GIVE IT A 50-25-25 ON MY BREAKDOWN OF WHAT I THINK.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC FUNCTION ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE?

A. YOU MEAN AS AN OVERALL ENCOMPASSING -- THERE WERE -- THERE WERE SOME FUNCTIONS, YES, THAT I DID DAILY, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. BUT FOR THE POST?

Q. YES.

A. A FUNCTION -- THAT'S A WORD THAT HAS COME UP BEFORE. GIVE ME YOUR DEFINITION OF "FUNCTION," SO WE'RE AGREEING HERE.

Q. MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD IDEA SO WE CAN AGREE ON DEFINITIONS AND NOT GET INTO AREAS OF CONFUSION. A SPECIFIC AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY.

A. THAT'S NOT WHAT I CALL FUNCTION AT ALL. FUNCTION DENOTES A DOINGNESS OR AN ACTINGNESS. YOU ASKED ME FUNCTION. AS A ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY, YES.

Q. WHAT WAS THAT ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY?

A. SEA ORG ORGANIZATIONS.

Q. AND WHAT ARE THE SEA ORG ORGANIZATIONS?

A. THAT REFERS TO ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE GENERALLY, ALTHOUGH NOT TOTALLY, MANNED BY MEMBERS WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE MEMBERS OF THE SEA ORGANIZATION.

Q. ARE THERE MORE THAN FIVE SUCH ORGANIZATIONS?

A. NOW?

Q. YES.

A. YES, I BELIEVE.

Q. AND THEN, WERE THERE MORE THAN FIVE?

A. IN TERMS OF SEA ORG ORGANIZATIONS, IT -- IT DENOTES AN EXACT CATEGORY OF ORGANIZATION, SO THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING ME NOW ISN'T EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ANSWER I JUST GAVE YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT I MEAN BY SEA ORG ORGANIZATIONS.

Q. LIST FOR ME, IF YOU WILL, PLEASE, THE SEA ORG ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE IN THAT ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY.

A. SURE. IT WAS AOSHUK, AOLA, AOS, HUK ADVANCED SAINT HILL UNITED KINGDOM, AOLA, ADVANCED ORG LOS ANGELES, THERE'S ASHO DAY, AMERICAN SAINT HILL ORGANIZATION DAY, AND THEN THERE'S ASHO FOUNDATION, WHICH IS AMERICAN SAINT HILL ORGANIZATION FOUNDATION, AND AOS HEU, AND THAT'S ADVANCED ORGANIZATION AT SAINT HILL, EUROPE.

Q. DID YOUR ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE EVER CHANGE FROM THAT INITIAL ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY, TO INCLUDE ANY OTHER ENTITIES OR EXCLUDE ANY OTHER OF THESE, AT ANY TIME WHILE YOU WERE ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE? A. NO.

Q. ARE YOU STILL ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE?

A. NO.

Q. FOR WHAT PERIOD OF TIME WERE YOU ON WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, STARTING APPROXIMATELY IN THE FALL OR WINTER OF 1979?

A. I'D SAY THROUGH 19 -- THROUGH THE END OF 1979 AND THROUGH 1980, MAYBE INTO THE BEGINNING OF 1981, MAYBE NOT. I MEAN, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN -- THAT LAST SIX MONTHS THERE, I'D HAVE REALLY CHECK OUT, BUT THROUGH 1980 -- PROBABLY NOT UNTIL THE END OF 1980. Q. LOIS REISDORF, D.D. REISDORF AND GAIL IRWIN, I BELIEVE, WERE THE THREE POSSIBLE'S YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO?

A. YES.

Q. THEY WERE ALL MEMBERS OF THE CMO, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

MR. HELLER: PRESENTLY?

THE WITNESS: THEY WERE POSTED WITHIN THE CMO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AT THE TIME THEY APPOINTED YOU TO THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE?

A. YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: MISSTATES THE PRIOR TESTIMONY. HE DIDN'T SAY THEY COLLECTIVELY APPOINTED HIM. HE SAID ONE OR THE OTHER OF THEM; HE DIDN'T SAY ALL THREE OF THEM APPOINTED HIM.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YES. BUT EACH OF THEM WAS A MEMBER OF THE CMO AT THAT TIME; IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

A. AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND WHAT "MEMBER" MEANS.

Q. I THINK SO. WE CLARIFIED THAT BEFORE.

A. YES.

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE UNDERSTOOD ME. AND AT THE TIME YOU LEFT YOUR POSITION ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, MR. MISCAVIGE, DID YOU TAKE ANY OTHER POSTS, IN ANY ORGANIZATION?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU TAKE ANY POST IN ANY CORPORATION?

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: NO, I DIDN'T TAKE THAT ONE AT THAT TIME.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAD YOU, PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU LEFT THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, HAD YOU HAD ANY CORPORATE POSITIONS IN ANY SCIENTOLOGY CORPORATIONS?

A. BY THAT YOU MEAN BOARD MEMBER?

Q. BOARD MEMBER, OFFICER, EMPLOYEE.

A. AT THE TIME I WAS ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, IS THAT WHAT THE QUESTION WAS?

Q. UP THROUGH THE TIME YOU WERE ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, AT ANY TIME?

A. I DON'T THINK SO.

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD A CORPORATE POSITION WAS AFTER YOU LEFT THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, BUT IT DIDN'T COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S NOT HIS TESTIMONY.

MS. PLEVIN: THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S NOT HIS TESTIMONY.

MR. HELLER: IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, ASK A QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: I BELIEVE I ASKED THE QUESTION OF:

Q. WHAT POSTS -- WELL, LET'S GO BACK.

A. OKAY.

Q. AFTER YOU LEFT THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, WHAT WAS THE NEXT POST, OR CORPORATE POSITION, YOU HAD?

MR. HELLER: WELL, OBJECT TO THE QUESTION AS A MISCHARACTERIZATION. HE NEVER SAID HE HAD A CORPORATE POSITION.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU -- IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T. AND THE ANSWER WOULD BE NONE, IF I TOOK IT LITERALLY.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MISCAVIGE, THAT AFTER LEAVING THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, SINCE LEAVING THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A CORPORATE POSITION?

A. NO.

Q. AFTER YOU LEFT THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, WHAT CORPORATE POSITION DID YOU TAKE, OR CORPORATE POSITIONS, AND WHEN DID YOU TAKE THEM?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CORPORATE POSITIONS"? YOU'RE ASKING ME WATCHDOG COMMITTEE -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN -- WHAT YOU MEAN BY "CORPORATE POSITION" IN THAT CONTEXT.

Q. WERE YOU A MEMBER, OFFICER, EMPLOYEE WITH ANY CORPORATION?

A. IN REFERENCE TO THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE?

Q. NO. AFTER YOU LEFT THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE?

MR. DRESCHER: AT ANY TIME.

MS. PLEVIN: AT THE PRESENT TIME.

THE WITNESS: YOU'RE ASKING WHEN DID I EVER BECOME A BOARD MEMBER?

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. WE GOT SOMEWHERE.

A. ALL RIGHT.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN: THERE'S AN EXTENSIVE COLLOQUY BETWEEN MR. MISCAVIGE, MR. HERTZBERG AND MR. HELLER.

MR. DRESCHER: ACTUALLY IT'S AN EXTENDED DISCUSSION WITH COUNSEL. IT MUST HAVE LASTED ALL OF A MINUTE NOW.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I HAVE A CONFUSION, AND THEN MR. MISCAVIGE WILL ADDRESS THE QUESTION. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHETHER MR. MISCAVIGE EVER BECAME A BOARD MEMBER OF THE SCIENTOLOGY CORPORATION?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: YES, SCIENTOLOGY CORPORATION.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME? I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I'M SORRY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WAS THE FIRST POSITION YOU HELD AFTER LEAVING THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, OF ANY KIND, WHETHER IT WAS A POST POSITION OR A CORPORATE POSITION FOR ANY ORGANIZATION OR ANY CORPORATION?

A. OKAY. I DIDN'T TAKE ON A NEW POSITION. I ALREADY HAD ANOTHER POSITION.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A. I THINK IT WAS CHIEF OFF., CMO INT THAT'S CHIEF OFFICER. IT'S A NAVAL TERM.

Q. AND YOU HAD THAT POSITION WHILE YOU WERE ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY.

A. BUT NOT AT ALL TIMES WHEN I WAS ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE.

Q. OKAY. WHAT WERE THE DUTIES OF CHIEF OFFICER CMO INT?

A. THE DUTIES OF CHIEF OFFICER CMO INT WERE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRODUCTION DIVISION, QUALIFICATIONS DIVISION AND PUBLIC DIVISION OF CMO INT.

Q. WAS THERE ANYONE HIGHER THAN YOU IN CMO INT?

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION. VAGUE.

THE WITNESS: WHEN?

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT "HIGHER" MEANS.

MS. PLEVIN: GEEZ, OKAY.

Q. WAS THERE ANYONE SENIOR TO YOU AT CMO INT AT THE TIME YOU WERE CHIEF OFFICER?

A. YES.

Q. AND WHO WAS THAT?

A. THE -- EXACTLY SENIOR TO ME, GAIL IRWIN.

Q. WHAT WAS HER TITLE IF YOU RECALL?

A. DCO CMO INT, DEPUTY COMMANDING OFFICER CMO INT.

Q. AND WHO WAS SENIOR TO HER, IF YOU RECALL?

A. D.D. REISDORF.

Q. AND D.D. WAS COMMANDING OFFICER CMO INT?

A. YES.

Q. THAT WAS THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE CMO INT AT THAT TIME?

A. YES.

MR. DRESCHER: YOU UNDERSTAND "HIGHEST" TO BE MOST SENIOR?

THE WITNESS: AT THAT TIME?

MR. DRESCHER: YES.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, HOW LONG DID YOU HOLD THIS POSITION?

A. DO YOU HAVE THE DATES THERE THAT I GAVE YOU ON ACTION CHIEF?

Q. I BELIEVE SO. I THINK THE LAST YOU HELD -- YOU -- ACTION CHIEF. NO. I'M LOOKING AT CMO -- TO THE BEST THAT YOU RECALL.

A. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT? LET ME JUST FIX ONE THING THERE ON CHIEF OFF. I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE EXACT DUTIES. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACTION, QUAL, ACTION BUREAU AND QUAL BUREAU AND PUBLIC BUREAU. I PREVIOUSLY SAID PRODUCTION. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE ABOUT THAT, AND I WOULD --

MS. PLEVIN: WE'RE ON THE SECOND SIDE OF TAPE NO. 2. WHAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION, PLEASE?

(RECORD READ.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND YOU WERE ABOUT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, I THINK, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. YES. I THINK I MADE THAT CLARIFICATION THERE. YOU ASKED HOW LONG I HELD CHIEF OFFICER WAS YOUR QUESTION? Q. YES.

A. OKAY. SIX MONTHS, APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS.

Q. DID YOU GO DIRECTLY TO ANY POSITION, CORPORATE OR NONCORPORATE, WITH ANY ORGANIZATION OR CORPORATION AFTER THAT TIME?

A. AFTER CHIEF OFFICER? NO.

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S RECONVENE -- IT'S A QUARTER TO 1:00. IS 1:30 SUFFICIENT TIME, GENTLEMEN, OR DO YOU NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME? YOU CAN HAVE A FULL HOUR. I WANT TO MAKE THIS AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO MAKE IT AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE AND YOU KNOW WHAT OUR POSITION IS ABOUT THIS DEPOSITION BEING LIMITED TO THE TWO DAYS, SO IF YOU THINK THAT IT WILL EXTEND THE DEPOSITION BEYOND THE TIMES THAT YOU NOTICED IT FOR, THEN WE CERTAINLY

WILL BE BACK HERE IN 45 MINUTES, OKAY?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

(AT 12:40 P.M., THE DEPOSITION WAS ADJOURNED FOR NOON RECESS.)

(AT 1:30 P.M., THE DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE WAS RECONVENED.)

MR. HERTZBERG: WILL YOU NOTE IT'S 1:30 AND WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD AT 1:30 AND READY TO PROCEED. EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH.

A. YES.

Q. LET ME BACK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT.

IF THIS WAS COVERED -- I DON'T THINK IT WAS, BUT I'M SURE YOU'LL REMIND ME. THERE WAS, AT SOME POINT, A PROJECT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, CALLED SPECIAL PROJECTS.

DO YOU RECALL A ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY, OR A PROJECT OR TARGET -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS THE CORRECT TERM -- AND I DON'T WANT TO GET BOGGED DOWN IN THAT, BUT A PROJECT OF SOME KIND CALLED SPECIAL PROJECTS? MR. LIEBERMAN: CAN WE HAVE A TIME FRAME ON THAT?

MS. PLEVIN: SURE.

THE WITNESS: WELL, YOU'RE WRONG. THERE'S NOT A PROJECT CALLED "SPECIAL PROJECTS."

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WAS IT?

A. I THINK YOU'RE SAYING PLURAL.

Q. SPECIAL PROJECT.

A. OKAY. SURE. ALL RIGHT.

Q. IN ABOUT WHEN DID THAT OCCUR?

A. I'D SAY NEAR THE END OF '81 IT STARTED.

Q. AND WHAT DID THAT INVOLVE?

A. IN WHAT WAY?

Q. WHAT WAS THE TASK OR THE TARGET OR THE PROGRAM?

A. OKAY.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE IS CONFERRING WITH COUNSEL.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU GIVE ME THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE?

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE READ THE QUESTION BACK.

(RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THE -- I GUESS THE PURPOSE WAS TO SORT OUT, ONE -- IT WASN'T STATED THIS ONE. I'M JUST DESCRIBING IT TO YOU THIS WAY -- SORT OUT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS CREATED AS BEING PERCEIVED AS UNHANDLED BY THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE AS A RESULT OF THEIR ACTIVITIES AND TO FIND OUT WHAT REALLY WAS HAPPENING. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF IT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT PROBLEMS ARE YOU REFERRING TO ON "HANDLED PROBLEMS IN THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE"?

A. NOT IN THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE. I GUESS AT THAT POINT IT WAS COMING TO OUR ATTENTION SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE HAD ALLEGEDLY BEEN UP TO, AND WHICH IN THEMSELVES WERE PROBLEMATIC. IT WAS MANIFEST IN ITSELF.

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN, I'M GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS ON THIS, BUT, AGAIN, WE'RE STARTING THE AFTERNOON WITH WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE SOMEWHAT OF A TOTALLY UNRELATED -- SOMETHING TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE COMPLAINT HERE. MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. LET'S PUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF TIME, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. OKAY.

Q. WAS THIS SUBSEQUENT TO THE INDICTMENTS IN THE LATE '70S OF A VARIETY OF PEOPLE WHO WERE STAFF OF THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

MR. HERTZBERG: IT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WAS THIS --

MR. LIEBERMAN: HE GAVE A DATE ALREADY WHEN IT STARTED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHEN YOU REFER TO PROBLEMS, ARE YOU TESTIFYING TO THE ACTIVITIES THAT LED TO THE INDICTMENTS OF CERTAIN PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU CONSIDER THOSE PROBLEMS?

A. WHICH?

Q. THE INDICTMENTS AND THE ACTIVITIES THAT LED TO THE INDICTMENTS.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING DID DAVID MISCAVIGE? DID YOU, DAVID MISCAVIGE -- YOU'RE ASKING HIM DID DAVID MISCAVIGE CONSIDER THAT A PROBLEM?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: TO WHOM?

MS. PLEVIN: TO WHOMEVER.

MR. DRESCHER: THAT'S THE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: IF HE CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION, HE CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION. VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AND UNINTELLIGIBLE.

MR. HERTZBERG: TO WHOMEVER.

MR. HELLER: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE, WHAT DAVID MISCAVIGE CONSIDERED A PROBLEM?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU CONSIDER IT A PROBLEM, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. I GUESS WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHEN.

Q. WELL, YOU JUST DEFINED SPECIAL PROJECT AS A PROJECT INVOLVED WITH UNHANDLED PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

A. WELL, PERCEIVED. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE. I GUESS THAT CLARIFIES IT.

Q. DID YOU UNCOVER WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE?

A. YES.

Q. DID YOU HANDLE THEM?

A. YOU BET.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DAVID MISCAVIGE?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YES.

A. I ANSWERED. DID YOU GET IT?

Q. THE ANSWER WAS "YES."

THE REPORTER: "YOU BET."

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HOW DID YOU HANDLE IT?

A. WHICH ONE? YOU'RE ASKING --

MR. HERTZBERG: CAN YOU TELL ME -- EXCUSE ME. BEFORE HE ANSWERS, WOULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THIS IS TO THE COMPLAINT REGARDING MR. CORYDON'S ALLEGATIONS?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT THAT ON THE RECORD, BUT I'VE MADE THAT VERY CLEAR.

MR. HELLER: NO. YOU'VE TALKED ALL ABOUT A WHOLE DIFFERENT SERIES OF QUESTIONS, NOT TO SAY I ACCEPT THE RELEVANCE, BUT THIS IS A NEW LINE AND YOU HAVEN'T PROFFERED ONE --

MS. PLEVIN: IT ALL GOES TO MR. MISCAVIGE'S AUTHORITY AND WEIGHT IN HANDLING -- AND RESPONSIBILITY IN SCIENTOLOGY MATTERS. IT'S SELF-EVIDENT.

MR. DRESCHER: THAT'S NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT.

MS. PLEVIN: IT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ISSUE OF THE ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS IN MR. MISCAVIGE'S ROLE.

MR. HERTZBERG: ARE YOU -- YOUR POSITION IS THAT HOW MR. MISCAVIGE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HANDLED SOMETHING THAT DEALT WITH THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE IN THE EARLY '80S HAS TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE COMPLAINTS IN THIS COMPLAINT.

MS. PLEVIN: MR. HERTZBERG, I'VE SAID IT A DOZEN TIMES IN MANY DEPOSITIONS. THE CONTROL OVER SCIENTOLOGY ENTITIES IS PART OF THIS ACTION, AND PROOF OF THE ALTER EGO THEORY IS PART OF THIS ACTION AND IS PART ON WHICH A NUMBER OF THE ALLEGATIONS REST. WE INTEND TO PURSUE THAT LINE OF INQUIRY. WE INTEND TO PREVAIL, AS JUDGE LYTHAM SUGGESTED WE WOULD ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, THAT ALL OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE RUN ESSENTIALLY AS ONE, ONCE WE GET SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING.

NOW, IF YOU INSIST AGAIN UPON PROLONGING THIS DEPOSITION EXCESSIVELY WITH THESE REPEATED OBJECTIONS, WHEN I HAVE MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR THE SCOPE OF RELEVANCE, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO, AT THE VERY LEAST, PARTICIPATE IN COSTS, AND CERTAINLY YOU ARE DEFEATING YOUR OWN CONTENTION THAT THIS WILL ONLY GO TWO DAYS, WHICH BY THE WAY, OF COURSE, I DO NOT CONCEDE AT ALL. THERE'S NO PRECONDITION WITH REGARD TO THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER, BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU JUST SAID, BUT LET HIM GO ON.

MR. DRESCHER: I'M SPECIFICALLY GOING TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE BUSINESS ABOUT JUDGE LYTHAM BEING PREDISPOSED GRANTING ANY KIND OF MOTION CONCERNING YOUR ALTER EGO THEORY BECAUSE THAT'S FICTION. MS. PLEVIN: WELL, HE STATED -- FINE.

MR. HELLER: YOU'RE TELLING US JUDGE LYTHAM IS GOING TO GRANT A MOTION HE HASN'T SEEN? SO THAT IS YOUR STATEMENT?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S GO ON.

MS. PLEVIN: HIS STATEMENTS IN COURT WILL STAND.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S MOVE ON.

MS. PLEVIN: WOULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE?

(RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. IF YOU COULD TELL ME WHAT IT IS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DIDN'T YOU, AT ONE POINT, INSTRUCT D.D. REISDORF TO GET HARD ON THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE PERSONNEL?

A. NO.

Q. DIDN'T YOU HAVE HER BUSTED BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T DO SO?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT DOES "BUSTED" MEAN?

THE WITNESS: NO.

MS. PLEVIN: HE UNDERSTOOD THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

Q. DIDN'T YOU ASK BILL FRANKS, AT ONE POINT, TO GO CLEAN UP THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

A. NO, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT'S A RIDICULOUS QUESTION AND SO FAR FROM THE MARK. Q. WHAT DID YOU ASK BILL FRANKS TO DO?

MR. HELLER: AT ANY TIME? ANYPLACE?

MS. PLEVIN: WITH RESPECT TO THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE.

MR. HELLER: IF ANYTHING.

THE WITNESS: YES, WHEN?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WITH RESPECT TO THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL PROJECT WHICH WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING? A. NOTHING, NOT IN THAT CONTEXT.

Q. WAS D.D. REISDORF INSTRUCTED TO HAVE ANY ROLE IN CONNECTION WITH CLEANING UP THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

MR. HERTZBERG: BY WHOM?

MS. PLEVIN: TO MR. MISCAVIGE'S KNOWLEDGE, BY ANYONE.

THE WITNESS: INSTRUCTIONS? NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU AT ANY TIME ASSIGN OR ASK VICKY AZANARAN TO TAKE ON ANY ROLE WITH REGARD TO THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE AND THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE PART OF THE SPECIAL PROJECT? A. NO. YOU'VE GOT -- YOU'VE GOT THIS MIXED UP. YOU'RE MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WERE THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE HANDLED?

A. WHAT PROBLEMS --

Q. YES.

A. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE? YOU BET I HANDLED.

Q. YES YOU SAID, "THEM." NOW, WHAT WERE YOU REFERRING TO?

MR. HELLER: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. THE TESTIMONY WASN'T, "YOU BET I HANDLED THEM." YOU SAID WERE THEY HANDLED, I BELIEVE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THE RECORD SAYS. THERE'S A QUESTION PENDING. DON'T CHARACTERIZE THE RECORD. MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: WHAT IS THE QUESTION? THAT I HANDLED?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOUR TESTIMONY WAS THAT THEY WERE HANDLED, AND YOU USED THE PHRASE, "YOU BET THEY WERE HANDLED." WHAT IS YOUR KNOWLEDGE REGARDING HOW THEY WERE HANDLED --

A. AND --

Q. -- AND WHAT THEY WERE?

A. THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE -- WHICH ONE?

Q. WHAT THEY WERE AND HOW THEY WERE HANDLED. LET'S START WITH WHAT THEY WERE.

A. OKAY. AND TO CLARIFY -- OKAY, WHAT THEY WERE, THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE WAS OFF SOURCE.

Q. ANYTHING ELSE?

A. THAT'S A GOOD GENERAL DESCRIPTION. THAT IS THE MOST DIRECT, SUCCINCT ANSWER I COULD GIVE YOU THAT COVERS WHATEVER ELSE.

Q. AND THIS IS IN THE PERIOD AFTER A LARGE NUMBER OF GUARDIAN'S OFFICE PERSONNEL WERE INDICTED FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF FEDERAL CRIMES?

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. HE HAS TOLD YOU THE DATE.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M PUTTING IT IN CONTEXT NOW, MR. HERTZBERG, NOT THE DATE.

MR. DRESCHER: IT'S TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO, YOU'RE TESTIFYING.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED TWICE.

MS. PLEVIN: THE RECORD WILL STAND FOR ITSELF AND WE WILL PROCEED WITH MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS NECESSARY.

Q. ALL RIGHT. HOW WAS IT HANDLED? HOW WERE THE PROBLEMS HANDLED?

A. GUARDIAN'S OFFICE WAS DISBANDED.

Q. WHEN WAS IT DISBANDED?

A. 1981.

Q. WERE ANY OF ITS FUNCTIONS OR ZONES OF RESPONSIBILITY TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER ORG OR ENTITY OR CORPORATION?

A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.

Q. WELL, GUARDIAN'S OFFICE HAD CERTAIN FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO LEGAL MATTERS, DID IT NOT?

A. I BELIEVE SO. I -- TO CLARIFY THAT, I BELIEVE SO, BUT I NEVER WAS IN THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE.

Q. OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER ENTITY OR ORGANIZATION TAKING OVER THOSE FUNCTIONS?

A. JUST ONE SECOND. EXCUSE ME.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY TRANSFER OF THOSE FUNCTIONS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF WHO OVERSAW THE DISBANDING OF THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

MR. LIEBERMAN: I THINK THE WORD "OVERSAW" IS A LITTLE UNCLEAR IN THAT QUESTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, THERE'S THE ACTIVITY OF DOING SOMETHING, AND THEN THERE'S A PERSON TO WHOM THE PERSON PERFORMING THAT ACTION MIGHT REPORT. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO OVERSAW IT AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN: CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE ASKING ME THE QUESTION LIKE WHO OVERSAW IT. IT WAS AN EVOLUTION THAT TOOK PLACE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SO THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE EVOLVED INTO NOT RUNNING THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE ANYMORE?

A. NO, NO, NO. YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THERE. I SAID IT WAS AN EVOLUTION.

Q. I UNDERSTOOD THAT. WHO OVERSAW --

A. I DON'T MEAN THE EVOLUTION OF MAN OR THE EVOLUTION OF THE ORGANIZATION. I MEANT IT WAS AN EVOLUTION OF ACTIVITY.

Q. WHO OVERSAW THAT CHANGING PROCESS?

A. VARIOUS PEOPLE.

Q. INCLUDING WHO?

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU WANT HIM TO LIST EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT?

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A DOZEN OR TWO, MR. MISCAVIGE.

THE WITNESS: I COULDN'T ANSWER ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN IT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU WERE INVOLVED IN IT, WEREN'T YOU?

A. OH, OF COURSE.

Q. AND DID YOU HAVE ANY SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN IT?

A. SOMEWHAT INITIALLY.

Q. OKAY. DID YOU DROP OUT OF THAT -- YOU SAY "INITIALLY." WOULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A. YOU KNOW, OKAY, YEAH. I WAS A CATALYST. THERE YOU GO.

Q. OKAY. AND IN WHAT WAY WERE YOU A CATALYST?

A. WELL, JUST BY WHAT THE WORD MEANS. I INITIATED IT.

Q. AND WHAT POSITIONS DID YOU HOLD AT THE TIME YOU INITIATED THE DISBANDING OF THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

A. WHAT POSITIONS DID I HOLD?

Q. IN --

A. RELATIVE --

Q. LET'S START WITH THAT, RELATIVE TO THAT.

A. I -- I WAS ON NO POST THAT SAID, "GO AND DISBAND THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE."

Q. I'M SORRY. YOU SAID --

A. I HAD NO POST THAT HAD A POST RESPONSIBILITY OR DUTY TO GO AND DISBAND THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE.

Q. WHAT POSTS DID YOU HAVE?

A. AT THAT TIME?

Q. YES.

A. SPECIAL PROJECTS OPS, I BELIEVE.

Q. AND WHO APPOINTED YOU TO SPECIAL PROJECT OPS?

A. GAIL IRWIN OR D.D. REISDORF. I BELIEVE IT WAS GAIL IRWIN. I'M -- THAT'S WHAT I THINK. IT WAS ONE OF THOSE TWO, BUT I'M QUITE SURE IT WAS GAIL.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE GAIL IRWIN IS NOW?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE SHE'S BEEN IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS?

A. NO IDEA.

Q. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU KNEW WHERE GAIL IRWIN WAS LOCATED?

A. 1981, I BELIEVE.

Q. I THINK YOU SAID SHE WAS A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER. IS SHE STILL A COMMODORE'S MESSENGER?

A. NO.

Q. IS SHE STILL, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, INVOLVED IN ANY POSITION IN SCIENTOLOGY?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "POSITION"?

Q. I MEAN POST.

A. NO.

Q. WHAT WAS THE PROJECT, "ALL CLEAR"?

A. THE PROJECT, ALL CLEAR, WAS A PROJECT TO -- IT WAS A LEGAL PROJECT, TO DEAL WITH LEGAL CASES.

Q. IN WHAT WAY? WHAT WAS THE GOAL?

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO -- I AM GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOESN'T DISCLOSE MATTERS DISCUSSED IN THE CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU CAN, SUBJECT TO THAT QUALIFICATION, ANSWER IT, AND IF YOU CAN'T, IF THERE'S NO ANSWER OTHER THAN MATTERS THAT WOULD COMPROMISE THE PRIVILEGE, YOU'LL TELL COUNSEL.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: COLLOQUY WITH COUNSEL.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: THE ANSWER IS: I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. THAT'S THE ANSWER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU HAD NO INVOLVEMENT WITH ALL CLEAR?

A. NO, I DIDN'T -- NO INVOLVEMENT WITH WHAT? YOU ASKED ME ABOUT PROJECT ALL CLEAR?

Q. I'M TALKING ABOUT PROJECT ALL CLEAR.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO, NO, NO, NO.

WAIT A MOMENT. MY RECOLLECTION IS YOU ASKED HIM ABOUT THE LEGAL -- MR. MISCAVIGE GAVE YOU TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL ASPECT TO THE PROJECT, AND I BELIEVE HIS ANSWER WAS RESPONSIVE TO THAT QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: WOULD YOU GO BACK AND READ MR. MISCAVIGE'S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT WAS THE PROJECT ALL CLEAR

(RECORD READ.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, IN WHAT WAY WAS IT DEALING WITH LEGAL CASES?

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY ANSWER, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOESN'T DISCLOSE CONFIDENCES IN THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. WHAT I KNOW OF PROJECT ALL CLEAR, AND TO MAKE IT CLEAR JUST HERE, I -- I PERSONALLY WAS NOT INVOLVED IN PROJECT ALL CLEAR, NOR DID I -- IN OTHER WORDS, I KNOW ABOUT THIS, BUT IT WAS A PROJECT PERSONNEL TO HANDLE THE LEGAL CASES OF SCIENTOLOGY WORLD-WIDE, TO THE END RESULT OF DEALING WITH ANY LEGAL PROBLEMS, AND IT WAS POST GUARDIAN'S OFFICE, AND I THINK THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SO YOUR TESTIMONY THEN -- STRIKE THAT.

IT WAS NOT A PROJECT TO MAKE L.R.H. SAFE FROM LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SCIENTOLOGY MATTERS? A. OF COURSE NOT.

MR. DRESCHER: POST A CONTINUING OBJECTION BASED ON RELEVANCE TO EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ASKED SINCE WE CAME BACK FROM LUNCH. I JUST NOTE THAT HERE, AND THE UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF WASTING TIME -MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. AND YOU DID NOT SUPERVISE TERRY GAMBOA AND NORMAN STARKEY WITH REGARD TO THAT PROJECT? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

MR. HERTZBERG: CONTINUING OBJECTION.

MR. DRESCHER: HE DIDN'T TESTIFY TO

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU SUPERVISE TERRY GAMBOA OR NORMAN STARKEY WITH REGARD TO THE PROJECT ALL CLEAR?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU ASSIST THEM?

A. NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME -- LET ME TELL YOU, MISS PLEVIN, THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM I HAVE, AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE. THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THIS COMPLAINT THAT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH A SO-CALLED PROJECT ALL CLEAR RESULTED IN ANYTHING BEING DONE TO MR. CORYDON.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU FROM TIME TO TIME OF WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE HERE. SO ALL THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL CLEAR, WHO SUPERVISED WHOM IN TIMES, OR REMOTE, ARE REALLY A WASTE OF TIME, BUT LET US PROCEED.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, DO YOU KNOW WHO LYMAN STARKEY -- I'M SORRY -- LYMAN SPURLOCK?

A. YES.

Q. DO YOU KNOW OR CAN YOU RECALL TODAY WHAT CORPORATE POSITIONS HE HAS HELD FROM 1981 FORWARD? MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT A MINUTE.

BEFORE HE ANSWERS THAT, ARE YOU MAINTAINING THAT LYMAN SPURLOCK DID SOMETHING TO YOUR CLIENT?

MS. PLEVIN: LYMAN SPURLOCK IS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT AS ONE OF THE PERSONS WITH WHOM AUTHORITY RESIDES IN SCIENTOLOGY.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I'M ASKING: ARE YOU MAINTAINING THAT LYMAN SPURLOCK DID ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CLIENT, THAT HE DID ANYTHING? MS. PLEVIN: THE COMPLAINT STANDS FOR ITSELF. ARE YOU TELLING HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, I'D LIKE --

I'M NOT, BUT I'D LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE START.

MR. HELLER: LET'S HAVE A PROFFER OF RELEVANCE. WHAT IS THE PROFFER OF -- YOU KNOW, HOW TO SPELL HIS NAME YOU PUT IT IN THE COMPLAINT WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BENT CORYDON? IF YOU SAY THE WORDS "ALTER EGO," IT DOES NOT HAVE TO RELATE TO YOUR CLIENT. THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE ALTER EGO THEORY IS THAT IT INURES TO THE PREJUDICE OF YOUR CLIENT INDEED YOU HAVE A RATHER STRANGE ALTER EGO TO BEGIN WITH. NOW, THERE IS SOME LEEWAY IN THAT, TO MAKE A DETERMINATION, BUT NOT LEEWAY TO ASK ANY QUESTION THAT YOU FEEL LIKE ASKING. I THINK MR. HERTZBERG IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS --

MS. PLEVIN: MR. HERTZBERG, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE COULD HAVE -- INSTEAD OF HAVING THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE TALKING AT THE SAME TIME AND ALL WALKING AROUND CREATING A LOT OF CONFUSION, IF WE COULD NOT -- ARE YOU INSTRUCTING MR. MISCAVIGE NOT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? I'LL GO ON, IF YOU ARE.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT IS THE PENDING QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE READ BACK THE PENDING QUESTION. (RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IN 1982, DID YOU ATTEND -- IN OCTOBER OF 1982, DID YOU ATTEND A MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO, KNOWN AS THE MISSION HOLDERS CONFERENCE? A. YES, I DID.

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY IN TERMS OF PLANNING, OVERSEEING THAT CONFERENCE?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT QUESTION MEANS.

Q. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE QUESTION, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. WHAT YOU MEAN.

Q. ALL RIGHT. LET'S BACK UP. YOU ATTENDED THAT CONFERENCE?

A. YES, I DID.

Q. AND YOU PARTICIPATED AS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS OF THAT CONFERENCE?

A. MASTER OF CEREMONIES, I BELIEVE.

Q. AND BEFORE GOING INTO THAT CONFERENCE, YOU WERE AWARE OF WHAT THE CONTENT OF CONFERENCE WAS GOING TO BE?

A. SOMEWHAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN LIKE HE WAS GOING TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, WHAT THE AGENDA OF CONFERENCE WAS.

THE WITNESS: "AGENDA" MEANING WHO WAS GOING TO SPEAK? YES.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND ABOUT WHAT.

A. NOT EVERYTHING, NO.

Q. WAS ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THAT CONFERENCE TO ANNOUNCE TO THE MISSION HOLDERS, CHANGES IN THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTOLOGY? A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PLANS, THE WORK THAT WENT ON PRIOR TO THE CONFERENCE IN DEVELOPING THOSE CHANGES?

A. FAMILIAR? WHY DON'T YOU DEFINE THAT FOR ME. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THE --

A. AWARE --

Q. -- OF THE WORK THAT WENT ON, THE PROBLEMS THEY WERE ADDRESSING?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN LIKE LEGAL MATTERS THAT ATTORNEYS WERE GIVING ADVICE ON, THAT TYPE OF THING?

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVEN'T SUGGESTED THAT. I AM TALKING ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING FOR THAT -- FOR THE CHANGES THAT WERE ANNOUNCED AT THE CONFERENCE. THE WITNESS: CAN I JUST SEPARATE SOMETHING HERE?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. PLEASE DO.

A. YOU HAVE "CONFERENCE" AND THE "CHANGES" CONNECTED. THEY DON'T CONNECT AT ALL.

Q. OKAY. WELL, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN EXPLORE THAT A LITTLE BIT. THEY WERE CHANGES THAT WERE ANNOUNCED AT THE CONFERENCE?

A. THAT'S RIGHT.

Q. OKAY.

A. THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO.

Q. NOW, AS TO THE CHANGES THAT WERE ANNOUNCED AT THE CONFERENCE, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE STUDIES OR THE PLANNING THAT WERE PART OF THE EVOLUTION THAT LED TO THOSE CHANGES OF THE DECISION MAKING THAT LED TO THOSE QUESTIONS? MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. HELLER: ALSO AMBIGUOUS.

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT. JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK MR. DRESCHER'S OBSERVATION IS WELL TAKEN, YOUR QUESTION ASSUMES THAT THERE WAS A PLANNING. WHY DON'T WE LAY A FOUNDATION. I THINK IT WILL GO FASTER THAT WAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE TESTIMONY IS THAT THERE WERE CHANGES?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. NOW, SOMEONE WAS INVOLVED, SOME PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN DECIDING THERE SHOULD BE CHANGES, OR THINKING ABOUT WHAT KINDS OF CHANGES THERE SHOULD BE, EXPLORING THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH?

A. RIGHT.

Q. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY OF THAT?

A. WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE?

Q. WITH THAT WHOLE COMPLEX, CONFERRING WITH OTHERS REGARDING THE PROBLEMS, CONSIDERING OPTIONS AND SO FORTH.

A. WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT, CONFERRING WITH OTHERS ABOUT THE PROBLEMS?

Q. YES.

A. SOMEWHAT, YES.

Q. AND WITH WHOM DID YOU CONFER?

A. ATTORNEYS.

Q. ON BEHALF OF WHAT ENTITY DID YOU CONFER?

A. AS A SCIENTOLOGIST, I DID.

Q. YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY POSTS THAT GAVE YOU THAT AUTHORITY?

A. TO TALK ABOUT PROBLEMS? I THINK ANYBODY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD COULD TALK ABOUT PROBLEMS, AND THAT'S HOW I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. I WAS AWARE OF PROBLEMS. I MADE MY KNOWLEDGE KNOWN.

Q. DID ANYONE ASK YOU TO TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY?

A. OF MAKING MY PROBLEMS KNOWN? NO.

Q. DID ANYONE ASK YOU TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONFERRING WITH ATTORNEYS REGARDING WHAT -- LET'S CALL IT THE CORPORATE CHANGES?

A. DID I SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT I DID?

Q. YOU SAID --

A. YOU ASKED ME ABOUT THE PROBLEMS.

Q. YES.

A. AND I TOLD YOU I COMMUNICATED PROBLEMS.

Q. YES.

A. RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE DIDN'T SAY HE TALKED ABOUT CORPORATE CHANGES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT POSTS DID YOU HOLD AT THE TIME THAT YOU CONFERRED WITH COUNSEL?

MR. HERTZBERG: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU RECALL?

MR. HERTZBERG: ASKED AND ANSWERED. IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU DIDN'T HOLD ANY POSTS AT ALL; IS AT RIGHT, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. DID ANYONE ASK YOU TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MS. PLEVIN: WITH COUNSEL. NO, HE HASN'T ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, MR. HERTZBERG.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. YOU'RE MISTAKEN. THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS NOT ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID ANYONE ASK YOU TO MAKE THOSE ENQUIRIES?

A. INQUIRIES? I MADE KNOWN PROBLEMS THAT I UNIQUELY KNEW; NO, NOBODY ASKED ME TO MAKE THOSE KNOWN.

Q. AND DID YOU CONFER WITH ANY OTHER PERSONS REGARDING THOSE PROBLEMS PRIOR TO SPEAKING TO COUNSEL?

A. YES.

Q. WITH WHOM?

A. LOTS OF PEOPLE.

Q. DID L.R.H. ASK YOU TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL REGARDING PROBLEMS WITH THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE?

MR. LIEBERMAN: THAT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HE DID NOT?

MR. HERTZBERG: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MR. LIEBERMAN: HE TESTIFIED THAT NO ONE HAD.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. BESIDES CONFERRING WITH COUNSEL, DID PARTICIPATE IN ANY DECISION MAKING REGARDING ADOPTING COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS?

A. FOR WHAT?

Q. WELL, IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT PRIOR TO 1981, THERE WAS NO SUCH CORPORATION -- ACTUALLY I THINK IT WAS PRIOR TO 1982 -- I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE -- THERE WAS NO CORPORATION KNOWN AS RTC, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION?

A. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT INCORPORATION DATE OF RTC, SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

Q. OKAY. BUT THE --

MR. DRESCHER: INCIDENTALLY, IT'S RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, NOT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. BUT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION WAS ONE OF THE CORPORATIONS THAT WAS FORMED IN THE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 17 CONFERENCE AND WAS PART OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE ANNOUNCED AT THE OCTOBER 17, 1982 CONFERENCE; ISN'T THAT SO? MR. HERTZBERG: WHEN YOU SAY "FORMED," I MEAN, HE HAS JUST TESTIFIED THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW THE DATE OF INCORPORATION, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "FORMED." I DON'T WANT MR. MISCAVIGE TO GET SANDBAGGED HERE.

MR. HELLER: IT'S COMPOUND, TOO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER WAS ONE OF THE NEW CORPORATIONS INCORPORATED AS A RESULT OF THE DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS, THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED?

A. AS A RESULT OF MY DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS?

Q. NO. AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIVITIES, THE STUDIES, THE WORK, THE DISCUSSIONS, THE CONFERENCES WITH COUNSEL THAT LED TO THE CORPORATE CHANGES WHICH WERE ANNOUNCED AT THE MISSION HOLDERS MEETING.

A. YES.

Q. AND CSI WAS SIMILARLY INCORPORATED AS A RESULT OF THOSE ACTIVITIES?

A. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS THE SAME ONES, BUT PRIOR TO THE MISSION HOLDERS CONFERENCE IN 1982?

Q. YES.

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AND ASI WAS INCORPORATED AS A RESULT OF THAT SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS AND ACTIVITIES?

A. THAT SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS?

Q. YES.

A. AS A RESULT OF THAT, NO.

Q. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME?

A. SOMEWHERE IN THAT TIME PERIOD, YES.

Q. OKAY. AND CSC, VARIOUS FUNCTIONS AND UNITS WITHIN CSC WERE TRANSFERRED OUT OF CSC TO OTHER ENTITIES AS A RESULT OF THOSE ACTIVITIES?

MR. HERTZBERG: ARE YOU TALKING NOW ABOUT SOME LEGAL -- LEGAL CORPORATE TRANSFER?

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, WE'LL TURN EXACTLY TO WHAT TRANSPIRED AT THE -- IN THE ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT WERE MADE OCTOBER 17, 1982. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY. I DON'T THINK THIS IS HITTING ANY TREMENDOUSLY ARCANE OR SECRET SPOTS OR LEGAL, YOU KNOW, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. THESE WERE ANNOUNCED AT THE OCTOBER 17, 1982 MISSION HOLDERS CONFERENCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU WANT TO PHRASE IT, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS AT ALL, BUT I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING ABOUT ARCANE OR ANYTHING ELSE. I AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ASKING QUESTIONS WITH A FOUNDATION THAT MR. MISCAVIGE IS CAPABLE OF RESPONDING TO, AND SO YOU ASKED A VERY GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER CERTAIN CORPORATE ENTITIES WERE TRANSFERRED OUT, AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PREDICATE FOR WHETHER HE MAY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT SPECIFIC CORPORATE ENTITIES AS OPPOSED TO LAWYERS OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT. IT'S -- I DON'T WANT HIM SPECULATING ABOUT --

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T WANT HIM SPECULATING EITHER, MR. HERTZBERG. LET'S SEE IF CAN MAKE IT EASIER FOR MR. MISCAVIGE SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO GUESS.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. AND IT MAY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO LOOK OVER A TRANSCRIPT IF YOU WISH. I HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CONFERENCE. DO YOU RECALL THAT MR. SPURLOCK --

A. I'LL HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT IF YOU WANT ASK ME A QUESTION.

Q. WELL, BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, LET ME ASK YOU: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. SPURLOCK PARTICIPATED ON THE AGENDA IN ANNOUNCING THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE CHANGES? A. YES.

Q. AND YOU INTRODUCED HIM?

A. WELL, I'D HAVE TO CHECK YOUR TRANSCRIPT, BUT I ASSUME SO, YES.

Q. YOU DON'T RECALL -- HOLD ON.

A. YOU GAVE ME TWO COPIES HERE. IS THAT ONE FOR HIM?

Q. FINE. BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE? AND IT'S QUITE LENGTHY SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO READ THE WHOLE THING, BUT HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT MEETING?

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. WAIT A MINUTE. IF YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER HE'S SEEN THE DOCUMENT BEFORE, HE -- WHATEVER THE LENGTH, HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT IT TO GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE ANSWER. IF YOU'RE ASKING HIM WHETHER HE EVER SAW A TRANSCRIPT OF THE MISSION HOLDERS CONFERENCE BEFORE, WHETHER THIS ONE IS ONE OR NOT, THAT'S A SEPARATE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A TRANSCRIPT?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY EVENT.

A. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN, MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION OUT OF CURIOSITY? MS. PLEVIN: WHATEVER YOU WANT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SORRY?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT ARE THOSE --

MS. PLEVIN: THOSE ARE THE BATES STAMPED NUMBERS. THIS WAS PROVIDED TO YOU IN DOCUMENTATION. MR. HERTZBERG: THESE ARE YOUR BATES STAMPS.

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I BELIEVE IT'S ON PAGE 3 THAT YOU INTRODUCED MR. SPURLOCK?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. YOU MEAN ACCORDING TO THIS TRANSCRIPT?

MS. PLEVIN: ACCORDING TO THIS TRANSCRIPT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU WANT HIM TO READ NOW AND CONFIRM WHETHER THIS TRANSCRIPT REFLECTS THAT MR. MISCAVIGE INTRODUCED MR. SPURLOCK. MS. PLEVIN: WELL, IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: BUT HE ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT HE INTRODUCED MR. SPURLOCK.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. NOW --

MR. HERTZBERG: DIDN'T HE ALREADY TESTIFY TO THAT?

MS. PLEVIN: EXCUSE ME, MR. HERTZBERG.

Q. THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON THAT PAGE, MR. MISCAVIGE, SAYS THAT MR. -- WARRANT OFFICER, LYMAN SPURLOCK IS THE CORPORATE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR; DO YOU SEE THAT? A. IS SHE ASKING ME OR YOU?

MR. HERTZBERG: SHE'S ASKING YOU.

MR. HELLER: DO YOU SEE IT?

THE WITNESS: YES, I SEE IT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU RECALL INTRODUCING HIM IN THAT FASHION?

A. NO, I DON'T RECALL.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE HAD A POSITION THAT WAS ENTITLED "CORPORATE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR"?

A. I BELIEVE HE DID.

Q. WITH WHAT CORPORATION?

A. POSSIBLY NUMEROUS. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. AT THE SAME TIME?

A. NO, NO.

Q. OKAY. AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, WHICH IS OCTOBER OF 1982, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT POSITION YOU MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO AND WHAT CORPORATION YOU MAY HAVE BEEN REFERRING TO?

MR. HELLER: IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL IN EXISTENCE THAT MIGHT REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION? IS THAT THE QUESTION? OKAY. IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT. OBJECT ON RELEVANCE. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IF SOMETHING EXISTS THAT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION? MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ALL RIGHT. BY THE WAY, YOU ARE IDENTIFIED HERE AS COMMANDER DAVID MISCAVIGE? A. RIGHT.

Q. COMMANDER OF WHAT?

A. IT'S A SEA ORGANIZATION RANK.

Q. IS THAT YOUR CURRENT RANK?

A. NO, IT'S NOT.

Q. WHAT IS IT?

A. CAPTAIN.

Q. WERE YOU BUSTED?

A. NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: I ASSUME THAT WAS MADE IN JEST.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS THERE SOME EXPLANATION FOR THE CHANGE FROM COMMODORE TO CAPTAIN? IS THAT A PROMOTION? A. COMMANDER.

Q. I'M SORRY, COMMANDER. OKAY. FROM COMMANDER TO CAPTAIN.

A. WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

MR. HERTZBERG: IS THERE SOME EXPLANATION FOR IT?

MR. DRESCHER: WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE?

MS. PLEVIN: FORGET IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON.

MS. PLEVIN: YOU GUYS, REALLY.

Q. NOW, THAT MEETING WAS TAPE RECORDED, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, REFERRING TO THE MISSION HOLDERS MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 19827 A. I BELIEVE SO.

Q. AND THAT TAPE WAS TRANSCRIBED AND SENT TO MISSION HOLDERS, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. I BELIEVE SO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IT WAS EDITED BEFORE IT WAS TRANSCRIBED?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "EDITED"?

Q. WORDS CHANGED, WORDS OMITTED.

A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I MEAN, PEOPLE, OF COURSE, I'M SURE WERE SNEEZING AND COUGHING AND I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

Q. PERHAPS YOU CAN EXPLAIN --

A. I DON'T KNOW THOUGH. I HAVEN'T -- I DIDN'T -- I DON'T KNOW.

Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE TAPES ARE?

A. NO, I DON'T.

Q. YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IS. TOWARDS THE TOP OF PAGE 4, MR. SPURLOCK STATES THAT;

"PRIOR TO THE END OF 1981, A FEW OF US GOT TOGETHER AND TOOK A LOOK AT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH WITH A VIEW IN MIND OF MAKING IT MORE DEFENSIBLE AND MORE REGULAR AND TO MAKE AN OVERALL IMPROVEMENT." AND THEN HE REFERS TO A CHART. WHEN SAYS "A FEW OF US," WHO IS HE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW?

MR. HELLER: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MS. PLEVIN: IF YOU KNOW.

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU KNOW WHO LYMAN SPURLOCK HAD IN MIND WHEN HE USED THE TERM "A FEW OF US" OR WOULD YOU GUESS WHO HE HAD IN MIND?

THE WITNESS: I WOULD HAVE TO GUESS WHO HE HAD IN MIND.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WERE YOU ONE OF THE PEOPLE HE HAD IN MIND?

MR. HERTZBERG: WOULD YOU HAVE TO GUESS?

THE WITNESS: YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS THINKING WHEN HE SAID THIS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WERE YOU ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO GOT TOGETHER WITH MR. SPURLOCK AND TOOK A LOOK AT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE WITH A VIEW IN MIND OF MAKING IT MORE DEFENSIBLE AND REGULAR? WOULD THAT ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZE YOUR ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE ANNOUNCED BY MR. SPURLOCK?

A. LET ME JUST READ THIS HERE.

MR. HELLER: FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE SPECULATION. SECONDLY, YOU HAVE TWO QUESTIONS THERE. THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO, NOT THIS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WERE THE PROBLEMS THAT MR. SPURLOCK REFERRED TO IN THIS PARAGRAPH, THE KINDS OF PROBLEMS YOU WERE REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAID YOU CONSULTED COUNSEL?

MR. HELLER: SPECULATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: INSOFAR AS THAT WOULD DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS OF -- I DON'T WANT MR. MISCAVIGE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION INSOFAR AS IT WOULD DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS OF ANY CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO LEGAL ADVICE. MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT ASKING HIM WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT WITH COUNSEL. I'M ASKING ABOUT WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE THAT HE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT THAT LED HIM TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO, NO, FIRST OF ALL THAT'S NOT THE WAY YOU ASKED IT AND SECONDLY, YOU ASKED WHETHER CERTAIN PROBLEMS WERE THE KINDS OF PROBLEMS THEY DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL AND FRANKLY, ALTHOUGH MR. MISCAVIGE MAY DISAGREE WITH ME, I DON'T SEE HOW HE COULD ANSWER THAT WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT HE -- OF AREAS THAT WERE DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL, AND THAT'S WHY I MADE THAT OBSERVATION.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: NO, I'M NOT. I'M INSTRUCTING HIM TO ANSWER IF HE CAN, IF -- WITHOUT REFERRING TO SUBJECT MATTERS THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL. THE WITNESS: OKAY. COULD I HEAR THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.

MS. PLEVIN: WHY DON'T YOU READ IT BACK, PLEASE

(RECORD READ.)

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. ADDITIONALLY, HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT MR. SPURLOCK WAS REFERRING TO, BECAUSE ONLY MR. SPURLOCK SAID THESE WORDS. HE DIDN'T SAY THEM.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT ASKING HIM TO SPECULATE AS TO WHAT MR. SPURLOCK WAS THINKING. I'M ASKING MR. MISCAVIGE: WERE THESE THE KINDS OF PROBLEMS HE HAD IN MIND WHEN HE DECIDED TO CONSULT COUNSEL THAT IN THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT LED TO THE CORPORATE CHANGES WHICH WERE ANNOUNCED AT THIS MEETING.

THE WITNESS: WELL, WHAT I SAID WAS I MADE KNOWN PROBLEMS I KNEW AND THE ANSWER IS NO, THESE WEREN'T THE ONES. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WERE THE ONES YOU DID?

MR. HERTZBERG: HE CAN ONLY ANSWER THAT INSOFAR AS THAT DOES NOT DISCLOSE AREAS AND THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT HE --

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT ASKING HIM WHAT HE DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL. I'M ASKING HIM WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE THAT HE HAD IN MIND THAT LED HIM TO COUNSEL. (CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN: CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL.

Q. CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?

MR. HERTZBERG: GO AHEAD. YOU'RE ASKING -- YOU'RE ASKING WHAT PROBLEMS MR. MISCAVIGE HAD IN MIND WHEN HE WENT AND SPOKE TO COUNSEL?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. DRESCHER: WITHOUT DISCLOSING WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE TOLD COUNSEL.

MR. HERTZBERG: YES. IT'S INSEPARABLE. THE PROBLEM' HAVE, THAT HIS TELLING YOU WHAT HE HAD IN MIND IS TANTAMOUNT TO TELLING YOU WHAT HE DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL. MS. PLEVIN: YOU'RE INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: IF HE CAN'T --

MS. PLEVIN: IF YOU'RE INSTRUCTING TO HIM NOT TO ANSWER, LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER. I'M TELLING HIM HE CAN ANSWER, ONLY IF YOUR ANSWER DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE AREAS THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN: CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL.

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT. THE FOLLOWING: I WILL SAY THE FOLLOWING ABOUT IT, ALTHOUGH AS MR. HERTZBERG SAID, THESE ARE MATTERS I DID DISCUSS WITH COUNSEL. NO, THE PROBLEMS I HAD IN MIND THAT I UNIQUELY WAS AWARE OF ARE TWO IN NATURE. ONE WAS THE EXPERIENCE I

HAD WITH THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE AND THE FACT OF THEM GOING OFF SOURCE AND NEEDING TO BE HANDLED, AND THE SECOND WAS THE MISSION HOLDERS MUTINY THAT TOOK PLACE IN AT THE FLAG LAND BASE, WHEREBY I CAME UPON THE INSTANCE OF MISSION HOLDERS WANTING TO TAKE RESERVES OF ALL OF SCIENTOLOGY FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT AND THEIR OWN PROFIT. THOSE WERE THE ONLY PROBLEMS THAT I KNEW OF THAT HAD COME UP.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT TO DISCLOSE FURTHER, YOU WOULD BE DISCLOSING ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFIDENCES, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: WHO WAS THE CLIENT? MR. HERTZBERG: WHEN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M REFERRING TO MR. MISCAVIGE'S ANSWER.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, HE ANSWERED. GAVE YOU AN ANSWER AS TO WHAT THE TOPICS WERE.

MS. PLEVIN: I WANT TO KNOW WHO THE CLIENT WAS.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'VE GOT TO CONFER WITH MY CLIENT, BECAUSE I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR QUESTIONS INTRUDING ON THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. (CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN: YOU CAN'T ASSERT AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IF YOU'RE NOT THE CLIENT. THEY'RE LEAVING THE DEPOSITION ROOM.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE'RE NOT LEAVING THE DEPOSITION WE'RE STEPPING INTO THE HALL.

MS. PLEVIN: I DIDN'T SAY YOU WERE LEAVING THE DEPOSITION. I SAID YOU WERE LEAVING THE DEPOSITION ROOM

(RECESS TAKEN.)

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY POSITION WITH CSC AT THE TIME?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "POSITION"?

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY POSITION IN CSC AT THE TIME?

A. I BELIEVE I WAS EMPLOYED BY THEM.

Q. AND WHAT WAS YOUR CAPACITY?

A. EMPLOYEE.

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR TITLE?

A. OH, EITHER CHIEF OFFICER, CMO INT OR SPECIAL PROJECT OPS.

Q. WOULD YOU TURN TO PAGE 26, PLEASE. LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIND -- ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, MR. MISCAVIGE, YOU INTRODUCE GUILLONE LESEVRE --

A. GUILLONE LESEVRE. YOU DON'T PRONOUNCE THE --

Q. -- L-E-S-E-V-R-E, AS THE NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL. I THINK IT'S THE THIRD SENTENCE THERE, "YOU SAY, ALTHOUGH HE'S NOT YOUR DIRECT SENIOR" -- DIRECT IS UNDERLINED -- "HE IS SENIOR BOTH CORPORATELY AND ECCLESIASTICALLY TO MISSIONS"? A. MM-HMM.

Q. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A. JUST WHAT IT SAYS.

Q. WELL, COULD YOU --

A. ASSUMING THESE ARE MY EXACT WORDS.

Q. OKAY. IS THAT -- IN ESSENCE, IS THAT CORRECT, HOWEVER, I MEAN?

A. AT THAT TIME I CAN'T RECALL, BUT IF I SAID IT, I'M GUESSING THAT IT WAS.

Q. OKAY. IN WHAT WAY -- COULD YOU ELABORATE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE BOTH CORPORATELY AND ECCLESIASTICALLY SENIOR MISSIONS EVEN THOUGH HE'S NOT THEIR DIRECT SENIOR?

A. WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW, CORPORATE OR ECCLESIASTICALLY?

Q. BOTH, LET'S TAKE ONE AT A TIME?

A. LET'S TAKE ECCLESIASTICALLY. AS DIRECTOR OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, HE CERTAINLY HOLDS A SENIOR ECCLESIASTICAL POSITION OVER THE MISSIONS. HE IS ONE OF THE TOP RANKING MEMBERS OF SCIENTOLOGY AND MISSIONS ARE ONE OF THE BOTTOM RANKING. I THINK THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR.

Q. WELL, OKAY. AND CORPORATELY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? A. LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING.

MS. PLEVIN: CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: OKAY. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE -- ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THE CORPORATIONS WERE SET UP TO AVOID POWER PUSHES OF THE NATURE THAT WE SAW WITH THE MISSION HOLDERS WAS TO ENSURE THAT ANY MEMBER OF A CHURCH CORPORATION HAD TO BE A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE CHURCH, MEANING THEY COULDN'T BE A SQUIRREL, OR NOT A MEMBER OF SCIENTOLOGY, AND ALSO BE A BOARD OF DIRECTOR AT THE SAME TIME.

PART OF THE QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IF I REMEMBER EXACTLY, WAS THAT THEY HAD TO BE IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE MOTHER CHURCH, AND THERE WAS AN, INHERENT IN THE CORPORATE PAPERS WAS THAT THE PERSON HAD TO BE IN GOOD STANDING AND THERE WAS A -- I DON'T KNOW -- DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NO, IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE IT SAYS HE IS CORPORATELY SENIOR. NOW, YOU'VE DESCRIBED HOW HE'S ECCLESIASTICALLY SENIOR AND WHAT YOU'VE JUST MENTIONED SUGGESTS GOOD STANDING WITH THE CHURCH IS AN ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTION. IN WHAT WAY DID HE HAVE A CORPORATELY SENIOR FUNCTION?

A. OKAY. ULTIMATELY, I GUESS -- NOT THAT THIS WOULD EVER COME TO PASS, BUT ULTIMATELY IF THE MISSION WAS SQUIRRELING AND ULTIMATELY IF THAT WASN'T HANDLED BY THEIR SUPERIORS AND ULTIMATELY AS THIS WENT ON WITH THE VARIOUS SAFETY PRECAUTIONS BUILT INTO THE

CORPORATE STRUCTURE, HE WAS CORPORATELY SENIOR BY BEING IN THE MOTHER CHURCH.

Q. AND WHAT ACTS COULD HE TAKE BY VIRTUE OF THAT?

A. WELL --

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN IF ALL THESE HYPOTHETICAL STEPS -MS. PLEVIN: YES, YES.

THE WITNESS: HYPOTHETICALLY HE WAS SENIOR.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WOULD IT MEAN IF -- TAKE YOUR EXAMPLE, THAT A MISSION WAS SQUIRRELING AND SO FORTH, DESPITE ALL PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES, ULTIMATELY HE WOULD BE CORPORATELY SENIOR. WHAT I WOULD HE DO UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD GIVE -A. THIS IS ASSUMING HE WAS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASSUMING BY THIS. AND IF YOU READ THIS TRANSCRIPT, YOU SAW THAT THERE WAS A TRADEMARK LICENSING.

Q. MM-HMM.

A. AND THAT LICENSE IS WITH THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, WHO WAS THE MOTHER CHURCH OF THE CHURCH, AND LICENSED SNI, SNI LICENSES MISSIONS.

Q. WELL, HOW WOULD HE EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY MOVING BOARD MEMBERS?

MR. DRESCHER: I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: HOW WOULD HE EXERCISE THIS CONTROL.

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECT, THAT IT LACKS FOUNDATION AND CALLS FOR SPECULATION, BECAUSE IT'S ASKING FOR "WOULD." IF THE QUESTION IS, "DID," THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT.

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE'S STATEMENT IS THAT HE WAS CORPORATELY -- THAT THIS POSITION IS CORPORATELY SENIOR.

MR. DRESCHER: UNLESS SOMETHING HAPPENED, I THINK YOU'RE ASKING HYPOTHETICALLY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO JOIN IN THAT AND MAKE THIS CLEAR. ASIDE FROM THE FACT I CONSIDER THIS AGAIN TO BE AN IRRELEVANT TANGENT, I THINK WE'VE TO DEAL WITH DID THINGS HAPPEN. IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO OFF ON THESE INQUIRIES, LET'S CONFINE THE QUESTIONS TO "DID THIS EVER HAPPEN, DID HE EXERCISE SOMETHING," HOPEFULLY YOU WOULD ASK IT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF DID SOMETHING HAPPEN WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CLIENT, WHO YOU STILL AREN'T MENTIONING, BUT OTHERWISE I DON'T THINK MR. MISCAVIGE HAS GOT TO SIT HERE AND ASK ATTENUATED HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCE IF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRED FIRST.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. COULD, IN THE ROLE OF BEING CORPORATELY SENIOR, AS YOU DESCRIBED HERE, GUILLONE LESEVRE ORDER BOARD MEMBERS TO TAKE SPECIFIC ACTIONS? MR. HERTZBERG: SAME PROBLEM, "COULD." ASK HIM -- IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM DID HE, IF MR. MISCAVIGE HAS KNOWLEDGE THAT HE DID.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M ASKING HIM --

MR. DRESCHER: IT'S CALLING FOR SPECULATION. IT'S CALLING FOR AN ASSUMPTION OF SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED, TO SEE IF SOMETHING MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. MR. HELLER: THAT SAME OBJECTION IS ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTION AS FRAMED.

THE WITNESS: THE ANSWER IS NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. WHAT CORPORATE ACTION COULD BE TAKEN?

A. BY WHAT?

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL OBJECT TO THAT AS VAGUE, IMPRECISE, AMBIGUOUS, UNINTELLIGIBLE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IN ORDER TO AMPLIFY AND CLARIFY THE MEANING OF THE STATEMENT THAT ALTHOUGH HE'S NOT, QUOTE, ALTHOUGH HE'S NOT YOUR DIRECT SENIOR, HE, MEANING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL, IS SENIOR, BOTH CORPORATELY AND ECCLESIASTICALLY, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT

WHAT CORPORATE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY HE COULD HAVE OVER THE MISSIONS, THAT LED YOU TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT?

A. YOU'RE ADDING TO THIS.

MR. HELLER: I WANT TO RAISE AN OBJECTION. HE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ALREADY.

MS. PLEVIN: HE HASN'T.

MR. HELLER: THROUGH THE LICENSING, WHEN YOU ASKED THAT, AND THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED. NOW, YOU WANT TO SET UP A HYPOTHETICAL AS TO WHAT ACTIONS HE MAY HAVE TAKEN WITHOUT GIVING THE PREDICATE OF THE HYPOTHETICAL. MR. HERTZBERG: GO AHEAD. YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER? OKAY. YOU'RE ASKING ME A QUESTION THAT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT THIS SAYS, BUT --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT DOES IT SAY?

A. IT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT YOUR DIRECT SENIOR, HE IS SENIOR BOTH CORPORATELY AND ECCLESIASTICALLY TO MISSIONS." IT SAYS EXACTLY THAT. IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT COULD TAKE ACTION. WHY DON'T YOU DESCRIBE TO ME WHAT YOU'RE ASKING

ME, BECAUSE I THOUGHT I DID ANSWER THIS.

Q. I'M ASKING WHAT ACTIONS YOU HAD IN MIND WHEN YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT. A. IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ACTIONS.

Q. THAT --

A. IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ACTIONS.

MR. LIEBERMAN: IT JUST SAYS HE'S SENIOR. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT HE CAN DO ANYTHING.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS MR. LIEBERMAN ANSWERING FOR YOU NOW?

A. NO. I THINK HE'S JUST ADDING TO WHAT I SAID TO YOU IN MORE WORDS. I ANSWERED YOU IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ACTIONS.

Q. SO WHEN YOU SAID THIS, YOU DIDN'T HAVE IN MIND ANY SPECIFIC CONTROL MECHANISM CORPORATELY THAT GUILLONE LESEVRE COULD EXERCISE?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING HIM WHETHER HE REMEMBERS NOW IN 1990 WHETHER WHEN HE SPOKE THESE WORDS IN 1982, HE HAD SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY IN MIND? IS THAT THE QUESTION? MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. IF YOU REMEMBER.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. DID YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I'M NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. THEN I'LL READ THE WHOLE TRANSCRIPT, BECAUSE I THINK IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. THAT'S MY ANSWER. I CAN ANSWER YOU, BUT I'LL TURN BACK AND START AT THE BEGINNING.

Q. NO, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DO THAT. IT WON'T SAY WHAT YOU WERE THINKING OF WHEN YOU SAID THAT. YOU DON'T -- YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU HAD IN MIND WHEN YOU SAID AS -A. NO, I ANSWERED THAT. YOU ASKED "ACTION." I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T SAY "ACTION" HERE. I THINK I ANSWERED THE OTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION, MISS PLEVIN.

Q. I'M GOING TO FORMULATE ANOTHER QUESTION AND SEE IF WE CAN --

A. AGREE HERE.

Q. -- AGREE HERE.

A. OKAY, SURE.

Q. YOUR STATEMENT HERE IS THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL IS CORPORATELY SENIOR, ALTHOUGH NOT DIRECTLY SENIOR, TO THE MISSIONS.

A. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO SOMETHING HERE WE CAN AGREE ON. THAT'S THE SENSE OF WHAT YOU SAID?

A. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. I SAID GUILLONE LESEVRE.

Q. IS CORPORATELY SENIOR, BUT NOT DIRECTLY SENIOR; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. ECCLESIASTICALLY AND CORPORATELY, RIGHT.

Q. OKAY.

A. AND HE HAPPENED TO HAVE THE POSITION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL.

Q. AND HOW, IN TERMS OF CORPORATE FUNCTION OR ACTIVITY, COULD HE EXERCISE THAT CORPORATE ROLE?

A. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE?

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS MISSION TRANSCRIPT TALKS ABOUT NUMEROUS THINGS. IT TALKS ABOUT RIP-OFFS FROM MISSIONS. IT TALKS ABOUT MISSION HOLDERS BRIBING PEOPLE, AND LITERALLY WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT BRIBING PEOPLE, IT'S TALKING ABOUT MISSION HOLDERS LITERALLY STUFFING MONEY IN SOMEONE'S POCKET TO BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH VIOLATING THE POLICIES OF THE CHURCH.

IT TALKS ABOUT RIPPING OFF MAILING LISTS FROM ORGS, WHICH ARE OTHER CORPORATIONS. IT TALKS ABOUT NOT APPLYING THE POLICIES OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, LONG EXTENT ON WHAT MISSIONS COULD DO. THESE MISSIONS AND ONE THING THAT IS ANNOUNCED HERE ON THE CORPORATE REORGANIZATION, WERE PART -- THEY HAD A POSITION IN THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF SCIENTOLOGY, AND WITH ANY CHURCH CORPORATION AS A RESULT OF SEEING WHAT VARIOUS UNSCRUPULOUS MISSION HOLDERS COULD DO WHEN THEY GOT THEIR MIND TO IT, AFTER HAVING EXPERIENCED A MUTINY AT THE END OF 1981 IN AN ATTEMPT TO LITERALLY TAKE ALL THE CHURCH RESERVES INTO THEIR OWN POSSESSION, WHERE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT TAKING BASEBALL BATS TO CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE, ONE THING THAT WE WANTED TO AVOID WAS BEING ABLE TO APPLY -- AN INABILITY TO APPLY SCIENTOLOGY POLICY TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS THE APPARENCY OR EVEN THE EXACT INSTANCE OF ILLEGAL, OUTLAW TYPE ACTIVITIES. THERE'S A COMMENT IN HERE ABOUT OUTLAWS AND A BRIEFING BY AN ATTORNEY SO THAT WAS A

LARGE CONCERN ABOUT OUTLAWS, AND THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF SCIENTOLOGY, THE WAY THAT PERSONS WERE DEALT WITH WAS WITH SCIENTOLOGY POLICY.

WELL, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS SOMEBODY COULD COMMIT THESE ILLEGAL ACTS OR APPARENT ILLEGAL ACTS AND THERE WOULD BE NO RECOURSE IN HANDLING THEM, EXCEPT WITH INTERNAL CHURCH JUSTICE PROCEDURES AND IT WAS THE FEELING THAT THEY FELT THAT THOSE PROCEDURES WERE SO NICE AND SO CONFRONTABLE THAT THEY BASICALLY COULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED AND GET AWAY WITH IT WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF REAL RECOURSE OR PENALTY. PART OF THESE CORPORATIONS WERE TO MAKE SURE THAT, A, OUR BEST SAFEGUARD FOR ANY SCIENTOLOGY ACTIVITY TO CONTINUE ON, AS STATED IN POLICY TO BE IN-TECH, ON SOURCE, ON POLICY WAS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAD TO BE SCIENTOLOGISTS IN GOOD STANDING. IN GOOD STANDING MEANS THAT THEY APPLY THE POLICIES AND TECHNOLOGY OF SCIENTOLOGY THAT THEY'RE NOT -- THEY'RE

NOT SQUIRRELS AND BY SQUIRREL, I MEAN ALTERING, CHANGING OR INVENTING, AND YOU CAN SEE AN INSTANCE IN HERE WHERE WE TALK ABOUT A SQUIRREL ACTIVITY WHEREBY A PERSON NAMED KINGSLY WINBUSH WAS INVOLVED WITH A NEW INVENTED TYPE OF SCIENTOLOGY CALLED DINGING AND THIS GIVES SCIENTOLOGY A BAD NAME BECAUSE THIS PERSON WOULD PROMOTE HIMSELF, ALONG WITH OTHERS, AS A SCIENTOLOGIST, AND BRING IN PEOPLE AND GIVE NEW PERSONS WHO HAD NEVER BEEN INTRODUCED TO SCIENTOLOGY AN EXTREMELY BAD IMPRESSION OF IT BY HIS ACTIVITIES.

HIS ACTIVITY OF DINGING WHICH WAS POPULAR WITH SOME OF THE PERSONS IN THE MISSION NETWORK AT THAT TIME, WAS TO STAND IN FRONT OF A CROWD AND TELL PEOPLE IF YOU WANT TO MOVE UP YOUR SCIENTOLOGY BRIDGE, THEN YOU REQUIRE ME, AND WHAT I REQUIRE FROM YOU IS MONEY, CARS AND HOUSES. PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS AND WE WERE PRETTY OUTRAGED. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS BEING TALKED ABOUT THERE. ECCLESIASTICALLY THAT'S TERRIBLE THAT'S NOT SCIENTOLOGY. IT'S PASSING SOMETHING OFF AS A SCIENTOLOGY MATTER WHEN IT WASN'T. IT WAS

DISGRACEFUL. CORPORATELY, ULTIMATELY, AND I GUESS THE REAL POINT THAT I BELIEVE I WAS TRYING TO MAKE HERE WAS THAT CORPORATELY, ULTIMATELY NO MATTER HOW BAD THE POWER PUSH, IF SOME PEOPLE CAME ALONG LATER AND WANTED TO TAKE ALL THE MONEY AND WANTED TO PUT IT IN THEIR OWN POCKET, WANTED TO TAKE ANY OF THE DONATIONS OF THE CHURCH AND MAKE IT THEIR OWN AND BASICALLY WERE HERE JUST TO GET RICH, THAT ULTIMATELY THE CORPORATIONS OF SCIENTOLOGY WOULD BE ABLE TO STAND UP TO THIS, WHICH WASN'T THE CASE BEFOREHAND.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT CHART, THERE'S MISSIONS AND THERE'S AN EXACT LICENSING, AND THEY HAVE THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THEY MUST BE IN GOOD STANDING AND BY VIRTUE OF THIS PATTERN, THE WHOLE PATTERN BEING TALKED ABOUT WAS NOT TO ORDER DOWN TO REMOVE

A DIRECTOR- THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL NEVER HAS DONE THAT AND I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW THAT WOULD EVER COME TO PASS.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT IS NOT THE STRUCTURE, BUT THE POINT IS ULTIMATELY IF THEY ALL REVOLTED OR MUTINIED OR WERE OUT-TECH AND OFF POLICY, THAT THIS COULD BE DEALT WITH, WITH THE CORPORATE INSTRUMENTS THAT WERE IN PLACE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T THINK SO, BUT IT WAS A NICE ATTEMPT TO BYPASS IT.

MR. DRESCHER: I OBJECT TO THAT CHARACTERIZATION.

MS. PLEVIN: STRIKE THAT FROM THE RECORD.

Q. YOU MENTIONED THE CHART NOW,

MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. WHAT NOW?

Q. YOU MENTIONED IN THIS ANSWER YOU GAVE, YOU REFERRED TO THAT CHART. PLEASE TURN TO THE END. I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT CHART YOU WERE REFERRING TO.

A. NOT THIS CHART. THERE WAS -- A CHART I WAS REFERRING TO WAS THE ONE THAT LYMAN SPURLOCK DREW ON A BLACKBOARD OR IT WAS -- YOU KNOW, ONE OF THOSE -- LIKE THAT BOARD.

Q. OKAY. WHICH I THINK WAS REDUCED AND REPLICATED TO BE SENT WITH THE TRANSCRIPT, IF YOU'LL LOOK TOWARDS THE END, THERE ARE SEVERAL -- YOU'RE LOOKING NOW AT THE ONE THAT'S DESIGNATED CHART TWO.

A. IS THAT THE ONE YOU WANT? I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WERE SEVERAL HERE.

Q. THERE ARE SEVERAL, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT MR. SPURLOCK DREW, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

MR. HERTZBERG: IF ANY OF THEM ARE.

THE WITNESS: NEITHER OF THESE LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE HE DREW.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE ONE YOU WERE LOOKING AT DESIGNATED CHART TWO.

A. OKAY.

Q. THEN ON TOP IT SAYS "CORPORATE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, WARRANT OFFICER," OR W/O, WHICH I BELIEVE MEANS WARRANT OFFICER. CHART TWO. DO YOU SEE THAT?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. NOW, THIS CHART, DOES THIS REPRESENT THE CORPORATE -- THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS CORPORATIONS THAT WERE ANNOUNCED BY MR. SPURLOCK AT THIS MEETING?

A. I'D HAVE TO READ HIS TALK TO KNOW IF IS REPRESENTS THAT.

Q. IS IT ACCURATE?

A. WHEN?

Q. IN 1982. IS THIS AN ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF THE PATTERNS OF AUTHORITY?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING MISCAVIGE WHETHER HE REMEMBERS NOW WHETHER IN OCTOBER OF 1982, THIS WAS A COMPLETELY ACCURATE RENDITION OF WHAT YOU CALL THE PATTERNS?

MS. PLEVIN: WHETHER THIS WAS AN ACCURATE --

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT IT ITEM ITEM, RTC AT THE TOP WITH A STRAIGHT LINE DOWN A BOX WHICH HAS "CSHI" IN IT.

A. RIGHT.

Q. OKAY. NOW, RTC HAD BEEN FORMED BY THE TIME OF THIS CONFERENCE?

A. YES.

Q. YOU WERE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AT AT TIME, OR WERE YOU?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY POSITION IN RTC AT AT TIME?

A. IN RTC?

Q. MM-HMM.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: I WASN'T EMPLOYED BY RTC. I WAS A TRUSTEE OF RTC.

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OF RTC?

A. YES.

Q. DOES THE LINE BETWEEN RTC AND CSI CORRECTLY REFLECT RTC WAS SENIOR TO CSI?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT REFLECTS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MEANING OF THAT LINE WAS.

Q. WAS RTC SENIOR TO SCI AT THE TIME AT THIS --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S ALSO -- ONE DISTINCTION WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE, WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CORPORATELY OR ECCLESIASTICALLY. MS. PLEVIN: WE CAN TALK ABOUT BOTH. LET'S TALK ABOUT CORPORATELY FIRST.

Q. WAS RTC SENIOR TO CSI --

A. WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF SENIOR? I REALLY WANT TO KNOW THIS, BECAUSE I THINK -- YOU HAVE A DEFINITION FOR WORDS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN MINE. Q. WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF "SENIOR" IS, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. SENIOR, IN MY DEFINITION, IS THAT I GUESS A PERSON WHO SOMEONE DIRECTLY REPORTS TO AND THE SENIOR WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT JUNIOR.

Q. OKAY. ACCORDING TO THAT DEFINITION; IS THIS CORRECT?

A. NO, NO.

Q. ALL RIGHT. DID RTC HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR BEING ABLE TO SUPERVISE ANY FUNCTIONS OF CSI?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "SUPERVISE"?

Q. INTERVENE, TAKE CHARGE OF, BYPASS.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHEN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

MS. PLEVIN: ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS --

MR. HERTZBERG: AT THE TIME OF THIS CHART?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

MR. HERTZBERG: 1982.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE WITNESS: INTERVENE, BYPASS -- RTC LICENSED CSI TO USE THE TRADEMARKS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE LINE BETWEEN RTC AND SMI HERE, DOES THAT REFLECT ANYWAY IN WHICH RTC WAS SENIOR TO SMI?

A. THAT LINE?

Q. YES.

A. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT LINE IS THERE LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. WELL, WAS THE CONFERENCE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE NEW CORPORATE LINES OF AUTHORITY WERE GOING TO BE? A. CORPORATE LINES OF AUTHORITY?

Q. YES.

A. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS CONFERENCE WAS ABOUT.

Q. MR. SPURLOCK DIDN'T ANNOUNCE NEW CORPORATE STRUCTURES AND LINES OF AUTHORITY AT THIS CONFERENCE, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN WHETHER THAT'S WHAT THE CONFERENCE WAS ABOUT.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

THE WITNESS: COULD I ASK HIM A QUESTION WHILE THERE'S NO QUESTION PENDING?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT QUESTION IS PENDING.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU CAN ASK ME ANYWAY.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE READ THE QUESTION BACK.

(RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. I'D HAVE TO READ THIS, AND IF YOU WANT, I WILL READ THIS NOW.

MS. PLEVIN: WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT IN ANOTHER WAY, WHICH WE WILL DO SO. ALL RIGHT. FINE.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PHRASE "BOOK ONE"?

A. YES.

Q. AND DOES THAT REFER TO "DIANETICS, THE SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH"?

A. YES. SEE, YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION THAT'S SENSIBLE, AND I CAN ANSWER IT RIGHT AWAY.

Q. WHO IS WENDELL REYNOLDS?

A. HE'S WENDELL REYNOLDS. WHO IS HE?

Q. DO YOU KNOW --

A. I KNOW HIM.

Q. AT ONE TIME DID HE HAVE THE POST OF FINANCE DIRECTOR?

A. I BELIEVE SO.

Q. WHO APPOINTED HIM TO THAT POST?

A. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT AN ORG BOARD IS?

A. YES.

Q. WOULD YOU DEFINE FOR THE RECORD WHAT AN ORG BOARD IS?

A. "ORG BOARD" MEANS ORGANIZING BOARD, AND IT IS A BOARD THAT IS FOR ORGANIZING THE FUNCTIONS, DIVISIONS, PRODUCTS OF AN ORGANIZATION, OR ANYBODY'S LIFE FOR THAT MATTER. Q. AS A MATTER OF ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY, MANAGEMENT POLICY, IF YOU WILL, DO ALL SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAVE AN ORG BOARD?

A. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, YES.

Q. AND CORPORATIONS?

A. INDIVIDUALLY?

Q. MM-HMM.

A. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, ALL SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS ARE IN ONE CORPORATION ANOTHER. DOES THAT ANSWER THAT?

Q. IN PART.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, IS THERE A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION THAT'S IN RTC?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.

Q. WELL, YOU SAID TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ALL SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS ARE INCORPORATED?

A. NO. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, ALL SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS ARE WITHIN ONE CORPORATION OR ANOTHER.

Q. OKAY. IS THE ORG BOARD THEN PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO ORGANIZATIONS, BUT NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO CORPORATIONS?

A. ORG BOARD -- LIKE ANY CORPORATION -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN -- IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN, ANY CORPORATION?

Q. LET'S TRY TO GET AT IT ANOTHER WAY. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ORG STRUCTURE AND THE CORPORATIONS.

A. UH-HUH, OKAY.

Q. NOW, LET'S TAKE AN EXAMPLE.

A. OKAY.

Q. LET'S SAY RTC.

A. OKAY.

Q. RTC IS A CORPORATION?

A. YES.

Q. IT ALSO IS AN ORGANIZATION?

A. YES.

Q. THERE'S AN ORG BOARD?

A. YES.

Q. DOES THE ORG BOARD TRACK CORPORATE OFFICERS?

A. TRACK?

Q. THE POSITIONS ON THE ORG BOARD, DO THEY TRACK CORPORATE POSITIONS?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE WORD "TRACK." JUST TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.

Q. THE POSITIONS ON THE ORG BOARD HAVE CERTAIN TITLES?

A. OKAY, SURE.

Q. ARE THOSE TITLES THE SAME AS THE CORPORATE POSITION TITLES? FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A DIV 6'S IN MOST SCIENTOLOGY CORPORATIONS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. YES.

Q. PUBLIC --

A. SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS.

Q. DOES RTC HAVE A DIV 6?

A. YES.

Q. IS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DIV 6 -- I FORGET WHAT THAT TITLE IS.

A. WELL, DIV 6 --

MR. HERTZBERG: IS THAT A QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: WELL, THERE'S THREE DIV 6'S IN THE STANDARD SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION, AND RTC IS ONE DIV 6.

BY MR. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. AND THE PERSON WHO HAS THE POSITION OF BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR DIV 6 IN THE CORPORATION, IS THAT PERSON THE SAME -- IS THAT POSITION REFLECTED ON THE ORG BOARD? A. DIV 6 IN THE CORPORATION. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S DIV 6 LISTED IN ANY CORPORATION. I DON'T --

Q. OKAY. THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY. THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON WHICH -- RTC OPERATES ON THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT'S REFLECTED ON THE ORG BOARD?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: LET ME ASK IT.

Q. RTC'S OPERATION RUNS ON THE LINES ON THE ORG BOARD?

A. THE -- "A" IS THE WORD.

Q. "A" IS WHICH WORD?

A. AN ORG BOARD.

Q. AN ORG BOARD.

A. YOU SAID "THE."

Q. OKAY, AN ORG BOARD.

A. OKAY.

Q. SO THE ORG BOARD IS A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF HOW THE FUNCTIONS IN RTC ARE SEPARATED AND WHO IS IN EACH POSITION?

A. JUST TO CLARIFY, NOT THE; AN. RTC'S ORG BOARD DOES REPRESENT WHO IS IN WHICH POSITION AND WHAT FUNCTION, BUT YOU KEEP USING THE WORD "THE."

Q. ALL RIGHT. I'M TRYING -- IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORG BOARD LAYOUT AND THE CORPORATE LAYOUT?

A. IS THERE A CORPORATE LAYOUT?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. LET'S TRY IT A DIFFERENT WAY. EACH DIVISION HAS PEOPLE IN THE TOP SLOTS.

A. OKAY.

Q. ARE THOSE PERSONS, DO THEY HAVE SENIOR POSITIONS IN THE CORPORATION AS WELL?

A. THE TOP SLOTS?

Q. YES.

A. I -- I'M SORRY.

Q. ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU HAVE CORPORATE OFFICERS, SUCH AS A SECRETARY, TREASURER?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AND ON THE ORG BOARD, THERE'S THE TREASURY DIVISION AND SO FORTH?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. NOW, THE PERSON WHO FILLS THE POSITION OF TREASURER ON THE ORG BOARD, IS THAT ALSO THE CORPORATE POSITION OF TREASURER?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE POSITION OF COMMANDING OFFICER?

A. THERE'S NOT A COMMANDING OFFICER.

Q. WHAT IS THE TOP POSITION ON THE ORG BOARD?

A. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD.

Q. AND THAT'S YOU?

A. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. SOME ORGANIZATIONS, AS YOU READ THROUGH SCIENTOLOGY MATERIAL, HAVE A COMMANDING OFFICER AND SOME OF THEM HAVE AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR?

A. RIGHT.

Q. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY SOME ARE CALLED COMMANDING OFFICERS AND WHY SOME ARE CALLED EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS, PLEASE?

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THERE'S A LAWSUIT WHICH YOUR CLIENT HAS BROUGHT WHICH HAS SOME ALLEGATIONS IN IT, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW THIS QUESTION RELATES TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, BUT HE MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MR. HELLER: EXCUSE ME. I ALSO WANT TO REMIND THE WITNESS, DON'T CONJECTURE. IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, FINE. MR. DRESCHER: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE REFERENCES TO ORG BOARD ARE REFERRING TO AN RTC.

MR. HELLER: VERY GOOD POINT.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S FINE.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THE QUESTION WAS THERE'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND COMMANDING OFFICER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YES.

A. OKAY. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WOULD REFER TO A SCIENTOLOGY, WHAT WE CALL, CLASS FOUR ORGANIZATION, I GUESS IT WOULD APPLY TO MISSIONS OR ANYBODY -- AN ORG BOARD IS AN ORG BOARD. WE USE COMMANDING OFFICER TO REFER TO INSTALLATIONS WHICH ARE GENERALLY SEA WORKINGS, INSTALLATIONS ALTHOUGH NOT IN ALL CASES IS THAT THE TERM THAT'S USED.

Q. WELL, IS CSI A SEA ORG INSTALLATION?

A. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, AND THAT'S A CORPORATION.

Q. BUT MR. LESEVRE IS IDENTIFIED AS CAPTAIN.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT -- ONE MOMENT. ONE MOMENT. IN A MOMENT, HE CAN -- WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. MS. PLEVIN: I'LL CLARIFY. THANK YOU.

Q. IN THE 1982 MISSION HOLDERS CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT --

A. RIGHT.

Q. -- THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO YOU INTRODUCED IS IDENTIFIED BY A SEA ORG RANK?

A. YES.

Q. WOULD YOU CLARIFY THAT, PLEASE?

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "CLARIFY." YOU SEE, HERE'S THE PROBLEM: YOU JUST ASKED HIM A SERIES OF QUESTIONING WHICH WOULD BE REASONABLY INTERPRETED, AND I ASSUME WOULD BE INTERPRETED BY MR. MISCAVIGE TO REFER TO MATTERS IN PRESENT TIME. THEN YOU WENT BACK TO SOMETHING IN 1982, AND BY THE PHRASEOLOGY, BUT, YOU SEEM TO IMPLY THERE'S SOME INHERENT CONTRADICTION.

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE IS PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF MAKING THAT DISTINCTION ON HIS OWN. I'M NOT TRYING TO TRAP HIM. HE CAN SAY IT DOES OR DOESN'T APPLY. MR. HERTZBERG: FINE. SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS HE REFERRED TO IN THAT TRANSCRIPT BY THAT TITLE.

MS. PLEVIN: HE WAS REFERRED TO IN THE TRANSCRIPT AS CAPTAIN.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT IS THE QUESTION?

MR. LIEBERMAN: THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE CAN CLARIFY THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "CLARIFY." IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY.

MR. HELLER, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SIDE CONVERSATIONS GOING ON FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME.

MR. HELLER: ARE THEY OKAY FOR SHORT PERIODS?

MR. HERTZBERG: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT MR. HELLER WAS NOT TALKING TO MR. MISCAVIGE.

MS. PLEVIN: NO, HE WASN'T. I DON'T SUGGEST THAT HE WAS, BUT THERE WAS A SIDE CONVERSATION GOING ON --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S MOVE ON.

MS. PLEVIN: -- OF SUBSTANTIAL LENGTH.

Q. I'M SHOWING YOU A THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE SOED 1896 INT DATED JANUARY 18, 1982?

A. OKAY.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THIS, NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT BOB PARIS WAS ASKED TO PREPARE A MEMO FOR DISTRIBUTION REGARDING, QUOTE, "UNDERSTANDING CORPORATE INTEGRITY" AT ABOUT THE TIME REFERENCED ON THIS DOCUMENT? A. NO.

Q. WOULD YOU TURN TO THE THIRD PAGE, PLEASE.

A. OKAY. 1828?

Q. RIGHT. ON PAGE 3 IT INDICATES, LOOKING TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE WRITING, IT SAYS, "CORPORATE SORT OUT MISSION L.A., AUTHORIZED BY WATCHDOG COMMITTEE."

A. MM-HMM.

Q. NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY CORPORATE SORT OUT MISSION L.A., TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE DOCUMENT. DON'T KNOW WHO PREPARED THIS.

Q. OKAY.

A. IT'S -- OKAY.

Q. AND YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE?

MR. HERTZBERG: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE WITNESS: I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS, NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY DRAFTS OF A DOCUMENT WITH THE TITLE "UNDERSTANDING CORPORATE INTEGRITY"?

A. NO.

Q. WHEN A DOCUMENT HAS ON THE TOP "EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE," AS THIS ONE DOES, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT -- DO YOU SEE THAT?

A. YES, SURE,

Q. AND TO THE LEFT IT SAYS "SO, SPACE, ED" AND A NUMBER AND THEN "INT."

A. OKAY.

Q. WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT -- THOSE INITIALS AND NUMBER?

A. THE SO ED AND NUMBER?

Q. YES.

A. SO ED MEANS SEA ORG ED, MEANING EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE, AND THEN THE NUMBER WOULD BE THE CONSECUTIVE NUMBER OF THAT ISSUE TYPE AND THIS SAYS "INT" AS WELL AFTER THAT NUMBER, MEANING INTERNATIONAL. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT IS THAT -- WELL, FOR INSTANCE, ANY ORGANIZATION, FOR INSTANCE, YOU COULD TAKE SEATTLE ORGANIZATION, THEY COULD ISSUE THEIR OWN EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE AND IT WOULD BE CALLED SEA ED, MEANING SEATTLE ED, AND IT WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION. THAT WAY YOU DON'T MIX UP THE NUMBERS, BECAUSE NUMBERS COULD MIX, BUT ADDITIONALLY IF THIS SAYS SEA ORG AND INT, FOR INSTANCE, AS HUK WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A SEA ORG, THEY MIGHT USE -- OR HUK ED; OR EVEN SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT WRITE A SEA ORG ED THAT MEANS IT'S COMING FROM SOMEBODY WHO IS WORKING IN AN ORGANIZATION THAT SEA ORG ED AND COULD APPLY TO ONLY ONE ORG.

LIKE IT COULD SAY SEA ORG ED, BUT IF IT DOESN'T SAY INT, IT COULD BE SOMETHING LOCAL SUCH AS ANYTHING VERY MUNDANE SUCH AS CLEANING STATIONS. SO IT IS A WAY OF SORTING OUT THE NUMBERING TYPES, AND THAT'S WHY -- THAT'S WHY YOU SEE ALL THE INITIALS AND THE NUMBER AND THE INT.

Q. ARE YOU FINISHED? I JUST DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF.

A. IF THAT WAS CLEAR.

Q. IF YOU WOULD, TAKE A LOOK AGAIN AT THE DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH WE'VE REFERRED TO BEFORE, THE COVER SHEET SAYS "EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE SO ED 2104 INT." A. RIGHT. OKAY.

Q. NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT FRONT SHEET.

A. OKAY.

Q. AND IT SAYS, "CAPTAIN GUILLONE LESEVRE ED INTERNATIONAL, AUTHORIZED BY ABC INT FOR THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL."

A. RIGHT.

Q. OKAY. NOW, WHO WAS ISSUING THIS? SEA ORG OR CSI?

A. WHO WAS ISSUING? SEA ORG ISN'T A CORPORATION.

Q. I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT WAS. BUT --

A. WELL --

MR. HERTZBERG: CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION AS IT'S FRAMED?

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY WAS THIS DOCUMENT ISSUED?

A. IT'S SIGNED CAPTAIN GUILLONE LESEVRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL.

Q. FOR THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL?

A. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

Q. ALL RIGHT. BUT IT'S A SEA ORG EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE AT THE SAME TIME?

A. RIGHT.

Q. OKAY. AND GUILLONE LESEVRE IS A MEMBER OF THE SEA ORG?

A. HE'S A SEA ORG MEMBER, IS A BETTER WAY OF STATING THAT.

Q. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE PERIOD OF -- WELL, YOU MADE THE MOVE WITH -- TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS IN THE LATTER PART OF 1979, APPROXIMATELY?

A. IS THAT WHAT I SAID?

Q. SOMETHING -- I THINK SO.

A. LET ME THINK. NO. I'VE GOT TO CORRECT THAT. I THINK THAT WAS MORE LIKE MAYBE -- MAYBE MARCH OR APRIL OF 1979.

Q. EARLIER ON?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AFTER YOU MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- WHAT TYPE OF COMMUNICATION DID YOU HAVE WITH L.R.H.?

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. NOW, I'M GOING TO REITERATE THE OBJECTION THAT WAS MADE PREVIOUSLY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO -- PURSUE THESE IRRELEVANT TANGENTS WHICH ARE WASTING A LOT OF TIME. IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS THAT HE HAD WITH MR. HUBBARD DEALING WITH THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS DEALING WITH BENT CORYDON, MATTERS DEALING WITH SQUIRRELS OR ARGUABLY MISSIONS, LET'S ASK HIM ABOUT THOSE COMMUNICATIONS- OTHERWISE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND OUR TIME HERE ON LONG DISCOURSES ABOUT MATTERS INTRUSIVE INTO THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLICIES OF THE CHURCH, THE PRACTICES OF THE CHURCH, EVEN IF IN SOME INSTANCES THEY WERE NOT, INTO EVERY CONVERSATION HE HAD WITH MR. HUBBARD, THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY TOOK PLACE. LET'S GET TO THE CORE OF THE ISSUE HERE. WE'VE SPENT ENOUGH TIME AGAIN, WITHOUT MY EVER HEARING BENT CORYDON'S NAME IN ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS. THAT'S THE POSITION WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ON THIS.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: YES.

MS. PLEVIN: YOU'VE TOTALLY DONE 180-DEGREE ABOUT-FACE, MR. HERTZBERG, BECAUSE YOU PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT YOU WOULD PERMIT HIM TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. HUBBARD, SO FAR AS I KNOW. MR. DRESCHER: NO, HE DIDN'T. HE LIMITED IT EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

MS. PLEVIN: THEN I'M GOING TO ASK A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. AND IF YOU WANT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET HIM ANSWER, THEN FINE, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTIONS.

Q. DID YOU HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH L.R.H. WHILE YOU WERE AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS? WAS THAT COMMUNICATION MOSTLY IN PERSON --

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

MR. DRESCHER: DO YOU WANT AN ANSWER OR A RESPONSE?

MS. PLEVIN: I DO. LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT TO LET HIM ANSWER.

MR. HERTZBERG: DID HE HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH HIM? YES. HE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WERE THOSE FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATIONS?

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM -- UNLESS YOU -- UNLESS WE START DISCUSSING -- YOU START ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. HUBBARD ABOUT BENT CORYDON, SQUIRRELS OR MISSIONS, I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER. THE

REST OF IT IS IMMATERIAL.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: YES, UNLESS WILL YOU LIMIT THAT QUESTION.

MR. LIEBERMAN: WITH THAT LIMITATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: WITH THE LIMITATION, I'M INSTRUCTING MR. MISCAVIGE, WITH THE LIMITATION THAT I'VE ARTICULATED. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU RECEIVE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM MR. HUBBARD?

MR. LIEBERMAN: YOU CAN ANSWER THAT, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT LIMITING.

THE WITNESS: I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO ANSWER.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU CAN ANSWER WHETHER YOU RECEIVED WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, IF THOSE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD -- IF THERE WERE ANY, THAT DEALT WITH BENT CORYDON, SQUIRRELS OR MISSIONS, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO START WASTING ANY MORE TIME ON MATTERS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITS THIS LAWSUIT AND GET INTO A BROAD OVERINTRUSIVE INQUIRY ABOUT THE CHURCH AND OTHER IRRELEVANT MATTERS.

MR. HELLER: OR MR. CORYDON'S MISSION.

MS. PLEVIN: YOU'RE INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER? MR. HERTZBERG: YES.

MS. PLEVIN: DID YOU --

MR. HERTZBERG: SUBJECT TO THAT --

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT LIMITING IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE INSTRUCTION. MR. LIEBERMAN: LET'S HEAR WHAT HIS ANSWER IS.

MR. HELLER: BEFORE YOU GO ON --

MR. HERTZBERG: CAN YOU ANSWER?

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: I'M CONFUSED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN I MOVED UP TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS AND I ANSWERED I HAD COMMUNICATION WITH MR. HUBBARD. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YES. I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER YOU HAD FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATION?

MR. DRESCHER: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT, PLEASE?

MS. PLEVIN: SURE, AGAIN, EXTENSIVE COLLOQUY.

(RECESS TAKEN.)

MS. PLEVIN: WOULD YOU READ THE QUESTION THAT'S PENDING?

(RECORD READ.)

MR. HERTZBERG: WHEN?

MS. PLEVIN: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE TIME MR. MISCAVIGE MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS AND AFTER THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, WHAT TIME PERIOD?

MR. LIEBERMAN: YOU MEAN FROM 1979 UNTIL THE PRESENT?

MS. PLEVIN: NO. MR. MISCAVIGE PERHAPS CAN INDICATE WHAT THE PERIODS OF TIME WERE THAT HE DID OR DIDN'T.

Q. DID YOU HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH HIM?

MR. HERTZBERG: DID -- OKAY. THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. DID --

THE WITNESS: I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: HE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, HE SAID HE'S HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIM AFTER HE MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS -- AFTER MR. MISCAVIGE MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS. DID YOU RECEIVE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM MR. HUBBARD AFTER YOU MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS?

MR. HERTZBERG: FROM WHAT TIME TO WHAT TIME?

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S TAKE IT '79 THROUGH '81.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. THAT'S THE PENDING QUESTION, FROM 1979 TO '81. OKAY. NOW, I WILL PERMIT, UNLESS YOU WANT TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION, WHICH YOU'RE APPARENTLY NOT GOING TO, I WILL PERMIT MR. MISCAVIGE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION INSOFAR AS HE CAN TESTIFY WHETHER HE RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD BETWEEN 1979 AND 1981 CONCERNING BENT CORYDON, THE SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS OR THE SUBJECT OF MISSIONS.

MS. PLEVIN: OR THE SUBJECT OF MR. MISCAVIGE'S ROLE AND POWER WITHIN SCIENTOLOGY. IF YOU ADD THAT, I MIGHT CONSIDER THAT AS REASONABLE. MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THE ANSWER IS --

MR. HERTZBERG: WITH THAT ADDITION THAT MS, PLEVIN HAS ADDED. I WANT THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR,

THE WITNESS: I HAVE TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS LAST BIT MEANS, GIVE ME THAT.

BY MS, PLEVIN:

Q, MR., HUBBARD'S COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING --

A, NO, I UNDERSTOOD THE FIRST PART. YOU ADDED SOMETHING TO IT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT,

Q, INCLUDING REFERENCE TO YOUR ROLE IN SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS AND CORPORATIONS OR POTENTIAL ROLE,

A. NO.

Q. NO WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN '79 AND '81 ON THOSE -- NOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THOSE --

A. MISSIONS, SQUIRRELS, BENT CORYDON AND ON MY POTENTIAL POWER AND ROLE IN SCIENTOLOGY CORPORATIONS ORGANIZATIONS.

Q. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY TELEXES FROM MR. HUBBARD REGARDING THAT PERIOD OF TIME?

MR. HERTZBERG: '79 TO '81?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO ALLOW MR. MISCAVIGE TO ANSWER THAT, SUBJECT TO THE SAME AREAS THAT WE'VE JUST AGREED ON.

MS. PLEVIN: WE CAN HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. ANSWER IT?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. LET'S GO BACK TO THE PERSON-TO-PERSON COMMUNICATION, AS WITH THIS SAME GROUP OF AREAS OF TESTIMONY.

MR. HERTZBERG: SO LIMIT IT TO THOSE SUBJECT AREAS.

THE WITNESS: RIGHT, NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH MR. HUBBARD DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THROUGH ANY INTERMEDIARIES?

MR. HERTZBERG: WITH THE SAME FOUR CATEGORIES LIMITED?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, LET'S TAKE ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS FORWARD, AND ONE AT A TIME, FROM 1981 TO 1986, UNTIL HIS DEATH.

DID YOU HAVE ANY PERSON-TO-PERSON COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. HUBBARD REGARDING THOSE AREAS OF INQUIRY?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM HIM REGARDING THOSE AREAS OF INQUIRY?

A. ONE SECOND.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. TELL ME ABOUT THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. TELL ME WHAT COMMUNICATIONS THERE WERE AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM. HOW MANY WERE THERE? A. IN REGARDS TO JUST SO I'M CLEAR --

Q. THOSE FOUR AREAS.

A. BENT CORYDON, SQUIRRELS, MISSIONS AND MY POTENTIAL POWER AND ROLE IN ORGANIZATIONS OF SCIENTOLOGY.

MR. DRESCHER: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM FOR EACH ONE SEPARATE.

MS, PLEVIN: THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.

Q, FIRST ENUMERATE THEM AND WE'LL GO INTO EACH SEPARATELY,

A. SO BENT CORYDON.

Q. FINE.

A. NONE, NEVER EVER.

Q. SQUIRRELS?

A. SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELING, NOT SQUIRRELS, YES.

Q. HOW MANY?

A. I DON'T KNOW. A FEW.

Q. LESS THAN FIVE?

A. I'D SAY UP TO FIVE. MAYBE FIVE TOTAL.

Q. WRITTEN OR TELEX OR TYPED?

A. TYPED.

Q. WERE THEY SIGNED BY MR. HUBBARD -- SIGNATURE?

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU REMEMBER,

THE WITNESS: I CAN'T REMEMBER,

BY MS, PLEVIN:

Q, FEWER THAN FIVE YOU SAID, DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHEN YOU RECEIVED THESE?

A. WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS?

Q. YES.

A. LATE '82 OR EARLY 1983.

Q. AND WHAT WAS IT ABOUT? WHAT WERE THESE COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT?

A. OUT-TECH.

Q. WERE THEY ABOUT LITIGATION HAVING TO DO WITH OUT-TECH?

A. NO.

Q. OR SQUIRRELS?

A. NO.

Q. DID THEY PROVIDE ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU OR OTHER PEOPLE REGARDING THIS SUBJECT MATTER OF SQUIRRELS?

A. YES.

Q. WHAT WERE THOSE INSTRUCTIONS?

A. THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO RUN A -- OR THAT THE IDEA OF A STANDARD TECH CRUSADE SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN SCIENTOLOGY, TO MAKE SURE THAT STANDARD TECH WAS POPULARIZED IN ANY AREA WHERE A SQUIRREL HAD MESSED IT UP OR HAD BEEN RUNNING SQUIRREL ALTER DESTRUCTIVE PROCESSES.

Q. ANYTHING ELSE IN THOSE COMMUNICATIONS? A. ANYTHING ELSE?

Q. YES.

A. YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN ON THAT SUBJECT MATTER? MS. PLEVIN: ON THAT SUBJECT MATTER.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE SUBJECT MATTER --

THE WITNESS: OF SQUIRRELS, YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT ELSE?

A. JUST HIS GENERAL DISTASTE FOR THEM, I GUESS I COULD BEST SUM IT UP THAT WAY, AND THAT I GUESS SOMEWHAT OF A BRIEFING OR HISTORICAL ACCOUNT ON JUST THE PROBLEM WITH SQUIRRELS, THAT THEY WERE OUT-TECH. THAT WAS BASICALLY IT. Q. ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THOSE COMMUNICATIONS?

A. NO.

Q. WHAT ABOUT THE MISSIONS?

A. YES.

Q. AND WHAT KIND OF COMMUNICATION --

A. BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU SAY "WHAT ABOUT THE MISSION," YOU MEAN DID I GET A COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE MISSIONS?

Q. YES.

A. YES.

Q. ABOUT HOW MANY?

A. JUST TO CLARIFY, DID I GET A COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE MISSIONS? I DON'T KNOW IF I DID -- I SAW COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE MISSION.

Q. THAT CAME FROM HUBBARD?

A. YES.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT?

A. YES.

Q. WHAT WAS IT ABOUT?

A. IT WAS ABOUT THE MISSIONS. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

Q. WHAT ABOUT THE MISSIONS, YES.

A. IT WAS ABOUT MISSION HOLDERS -- IT WASN'T ABOUT MISSION HOLDERS -- MISSION HOLDERS OR MISSIONS THAT WERE OUT-TECH OR DIDN'T THINK TECH APPLIED TO THEM OR DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD TO MAINTAIN A HIGH LEVEL OF TECH OR THAT WERE OFF POLICY OR MONEY MOTIVATED. Q. WERE ANY OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SMI?

A. NO.

Q. AND DID YOU RECEIVE ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM HIM DURING THIS PERIOD OF -- WHICH WE'VE DESCRIBED AS BEING ABOUT YOU AND YOUR ROLE OR POTENTIAL ROLE IN SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS?

A. NO.

Q. INITIALLY YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM MR. HUBBARD ABOUT THE MISSIONS TO YOU AND THAT THEN YOU CORRECTED --

A. IT WASN'T ABOUT THE MISSIONS. IT -- IT WAS ABOUT A SUBJECT OF THE MISSIONS, SO MISSIONS WERE INCLUDED.

Q. OKAY.

A. OKAY.

Q. DO YOU KNOW TO WHOM THAT WAS DIRECTED?

A. I CAN'T RECALL.

Q. OKAY. YOU TESTIFIED THAT THESE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS WERE NOT SIGNED BY MR. HUBBARD'S HAND; IS THAT ACCURATE? IT DIDN'T HAVE HIS SIGNATURE ON IT?

MR. HERTZBERG: MY RECOLLECTION OF THE TESTIMONY IS HE DOESN'T REMEMBER. YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF --

THE WITNESS: WHICH ONE?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. LET'S APPROACH IT A DIFFERENT WAY. DO YOU RECALL ANY SPECIFICALLY NOT BEING SIGNED BY MR. HUBBARD, VIA SIGNATURE, HANDWRITTEN SIGNATURE.

MR. DRESCHER: WE'RE GETTING VERY VAGUE HERE. I BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS ORIGINALLY DIRECTED TO COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD CONCERNING SQUIRRELING AND THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY WAS HE DIDN'T RECALL. NOW --

MS. PLEVIN: NOW I'M ASKING HIM IF HE SPECIFICALLY RECALLS THAT ANY OF THEM WERE NOT SIGNED.

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT. SEE, I THINK THE APPROACH IS -- SOMETHING CONFUSING ABOUT THE APPROACH. MY RECOLLECTION OF THE TESTIMONY WAS HE COULDN'T RECALL IF ANY OF THEM WERE SIGNED, SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE APPROACH. I DON'T THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO CLARIFY WHEN YOU SAY WHICH ONES WEREN'T, WHEN HE COULDN'T REMEMBER, IN HIS PRIOR TESTIMONY, THAT ANY WERE.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT ASKING WHICH ONES. I'M ASKING IF HE SPECIFICALLY RECALLS THAT ANY WERE NOT SIGNED.

THE WITNESS: THESE ONES THAT I MENTIONED TO YOU, I DON'T THINK THEY WERE. THAT'S MY ANSWER, TO THE BEST OF MY MEMORY AND RECOLLECTION. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IF THEY WERE NOT SIGNED, WHAT WAS THE MEANS BY WHICH YOU KNOW THEY CAME FROM HUBBARD?

A. WHAT WAS THE MEANS BY WHICH I KNEW?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING HIM IN 1982 -- IN THIS PERIOD?

MS. PLEVIN: CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MR. HERTZBERG: GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: HOW DID I KNOW THEY WERE FROM L.R.H.?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YES.

A. I KNEW THEY WERE DICTATION TAPES. I DID NOT HEAR THE ACTUAL DICTATION NECESSARILY ON THESE, ALTHOUGH I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR DIDN'T, BUT THAT'S HOW I GENERALLY KNEW. Q. OKAY. BUT SOMEBODY HANDED YOU THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, THE TYPE --

A. NO.

Q. HOW DID YOU GET IT?

A. IT WOULD BE ON MY DESK.

Q. AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT THERE?

A. I --

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN OTHER THAN SOMEBODY PUTTING IT ON THE DESK?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SPECIFICALLY WHO PUT IT ON THERE?

A. WHO PUT THAT ON THERE?

Q. YES.

A. NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q. WHY DID YOU ASSUME THEY WERE FROM HUBBARD?

A. DIDN'T I JUST ANSWER THAT?

Q. THESE COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT SIGNATURE. NO, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE TAPES.

A. NO, I SAID I CAN'T RECALL WHETHER I NECESSARILY HEARD THOSE ONES OR NOT, BUT I KNEW THAT THEY WERE DICTATED AND I HEARD DICTATION, AND THESE WERE IN DICTATED FORM.

Q. OKAY.

A. YOU ASKED ME HOW DID I KNOW?

Q. YES.

A. YOU WANT MY ANSWER?

Q. YES.

A. I KNEW. THAT'S MY BEST ANSWER. I KNEW.

Q. NOW, DID MR. HUBBARD USE CERTAIN NOTES OF SOME KIND AS A SIGNATURE ON THE TRANSCRIBED CASSETTES TO DENOTE HIM? FOR EXAMPLE, AN ASTERISK OR POUND SIGN OR THE LETTER ** MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN FROM TIME TO TIME?

MS. PLEVIN: FROM TIME TO TIME.

THE WITNESS: I THINK FROM TIME TO TIME HE SIGNED HIS NAME "R." THAT WAS -- YOU SAY TO DENOTE. I DON'T KNOW, "R," INITIALS L.R.H., "R."

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. BUT TYPED ON THE PAGE?

A. DID HE TYPE THEM ON THE PAGE?

Q. NO, TYPED BY THE PERSON WHO TRANSCRIBED THE CASSETTE.

A. YOU ASKED ME IF L.R.H. NOTED THESE -- I DON'T KNOW.

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS IS RELEVANT TO THIS LAWSUIT?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: YOU ASKED ME SEVERAL. I GAVE THE "R." A POUND SIGN? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. YOU MEAN A BRITISH STERLING?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NO, NO, NO. IT'S CALLED A POUND SIGN. I'M SHOWING YOU A DOCUMENT CAPTIONED "LOWW/SOI 30 NOVEMBER 1979" IT'S A THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT.

MR. HERTZBERG: GOT ONE FOR ME.

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: THANK YOU.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU SEE THE THIRD PAGE THERE. TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT, PLEASE.

A. OKAY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT, PLEASE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU TAKEN A LOOK AT IT,

MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: I HAVEN'T.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF HE TOOK A LOOK AT IT.

A. I GLANCED AT IT, YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: COULD YOU WAIT FOR A MOMENT UNTIL I FINISH READING IT. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT BEFORE?

A. NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q. YOU SEE ON PAGE 3 THAT THERE ARE, AT THE END OF THE TEXT, THERE'S THREE --

A. NUMERAL MARKS.

Q. THAT'S WHAT I CALL THEM, BUT THE TELEPHONE COMPANY CALLS THEM POUND SIGNS WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH CODES ON THE TELEPHONE.

MR. DRESCHER: SHARP SIGNS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SHARP. YOU SEE THAT?

A. YES.

Q. IS THAT ONE OF THE WAYS MR. HUBBARD DESIGNATED HE WAS THE ORIGINATOR OF THE TEXT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT HE WAS COMMUNICATING WITH YOU IN WRITING ON OCCASION? A. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. OKAY. HERE'S A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT.

A. DO YOU WANT THIS ONE BACK?

Q. MS. PLEVIN: ONE FOR MR. HERTZBERG, IF HE WANTS TO SEE IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I MOST CERTAINLY DO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IT SAYS AT THE TOP, "DIV 6 STATS SCN INT," AND YOU SEE THAT IT HAS AN "R" ON PAGE 2 AFTER THE TEXT.

A. YES.

Q. IS THAT FAMILIAR TO YOU AS ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH MR. HUBBARD COMMUNICATED IN WRITING AND DESIGNATED -- SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD KNOW IT CAME FROM HIM?

MR. HERTZBERG: I THINK HE SAID, "FROM TIME TO TIME."

THE WITNESS: NO, NOT LIKE THIS. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY LIKE THIS IN MY LIFE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'M VERY UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. HOW ABOUT THIS ONE? THIS IS A THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT, SAYS "RE STARTER PACKAGE FOR SMI."

DO YOU SEE HOW THAT'S SIGNED AT THE END?

A. NO, I DON'T EVEN SEE A SIGNATURE.

Q. WELL, IT HAS "R COLON DJSR."

A. RIGHT. I SEE THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE SEES IT. IS THERE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE?

A. NO.

Q. SO DOCUMENTS WOULD APPEAR ON YOUR DESK AND YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER THEY WERE ALL SIGNED, THERE WERE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS YOU KNEW CAME FROM HUBBARD? YOU JUST KNEW THEY CAME FROM HUBBARD? MR. HERTZBERG: THAT WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED. HE ASKED AND ANSWERED -- THAT WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. A SINGLE PAGE DOCUMENT SAYS "ALERT ADMIN EMERGENCY SMI" ON THE LEFT IT HAS "WTC." ON THE RIGHT IT HAS "8 JANUARY 1980 RE: STARTER PACK FOR SMI MISSIONS."

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE?

A. NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PLANNING FOR THE START UP OF SMI?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. TELL ME ABOUT --

A. I HEARD ABOUT IT, AND I -- I HEARD ABOUT IT.

Q. DO YOU RECALL FROM WHO?

A. I'M NOT POSITIVE, BUT I THINK ANN TASKETT.

Q. DID SHE EVER TELL YOU THAT SHE RECEIVED ADVICES AND ORDERS FROM HUBBARD REGARDING SMI?

A. NO.

Q. DID MR. HUBBARD COMMUNICATE WITH YOU VIA ANY INTERMEDIARY, FROM '81, TO HIS DEATH?

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. IS THAT QUESTION SUBJECT TO THE SAME FOUR CATEGORIES OF LIMITATION THAT WE'VE AGREED AND STIPULATED TO BEFORE?

MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER, SUBJECT TO -- IN OTHER WORDS, DID YOU COMMUNICATE DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, VIA ANY INTERMEDIARIES ABOUT THOSE FOUR SUBJECTS?

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: CAN I ASK WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "INTERMEDIARY"?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SOMEONE WHO YOU MET WITH, WHO HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH HUBBARD.

A. AND COMMUNICATED SOMETHING TO ME?

Q. YES.

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU MEET AT ANY TIME BETWEEN 1980 AND MR. HUBBARD'S DEATH THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY, WITH MR. HUBBARD, ABOUT ANY SUBJECT?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING ANY SUBJECT?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: WITHOUT THE LIMITATION?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT MR. MISCAVIGE THAT HE MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION SUBJECT TO THE FOUR CATEGORIES OF LIMITATION THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PRIOR QUESTIONS.

MS. PLEVIN: BUT YOU'RE INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER -- HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED "NO" AS TO THAT MODIFIED QUESTION. YOU'RE INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER AS TO --

MR. LIEBERMAN: I THINK THE QUESTION IS A LITTLE GARBLED, QUITE FRANKLY. COULD YOU REPEAT IT?

(RECORD READ.)

MR. DRESCHER: I THINK --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU COMMUNICATE WITH MR. HUBBARD VIA ANY INTERMEDIARY, OR MR. HUBBARD COMMUNICATE WITH YOU VIA ANY INTERMEDIARY, ON ANY SUBJECT FROM 1980 TO MR. HUBBARD'S DEATH?

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. I AM -- I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM THAT HE MAY ANSWER THAT, INSOFAR AS HE COMMUNICATED WITH MR. HUBBARD VIA ANY INTERMEDIARY ON THE FOUR SUBJECTS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND YOU'RE INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER THE UNMODIFIED QUESTION?

MR. HERTZBERG: YES, OTHERWISE, SUBJECTS OTHER THAN CORYDON. SQUIRRELS, MISSIONS OR THE --

MS. PLEVIN: ALL YOU HAVE TO DO -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING IT. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER.

Q. DID YOU EVER MEET WITH PAT BROKER TO DISCUSS COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD TO YOU AT ANY TIME BETWEEN 1980 AND HIS DEATH, DEATH OF MR. HUBBARD?

MR. HERTZBERG: ONE MOMENT. I'M CONFUSED BY THAT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.

(RECESS TAKEN.)

MR. HERTZBERG: MR. MISCAVIGE WILL ANSWER THE PENDING QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU EVER GO OFF THE PROPERTY OF GILMAN HOT SPRINGS WITH D.D. REISDORF TO MEET WITH PAT BROKER TO GET COMMUNICATIONS FROM L. RON HUBBARD IN THE PERIOD 1980. '81, TOWARDS THE END OF '81?

A. NO.

Q. WHO WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH MR. HUBBARD FROM THE PERIOD 1980 THROUGH HIS DEATH, AND WE CAN BREAK IT DOWN IF YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE, AS IT CHANGES IN THAT PERIOD?

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "AS IT CHANGES IN TEAT PERIOD"? WHAT DO YOU MEAN "AS IT CHANGES IN THAT PERIOD"?

MS. PLEVIN: IT'S A LONG PERIOD. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN CHANGES AS TO WHO HE UNDERSTANDS WOULD BE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH MR. HUBBARD.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WILL INSTRUCT HIM TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION OF WHETHER HE KNOWS ANYBODY DURING THAT TIME PERIOD THAT YOU HAVE SPECIFIED WHO WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH MR. HUBBARD WITH RESPECT TO THE FOUR AREAS THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY STIPULATED TO WITH RESPECT TO PRIOR QUESTIONS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AS MODIFIED BY YOUR ATTORNEY, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MISS PLEVIN, MISS PLEVIN WANTS TO KNOW WHETHER YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY DURING THE 1980 TO 1986 PERIOD WHO RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD, ON THE TOPICS OF BENT CORYDON, SQUIRRELS, MISSIONS AND YOUR POWER IN SCIENTOLOGY.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ACTUALLY THAT WASN'T IT, BUT YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND I'LL REPHRASE IT.

A. ON BENT CORYDON? NO. ON MISSIONS? I MENTIONED THAT TO YOU. ON SQUIRRELS, THE ONES I'VE MENTIONED AND YES, I KNOW COMMUNICATIONS ON SQUIRRELS AND MY POWER, NO. Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS IN PERSON-TO-PERSON CONTACT WITH MR. HUBBARD IN 1980?

A. WHEN?

Q. IN 1980. AT ANY TIME IN 1980?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN ON ANY TOPIC?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE SAME LIMITATION. MR. MISCAVIGE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I WILL PERMIT HIM TO ANSWER THE QUESTION INSOFAR AS HE KNOWS ANYBODY DURING 1980 WHO WAS IN CONTACT WITH MR. HUBBARD ON THE SUBJECT OF BENT CORYDON, SQUIRRELS, MISSIONS AND THE CATEGORY WHICH YOU FORMULATED NAMING MR. MISCAVIGE'S POWER IN SCIENTOLOGY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: WHEN YOU SAID DIRECT CONTACT --

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, "DIRECT CONTACT"? MR. LIEBERMAN: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "DIRECT CONTACT." MS. PLEVIN: PERSON BY PERSON, LIVING WITH HIM --

MR. LIEBERMAN: ACTUALLY HAVING PERSONALLY MET HIM? MR. DRESCHER: FACE TO FACE?

MS. PLEVIN: FACE TO FACE.

THE WITNESS: ON THOSE FOUR SUBJECTS, NO.

MS. PLEVIN: THE OBJECTION IS UNDERSTOOD, MR. HERTZBERG. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A HALF PAGE OF TYPE EVERY TIME IT COMES UP. Q. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: INSOFAR AS YOU'RE ASKING HIM OUTSIDE THOSE FOUR AREAS, I'M INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. LET ME SPEAK TO MY CO-COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. INSOFAR AS YOU'RE SEEKING AN ANSWER OUTSIDE THOSE FOUR AREAS, I'M INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY MEETINGS WITH PAT BROKER OR WITH OTHER PEOPLE AND YOURSELF WITH PAT BROKER AT ANY TIME IN WHICH YOU BELIEVED THAT MR. BROKER WAS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MR. HUBBARD AND COMMUNICATING TO YOU ON BEHALF OF MR. HUBBARD? A. NO.

(RECESS TAKEN.)

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S GO BACK ON THE RECORD. FOR THE RECORD, I INQUIRED OF MISS PLEVIN HOW LATE SHE INTENDED TO GO TODAY. MISS PLEVIN SAID SHE COULD BE PREPARED TO GO UNTIL 10 O'CLOCK. I SAID THAT THAT WOULD BE FINE ON OUR SIDE. THE COURT REPORTER HAS INFORMED US THAT SHE IS NOT ABLE TO GO BEYOND 6:00 O'CLOCK.

MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT. I ALSO STATED THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE NOTICE SPECIFYING -- THE NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SPECIFYING TWO DAYS LIMITS ME TO TWO DAYS AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE AND GIVEN MR. HERTZBERG'S CONTRARY VIEW VIEW AND MY BELIEF THAT WE MAY NOT FINISH AT ALL TOMORROW, IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE TO TRY TO AVOID MOTION PRACTICE, ON A MOTION TO COMPEL ON THAT ISSUE AND TO STAY AS LONG AS WE COULD ALL STAND IT, SO THAT IT'S WITHIN A TWO-DAY SPAN, SINCE IT SEEMS TO BE MR. HERTZBERG'S CLAIM OF LIMITATION.

MR. HELLER: WHY DON'T WE DEAL WITH IT TOMORROW. I'M NOT SURE WHAT MY SCHEDULE IS GOING TO BE TOMORROW. MR. HERTZBERG: LARRY --

MR. HELLER: GO AHEAD.

MR. DRESCHER: I THINK THERE'S A RESPONSE TO THAT THAT'S NECESSARY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO MAKE ONE RESPONSE.

MR. DRESCHER: WELL, YOU GO AHEAD.

MR. HERTZBERG: I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD IT WASN'T JUST YOUR NOTICE, BUT ALSO CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WHICH LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT WE WERE GOING TO -- THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING TO NEED MORE THAN TWO DAYS TO COMPLETE THIS DEPOSITION OF MR. MISCAVIGE, AND I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT IT WAS IN RELIANCE ON THAT, THAT THAT WAS A FACTOR IN MY DECIDING TO GIVE UP WHAT I CONSIDERED TO BE MY ENTITLEMENT TO COMPLETE YOUR CLIENT'S DEPOSITION BEFORE YOU TOOK MY CLIENT'S DEPOSITION.

MS. PLEVIN: I DIDN'T SAY I'D HAVE TO PICK UP WITH HIM AGAIN WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DISCUSSING SCHEDULING, AND MR. HERTZBERG HAD MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF PRIORITY AND SO FORTH, AND I BEGAN TO STATE THAT ALTHOUGH I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS AN ENTITLEMENT TO PRIORITY IN THIS SITUATION, THAT MY NEED TO FINISH UP MR. MISCAVIGE, SHOULD WE NOT FINISH TOMORROW, WOULD NOT NECESSARILY INTERVENE PRIOR TO YOUR FINISHING WITH MR. CORYDON. THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE ACCOMMODATION. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY THINK IT IS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS. MR. MISCAVIGE IS A BUSY PERSON.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME FINISH. I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WHILE -- I'M JUST NOT AGREEING TO THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING TO LIVE UP TO WHAT WE ARE -- OUR EXPECTATION THAT THIS WOULD BE A DEPOSITION OF TWO DAYS OR LESS, AND LET'S MOVE ON. MS. PLEVIN: WAS THERE A QUESTION PENDING?

(RECORD READ.)

MS. PLEVIN: HERE'S A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "SEA ORG FLAG ORDER 3879 CANCELED," ORIGINALLY DATED 19 JANUARY 1986, ISSUED IN MARCH 1986 AND CANCELED 18 APRIL 1988.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. YES.

Q. DID YOU WRITE THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME JUST LOOK AT IT FOR A MOMENT.

OKAY. YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE FIRST PAGE --

A. CAN I JUST READ THROUGH THIS?

Q. PLEASE. SURE. TAKE YOUR TIME.

A. RIGHT. OKAY. I'M DONE READING THIS.

MR. HELLER: BEFORE YOU ASK A QUESTION, I'LL OBJECT TO ANY QUESTIONS RELATING TO THIS DOCUMENT, NOW THAT I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO PERUSE IT, AND BASED ON RELEVANCE, I DON'T SEE HOW IT RELATES TO THIS COMPLAINT AT ALL.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, IN PARAGRAPH 2, IT STATES "A FULL INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT THE FLAG ORDER 3879, THE SEA ORG, IN THE FUTURE HAD NOT IN FACT BEEN WRITTEN BY OR BEEN SEEN BY L.R.H. NOR WERE THE CONTENTS BASED ON ANY ADVICE, REQUEST OR NOTE FROM L.R.H." A. THE FLAG WAS FABRICATED BY PAT BROKER, JUST TO COMPLETE THE PARAGRAPH.

Q. YES. WHAT WERE THE FACTS THAT YOU DISCOVERED IN THAT INVESTIGATION THAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT?

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE, MISS PLEVIN? THIS IS GETTING REALLY PRETTY -- PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS.

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE HAS WRITTEN -- ISSUED THIS DOCUMENT AS A SEA ORG DOCUMENT WITH A FLAG ORDER DESIGNATION, AND DENOTING HIS POSITION AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD RTC HAVING TO DO WITH A VARIETY OF POWERS, AND RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

MR. HERTZBERG: YES. AND HE'S TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS A GENERAL OF THE BOARD OF RTC. HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO BENT CORYDON?

MR. HELLER: OR THE COMPLAINT?

MS. PLEVIN: I'VE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION A DOZEN TIMES. I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER IT AGAIN. ARE YOU GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: YES, I AM. IF THAT'S ALL YOU CAN SAY ABOUT WHY YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THIS QUESTION, I'M GOING TO, IN THE INTEREST OF UTTERLY WASTING TIME.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. DID YOU CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, MR. MISCAVIGE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER MR. BROKER HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH MR. HUBBARD?

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: WILL YOU JUST REPEAT YOUR OBJECTIONS, MR. HERTZBERG. FOR THE RECORD, I'M MAKING MY RECORD, OKAY?

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO MAKE MY RECORD THE WAY I WANT TO MAKE IT AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU FOR THIS QUESTION, BEFORE I INSTRUCT. ARE YOU GOING TO ADD ANYTHING TO YOUR RATIONALE FOR ASKING THIS QUESTION, THAT YOU HAVEN'T SAID ALREADY? MS. PLEVIN: I'VE GIVEN YOU MY RATIONALE PREVIOUSLY IN THIS DEPOSITION AND IN OTHERS. I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: SAME INSTRUCTION.

THE WITNESS: ONE SECOND, PLEASE.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MR. HERTZBERG: COULD WE HAVE THE QUESTION READ BACK, PLEASE.

(RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: INSTRUCTION NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: YES, SUBJECT TO MY HAVING INQUIRED WHETHER YOU HAD PROFFERED ANY FURTHER RATIONALE.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SEA ORG?

A. YES, I AM.

Q. DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC RANK IN THE SEA ORG?

A. YES, I DO.

Q. WHAT IS THAT?

A. CAPTAIN.

Q. WHAT IS THE HIGHEST RANK IN THE SEA ORG?

A. COMMODORE.

Q. COMMODORE IS HIGHER THAN CAPTAIN?

A. OF COURSE.

Q. IS THERE ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF WHO IS A CAPTAIN?

A. YES.

Q. HOW MANY PEOPLE?

A. TWO DOZEN OR SO, THEREABOUTS, MAYBE LESS; THEREABOUTS THOUGH.

Q. WHO --

A. OH, EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME. NO, I'D SAY ABOUT MAYBE TEN. I'M SORRY, ABOUT THAT.

Q. OKAY.

A. I'M SORRY.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO, IN APRIL OF 1988, HAD THE HIGHEST POSITION IN -- ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY HAVE -- THE SAME TEN PEOPLE, APPROXIMATELY, WHO CURRENTLY HAVE THE RANK OF CAPTAIN, HAD RANK OF CAPTAIN IN APRIL 1988, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? MR. DRESCHER: WHILE THE WITNESS IS THINKING, I'LL OBSERVE THIS IS ALL VERY INTERESTING, BUT IT'S UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

MR. HELLER: I'LL JOIN IN THAT.

MS. PLEVIN: SO NOTED.

MR. HERTZBERG: I JOIN IN IT, BUT YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION, IF YOU KNOW.

THE WITNESS: I THINK SO, BUT MAYBE -- MAYBE SOME HAVE CHANGED. I THINK SO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AMONG THOSE TEN, ARE THERE ANY WHO ARE SENIOR TO OTHERS?

A. BY VIRTUE OF CAPTAIN?

Q. BY VIRTUE OF -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW.

A. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT CAPTAINS?

Q. YES. AMONG THOSE TEN.

A. THEY'RE ALL CAPTAINS SO IT'S EQUAL; IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

Q. YES. THEY'RE ALL EQUAL, BUT ARE THERE ANY THAT HAVE SENIOR STATUS?

A. WITH RANK?

Q. NO, IN FUNCTION, IN ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY.

A. CAPTAIN DOESN'T NECESSARILY EQUATE TO FUNCTION. MIND YOU, IT CAN --

Q. OKAY.

A. -- JUST SO I'M CLEAR THERE, BUT IT ISN'T AN ABSOLUTE.

Q. OKAY.

A. OKAY.

Q. IN THE FUNCTION OF THE SEA ORG AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SEA ORG, WERE THERE ANY OF THOSE TEN, IN 1988, W;40 HAD GREATER AUTHORITY THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS?

A. IN REFERENCE TO THE SEA ORG?

Q. YES.

A. YOU'RE MISSTATING IT. I MEAN --

MR. HELLER: DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. HELLER: ALL RIGHT. THEN THAT'S YOUR ANSWER, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASON I WANT --

MS. PLEVIN: HOW MANY ATTORNEYS DOES MR. MISCAVIGE HAVE?

MR. HELLER: I'M HERE AS AN ATTORNEY FOR TWO PARTIES. I CAN MAKE ANY OBJECTION I WANT. NOW, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT ME AGAIN.

MS. PLEVIN: IN TERMS OF INSTRUCTING MR. MISCAVIGE --

MR. HELLER: I AM NOT --

MS. PLEVIN: YOU'RE --

MR. HELLER: WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE FOLLOWING: I'M OBSERVING -- USUALLY MR. HERTZBERG OBSERVES -- THIS TIME I'M OBSERVING -24 THAT MR. MISCAVIGE WAS STRUGGLING WITH THIS AND TIME [HAD PASSED. I WANTED TO LET HIM KNOW, BECAUSE THIS INSTRUCTION WASN'T GIVEN BY YOU WHEN YOU GAVE YOUR ADMONITIONS IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A QUESTION, IT'S PERFECTLY FINE TO SAY, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND." I'M SURE, MISS PLEVIN, YOU'D BE HAPPY TO REPEAT IT.

MS. PLEVIN: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. HELLER: FINE. LET'S PROCEED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU EVER HEAR OF THE CONCEPT OF FIRST AMONG EQUALS? MR. HELLER: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IF I SAID THAT AMONG VARIOUS MINISTERS, THERE'S A FIRST AMONG EQUALS, A PRIME MINISTER -(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: NO, I HAVEN'T.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. THIS MORNING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT POSITIONS YOU HAD CHRONOLOGICALLY. A. UH-HUH.

Q. WE GOT TO A POINT, OH, IN '81 OR SO, AND I ASKED WHAT WAS THE CORPORATE OR POST POSITION YOU NEXT TOOK. I'D LIKE TO ASK FROM THAT BASIS, IN 1981, IF YOU RECALL, WHAT WERE THE POSITIONS YOU HAD IN A CORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION OF SCIENTOLOGY. A. IN 1981?

Q. CORRECT.

A. I THINK I ANSWERED THIS.

MR. DRESCHER: THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED FOR THAT YEAR.

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WENT ALL THROUGH 1981. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S OVERLOOKED.

Q. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU DID NOT MENTION WITH RESPECT TO 1981, BECAUSE AS OF THAT TIME, YOU DID NOT INDICATE ANY CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY OR POSITION OF ANY KIND WITH ASI OR RTC AND THAT'S WHAT I'M MOVING TOWARDS AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. IT'S NOT A GAME.

A. THAT'S A SIMPLE ANSWER. ASI AND RTC DIDN'T EXIST. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

Q. THROUGH THE END OF 1981, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. RIGHT.

Q. NOW, STARTING IN 1982 -- WELL, AT THE END -- AT THE END OF -- I'M SORRY -- AT THE END OF 1981, WHAT WERE THE POSITIONS YOU HAD? A. AT THE END OF 1981?

Q. YES. WAS THAT WHEN YOU WERE CHIEF OFFICER OFFICER, CMO INT?

A. NO. I BELIEVE THAT WAS WHEN I WAS SPECIAL PROJECTS OPS.

Q. LET'S START FROM THERE. HOW LONG DID YOU CONTINUE WITH SPECIAL PROJECT OPS BEYOND '81, IF AT ALL?

A. AT THAT TIME?

Q. YES.

A. AT THAT TIME, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE A MONTH, MAYBE IT WAS TWO MONTHS, BUT CALL IT A FEW MONTHS. THAT WOULD BE IN THE BALLPARK.

Q. OKAY. NOW, WHAT WAS THE NEXT POST OR CORPORATE POSITION YOU HELD OF ANY KIND?

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT TIME FRAME SHE'S TALKING ABOUT?

THE WITNESS: IN 1982.

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: I WORKED AT ASI.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR POST OR POSITION THERE?

A. IT STARTED -- CEO.

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WERE YOU THE FIRST CEO?

A. YES.

Q. ARE YOU STILL CEO OF ASI?

A. NO.

Q. WERE YOU CONTINUOUSLY CEO FROM 1982 UNTIL SOME PERIOD, TO SOME DATE, OR WERE YOU ON AND OFF?

A. NO, I WASN'T ON AND OFF EITHER.

Q. OKAY. YOU WERE -- 1982 UNTIL WHEN WERE YOU CEO?

A. SOMETIME LATER IN 1982.

Q. DID YOU CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME POSITION WITH ASI AFTER YOU CEASED BEING CEO?

A. YES.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A. COB.

Q. OKAY. ARE YOU CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ASI NOW?

A. NO, I'M NOT.

Q. WHEN DID YOU CEASE BEING CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ASI?

A, 1987.

Q, DID YOU HOLD ANY OTHER POSITIONS AT ASI OTHER THAN CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD BETWEEN 1982 AND 1987?

A. NO.

Q. HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS ARE THERE AT ASI?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, WHAT, YOU MEAN NOW?

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, IF IT'S CHANGED.

Q. HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS WERE THERE IN 1982?

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, YOU WANT -- OKAY. SHE WANTS TO KNOW HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS IF YOU RECALL --

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY THERE WERE IN 1987?

A. I'D HAVE TO GUESS.

MR. HELLER: DON'T GUESS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HOW FREQUENTLY DID THE BOARD OF MEET DURING THAT PERIOD BETWEEN 1982 AND 19877

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT IS THE QUESTION, PLEASE?

MS. PLEVIN: HOW FREQUENTLY DID THE BOARD MEET.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER IF HE CAN RECALL, AND I JUST WILL NOTE AGAIN I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW THE FREQUENCY OF THE MEETINGS OF THE ASI BOARD ALMOST TEN YEARS AGO HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPLAINT BY MR. CORYDON IN THIS CASE. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?

MR. HELLER: AND ON BEHALF OF ASI, I'LL JOIN IN THE OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: A LOT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. AND IF YOU CAN, PLEASE, WHO WERE YOUR OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IN 1982?

A. AT THE TIME, I DON'T EXACTLY RECALL, BUT I THINK BARBARA DESELLE AND -- YOU SAID 1982?

Q. YES.

A. I DON'T RECALL THAT. I'M SORRY.

Q. OKAY. 19837

A. THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER -- I COULDN'T TELL YOU BY YEAR. I KNOW BARBARA DESELLE WAS AT ONE POINT, JOHN ALCOCK. THOSE ARE THE ONES I RECALL WITH CERTAINTY.

Q. TERRY GAMBOA?

A. MAYBE.

Q. JOHN TINKENBERG?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS.

Q. HOMER SHOMER?

A. I DON'T RECALL IF HE WAS A BOARD MEMBER.

Q. WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE CEO ORIGINALLY, FOR THE RECORD, THAT MEANT YOU WERE BOTH CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND PRESIDENT; IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A. NO, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT.

Q. WHAT DOES IT MEAN, PLEASE?

A. IT MEANS I WAS -- IT MEANS I WAS CEO AND --

Q. ALL RIGHT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

MR. HELLER: YOU MEAN WHAT DOES IT STAND FOR, CEO?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IT STANDS FOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DOES IT NOT?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AND WERE YOU ON THE BOARD AS CEO? IS THAT ONE OF YOUR FUNCTIONS TO BE ON BOARD?

MR. DRESCHER: I MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION I GUESS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WAS ONE OF YOUR FUNCTIONS AS CEO, TO BE ON THE BOARD?

A. AS CEO, I DON'T RECALL.

Q. WHO WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF ASI?

A. I'D HAVE TO GUESS.

Q. CAN YOU RECALL THE NAMES OF ANY OF THE PRESIDENTS WHILE YOU WERE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD?

A. SURE.

Q. WHO?

A. DAVID MISCAVIGE.

Q. ANYBODY BUT YOURSELF?

A. I THINK NORMAN STARKEY.

Q. ANYBODY ELSE?

A. I CAN'T RECALL. NOT TO SAY THAT THERE ISN'T. THAT'S WHO I RECALL.

Q. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT JAMES ISACSON?

MR. HELLER: WELL, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT IT APPEARS THAT MISS PLEVIN IS READING FROM DISCOVERY RESPONSES WHICH ASI HAS PROVIDED HER WITH AND I HAVEN'T THE FOGGIEST NOTION WHY YOU'RE DOING THIS AT THIS DEPOSITION, UNLESS YOU TELL ME IT'S TO TEST, FOR SOME IRRELEVANT REASON, TO TEST THE DEPONENT'S MEMORY. AND, AS YOU KNOW, MISS PLEVIN, WE SUPPLIED YOU WITH ALL THE OFFICERS. YOU ASKED; WE GAVE IT TO YOU.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU REMEMBER JAMES ISACSON BEING ON THE BOARD, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS IS REALLY -- YOU KNOW, I'LL TELL YOU. I WAS NOT AWARE -- I WAS NOT AWARE UNTIL MR. HELLER'S OBSERVATION JUST NOW, THAT, IN FACT, A, THAT INFORMATION HAD BEEN FURNISHED TO MISS PLEVIN BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, AND THAT B, MISS PLEVIN WAS READING FROM THAT.

MS. PLEVIN: I JUST --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME FINISH.

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE NOT BEEN READING FROM IT UNTIL JUST BEFORE MR. HELLER SPOKE AND I FIND IT INAPPROPRIATE FOR MR. HELLER TO HAVE INTERFERED IN THAT WAY. MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME FINISH MY COMMENT, PLEASE. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER YOU WERE READING FROM IT OR NOT, MISS PLEVIN, I NOW --

MS. PLEVIN: WHICH IS KIND OF IRRELEVANT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I NOW AM FRANKLY -- I CONSIDER THIS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: UNLESS --

MS. PLEVIN: SO NOTED.

MR. HERTZBERG: YES, I DO, AND THIS HIGHLIGHTS HOW WE'RE WASTING TIME. MY UNDERSTANDING NOW IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU'RE TESTING A WITNESS'S RECOLLECTION WITH WRITTEN RESPONSES THAT WERE MADE TO THE VERY QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FROM THE CORPORATE -COUNSEL FOR THE CORPORATION AND YOU'RE DUPLICATING THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING HIM AGAIN. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT PROBATIVE VALUE OR PURPOSE THAT HAS IN THIS LITIGATION.

MR. HELLER: NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE RESPONSES WERE GIVEN, I BELIEVE, BEFORE YOU WERE IN THE LITIGATION,

MR. HERTZBERG. AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU THE FACT THAT THIS HAS ALL BEEN DISCOVERED ALREADY. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, DO YOU REMEMBER THE NAMES OF ANY OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHILE YOU WERE ON THE BOARD, OTHER THAN THE ONES YOU'VE GIVEN US SO FAR? A. MY ANSWER IS POSSIBLY YOU COULD REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION, IF YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THAT DOCUMENT.

Q. DO YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THE OTHER OFFICERS -- YOU'VE INDICATED WHO --

A. SAME ANSWER.

Q. DO YOU REMEMBER WHO WAS VICE PRESIDENT?

A. SAME ANSWER.

Q. AT ANY TIME?

A. SAME ANSWER, BUT I'M WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT DOCUMENT IF YOU'D LIKE.

MS. PLEVIN: WE DON'T NEED TO WASTE TIME WITH THAT.

MR. HELLER: NO, LET'S WASTE TIME.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU CURRENTLY HAVE ANY POSITION AT ASI?

A. NO, I DON'T.

Q. AT SOME POINT, YOU BECAME EITHER CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OR PRESIDENT OF RTC; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. YOU CAN ANSWER IT AGAIN.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. AT ANY TIME HAVE YOU HAD BOTH POSITIONS?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. HE TESTIFIED THAT AT ONE TIME HE HAD ONE POSITION AND HE TESTIFIED THAT AT SOME OTHER TIME HE HAD ANOTHER POSITION. IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. MR. DRESCHER: NOT AT RTC.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAD THEM BOTH AT ANY GIVEN TIME?

A. NO.

Q. OKAY. WHICH POSITION DID YOU BEGIN WITH, OR WAS YOUR FIRST POSITION WITH RTC?

A. MY FIRST POSITION?

Q. YES.

A. WITH RTC. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

Q. EMPLOYEE, STAFF, OFFICER.

A. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD.

Q. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. HOW LONG DID YOU HAVE THAT POSITION?

A. SINCE 1987.

Q. UNTIL THE PRESENT?

A. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. AT WHAT PERIOD OF TIME HAVE YOU BEEN PRESIDENT?

A. PRESIDENT?

Q. YES, OF RTC.

A. DID I SAY THAT, TOO?

Q. NO. I'M ASKING YOU.

A. I DON'T --

MR. HERTZBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU INDICATED YOU WERE NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY BOTH, SO I WAS CLARIFYING.

THE WITNESS: I THOUGHT YOU ASKED ME WAS I PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND I SAID NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SO YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PRESIDENT OF RTC; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. OKAY. JUST ONE SECOND. I NEED TO SPEAK TO HIM FOR A SECOND.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS)

THE WITNESS: I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE, BUT CERTAINLY NOT SINCE RTC HAS BEEN IN OPERATION AS AN ORGANIZATION OR A CORPORATION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HAVE SOME POSITION PRIOR TO ITS INCORPORATION?

A. PRIOR TO ITS INCORPORATION?

Q. YES.

A. NO.

Q. WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PRESIDENT SINCE ITS --

A. NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID SINCE ITS OPERATION.

Q. WHEN DID IT BEGIN OPERATING?

A. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, SOMETIME IN EARLY 1982.

Q. BEFORE OR AFTER IT WAS INCORPORATED?

A. AFTER.

Q. DID YOU APPOINT YOURSELF, FROM YOUR POSITION AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ASI, TO THE POSITION OF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC?

A. IN OTHER WORDS, AS COB OF ASI DID I APPOINT MYSELF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC?

Q. YES.

A. OF COURSE, NOT; THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

Q. WHO APPOINTED YOU TO THE BOARD OF RTC?

A. THE TRUSTEES OF RTC.

Q. WHO WERE WHO?

A. WHO WERE NORMAN STARKEY, LYMAN SPURLOCK AND MYSELF.

Q. AND THIS WAS AFTER VICKY AZNARAN LEFT?

A. NO.

Q. WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?

MR. DRESCHER: "THIS" BEING HIS APPOINTMENT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGIES?

MS. PLEVIN: CORRECT, CORRECT. THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "WHEN VICKY AZNARAN" LEFT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, LET'S BREAK IT DOWN BECAUSE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS WE COULD LOOK AT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, UP UNTIL FEBRUARY 1987, APPROXIMATELY, SHE WAS PRESIDENT OF RTC?

A. OKAY.

Q. AND THAT SOMETIME IN APRIL, SHE DEPARTED, SHALL WE SAY, SCIENTOLOGY. NOW --

A. I DISAGREE WITH THAT DATE. THAT'S NOT CORRECT. THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.

Q. WHAT IS NOT ACCURATE?

A. YOUR DATE OF APRIL. IT WAS MARCH.

Q. OKAY. WERE YOU APPOINTED TO THE POSITION OF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD SUBSEQUENT TO VICKY'S -- SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY OF 1987?

A. I'D HAVE TO CHECK THE EXACT DATE.

Q. WAS IT EARLY 19877

A. YES, IF "EARLY" REFERS TO THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE YEAR.

Q. OKAY.

A. OR THEREABOUTS.

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER SHE LEFT HAPPY VALLEY?

A. NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU KNOW, MISS PLEVIN, LET ME JUST MAKE A SUGGESTION, JUST FOR ECONOMY'S SAKE. IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM A DATE, JUST ASK HIM IF HE KNOWS THE DATE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MEASURE IT AGAINST SOME EVENT HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF OR MAY OR

MAY NOT UNDERSTAND. JUST ASK HIM THE DATE.

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE, I'D APPRECIATE IT IF YOU DIDN'T CONFER WITH

MR. RATHMAN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEPOSITION. THE WITNESS: WHY NOT?

MR. HERTZBERG: THERE'S NO PENDING QUESTION. AND EVEN IF THERE WERE, HE STILL CAN SPEAK WITH HIM AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. AND I WOULD ALSO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THAT'S THE

FIRST TIME I OBSERVED MR. MISCAVIGE SPEAK TO

MR. RATHMAN IN THIS ROOM AND THAT IT WAS FOR, BY MY ESTIMATION, ABOUT FIVE SECONDS. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, MR. MISCAVIGE, I'M HANDING YOU A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT THAT'S CALLED AN RTC INFORMATION LETTER, JULY 23, 1983. A. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: RTC INFORMATION LETTER. OKAY.

MR. DRESCHER: IS THERE A QUESTION PENDING?

MS. PLEVIN: HE'S STILL LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT, SO I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT HIM. THE WITNESS: I THOUGHT YOU WANTED ME TO READ IT. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. FINE.

A. IS THERE ANOTHER PAGE FOR THIS?

Q. NO, THAT'S IT.

A. WELL, SOMETHING IS MISSING.

Q. WHAT'S MISSING?

A. I JUST KNOW IT, BECAUSE ANY ISSUE WILL ALWAYS LIST A COPYRIGHT ON IT OR A TYPIST AND IT'S NOT HERE. THERE'S A PAGE MISSING, APPARENTLY. MR. HERTZBERG: THERE'S NO PENDING QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. WELL, I'LL SEE IF WHAT I'VE GOT HAS AN ADDITIONAL PAGE THAT WAS MISSING SOMEHOW.

A. OKAY.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS BEFORE?

A. NOT UNTIL JUST NOW.

Q. OKAY. WELL, LET'S COME BACK TO IT IN A MINUTE. LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. WOULD YOU STATE, FOR THE RECORD, WHAT PC FOLDERS ARE? A. PRE-CLEAR FOLDERS.

Q. OKAY. AND WHAT ARE PRE-CLEAR FOLDERS IN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY?

A. PRE-CLEAR FOLDERS ARE THE FOLDERS WHICH CONTAIN THE RUNNING RECORD OF AUDITING SESSIONS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON WILL HAVE HAD FROM HIS FIRST STEP IN SCIENTOLOGY ON THE AUDITING GRADE CHART UP THROUGH THE END. IT ALSO INCLUDES A SUMMARY OF THE SESSIONS HE'S HAD, IT ALSO INCLUDES ANY PROGRAMS THAT HIS CASE HAS BEEN PROGRAMMED FOR, AND IT INCLUDES ALL OF THOSE ADVANCED PROGRAMS, REPAIR PROGRAMS, IT INCLUDES A COPY OF THE GRADE CHART THAT IS INDICATED WITHIN THE GRADE CHART, WHAT STEP THE PERSON HAS HAD. IT HAS ANOTHER SHEET WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE CORRECTION LISTS THAT HE'S HAD, THE WORDS CLEARED FOR, IT INCLUDES ANY FES, FULL FLOW TABLES THAT HAVE EVER BEEN DONE, AND WITHIN THAT FOLDER WITH THE SESSIONS, IT WOULD INCLUDE THE WORK SHEETS OF ANY GIVEN SESSION, THE AUDIT REPORT FORMS, EXAM REPORT FORMS AND CASE SUPERVISION.

Q. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE DOCUMENTS, THE PC FOLDERS, ARE CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS?

A. THAT THE PC --

Q. THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE PC FOLDERS ARE THE PRODUCT OF CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE AUDITOR AND THE AUDITEE AND THE PC? A. AS A GENERAL MATTER, YES.

Q. OKAY. PC COMMUNICATIONS WITH AN AUDITOR ARE CONFIDENTIAL?

A. YES, PER THE AUDITOR'S CODE.

Q. PER THE AUDITORS CODE. AND THAT EXTENDS TO THE WRITING OF THE AUDITOR, THE NOTES OF THE AUDITOR THAT BECOME PART OF THE PC FOLDER?

A. IN AN ACTUAL SESSION?

Q. YES.

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. WHAT IS THE POLICY OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OR CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF PC FOLDERS?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE MAINTENANCE.

Q. WELL, WHERE ARE THEY GENERALLY MAINTAINED WHILE PC IS UNDERGOING AUDITING?

A. AT WHATEVER LOCATION HE'S RECEIVING THE AUDITING.

Q. OKAY. AND THEY MOVE WITH HIM IF HE MOVES TO ANOTHER LOCATION OR ANOTHER ORG?

A. THE LATTER. I MEAN, IF HE -- EXACTLY. IF HE GOES TO ANOTHER ORG AND HE WANTS TO EMBARK UPON AN AUDITING SERVICE, HIS FOLDER SHOULD BE SENT THERE, YES.

Q. OKAY. AND LET'S SAY A PERSON CONCLUDES A PROGRAM AT CLEARWATER AND THEN GOES BACK HOME TO NEBRASKA AND HASN'T TAKEN ANY AUDITING PROGRAMS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. WHERE WOULD HIS PC FOLDER BE LOCATED IN THE NORMAL COURSE? A. BY THE WAY, HE DOESN'T TAKE ANY PROGRAMS, JUST TO CLARIFY THIS. HE HASN'T HAD ANY AUDITING, IS ALSO CORRECT.

Q. OKAY.

A. WHERE WOULD THEY BE?

Q. YES.

A. I GUESS THEY'D BE -- YOU SAID IN CLEARWATER?

Q. YES.

A. I GUESS THEY'D BE IN CLEARWATER.

Q. THEY'D STAY AT CLEARWATER UNTIL HE SIGNED FOR AUDITING AT SOME OTHER ORG?

A. NOW, YOU GET INTO A PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO ADVANCED CONFIDENTIALITY OF PC COURSES IF THIS PERSON IS IN ADVANCED COURSES PRE-CLEAR; IF HE WENT TO OMAHA, IN A MISSION IN OMAHA, THIS PERSON WOULD NEVER GO THERE.

Q. BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE ADVANCED STUFF?

A. A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN TO CLEARWATER, TO FLAG LAND BASE, DOES NOT GET AUDITING FROM A MISSION.

Q. OKAY. IS THERE A POLICY REGARDING STORING PC FOLDERS FOR A PERSON WHO IS NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ANY AUDITING?

A. REGARDING STORING -- TO LOOK THAT UP TO SEE IF THERE'S AN EXACT POLICY ON IT.

Q. WOULD IT BE OFF POLICY TO DISPOSE OF THEM?

A. TO DISPOSE OF THE PC FOLDERS. YOU MEAN A SCIENTOLOGIST?

Q. YES.

A. OF A SCIENTOLOGIST?

Q. YES.

A. YES. THE IDEA IS TO KEEP THE FOLDERS COMPLETE.

Q. OKAY.

A. I MEAN, I'M HAVING TROUBLE EVEN GRAPPLING WITH THIS QUESTION.

Q. OKAY.

A. THE IDEA IS -- IT'S A TECHNICAL QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING, BUT GENERALLY IT'S -- IT'S H COB, THAT STANDS FOR HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE BULLETIN, AS OPPOSED TO HCO PL, WHICH MEANS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS POLICY LETTER, AND IT'S GENERALLY TECH, MEANING H

COB, AUDITING FOLDERS COMPLETENESS AND YOU DON'T OMIT SOMETHING FROM THEM.

THE WHOLE POINT OF IT, THAT A PERSON IS RECEIVING AUDITING, ALL THE INFORMATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE FOR THE AUDITOR'S BENEFIT AND THE CASE SUPERVISOR'S BENEFIT, SO THAT A PERSON GETS STANDARD CASE SUPERSTITIONS. AN EXAMPLE, IF A PERSON HAD AN INJURY AND IT WASN'T NOTED IN THE FOLDER AND THE AUDITOR WASN'T AWARE OF IT AND THE CASE SUPERVISOR WASN'T AWARE OF IT AND ANY POTENTIAL IN-GRAMS COULDN'T BE STANDARD TECH BECAUSE ALL THE INFORMATION ON THIS PERSON WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN HIS FOLDER, SO THE IDEA IS

THAT THEY'RE COMPLETE. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

Q. THEY'RE COMPLETE AND MAINTAINED. THEY'RE NOT --

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN "MAINTAINED," LIKE THEN --

Q. YES, THROWN AWAY. IS THERE ANY POLICY UNDER WHICH -- COUNSEL IS CONFERRING OR TALKING TO THE CLIENT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE QUESTION. IS THERE ANY POLICY UNDER WHICH PC FOLDERS ARE DESTROYED?

A. ANY POLICY UNDER WHICH THEY'RE DESTROYED?

Q. YES.

A. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A POLICY ON THAT EITHER WAY.

Q. IN OTHER WORDS, AS FAR AS -- IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO DESTROY THE PC FOLDERS?

A. WELL, LET'S --

MR. HERTZBERG: HE JUST TESTIFIED -- ONE SECOND. HE JUST TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW OF WHETHER THERE WAS A POLICY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I FIND THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION SOMEWHAT DISINGENUOUS, BUT GO AHEAD. WHY DON'T YOU REREAD THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, THE WAY IT'S FRAMED.

MS. PLEVIN: LET ME CHANGE IT.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WOULD A MISSION THAT DESTROYED PC FOLDERS, FOR AN INACCURATE PC, BE OPERATING OFF POLICY IN DESTROYING THE PC FOLDERS? A. WHAT MISSION?

Q. ANY MISSION.

A. A MISSION?

Q. YES.

A. YOU MEAN -- WHAT SORT OF MISSION, A STEWARD MISSION OR MISSION?

Q. AN SMI MISSION. THEY MAINTAINED PC FOLDERS FOR THEIR PCS?

A. AND THERE'S A PC THAT'S A SCIENTOLOGIST?

Q. THAT'S INACTIVE.

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN, "INACTIVE"?

Q. NOT CURRENTLY BEING AUDITED.

A. IF THE PERSON WAS A SCIENTOLOGIST IN GOOD STANDING, I DON'T SEE WHY THEY WOULD DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW -- IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? Q. YES.

A. A SCIENTOLOGIST?

Q. YES.

A. I THINK I'VE ANSWERED IT. THEY'RE GENERALLY MAINTAINED -- PRE-CLEAR FOLDERS FOR SCIENTOLOGISTS IN GOOD STANDING.

Q. WHAT ABOUT A PERSON WHO IS NOT IN GOOD STANDING, IS THERE A POLICY REGARDING --

A. YOU MEAN A SQUIRREL? IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN, A SQUIRREL OR SOMEBODY WHO IS EXPELLED FROM THE CHURCH? IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

Q. YES.

A. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY POLICY ON IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THE ONLY POLICY I KNOW THAT A PERSON WHO IS EXPELLED FROM THE CHURCH, WHO IS A SQUIRREL, HAS GENERALLY REJECTED THE WHOLE GROUP, SO I DON'T KNOW. IT WOULD BE CONJECTURE AT THIS POINT WHETHER SOMEBODY DID IT OR NOT. YOU'RE ASKING A FINE TECHNICAL POINT. NO POLICY POPS INTO MY MIND ON THAT SUBJECT, NO.

Q. WELL, ISN'T IT POLICY THAT A PERSON WHO HAS BECOME AN SP OR HAS REJECTED THE CHURCH OR BECOME A SQUIRREL, MIGHT, IN FACT, DO STEPS TO GET BACK INTO THE CHURCH BY APPROACHING THE PROPER TERMINAL?

A. THAT'S RIGHT. THE DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN A CRACK, EVEN IF JUST A TINY, WEENY BIT, THE DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN, THAT'S RIGHT.

Q. AND IF THAT PERSON DID SO, WHAT YOUR ANSWER SUGGESTS TO ME IS THAT THEY COULD DO SO AND COME BACK INTO THE CHURCH AND THEIR PC FOLDER MIGHT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED IN THE INTERIM?

A. I DIDN'T SUGGEST ANYTHING OF THE SORT. ARE YOU ASKING ME A TECHNICAL QUESTION? MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING. YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT AUDITING FOLDERS AND WHY THEY'RE COMPLETE. I THOUGHT I ANSWERED THAT. Q. NO, NO. I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF PC FOLDERS.

A. ABOUT PC FOLDERS BEING DESTROYED. OKAY.

Q. FOR SQUIRRELS, SPS, WHOMEVER IS NOT CURRENTLY IN GOOD STANDING.

A. I GET IT.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PC FOLDERS ARE REGULARLY DESTROYED?

A. NO.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PC FOLDERS EVER HAVING BEEN DESTROYED?

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: I DID HEAR THAT SOMEBODY DESTROYED PC FOLDERS OF INDIVIDUALS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO?

A. I HEARD THAT VICKY AZNARAN.

Q. AND IS THAT THE ONLY INSTANCE YOU'VE EVER HEARD THAT PC FOLDERS WERE DESTROYED?

A. WHAT NOW?

Q. IS THAT THE ONLY INSTANCE THAT YOU EVER HEARD OF THAT PC FOLDERS WERE DESTROYED?

A. YES. AND I ONLY HEARD THAT IT WAS DONE. I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T SEE THIS WITH MY EYES, BUT THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

Q. DID YOU HEAR THAT SHE WAS ORDERED TO DO THAT?

A. NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q. HAD YOU NEVER HEARD THAT NORMAN STARKEY ORDERED HER TO DO THAT?

A. NO.

Q. YOU NEVER ORDERED HER TO DO THAT?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHOSE FOLDERS SHE'S ALLEGED TO HAVE DESTROYED?

A. SPECIFICALLY?

Q. YES.

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHEN?

A. I'LL TELL YOU WHEN I HEARD THIS, I THINK. I WOULD SAY 1984, 1985, AT A GUESS.

Q. DURING THE ARMSTRONG TRIAL -- DURING THE ARMSTRONG PROCEEDINGS?

A. NO. ACTUALLY I HADN'T CONNECTED IT WITH TEAT, NO. MAYBE -- MAYBE YOU'RE CORRECT ABOUT -- I DON'T KNOW. IT DOESN'T STICK OUT IN MY MIND TO DATE.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME --

THE WITNESS: I DON'T CONNECT THINGS BY THE WAY -- OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME JUST MAKE MY PERIODIC OBSERVATION. I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS RELATES TO MR. CORYDON'S CLAIMS. I'M NOT SPECIFICALLY AWARE OF ANY CLAIM BY MR. CORYDON THAT HIS PC FOLDER WAS DESTROYED, YOU KNOW. I'M NOT GOING TO OBJECT TO HIS ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS FOR THE MOMENT. BUT LET'S MOVE ON.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS RTC, IN TERMS OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES, DOES IT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TRACK DOWN A MISSING PC FOLDER?

A. THE AUTHORITY?

Q. YES. COULD IT, YOU KNOW, PUT A MISSION IN, SO TO SPEAK, TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO CERTAIN PC FOLDERS IF THEY WERE MISSING, AND NOT KNOWN SPECIFICALLY TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED? A. THE AUTHORITY -- WELL, OKAY. LET ME CLARIFY THAT. YES, BUT SO DOES THE DIRECTOR OF TECH SERVICES OF ANY ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD.

Q. OKAY.

A. DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN?

Q. YES, OKAY. SO DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHETHER, IN RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE, RTC DID A SEARCH TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PC FOLDERS OF BENT CORYDON?

A. ALL RIGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: CONSULTING WITH COUNSEL.

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MS. PLEVIN: CONSULTING WITH THREE COUNSEL.

MR. DRESCHER: HE'S TALKING TO HIS COUNSEL PERSONALLY AND COUNSEL FOR RTC, OF WHICH HE'S CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?

MS. PLEVIN: I COULDN'T STOP IT.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU ASK ME THE QUESTION AGAIN?

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE READ THE QUESTION BACK.

(RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: IN RESPONSE TO A DOCUMENT REQUEST?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YES.

A. I KNOW THAT -- HERE'S WHERE I KNOW THAT A SEARCH WAS DONE THROUGH RTC FOR BENT'S FOLDERS AND THEY WEREN'T THERE.

Q. THEY WEREN'T WHERE?

A. AT RTC.

Q. WHERE WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT A MINUTE. HOW COULD -- HOW COULD HE KNOW WHERE IN THE WHOLE -- ON THE PLANET THEY MIGHT BE OTHER THAN RTC? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION, "WHERE WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN." FIRST IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE THAT THEY EXIST, AND HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY ANSWER --

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE --

MR. HERTZBERG: WHERE WOULD THEY BE OTHER THAN AT RTC?

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL ADD MY OWN OBJECTIONS. THE QUESTION WAS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS, UNINTELLIGIBLE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE. MR. HELLER: I JOIN IN THE OBJECTIONS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD?

A. NO. GO AHEAD. ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.

Q. MR. CORYDON WAS A SCIENTOLOGIST FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND, AS SUCH, HAD A PC FOLDER. HIS LAST POSITION IN SCIENTOLOGY WAS AS A MISSION HOLDER AT THE MISSION OF RIVERSIDE, AND I BELIEVE HIS LAST AUDITING WAS DONE AT CLEARWATER. A. RIGHT, OKAY. I DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT I'LL ASSUME THAT.

Q. LET'S ASSUME THAT. WHERE WOULD HIS FILES LAST HAVE BEEN, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION. INCOMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL.

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU WANT HIM TO SPECULATE?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, MR. MISCAVIGE IS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC. RTC, PURSUANT TO DOCUMENTS AUTHENTICATED IN THIS ACTION BY CSI AND OTHERS, IS THE SENIOR MOST ENTITY IN SCIENTOLOGY REGARDING THE TECH; PC FOLDERS ARE AT THE HEART OF TECH; IS THAT RIGHT? A. AT THE HEART OF IT? HCOBS, LECTURES, BOOKS ARE AT THE HEART.

Q. IT WOULD SEEM AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC, YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHERE THOSE PC FOLDERS WOULD HAVE NORMALLY BEEN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE?

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. WAIT A MINUTE. THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE FORMULATION IS IT'S IRRELEVANT WHAT IT WOULD SEEM TO YOU. WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM IF HE KNOWS WHERE THEY ARE. THAT MAY SORT OF BE MORE PRODUCTIVE, IN MY VIEW.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL, IN MY OWN GOOD TIME.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF HE KNOWS. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW, BASED UPON THE FACTS AS I STATED THEM TO YOU, WHERE MR. CORYDON'S LAST AUDITING WAS IN CLEARWATER, AND WHERE HE WAS A MISSION HOLDER, AND WHERE HE WAS EXPELLED, WHERE IN THE NORMAL COURSE THOSE --

A. IS THAT WHERE HE WAS EXPELLED?

Q. PARDON?

A. IS THAT WHERE HE WAS EXPELLED?

Q. NO. IT WAS AFTER HE RETURNED TO MISSION OF RIVERSIDE. WHERE IN THE NORMAL COURSE WOULD THOSE PC FOLDERS HAVE BEEN STORED?

A. THEN? I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN BETWEEN THERE. I MEAN, I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHEN HE WAS GETTING AUDITING AT FLAG, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WERE.

Q. AND THEN --

A. WHAT WAS THE TIME PERIOD INTERVENING THAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE HAPPENED. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY, ONCE A PERSON IS AUDITED AT FLAG, THEY'RE NOT AUDITED AT MISSIONS?

A. THAT'S POLICY. THAT IS WHAT I SAID. I DON'T -- I CAN'T ANSWER FOR WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THOSE MISSIONS IN THOSE DAYS.

Q. ALL RIGHT. BUT BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE IN SCIENTOLOGY, YOUR VARIOUS POSITIONS AND YOUR POSITION AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CAN YOU GIVE ME YOUR BEST UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHERE, UNDER THAT FACT PATTERN, MR. CORYDON'S PC FOLDERS WOULD NORMALLY HAVE BEEN WHEN HE LEFT SCIENTOLOGY IN 19827

A. UNDER THAT FACT PATTERN? Q. YES.

A. I GUESS FLAG.

Q. OKAY.

A. WITH THOSE FACTS AND NOT ADDING ANYTHING ELSE TO IT?

Q. RIGHT.

A. OKAY.

Q. WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN MOVED FROM FLAG, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SUBSEQUENT TO MR. CORYDON'S LEAVING SCIENTOLOGY? MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T SEE HOW ANYONE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER: I OBJECT ON THE BASIS OF SPECULATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: IT ASKS FOR GUESSWORK AND SPECULATION.

MS, PLEVIN: NOT GUESSWORK FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M SORRY. WHAT THE PROBLEM HERE IS --

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: NO, WAIT A MINUTE, PLEASE, JUST A SECOND, PLEASE. YOU'RE IMPUGNING SOME OMNIPOTENT KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE MR. MISCAVIGE HAPPENS TO HOLD A CORPORATE BOARD POSITION WITH A CERTAIN CORPORATION, THAT HE CAN GUESS WHERE MR. CORYDON'S FILES WOULD HAVE

ENDED UP IN A PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO 1982, WITHOUT HIS KNOWING ANY OTHER FACTS ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED, WHICH COULD HAVE AFFECTED THE FILE OR WHETHER -- WHO WAS INVOLVED WITH THE FILE AND WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE ON OR OFF POLICY.

MS. PLEVIN: FRANKLY I'M SEEKING

MR. MISCAVIGE'S ASSISTANCE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC. RTC HAS SAID, CSI HAS SAID, CSC HAS SAID AND SMI HAS SAID, "WE DON'T HAVE THESE FILES. WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM." MR. HERTZBERG: HE APPARENTLY DOESN'T EITHER.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT YOU MADE ABOUT WHAT THE DISCOVERY RESPONSES WERE; THE DISCOVERY RESPONSES WERE FOR EACH OF THOSE FOUR CLAIMS, "WE DON'T KNOW; WE DON'T HAVE THEM," PERIOD, NOT THE WAY YOU CHARACTERIZED IT. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE --

A. YES.

Q. -- HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS BOOKLET, THE COMMAND CHANNELS OF SCIENTOLOGY?

A. NOT THAT COPY, BUT, YES.

Q. OKAY. YOU'VE SEEN THAT DOCUMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU HAVE AN EXTRA FOR ME?

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE SEVERAL.

THE WITNESS: XEROXES OR ONES LIKE THIS?

MS. PLEVIN: XEROXES.

THE WITNESS: YOU CAN'T SEE THE COLOR THEN.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SORRY.

MR. DRESCHER: I HAVE MY COPY HERE. WE CAN ALL SHARE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

A. YES.

Q. DOES THIS DOCUMENT --

A. IF YOU WANT TO ASK ME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, I'LL READ THE SECTIONS OR WHATEVER, BUT YES, SURE.

Q. THIS DOCUMENT WAS ISSUED IN 1988 BY CSI; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. WAS IT '88 --

Q. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE COPYRIGHT DATE ON IT.

A. '88, I GUESS SO, YES.

Q. AND AT THAT TIME DID IT, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ACCURATELY REFLECT THE REPORT LINES AND COMMAND CHANNELS OF SCIENTOLOGY?

A. THE COMMAND CHANNELS OF SCIENTOLOGY. IT'S NOT CALLED THE REPORT LINES AND COMMAND CHANNELS. IT'S CALLED THE COMMAND CHANNELS, YES.

Q. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES SINCE THAT TIME?

A. LET ME JUST GO THROUGH THIS. SUBSTANTIAL, NO. IT SHOULD BE GENERALLY ACCURATE. IF YOU WANT ME TO NITPICK IT.

Q. NO. DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "PARTICIPATE"?

Q. DID YOU DRAFT ANY SECTIONS?

A. DRAFT -- NO, I DIDN'T DRAFT ANY SECTIONS.

Q. DID YOU REVIEW ANY DRAFTS OF THESE SECTIONS?

A. YES.

Q. DID YOU APPROVE THE FINAL DOCUMENT BEFORE IT WAS PRINTED?

A. I'M NOT SURE. I MEAN, I DID SEE IT IN A DRAFT FORM. I DON'T KNOW IF I SAW THE FINAL DRAFT BEFORE IT WAS PRINTED.

Q. DID YOU APPROVE THE DRAFT THAT YOU SAW BEFORE IT WAS SENT BACK TO BE PUT INTO THE FINAL DRAFT?

A. YES.

Q. WHO WAS THE EDITOR?

MR. HERTZBERG: JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I'M NOT SURE THAT MR. MISCAVIGE SAID THAT THE DRAFT THAT HE APPROVED WAS THE ONE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FINAL DRAFT. THE WITNESS: I SAW IT IN ROUGH. THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, I THINK.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY.

A. BY THE WAY, IN REGARDS TO "APPROVE," I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "APPROVE." I MEAN, I LOOKED AT IT AND READ IT.

Q. DID YOU MAKE ANY CHANGES?

A. MAYBE, YOU KNOW, A WORDING, YOU KNOW, THE WAY A SENTENCE WAS STRUCTURED.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE OVERALL COMPILATION AND WRITING OF THAT DOCUMENT?

A. NO, NO.

Q. I'M SORRY?

A. NO.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER MET BENT CORYDON, OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM?

MR. DRESCHER: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK SO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU EVER HEAR HIS NAME PRIOR TO TODAY?

A. YES.

Q. DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY OCCASION TO DISCUSS MR. CORYDON WITH ANYONE PRIOR TO TODAY, APART FROM YOUR ATTORNEY?

MR. HELLER: OTHER THAN YOUR ATTORNEYS.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

MR. HELLER: I DIDN'T HEAR THAT PART. I'M SORRY.

THE WITNESS: "DISCUSS." YOU MEAN -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "DISCUSS"?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. TALK ABOUT HIM.

A. ABOUT BENT?

Q. YES.

A. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER TALKED ABOUT BENT.

Q. WITH ANYONE.

A. ABOUT HIM?

Q. YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS?

MS. PLEVIN: OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS, YES.

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT'S INCLUSIVE OF ATTORNEYS. TALKING ABOUT BENT --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT BENT WITH YOUR ATTORNEYS; ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT?

MR. HERTZBERG: MAYBE THERE'S A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE WORD "ABOUT."

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER --

(CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND WITNESS.)

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU MEAN THE DISCUSSIONS WERE ABOUT THE CASE?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THIS CASE.

A. YES, SURE.

Q. DID YOU EVER CONFER WITH ANYONE ABOUT ANY OTHER LAWSUITS MR. CORYDON HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN WITH THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OR ANY ENTITIES OR INDIVIDUALS IN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, OTHER THAN YOUR ATTORNEYS?

A. YES.

Q. WITH WHOM HAVE YOU HAD SUCH DISCUSSIONS?

A. MARTY, POSSIBLY VICKY AZNARAN, MAYBE -- WE'RE TALKING LIKE I KNEW HE HAD A LAWSUIT, OKAY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME?

Q. YES.

A. WHAT EXACTLY WERE YOU ASKING ME?

Q. WELL, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT, IN GENERAL, BUT NOT WITH THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION, TRYING TO FIND OUT THE EXTENT OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MR. CORYDON PRIOR TO THIS LAWSUIT.

A. NOT MUCH.

MR. HELLER: YOU ASKED A SPECIFIC QUESTION AND THE DEPONENT ASKED YOU WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION YOU WERE ASKING, NOT GENERALLY.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT, YES, I'M GOING TO GET BACK TO IT.

Q. I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU DID KNOW ABOUT MR. CORYDON PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THIS LAWSUIT?

MR. LIEBERMAN: THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT ANY LAWSUITS. THAT WAS WHAT THE QUESTION WAS.

MS. PLEVIN: I KNOW THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION WAS.

MR. HERTZBERG: SO WE HAVE A NEW QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: YES, WE HAVE A NEW QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHEN YOU SAY "THIS LAWSUIT," YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAWSUIT THAT WE'RE INVOLVED, IN WITH RESPECT TO THIS DEPOSITION?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. IS THERE A PENDING QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT IS THE PENDING QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. SO TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY PEOPLE YOU'VE EVER SPOKEN WITH ABOUT MR. CORYDON ARE MARTY RATHMAN AND VICKY AZNARAN?

A. OKAY. LET ME CLARIFY WHAT "ABOUT" MEANS.

Q. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. THAT IS A MISSTATEMENT OF THE RECORD AND HIS TESTIMONY. HE SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT THE LITIGATION.

MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: AND THAT'S WHAT HE ANSWERED WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT MARTY RATHMAN AND POSSIBLY VICKY AZNARAN.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. TO THE EXTENT THAT MR. MISCAVIGE STATES THAT HE'S NEVER HAD ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS OTHER THAN ABOUT THE LITIGATION -- PERHAPS I AM ABBREVIATING IT.

A. NO. I GUESS MY CONCERN IS YOUR WORD "ABOUT."

Q. REFERRING TO, HAVING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF, MR. --

A. I THOUGHT YOU WERE TAKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IN REFERENCE IS A DIFFERENT TERM. YOU MEAN ANY TIME I'VE EVER -- IN OTHER WORDS, THE WORD -- THAT I WAS EITHER LISTENING OR SPEAKING THE WORDS "BENT CORYDON" WERE MENTIONED?

O. YES.

A. OH, OKAY. YEAH. MAYBE TEN TIMES FROM 1981 TO THE PRESENT TIME.

Q. OKAY. AND WITH WHOM HAVE YOU HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS, APART FROM YOUR ATTORNEYS?

A. DAVID MAYO, BILL FRANKS, ALAN WALTERS, DEAN STOKES, INCLUDE MARTY AND VICKY, WHICH I ALREADY MENTIONED. STEVE WILLETT. THAT'S WHAT I CAN REMEMBER.

Q. OKAY. LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME, AND YOUR CONVERSATIONS ONE AT A TIME, TO THE BEST THAT YOU CAN RECALL THEM.

A. OKAY.

Q. LET'S START WITH DAVID MAYO. TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, DID YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE CONVERSATION WITH DAVID MAYO REGARDING, OR ABOUT, BENT CORYDON?

A. MAYBE THREE.

Q. LET'S TAKE THE FIRST ONE. DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT WAS?

A. THAT WAS IN 1981, SOMETIME, BELIEVE THE FALL OF '81.

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHERE THAT TOOK PLACE?

A. AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

Q. AND WAS THIS IN PERSON?

A. YES.

Q. AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMUNICATION REGARDING MR. CORYDON?

A. DAVID MAYO SAID TO ME THAT HE MET BENT CORYDON IN TOWN, OR SAW HIM, AND THAT BENT CORYDON KNEW WE LIVED AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHO BENT CORYDON WAS AND I TOLD HIM SO, "I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT." AND HE SAID, "HE'S A NEW ZEALANDER, HE'S RIVERSIDE," OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS. SO THAT WAS THE FIRST CONVERSATION. HE BROUGHT IT UP TO ME AS IF IT WAS OF INTEREST TO ME, AND IT DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME.

Q. THIS MAY BE OBVIOUS, AND I THINK IT'S CLEAR FROM YOUR STATEMENT, BUT I JUST WANT TO PIN IT DOWN. WHEN YOU SAY THAT HE SAID TO YOU THAT "BENT CORYDON KNEW THAT WE LIVED AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS," WOULD YOU --

A. THAT THERE WAS A PROPERTY THERE THAT WAS RELATED TO SCIENTOLOGY.

Q. OKAY. AND WAS THAT THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THAT FIRST COMMUNICATION?

A. THAT WAS IT ON THAT ONE, YES. THAT MIGHT HAVE EVEN BEEN THE SUMMER OR EARLIER. I DON'T KNOW. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 1981. IT COULD HAVE BEEN IN 1980. I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF IT. I WAS TRYING TO THINK THE FIRST TIME I HEARD BENT'S NAME. Q. DID YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

A. I SAID, "I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT."

Q. DID MR. MAYO EXPLAIN WHO HE WAS TALKING ABOUT?

A. YEAH, HE DID EXPLAIN. THE POINT OF THE CONVERSATION WAS IT WAS JUST GENERALLY LOW PROFILE THAT WE WERE LIVING THERE. THAT WAS THE POINT. IT WASN'T THAT SIGNIFICANT TO ME. HE SAID HE WAS A SCIENTOLOGIST, OF COURSE, YES, SO I MEAN THAT GOT EXPLAINED TO ME THEN. AND THAT WAS ABOUT IT.

Q. OKAY. DID YOU DO ANYTHING AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION? A. NO.

Q. DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION?

A. NO, I DIDN'T.

Q. DID YOU ASK MR. MAYO TO DO ANYTHING AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION?

A. NO, I DIDN'T. I -- NO. I -- I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POINT OF IT WAS, OKAY, SO NO. Q. WAS THIS BEFORE OR AFTER MR. MAYO WAS REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION AS CS INT?

A. SENIOR CS INT.

Q. SENIOR CS INT.

A. BEFORE.

Q. AND --

A. ALL THREE OF THESE CONVERSATIONS WERE.

Q. WERE BEFORE?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. WHEN WAS THE NEXT CONVERSATION WITH MR. MAYO?

A. OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER OF 1981, DURING -- CONCURRENT WITH THE TIME PERIOD OF THE MISSION BOLDER MUTINY OF FLAG LAND BASE. Q. AND WAS THAT WHERE THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE?

A. NO, IT ISN'T.

Q. WHERE DID THE CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?

A. IN AN AIRPLANE.

Q. YOU WERE SITTING WITH MR. MAYO, I ASSUME?

A. YES, I WAS.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THE CONTENT OF THAT CONVERSATION?

A. THE CONTENT OF THAT CONVERSATION IS THAT WE HEARD THAT THERE WAS MISSION HOLDERS AT THE FLAG LAND BASE WHO WERE THERE ON A CONFERENCE WHO HAD TURNED THE CONFERENCE GENERALLY INTO WHAT WAS TERMED A MUTINY, AND THAT THE REPORTS THAT WE'D RECEIVED IS THAT

THEY'D BEEN DRINKING QUITE HEAVILY, THAT THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT COMING OUT TO GILMAN HOT STRINGS WITH BASEBALL BATS TO BEAT UP -- AND THAT THE RING LEADERS OF THIS WERE BASICALLY TRYING TO SUBVERT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND NATIONAL AT THAT TIME, BILL

FRANKS, THAT THEY WANTED TO TAKE ALL THE FINANCES AND ALL THE RESERVES OF THE CHURCH FOR THEIR OWN BENEFITS, THEY WANTED THEM DIVIDED UP, AND BENT'S NAME WAS BROUGHT UP IN THAT CONVERSATION, TO WHICH DAVID EXPLAINED -- DAVID MAYO EXPLAINED TO ME -- THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO BENT, AND IT'S NO BIG DEAL TO BENT, HE'S COMPLETELY MONEY MOTIVATED. WHAT BENT WANTS TO BE HAPPY IS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. HE JUST WANTS MONEY. THERE'S NO PRINCIPLE HE'S FIGHTING OVER. HE'S JUST INTERESTED IN A LOT OF MONEY. THAT WAS THE CONTEXT OF THAT CONVERSATION.

Q. DID HE ATTRIBUTE TO MR. CORYDON THE COMMENTS ABOUT TAKING BASEBALL BATS TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS OR ANY SUCH --

A. I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT BENT WAS INVOLVED IN THAT, YES.

Q. DID HE STATE THAT MR. CORYDON WAS DRINKING HEAVILY?

A. NO. I THINK HE STATED THAT HE -- THAT BENT HAD STATED TO HIM OR -- THAT DAVID HAD BEEN THERE OR WHATEVER. HE SEEMED TO HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF A CONVERSATION, WHAT I REMEMBER -- THE MONEY PART WAS ATTRIBUTED TO BENT IN A CONVERSATION WITH DAVID. THAT'S WHAT I PARTICULARLY REMEMBER.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE BASEBALL BATS WAS ATTRIBUTED AS A CONVERSATION WITH BENT, AS OPPOSED TO HE WAS INVOLVED IN IT. THE MONEY WAS DEFINITELY SOMETHING RELAYED AS A CONVERSATION WITH BENT AND THE FINAL OUTCOME OF IT WAS, "I WANT MONEY.". Q. NOW, I'M CONFUSED, MR. MISCAVIGE, BY YOUR TESTIMONY. ARE YOU SAYING THAT MR. MAYO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. CORYDON REGARDING THE MISSION HOLDERS MEETING IN WHICH MR. CORYDON HAD SUMMARIZED THESE --

A. FROM WHAT I COULD GRASP FROM IT, OKAY, NO, I'M NOT.

Q. SO MR. MAYO WAS CONVEYING TO YOU --

A. HE WAS --

Q. -- WHAT HE OBSERVED?

A. NO. SOME WAS OBSERVATIONS AND SOME WAS CONVERSATIONS. HE WAS CONVEYING TO ME CONVERSATIONS WITH BENT CORYDON AND I BELIEVE FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION, THAT THEY WERE THE MONTH BEFORE OR SOMETIME IN THAT NATURE, WHERE BENT WAS AT A PREVIOUS MISSION HOLDERS CONVENTION AT THE FLAG LAND BASE. IT WAS ACTUALLY A PREVIOUS ONE TO THE ONE I WAS ABOUT TO ATTEND, AND IT WAS FROM THAT CONVERSATION THAT WAS BEING RELAYED TO ME THAT, "IT'S SIMPLE. BENT WANTS MONEY," YOU KNOW, "JUST SO YOU DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OVER PRINCIPLE, HE WANTS TO GET RICH. HE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO GET RICH ON SCIENTOLOGY." THE BASEBALL BATS WERE OBSERVATION -- YOU SAY OBSERVATION. DAVID HAD THIS INFORMATION SOMEHOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW, BUT THAT WAS NOT RELAYED AS A CONVERSATION FROM BENT, WHERE THE OTHER ONE MOST DEFINITELY WAS. IS THAT CLEAR?

Q. THAT'S CLEAR.

A. OKAY.

Q. NOW, I WANT TO GET TO THE OTHER TWO ITEMS. DID MR. MAYO RELATE TO YOU THAT MR. CORYDON HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE DISCUSSION REGARDING, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE, "LET'S GET THE BASEBALL BATS AND GO AFTER THOSE GUYS"? A. WHAT I HEARD --

Q. OR HE WAS JUST PRESENT WHEN THAT HAPPENED, IF IT HAPPENED?

A. HE DIDN'T RELAY HE WAS PART OF THAT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I BELIEVE HE RELAYED HE WAS A PART OF IT BECAUSE BENT WAS THE ONE WHO KNEW WHERE THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE AND CMO WERE, BECAUSE NONE OF THE OTHER ONES DID.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, BENT MAY HAVE BEEN THE MITIGATOR OF IT FROM WHAT BENT TOLD ME. HE'S THE ONE WHO HAD THE IDEA BECAUSE HE COULD TAKE EVERYBODY THERE. YOU UNDERSTAND IT WASN'T GENERAL KNOWLEDGE THAT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS PROPERTY WAS THERE; THE GENERAL SCIENTOLOGY DID NOT KNOW THAT THAT'S WHERE IT WAS, AND I GUESS BENT WAS UNIQUE.

Q. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT WAS AT THIS PERIOD OF TIME THAT

MR. CORYDON WAS STILL TRYING VERY HARD TO BE RETURNED TO HIS MISSION AND THAT IT STRIKES ME IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY UNLIKELY HE WOULD HAVE BEEN VOCAL REGARDING SUCH PROBLEMS? MR. HERTZBERG: IS THAT A QUESTION? IS THAT A QUESTION? WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

MR. DRESCHER: IF IT'S A QUESTION, IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE AND I OBJECT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT HER TO ANSWER FIRST. IS THAT A QUESTION, MISS PLEVIN?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, IT'S NOT A QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S NOT ARGUE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WERE YOU AWARE, PRIOR TO YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. MAYO IN THIS AIRPLANE IN 1981, THAT MR. CORYDON HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE MISSION OF RIVERSIDE IN 19787

A. NO.

Q. AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, HE HAD BEEN ATTEMPTING TO GET A BOARD OF REVIEW SO THAT HE COULD BE CLEARED OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE AND BE RETURNED TO HIS MISSION?

A. NO.

Q. WERE YOU AWARE THAT SOMETIME IN OCTOBER OF 1981, THERE WAS A BOARD OF REVIEW WHICH DID CLEAR HIM OF THE FINDINGS OF THE PRIOR COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE, WHICH WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN OFF POLICY AND THEREFORE PERMITTED TO RETURN TO RIVERSIDE AS MISSION HOLDER AND ED?

MR. HERTZBERG: ARE YOU AWARE OF ALL THE ABOVE THAT MISS PLEVIN -THE WITNESS: AND IN THE TIME FRAME OF ON THE AIRPLANE?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THAT?

A. ALL I WAS AWARE OF, AND -- AT THAT TIME IN THE AIRPLANE, NO, NONE OF IT, NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM

(RECESS TAKEN.)

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS NOTED, I THINK OFF THE RECORD PREVIOUSLY, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS ON OR OFF THE RECORD, THE AIR CONDITIONING HAS GONE OUT AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE FEELING THE BAD EFFECTS OF IT, INCLUDING THE COURT REPORTER, WHO WAS KIND ENOUGH TO AGREE TO STAY UNTIL 6 O'CLOCK, BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE QUITE POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SO WE WILL BE ADJOURNING FOR TODAY.

MY QUESTION TO MR. DRESCHER IS: IS THERE SOME WAY WE CAN CONFIRM REGARDING TOMORROW SO THAT WE CAN COMMENCE IN A TIMELY FASHION REGARDING WHETHER THE AIR CONDITIONING IS GOING TO BE ON OR OFF?

MR. DRESCHER: I HAVE NO IDEA. ALL WE KNOW IS THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT SAID FOR THE REMAINDER OF TODAY. SO BASED ON THAT LANGUAGE -- THE ANNOUNCEMENT I GUESS SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE ON IN THE MORNING. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAD A PROBLEM, OKAY? MS. PLEVIN: IS THERE SOME WAY WE CAN CHECK ON THAT EARLY ENOUGH TO MAKE ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENTS IF NECESSARY? COULD YOU CONFIRM WHETHER, FOR EXAMPLE, AT 8:00 O'CLOCK IT'S BACK ON SO T[IAT IF NECESSARY, WE MAKE ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENTS?

MR. DRESCHER: I DIDN'T PLAN TO GET IN QUITE THAT EARLY.

MS. PLEVIN: FROM CALLING FROM HOME OR SOMETHING.

MR. DRESCHER: THE ANSWER IS NO, I DON'T KNOW WHO TO CALL. IN GENERALLY IN ABOUT 9:00.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S CONVENE HERE, IF I CAN MAKE THE SUGGESTION, AT THE APPOINTED TIME, WHICH IS 10 O'CLOCK. IN THE OFF CHANCE THAT THE AIR CONDITIONING IS NOT WORKING, WE'LL ADDRESS WHAT WE DO FROM THERE, OKAY?

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. DRESCHER: ACCORDING TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT, IT SHOULD BE ON.

MS. PLEVIN: SO WE'LL PICK UP HERE AT 10 O'CLOCK TOMORROW.

(WHEREUPON, AT 5:20 P.M., THE DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE WAS ADJOURNED.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

I, DAVID MISCAVIGE, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

EXECUTED THIS DAY OF , 1990, AT , CALIFORNIA.

DAVID MISCAVIGE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

I, DAWSHA LAYLAND BAKER, C.S.R. NO. 5166, IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY: THAT, PRIOR TO BEING EXAMINED, THE WITNESS NAMED IN THE FOREGOING DEPOSITION, TO WIT, DAVID MISCAVIGE, WAS BY ME DULY SWORN TO TESTIFY THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH; THAT SAID DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN DOWN BY ME IN SHORTHAND AT THE TIME AND PLACE THEREIN NAMED, AND THEREAFTER REDUCED TO TYPEWRITING UNDER MY DIRECTION, AND THE SAME IS A TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF SAID PROCEEDINGS; I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE EVENT OF THE ACTION. WITNESS MY HAND THIS 3rd DAY OF AUGUST 1990.

CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA