Deposition of David Miscavige, the Witness, July 19, 1990 - Part 2

From David Miscavige Go Home
Revision as of 11:01, 30 January 2008 by Admin (Talk | contribs) (from http://www.lisamcpherson.org/cos/dm26.htm)

(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 2

)

INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., ) (PAGES 313-625)

DEFENDANTS. )

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

DEPOSITION OF:

DAVID MISCAVIGE FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1990 10:15 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 10:15 A. M., FRIDAY, JULY 20, 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: BENT CORYDON MARTY RATHBUN

INDEX

WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE DAVID MISCAVIGE

BY MS. PLEVIN 6

(P.M. SESSION) 122

EXHIBITS

NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION

3 190 HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 OCTOBER, 1962

4 238 EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE OF 2 APRIL, 1979

5 248 "ETHICS & EXPANSION," THE MAGAZINE OF THE SEA

ORGANIZATION, ISSUE 10

6 256 HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 AUGUST, 1960

7 260 HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY, AD10

8 271 PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN, 27 MAY, 1955

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1990; 10:15 A.M.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT ON THE RECORD. I WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT MR. MISCAVIGE WAS HERE WITH HIS COUNSEL AT 10:00 O'CLOCK READY TO PROCEED. MS. PLEVIN: AS WERE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. WHY DON'T YOU PLEASE --

MR. HERTZBERG: THEN I GUESS THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE WAITED FOR THE COURT REPORTER.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE. WOULD YOU SWEAR THE WITNESS, PLEASE.

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

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T GO FORWARD TODAY WITH YOUR BEST TESTIMONY? YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH SLEEP? YOU AREN'T UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS?

A. NO.

Q. YOU'RE FEELING WELL?

A. NO. I'M FINE.

Q. AS WELL AS CAN BE EXPECTED?

A. SURE.

Q. OKAY. GOOD. BEFORE WE PROCEED I'M HANDING YOU THREE SUBPOENAS (INDICATING). ONE IS FOR A DEPOSITION IN THE JUDICIAL COORDINATION PROCEEDING, CARMICHAEL VERSUS CORYDON AND JENTZSCH VERSUS CORYDON, OCTOBER 1, 1990, 10:00 A.M.; A DEPOSITION IN THE CASE OF

AZANARAN VERSUS THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CALIFORNIA, ET AL., WITH WITNESS FEE ATTACHED, JULY 31, 1990 AT 10:00 A.M.; AND A TRIAL SUBPOENA FOR THE AZANARAN CASE.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, BEFORE WE PROCEED --

MS. PLEVIN: YOU HAVE RECEIVED THOSE.

MR. HERTZBERG: BEFORE WE PROCEED, MISS PLEVIN -MS. PLEVIN: EXCUSE ME.

Q. YOU HAVE RECEIVED THOSE, MR. MISCAVIGE, HAVE YOU NOT? I HAVE HANDED YOU THESE DOCUMENTS.

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN --

MS. PLEVIN: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE WITNESS REFUSES TO ANSWER. COUNSEL HAS TOLD HIM NOT TO ANSWER WITH A GESTURE.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, MISS PLEVIN, FIRST OF ALL, THE FACT THAT YOU DID THIS CONFIRMS, IN MY VIEW, EXACTLY WHAT THE REAL PURPOSE OF THIS DEPOSITION WAS, WHICH WAS TO CONTINUE HARASSMENT OF MR. MISCAVIGE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. YOU ARE ACTING AS THE AGENT FOR THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE, IN THROWING THESE PAPERS ON THE TABLE; IS THAT IT?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS. I'M SERVING MR. MISCAVIGE.

MR. LIEBERMAN: WE CONSIDER THIS AN ABUSIVE OF PROCESS.

MR. HELLER: YES.

MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE YOU DO.

MR. LIEBERMAN: THE ENTIRE DEPOSITION, OBVIOUSLY --

MR. HERTZBERG: IT HAS BEEN AN ABUSE.

MR. LIEBERMAN: THE USE OF IT FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSES TO OBTAIN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE MR. MISCAVIGE HERE IS OBVIOUSLY AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND WE WILL ACT APPROPRIATELY.

MR. HERTZBERG: INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED, TO GOING TO THE COURT IN THIS CASE TO LET THE COURT KNOW WHAT THIS DEPOSITION WAS ALL ABOUT AND WHAT YOUR REAL PURPOSE WAS IN THIS DEPOSITION. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE AN ACT IN THE UTMOST BAD FAITH, UTMOST BAD FAITH.

MR. DRESCHER: I WILL CONCUR WITH THAT. YOUR REFUSAL TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION WHETHER YOU WERE SERVING AS AN AGENT FOR THE COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THE TWO CASES MENTIONED -- BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING MR. CORYDON OR ANYTHING; YOU'RE ACTING INDEPENDENTLY AS A PROCESS SERVER. I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO AN EXPLANATION. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RESPOND?

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. DRESCHER: ARE YOU HERE AS COUNSEL FOR MR. CORYDON NOW? MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. DRESCHER: ARE YOU HERE AS COUNSEL FOR MR. CORYDON NOW? MS. PLEVIN: I BELIEVE SO.

MR. DRESCHER: AS OPPOSED TO A CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVER? I WANT TO KNOW IF WE HAVE A DEPOSITION OR NOT.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M GOING FORWARD WITH THE DEPOSITION.

MR. HERTZBERG: WERE YOU SERVING THESE AS COUNSEL FOR MR. CORYDON?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. MR. MISCAVIGE HAS BEEN SERVED WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS. MR. MISCAVIGE HAS MADE HIMSELF UNAVAILABLE FOR SERVICE, AND AN ORDER WAS ISSUED TO SERVE HIM BY PUBLICATION. MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN IN THIS CASE?

MS. PLEVIN: IN THIS CASE, AND --

MR. LIEBERMAN: AT THIS TIME?

MR. HERTZBERG: FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T AGREE THAT MR. MISCAVIGE WAS UNAVAILABLE FOR SERVICE. SECONDLY -- IN THIS CASE.

SECONDLY, WHETHER HE WAS OR WAS NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF YOUR ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR PARTIES IN OTHER LITIGATION AND USING THE NOTICING OF THIS DEPOSITION AS A SUBTERFUGE TO ATTEMPT TO SERVE PROCESS ON A DEPONENT IN A CASE IN WHICH YOU'RE NOT COUNSEL.

MR. HELLER: TWO CASES.

MR. HERTZBERG: IN SEVERAL CASES IN WHICH YOU'RE NOT COUNSEL BECAUSE YOU HAVE WHAT YOU PERCEIVE TO BE A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE THROUGH THE NOTICE THAT YOU ISSUED FOR MR. MISCAVIGE'S DEPOSITION IN THIS CASE.

I'LL FURTHER NOTICE THAT IF YOU HAD STUCK TO RELEVANT QUESTIONS YESTERDAY, THIS DEPOSITION COULD HAVE BEEN OVER. WHAT -- MY PERCEPTION -- WE INTEND TO GO TO THE COURT ON THIS -- IS THAT PROBABLY THE PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR THIS DEPOSITION AT ANY TIME, AND MOST PARTICULARLY OUR COMING BACK TODAY, AFTER ALL THE TIME WASTED YESTERDAY ON IMMATERIAL, IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS, WAS SO THAT YOU, IN COORDINATION WITH OTHER ATTORNEYS IN OTHER CASES IN WHICH YOU'RE NOT COUNSEL, COULD ACT AS AN AGENT FOR AN ATTEMPTED SERVICE OF PROCESS.

I THINK IT'S ABUSIVE, AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS UP IN ALL THE APPROPRIATE FORMS. IT ALSO FURTHER COLORS MY PERCEPTION OF WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE AND NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THIS DEPOSITION TODAY.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DEPOSITION.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT YOU -- THE VERY FACT -- AN ADDED ELEMENT OF BAD FAITH IN THIS IS YOU SAW FIT TO MAKE A RECORD IN THIS CASE. YOU WAITED UNTIL THE COURT REPORTER GOT HERE, IN THE CORYDON LITIGATION, AND YOU DECIDED TO MAKE A TRANSCRIPT AND TO ASK MR. MISCAVIGE QUESTIONS IN THE GUISE OF THE DEPOSITION IN THE CORYDON CASE, WHICH YOU INSISTED THAT HE ANSWER ABOUT YOUR SERVICE OF PROCESS, YOU'RE ACTING AS A PROCESS SERVER, MISS PLEVIN.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DEPOSITION.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. ASK SOME QUESTIONS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ALL RIGHT. MR. MISCAVIGE, YESTERDAY, I SHOWED YOU AN RTC INFORMATION LETTER DATED JULY 23, 1983, A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT WHICH YOU OBSERVED DID NOT HAVE COPYRIGHT INDICATIONS AFTER THE SIGNATURE. THE COPY I BROUGHT YESTERDAY SLIGHTLY CUT OFF THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE. WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE, PLEASE, AND SEE IF IT HAS THE COPYRIGHT DESTINATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS WAS A DOCUMENT HE IDENTIFIED AS NEVER HAVING SEEN BEFORE AS I RECALL; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DRESCHER: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M ASKING HIM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT.

Q. DOES THIS REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT?

A. NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q. WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO BEST IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: OBJECTION.

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. HELLER: OBJECTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC, REGARDING A DOCUMENT ISSUED UNDER THE COPYRIGHT OF RTC, WHO WOULD BE BEST BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT?

MR. HELLER: IT STILL CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MS. PLEVIN: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU HAVE TO GUESS, DON'T GUESS.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. MY COMMENT WAS ON PAGE 2. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S NO INITIALS; AND THEREFORE, NOBODY COULD.

IF THERE WERE INITIALS THERE AS THERE ARE ON ANY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, I WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL YOU, BUT I CAN'T. THAT IS NOT A COMPLETE DOCUMENT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A COMPLETE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT. MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S FINE.

Q. YESTERDAY WE ALSO LOOKED AT --

A. AND FURTHER TO SHOW YOU, JUST TO SUPPORT WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE OTHER DOCUMENT YOU HANDED ME, YOU CAN SEE INITIALS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE; MAYBE THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION. Q. LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT WHICH WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY AS CONTAINING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE REMARKS AT A MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE IN OCTOBER OF 1982 -- AND WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CONTENT AND STATEMENTS IN THAT TRANSCRIPT. MR. HELLER: I'LL MOVE TO STRIKE THAT ENTIRE PREFATORY STATEMENT. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE ASK A QUESTION. LET'S NOT GET INTO EDITORIALIZING WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY; WE HAVE A RECORD OF THAT.

MS. PLEVIN: WE DID NOT MARK THIS DOCUMENT YESTERDAY. I INTEND TO MARK IT AS THE NEXT IN ORDER TODAY.

Q. IS THIS THE DOCUMENT WE WERE REFERRING TO YESTERDAY, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN, IS THIS -- YOU WANT HIM TO LOOK AND TRY TO GUESS WHETHER THIS IS THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT YOU SHOWED HIM YESTERDAY?

MS. PLEVIN: HE CAN LOOK AT THE PORTIONS THAT HE LOOKED AT YESTERDAY, FINE.

MR. HELLER: WELL, I ALSO HAVE AN OBJECTION BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "IS THIS THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO YESTERDAY?"

OF COURSE, I LEAVE THIS TO MR. HERTZBERG BECAUSE IT'S HIS CLIENT, BUT I BELIEVE QUITE A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WERE REFERRED TO YESTERDAY. THE QUESTION IS UNINTELLIGIBLE. HOW CAN HE ANSWER IT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, IS THIS A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT PROCEEDING WHICH WE -- AND A TRANSCRIPT OF WHICH WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION YESTERDAY?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE. WHAT PROCEEDING ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

MS. PLEVIN: THE MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE IN 1982, IN OCTOBER.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: IN SAN FRANCISCO.

THE WITNESS: YOU WANT THE ANSWER? NO. THAT WASN'T ON IT (INDICATING). THAT'S A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. WELL, CHART NO. 3 WAS NOT ON IT?

MR. LIEBERMAN: NO.

THE WITNESS: SO YOU CHANGED THE DOCUMENT. NEXT TIME TELL ME. THAT'S NOT THE SAME ONE. I'M GOING TO REFUSE TO -- IF YOU WANT ME TO IDENTIFY IT, I'LL READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW --

MS. PLEVIN: FINE, GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: -- AND I'LL TELL YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHILE HE'S READING, SO I CAN TRY TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH TIME -- HOW WE ARE GOING TO SPEND OUR TIME IN THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF TIME --

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE A GREAT AMOUNT OF QUESTIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO ASK YOU: ARE YOU INTENDING TO REVISIT THINGS --

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- YOU WENT OVER YESTERDAY?

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE NO INTENTION OF IT. I SIMPLY WANT IT MARKED FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO IT YESTERDAY.

MR. HELLER: WHY DON'T YOU MARK IT?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN YOU FORGOT TO MARK AN EXHIBIT YESTERDAY?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: SHE KNOWS SHE ADDED THAT, AND SHE DIDN'T COMMENT ON IT. SHE'S VERY SNEAKY. SO I HAVE TO READ IT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL NOT RESPOND TO THAT.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE TO READ 40 PAGES.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: FINE. THE RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF, MISS PLEVIN, THAT, OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A PAGE IN THE DOCUMENT YOU GAVE MR. MISCAVIGE THIS MORNING WHICH WAS NOT IN THE DOCUMENT YESTERDAY, AND YOU -- IMMEDIATELY, WHEN YOU WERE CALLED ON IT, YOU TORE

IT OFF. THE RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HELLER: NOW, THIS IS YOUR TIME, TOO, MISS PLEVIN, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S INSISTING, FOR SOME REASON, THAT HE READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT INSISTING THAT HE READ THE DOCUMENT. I SUGGESTED HE LOOK AT THE PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, PAGES 3 AND 26.

MR. HELLER: NO. YOU WANT HIM TO SAY THAT IT'S THE DOCUMENT YOU DISCUSSED WITH HIM YESTERDAY, AFTER THE REALIZATION THAT YOU ADDED ONE THING ON IT. NOW YOU'RE COMPELLING HIM TO READ -MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HELLER: -- THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF SITTING HERE WHILE HE READS 40 PAGES.

MR. HELLER: FINE.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL WITHDRAW THE REQUEST. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: FINE. OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE NO INTENTION OF CREATING THAT PROBLEM. THE OMISSION YESTERDAY OF THE THIRD CHART -- I'M TAKING MR. MISCAVIGE AT HIS WORD THAT THAT WAS NOT PART OF IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE NOT DISPUTING IT THOUGH?

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE NO BASIS TO DISPUTE IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WILL ADD --

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL NOT -- I WILL NOT DISPUTE IT. I ASKED HIM TO AUTHENTICATE IT. I WILL NOT DISPUTE IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WILL ADD THAT I DIDN'T SEE IT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL NOTE, BY THE WAY, THAT IT'S THE VERY LAST PAGE OF A DOCUMENT WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF 40 PAGES OF TEXT THAT --

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT MAY WELL BE. NOW, I WILL ADD THAT A LARGE PART OF THE QUESTIONING THAT YOU DID ON THIS DOCUMENT WHICH YOU FORGOT TO IDENTIFY YESTERDAY, IF IT IS THE SAME DOCUMENT, HAD TO DO WITH THE CHARTS AND WHAT WAS ADDED ONTO --

MR. HELLER: THIS DOCUMENT --

MS. PLEVIN: ONE CHART.

MR. HERTZBERG: MAY I FINISH, PLEASE? WHAT WAS ADDED ONTO THIS CHART -- ONTO THIS DOCUMENT, MISS PLEVIN, WAS A CHART. SO I CONSIDER IT -- TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE ALTERATION OF THIS DOCUMENT, I CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF A CHART MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN VIRTUALLY ANYTHING YOU COULD HAVE DONE TO SHOW MR. MISCAVIGE A DOCUMENT DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE YOU SHOWED HIM YESTERDAY WHILE ASKING HIM TO CONFIRM THAT IT WAS THE SAME DOCUMENT SO YOU COULD MARK IT FOR IDENTIFICATION BECAUSE YOU FORGOT TO MARK IT FOR IDENTIFICATION YESTERDAY AND THEN MAINTAIN, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, THAT THE DOCUMENT -- THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENT YOU SHOWED HIM TODAY WAS THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT YOU SHOWED HIM YESTERDAY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I JUST --

MS. PLEVIN: I HAD --

MR. LIEBERMAN: I WANT TO ADD THAT I HAVE CHECKED A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU HANDED ME YESTERDAY, AND IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE THIRD PAGE. MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. LIEBERMAN: THE CHART.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE THIRD CHART AND WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL REFERRED TO YESTERDAY, IN ANY CASE I'VE WITHDRAWN IT. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF CREATING A PROBLEM. MR. HERTZBERG: THEN LET'S MOVE ON.

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. HERTZBERG: THEN LET'S MOVE ON.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I WANT TO CLARIFY -- LET ME ASK A QUESTION IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY BECAUSE I THINK I MISSTATED IT YESTERDAY. BETWEEN 1980 AND THE DEATH OF MR. HUBBARD, AT ANY TIME DID YOU MEET WITH AN INTERMEDIARY ON BEHALF OF MR. HUBBARD, SPECIFICALLY PAT BROEKER, WHO AT THE TIME YOU MET WITH HIM, YOU BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MR. HUBBARD FOR YOU -- OR TO YOU?

MR. HELLER: ARE YOU GOING FIRST, MR. HERTZBERG?

MS. PLEVIN: THERE IS EXTENSIVE COLLOQUY.

MR. DRESCHER: THERE IS NO COLLOQUY WHATSOEVER.

MR. HERTZBERG: THERE IS NO COLLOQUY. GO AHEAD, RESPOND TO THE QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER: THERE IS CONSULTATION BETWEEN TWO COUNSEL WHO ARE REPRESENTING THE WITNESS. MS. PLEVIN: AND THERE IS A CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND THE WITNESS.

MR. HERTZBERG: FOR ABOUT TEN SECONDS NOW HE'S BEEN READY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WAS TRYING TO -- AND I'LL MAKE -- THE ANSWER IS "NO." I'M GOING TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT SAID TO MR. LIEBERMAN, MY CO-COUNSEL IN THIS CASE. BECAUSE YOU'RE REVISITING AN AREA THAT YOU COVERED EXTENSIVELY YESTERDAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION HADN'T BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED BEFORE.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE, GOOD.

MR. HERTZBERG: AND HAVING DETERMINED THAT, I TOLD MR. MISCAVIGE TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER IT, AND HE SAID, "NO."

MS. PLEVIN: VERY GOOD.

Q. NOW, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD WHILE YOU WERE -- AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, IN WRITING, EITHER BY TYPED COMMUNICATION OR TELEX REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA? A. AFTER I -- I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT QUESTION. YOU SAID, "AFTER I WAS BRIBED AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS?" IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

Q. NO. NO, AFTER YOU -- I'M SORRY.

A. COULD YOU GIVE ME THE QUESTION AGAIN? I'M SORRY, I MISSED IT. I GOT STUCK THERE.

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE READ IT BACK.

(RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS: "QUESTION: NOW, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD WHILE YOU WERE -- AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, IN WRITING, EITHER BY TYPED COMMUNICATION OR TELEX REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA?")

THE WITNESS: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: CONFERENCE.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD, IN WRITING, EITHER BY TELEX OR TYPEWRITTEN FORM, REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF OTHER SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS OR CORPORATIONS AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS? A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "OTHER," BY THE WAY. AND DEFINE FOR ME YOUR TERM "MANAGEMENT" AND "OTHER." YOU SAID, "OTHER." OTHER THAN WHAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Q. OTHER THAN THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CALIFORNIA.

A. I DON'T GET THE QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE READ THE QUESTION BACK.

(RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS: "QUESTION: DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD, IN WRITING, EITHER BY TELEX OR TYPEWRITTEN FORM, REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF OTHER SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS OR CORPORATIONS AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS?") MS. PLEVIN: CONFERENCE --

MR. HELLER: DO YOU AUTOMATICALLY --

MS. PLEVIN: -- BETWEEN WITNESS AND COUNSEL.

MR. HELLER: -- NOTE IF THERE'S A CONFERENCE?

THE REPORTER: YES.

MR. HELLER: SO IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SAY THAT EVERY TIME.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY "MANAGEMENT." YOU DEFINE FOR ME "MANAGEMENT."

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND "MANAGEMENT" TO MEAN, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HELLER: NO. NO.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. WOULD YOU, PLEASE, EXPLAIN THE QUESTION?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT "MANAGEMENT" MEANS?

A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY "MANAGEMENT" WHEN YOU USE THAT TERM. YOU ALSO ASKED ME NUMEROUS THINGS.

Q. OKAY.

A. I'M QUITE WILLING TO ANSWER IF YOU MAKE IT CLEAR TO ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

Q. I'M READING FROM "THE COMMAND CHANNELS OF SCIENTOLOGY," A BOOKLET COPYRIGHTED BY CSI IN 1988, WHICH WAS ALSO IN DISCUSSION YESTERDAY, WHICH DEFINES, FROM AN LRH ESSAY ON MANAGEMENT, THE FOLLOWING, "MANAGEMENT COULD BE SAID TO BE THE PLANNING OF MEANS TO ATTAIN GOALS AND THEIR ASSIGNATION FOR EXECUTION TO STAFF AND THE PROPER COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE GROUP TO ATTAIN MAXIMAL EFFICIENCY WITH MINIMAL EFFORT TO ATTAIN DETERMINED GOALS."

A. SO I'VE READ THE ESSAY ON MANAGEMENT; IS THAT YOUR QUESTION?

Q. NO.

A. I'VE ALSO READ THIS BOOK WHICH IS 1988, WHICH IS EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING ME. I'M NOT SURE WHAT -- WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW? Q. USING THAT DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT, MR. MISCAVIGE, DO YOU --

A. OKAY. GIVE ME THAT.

Q. THERE YOU GO (INDICATING).

A. WHEN ARE YOU ASKING ME THIS?

Q. THERE'S THE DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT. YOU'VE ASKED WHAT THE MEANS.

A. NO. NO. I'M ASKING WHEN. YOUR QUESTION DOESN'T --

Q. ALL RIGHT.

A. WHAT TIME FRAME? WHEN ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

Q. I'M ASKING, SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR ARRIVAL AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS. MISS COURT REPORTER, WOULD YOU, PLEASE, READ BACK THE QUESTION?

(RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS: "QUESTION: DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD, IN WRITING, EITHER BY TELEX OR TYPEWRITTEN FORM, REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF OTHER SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS OR CORPORATIONS AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS?") THE WITNESS: WHEN? JUST THEN?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS UNTIL HIS DEATH.

A. ANY? YES.

Q. ABOUT HOW MANY?

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T GUESS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MORE THAN TEN?

A. YOU TELL ME EXACTLY -- I DON'T GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU -- WHAT EXACTLY YOU'RE WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT THIS. I'M GOING TO BE EXTREMELY PRECISE HERE.

YOU SAY ABOUT MANAGEMENT. SO IF I READ THIS DEFINITION, LIKE ABOUT THIS PARAGRAPH, I DON'T KNOW THAT I RECEIVED ANY.

Q. NO, ABOUT THE CONCEPT WHICH THAT PARAGRAPH DEALS --

A. WELL, THIS --

Q. -- WITH, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. THIS IS A CONCEPT.

Q. I REQUEST THAT YOU RESPOND --

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT, WAIT.

THE WITNESS: THIS IS A CONCEPT OUT OF AN ESSAY ON MANAGEMENT. NOW, IF YOU'D LIKE -- DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE ESSAY ON MANAGEMENT WHICH WE PROBABLY SHOULD READ HERE JUST SO WE'RE NOT -- SO WE HAVE A COMPLETE -- THIS, OBVIOUSLY, WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR THIS DEPOSITION. THIS WAS WRITTEN FOR --

MS. PLEVIN: MR. MISCAVIGE --

THE WITNESS: -- SCIENTOLOGISTS.

MR. HERTZBERG: WOULD YOU LET HIM FINISH? HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. HE'S ASKING YOU SOMETHING SO THAT WE CAN CLARIFY THIS AND MOVE ON; SO HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. HE'S TRYING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT A PARAGRAPH OUT OF THIS, AND I THINK --

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: I THINK IF YOU HAVE THE ESSAY ON MANAGEMENT, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING, AND MAYBE I COULD -- IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I CAN PROBABLY ANSWER IT MORE EASILY.

I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS A PRETTY -- THIS ISN'T A DOINGNESS. THIS IS A STATEMENT, A CONCEPT. YOU'RE READING TO ME ABOUT A CONCEPT? I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT I WILL CONSIDER THIS A FAILURE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND, THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO COMPEL. NOW, I WILL TRY TO GIVE YOU A DIFFERENT DEFINITION --

MR. DRESCHER: WAIT.

MS. PLEVIN: -- AND PERHAPS WE CAN MAKE --

MR. DRESCHER: WAIT A MOMENT. THIS IS A FAILURE TO PHRASE A QUESTION THAT THE WITNESS UNDERSTANDS. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A MOTION TO COMPEL A PROPER QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. DRESCHER: I WISH THERE WERE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I'LL TRY TO PHRASE A DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT WHICH PERHAPS YOU CAN WORK WITH, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR A DEFINITION. I'M ASKING EXACTLY WHAT DOES YOUR QUESTION MEAN? YOU WERE ASKING ME A QUESTION THAT I CONSIDER ABOUT AS GENERAL AS, "DID ANYBODY EVER SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT LIFE?" I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT'S A BIG, BROAD, GENERALITY.

I WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT I'M NOT TRYING NOT TO ANSWER THIS. I AM QUITE WILLING TO ANSWER THIS.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WHEN YOU USE SCIENTOLOGY TERMINOLOGY OR SCIENTOLOGY SCRIPTURES AND DISTORT THEM. I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND LET YOU ALTER THEM OR ADD TO THEM. I KNOW IT -- I KNOW FAR MORE ABOUT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE CHURCH THAN YOU DO, AND I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE YOU PULL IT OUT AND FALL INTO THAT GAME.

AND FURTHERMORE, I'M GOING TO BE EXTREMELY PRECISE SINCE YOU HAVE ALREADY HANDED ME A DOCUMENT IN THIS DEPOSITION WHERE YOU ABSOLUTELY ADDED A PAGE TO IT: WE'RE BOTH AWARE YOU DID. IT WAS NOT THERE, AND NOW I'M ON MY TOES BECAUSE I, QUITE FRANKLY, CAN'T TRUST THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME -- I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO ASSUME THAT I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME PRECISELY, AND I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT I UNDERSTAND AND THAT IS STATED CLEARLY.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOUR QUESTIONS ARE GARBLED TO ME. YOU THROW AROUND SCIENTOLOGY TERMINOLOGY, AND YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. I WANT TO KNOW YOUR DEFINITION, AND MAYBE I CAN ANSWER IT. YOU PULLED OUT ONE PARAGRAPH THERE OF A VERY, VERY LONG WRITING BY MR. HUBBARD. IF YOU HAVE THAT WRITING, I'LL READ IT. JUST SO I'M CLEAR.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE FINISHED?

THE WITNESS: WELL, I THINK YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ASK THE A QUESTION, AND I'M GOING TO ANSWER IT.

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU WHILE YOU'RE ON A ROLL.

THE WITNESS: GOOD. THANK YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU FINISHED?

MR. HELLER: HE STOPPED. HE'S FINISHED. NOW, STOP DOING THINGS FOR EFFECT.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE'S TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

MR. HELLER: ASK YOUR QUESTION, MISS PLEVIN.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE'S TRYING TO ANSWER.

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S TRY TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT THAT WE CAN BOTH CAN LIVE WITH.

MR. HELLER: THE JOB IS NOT HIM COMING UP WITH IT.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS IS NOT A --

MR. HELLER: THE JOB IS YOU DEFINING IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS IS NOT A GAME. THIS IS NOT A GAME FOR HIM. JUST TELL -- HE'S EXPLAINED TO YOU WHAT HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND. I THINK THE CORE OF WHAT MR. MISCAVIGE -- BECAUSE I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. LISTEN TO ME NOW. THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM WAS, I THINK, WHEN MR. MISCAVIGE INDICATED TO YOU THAT YOU WERE ASKING DID HE EVER SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT MANAGEMENT IS TANTAMOUNT TO ASKING SOMEBODY, "DID HE EVER SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT LIFE?"

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I THINK IF YOU COULD BE MORE SPECIFIC, WE'LL WASTE LESS TIME.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MANAGEMENT MEANS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTION --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- THE OVERALL PLANNING, DIRECTION, EVALUATION, EXECUTION OF PROJECTS AND PLANS OF AN ORGANIZATION.

A. OKAY. NOW, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IT IS I DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND YET. YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION OR CORPORATION AND TO THAT I ASK YOU: CAN YOU SHOW ME EVALUATIONS YOU'VE EVER DONE FOR YOUR CORPORATION? CAN YOU EVEN DEFINE THEM FOR ME? THAT IS WHERE I HAVE THE PROBLEM. SO I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

Q. YOU SAID YOU --

A. I THINK THERE'S VARIOUS PEOPLE -- I ASSUME THAT YOU'RE PART OF A CORPORATION OR YOU HAVE YOUR OWN CORPORATION. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF FOR THAT CORPORATION IF YOU HAVE PLANS, PROGRAMS, IF YOU HAVE EVALUATIONS, AND MAYBE WE CAN GET SOMEWHERE ON THIS. YOUR QUESTION ASKS SO MANY DIFFERENT ITEMS, I WANT TO KNOW PRECISELY WHAT IT IS YOU WANT TO KNOW.

Q. ALL RIGHT.

A. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DOINGNESS, ABOUT THE SCIENTOLOGY TECHNOLOGY?

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU GOING TO INSTRUCT YOUR CLIENT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, MR. HERTZBERG? MR. HERTZBERG: HE IS ANSWERING --

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY, SUBJECT TO YOUR FRAMING A QUESTION THAT HE UNDERSTANDS. THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE. MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. YOU STATED YOU DID RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS IN WRITING FROM MR. HUBBARD ABOUT THIS SUBJECT; PLEASE IDENTIFY THOSE.

MR. HELLER: WHAT SUBJECT?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, HE INDICATED THAT HE'S NOT SURE -- WHEN YOU SAY, "THIS SUBJECT," I ASSUME YOU'RE REFERRING TO YOUR BROAD USE OF THE WORD MANAGEMENT, WHICH YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SPECIFY TO HIS UNDERSTANDING; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? MS. PLEVIN: NO. I AM REFERRING TO MANAGEMENT WHICH I -- WHICH MR. MISCAVIGE REFUSES TO ACCEPT --

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: -- A REASONABLE STATEMENT IN ENGLISH AS TO WHAT IT MEANS; AND, THEREFORE --

MR. HERTZBERG: IT'S NOT A REASONABLE --

MS. PLEVIN: HE'S REFUSING TO ANSWER. ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO THIS --

THE WITNESS: LET ME ASK YOU, THEN, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "COMMUNICATIONS"? TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY "COMMUNICATIONS," AND I THINK WE CAN GET SOMEWHERE HERE.

I'M QUITE WILLING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. I'M QUITE UNWILLING TO ANSWER A QUESTION WHEREBY YOU HAVE SOME MEANING OR DUBIOUS MEANING OR YOU'RE TRYING TO GIVE ME A DEFINITION AND CALL IT OFFICIAL CHURCH DEFINITIONS WHEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A CLUE.

NOW, YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT, AND I'LL ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT HERE TO INITIATE WHAT YOU MEAN BY YOUR QUESTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD COMMUNICATION MEANS?

A. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT BECAUSE I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION ON THIS RECORD. IT'S GOING TO BE THAT I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AND YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT QUESTION AND YOU'RE GOING TO DESCRIBE LATER WHAT IT MEANS. SO I WANT TO KNOW RIGHT NOW WHAT IT MEANS, AND I WILL ANSWER IT.

Q. A STATEMENT --

A. I THINK YOU AND I HAVE DIFFERENCES OF DEFINITIONS. WE CAME UP WITH TWO OR THREE YESTERDAY. Q. FINE.

A. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS.

Q. THIS --

A. LET ME ASK YOU: DO YOU MEAN LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, ANY -- OKAY. A COMMUNICATION, ANY WRITING ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS; IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? IS THAT GOOD? IS THAT A GOOD DEFINITION FOR US TO AGREE UPON? Q. WELL, I THINK AT THIS POINT THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT I INTEND, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU INTEND.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S NOT --

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S CLARIFY.

MR. HERTZBERG: FORGET WHAT YOU THINK HE INTENDS BECAUSE THAT'S IMMATERIAL.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHY DON'T YOU JUST TELL US WHAT YOU INTEND?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, A COMMUNICATION FROM MR. HUBBARD TO YOU ON ANY SUBJECT WOULD BE A COMMUNICATION DIRECTED TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THAT AND NOT HIS PREVIOUS WRITINGS.

A. OKAY. WELL, THERE'S ONE MISUNDERSTANDING I HAD. YOU SAID, "COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD." I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT TO ME.

Q. THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION WAS, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. SO DIRECTED TO ME.

Q. THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION WAS. THE QUESTION WAS: DID YOU RECEIVE ....

A. OKAY. TO ME. YES.

Q. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT THOSE WERE, PLEASE?

A. ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF A TAPE --

MR. LIEBERMAN: WAIT.

THE WITNESS: -- CALLED "RON'S JOURNAL 38."

MR. DRESCHER: WAIT A SECOND.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO CONFER FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE MY CLIENT IS NOT CONFUSED.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL COUNSEL AND THE CLIENT ARE LEAVING THE DEPOSITION ROOM.

MR. DRESCHER: ARE YOU GOING OFF THE RECORD NOW?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. DRESCHER: OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE YOU CONTINUED TO TALK WHEN WE STARTED TO LEAVE.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU READY TO PROCEED, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. DO YOU WANT ME TO COMPLETE MY ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT. I'M GOING TO ALLOW MR. MISCAVIGE TO RESPOND TO THE PENDING QUESTION INSOFAR AS THIS TOPIC HASN'T BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED BEFORE, YESTERDAY; IN OTHER WORDS, INSOFAR AS HE HASN'T ALREADY IDENTIFIED COMMUNICATIONS IN HIS TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE STIPULATION THAT WE MADE YESTERDAY IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS IN THE SAME AREA THAT HE MAY RESPOND WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNICATIONS DEALING WITH BENT CORYDON, SQUIRRELS, MISSIONS, OR THE FOURTH CATEGORY THAT YOU ADDED YESTERDAY, ABOUT HIS POWER WITHIN THE CHURCH.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: SUBJECT TO THAT LIMITATION.

THE WITNESS: THIS IS WITHIN THAT LIMITATION. "RON'S JOURNAL 38" -- AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS CALLED "TODAY AND TOMORROW: THE PROOF," AND THAT TAPE WAS SENT TO ME ASKING ME IF I COULD, PLEASE, TAKE THIS TAPE AND GET IT COPIED OFF SO IT COULD BE SENT OUT TO SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD, AND IT DEALT WITH MANAGEMENT WITHIN THAT TAPE WHEREBY IT TALKED ABOUT, BASICALLY, TECHNICAL MATTERS AND SCIENTOLOGY AS RELIGION LOOKING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU DO SO?

A. WHAT, GET THE TAPE OUT? Q. YES.

A. YES, I DID.

Q. WAS IT TRANSCRIBED, OR DID YOU MAKE COPIES OF THE TAPE?

A. THE TAPE WAS COPIED. YEAH, THERE'S THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF COPIES. TRANSCRIBED? I DON'T RECALL. Q. DO YOU KNOW IF COPIES OF THAT TRANSCRIPT ARE STILL AVAILABLE?

A. I JUST SAID I DON'T KNOW IF TRANSCRIPTS WERE MADE.

Q. I'M SORRY. OKAY. BUT IS "THE PROOF" STILL AVAILABLE IN SOME FORM?

A. DO YOU MEAN THE TAPE?

Q. YES.

A. THE CASSETTE?

Q. YES.

A. YES.

Q. ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTED TO YOU FROM MR. HUBBARD REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR ARRIVAL AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS? MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN OTHER THAN --

MS. PLEVIN: OTHER THAN THESE TWO.

MR. HERTZBERG: OTHER THAN WHAT HE JUST TESTIFIED TO?

MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: OTHER THAN WHAT HE MAY HAVE IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, AND WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE FOUR LIMITATIONS THAT WE STIPULATED TO?

MS. PLEVIN: NO. I'M NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THE LIMITATIONS OF THOSE FOUR. I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MANAGEMENT WHICH WAS NOT ONE OF THE FOUR CRITERIA WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY. MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. SO YOU NOW -- YOU'RE GOING OUTSIDE THE STIPULATION FROM YESTERDAY?

MS. PLEVIN: I DIDN'T AGREE TO THAT STIPULATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE RECORD WILL REFLECT --

MS. PLEVIN: YOU PUT THE LIMITATION THAT HE ANSWER THE QUESTION, AND I AGREED TO LET HIM ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THAT FORM. I DIDN'T AGREE TO WITHDRAW MY QUESTION AS TO GOING FORWARD WITHOUT -MR. HERTZBERG: THE RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

MS. PLEVIN: -- THOSE LIMITATIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING -- FOR HIM TO TESTIFY NOW ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS OUTSIDE THOSE FOUR CATEGORIES?

MS. PLEVIN: YES, I AM.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. AND THE SAME INSTRUCTION AS TO THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

MR. LIEBERMAN: WHAT'S THE QUESTION? "THE SAME INSTRUCTION AS TO THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?"

MS. PLEVIN: I'M GOING TO ASK HIM A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, MR. HERTZBERG, REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS FROM L.R.H. SUBSEQUENT TO MR. MISCAVIGE'S ARRIVAL AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, IN WRITING, IN PERSON, AND THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY REGARDING, AS I HAVE, THE MANAGEMENT OF SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS, THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE, THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF WISE, THE PURPOSE OF WISE, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SMI, THE SEA ORG, AND THE BOOK I CAMPAIGN.

NOW -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME INSTRUCTION AS TO ALL, LET'S HAVE THAT FOR THE RECORD AND MOVE ON.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. I WILL NOT DO THINGS THAT WAY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE RECORD TO BE DISTORTED. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION, AND THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RESPOND ON A QUESTION-BY-QUESTION BASIS. SO LET'S GET ON WITH IT. MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE --

A. YES.

Q. SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME YOU WENT TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS --

THE WITNESS: DO YOU MIND IF I SMOKE, IS THIS GOING TO BOTHER YOU?

THE REPORTER: NO.

THE WITNESS: GOOD. THANK YOU.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD, EITHER IN PERSON, IN WRITING, OR THROUGH INTERMEDIARY REGARDING THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

MR. HERTZBERG: SHE'S JUST ASKING YOU -- READ THAT AGAIN.

MS. PLEVIN: READ THE QUESTION BACK.

(RECORD READ.)

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU CAN ANSWER THAT "YES" OR "NO."

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT COMMUNICATIONS DID YOU RECEIVE.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT.

MR. LIEBERMAN: SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT MR. MISCAVIGE THAT HE MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE FOUR CATEGORIES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED ON THE RECORD.

MS. PLEVIN: HE CAN DO SO, BUT I WILL RESERVE MY RIGHT TO COMPEL AS TO FURTHER ANSWERS.

Q. LET'S TAKE THE FOUR CATEGORIES FIRST, THAT'S BENT CORYDON.

A. NO.

Q. SQUIRRELS.

A. NO.

Q. THE MISSIONS.

A. NO.

Q. AND YOURSELF AND YOUR POTENTIAL POWER IN THE FUTURE.

A. NO, AND I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THOSE ARE REFERENCING COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE --

Q. RIGHT.

A. -- IN THOSE FOUR CATEGORIES.

Q. RIGHT. TO CLARIFY, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD -- PERHAPS YOU HAVE ASSUMED THIS ALREADY. WHEN I SAY, "BENT CORYDON," I'M ALSO REFERRING TO THE BOOK "L.R. HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR MADMAN"; NOW, THAT HASN'T BEEN MADE EXPRESS. SO PERHAPS WE SHOULD FOR THE FUTURE. MR. DRESCHER: WELL, I'LL OBJECT TO THAT BEFORE THERE'S ANY RESPONSE FROM ANYBODY; THAT'S A LEAP OF FAITH.

MS. PLEVIN: OH, I --

MR. DRESCHER: AND THAT'S ONE THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE ASSUMED BY ANYONE THINKING LOGICALLY IN A DEPOSITION.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT GOING TO -- THAT'S PRECISELY WHY I MENTIONED IT, I --

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU MEAN HENCEFORTH?

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL NOT HARKEN TO THAT. I MEAN HENCEFORTH.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: I MEAN, HE MAY HAVE LUMPED THE TWO TOGETHER. I'M NOT ATTEMPTING TO, YOU KNOW, BACKTRACK.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. FINE. SO HENCEFORTH, WHEN WE SAY "BENT CORYDON," WE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT TO INCLUDE BENT CORYDON'S BOOK, WHICH, OF COURSE, CAME OUT AFTER MR. HUBBARD WAS DEAD, BUT SO IT WOULD BE A LITTLE HARD FOR MR. MISCAVIGE TO HAVE COMMUNICATED IN

WAY WITH MR. HUBBARD ABOUT A BOOK THAT CAME OUT AFTER MR. HUBBARD WAS DEAD, BUT WE'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE GUARDIAN -- WE'RE ON -(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE, YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS ON ANY OF THOSE FOUR AREAS?

A. AS ANSWERED, THAT'S RIGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. I WILL REPEAT FOR THE RECORD THAT MY QUESTION IS BROADER THAN THAT AND RESERVE A RIGHT COMPEL AS TO THAT.

Q. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD EITHER IN PERSON, IN WRITING OR THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY FROM THE TIME YOU MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS UNTIL THE TIME OF MR. HUBBARD'S DEATH REGARDING WISE, THE WORLD INSTITUTE OF SCIENTOLOGY ENTERPRISES, OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WISE AND ITS PURPOSE?

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO INTERJECT AN ADDITIONAL INQUIRY HERE. HOW IS WISE RELEVANT? THEY'RE NOT A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE; CORRECT? MS. PLEVIN: YOU CAN INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER. I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO IT.

MR. HELLER: WELL, MAKE A PROFFER OF RELEVANCE --

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU KNOW --

MR. HELLER: -- FOR US.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE'RE BACK TO THESE COMPLETELY ANCILLARY INQUIRIES.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: ARE YOU NOT STATING FOR THE RECORD WHY YOU'RE ASKING MR. MISCAVIGE ABOUT AN ENTITY THAT IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS LITIGATION AND THAT MR. CORYDON DOES NOT CLAIM DID ANYTHING TO HIM?

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT THE ALTER EGO THEORY EMBRACES ANY OF THE ENTITIES ON THE SCIENTOLOGY COMMAND CHART, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE, THAT IS MY REASON FOR ASKING THE QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION FOR THE RECORD, THEN. I'M GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO ANSWER SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS. I NOW THINK THAT I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU THINK ALL THESE BROAD AND IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS CAN BE ASKED. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU PUT A BOILERPLATE ALLEGATION IN A COMPLAINT WITH THE MAGIC WORDS "ALTER EGO" IN THEM THAT YOU CAN ASK ABOUT ANY ENTITY WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT ENTITY IS MENTIONED IN THE COMPLAINT OR NOT. WE'LL SEE WHERE THAT ONE COMES OUT. MR. MISCAVIGE, YOU MAY ANSWER THE PENDING QUESTION SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION ON THE FOUR CATEGORIES.

MR. LIEBERMAN: WELL, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE RECEIVED --

MR. HERTZBERG: WHETHER HE RECEIVED ANY; THAT'S A "YES" OR "NO." MS. PLEVIN: DO YOU WANT THE QUESTION READ BACK?

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU, PLEASE?

(RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS: "QUESTION: DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD EITHER IN PERSON, IN WRITING OR THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY FROM THE TIME YOU MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS UNTIL THE TIME OF MR. HUBBARD'S DEATH REGARDING WISE, THE WORLD INSTITUTE OF SCIENTOLOGY ENTERPRISES, OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WISE AND ITS PURPOSE?")

MR. HERTZBERG: YES OR NO.

THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T -- IS THIS SUBJECT TO THESE FOUR CATEGORIES? MS. PLEVIN: WELL, FIRST IF YOU DID AND THEN --

MR. HERTZBERG: DID YOU RECEIVE?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT "RECEIVE" MEANS. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, DID I RECEIVE? DID HE WRITE TO ME ABOUT THIS; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME? MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S WHAT SHE'S ASKING YOU.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: I THINK HE UNDERSTANDS YOUR QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE ANSWER IS NO.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY?

MR. HERTZBERG: THE ANSWER IS NO.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BY TELEX OR IN WRITING OR TYPED --

MR. LIEBERMAN: THIS IS DIRECTED TO MR. MISCAVIGE?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. -- DIRECTED TO MR. MISCAVIGE IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY FROM L. RON HUBBARD FROM THE TIME YOU MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS TO THE TIME OF MR. HUBBARD'S DEATH REGARDING AUTHORS SERVICES, INC.? A. CAN I CLARIFY THIS OR ASK YOU A QUESTION? YOU KEEP REFERRING TO SOMETHING, FROM THE TIME I MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS. HOW DO YOU WANT ME TO CATEGORIZE THAT?

Q. AH, WELL, BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY --

A. I MEAN, I TAKE THAT THAT YOU -- YOU KNOW -- BASED ON MY TESTIMONY -- GO AHEAD, I'M SORRY.

Q. BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, YOU PUT THAT AT APPROXIMATELY 1980 OR THE END OF '79.

A. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

Q. YES.

A. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. REGARDING AUTHORS SERVICES?

Q. YES.

A. OF COURSE.

Q. WHAT COMMUNICATIONS DID YOU RECEIVE?

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. HE MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION OF THE FOUR CATEGORIES.

MISS PLEVIN, I ASSUME THAT WE CAN AGREE NOW FROM THE PRIOR RECORD, WHEN I SAY, "THE FOUR CATEGORIES," THAT EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE FOUR CATEGORIES ARE.

MS. PLEVIN: AS LONG AS MR. MISCAVIGE DOES, OF COURSE, I DO --

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT.

THE WITNESS: REGARDING MISSIONS, BENT CORYDON, MY POWER.

MS. PLEVIN: SQUIRRELS.

THE WITNESS: OR SQUIRRELS?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: ABOUT ASI, NO.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. AND NOTING FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM NOT STIPULATING TO ACCEPT THOSE LIMITATIONS AND RESERVING MY RIGHT TO COMPEL AS TO FURTHER RESPONSE.

MR. HELLER: NOTING FOR THE RECORD THAT YESTERDAY YOU DID.

MR. LIEBERMAN: YES.

MR. HELLER: AND NOTING FURTHER, BY THE WAY, THAT YOU --

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HELLER: -- THAT WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS A COMPANY WHICH HAS BEEN MY CLIENT WHICH HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER IN ORDER TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, MANAGE THE LITERARY AFFAIRS OF MR. HUBBARD. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT -- NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE TO COMPEL ALL COMMUNICATIONS AT THE TIME THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THAT CORPORATION -- ALL COMMUNICATIONS, NOW, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE TO COMPEL FROM MR. HUBBARD CONCERNING HIS LITERARY AFFAIRS TO THE PERSON WHO WAS RUNNING THE CORPORATION OR HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE CORPORATION CONCERNING HIS LITERARY AFFAIRS; FINE. GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. THAT SHOWS THE LUDICROUSNESS OF THIS WHOLE LINE OF YOU SAYING THAT UNDER THIS ALTER EGO BOILERPLATE YOU CAN GET ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD, EITHER IN PERSON, IN WRITING, OR THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY FROM THE TIME YOU MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS REGARDING THE FORMATION OF ASI, AUTHORS SERVICES, INC.? MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH COMMUNICATIONS DEALT WITH THE FOUR AREAS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED.

THE WITNESS: WELL, NO, OF COURSE NOT.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM MR. HUBBARD, EITHER IN PERSON, IN WRITING, OR THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY, FROM THE TIME YOU MOVED TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS UNTIL THE TIME OF MR. HUBBARD'S DEATH REGARDING THE SEA ORG? MR. LIEBERMAN: THIS IS AGAIN DIRECTED TO MR. MISCAVIGE?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. LIEBERMAN: THAT'S "YES" OR "NO."

THE WITNESS: REGARDING SEA ORG? I CAN'T RECALL THAT NOW.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. GOING BACK FOR A MOMENT TO THE TAPE YOU REFERRED TO AS "THE PROOF" --

A. NO, IT'S CALLED "TODAY AND TOMORROW," COLON, "THE PROOF."

Q. OKAY, THANK YOU.

A. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE TITLE OF IT. IT'S "RON'S JOURNAL 38."

Q. DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHEN YOU RECEIVED THAT, WHAT YEAR?

A. LET'S SEE. WHEN WAS THAT? I BELIEVE IT CAME OUT FOR NEW YEARS, 1984. SO SOMETIME BEFORE THAT.

Q. AND WAS THAT, IN ESSENCE, MR. HUBBARD'S NEW YEARS ANNOUNCEMENT OR NEW YEARS GREETINGS?

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER: I DON'T EITHER.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN YOU WANT HIM TO GUESS WHETHER THAT WAS A GREETING -- THAT WAS MR. HUBBARD'S GREETING?

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T WANT HIM TO GUESS, MR. HERTZBERG.

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE ASKING HIM TO DETERMINE THE OPERATION OF MR. HUBBARD'S MIND --

MR. HELLER: IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- WITH RESPECT TO NEW YEARS.

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL WITHDRAW IT.

Q. HOW DID YOU -- WHO DID YOU DIRECT TO COPY THE TAPE AND DISTRIBUTE IT?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE WORD "DIRECT"?

Q. WELL, TO WHOM DID YOU TURN OR TO WHAT ENTITY DID YOU TURN TO FOLLOW OUT THE REQUEST OF MR. HUBBARD? I ASSUME YOU DIDN'T DO THE MANIPULATION OF COPYING THE TAPES YOURSELF.

A. THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, MY ROLE IN IT WAS JUST SIMPLY TO LISTEN TO THE COPIES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE GOOD COPIES COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL.

WHO DID I DIRECT? WELL, THE TAPE WAS COPIED BY GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS. YOU ASKED ME WHO DID I DIRECT. IF I USE YOUR WORD -- AND JUST SO I CAN CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY "DIRECT," I TAKE IT YOU MEAN BY DIRECT, LIKE I WENT AROUND AND "YOU DO THIS. YOU DO THIS. YOU DO THIS. YOU DO THIS." I WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER NOBODY. I GAVE THE TAPE TO THESE PEOPLE WHO DEAL WITH THAT EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND THEY KNOW ALL ABOUT THAT.

Q. OKAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU AN OFFICER OF GOLDEN ERA? A. NO.

Q. WERE YOU AN OFFICER OF GOLDEN ERA AT THE TIME YOU RECEIVED THE TAPE? A. NO.

Q. WERE YOU ON THE BOARD OF GOLDEN ERA AT THE TIME YOU RECEIVED THE TAPE? A. THE BOARD?

Q. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: AND THAT'S ASSUMING, MISS PLEVIN -- BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S A FOUNDATION FOR THIS -- THAT THERE IS A BOARD. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S A BOARD?

A. DO I KNOW IF THERE'S A BOARD?

Q. A BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

A. NO, I DON'T KNOW.

Q. ARE YOU ON THE ORG BOARD OF GOLDEN ERA?

A. NO.

Q. WERE YOU THEN?

A. NO.

Q. AT ANY TIME FOLLOWING YOUR MOVING TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATION FROM MR. HUBBARD, EITHER IN PERSON, IN WRITING, VIA TELEX OR TYPEWRITTEN COMMUNICATION OR THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY REGARDING THE BOOK I CAMPAIGN? MR. LIEBERMAN: ONCE AGAIN THIS IS DIRECTED TO MR. MISCAVIGE?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: "YES" OR "NO."

THE WITNESS: JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU ASKED ME ABOUT THE BOOK I CAMPAIGN?

MS. PLEVIN: CORRECT.

THE WITNESS: ABOUT THE BOOK I CAMPAIGN? YOU'LL HAVE TO DESCRIBE TO ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. DO YOU MEAN JUST BOOK I; IS THAT WHAT --

MR. HERTZBERG: ASK HER TO CLARIFY. DON'T SUGGEST.

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. REGARDING THE CAMPAIGN -- LET'S BACK UP. AT THE OCTOBER, 17, 1982 MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A DISCUSSION REGARDING A BOOK CAMPAIGN TO PUSH, SELL, "DIANETICS MODERN .... MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH." A. RIGHT.

Q. DO YOU RECALL THAT THERE WAS SUCH A DISCUSSION?

A. NO, I DON'T. CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE IT IS?

Q. WOULD YOU LOOK, PLEASE, AT PAGE 32? AND IF YOU WISH, TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE COPY THAT MR. LIEBERMAN WAS REFERRING TO, WHICH IS THE EXACT COPY I BROUGHT YESTERDAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHOA.

MS. PLEVIN: AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT HAVING CHECKED THAT THE COPY WAS IDENTICAL ON BOTH, THE ONE I BROUGHT YESTERDAY AND THE ONE I BROUGHT TODAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: JUST --

MS. PLEVIN: PAGE 32.

MR. HERTZBERG: JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, MISS PLEVIN, WE ARE NOT ACQUIESCING TO YOUR REPRESENTING -- IN VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE, WE ARE NOT ACQUIESCING TO YOUR REPRESENTATION THAT WHAT HE IS LOOKING AT NOW IS AN EXACT COPY OF --

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- WHAT HE LOOKED AT YESTERDAY.

MS. PLEVIN: WHAT HE IS LOOKING AT NOW IS THE COPY MR. LIEBERMAN HAD WITH HIM YESTERDAY, WHICH HE REPRESENTED WAS FROM YESTERDAY; AND AGAIN, WHETHER YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT, IT WAS IN ERROR, AND I'M OFFERING MY APOLOGIES. YOU CAN IGNORE THEM IF YOU WISH. MR. HERTZBERG: FINE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON THE PAGE, MR. MISCAVIGE -- ACTUALLY, STARTING AT THE END OF THE NEXT TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH: "YOU'RE ALL GOING TO SIGN YOUR 5 PERCENT MINIMUM CGI DONATION TO THIS DMSMH CAMPAIGN," AND THEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, "YOU'RE GOING TO GET DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY HOUSEHOLD WORLD" AND SO FORTH.

A. THAT'S "WORD."

Q. SORRY.

A. YOU SKIPPED A PARAGRAPH, TOO.

Q. SORRY. I INDICATED I WAS GOING DOWN TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT -- TO HIM ABOUT SOMETHING SOMEBODY ELSE SAID; RIGHT?

MR. HELLER: THAT IS RIGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPLICIT INITIALLY THAT YOU WERE IMPLYING THAT MR. MISCAVIGE SAID THIS, BUT LET'S -- JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING MR. MISCAVIGE SAID. MS. PLEVIN: CORRECT.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: THIS WAS AT THE CONFERENCE PRESENTED BY WENDELL REYNOLDS.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. I SEE WHERE YOU'RE READING THERE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT THIS DMSMH CAMPAIGN.

A. DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS HERE?

Q. WHY DON'T YOU READ THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS, AND PERHAPS IT WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING THAT CONFERENCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PENDING QUESTION IS.

THE WITNESS: I'M NOT EITHER.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: GREAT PREDICTION THERE.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. NOW, I AM USING --

A. THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE USING?

Q. -- BOOK I CAMPAIGN TO REFER TO THE DMSMH CAMPAIGN.

A. YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE CONTENT OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS.

Q. THE CONTENT OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS.

A. THE CONTENT OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS, NO.

Q. OKAY.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, WHEN YOU WERE FIRST APPOINTED TO THE POSITION OF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 1987, DO YOU KNOW WHO -- WHO WERE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AT THAT TIME?

A. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT QUESTION MEANS. I'M SORRY.

Q. OKAY. YOU WERE APPOINTED TO THE CHAIRMAN -- TO THE POSITION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC IN 1987.

A. YES.

Q. WHO WERE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU RECALL?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT A MOMENT.

THE WITNESS: WHO WERE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. DRESCHER: HAD THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO COMPEL CONCERNING THE IDENTITY OF THE DIRECTORS TO WHOM YOU MAKE REFERENCE COME UP AS SCHEDULED, WE WERE PREPARED TO THAT PARTICULAR ONE TO IDENTIFY THE DIRECTORS FOR YOU. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO SO. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY AT THIS TIME TO PROLONG THIS PLAYING A TEST OF MEMORY GAME. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THOSE NAMES.

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T CONCEDE THAT THAT IS THE PURPOSE. IT IS, NEVERTHELESS, VALID. ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER WHO THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE IF HE RECALLS? MR. HERTZBERG: IN WHAT YEAR?

MS. PLEVIN: WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED IN 1987.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU REMEMBER.

THE WITNESS: AS LONG AS THIS ISN'T A TEST OF MY MEMORY. I MEAN --

MS. PLEVIN: SURE.

THE WITNESS: -- MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT WAS VICKI AZANARAN, JESSE PRINCE, WARREN MCSHANE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU STATED THAT YOU -- AT THAT TIME YOU, NORMAN STARKEY, AND LYMAN SPURLOCK WERE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RTC.

A. NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

Q. OKAY. WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A. I SAID --

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT A MOMENT. "WHAT DID YOU SAY?"

MS. PLEVIN: I THINK THE RECORD WILL STAND FOR ITSELF THAT HE SAID HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE CHAIRMAN -- POSITION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC BY THE TRUSTEES WHOM HE IDENTIFIED TO BE NORMAN STARKEY, LYMAN SPURLOCK, AND HIMSELF. THE WITNESS: PRECISELY.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE QUESTION YOU ASKED.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S MOVE ON.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES -- OF THE TRUSTEES, THOSE THREE PEOPLE?

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE FUNCTION? WAIT A MOMENT.

MR. DRESCHER: TO THE EXTENT IT CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION OF LAW --

MR. HERTZBERG: YEAH.

MR. DRESCHER: WE'LL INTERPOSE THAT OBJECTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: YEAH.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES?

MR. DRESCHER: SAME OBJECTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: SAME OBJECTION. I THINK IT CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MS. PLEVIN: LET --

MR. HERTZBERG: ALSO, THERE IS NO BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE TESTIMONY, MISS PLEVIN, WAS TRUSTEES.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE TRUSTEES, AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT TO BE?

MR. DRESCHER: SAME OBJECTION.

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

MR. HERTZBERG: I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING YET.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO ALLOW MR. MISCAVIGE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION TO THE EXTENT (A) THAT HE UNDERSTANDS IT, AND (B) THAT IT DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY CONFIDENCES OBTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONSULTATION.

MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE.

THE WITNESS: SO THE QUESTION WAS?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE TRUSTEES?

A. OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY, "FUNCTION," LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT, JUST BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH THIS YESTERDAY.

Q. WHAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THEIR ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY?

A. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, APPOINTING OR REMOVING.

Q. OKAY. WERE YOU ONE OF THE INCORPORATORS OF RTC?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED YESTERDAY.

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

MR. DRESCHER: IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT, IT CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION.

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE I WAS. YOU'D HAVE TO CHECK THE ACTUAL INCORPORATION PAPERS.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR HE'S ANSWERING THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF A LAYPERSON BECAUSE WHAT SOMEBODY IS OR WHETHER SOMEONE IS AN INCORPORATOR OR NOT HAS A LEGAL MEANING.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY -- AGAIN, IF THIS IS AN INCORRECT SUMMATION, I'M SURE YOU'LL TELL ME. I JUST WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. WITH REGARD TO CONSULTING ATTORNEYS AS TO CERTAIN PROBLEMS THAT YOU PERCEIVED NEEDED ADDRESSING --

MR. HERTZBERG: IS THAT A QUESTION?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. -- YOU STATED THAT -- AT ONE POINT YOU STATED THAT THE CLIENT IN THAT COMMUNICATION WAS CSC; DO YOU RECALL THAT?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT A MOMENT.

MR. HELLER: THAT'S NOT A PROPER QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW ANYONE COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT MISS PLEVIN IS REFERRING TO?

THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T.

MS. PLEVIN: THE RECORD WILL STAND FOR ITSELF.

Q. THE ATTORNEYS THAT YOU CONSULTED -- YOU RECALL WE DISCUSSED YOUR CONSULTING ATTORNEYS YESTERDAY?

MR. LIEBERMAN: IN WHAT CONTEXT?

MS. PLEVIN: IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEMS HE PERCEIVED AS A SCIENTOLOGIST REGARDING MATTERS HE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SPECIFY UPON INSTRUCTION OF COUNSEL.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: I THINK HE DID SPECIFY THEM.

MS. PLEVIN: THERE WERE SOME -- I STAND CORRECTED. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION.

Q. OBVIOUSLY, MR. MISCAVIGE, YOU RECALL THAT AREA OF INQUIRY?

MR. HELLER: SEE, NOW I OBJECT TO HAVING -- IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DEPONENT, ASK A QUESTION INSTEAD OF --

MS. PLEVIN: WELL --

MR. HELLER: -- ASKING IF HE RECALLS WHAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS YESTERDAY. YOU HAVE A RECORD. THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. IF YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION, ASK YOUR QUESTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU RECALL THAT AREA OF DISCUSSION, WITHOUT GOING INTO SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS?

MR. DRESCHER: DO YOU --

THE WITNESS: IT'S A TRICK QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER: -- RECALL IT TAKING PLACE; IS THAT THE QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: YES, THAT'S THE QUESTION.

Q. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

MR. HELLER: DO YOU RECALL IT EVER COMING UP?

THE WITNESS: SOMEWHAT I RECALL THAT HAVING TAKEN PLACE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHO WERE THE ATTORNEYS YOU CONSULTED?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CONSULTED," WHICH IS YOUR WORD, NOT MINE?

Q. WHO WERE THE ATTORNEYS YOU SPOKE TO?

A. GIVEN THAT THAT'S A DIFFERENT DEFINITION -- OKAY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT "SPOKE TO" NOW. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. PREVIOUSLY YOU USED THE WORD "CONSULTING."

MR. HELLER: IN REGARD TO WHAT?

MR. LIEBERMAN: WHEN? WHERE? HOW? WHAT?

MR. HELLER: EXACTLY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHEN? WHERE? HOW? WHAT?

MR. HERTZBERG: THE RECORD IS TOTALLY UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT TIME FRAME, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. IT'S COMPLETELY IMPRECISE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU RECALL THAT AREA OF TESTIMONY, MR. MISCAVIGE, THAT YOU CONFERRED WITH ATTORNEYS?

MR. HELLER: WELL, THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED TWO SECONDS AGO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. I'M ASKING: WITH WHAT ATTORNEYS DID YOU CONFER?

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. WAIT A MOMENT. WAIT A MOMENT. YOU'RE GOING FROM A VAGUE, "DO YOU RECALL SOME MENTION OF CONSULTING WITH ATTORNEYS?" NOW --

MR. LIEBERMAN: I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL MENTIONS OF CONSULTING WITH ATTORNEYS.

MR. HERTZBERG: EXACTLY, THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT'S WHY HE CAN ANSWER --

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HELLER: THAT'S WHY WHEN --

MR. LIEBERMAN: WHEN? WHERE? WHAT? I MEAN -- IF YOU CAN SPECIFY: WHEN? WHERE? WHAT? GIVE US A TIME FRAME.

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, WHEN I TRIED TO, I RECEIVED THE OBJECTION THAT I'M -- IT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED, AND I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO PROVIDE A MANNER FOR A JUMPING-OFF POINT.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I JUST DON'T REMEMBER.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: AND APPARENTLY THE WITNESS DOESN'T REMEMBER.

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, HE DID UNTIL HE WAS -- UNTIL IT WAS SUGGESTED BY COUNSEL --

MR. LIEBERMAN: I REMEMBER THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT --

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. THE QUESTION WAS --

MR. LIEBERMAN: -- DISCUSSION WITH ATTORNEYS, AND I REMEMBER THERE WERE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONSULTING WITH ATTORNEYS.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL REFRAME IT.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL ATTEMPT TO REPHRASE TO MAKE IT CLEAR.

MR. HERTZBERG: AND BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO REPHRASE TO MAKE IT CLEAR, NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ANYTHING TO THE WITNESS.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. DO YOU RECALL THAT YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU CONSULTED ATTORNEYS AND YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE OF CSC AND THAT'S WHO THE CLIENT WAS WITH WHOM -- ON BEHALF OF WHICH YOU WERE CONSULTING ATTORNEYS?

A. AS STATED, NO.

Q. ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION, THEN? SO WE CAN PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE AND MOVE ON.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. THAT QUESTION IS --

MR. HELLER: THAT'S NOT PROPER.

MR. HERTZBERG: IT'S NOT A PROPER QUESTION. "WHAT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION?" PLEASE ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. WHAT ATTORNEYS DID YOU CONSULT WITH?

MR. HELLER: WHEN? WHO? WHAT? HOW? WHERE?

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL LET THE QUESTION STAND; THE RECORD WILL REFLECT, PRECISELY, WHAT CONTEXT WE WERE REFERRING TO. I'M ASKING WITH WHICH ATTORNEYS, WHAT FIRMS HE'S CONSULTED.

MR. HELLER: AGAIN, DO YOU WANT A LIST OF THE ATTORNEYS?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. LIEBERMAN: I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT -- I REMEMBER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONSULTING WITH ATTORNEYS. I REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS AN ANSWER AT ONE POINT THAT HE DID SO ON BEHALF OF CSC, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE CONTEXT WAS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE WITNESS DOES OR NOT.

MS. PLEVIN: HE ONLY ANSWERED --

MR. LIEBERMAN: IF THE WITNESS REMEMBERS PRECISELY WHAT THE CONTEXT WAS, THEN HE CAN ANSWER.

MS. PLEVIN: THERE'S ONLY ONE REFERENCE OF CONSULTING WITH ATTORNEYS ON BEHALF OF CSC, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. MR. LIEBERMAN: BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE CONTEXT WAS.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: IF THE WITNESS DOES, FINE. THEN, IF HE DOESN'T, YOU'LL HAVE TO SPECIFY IT. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DON'T IDENTIFY IT FOR HIM, WHAT THE CONTEXT WAS. MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE.

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

MR. HELLER: WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE QUESTION READ BACK SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR IT AGAIN?

THE WITNESS: YEAH.

MR. HELLER: DO YOU NEED THAT, DAVE?

THE WITNESS: OR SHE CAN TELL ME.

MR. HELLER: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE'S GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHEN HE UNDERSTANDS IT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY THAT YOU CONSULTED ATTORNEYS AT A TIME -- IN THE CAPACITY OF BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF CSC AND THAT CSC WAS THE CLIENT.

A. THAT'S NOT -- I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING THE CONFERENCE YESTERDAY ON THE RECORD, NO, BUT -- ALL RIGHT. I REMEMBER THE AREA.

Q. OKAY. WITHOUT -- I DON'T INTEND TO LEAD --

A. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU JUST LET YESTERDAY BE WHATEVER IT SAID.

Q. RIGHT.

A. IF WE AGREE ON THAT.

Q. IN THAT AREA -- I DON'T INTEND TO MISCHARACTERIZE YOUR TESTIMONY.

A. I DON'T RECALL NECESSARILY THIS IS WHAT, EIGHT YEARS AGO.

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHO YOU RETAINED?

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. WAIT. WAIT, "RETAINED"?

MR. DRESCHER: I DON'T BELIEVE --

MR. HERTZBERG: HE DIDN'T SAY, "RETAIN." HE SAID HE CONSULTED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I'M ASKING: DID YOU RETAIN AN ATTORNEY?

MR. DRESCHER: WELL, I'M GOING TO OBJECT BECAUSE THE WITNESS WASN'T FINISHED WITH HIS ANSWER TO THE PRECEDING QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SORRY, MR. MISCAVIGE.

THE WITNESS: ON THE PRECEDING QUESTION, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T RECALL NECESSARILY EVERY NAME. I DO RECALL, I BELIEVE, LLH&M, MAYBE CHRIS COBB -- JUST ONE SECOND. (ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: THAT'S IT.

MS. PLEVIN: FOR THE RECORD, LLH&M REPRESENTS LENSKE, LENSKE, HELLER AND --

THE WITNESS: AND MAGNUSON.

MS. PLEVIN: AND MAGNUSON.

Q. AFTER YOU CONFERRED WITH COUNSEL, DID YOU DISCUSS -- WELL, LET ME STRIKE THAT. WHEN YOU CONFERRED WITH LLH&M, DID YOU -- WAS ANYBODY ELSE WITH YOU BESIDES COUNSEL? MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN ON EVERY OCCASION?

MR. HELLER: IF THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. DID YOU DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF YOUR CONFERENCES WITH LLH&M WITH OTHER PERSONS AT CSC?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THE RESULTS"? I DON'T UNDERSTAND'.

Q. THE CONTENT, RATHER THAN THE RESULTS.

A. NO.

Q. DID CSC RETAIN LLH&M, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. I DON'T RECALL.

MR. DRESCHER: BEFORE HE ANSWERS, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT?

MR. HERTZBERG: HE DOESN'T KNOW.

MS. PLEVIN: WE'LL GO ON.

Q. DID CSC -- DID THE BOARD OF CSC EVER TAKE A VOTE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY LLH&M?

MR. HELLER: OBJECT ON RELEVANCE. IT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHY DON'T YOU LAY A FOUNDATION?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID LLH&M MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CSC, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

MR. HELLER: THAT GETS CLOSE TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I THINK IT'S OBJECTIONABLE.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW I THINK -- YEAH, THAT'S OBJECTIONABLE.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT GOING INTO SUBSTANCE AT ALL.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO? THAT IS SUBSTANCE.

MR. DRESCHER: THAT IS SUBSTANCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT IS SUBSTANCE.

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

MR. HERTZBERG: YEAH, WE'RE ASSERTING ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. I WOULD ALSO NOTE, PARENTHETICALLY, THAT I CONSIDER THIS TO BE COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL TO THIS LAWSUIT, AND WE HAVE NOW REACHED THE THRESHOLD, WHICH YOU HAVE JUST CROSSED, IN MY VIEW, OF INVADING THE -- SEEKING TO INVADE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

MR. HELLER: JOIN ON BOTH OBJECTIONS.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER? MR. HERTZBERG: YES, I AM.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE BOARD OF CSC EVER VOTE TO SPIN OUT OR REMOVE THE FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION AS AN ENTITY WITHIN CSC? MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD "SPIN OUT" MEANS.

MS. PLEVIN: TO DIVEST ITSELF.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASKING FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION NOW --

MS. PLEVIN: TO THE BEST OF MR. --

MR. HERTZBERG: -- AMONG OTHER THINGS, AND IT'S COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL TO THIS LAWSUIT WHETHER HE REMEMBERS SOMETHING OR NOT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE WITH THE CORPORATION. MR. DRESCHER: MORE THAN THAT -- I'LL JOIN IN THE RELEVANCE OBJECTIONS AND MAKE THE OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT SEEKS A LEGAL CONCLUSION.

THIRD, ASSERT THAT IT IS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AND UNINTELLIGIBLE FOR THE USE OF "SPIN OUT" OR "DIVEST" IN THIS CONTEXT.

MS. PLEVIN: THE WITNESS IS LEAVING THE ROOM.

MR. DRESCHER: FOURTH, IT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: MR. MISCAVIGE HAS JUST GONE TO THE MEN'S ROOM.

MS. PLEVIN: THANK YOU.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: THE ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION IS, I DON'T KNOW.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CSC AT THAT TIME?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT. WAIT.

MR. DRESCHER: AT THAT TIME?

MR. HERTZBERG: AT WHAT TIME?

MS. PLEVIN: AT THAT TIME, AT THE TIME THAT -- I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE LYMAN SPURLOCK IS AT THE CURRENT TIME?

A. NO, I DON'T.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE HAS BEEN AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS?

A. I THINK SO.

Q. WHERE IS THAT?

A. I THINK -- I THINK HE WAS ON A SHIP.

Q. WAS HE AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PAST SIX MONTHS?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU KNOW, MISS PLEVIN, I WOULD LIKE A REPRESENTATION FROM YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT ASKING THESE QUESTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACTING AS A PROCESS SERVER IN OTHER LAWSUITS BECAUSE I NOW HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT WHAT YOUR EXACT FUNCTION IS IN THIS

DEPOSITION.

MR. LIEBERMAN: WHAT POSSIBLE INTEREST DO YOU HAVE AS TO WHERE LYMAN SPURLOCK IS, ONLY EXCEPT AS A MEANS TO TRY TO ACT AS A PROCESS SERVER FOR OTHER ATTORNEYS? MS. PLEVIN: BECAUSE IT'S QUITE RELEVANT TO THIS LAWSUIT.

MR. HELLER: HOW SO?

MR. LIEBERMAN: WHERE -- HIS PRESENT WHEREABOUTS?

MR. HERTZBERG: HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO THIS LAWSUIT?

MS. PLEVIN: SO THAT HE COULD BE SUBPOENAED FOR THIS LAWSUIT. PLEASE READ THE COMPLAINT, MR. LIEBERMAN. I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, LET ME --

MR. DRESCHER: WELL, LET ME AS COUNSEL OF RECORD, THEN, ASK WHAT IN THE WORLD THE RELEVANCE OF MR. SPURLOCK'S PRESENT LOCATION MAY BE BECAUSE I'M MYSTIFIED. MR. HELLER: WELL, I UNDERSTAND --

MR. HERTZBERG: HE SAID --

MS. PLEVIN: I --

MR. HELLER: THE PRESENT LOCATION --

MR. HERTZBERG: HE SAID HE DOESN'T KNOW THE PRESENT LOCATION ANYWAY.

MR. HELLER: THAT'S RIGHT. NOW YOU'RE ASKING THE LAST SIX MONTHS.

MS. PLEVIN: I SEEM TO RECALL HAVING HEARD THAT SORT OF QUESTION NUMEROUS TIMES FROM COUNSEL FOR SCIENTOLOGY IN MANY, MANY DEPOSITIONS; BUT, LEAVE THAT AS IT MAY, I WILL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. I SEE THAT IT CREATES A GREAT DEAL OF PROBLEM. Q. WHERE WERE YOU LIVING IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF 1988, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS LAWSUIT. PLEASE ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION.

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

MR. HERTZBERG: IN 19 --

MS. PLEVIN: SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF 1988.

MR. HERTZBERG: GIVE ME A PROFFER AS TO WHY THAT'S RELEVANT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WERE YOU LIVING AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS IN --

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. -- OCTOBER AND SEPTEMBER OF 1988?

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. THIS IS GETTING TO BE ABUSIVE.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS DEPOSITION IS REACHING THE POINT WHERE IT'S HARRASIVE AND ABUSIVE. MR. MISCAVIGE -- THE ONLY POSSIBLE -- I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO GUESS AT WHAT POSSIBLE --

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. LET'S GO ON.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S GO ON IS RIGHT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT ARE THE CORPORATE PURPOSES OF ASI?

MR. HERTZBERG: ARE YOU ASKING FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M ASKING FOR MR. MISCAVIGE'S UNDERSTANDING.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHEN?

MR. DRESCHER: WHEN?

MS. PLEVIN: DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME HE WAS COE.

MR. DRESCHER: OKAY. I'LL OBJECT ON THE GROUNDS --

MS. PLEVIN: CEO.

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL OBJECT ON THE GROUND THAT IT CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION. FURTHER, THAT IT'S VAGUE AND UNSPECIFIC; THAT THE TERM -- IT MAY BE A TERM OR ART AND IT MAYBE NOT, BUT THAT CAN'T BE FOLLOWED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING, MR. MISCAVIGE, OF THE CORPORATE PURPOSES OF ASI WHILE YOU WERE CEO BETWEEN 1982 AND 1987?

MR. DRESCHER: SAME OBJECTION.

MR. HELLER: AND I'M GOING TO JOIN MR. DRESCHER'S --

MR. DRESCHER: SAME OBJECTIONS AS BEFORE.

MR. HELLER: -- OBJECTION AND PARTICULARLY POINT OUT "THE CORPORATE PURPOSES," I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS. IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT --

MR. HERTZBERG: HANG ON.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SORRY, WAS THERE AN INSTRUCTION NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: NO, THERE IS NOT.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN, I'M GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD NOW. IT IS ALMOST THREE MORE HOURS OF DEPOSITION OF MR. MISCAVIGE THIS MORNING. ALL WE'RE GETTING FROM YOU ARE GENERAL, VAGUE, TEST YOUR RECOLLECTION QUESTIONS. WHO WAS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS? WHAT WAS SOME CORPORATE PURPOSE? WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME CORPORATE PURPOSE? QUESTIONS LIKE THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS REACHED THE POINT OF BEING AN ABUSIVE, HARRASIVE DEPOSITION. I HAVE YET TO SEE THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE DAY AND A HALF THAT YOU'VE BEEN DEPOSING MR. MISCAVIGE; MUCH LESS SEE YOU READ SOMETHING FROM THE COMPLAINT. YOU HAVE HARDLY MENTIONED YOUR CLIENT'S NAME AT ALL. THE FIRST TIME YOU MENTIONED YOUR CLIENT'S NAME, BY THE WAY, JUST FOR THE RECORD, YESTERDAY CAME AT THREE MINUTES PAST 5:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON; I MADE A NOTE OF IT. THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THE WORDS BENT CORYDON PASSED YOUR LIPS.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GET DOWN TO THE COMPLAINT, NOT PLAY MEMORY GAMES, GAMES WHETHER A LAYPERSON UNDERSTANDS A LEGAL FUNCTION OF A CORPORATION, AND QUESTIONS OF THE LIKE. IT'S REALLY QUITE EVIDENT THAT YOU'RE BEATING AROUND THE BUSH HERE; AND HAVING FULFILLED YOUR PERCEIVED FUNCTION AS A PROCESS SERVER IN OTHER LITIGATION, UNDER THE SUBTERFUGE OF REQUIRING MR. MISCAVIGE TO COME IN AND ANSWER QUESTIONS TO THIS COMPLAINT, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU GET DOWN TO THE BUSINESS AT HAND.

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

MR. DRESCHER: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION, PLEASE?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT IS MR. MISCAVIGE'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE CORPORATE PURPOSES OF ASI?

MR. DRESCHER: IS THERE AN ULTRA VIRES THEORY SOMEWHERE IN THE COMPLAINT I MISSED?

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL TAKE OUT THE WORD "CORPORATE." WHAT IS MR. MISCAVIGE'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSES OF OFFICERS OF THE ASI? MR. DRESCHER: I'LL RESTATE THE SAME OBJECTIONS.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU CAN LET HIM ANSWER IT.

MR. DRESCHER: LET HIM ANSWER IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU CAN ANSWER IT IF YOU UNDERSTAND IT BY THE GENERAL TERM, "PURPOSES." AND THE TIME FRAME AGAIN, I ASSUME, WHICH YOU DIDN'T REPEAT, BUT WHICH YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY ARTICULATED -MS. PLEVIN: WHILE HE WAS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- WHILE HE WAS CEO.

MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE.

THE WITNESS: TO MANAGE THE PERSONAL AFFAIRS OF MR. L. RON HUBBARD AND HIS LITERARY AFFAIRS.

MS. PLEVIN: THANK YOU.

Q. NOW, WHEN WE CONCLUDED YESTERDAY, YOU HAD DISCUSSED TWO OF WHAT YOU RECALLED TO BE THREE CONVERSATIONS WITH DAVID MAYO REGARDING BENT CORYDON. LET ME GO BACK TO THOSE NOTES.

A. COULD I CORRECT THAT BY THE WAY?

Q. PLEASE.

A. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOUR.

Q. LET'S GO ON TO THE THIRD.

A. I THINK THE LAST ONE I SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT YESTERDAY WAS THE THIRD. I THINK THERE WAS ONE BEFORE THAT.

Q. OKAY.

A. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE THIRD.

Q. THE SECOND IN CHRONOLOGY; THE THIRD IN OUR DISCUSSION.

A. RIGHT.

Q. WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME?

A. SOMETIME JUST BEFORE BEING ON THE PLANE --

Q. UH-HUH.

A. MAYBE A DAY.

Q. WHERE WAS THAT?

A. THAT WAS AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

Q. WHAT WAS THE COMMUNICATION FROM MR. MAYO?

A. IT WAS ABOUT INFORMATION HE HAD ON THE ONGOING MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE AT FLAGLAND BASE AT THE SAND CASTLE HOTEL AND ALSO IN REFERENCE TO A PREVIOUS ONE THAT APPARENTLY TOOK PLACE ONE MONTH BEFORE; AND THE CONTENT OF THE DISCUSSION WAS, GENERALLY, ON

THE SUBJECT OF THE MISSIONHOLDERS AND, GENERALLY, I CAN ONLY ASSUME, THE REPORTS HE RECEIVED ON THE MISSIONHOLDERS MUTINY AND ALSO IN REFERENCE TO THE PREVIOUS CONFERENCE THAT TOOK PLACE.

I BELIEVE THE MENTION OF BENT CORYDON WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO WHAT I COMMENTED ON YESTERDAY; GENERALLY, THAT BENT'S PROBLEM -- AND HE WASN'T THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS MENTIONED. I'M JUST RECALLING BENT'S NAME HERE, UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO COMMENT ON OTHER INDIVIDUALS -- WAS GENERALLY ONE OF THE ONES WHO WERE JUST STRICTLY MONEY-MOTIVATED IN THEIR PURPOSES, AND WHAT THEY WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH AT THIS MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE WAS TO STUFF THEIR BACK POCKET AND THAT THEY MADE NO BONES ABOUT IT.

HE WAS QUITE CLEAR. WHEN HE HAD SPOKEN TO BENT, BENT MADE IT CLEAR THAT ALL HE WANTED WAS THE MONEY. HE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE HE WOULD GET RICH OFF SCIENTOLOGY; THAT WAS GENERALLY IT.

Q. WHAT WAS THE -- WAS THIS THE SOLE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONVERSATION, OR WAS THIS PART OF A LARGER CONVERSATION?

A. THAT WASN'T THE SOLE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONVERSATION. IT WAS PART OF A LARGER CONVERSATION, BUT I DON'T MEAN TO INDICATE THAT IT WAS A LARGE CONVERSATION, BUT IT WAS LARGER THAN JUST WHAT I'VE JUST COMMENTED ON. Q. WAS THIS A MEETING YOU HAD WITH MR. MAYO THAT TOOK PLACE?

A. IF YOU DEFINE "MEETING" AS WHEN PEOPLE HAPPEN TO PASS UPON EACH OTHER AND SEE EACH OTHER AND TALK TO ONE ANOTHER, YES. IF YOU MEAN SOMETHING THAT WAS PREARRANGED OR SOMETHING BEING DONE AS AN OFFICIAL PREARRANGED MEETING, NO.

Q. OKAY. SO THIS WAS A PASSING CONVERSATION?

A. NOT PASSING, BUT HE CAME AND SAW ME. WE DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN TO BE PASSING LIKE TWO BIRDS IN THE AIR. I MEAN, WE WEREN'T JUST SPEEDING ALONG IN TWO OPPOSITE CARS AND HE WAVED ME DOWN; BUT OTHERWISE, I GUESS YOUR DESCRIPTION IS ACCURATE. Q. DID THIS TAKE PLACE IN YOUR OFFICE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. NO.

Q. IN AN OFFICE OR LESS FORMAL?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, ASSUMING THAT OFFICES ARE FORMAL.

MR. HELLER: AND THAT A MEETING IS MORE FORMAL. SO TAKE THE QUESTION IN AN OFFICE.

THE WITNESS: IT WOULD BE BOTH, 50-50.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO MR. MAYO --

A. MAYBE --

Q. -- ON THIS SUBJECT?

A. 60-40.

Q. SORRY.

A. OR MAYBE 60-40.

Q. DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO MR. MAYO ON THE SUBJECT OF MR. CORYDON?

A. NO, I DIDN'T. I ACTUALLY DIDN'T -- BENT'S NAME -- I THINK THE ONLY TIME I EVER HEARD IT BEFORE THAT WAS THIS CONVERSATION THAT I MENTIONED YESTERDAY WHEREBY DAVID MAYO COMMENTED ON THIS PERSON. I HAD NO IDEA WHO HE WAS. THERE WAS OTHER NAMES BEING TALKED ABOUT THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHO THEY WERE. THESE WERE INDIVIDUALS I'D NEVER MET NOR HEARD OF, AND THAT'S NOT ALL. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE GENERAL CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT BENT CORYDON; JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, TOO, YESTERDAY BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN BY TALKING ABOUT BENT.

MY RECOLLECTION ISN'T THAT DAVID MAYO CAME TO SEE ME TO TALK ABOUT BENT. IT WAS ABOUT THE MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE. AND AS I SAID, THERE WAS A LARGER CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE.

Q. WHAT ABOUT THE FOURTH INSTANCE?

A. THE FOURTH INSTANCE WAS -- THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY, FOUR OR FIVE -- I CAN'T EXACTLY PRECISELY TELL YOU THAT. THESE ARE NOT MAJOR MOMENTS. THESE ARE NOT LIKE -- YOU ASKED ME ABOUT A FORMAL MEETING OR WHATEVER. SO THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN TWO OR THREE AT THIS POINT --

Q. OKAY.

A. -- WHEN I WAS TALKING TO MR. MAYO. THEY WERE ACTUALLY AT THE FLAGLAND BASE AT THE SAND CASTLE HOTEL IN THE VICINITY OF THE FLAGLAND BASE. Q. AFTER YOU ARRIVED WITH MR. MAYO ON THIS PARTICULAR FLIGHT?

A. CORRECT.

Q. WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT COMMUNICATION?

A. THE WHOLE SUBSTANCE OR ABOUT BENT CORYDON?

Q. AS IT RELATES TO MR. CORYDON.

A. WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE AS IT RELATES TO MR. CORYDON, MAYBE A DOZEN OR -- A DOZEN PEOPLE WERE MENTIONED. THERE WAS OTHER PEOPLE MENTIONED. YOU ONLY WANT TO HEAR WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT BENT CORYDON? I JUST DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SOUND AS IF WHEN I RELAY THIS IF I ONLY MENTION BENT'S NAME THAT THAT'S ALL THAT WAS MENTIONED. SO --

Q. WELL --

A. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WHOLE CONVERSATION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "AS IT RELATES TO BENT CORYDON."

Q. OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT MR. CORYDON? THEN WE CAN PUT IT IN CONTEXT.

A. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT THE MISSIONHOLDERS MUTINY. THE CONTENT -- IT WAS NOT A MEETING ABOUT BENT CORYDON. THE CONTENT -- IS THAT CLEAR WHAT YOU WANT?

Q. THAT'S FINE.

A. SO WHEN I ANSWER THIS, IF YOU WANT TO HEAR OTHER -- IF YOU WANT TO KNOW IF THAT WAS THE ENTIRETY OF THE CONVERSATION, I JUST WANT IT CLEAR THAT I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I RECALL IN THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT BENT CORYDON. I THINK BENT CORYDON'S NAME WAS MENTIONED ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS IN A SIMILAR CONTEXT TO THIS. THE CONTENT OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS THAT -- WE ARRIVED AT FLAGLAND BASE. IT WAS VERY ODD BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE ON THE AIRPLANE, DAVE WAS TELLING ME ABOUT THESE REPORTS HE WAS RECEIVING, YOU

KNOW, THE ONES I MENTIONED YESTERDAY ABOUT THE BASEBALL BATS, AND THE MONEY AND OTHER VARIOUS THINGS SUCH AS ASSIGNING JUSTICE ACTIONS TO THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE.

THE WHOLE MATTER SEEMED UTTERLY, UTTERLY, UTTERLY BIZARRE TO ME. IT WAS JUST -- ACTUALLY -- I WAS SO UNBELIEVABLY NAIVE. I WAS LISTENING TO HIM. WE WERE DISCUSSING IT IN THE MIND OF THIS CAN'T BE LIKE THIS. YOU KNOW HOW YOU GET THESE EXAGGERATED REPORTS. YOU KNOW HOW THE PRESS IS. THE PRESS CAN INFLATE ANYTHING OUT. IT WAS JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, RUMORS; WE GENERALLY DON'T LISTEN TO RUMORS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT PASSES ALONG THE LINE, AND IT CAN BE ALTERED.

SEPARATELY, I GUESS OUR CONCERN AT THAT POINT WAS THAT BILL FRANKS WAS DOWN THERE, AND APPARENTLY HE HAD SOME INVOLVEMENT IN THIS, AND BILL FRANKS AT THAT TIME WAS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL. I'M COMMENTING ON THAT BECAUSE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THESE PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS, BILL FRANKS DOES PLAY A PART IN IT.

WHEN WE ARRIVED AT THE MISSIONHOLDERS CONVENTION, IT WAS AMAZING BECAUSE BILL FRANKS WAS -- BASICALLY, WE SAW HIM ON OUR WAY BACK FROM THE AIRPORT; AND HE WAS ON HIS HARLEY DAVIDSON MOTORCYCLE WITH A NONSTAFF FEMALE FRIEND ON THE BACK OF HIS BIKE. THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF SOME INTERNAL SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS MATTERS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE AWARE OF IT, BUT WE GENERALLY HAVE RULES WITHIN THE SEA ORGANIZATION ON SCIENTOLOGY STAFF ABOUT WHAT WE TERM 2D ACTIVITIES -- THAT'S LITERALLY NUMBER 2, "D," STANDING FOR DYNAMIC. I SAW HIM ON THE BACK OF HIS BIKE; AND WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE SAND CASTLE WHERE I KNEW THAT THE CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE, I NO LONGER COULD FIND MR. BILL FRANKS. SO MYSELF ALONG WITH DAVID MAYO AND OTHERS THAT WERE THERE PROCEEDED TO GO TO THE LOCATION WHICH WAS A CONFERENCE ROOM, WHICH WAS AT THE SAND CASTLE HOTEL AT THE FLAGLAND BASE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE HOTELS OWNED BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN THAT LOCATION.

WE WALKED IN. WE WERE UTTERLY, UTTERLY STUNNED BECAUSE WE SAW A ROWDY MOB OF PEOPLE. I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO EVEN TELL YOU EVERYBODY THAT WAS THERE. I WAS UNFAMILIAR, I BELIEVE, WITH ALL -- EVERY, IF NOT -- MAYBE WITH A FEW WITH EXCEPTIONS, I WAS UNFAMILIAR

WITH EVERY FACE IN THE CROWD.

WE WALKED IN. DAVID MAYO WENT UP TO THE PODIUM TO ATTEMPT TO SPEAK, AND HE WAS SHOUTED DOWN BY THIS MOB, WHICH I GUESS WAS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A HUNDRED AND 200 INDIVIDUALS. THEN THEY STARTED TURNING TO ALL OF US, ASKING US, "WHERE'S OUR BILL? WHERE'S OUR BILL? DO YOU HAVE OUR BILL LOCKED UP?" IT WAS VERY ODD BECAUSE I KNEW THAT BILL WAS SOMEWHERE DOWN THE HALL HAVING SEX WITH THIS GIRLFRIEND OF HIS WHICH HE HAD LATER ON TOLD ME IS WHAT HE HAD DONE.

WELL, AT THAT POINT DAVID TRIED TO TALK, AND THEY JUST WOULD NOT LISTEN TO HIM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER BENT'S FACE IN THAT CROWD TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. I DON'T -- LIKE I SAY, THEY WERE UNFAMILIAR FACES WITH ME; SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO EVEN COMMENT ON THAT. I MEAN, NOW I CAN LOOK BACK, AND I REMEMBER SOME FACES I SAW THERE. I DON'T PARTICULARLY REMEMBER BENT'S EVEN, JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THIS MATTER. THAT TOOK PLACE.

AFTERWARDS THERE WAS A CONVERSATION FROM -- THAT DAVID HAD WITH ME CONCERNING THE FACT THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE SO ROWDY; THAT THIS WAS VERY ODD BECAUSE HE COULDN'T BELIEVE THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN TO HIM. I THINK DAVID WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, OR AT LEAST SO I PERCEIVED IT, THAT HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE MISSIONHOLDERS IN GENERAL. HE WAS SOMEWHAT STUNNED TO FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN LISTENING TO HIM; AND THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT, FOR SOME REASON, THEY HAD STARTED ACCUSING HIM OF HAVING DONE SOMETHING OR ANOTHER TO BILL FRANKS, WHICH WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.

THAT WAS THAT CONVERSATION, AND THAT'S WHY I SAY I BELIEVE THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OTHERS IN THAT LOCATION. I GROUPED ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS AT THE FLAGLAND BASE AS ONE. I BELIEVE THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHERS, BUT THAT'S THE END OF THAT CONVERSATION.

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING OUR DEPARTURE FROM THAT CONFERENCE ROOM -- AFTER WE WERE SERIOUSLY INFORMED THAT NOBODY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK UNTIL THEY SPOKE TO THEIR BILL, AND AT THAT POINT THEY WERE STAYING THERE. I BELIEVE SOMEBODY INFORMED THEM THAT WE WOULD TRY TO FIND BILL AND I GUESS WE WOULD MEET IN THE MORNING.

AT WHICH POINT THERE WAS A ROAR FROM THE CROWD. "NO WAY"; THAT THEY WANTED TO MEET THAT EVENING. THEN WE INFORMED THEM THAT WE HAD NO IDEA WHERE BILL WAS AT THAT MOMENT, AND WE AGREED TO MEET EARLY IN THE MORNING. THEN WE WENT ABOUT OUR BUSINESS TRYING TO

FIND MR. BILL FRANKS, AND I HAVE -- THAT IS WHEN THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE, AFTER WE LEFT THAT MEETING.

Q. DID YOU EVER SPEAK AT THAT MEETING?

A. YES, I DID.

Q. IN WHAT CAPACITY WERE YOU PRESENT IN SPEAKING AT THAT MEETING? MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, "WHAT CAPACITY."

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IN WHAT ROLE? FROM WHAT POST?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE ASSUMING THERE WAS A POST.

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T KNOW. WAS HE SPEAKING AS DAVID MISCAVIGE? WAS HE SPEAKING AS CMO? WAS HE SPEAKING AS ACTION CHIEF? CMO INT? MR. HERTZBERG: HE CAN ANSWER THAT SUBJECT TO IF HE CAN RECALL WHAT WAS IN HIS MIND AT THAT TIME AS TO WHAT ROLE HE HAD.

THE WITNESS: DAVID MISCAVIGE.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: SCIENTOLOGIST.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT MEETING WAS TAPED?

A. I SEEM TO RECALL THAT MEETING WAS BEING TAPED BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE FLAGLAND BASE -- I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO, BUT SOMEBODY TOLD ME THAT THE MISSIONHOLDERS THEMSELVES HAD ARRANGED TO VIDEOTAPE THIS. IN FACT, I SAW SOME PORTION OF THIS TAPE BECAUSE I KNOW THE MISSIONHOLDERS HAD GOTTEN SO ROWDY IN GENERAL AND WERE SO INTOXICATED THAT AT ONE POINT, I WANTED TO -- SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE ME -- THE MISSIONHOLDERS CONVENTION WAS SO OUT OF CONTROL THAT ONE OF THE MISSIONHOLDERS HAD ACTUALLY PULLED A BUTCHER'S KNIFE ON A YOUNG KID, ABOUT 16 YEARS OLD, BECAUSE HE FAILED TO PUT THE MACHINE INTO RECORD OR REWOUND OR ERASED SOMETHING. AT ANY RATE, THIS WHOLE EVENT WAS ON VIDEOTAPE OF SOMEBODY PULLING OUT A KNIFE.

WHAT ABSOLUTELY BOGGLED MY MIND ABOUT IT WAS THAT NONE OF THE MISSIONHOLDERS RAN IN DEFENSE OF THIS CHILD BUT INSTEAD JUST TRIED TO COMMUNICATE AS IF THIS WAS JUST A MISCOMMUNICATION WHICH IT SORT OF BLEW MY MIND BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO HANDLE A MISCOMMUNICATION IS TO PULL A BUTCHER KNIFE ON A KID.

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THAT TAPE OTHER THAN SEEING THAT, AND THAT'S ABOUT THE BEST I CAN RECOLLECT.

Q. YOU DIDN'T TAKE THAT TAPE AFTER THE CONFERENCE?

A. NO, I DIDN'T. DO YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE OTHER CONVERSATIONS?

Q. WERE THEY -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU MAY HAVE HAD MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL THREE WHICH HAVE NOW EXPANDED TO FOUR. IF THEY WERE ALL OF THE SAME -- IF THEY WERE ALL REFERRING TO THE MISSIONHOLDERS MUTINY AS YOU'VE CALLED IT -A. UH-HUH.

Q. NO, BUT IF THEY HAD -- IF THERE WAS OTHER MATERIAL THAT CAME UP WITH REGARD TO MR. CORYDON, SPECIFICALLY.

A. OKAY. LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT.

Q. NOT ABOUT THE GENERAL CONTEXT, BUT MR. CORYDON.

A. SPECIFICALLY?

Q. YEAH.

A. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE OTHER ONES WEREN'T SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MR. CORYDON.

Q. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

A. I REALLY WANT THAT --

Q. YOU'VE MADE THAT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.

A. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CLEAR TO YOU. I WANT YOU TO BE CLEAR THAT EVEN WHEN I WAS HEARING THESE FROM DAVID MAYO, I DON'T WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT DAVID MAYO WAS PLACING A HIGHER SIGNIFICANCE OR A LESSER SIGNIFICANCE ON BENT CORYDON. Q. YOU'VE SAID THAT AT LEAST THREE TIMES FOR THE RECORD, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. ALTHOUGH THE COMMENTS I MADE ATTRIBUTABLE TO MR. CORYDON WERE MADE BY MR. CORYDON. OKAY. IN ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION, LET ME THINK ABOUT THIS.

Q. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WITH RELATIONSHIP TO MR. CORYDON.

A. OKAY. OKAY. YES, THERE WAS ONE OTHER. IT WAS NOT WITH DAVID MAYO, BUT WITH BILL FRANKS AS WELL.

Q. WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME ABOUT THAT ONE AND PUT IT WHEN IT WAS, IF YOU COULD?

A. OKAY. WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS THAT I WAS INFORMED BY BILL FRANKS, AND WAS ALSO INFORMED BY OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THE MEETING, THAT WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS WHEN MR. FRANKS WENT DOWN TO THIS MEETING -- AND BY THE WAY, YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A PREVIOUS MEETING, AND I THINK IT WAS IN NOVEMBER.

DIRECTLY PRECEDING MR. FRANKS GOING DOWN TO THIS MEETING, THERE WERE VARIOUS ALARMING REPORTS RECEIVED ABOUT HIM ENGAGED IN UNETHICAL 2D ACTIVITIES; NAMELY, THAT HE WAS A MARRIED MAN WHO WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH ANOTHER SCIENTOLOGIST WHO WAS NOT EVEN STAFF. IN ANY EVENT, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING IN SCIENTOLOGY MEETS OUR ETHICAL STANDARDS.

WE HAD SAT DOWN AND DISCUSSED THIS WITH BILL FRANKS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING HIM REPORTING TO THE MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE WHICH TURNED INTO THE MUTINY AT THE FLAGLAND BASE. IT WAS MYSELF, DAVID MAYO, AND JOHN NELSON WHO WERE SPEAKING TO HIM ABOUT THIS.

I REMEMBER HIM TELLING ME AT LENGTH ABOUT, OH, TWO OR THREE HOURS, THAT HE ABSOLUTELY DID NOT HAVE ANY SEX WITH THIS PERSON; WOULD I PLEASE BELIEVE HIM. AND ODDLY ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, I GUESS HE LOOKED UPON ME AS A FRIEND AND THAT'S WHY HE WAS TELLING ME, JUST BEGGING ME TO PLEASE TRUST HIM.

I WAS VERY NAIVE. I SAID, "OKAY, BILL. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. I'M JUST CURIOUS." YOU KNOW, WE JUST STARTED, YOU KNOW, CLEAN BETWEEN EACH OTHER. NO SOONER HAD WE ENDED THE CONVERSATION, AND A PERSON CAME IN TO GIVE US A REPORT. I DON'T

RECALL WHO, BUT BASICALLY THE PERSON WHO HE WAS HAVING SEX WITH HAD REPORTED HAVING SEX WITH BILL FRANKS. IN ANY EVENT, WHOEVER IT WAS THAT WAS DEALING WITH BILL FRANKS AT THAT POINT, I GUESS, LET HIM REPORT TO THE CONVENTION. SO THE NEXT STEP WAS THAT WE HEARD THERE WAS A MUTINY. WELL, NOW, GOING AFTER THAT FIRST' NIGHT THAT I WAS AT THE MUTINY, AND I FIND -- I DID FIND MR. BILL FRANKS AFTER HE HAD SEX WITH THIS PERSON. I STARTED DISCUSSING THIS MATTER WITH HIM. I ASKED HIM, YOU KNOW, "WHAT IS IT? WHAT

IS GOING ON DOWN HERE?" TO WHICH IT WAS RELAYED TO ME BY HIM AND OTHERS IN THAT ROOM, WHICH I'LL IDENTIFY IF YOU'D LIKE, THAT FOR A FEW DAYS OR AT LEAST A DAY, MR. FRANKS AS TRYING TO LEAD THIS CONVENTION, AND HE WAS UNDER PERPETUAL AND CONSTANT ATTACK FROM THE MISSIONHOLDERS.

AT WHICH POINT AFTER CONSTANT ONSLAUGHT CHALLENGING HIS CREDIBILITY AND VARIOUS POST PERFORMANCE FUNCTIONS, HE FINALLY SNAPPED OUT AND DECIDED THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE THE MISSIONHOLDERS' BOY; AND THEREFORE, HE WAS GOING TO TURN ON ANYBODY ELSE WHO WAS IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY ABOVE HIM.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MR. FRANKS RELAYED TO ME AT THIS CONVERSATION WAS, FOR INSTANCE, WITH MR. CORYDON, THAT HE HAD RECITED OR HE HAD INTERVENED ON HIS BEHALF TO -- ON THE BEHEST OF ALAN WALTERS AND DEAN STOKES TO MAKE SURE THAT MR. BENT CORYDON COULD BE A MISSIONHOLDER; THAT MADE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO ME AT THAT TIME, AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE IT MAKES ANY SENSE TO ME AT THIS POINT.

BUT I DO REMEMBER QUITE CLEARLY THAT MR. FRANKS SAID THAT HE HAD BYPASSED NORMAL ON-POLICY CHANNELS. THERE WAS SOME DISPUTE. HE HAD INTERVENED ON MR. CORYDON'S BEHALF AT THE BEHEST OF A FEW OTHER INDIVIDUALS. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MS. PLEVIN: YOU WERE DISCUSSING --

THE WITNESS: IF YOU COULD JUST READ THE -- JUST THE LAST PART OF MY ANSWER. I THINK IT WAS BASICALLY COMPLETE, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST THING THAT I SAID.

MR. HERTZBERG: CAN HE HAVE THE LAST PART REREAD, PLEASE, BY THE REPORTER?

(RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: OKAY. I'LL JUST FINISH THE ANSWER, THEN.

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN, DID YOU FIND SOMETHING FUNNY ABOUT THAT? I NOTICED YOU LAUGHING.

MS. PLEVIN: NO. NO. NO, I WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT THAT AT ALL.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU WERE LAUGHING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THEN?

MS. PLEVIN: OH, YES. I THINK I WAS SMILING TO MYSELF.

THE WITNESS: FOLLOWING THAT CONVERSATION, WHICH DIDN'T -- WASN'T ENDED AT THAT POINT, BUT FOLLOWING THAT TIME WHEN THERE WAS THAT CONVERSATION, OF WHICH DAVID MAYO WAS PRESENT AT, HE MADE ANOTHER SIMILAR COMMENT TO ME AS WE WERE LEAVING THE ROOM; I THINK WE WERE GOING TO -- I THINK WE WERE LEAVING TO PROCEED TO A HOTEL TO SLEEP FOR THE NIGHT. IT WAS PRETTY EARLY IN THE MORNING.

HE HAD COMMENTED THAT IT WAS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE MISSIONHOLDERS -- AND PARTICULARLY SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS OF WHICH BENT WAS ONE NAME -- HAD -- BASICALLY, WERE, YOU KNOW, IN A MONEY-MOTIVATED FRAME OF MIND AND THAT IT SEEMED THE BIG DISPUTE WAS AN INABILITY TO CARRY ON SOME ACTIVITIES THAT THEY WISHED TO ACCOMPLISH OR, BASICALLY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF FOR NUMBER ONE, MEANING THEMSELVES; THAT'S THE END OF MY ANSWER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH BILL FRANKS THAT RELATED IN ANY WAY TO MR. CORYDON? A. POSSIBLY THERE WAS ONE OTHER.

Q. DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONTENT?

A. THIS WAS AT THAT TIME PRECEDING THIS MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THE SECOND ONE. IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FIRST MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE, AND GENERALLY THAT THERE WAS A -- WHAT DID HE SAY? THERE WAS SOMEWHAT OF A POWER STRUGGLE WITH THE MISSIONHOLDERS ON AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN POWER AND THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE ATTENDING THE SECOND MISSION HOLDERS CONFERENCE BECAUSE THE IDEA IS THAT HE WANTED TO GENERALLY -- THAT HE FELT THE CONFERENCE SHOULD BE TURNED INTO SOMETHING FOR THE

EXPANSION OF SCIENTOLOGY.

I BELIEVE HE MENTIONED AT THAT TIME BENT'S NAME AMONGST SEVERAL OTHERS WHICH INCLUDED ALAN WALTERS, DEAN STOKES, A PERSON NAMED ROARER, I'M NOT SURE, A PERSON FROM NEW YORK, AND MARTIN SAMUELS. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A FEW OTHERS. I'M JUST THROWING THOSE NAMES OUT BECAUSE WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THOSE VARIOUS PEOPLE, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ONES I REMEMBER. I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT IT IN THAT CONVERSATION.

Q. NOTHING ELSE WITH BILL FRANKS?

A. WELL, THERE WAS OTHER WITH BILL FRANKS, BUT -Q. ABOUT --

A. WHERE BENT WAS MENTIONED?

Q. YEAH, OR AT ANY OTHER TIME WITH MR. FRANKS. MR. HERTZBERG: THAT BENT WAS MENTIONED?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT BENT WAS MENTIONED.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. SPECIFICALLY, BY NAME, I CAN'T RECALL. I CAN'T RECALL RIGHT NOW. AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, MAYBE I'LL REMEMBER ONE, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU GIVE ANY ORDERS TO MR. FRANKS REGARDING MR. CORYDON?

A. NO. NOW, YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW BENT CORYDON. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE LAST DAY IS THE MOST I -- NOW I COULD RECOGNIZE HIM.

Q. YOU MENTIONED YESTERDAY -- I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LIST OF PEOPLE WITH WHOM YOU'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION REGARDING BENT CORYDON.

A. OKAY.

Q. STEVE WILLET.

A. UH-HUH.

Q. WOULD YOU TELL US ABOUT HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THIS PERSON YOU HAVE HAD?

A. ABOUT BENT CORYDON?

Q. YES.

A. WHERE BENT CORYDON WAS MENTIONED?

Q. YES.

A. I BELIEVE ONE.

Q. OKAY. COULD YOU TELL US APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS?

A. THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY THIS YEAR.

Q. WITHIN 1990 OR WITHIN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?

A. I BELIEVE WITHIN 1990.

Q. OKAY.

A. YEAH, I BELIEVE.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT CONVERSATION?

A. THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS REGARDING MR. WILLET'S CONTACTS WITH THE COUNTY OFFICIALS IN RIVERSIDE AND THE PROPERTY WHERE MR. WILLET IS SOMEWHAT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS. HE, APPARENTLY, HAS TIMES WHEN HE MEETS WITH VARIOUS COUNTY OFFICIALS, AND THERE WERE OPEN HOUSES FOR THESE COUNTY OFFICIALS AT THE PROPERTY AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

MR. WILLET EXPLAINED TO ME THAT MANY OF THESE PEOPLE HAD COME TO LIKE THE PEOPLE AT THE PROPERTY AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS VERY MUCH. THEY HAD THEIR LOCAL SOCIAL GATHERINGS THERE. THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT SCIENTOLOGY DID AND VERY INTERESTED IN GOLDEN

ERA PRODUCTIONS AND THE FACILITIES THAT THEY HAD AND THE PROPERTY AND WHAT NICE PEOPLE SCIENTOLOGISTS WERE.

THEY HAD COMMENTED TO HIM THAT "IT WAS VERY UNFORTUNATE WHAT HAPPENED OUT HERE IN RIVERSIDE. YOU HAD A MISSION" OR ORGANIZATION, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY COMMENTED ON. "YOUR PLACE, YOUR SCIENTOLOGY IN RIVERSIDE; THAT THAT CREATED SUCH A BAD AN INCORRECT IMPRESSION OF WHAT SCIENTOLOGY IS AND IT'S TOO BAD THAT THAT TOOK PLACE BECAUSE WE COME OUT AND SEE YOU, AND YOU'RE NOTHING LIKE THE IMPRESSION WE HAD, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE ABOUT THAT. WHAT WERE YOU PLANNING ON DOING ABOUT THAT?"

AND, GENERALLY, STEVE MENTIONED TO ME, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO BENT CORYDON'S MISSION OUT THERE AND THAT HE HAD APPARENTLY WRECKED PUBLIC RELATIONS AND LOCAL PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON THE SUBJECT OF SCIENTOLOGY WITH THE LOCAL OFFICIALS AND THAT THEY FELT THAT THIS WAS VERY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT GAVE A VERY BAD MISIMPRESSION ON WHAT SCIENTOLOGY WAS AND WHAT, ITS PEOPLE WERE LIKE.

Q. ANYTHING ELSE?

A. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL.

Q. MR. WILLET, YOU SAID THAT HE IS INVOLVED WITH WORKING ON THE PROPERTY? A. HE HAMMERS NAILS.

Q. IS HE A CONTRACTOR?

A. NO.

Q. HE'S A LABORER?

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN, HE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, IF HE KNOWS WHETHER -MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE.

MR. HERTZBERG: EXCUSE ME.

MS. PLEVIN: ONLY IF HE KNOWS.

MR. HERTZBERG: EXCUSE ME. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THIS IS, WHETHER HE'S A CONTRACTOR -MS. PLEVIN: I'M --

MR. HERTZBERG: -- OR A LABORER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IDENTIFY MR. WILLET TO THE BEST THAT YOU CAN, PLEASE.

A. YOU ASKED IF HE WAS A LABORER, DO YOU MEAN DOES HE DO LABOR? NO, NOT REALLY.

Q. OKAY. HE WORKS ON THE PROPERTY. IS IT STEVE WILLET CONTRACTORS? IS HE EMPLOYED BY ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS? A. NO.

Q. HOW WOULD YOU GET IN TOUCH WITH MR. WILLET IF YOU WISHED TO DO SO?

A. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. HAD YOU EVER MET MR. WILLET BEFORE?

A. OH, YES.

Q. IN WHAT CAPACITY?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHEN YOU SAY, "CAPACITY," WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

MR. DRESCHER: WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

MR. HELLER: WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU MEAN IN WHAT CONTEXT, WHERE DID HE MEET HIM?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHERE HE WAS WORKING?

A. YES.

Q. IS HE A SCIENTOLOGIST TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. YES, HE IS.

Q. IS HE POSTED AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS?

A. I BELIEVE HE IS.

Q. IS HE ON THE ESTATES GROUP?

A. I BELIEVE SO. NO, NOT ESTATES GROUP. HE BUILDS BUILDINGS. HE'S JUST A PASSING COMMENT. I GUESS HE BUILDS BUILDINGS. I MEAN, HE HAMMERS NAILS, JUST LIKE I SAID.

Q. DID YOU RESPOND TO MR. WILLET'S COMMENTARY IN ANY WAY?

A. I SAID, "GEEZ, THAT'S TOO BAD." I SAID, "HOW ARE THE PEOPLE NOW?" HE SAID, "THEY LOVE THE PLACE." HE WAS JUST TELLING ME -- HE WANTED ME TO -- THE MAIN CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT HE HAD BROUGHT THE PEOPLE OUT AND HAD A SOCIAL GATHERINGS OR HAD MET WITH THEM. I THINK HE WAS BASICALLY -- HE WAS TRYING TO TELL ME A GOOD STORY ABOUT HIS WORK; HE WAS VERY PROUD OF IT, ALL OF THE GOOD WORK THAT HE HAD DONE THERE AND HOW IMPRESSED THE COUNTY OFFICIALS WERE; THAT'S THE CONTEXT OF IT.

AND THE SIDE LINE COMMENT WAS ABOUT RIVERSIDE, THAT THEY HAD COMMENTED. THE GENERAL COMMENT WAS HIM -- HE WAS PROUD OF HIS WORK. HE WAS BASICALLY TELLING ME THE COUNTY OFFICIALS ALSO THOUGHT IT WAS SPLENDID WORK THAT HE WAS DOING; THAT THE PROPERTY LOOKED

GORGEOUS.

Q. YOU ALSO STATED THAT YOU HAD A DISCUSSION OR DISCUSSIONS WITH VICKI AZANARAN REGARDING MR. CORYDON. A. YES.

Q. ABOUT HOW MANY?

A. I'D HAVE TO REALLY GUESS, BUT I'D BE GUESSING.

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T GUESS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MORE THAN TEN?

A. NO.

Q. ALL RIGHT. SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ZERO AND TEN?

A. YES.

Q. I WON'T HOLD YOU TO IT EXACTLY.

A. OKAY.

Q. IF YOU COULD, PLEASE, GO BACK IN YOUR MIND TO THE FIRST ONE THAT YOU RECALL; DO YOU KNOW APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS? A. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS. I WOULD GUESS 1982, ABOUT THEN.

Q. WAS IT AROUND THE TIME OF THE SAN FRANCISCO MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER, 1982?

A. YES.

Q. AND WAS THIS IN PERSON?

A. YES.

Q. WHERE DID IT TAKE PLACE?

A. I BELIEVE GILMAN HOT SPRINGS. I'M NOT SURE. IT COULD HAVE BEEN IN LOS ANGELES. I BELIEVE GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

Q. WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT COMMUNICATION?

A. MISSIONHOLDERS IN GENERAL.

Q. IN WHAT RESPECT DID IT JUST TOUCH ON MR. CORYDON?

A. APPARENTLY, VICKI KNEW BENT, AND I BELIEVE SHE KNEW HIM OR KNEW HIM PREVIOUSLY. SHE USED TO BE INVOLVED IN -- I THINK SHE WAS A MISSIONHOLDER OR WORKED AT A MISSION HERSELF PREVIOUSLY. I KNOW THAT SHE WAS MARRIED TO DEAN STOKES.

THE GENERAL COMMENT IN REGARDS TO BENT -- AGAIN, I, HIS WAS NOT JUST ABOUT BENT, BUT IT WAS JUST GENERALLY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MISSIONHOLDERS -- IS THAT SHE FELT THAT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IS TO WALK UP THERE AND TAKE THE LIKES OF BENT CORYDON AND VARIOUS

OTHER PEOPLE THAT SHE MENTIONED AND SHE -- IF SHE HAD IT HER WAY, SHE WOULD JUST WALK UP AND DECLARE THEM ALL ON THE SPOT AND KICK THEM ALL OUT OF SCIENTOLOGY. SHE SAID SHE KNEW BENT. SHE KNEW DEAN. SHE KNEW -- DEAN I THINK SHE WAS MARRIED TO. ALAN WALTERS SHE KNEW AND SEVERAL OTHER MISSIONHOLDERS; I CAN'T RECALL AT THIS TIME; THAT SHE KNEW THEM.

HER GENERAL OPINION OF THEM WAS THAT THEY WERE SLEAZEBAGS. SHE HAD A VERY, VERY, VERY BAD OPINION OF THESE MISSIONHOLDERS AND THAT THEY WERE BASICALLY SLEAZEBAGS, MONEY-GRUBBING PARASITES AND THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SHOULD BE DECLARED ON THE SPOT AND "THAT'S THE WAY I'D DEAL WITH IT." I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID.

Q. ARE YOU --

MR. HERTZBERG: I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. MISCAVIGE MADE AN IMITATION OF A TEXAS ACCENT.

MS. PLEVIN: AS I WAS ABOUT TO NOTE.

Q. I TAKE IT FROM THAT THAT YOU ARE RECALLING HER WORDS WHEN YOU USE THESE WORDS TO THE BEST YOU CAN?

A. THE LAST ONES. GENERALLY, HER WORDS, OH, YEAH, WHEN I GAVE YOU THAT DESCRIPTION THERE, THOSE WERE HER WORDS. Q. WHAT POSITION DID MISS AZANARAN HAVE AT THAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL?

A. I BELIEVE SHE WAS POSTED WITHIN RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER.

THE REPORTER: EXCUSE ME?

THE WITNESS: WITHIN RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU RECALL ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH MISS AZANARAN AT ANY TIME REGARDING MR. CORYDON? A. YES.

Q. LET'S TAKE THE NEXT ONE.

A. THESE ARE A LITTLE TOUGH FOR ME TO GIVE, YOU JUST SO I'M CLEAR. I MEAN --

Q. YOU'RE NOT COMMITTING TO EXACT SEQUENCE.

A. EXACTLY. I MEAN, THIS IS - YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND I'M GOING BACK. THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL LIKE YOU MIGHT THINK IT IS BECAUSE YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY DEALING WITH BENT. TO ME, IT'S JUST ANOTHER THING. SO IF I MISS ONE, I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF I REMEMBER IT. JUST

SO I'M CLEAR TO THAT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN HAS SUGGESTED THAT WE BREAK FOR LUNCH NOW. HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO TAKE, MISS PLEVIN?

MS. PLEVIN: I'VE GOT 25 AFTER 12:00. WHY DON'T WE RECONVENE AT QUARTER AFTER 1:00?

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S FINE. AGAIN, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT WE WANT TO GET THROUGH THIS TODAY? IN FACT, WE HAVE TO GET THROUGH IT TODAY. LET'S RECONVENE AT THAT TIME. MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

(AT 12:25 P.M., THE DEPOSITION WAS ADJOURNED FOR NOON RECESS.)

(AT 1:20 P.M., THE DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE WAS RECONVENED.)

MS. PLEVIN: I ASKED THE COURT REPORTER OVER LUNCH TO CHECK WITH HER OFFICE TO SEE IF THE OFFICE COULD SEND ANOTHER COURT REPORTER AT 5:00 O'CLOCK, SINCE THIS COURT REPORTER CANNOT STAY LATE, AS PREPARATORY TO THE POSSIBILITY OF ASKING YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO STAY LATE SO THAT WE CAN CONCLUDE, IF IT APPEARS THAT WE CAN.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT ARE YOU -- YES. JUST TO GET A ROUGH IDEA, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU'LL NEED BEYOND 5:00?

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T KNOW. IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT, DEPENDING ON HOW WE MOVE, WE COULD FINISH. I DON'T KNOW. I'LL KNOW CLOSER TO 5:00 O'CLOCK WHETHER THERE'S A STRONG POSSIBILITY OF OUR FINISHING IF WE STAY LATE OR 4:00 O'CLOCK WHEN SHE CALLS HER OFFICE BACK TO SEE IF THEY'VE GOT SOMEONE.

MR. HERTZBERG: HANG ON A SECOND.

MR. HELLER: ARE YOU SAYING AT THIS STAGE, YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY YOU COULD FINISH BY 5:00? MS. PLEVIN: I THINK IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.

MS. PLEVIN: NO RESPONSE?

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S PROCEED. MAYBE WE'LL EVEN FINISH BY 5:00, AND IT WILL OBVIATE THE NEED FOR RELIEF. LET'S MOVE ON.

EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ALL RIGHT. MR. MISCAVIGE, WE WERE DISCUSSING YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH VICKI AZANARAN IN WHICH THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION REGARDING BENT CORYDON. YOU HAD GIVEN US ONE. DO YOU NEED TO BE REFRESHED BY THE COURT REPORTER AS TO WHAT THAT WAS? SO WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THERE.

A. YES, I DO.

THE REPORTER: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU WANT ME TO READ BACK.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. I BELIEVE YOU PLACED IT IN TIME AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME AS THE OCTOBER 17, '82, MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO. A. DID I TELL ONE CONVERSATION SO FAR?

Q. THAT'S ALL.

A. OKAY. NOW I DON'T NEED TO BE REFRESHED.

Q. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SO WHAT WAS THE NEXT CONVERSATION, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT YOU'VE STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY PUTTING THEM IN EXACT SEQUENCE, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND?

A. ALL RIGHT. SOMETIME SHORTLY AFTER THE MISSIONHOLDERS CONVENTION IN SAN FRANCISCO, MAYBE TWO WEEKS, A MONTH, EVEN UP TO A MONTH AND A HALF.

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT DISCUSSION AS IT RELATED TO MR. CORYDON?

A. GENERALLY, IT WAS ABOUT THE MISSIONHOLDERS AND THAT SHE HAD HEARD ABOUT THE MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE, AND SHE WAS STILL OF THE OPINION THAT ALL OF THESE GUYS SHOULD JUST BE -- MEANING .... ALL THESE GUYS," MEANING THE MISSIONHOLDERS SHOULD JUST BE DECLARED, AND A COMMENT ABOUT JUST HER EXPERIENCES WITH THE MISSIONHOLDERS, IN WHICH SHE INCLUDED BENT, ALONG THE SIMILAR LINES THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. SHE HAD NASTY THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THEM. OBVIOUSLY, THAT THEY WERE SCUMBAGS, SLEAZEBAGS, YOU KNOW, MONEY-MOTIVATED, MONEY-GRUBBING; THOSE WERE THINGS SHE COMMENTED ON.

AND HER KNOWLEDGE OR FRIENDSHIP -- I DON'T KNOW -- I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY HOW SHE KNEW BENT. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WORKED WITH BENT OR KNEW HIM THROUGH DEAN STOKES OR A MISSION SHE WORKED AT, BUT SHE, PERSONALLY -- DO I WAIT FOR THIS? MR. HERTZBERG: NO.

MS. PLEVIN: IT CAN CREATE CONFUSION. LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WHO IT IS.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE CONTINUE.

THE WITNESS: -- AND THAT HER GENERAL OPINION, FROM HER HAVING DEALT WITH THE MISSION PEOPLE WHO WORKED IN MISSIONS OR MISSIONHOLDERS OR THE MISSION SHE WAS WORKING AT, WAS THAT THESE PEOPLE, AS A GENERAL WHOLE, WEREN'T REALLY DEDICATED TO SCIENTOLOGY; THAT THEY WERE DILETTANTES, AND THAT THEIR MOTIVE WAS NOT NECESSARILY TOWARDS THE GOALS AND PURPOSES OF SCIENTOLOGY, BUT THROUGH THOSE GOALS AND PURPOSES AND THE POPULARITY OF SCIENTOLOGY TO BENEFIT PERSONALLY OF WHICH SHE INCLUDED BENT CORYDON IN THAT CONTEXT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WANT THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR, MR. MISCAVIGE, BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY YOU USED AN INFLICTION INTENDING TO INDICATE A QUOTATION FROM VICKI AZANARAN.

Q. DID SHE USE THE WORD TO YOU "SCUMBAG" OR "SLEAZEBAG" IN REFERRING TO MR. CORYDON?

A. YES, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS JUST BENT CORYDON, BUT DEFINITELY IN REGARDS TO HIM.

Q. INCLUDING HIM, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A MISSIONHOLDER, OR DID SHE SAY -- WOULD IT BE MORE ACCURATE TO SAY TEAT SHE SAID THE MISSIONHOLDERS ARE SCUMBAGS OR SLEAZEBAGS? A. NO, THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCURATE. IT WOULD BE ACCURATE TO THE PEOPLE SHE KNEW.

Q. THE MISSIONHOLDERS --

A. SHE KNEW PERSONALLY.

Q. -- SHE KNEW PERSONALLY?

A. YEAH. I COULDN'T TELL YOU ALL OF THEM THAT SHE KNEW. I DO REMEMBER PARTICULARLY DEAN STOKES, WHO I SAY I THINK SHE WAS MARRIED TO HIM, AND BENT, AND I BELIEVE SHE KNEW ALAN WALTERS. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE KNEW HIM AS A MISSIONHOLDER, AND I THINK POSSIBLY THAT WAS ALL I EVER HEARD THAT SHE ACTUALLY KNEW PERSONALLY.

BUT IT WAS IN REFERENCE TO, YEAH, PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF PEOPLE; AND, GENERALLY, IN REGARDS TO THE MISSIONHOLDERS, I WOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT STATEMENT TO THESE PEOPLE SHE KNEW AND AS A CARRY-OVER TO MISSIONHOLDERS IN GENERAL ON DILETTANTISM. Q. DID YOU RESPOND IN ANY WAY TO WHAT MISS AZANARAN SAID TO YOU?

A. "REALLY?"

Q. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

A. YEAH, I MEAN. IT WAS --

Q. SORT OF LIKE --

A. I MEAN, JUST, YOU KNOW -- SHE -- I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS BY WHAT I TOLD YOU SHE SAID. I MEAN, SHE, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY --

MR. HERTZBERG: SHE'S JUST ASKING YOU YOUR RESPONSE.

THE WITNESS: YEAH, THAT WAS ABOUT IT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU AGREE WITH HER?

A. NO, I DIDN'T KNOW. I MEAN, SHE, OBVIOUSLY -- DID I AGREE WITH HER?

MR. HELLER: IF YOU HAD ANY OPINION.

THE WITNESS: IT WASN'T EVEN A MATTER OF AGREEING. I MEAN, SHE WAS TELLING ME HER VIEWPOINT ON THESE PEOPLE. I CERTAINLY -- WELL, ON ONE POINT I CERTAINLY DIDN'T AGREE; THAT WE SHOULD JUST GO AND SEE THE MISSIONHOLDERS AND THAT ALL THE MISSIONHOLDERS SHOULD BE JUST DECLARED; I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREED WITH THAT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WASN'T OF THE OPINION THAT ANY OF THEM SHOULD BE DECLARED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE? A. I THINK IT WAS AT GILMAN HOT SPRINGS. Q. FACE TO FACE?

A. YES.

Q. ANYBODY ELSE PRESENT?

A. I CAN'T RECALL.

Q. ANYONE ELSE PRESENT AT YOUR EARLIER CONVERSATION?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT EARLIER CONVERSATION?

MS. PLEVIN: WITH MISS AZANARAN, THE FIRST ONE YOU DESCRIBED FOR US.

THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY. POSSIBLY STEVE MARLOWE; THAT'S WHO COMES TO MIND. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WAS THAT IN A MEETING OF SOME KIND?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "A MEETING OF SOME KIND"?

Q. A SCHEDULED MEETING.

A. NO.

Q. A PLANNED MEETING.

A. NO.

Q. WHAT WAS MR. MARLOWE'S POSITION AT THE TIME, IF YOU RECALL?

A. HE ALSO WAS, I BELIEVE, EMPLOYED BY RTC, AND AT THAT-TIME -- NO, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW THAT THEY WERE -- I DON'T KNOW. I'M SORRY. I CAN'T RECALL.

Q. THE NEXT CONVERSATION WITH MISS AZANARAN, TO THE BEST THAT YOU RECALL, REGARDING MR. CORYDON.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, AGAIN, I THINK JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I THINK MR. MISCAVIGE HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT UNLESS HE STATES OTHERWISE, THE CONVERSATIONS ARE NOT ABOUT BENT CORYDON. THEY ARE CONVERSATIONS IN WHICH MR. CORYDON'S NAME MAY HAVE BEEN EITHER

MENTIONED OR SUBSUMED.

MS. PLEVIN: CORRECT. UNDERSTOOD.

MR. HERTZBERG: I JUST DON'T WANT A MISUNDERSTANDING ON THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: THE NEXT CONVERSATION WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE --

MR. HELLER: WELL, THE OTHER MISUNDERSTANDING -- EXCUSE ME -- TO BE HONEST, I THINK YOU SAID THAT THESE WEREN'T NECESSARILY CHRONOLOGICAL. THE WITNESS: I'M TRYING TO THINK --

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: I'M TRYING TO THINK CHRONOLOGICALLY JUST SO I'M CLEAR, BUT --

MS. PLEVIN: SURE.

THE WITNESS: IF I MISS ONE HERE OR THERE --

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THE NEXT CONVERSATION. LET ME JUST ASK YOU SOMETHING.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THE NEXT CONVERSATION THAT I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE IS SOMETIME AFTER BENT ANNOUNCED HIMSELF AS A SQUIRREL, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS CONVERSATION WITH VICKI, AND AFTER HE, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THIS CONVERSATION WITH VICKI, EXECUTED AN ILLEGAL CORPORATE SWITCH-OVER OF HIS BUILDING, HIS MISSION BUILDING, AND ALSO SOME OTHER ILLEGAL CORPORATE, SHENANIGANS. I DON'T KNOW THE DATE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID MISS AZANARAN TELL YOU THAT MR. CORYDON HAD ANNOUNCED HIMSELF TO BE A SQUIRREL? A. I DON'T RECALL IF SHE PUT IT THAT WAY.

Q. IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT BY HIS ACTIONS HE WAS A SQUIRREL?

A. NO. I'M RELAYING WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THAT CONVERSATION.

Q. OKAY. FROM WHAT MS. AZANARAN SAID, WHETHER YOU EXPRESSED THIS TO HER OR NOT, WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. CORYDON WAS A SQUIRREL?

A. YES.

Q. ANYTHING ELSE THAT TRANSPIRED IN THAT CONVERSATION?

A. SHE BASICALLY TOLD ME THAT BENT CORYDON HAD A RIVERSIDE MISSION AND THAT HE HAD SOMEHOW TRANSFERRED THE BUILDING, I THINK, INTO HIS NAME. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT WENT -- INTO HIS NAME PERSONALLY AND HAD LEFT THE CHURCH OR RESIGNED.

AND THE OTHER PART WAS HER COMMENT TO ME THAT, "I TOLD YOU YOU SHOULD NEVER TRUST THESE GUYS. THIS GUY IS A COMPLETE CRIMINAL. HE'S NOW RIPPED OFF THIS BUILDING. I TOLD YOU BEFORE THAT THESE GUYS ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THEIR OWN MONEY AND BACK POCKET. NOW

THIS GUY HAS TAKEN THE BUILDING BECAUSE HE WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN HIS OWN PRIVATE GAIN, AND HE'S A SQUIRREL AND" -- OH, AND, YOU KNOW, "CAN YOU BELIEVE," YOU KNOW, "PEOPLE IN, GENERAL." I THINK IT WASN'T BENT; I MEAN, THAT "THEY'RE DELUSORY. THEY THINK THAT THEY ARE THE POWER OF SCIENTOLOGY AS A SUBJECT, AND THAT THEY'RE PARASITES, AND THEY DON'T REALIZE THIS"; THAT WAS BASICALLY IT.

Q. WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?

A. EITHER IN LOS ANGELES OR GILMAN HOT SPRINGS.

Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "LOS ANGELES," ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE CEDARS OF LEBANON COMPLEX OR THE BLUE BUILDINGS? A. NO, I'M REFERRING TO THE CITY.

Q. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN AT THE BLUE BUILDINGS?

A. I DON'T RECALL.

Q. DID SHE HAVE AN OFFICE THERE, DO YOU RECALL?

A. AT THAT TIME I DON'T RECALL, NO.

Q. DID YOU HAVE AN OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES AT THAT TIME?

A. YES.

Q. WHERE WAS THAT?

A. THAT WAS IN LOS ANGELES.

Q. DO YOU RECALL THE ADDRESS?

A. I BELIEVE -- I'D HAVE TO GET THE DATE ON THIS. NO, I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q. BASED ON YOUR -- TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE BEFORE OR AFTER A LAWSUIT HAD BEEN FILED AGAINST MR. CORYDON AND HIS GROUP? A. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF ANY OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT EVEN.

Q. OKAY. WELL, ARE YOU AWARE THAT A LAWSUIT WAS FILED?

MR. HERTZBERG: A LAWSUIT?

MS. PLEVIN: IN THE END OF 1982, FILED ON DECEMBER 31, 1982. OF COURSE, YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL --

MS. PLEVIN: AGAINST MR. CORYDON INDIVIDUALLY AND THE GROUP THAT HE AND THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ASSOCIATED WITH HIM HAD FORMED CALLED CHURCH OF SCIOLOGOS DEALING WITH THE ISSUES YOU DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY THAT MS. AZANARAN DISCUSSED WITH YOU. THE WITNESS: I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT BENT CORYDON HAD SUED THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY; IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. A LAWSUIT WAS FILED --

A. THIS ONE? THIS LAWSUIT?

Q. NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT.

A. OKAY.

Q. WE'RE BACK AT THE END OF 1982.

A. OKAY.

Q. I'M TRYING TO PUT THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONVERSATION WITH MISS AZANARAN IN SOME TIME FRAME.

A. OKAY.

Q. THE FIRST OF THE LAWSUITS BETWEEN MR. CORYDON AND HIS ASSOCIATES AND SCIENTOLOGY ENTITIES WAS COMMENCED AT THE VERY END OF 1982 --

A. IS THAT WHEN IT WAS?

Q. -- BY A GROUP CALLING ITSELF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF RIVERSIDE AND CLAIMING TO BE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RIVERSIDE.

A. WITH THE CHURCH SUING THEM?

Q. SUING MR. CORYDON AND THE CHURCH OF SCIOLOGOS.

A. ALL RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: IS THAT A QUESTION, OR ARE YOU TELLING HIM THAT NOW?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT A LAWSUIT WAS FILED?

A. NO.

Q. OKAY. DID YOU EVER BECOME AWARE THAT A LAWSUIT WAS FILED TO GAIN TITLE TO THE MISSION OF RIVERSIDE BUILDING, A BUILDING THAT HAD BEEN THE MISSION OF RIVERSIDE.

MR. DRESCHER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT; THAT'S VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS, UNINTELLIGIBLE, LACKS FACTS. IT'S JUST INCOMPLETE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE IT AND BE MORE SPECIFIC?

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. LET'S GO BACK.

Q. BASED ON YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MS. AZANARAN, DID YOU SUGGEST TO HER TO TAKE ANY SPECIFIC ACTION?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU ORDER HER TO TAKE ANY SPECIFIC ACTION?

A. NO, I DIDN'T.

Q. DID YOU CONTEMPLATE A LAWSUIT AGAINST MR. CORYDON AND HIS GROUP?

A. DID I?

Q. YES, YOU.

A. OF COURSE NOT.

Q. TO BE BROAD, A LAWSUIT -- DID YOU CONTEMPLATE A LAWSUIT TO BE BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF ANY SCIENTOLOGY CORPORATION OR ENTITY AGAINST MR. CORYDON --

A. NO.

Q. -- AND HIS GROUP?

A. NO.

Q. OKAY. THERE WAS -- ARE YOU AWARE -- JUST NOW WITH THAT BACKGROUND, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS A LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST MR. CORYDON AND HIS GROUP FOR THE POSSESSION AND TITLE TO THE BUILDING THAT WAS THE MISSION OF RIVERSIDE?

MR. HERTZBERG: WE'RE BACK TO THE SAME PROBLEM. YOU SAY, "WITH THAT BACKGROUND." THE BACKGROUND WAS TWO QUESTIONS BY YOU TO WHICH MR. MISCAVIGE --

MS. PLEVIN: WHAT?

MR. HERTZBERG: -- ANSWERED, NO, HE DIDN'T ORDER THAT A LAWSUIT BE BROUGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. STRIKE IT. GO AHEAD.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. WERE YOU AT THAT TIME CONCERNED REGARDING THE POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING IN RIVERSIDE WHICH WAS THE MISSION OF RIVERSIDE BUILDING?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CONCERNED"?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL --

THE WITNESS: "CONCERNED," WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, MS. AZANARAN TOLD YOU MR. CORYDON HAD TRANSFERRED THAT TO HIS NAME.

A. UH-HUH.

Q. DID YOU CONSIDER AT THAT TIME DOING ANYTHING OR REQUESTING THAT ANYTHING BE DONE TO RECOVER THE POSSESSION OF THAT BUILDING FOR ANY SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION?

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. INSOFAR AS -- OTHER THAN BRINGING A LAWSUIT WHICH HE ALREADY SAID HE DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, DID HE CONSIDER SOMETHING OTHER THAN A LAWSUIT WHICH HE DIDN'T CONSIDER BRINGING TO BE DONE; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS THE PRIOR QUESTION, MR. HERTZBERG.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, YOU CAN ANSWER IT.

THE WITNESS: I THINK I MIGHT. LET ME CLARIFY THIS. VICKI WAS TELLING ME ABOUT THIS. MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: I WASN'T TELLING HER.

MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: YOU ASKED IF I WAS CONCERNED. DEPENDING ON HOW YOU PUT THE DEFINITION, I GUESS I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE -- WELL, IT WOULD BE LIKE ME WALKING UP TO YOU AND TELLING YOU SOMEBODY HAD STOLE MY CAR. EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT FRIENDS OR ANYTHING, YOU WOULD STILL BE CONCERNED THAT SOMEBODY STOLE MY CAR, OR AT LEAST I HOPE YOU WOULD. TO THAT DEGREE I WAS CONCERNED. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU -- STRIKE THAT. AT THAT TIME WHO OR WHAT ENTITY WITHIN SCIENTOLOGY WOULD HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING LEGAL ACTION WITH REGARD TO THE BUILDING IF SUCH WERE TO BE UNDERTAKEN?

MR. HERTZBERG: BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT, I HAVE A PROBLEM, THE SAME PROBLEM WE HAD YESTERDAY WITH A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WITH "WOULD HAVE BEEN." IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM WHETHER SOMEBODY DID TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, IF HE KNOWS, THAT MAKES SOME SENSE. NOW YOU'RE ASKING HIM TO SPECULATE.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT ASKING HIM TO SPECULATE.

MR. HERTZBERG: AND THERE'S ALSO --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WAS THERE AN ORGANIZATION OR ENTITY IN SCIENTOLOGY AT THAT TIME CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LOOKING AFTER THAT TYPE OF INTEREST SUCH AS FILING AN ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION AND TITLE OF THE BUILDING? A. I CAN GUESS. I WOULD GUESS -- IF HE WAS THE MISSION OF RIVERSIDE, I GUESS THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF RIVERSIDE; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME?

Q. WELL, I DON'T WANT YOU TO GUESS.

A. OKAY.

Q. AT SOME POINT YOU BECAME AWARE THAT MR. CORYDON HAD FILED A LAWSUIT.

A. YES.

Q. TELL ME WHAT, PRECISELY, DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF?

A. WHAT DID I BECOME AWARE OF?

Q. UH-HUH. ANYTHING MORE DETAILED THAN THAT?

A. GENERALLY, THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE BUILDING, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING, WHERE HE WANTED TO KEEP IT. THAT'S ABOUT IT.

Q. AND IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT HE COMMENCED THAT LAWSUIT?

A. ISN'T THAT WHAT IT WAS? I KNEW THERE WAS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE BUILDING.

Q. BUT YOU --

A. I THOUGHT IT WAS BENT'S LAWSUIT.

Q. IF YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I'LL TELL YOU --

MR. HERTZBERG: HE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE TESTIFIED THAT THAT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING, THAT THE FIRST SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY MR. CORYDON.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. WHAT WAS THE NEXT CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH MS. AZANARAN IN CONNECTION WITH OR RELATING TO MR. CORYDON, WITH THE SAME CAVEATS AS BEFORE THAT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY DEALING IN SEQUENCE?

A. OKAY. WHAT YEAR IS THIS NOW, ABOUT 1983?

Q. YES.

A. IS THAT GENERALLY WHERE WE ARE?

Q. EARLY '83. HOLD THERE FOR A MOMENT.

A. OKAY.

Q. AS TO THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- WHERE MS. AZANARAN WAS RELATING THAT THERE WAS SOME LEGAL THINGS HAPPENING --

A. WELL, I DIDN'T -- WAIT. I DON'T REMEMBER SOME LEGAL THINGS HAPPENING; THAT WASN'T WHAT I SAID.

Q. CORRECT. WHERE MR. CORYDON HAD SEVERED TIES, AND THERE WAS AN ISSUE ABOUT THE BUILDING IN SOME RESPECT; THAT HE HAD --

A. OKAY, AS I STATED IT. AS LONG AS WE'RE --

Q. AS YOU STATED IT.

A. OKAY.

Q. THAT TOOK PLACE IN LOS ANGELES. YOU WEREN'T EXACTLY SURE WHERE. DO YOU KNOW --

A. NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

MR. HELLER: THAT'S NOT THE TESTIMONY.

THE WITNESS: I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I SAID IT WAS GILMAN OR LOS ANGELES.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. AND I --

A. AND I SPECIFICALLY SAID THE CITY, TOO. I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN OVER DINNER. THE POINT IS THAT -- THE WHOLE POINT IS I REMEMBER HER TELLING ME ABOUT THIS. I COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW LONG AFTERWARDS IT WAS.

Q. OKAY.

A. I JUST KNOW THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS ABOUT.

Q. IS THIS THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO THAT YOU THINK PERHAPS MR. MARLOWE WAS PRESENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: NO.

THE WITNESS: NO, I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS THE EARLIER ONE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AS TO THIS CONVERSATION, DO YOU RECALL IF THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT?

A. I'D HAVE TO GUESS.

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T GUESS.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. NOW, LET'S MOVE FORWARD.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WAS THE NEXT CONVERSATION, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION IN SEQUENCE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN SEQUENCE, IN WHICH THE NAME OF MR. CORYDON FIGURED?

A. LET ME ASK HIM SOMETHING.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS I CAN THINK OF, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATES.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S FINE.

THE WITNESS: I CAN GENERALLY PLACE THEM BY INCIDENT FOR YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: AND I DON'T -- THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO THINK, IS THIS 1983 OR 1984.

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S DO THEM BY INCIDENT OR HOWEVER YOU CAN REMEMBER.

THE WITNESS: GENERALLY, I CAN MERGE A BUNCH OF THEM.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: THIS ISN'T ALL OF THEM, BUT A BUNCH OF THEM WOULD BE PRIOR TO ANY EVENT, A SCIENTOLOGY EVENT, THAT WAS BEING HELD WHERE VICKI WAS PRESENT.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT.

THE WITNESS: DO YOU KNOW WHAT A SCIENTOLOGY EVENT IS?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

Q. BUT YOU SAID ANY OF THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRIOR TO AN EVENT?

A. RIGHT. THE CONVERSATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN PRIOR TO THAT EVENT ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE IN THAT TIME FRAME, A DAY OR TWO BEFOREHAND OR EVEN THE SAME DAY.

Q. OKAY.

A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC EVENT?

A. ANY THAT VICKI WAS AT.

Q. ALL RIGHT.

A. IS THAT CLEAR?

Q. LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND.

A. OKAY.

Q. YOU HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS AZANARAN. YOU CAN'T PUT THEM EXACTLY IN ORDER --

A. RIGHT.

Q. -- BUT IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME BUT PRIOR TO A SCIENTOLOGY EVENT.

A. NO. EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN IS SHE SPEAKING, I HEARD HER -- NOT THAT THAT WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT BENT, WHERE THE NAME BENT CORYDON CAME UP WOULD HAVE BEEN PRIOR TO ONE OF THOSE EVENTS AND MANY OF THEM; IS THAT CLEAR? Q. NO. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MS. AZANARAN TALKING ABOUT MR. CORYDON AT THE EVENT.

A. NO, I'M NOT.

Q. OKAY.

A. I DON'T KNOW THAT -- MAYBE SHE DID OR MAYBE SHE DIDN'T. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M TALKING ABOUT HER JUST SPEAKING, NOT A CONVERSATION, NOT A TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION.

Q. OKAY.

A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. BUT SPEAKING IN --

A. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

Q. OKAY.

A. VICKI AZANARAN USED TO SPEAK AT MANY OF THESE PUBLIC EVENTS, AND SHE WOULD OFTEN TALK ABOUT SQUIRRELS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, SHE'S THE ONLY PERSON I KNOW OF WHO EVER SPOKE ABOUT SQUIRRELS. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY ELSE EVER DID BEFORE THAT, DURING THAT, OR AFTER THAT. BEFORE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE A GENERAL TYPE OF SCHEDULE FOR THE EVENT, AND IT WOULD BE DISCUSSED. YOU KNOW, JUST GENERALLY, THESE CONVERSATIONS WERE JUST VICKI TALKING ABOUT SQUIRRELS AND HER DETEST FOR THEM, AND BENT'S NAME WOULD COME UP FROM TIME TO TIME ABOUT AN EXAMPLE OF CRIMINAL SQUIRRELS; HIS ALONG WITH, I GUESS, DAVID MAYO AS A SQUIRREL. SHE HAD A HEAVY DISTASTE.

I DON'T KNOW, DOES THAT DESCRIBE IT FOR YOU?

Q. YES, I THINK SO.

A. OKAY.

Q. WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT AT ANY ONE OF THESE PARTICULAR CONVERSATIONS, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. NUMEROUS PEOPLE COULD HAVE BEEN. IT WAS JUST -- IT WASN'T ANYTHING FORMAL. I MEAN, IT'S JUST YOU'RE THERE, YOU KNOW. IT WAS JUST LIKE WANDERING AROUND. YOU KNOW, THE EVENT'S ABOUT TO START. YOU KNOW, JUST PEOPLE WERE AROUND. SO WHOEVER WAS AROUND AT THOSE EVENTS MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE HEARD IT.

Q. WERE THESE CONVERSATIONS? WHERE THESE OTHER EVENTS WERE BEING PLANNED, OR WERE THESE CONVERSATIONS WHERE PEOPLE WERE GETTING TOGETHER SORT OF LIKE BACK STAGE OR BEFORE THE EVENT TOOK PLACE? A. OKAY. YEAH. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR OF WHEN AN EVENT IS, AN EVENT IS WHEN VARIOUS SCIENTOLOGISTS SPEAK TO OTHER SCIENTOLOGISTS.

Q. RIGHT.

A. AND OFTEN THEY TAKE PLACE ON A DATE THAT'S AN OFFICIAL DATE WITHIN SCIENTOLOGY; OKAY?

Q. RIGHT.

A. SOMETIMES THEY WOULD BE BACK STAGE OR SOMETIMES ON THE WAY IN AN AIRPLANE. SOMETIMES WE WOULD GET TOGETHER BEFORE WE WENT ON THE AIRPLANE TO THE EVENT AND DISCUSS THE AGENDA OF THE EVENT. IS THAT CLEAR? Q. YES. DO YOU RECALL A SPECIFIC INSTANCE WHERE YOU AND VICKI WERE ON A PLANE TOGETHER BEFORE AN EVENT AND DISCUSSED SUCH MATTERS?

A. MEANING ABOUT BENT CORYDON?

Q. YES.

A. NO.

Q. OR IN WHICH THE NAME BENT CORYDON CAME UP.

A. NO, I DON'T.

Q. DO YOU RECALL ANY ONE OF THESE SPECIFIC EVENTS?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY.

A. THERE WAS ONE EVENT, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 19 -- I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 1984.

Q. WHAT WAS THAT?

A. NEAR THE END OF THE YEAR.

Q. UH-HUH.

A. I REMEMBER VICKI GIVING A VERY SERIOUS SPEECH ON THE SUBJECT OF FENCESITTERS AND GETTING OFF THE FENCE. IT WAS POSSIBLY AT THAT ONE OR AT ANOTHER ONE, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT OF. SQUIRRELS AND HOW THEY ALTER THE TECHNOLOGY AND HOW IT'S DISGRACEFUL THAT THEY DO THIS.

Q. WHAT WAS THAT --

A. NUMEROUS TIMES.

Q. WHAT WAS THE TITLE OF THAT FIRST EVENT WHERE FENCESITTERS WERE MENTIONED?

A. I COULDN'T TELL YOU. WE DIDN'T HAVE TITLES FOR THE EVENTS. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY TITLES FOR THE EVENTS. Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT ORGANIZATION SPONSORED THE EVENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: IF ANY.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT ONE --

A. I DON'T RECALL THAT.

Q. SORRY.

A. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. NO, I DON'T RECALL.

Q. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: DISREGARD COUNSEL'S COMMENT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, '83, '84, WHERE YOU HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS --

A. UH-HUH.

Q. -- WITH MS. AZANARAN --

A. WELL, ON EVENTS. I MEAN, ANY TIME BEFORE AN EVENT I WOULD TAKE THAT UP TO -- CONVERSATIONS WITH HER BEFORE AN EVENT WOULD BE UP THROUGH 1986.

Q. OKAY.

A. OKAY.

Q. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT ANOTHER WAY. THE NEXT CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD IN WHICH THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WITH MS. AZANARAN REGARDING BENT CORYDON OR IN WHICH HIS NAME CAME UP, TO THE BEST OF YOUR MEMORY. MR. LIEBERMAN: BY "THE NEXT" I TAKE IT YOU MEAN OTHER THAN THE SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS THAT HE SAID --

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. LIEBERMAN: -- WENT ON THROUGH 1986?

THE WITNESS: JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT, I BELIEVE THEY WENT ON THROUGH THE 1980'S. JUST TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR, VICKI -(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

(RECORD READ.)

THE WITNESS: VICKI AZANARAN WOULD BE THE ONE WHO WOULD -- SHE WOULD MENTION IT. I MEAN, IT WASN'T A HOT SUBJECT OF INTEREST. PARTICULARLY -- YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T A HIGH TOPIC OF CONVERSATION. I MEAN, THERE WERE TIMES, MAYBE, WHEN BENT'S NAME WAS MENTIONED,

BUT IT WAS THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS. SHE HAD A VERY HIGH INTEREST IN THAT, WHICH -- I DON'T KNOW: I GUESS THE CONVERSATIONS WOULD BE SOMEWHAT SHORT BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T A COMMON TOPIC THAT EVERYONE WOULD SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: JUST SO I'M CLEAR.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. DOES THAT EXHAUST, ESSENTIALLY, THE NATURE OF YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH MS. AZANARAN IN WHICH THE SUBJECT OF MR. CORYDON AROSE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN EXHAUST HIS PRESENT RECOLLECTION?

MS. PLEVIN: HIS PRESENT RECOLLECTION.

THE WITNESS: NO, IT DOESN'T.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. TELL ME ABOUT WHAT -- THE NEXT ONE THAT YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED SO FAR.

A. I REMEMBER THAT VICKI AZANARAN TOLD ME THAT BENT CORYDON WENT TO THE GILMAN HOT SPRINGS PROPERTY.

Q. I DON'T UNDERSTAND; THAT HE VISITED THERE? DO YOU RECALL WHAT SHE SAID?

A. YES, I DO.

Q. OKAY.

A. GENERALLY, THAT BENT CAME TO THE PROPERTY AND THAT HE WAS AT THE ENTRYWAY ATTEMPTING TO HARASS THE SECURITY PERSONNEL AND THE STAFF AT THE BASE AND THAT HE HAD COME THERE JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF HARASSMENT. I THINK HE STOPPED HIS CAR, AND HE WAS THERE

UTTERLY TO HARASS.

AND WHAT SHE WAS COMMENTING ON WAS THAT -- SHE SAID, "IT'S JUST SO OUTRAGEOUS WHAT HE'S DOING BECAUSE ...... ON THE ONE HAND," SHE SAID, "BENT CLAIMS ALL THESE BAD THINGS ARE HIS WORRIES ABOUT THE CHURCH, AND HERE HE COMES JUST TO CAUSE TROUBLE, AND THE GUY IS OBVIOUSLY JUST A TROUBLEMAKER, AND IT'S SO RIDICULOUS WHAT HE'S DONE."

I BELIEVE SHE TOLD ME THAT THE SECURITY OR THE POLICE CAME AND HAD THE SECURITY GUARD ARREST BENT AND THAT TYPICAL OF BENT'S CHILDISH BEHAVIOR IS THAT HE IN TURN ARRESTED THE SECURITY GUARD AT THE PROPERTY WHICH IS PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT HE CAME TO HARASS EVERYBODY.

Q. THAT BENT ARRESTED A SECURITY GUARD?

A. YES, I THINK SHE SAID IN TURN THAT HE DID, A CITIZEN'S ARREST. Q. CAN YOU PLACE THIS ANY MORE CLEARLY IN TIME?

MR. HERTZBERG: DON'T GUESS.

MS. PLEVIN: DON'T GUESS.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU RECALL IF THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN WHEN SHE SPOKE TO MR. MISCAVIGE ABOUT THIS? MS. PLEVIN: YES, THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: I'D HAVE TO GUESS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH MS. -- STRIKE THAT.

DID THE SUBJECT OF BENT CORYDON EVER COME UP AT ANY MEETINGS THAT YOU HAD WITH MS. AZANARAN AND OTHERS?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, I THOUGHT WE'VE BEEN --

MS. PLEVIN: AT ANY TIME.

MR. HERTZBERG: I THOUGHT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN GOING INTO IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL FOR THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF. MR. HELLER: YEAH.

MR. HERTZBERG: ISN'T THAT COMPREHENDED BY ALL OF YOUR PRIOR QUESTIONS?

MS. PLEVIN: NOT EXACTLY. I THINK MOSTLY THE PRIOR DISCUSSIONS WERE WITH REGARD TO TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MR. MISCAVIGE AND MS. AZANARAN WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER PERSON BEING PRESENT. I'M NOW ASKING WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THESE CONVERSATIONS TOOK PLACE IN THE CONTEXT OF A MEETING WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HE'S DESCRIBED HERETOFORE?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I JUST WANT TO OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION AS TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY TESTIMONY OR VERY MUCH TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO THESE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE TWO-WAY. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT MS. AZANARAN SAID.

MR. HELLER: I WOULD OBJECT ON ASKED AND ANSWERED AS WELL. BASICALLY, I THINK ON EACH OF THESE CONVERSATIONS YOU'VE ASKED HIM, "WAS THERE SOMEONE ELSE THERE?" THEN YOU'VE ASKED ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MEETING OR NOT. HE'S ASKED YOU TO DEFINE THE TERM "MEETING."

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME SEE IF I -- YOU CAN ASK IT ANY WAY YOU WANT TO, BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN CLARIFY IT SO WE CAN MOVE ON. I BELIEVE MISS PLEVIN WANTS TO KNOW WHETHER IN ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT VICKI AZANARAN HAD WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED, IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF A MEETING WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: IS THE ANSWER NO? THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU EVER HAVE -- WERE YOU EVER PRESENT AT ANY MEETINGS WITH MS. AZANARAN AT WHICH THE SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS WAS DISCUSSED?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THE SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS WAS DISCUSSED"? I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY "DISCUSSED" AND "THE SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS." Q. WHAT TO DO ABOUT SQUIRRELS.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.

THE WITNESS: OH, I MISSED THE QUESTION. I'M SORRY. WHAT DID YOU SAY?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT TO DO ABOUT SQUIRRELS.

A. WHAT TO DO ABOUT SQUIRRELS?

Q. YES.

A. YES.

Q. DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS?

A. 1984 OR 1985.

Q. AND WHERE WAS IT? WHERE DID THIS TAKE PLACE?

A. I BELIEVE AT THE COMPLEX. I THINK AT THE COMPLEX.

Q. IN LOS ANGELES?

A. YES.

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS ALL, BUT I THINK JESSE PRINCE AND RICK AZANARAN WERE ALSO PRESENT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE MEETING?

A. OKAY, JUST TO DEFINE "MEETING," I'M DEFINING MEETING AS ANY GROUP OF TWO OR MORE PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO BE IN CONVERSATION THAT WASN'T AN OFFICIAL PREARRANGED MEETING. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN THIS INSTANCE, I HAD JUST DROPPED BY HER OFFICE BECAUSE I WAS IN LOS ANGELES. YOU KNOW, "HOW'RE YOU DOING?" STEP IN SAY, "HI."

Q. THIS TOOK PLACE AT HER OFFICE?

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. AND YOU CAME BY HER OFFICE AND JESSE PRINCE AND RICK AZANARAN WERE PRESENT IN HER OFFICE AT THAT TIME?

A. OR AROUND THE OFFICE, BUT THE WAY THE OFFICE WAS SET UP, I MEAN, YOU'D WALK THROUGH AN OFFICE INTO AN OFFICE AND ACTUALLY DOWN A HALLWAY. SO AT ANY RATE THEY ENDED UP -- THEY DID END UP GATHERING IN THERE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE ABOUT RICK AZANARAN; I THINK. I'LL GIVE IT A 90 PERCENT THAT JESSE WAS THERE. I THINK RICK WAS, TOO, POSSIBLY, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT RING A BELL.

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONVERSATION REGARDING SQUIRRELS? A. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONVERSATION REGARDING SQUIRRELS WAS --

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THIS IS NOT NOW ABOUT -- I DON'T BELIEVE BENT'S NAME WAS MENTIONED.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S THE CONFUSION MR. MISCAVIGE HAD.

MS. PLEVIN: I DIDN'T ASK --

MR. HERTZBERG: I TOLD HIM I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING THE GENERAL QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE WITNESS: THE GENERAL -- THE TOPIC WAS ABOUT THE AAC AND THAT'S THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER AND DAVID MAYO SQUIRREL GROUP.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND WHAT DID YOU SAY TO MS.

AZANARAN, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. I RESPONDED TO WHAT SHE SAID TO ME.

Q. SHE INITIATED THE SUBJECT?

A. YES.

Q. WHAT DID SHE SAY?

A. SHE TOLD ME THAT, APPARENTLY, SHE

HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN OR KNEW ABOUT -- OR I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PART SHE HAD IN IT -- OF PEOPLE THAT WERE SCIENTOLOGISTS IN GOOD STANDING ATTENDING A BARBECUE THAT WAS HELD AT THE EVENT AT THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER AT SANTA BARBARA IN AN ATTEMPT TO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO, I GUESS, BRING THOSE PEOPLE TO THEIR SENSES.

IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF SCIENTOLOGISTS

GOING THERE AND MEETING THESE SQUIRRELS WHO WERE ALTERING THE PACK AND PASSING IT OFF AS SCIENTOLOGY AND THAT THIS HAD SOMEHOW ESCALATED INTO A CONFRONTATION. BY "CONFRONTATION" I MEAN ARGUING OR -- THAT'S ABOUT WHAT I KNOW. BUT IN

ANY EVENT THAT THAT EVENT HAD THEN RESULTED IN SOME FORM OF RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST BOTH SIDES, HER -- I'M NOT SURE WHO, EXACTLY -- AND THE AAC.

SHE THOUGHT THIS WAS -- SHE THOUGHT

THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE THING THAT THESE PEOPLE WENT TO THE AAC BARBECUE, AND SHE GOT A KICK OUT OF IT. IT WAS JUST CHILDISH.

I INFORMED HER THAT I THOUGHT THAT

IF SHE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS OR HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, I THOUGHT SHE WAS A COMPLETE IDIOT; THAT IN MY ESTIMATION SQUIRRELS WERE ABSOLUTE ZEROS. I DON'T KNOW WHY SHE EVEN PLACED ANY ATTENTION UNITS ON THESE PEOPLE; THAT PER TECH ANY SQUIRREL GROUP WILL EAT ITSELF UP PERSONALLY WITHIN THREE YEARS; THAT SQUIRRELS ABSOLUTELY DETEST THE SUBJECT OF GETTING OFF THEIR OVERTS OR WITHHOLDS AND STAYING CLEAN, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH OUTISH CHARACTERS AND OF SUCH LOW MORAL CHARACTER THAT IF JUST LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES, THEY, ONE BY ONE, WILL EAT EACH OTHER ALIVE PERSONALLY WITHIN THE SQUIRREL GROUP.

I TOLD HER THAT IT WAS MY OPINION

THAT IF ANY OF THESE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE, ALL THAT HE WAS DOING OR PARTICIPATING IN DOING WAS GIVING LIFE TO A LIFELESS ACTIVITY, AND I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS SILLY. I TOLD HER IT WAS MY OPINION THAT

THESE PEOPLE WOULD JUST -- IF THERE WAS A SQUIRREL GROUP OR A GATHERING OF SQUIRRELS THAT IT WOULD -IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME, AND THEY WILL, BASICALLY, FALL APART.

Q. LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND YOU, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. OKAY.

Q. SQUIRREL GROUPS, BECAUSE OF A

VARIETY OF FACTORS AS YOU MENTIONED, WILL FALL APART WITHIN THREE YEARS, AND TIME SHOULDN'T BE WASTED ON THEM.

MR. HELLER: ARE YOU ASKING IF

THAT'S WHAT HE JUST TESTIFIED? I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, MIKE.

MR. HERTZBERG: YEAH. IS THAT A QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: DO YOU --

MR. HELLER: WOULD YOU ASK THAT -WELL, HE'S --

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT IN TERMS OF A QUESTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. GIVEN YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MISCAVIGE --

A. YES.

Q. STRIKE THAT.

YOU ARE AWARE THAT RTC FILED A

LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER, ARE YOU NOT?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT. DO YOU MEAN

NOW, TODAY, IS HE AWARE?

MR. DRESCHER: WELL, FIRST, BEFORE

WE GET TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT QUESTION CAN BE UNDERSTOOD, TO THE EXTENT I UNDERSTAND IT, I DON'T KNOW THE RELEVANCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF THIS.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND MR. MISCAVIGE'S COMMENTS.

MR. DRESCHER: LIKE YOU --

MR. HERTZBERG: THEY WEREN'T

COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, THEY WEREN'T COMMENTS. WHAT YOU ASKED WAS MR. MISCAVIGE'S

P.T., PRESENT TIME, RECOLLECTION, BEST RECOLLECTION, OF A -- OF REMARKS THAT HE MADE TO MS. AZANARAN.

MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY, AND HE GAVE THEM TO YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, YOU KNOW, YOU

MAY HAVE A LEGITIMATE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, BUT I PREFER THAT WE NOT REHASH WHAT HE JUST TOLD YOU BECAUSE THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR --

MS. PLEVIN: THE RECORD WILL SPEAK

FOR ITSELF.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- WHAT HIS

RECOLLECTION IS, AND I'D PREFER THAT WE NOT HAVE AN ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: I DO NOT INTEND TO. MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY, MR.

MISCAVIGE, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE A USEFUL ENDEAVOR TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST A SQUIRREL GROUP?

MR. HELLER: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, IRRELEVANT.

MR. HELLER: SPECULATIVE.

MR. HERTZBERG: SPECULATIVE AND IMMATERIAL.

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

MR. HERTZBERG: YES, I AM.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY SUCH

LAWSUITS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER?

MR. DRESCHER: SAME OBJECTION.

MS. PLEVIN: STRIKE THAT.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY LAWSUITS

HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER IN WHICH RTC WAS A PLAINTIFF?

A. YES.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THAT LAWSUIT -STRIKE THAT.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THE CLAIMS IN THAT LAWSUIT?

MR. HERTZBERG: BY WHOM?

MS. PLEVIN: BY RTC.

MR. DRESCHER: I'M GOING TO CONTINUE

MY RELEVANCE OBJECTION.

MR. HELLER: I'LL JOIN.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER IF

YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE CLAIMS ARE IN THE COMPLAINT.

THE WITNESS: OR ANY OF THEM; IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO THOSE -- ARE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY

WAY IN THE OVERSIGHT OF THE CONDUCT OF THAT LAWSUIT?

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT SURE --

MS. PLEVIN: ON BEHALF OF RTC.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT SURE --

MR. DRESCHER: AT THIS POINT, LET ME

INTERPOSE THIS OBJECTION. YOU'VE ALREADY SERVED SUBPOENAS TODAY ON THIS WITNESS IN TWO LAWSUITS UNRELATED TO THIS ONE. NOW YOU'RE SITTING HERE PROBING WHAT THIS WITNESS KNOWS ABOUT STILL ANOTHER LAWSUIT THAT'S UNRELATED.

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL STRIKE THE QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER: I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH THIS.

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL STRIKE THE QUESTION.

Q. WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

THAT YOU HAD WITH MS. AZANARAN AT ANY TIME THAT RELATED TO MR. CORYDON?

MR. HERTZBERG: OTHER THAN THE ONES HE'S DESCRIBED ALREADY?

MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE SO. MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. COULD YOU TELL ME APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS?

A. FOR THE RECORD, I WISH YOU WOULDN'T TALK WHILE I'M ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE RECORD WILL

REFLECT YOUR OBSERVATION.

MS. PLEVIN: MY CLIENT WAS

WHISPERING IN MY EAR WITHOUT BEING AUDIBLE EVEN TO ME. I COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN --

MR. HERTZBERG: MR. MISCAVIGE

INDICATES TO ME THAT HE'S BEING DISTRACTED.

MS. PLEVIN: GIVEN THE FREQUENCY

WITH WHICH EVERYONE ELSE HERE HAS WHISPERED AMONGST EACH OTHER FOR TWO DAYS RUNNING, MY CLIENT'S WHISPERING ABOUT SIX WORDS IN MY EAR IS NOT DISTRACTING.

NOW, COULD WE GO BACK TO THE

QUESTION, PLEASE. I DID NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE WITH MR. MISCAVIGE'S THOUGHT PROCESSES.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S WHAT THREW

HIM OFF.

MR. HELLER: YOU ASKED HIM ABOUT ANY

OTHER CONVERSATIONS; HE SAID HE THOUGHT SO.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THEM TO

US?

A. THIS CONVERSATION, I BELIEVE IT WAS

IN 1986 IN AN AIRPLANE EN ROUTE TO TORONTO, CANADA.

Q. WERE YOU SITTING WITH MS. AZANARAN?

A. AT TIMES.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS CONVERSATION?

A. ON THE SUBJECT OF -- SQUIRRELS IN

GENERAL WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE BROUGHT UP.

Q. WAS THIS PRIOR TO THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY EVENT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTOLOGISTS?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE

THE DATE -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THIS IS. I MEAN, TO USE THAT AS FIXING IT. DON'T WE HAVE THE DATE ALREADY?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, WE DON'T.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE DON'T? WHY DON'T

YOU JUST ASK HIM WHAT THE DATE IS? WE'RE BACK TO MEASURING --

THE WITNESS: I DID GIVE A DATE. SAID 1986.

MR. LIEBERMAN: HE SAID 1986.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S NOT A SUFFICIENT DATE?

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL STRIKE IT, MR.

HERTZBERG. YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE SUCH A BIG ISSUE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'LL TELL YOU WHAT.

MY PURPOSE IS TO GET THE DEPOSITION MOVING AND --

MS. PLEVIN: AND THESE KINDS OF --

THESE KINDS OF INTERPOSITIONS ACTUALLY CREATE PROLONGATION, UNNECESSARILY, FOR MINOR POINTS THAT COULD JUST GO AND COME. INSTEAD YOU MAKE --

MR. HERTZBERG: WHY DON'T YOU GET TO THE CONVERSATION?

MS. PLEVIN: YOU MAKE BIG POINTS ABOUT THE NONSENSE.

Q. WHAT WAS THE CONTENT OF THE CONVERSATION, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. THE CONTENT OF THE CONVERSATION WAS,

JUST IN GENERAL, HER CONTINUING DETEST OF SQUIRRELS AND MY CONTINUING TO TELL HER MY FEELINGS ABOUT IT. AND TO CLARIFY THAT, IT'S

REALLY A PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS NATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS, IN THAT TECHNICALLY -- BY "TECHNICALLY," I AM REFERRING TO THE ACTUAL TECHNOLOGY OF SCIENTOLOGY.

IN THAT TECHNOLOGY, IT STATES QUITE

CLEARLY THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE OVERTS OR WITHHOLDS, NATTER, ARE CRITICAL, AND BLOW FROM AREAS -- BY "BLOW," I MEAN WILL HAVE SUDDEN DEPARTURES. THAT TECHNOLOGY ALSO STATES THAT SQUIRREL GROUPS, HISTORICALLY -- BY "SQUIRREL GROUPS," I DEFINED ANY ONE OR TWO, AT LEAST, PEOPLE WHO ARE ALTERING THE TECHNOLOGY OF SCIENTOLOGY OR ENTIRELY INVENTING TECHNOLOGY AND CALLING IT SCIENTOLOGY, USUALLY FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL MEANS, THAT'S WHAT I DEFINE SQUIRREL GROUP AS -- THAT THESE PEOPLE, PERSONALLY, BY THEMSELVES, WILL EAT EACH OTHER

UP.

BY "EAT EACH OTHER UP," I TAKE THAT

TO MEAN THAT THEY WILL HAVE A PARTING OF WAYS; THAT THEY WILL ARGUE AMONGST EACH OTHER; THAT QUITE SHORTLY THEY WILL BE AT EACH OTHERS' THROATS; WHEREAS, THEY ORIGINALLY HAD FANCIED SOME DISPUTE WITH SCIENTOLOGY AS A SUBJECT WILL NOW HAVE A DISPUTE WITH THEMSELVES AND THAT THEY WILL GO SEPARATE WAYS AND THAT THIS GATHERING OF PEOPLE THAT DO WHATEVER THEY DO WILL NO LONGER EXIST OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.

AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY

THAT THEY WILL NOT USE WITH EACH OTHER IS BASICALLY MAINTAINING A HIGH MORAL CHARACTER AND STAYING CLEAN WITH ONE ANOTHER. BY THAT I MEAN

NOT LYING TO EACH OTHER OR COMMITTING VARIOUS OVERTS -- AND THAT'S O-V-E-R-T-S.

AS A RESULT, THEIR DYNAMICS WILL GO

COMPLETELY OUT OF BALANCE, AND THEY WILL GO THEIR SEPARATE WAYS AND THAT IS MY FEELING ABOUT SQUIRRELS IN GENERAL; AND THAT TECHNOLOGY, BASICALLY, SAYS THAT AS A STATEMENT AND NOT A STATEMENT OF ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT PURE TECHNICAL DATA AS TO WHAT ONE CAN EXPECT.

I ADOPT THAT IN THAT I DO NOT PLACE

HIGH CREDIBILITY OR IMPORTANCE ON ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, AND AT BEST MAYBE ONE-ONE-HUNDRED BILLIONTH OF ANY ATTENTION UNITS I HAVE AT ANY GIVEN TIME WOULD BE DEVOTED TO THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE, BASICALLY, LEFT THE CHURCH, AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ME AND THAT IS TO CLARIFY WHAT I MEANT BY THAT CONVERSATION WHICH HAPPENED ON TWO OCCASIONS WITH VICKI AZANARAN; THAT'S THE END OF MY ANSWER.

Q. AS A SCIENTOLOGIST, MR. MISCAVIGE --

A. YES.

Q. -- WHO HAS HAD A VARIETY OF

POSITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, IS IT --

A. WELL, AS A SCIENTOLOGIST. I AM A SCIENTOLOGIST; THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POSITION OR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT AS A SCIENTOLOGIST, OKAY.

Q. WHO HAS ALSO HAD A VARIETY OF POSITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY.

A. OKAY.

Q. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THOSE

RESPONSIBILITIES BE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO SOURCE; IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SOURCE IS THE MATERIAL -- THE WORD

OF L. RON HUBBARD?

A. SOURCE, AS USED IN SCIENTOLOGY, REFERS TO L. RON HUBBARD.

Q. OKAY.

A. MEANING HE IS THE SOURCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY.

Q. OKAY.

A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. NOW, WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT

I'M USING THAT DEFINITION OF SOURCE --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- I'LL REASK THE QUESTION.

A. VERY WELL.

Q. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY

BE EXERCISED AND ACTIONS TAKEN ACCORDING TO SOURCE?

A. HOW DO YOU DEFINE "RESPONSIBILITY"?

Q. WE COULD GET BACK INTO THE AREA WE

HAD SO MUCH DIFFICULTY WITH YESTERDAY.

A. NO, THAT WAS "FUNCTION."

Q. ESSENTIALLY --

A. WELL, IT'S SIMILAR HERE. I THINK YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF "RESPONSIBILITY."

Q. LET'S USE YOURS. WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF "FUNCTION"?

A. I MEAN, I'M NOT THE ONE WHO ASKED

THE QUESTION. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN IN THAT SENSE.

Q. PLEASE DEFINE "RESPONSIBILITY."

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, SEE, THAT'S NOT

A PROPER QUESTION, "DEFINE RESPONSIBILITY." YOU ASKED A QUESTION. THE WITNESS SAYS HE ISN'T SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY AN IMPORTANT TERM IN THE QUESTION. HE'S ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO CLARIFY IT,

LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION. IF YOU DO WANT TO CLARIFY IT, PLEASE CLARIFY IT.

MR. HELLER: WELL, THIS. IS --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORD RESPONSIBILITY, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: HE SAID HE DOESN'T

KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY IT. HE WANTS TO TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION; BUT HE HAS TO UNDERSTAND, BEFORE HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHAT YOU MEAN BY IT, AND THAT'S WHAT HE ASKED YOU.

MR. HELLER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO

RELEVANCE TO BOTH OF THESE QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY THE PREDECESSOR QUESTION. IT'S ALL VERY INTERESTING, BUT WHAT'S IT GOT TO WITH WHY WE'RE HERE AND THIS LAWSUIT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK FROM THE

POINT OF VIEW OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF

RTC.

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC

PERFORMS -- HAS CERTAIN ZONES OF RESPONSIBILITY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. AS ANYBODY DOES, OF COURSE.

Q. OKAY. AND IN DOING THOSE THINGS

WHICH ARE PART OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD'S ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY, IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE -THAT THOSE THINGS BE DONE ACCORDING TO SOURCE, AS YOU DEFINE SOURCE?

A. "THOSE THINGS"?

Q. THOSE ACTIONS.

A. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE ASKING ME IF AN

AUDITING SESSION IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO HCOB TECHNOLOGY, YES.

Q. WHAT ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, AREN'T THEY ALSO SOURCE MATERIAL?

A. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES?

Q. THE GREEN VOLUMES.

A. YOU MEAN HCO POLICY LETTERS? Q. YES.

A. THAT WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD?

Q. YES.

A. SO WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

Q. THEY ARE SOURCE?

A. NO, THEY'RE NOT. L. RON HUBBARD IS SOURCE.

Q. BUT THEY REPRESENT THE STATEMENTS OF L. RON HUBBARD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. NO. I THINK THEY ARE THE STATEMENTS OF L. RON HUBBARD.

MR. HELLER: HE SAID THEY'RE WRITTEN

BY HIM.

MS. PLEVIN: THEY ARE THE STATEMENTS

OF L. RON HUBBARD, OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: AREN'T WE GETTING A LITTLE FAR AFIELD HERE?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, WE'RE NOT.

MR. HERTZBERG: IT SEEMS TO ME --

MS. PLEVIN: NO, WE'RE NOT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, LET ME MAKE MY

RECORD, PLEASE. PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT ME.

IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT WE'VE DONE NOW

IS WE'VE DIGRESSED FROM ONE OF THE ONLY ARGUABLY RELEVANT AREAS OF QUESTIONING IN THIS DEPOSITION UP TO NOW, NAMELY, CONVERSATIONS IN WHICH MR. MISCAVIGE HAS MENTIONED --

MS. PLEVIN: THE DEPONENT HAS LEFT THE ROOM.

MR. HERTZBERG: YES.

MS. PLEVIN: PROBABLY TO GO TO THE BATHROOM.

MR. DRESCHER: INDEED, TO GO TO THE BATHROOM ROOM; THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD ME.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE HAVE DIGRESSED,

MISS PLEVIN, FROM WHAT IS ARGUABLY THE ONLY RELEVANT AREA OF INQUIRY SO FAR INTO A SORT OF ECCLESIASTIC DEBATE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS HEADED, BUT LET'S WAIT UNTIL MR. MISCAVIGE GETS BACK.

MR. DRESCHER: I JOIN IN THAT.

MR. HELLER: YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO

TELL US WHAT THE RELEVANCE IS -- BUT I HAVEN'T THE FOGGIEST NOTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S GO BACK ON THE RECORD WHEN HE GETS BACK.

MR. HELLER: OKAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.

A. OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: WHAT WAS THE PENDING QUESTION?

(RECORD READ.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HCO PL'S ARE POLICY LETTERS WHICH

HAVE THE FORCE OF SCRIPTURE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. WHAT'S CORRECT IS THAT HCO POLICY LETTERS ARE HCO POLICY LETTERS.

Q. DO THEY HAVE THE FORCE OF SCRIPTURE?

A. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFINE FOR ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.

Q. THE WORD OF L. RON HUBBARD.

A. WELL, THEY'RE WRITTEN BY L. RON

HUBBARD; SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN HAVE THE FORCE OF WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD. THEY'RE SIGNED BY L. RON HUBBARD.

IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, ARE THEY SIGNED

BY L. RON HUBBARD, THE ANSWER IS YES.

Q. L. RON HUBBARD'S STATEMENTS

REGARDING TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY ARE SCRIPTURE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. NO.

Q. OKAY. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WORK WITH

THAT ONE AND COME BACK TO ANOTHER ONE, HOWEVER, AT THE MOMENT.

A. OKAY.

Q. I'M NOT GOING TO WITHDRAW IT. I'M CHANGING MY MIND.

MR. HERTZBERG: WITHDRAW WHAT?

THE WITNESS: I THOUGHT I ANSWERED IT.

MS. PLEVIN: THE PRIOR QUESTION THAT I'M COMING BACK TO.

Q. REFERRING TO THE LAWSUIT IN WHICH RTC IS A PLAINTIFF AGAINST AAC, I PREVIOUSLY ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU HAVE OVERSEEN THE CONDUCT OF THAT LAWSUIT.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE' NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WHICH I THINK, CLEARLY, IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY YOU, FOR WHATEVER MOTIVATION, TO OBTAIN SOME KIND OF DISCOVERY FOR SOME OTHER LITIGATION WHICH YOU'VE ALREADY SHOWN THAT YOU'RE, AT LEAST IN SOME CASES, WILLING TO ACT AS A PROCESS SERVER AS OPPOSED TO COUNSEL IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

MS. PLEVIN: NO, QUITE CLEARLY -- QUITE CONTRARY, MR. HERTZBERG. WE HAVE CONTENDED THAT IN MANY INSTANCES THE POWER EXERCISED AND THE INTENTIONAL CONDUCT EXERCISED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST ADVERSARIES IS EXERCISED VIA LAWSUITS, HARASSMENT THROUGH LAWSUITS AND SO FORTH.

MR. HERTZBERG: PLEASE ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: SO I WILL RESTATE THE QUESTION SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING.

Q. HAVE YOU HAD, MR. MISCAVIGE, RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF THE CONDUCT OF THE LAWSUIT AGAINST AAC?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'VE ASKED IT THREE TIMES NOW. WE'RE WASTING A LOT OF TIME. HE'S NOT GOING TO ANSWER IT FOR THE REASONS THAT WE GAVE BEFORE. MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT, I JUST WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR. ONE MORE ATTEMPT ON THE PRIOR QUESTION.

Q. ARE HCO PL'S TO BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? "FOLLOWED EXACTLY"? WHILE READING THEM? I WOULD THINK SO.

MR. HERTZBERG: BY WHOM?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. BY IMPLEMENTING THEM --

A. IF YOU'RE READING THEM.

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT.

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY.

MR. HERTZBERG: BY WHOM? AND ALSO SUBJECT TO MR. MISCAVIGE'S INQUIRY.

MS. PLEVIN: BY THE PERSON IMPLEMENTING THEM IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY AS A STAFF MEMBER.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S A CONTRADICTION. YOUR QUESTION DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AS STATED.

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE READ THE QUESTION BACK.

(RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS: "QUESTION: ARE HCO PL'S TO BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY?")

MS. PLEVIN: WITH THE CLARIFICATION, PLEASE, THAT FOLLOWED.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'LL HAVE TO STATE THE CLARIFICATION.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S THE QUESTION?

MR. HERTZBERG: THERE IS NO QUESTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HCO PL'S, ARE THEY TO BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY BY THE STAFF PERSON WHO IS IN THE ROLE OF HAVING TO IMPLEMENT THEM FOR THE DIVISION THAT THEY'RE ACTING IN, THEIR POST?

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M CONFUSED AT LEAST ON A COUPLE OF POINTS, AND THEN MR. MISCAVIGE CAN ANSWER. FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES YOU'RE REFERRING TO. SECONDLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "STAFF MEMBER." WHAT STAFF MEMBER OF WHERE? THIRDLY, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES? THOSE ARE -- AT THE VERY LEAST, THOSE ARE COMPLETELY VAGUE IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION THAT YOU'VE ASKED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, MR. MISCAVIGE? A. (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q. LET'S TAKE WHAT WE'VE GOT.

A. NO. I DIDN'T GIVE A MISUNDERSTOOD. THAT'S WHAT I THINK. I DON'T -- ARE THE HCO POLICIES -- JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 5,000, OR POSSIBLY MORE, HCO POLICY LETTERS THAT ARE IN EXISTENCE. Q. ALL RIGHT.

A. ARE YOU ASKING ME WHEN SOMEBODY READS IT, ARE THEY TO FOLLOW IT? WHAT ARE YOU ASKING ME?

Q. NO.

A. OKAY.

Q. NO.

A. OKAY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

Q. HCO POLICY -- HCO PL'S ARE WRITTEN AS INSTRUCTION OR GUIDANCE OR DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO HOW PEOPLE, HOW STAFFS, HOW ORGANIZATIONS PERFORM FUNCTIONS.

A. THAT'S YOUR MISUNDERSTOOD. YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT. I DISAGREE WITH YOUR DEFINITION.

Q. FINE. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AN HCO PL?

A. IT'S A HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE POLICY LETTER. IT MEANS AN ISSUE THAT'S WRITTEN ON -- WITH GREEN INK AND IT APPEARS -- IT'S NOT WRITTEN; IT'S PRINTED ON GREEN INK ON WHITE PAPER, AND IT'S WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD.

Q. AND THEY ARE --

A. IT IS A POLICY LETTER. IT GENERALLY DEALS WITH THE SCIENTOLOGY THIRD DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY AS OPPOSED TO FIRST DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY, WHICH YOU WOULD FIND MORE NORMALLY IN RED ON WHITE ISSUES, MEANING THAT IT IS RED INK PRINTED ON WHITE PAPER, AND IT'S CALLED A HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE BULLETIN, WHICH IN MOST INSTANCES, ALTHOUGH NOT ALL, GENERALLY DISCUSSES TECHNICAL PROCEDURES FOR AUDITING OR PROCESSING.

Q. OKAY. AS THIRD DYNAMIC PROCEDURES, THEY RELATE TO HOW THE PERSON INTERACTS OR RELATES TO THE THIRD DYNAMIC WHICH IS THE GROUP?

A. THEY DON'T. YOU'RE GIVING ME AN ALL-CONCLUSIVE STATEMENT THAT'S INCORRECT. LOOK IT, A LOT OF THESE -- I WILL STATE THEY ARE WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD IF THEY ARE OFFICIAL, AND BY THAT -- I THROW IN THAT BECAUSE THERE HAVE IN THE PAST BEEN HCO POLICY LETTERS THAT APPEAR TO BE WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD BUT WHICH WEREN'T; YET THEY HAD HIS NAME. WE'VE MADE EVERY ATTEMPT TO FIND THESE AND TO LOCATE THEM AND CLARIFY THAT MATTER. DOES THIS MEAN STOP?

Q. NO, GO AHEAD. I'M LISTENING.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE WAS CONFUSED BECAUSE YOU STARTED WAVING YOUR FINGER AT HIM. MS. PLEVIN: NO. NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: SO HE DIDN'T KNOW.

MS. PLEVIN: IT WAS MORE OR LESS TO MYSELF. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. AND YOU'RE -- FROM WHAT I GATHER YOU'RE STATING IS THAT HCO POLICY LETTERS RELATE TO AN INTERACTION BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS OR AN EXACT SERIES OF STEPS TO BE TAKEN ON ANY INDIVIDUAL POST WITHIN A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION.

THERE I HAVE TO DISAGREE BECAUSE ANY SCIENTOLOGIST CAN READ AN HCO POLICY LETTER AND NOT BE EMPLOYED OR A STAFF MEMBER AT ANY SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION, AND YET HE COULD STILL READ THEM.

SECOND OF ALL, THEY AREN'T AN INSTRUCTION SHEET. THEY'RE NOT WRITTEN LIKE A MANUAL FOR A WASHING MACHINE, BUT INSTEAD AND, IN MANY CASES, THEY CONTAIN STATEMENTS BY L. RON HUBBARD OF A SCIENTOLOGICAL NATURE. BY THAT I MEAN JUST THAT THEY ARE STATEMENTS, OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LIFE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU ASKED ME, "DO YOU FOLLOW THEM?" DO YOU READ ALONG WORD BY WORD AND FOLLOW AN OBSERVATION? AN OBSERVATION IS AN OBSERVATION.

IF I SAID THE BUILDING WAS BLUE, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FOLLOW THAT OBSERVATION. THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. IF IN AN HCO PL, ON THE SUBJECT OF HOW TO DEAL WITH FINANCES -- AN OFFICIAL HCO PL, WRITTEN BY HUBBARD, AND IT DESCRIBES PROCEDURES DEALING WITH FINANCES, THAT PROCEDURE IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE APPROPRIATE DIVISIONS THAT DEAL WITH FINANCES IN A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT. YOU'VE ASKED A VERY, VERY GENERAL QUESTION. I DON'T WANT A MISUNDERSTANDING ON THIS RECORD. YOU'RE ASKING, FIRST OF ALL, A HYPOTHETICAL. SECONDLY, MR. MISCAVIGE SAID THERE ARE LIKE 5,000 OF THESE POLICY LETTERS TO BEGIN WITH. IT'S A QUESTION BY WHOM?

MS: PLEVIN: AS I STATED IN THE QUESTION, MR. HERTZBERG, BY THE PERSON IN THE FINANCIAL AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY IN A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER IT IF YOU UNDERSTAND IT.

THE WITNESS: IF THERE WAS A POLICY LETTER ABOUT FINANCES? I CAN'T ADOPT THAT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. THAT'S A VERY GENERAL STATEMENT. I CAN'T ADOPT THAT. I'M SORRY. MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU HAVE ONE -- LET ME MAKE A SUGGESTION. DO YOU HAVE A LETTER THAT RELATES TO THIS CASE THAT YOU WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT? NO? YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD IN WHAT'S COMMONLY THE NEGATIVE MODE. MS. PLEVIN: I AM --

MR. HERTZBERG: SO I WILL INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN NO.

MR. HELLER: THEN WHY ARE WE FOLLOWING THIS WHOLE LINE OF INQUIRY --

MS. PLEVIN: I AM --

MR. HELLER: -- IF THAT'S A NO?

MS. PLEVIN: I AM -- I DON'T INTEND TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS. I BELIEVE THE QUESTIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

MR. DRESCHER: BUT --

MR. HERTZBERG: IT'S ALSO CLEAR THAT --

MS. PLEVIN: AND THE FAILURE TO ANSWER IS AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A DIFFICULT RECORD. I'M GOING TO GO ON AND ATTEMPT TO COME BACK AT ANOTHER TIME FOR IT, IF WE CAN. I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE ADDITIONAL TIME NOW.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST MAKE IT CLEAR. NO ONE IS TRYING TO CREATE A DIFFICULT RECORD. I THINK THE DIFFICULTY IS WITH THESE QUESTIONS WHICH APPARENTLY ARE ABSTRACT, NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE POLICY LETTERS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE IN RELATION TO THIS CASE. BUT LET US MOVE ON BECAUSE WE CONCUR HEARTILY IN THAT.

MS. PLEVIN: THIS ONE MIGHT BE PERTINENT TO THIS ISSUE. HERE IS AN HCO PL OF OCTOBER 29, 1962 SIGNED BY L. RON HUBBARD, EXCLUSIVE OF THE NONTYPED PORTIONS, THE ASTERISKS AND THE UNDERLINING (INDICATING). MR. DRESCHER: I DON'T SEE A SIGNATURE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS POLICY LETTER, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. I'M JUST READING IT HERE.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, YOU'RE MAINTAINING, MISS PLEVIN, THAT THAT 1962 LETTER MAY BE RELEVANT IN SOME WAY TO THIS CASE?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. DRESCHER: I DIDN'T HEAR THE RESPONSE.

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: OKAY, I'VE READ THIS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS POLICY LETTER, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. I BELIEVE I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE.

Q. IS THIS POLICY LETTER CURRENT?

A. WELL --

MR. HELLER: CURRENT?

THE WITNESS: WELL, IF YOU CONSIDER --

MS. PLEVIN: STRIKE THAT.

THE WITNESS: -- 28 YEARS AGO CURRENT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. POLICY LETTERS, I BELIEVE YOU STATED YESTERDAY, UNLIKE HCOB'S -- POLICY LETTERS WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. WELL, IT'S NOT THE EXACT STATEMENT I MADE. POLICY LETTERS WHICH STAY IN PRINT, YES, THAT IS A CORRECT -- THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT "WITHDRAWN" MEANS; THAT'S WHY I'M EXPLAINING WHAT I MEAN.

Q. WELL, COULD THEY BE OVERRULED?

A. COULD THEY BE OVERRULED? HOW DO YOU MEAN? IT'S A WRITING. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT A PIECE OF PAPER. I MEAN, CAN YOU OVERRULE A BOOK? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Q. LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY, MR. MISCAVIGE, COULD YOU WRITE A POLICY LETTER WHICH STATES WHAT HUBBARD SAID IN THIS POLICY LETTER IS INCORRECT; WOULD THAT BE A PERMISSIBLE THING FOR YOU TO DO AS A SCIENTOLOGIST OR AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC?

A. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DO NOT AND WILL NOT AND CANNOT WRITE HCO POLICY LETTERS, PERIOD. YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT THIS HCO POLICY LETTER, CAN I STATE WHAT HE SAYS IS UNTRUE. DO YOU WANT TO ASK ME SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS? BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE

EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT.

Q. FIRST OF ALL, CAN THIS BE CANCELLED?

A. CANCELLED? NO, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU SAY THAT. IF YOU SEND A LETTER TO SOMEBODY, CAN YOU CANCEL THAT LETTER? THERE'S MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. MS. PLEVIN: LET'S MARK THIS NEXT IN ORDER.

MR. LIEBERMAN: THAT'S NO. 37.

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

(THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS MARKED BY THE C.S.R. AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IS ATTACHED HERETO.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH MS. AZANARAN THAT YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED SO FAR?

A. WE'RE OFF THIS (INDICATING)?

Q. FOR NOW.

A. OKAY. GIVE ME THE QUESTION AGAIN. I'M SORRY.

Q. ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH MS. AZANARAN THAT YOU CAN RECALL REGARDING -- OR IN WHICH MR. CORYDON WAS MENTIONED AS THE SUBJECT IN ANY WAY, APART FROM THE ONES YOU'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED?

A. BEING THAT THAT WAS ABOUT HALF AN HOUR AGO, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST ONE I DISCUSSED. RECALLING THAT, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE LAST DISCUSSION, WHAT I WAS COMMENTING ON AT THAT TIME.

Q. WHICH WAS IN MS. AZANARAN'S OFFICES, AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION -- ACTUALLY, TO BE CLEAR, IT WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT SQUIRRELS, WHICH WAS THE LAST CONVERSATION YOU RECALLED. IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MR. CORYDON. A. RIGHT.

Q. ALL RIGHT. AND AT THE PRESENT TIME YOU DON'T RECALL ANY ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH MS. AZANARAN.

MR. LIEBERMAN: ABOUT WHAT?

MS. PLEVIN: ABOUT MR. CORYDON.

THE WITNESS: ABOUT MR. CORYDON?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: NOT SQUIRRELS?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: NO.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: BY THE WAY, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT I'M NOT HOLDING FIRM TO THAT. I MEAN, I REMEMBER THAT THAT SEEMED TO BE THE LAST CONVERSATION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS THERE ANY --

A. I BELIEVE WE AGREE ON THAT.

Q. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU MIGHT LOOK AT OR ANY WAY YOU MIGHT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS?

A. I WOULD HAVE TO SIT AND PONDER IT BECAUSE MY TROUBLE IN RECOLLECTING IT IS THAT NONE OF THEM ARE A MAJOR EVENT --

Q. OKAY.

A. -- IN MY LIFE OR IN ANY ACTIVITY THAT I'VE EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN.

Q. DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH RICK AZANARAN REGARDING MR. CORYDON OR IN WHICH THE NAMES --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS AT ANY TIME WITH RICK AZANARAN RELATING TO OR REFERRING TO MR. CORYDON?

A. YES.

Q. MORE THAN ONE?

A. I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO.

Q. LOOKING TOWARDS THE FIRST ONE --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS, PLEASE?

A. THAT WAS ABOUT THE TIME THAT BENT CORYDON, APPARENTLY, DROVE TO THE GILMAN HOT SPRINGS PROPERTY AND STARTED HARASSING THE GUARDS IN AN ATTEMPT, I GUESS, JUST TO HARASS. THE CONVERSATION WAS, RICK AZANARAN, WHO I BELIEVE WAS OR HAD SPOKEN TO THE SECURITY GUARDS THERE AND HAD HEARD ABOUT THIS AND ABOUT BENT DRIVING THERE AND HARASSING AND TAKING PICTURES OF PEOPLE RANDOMLY AND THAT THERE WAS -- THE SAME CONVERSATION, THE SAME CONTENT, THAT HE HAD GONE THERE TO HARASS AND THAT THE POLICE HAD COME AND BENT HAD LEFT.

Q. ANYTHING ELSE TAKE PLACE IN THAT CONVERSATION?

A. I DON'T THINK SO, NO.

Q. DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO MR. AZANARAN IN RESPONSE TO WHAT HE SAID TO YOU? A. "AMAZING."

Q. THAT'S ALL?

A. SOMETHING, THAT WAS JUST ABOUT IT. IT WAS JUST AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

Q. DID YOU EVER GIVE MR. AZANARAN AN ORDER TO BEAT MR. CORYDON UP?

A. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q. DID YOU EVER GIVE MR. AZANARAN AN ORDER TO SEE IF HE COULD GET HIM ARRESTED BY CLAIMING THAT MR. CORYDON WAS TRESPASSING ON THE PROPERTY AND CREATING TROUBLE?

A. NO. I BELIEVE THAT BENT CORYDON WAS ARRESTED FOR TRESPASSING ON THE PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO WHAT RICK AZANARAN TOLD ME; THAT HE WAS TRESPASSING ON THE PROPERTY AND WAS CREATING TROUBLE.

I WAS OF THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S WHAT THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE CONSIDERED IT TO BE AS RELATED BY RICK AZANARAN, BUT I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT OTHER THAN THE CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH RICK.

Q. I AM NOW ASKING -- JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT I'M ASKING IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT: DID YOU ASK MR. AZANARAN OR ORDER MR. AZANARAN AT ANY TIME TO SEE IF HE COULD GET MR. CORYDON ARRESTED FOR TRESPASSING BY TELLING THE POLICE THAT HE WAS A THREAT TO THE PROPERTY, EVEN IF THAT WAS NOT SO?

A. NO. I'M NOT EVEN -- DO I UNDERSTAND -MR. HERTZBERG: YOU ANSWERED IT.

MR. HELLER: YEAH.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD TWO CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. AZANARAN, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION.

A. RIGHT.

Q. WHEN WAS THE NEXT ONE?

A. THIS ONE I'M A LITTLE HAZY ON, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 1986. I BELIEVE HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS -- HE HAD A PROPERTY IN CREST LINE, CALIFORNIA, AND THAT BENT HAD COME BY THE PROPERTY OR HE THOUGHT BENT HAD; THAT'S ABOUT WHAT I REMEMBER ABOUT THAT. Q. NOTHING ELSE?

A. NO.

Q. HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TO MR. AZANARAN?

A. I'M NOT SURE IF HE SAID HE CAME THERE. HE CAME THERE OR HE SAW HIM AND HE CAME OR HE DROVE UP TO THE PROPERTY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'M PRETTY HAZY ON THAT.

Q. AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE CEO OF ASI, WHICH IS '82 THROUGH '87, DID YOU HOLD ANY OTHER POSTS OR CORPORATE POSITIONS AT ANY OTHER SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION?

MR. HERTZBERG: I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED YESTERDAY.

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

MR. HELLER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT BECAUSE YOU SAID, "ANY OTHER SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION."

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: COULD YOU REREAD THE QUESTION, PLEASE?

(RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS: "QUESTION: AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE CEO OF ASI, WHICH IS '82 THROUGH '87, DID YOU HOLD ANY OTHER POSTS OR CORPORATE POSITIONS AT ANY OTHER SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION?")

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I THINK MR. MISCAVIGE -- HE HAS A QUESTION ABOUT A LEGAL IMPLICATION OF SOMETHING ABOUT WHETHER IT FITS INTO YOUR DEFINITION, BUT WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER?

THE WITNESS: I WAS A TRUSTEE OF RTC AT THAT TIME, DURING THAT TIME PERIOD; IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: OKAY, YES, I WAS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ANYTHING ELSE?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: NO.

Y NEVER INDICATED TO YOU THAT MR. DE WOLF MIGHT FILE A CLAIM UNLESS THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT WITH HIM REGARDING THE ESTATE?

A. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

MR. HELLER: THAT'S AS YOU WELL KNOW, MISS PLEVIN.

MS. PLEVIN: I KNOW NO SUCH THING, MR. HELLER.

MR. HELLER: MR. DE WOLF TOLD YOU HE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT, AND HE TOLD YOU WHY --

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE DON'T ATTRIBUTE THAT TO ME.

MR. HELLER: AND HE TOLD YOU WHY THERE WAS NO CONTRACT WITH MR. CORYDON. SO THE QUESTION'S JUST INGENUOUS.

MS. PLEVIN: AND HE SAID DIFFERENT THINGS TO MR. CORYDON AT DIFFERENT TIMES. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF UNNECESSARY DIGRESSION. THE WITNESS: I'M HERE.

MS. PLEVIN: THANK YOU.

Q. WHAT'S A SEC-CHECK?

A. IT STANDS FOR SECURITY CHECK.

Q. HOW IS A SECURITY CHECK USED, OR WHY IS A SECURITY CHECK USED?

A. YOUR STATEMENT MAKES NO SENSE.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER PARTICIPATED IN CONDUCTING A SECURITY CHECK?

A. ALL RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I JUST WANT TO ASK -- I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. ARE YOU MAINTAINING IN THIS LAWSUIT THAT MR. MISCAVIGE EITHER DIRECTLY SEC-CHECKED MR. CORYDON OR ORDERED SOMEBODY TO SEC-CHECK MR. CORYDON; IS THAT AN ALLEGATION IN THIS COMPLAINT?

MS. PLEVIN: I AM ENTITLED TO ASK QUESTIONS WHICH ARE OF A BACKGROUND NATURE RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, MR. HERTZBERG. YOU APPEAR NOT TO LIKE THAT VERY MUCH. I CAN'T HELP THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. IT'S NOT -- I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I DON'T LIKE. MY CLIENT DOESN'T LIKE IT EITHER, AND HE'S ENTITLED TO NOT LIKE IT AS MUCH AS I DON'T LIKE IT. WHAT I DON'T LIKE IS THAT WE WASTE HIS VALUABLE TIME. HIS CAREER IS NOT THIS LAWSUIT. HE HAS A FUNCTION TO PERFORM. HE HAS RESPONSIBILITIES TO PERFORM. THIS IS A WASTE OF HIS TIME.

THIS IS PRECISELY -- THIS VERY QUESTION, AND YOUR RESPONSE TO IT, IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM WE'RE SCRAPING THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL. WE ARE GRASPING AT STRAWS HERE. YOU HAVE -MS. PLEVIN: WELL, DO YOU WANT TO INSTRUCT --

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M ASKING YOU --

MS. PLEVIN: -- HIM NOT TO ANSWER? AND WE'LL MOVE ON.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M ASKING TO YOU SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN THE COMPLAINT WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THAT MR. MISCAVIGE SEC-CHECKED MR. CORYDON OR DIRECTED SOMEBODY TO SEC-CHECK HIM.

MS. PLEVIN: AS YOU KNOW MR. HERTZBERG, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES A CONSPIRACY. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT MR. MISCAVIGE WAS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT PART OF THE CONSPIRACY AND PART OF THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL STRESS INCLUDED PROLONGED SEC-CHECKS OF MR. CORYDON.

MR. HERTZBERG: I BELIEVE BY DIANE HUBBARD; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? IN 19 -- IN LIKE 1981? MS. PLEVIN: NOT A -- NO. NO, YOU'RE WRONG.

MR. LIEBERMAN: EARLIER.

MR. DRESCHER: EARLIER.

MR. HERTZBERG: EARLIER THAN THAT.

MS. PLEVIN: AGAIN, WRONG. THERE ARE OTHER ALLEGATIONS, AND THERE IS OTHER TESTIMONY REGARDING SEC-CHECKS DONE OF MR. CORYDON AT OTHER TIMES. MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. NOW --

MS. PLEVIN: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE TRANSCRIPTS, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PROLONGED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT INTERESTED IN --

MR. DRESCHER: THE ISSUE IS WHETHER YOU HAVE.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- THE TRANSCRIPT. IT'S WHAT THE COMPLAINT SAYS.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU GOING TO INSTRUCT MR. --

MR. HERTZBERG: NO, I'M NOT GOING TO.

MS. PLEVIN: -- MISCAVIGE NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: BUT I'M JUST ASKING YOU --

MS. PLEVIN: WOULD YOU --

MR. HERTZBERG: NO.

MS. PLEVIN: -- READ THE QUESTION BACK, PLEASE, MISS COURT REPORTER.

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS.

(RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS: "QUESTION: HAVE YOU EVER PARTICIPATED IN OR CONDUCTED A SEC-CHECK?")

THE WITNESS: BY THE WAY, THAT'S S-E-C --

THE REPORTER: RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: -- HYPHEN CHECK. I'VE BEEN SEC-CHECKED; DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YOU'RE ASKING ME HAVE I EVER PARTICIPATED IN THEM. MS. PLEVIN: WELL --

THE WITNESS: THAT'S A TERM I WOULDN'T --

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. YOU WERE --

THE WITNESS: I'VE BEEN SEC-CHECKED.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER CONDUCTED A SEC-CHECK?

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THE AUDITOR ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE PERSON BEING SEC-CHECKED?

A. YES.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER -- HOW MANY TIMES?

MR. HERTZBERG: WHY DON'T ASK YOU HIM IF HE EVER SEC-CHECKED MR. CORYDON; THAT MIGHT BE A GERMANE QUESTION?

MR. HELLER: OR AUDITED HIM.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ASK HIM IN HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE CHURCH, IN DOING THINGS WITHIN SCIENTOLOGY, YOU'RE GOING TO ASK HIM WHETHER HE SEC-CHECKED SOMEBODY ELSE WHO IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS LAWSUIT. I AM CONFIDENT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ASK HIM

WHETHER HE HAS EVER SEC-CHECKED MR. CORYDON, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY RELEVANT QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER? MR. HERTZBERG: NO, I'M NOT.

MS. PLEVIN: PLEASE ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HOW MANY TIMES --

A. HOW MANY TIMES --

Q. -- HAVE YOU CONDUCTED A SEC-CHECK?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: HUNDREDS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER PARTICIPATED IN CONDUCTING A -- STRIKE THAT. HAVE YOU EVER -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT A GANG-BANG SEC-CHECK IS?

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, LET'S MAINTAIN -- NOW, MISS PLEVIN, WOULD YOU TELL ME WHETHER THERE IS A REFERENCE IN THE COMPLAINT TO MR. CORYDON BEING GANG-BANG SEC-CHECKED? THE WITNESS: I'LL ANSWER THAT.

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

MR. HERTZBERG: NO, I'M NOT, BUT I'M ASKING YOU BECAUSE -- I'M ASKING YOU BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE A RECORD FOR WHATEVER JUDGE WE APPEAR IN FRONT OF ON THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE UTTERLY WASTING TIME WITH MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT EVEN ALLEGED IN THIS COMPLAINT

TO HAVE BEEN DONE TO MR. CORYDON.

YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU GIVE ME THE QUESTION, PLEASE? BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT IS A GANG-BANG SEC-CHECK?

A. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT'S A SQUIRREL TERMINOLOGY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S AN OFFICIAL SCIENTOLOGY TERM AT ALL, AND I DON'T ADOPT SQUIRREL STATEMENTS OF ANYTHING. SO IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT A -Q. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING --

A. -- SQUIRREL HAS TO SAY ABOUT SOMETHING, YOU'D HAVE TO ASK HIM. I'M NOT GOING TO INTERPRET A SQUIRREL'S TECHNOLOGY.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER OBSERVED OR PARTICIPATED IN A SEC-CHECK IN WHICH MORE THAN ONE PERSON WAS CONDUCTING THE SEC-CHECK?

A. THAT'S MANIFESTLY IMPOSSIBLE. IF YOU WANT A DISCUSSION OF TECHNOLOGY, I CAN GO INTO IT.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SHOWING YOU A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "INTERNATIONAL WATCHDOG COMMITTEE. HCO PL, 23 DECEMBER, 1981"

(INDICATING).

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

A. LET'S SEE. LET ME READ THIS HERE. NO.

Q. YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE?

A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HCO PL, 29 MAY, '60, ENTITLED "INTERNATIONAL COUNSEL" TO WHICH IT REFERS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH ON THE FIRST PAGE, WHICH ALSO SAYS THAT THAT PARTICULAR HCO PL WAS LATER MODIFIED BY HCO PL, 9 MAY, '63 OF THE SAME TITLE?

A. DO YOU HAVE THAT, PLEASE?

Q. I MAY. I DON'T THINK I HAVE IT IN THIS FILE WITH ME. IF I DO HAVE IT, I'LL BRING IT OUT LATER. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT, IN ANY EVENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT?

THE WITNESS: I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. IS THAT IT?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S IT.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S PART OF IT, OKAY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COPY?

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU HAVE A COPY THAT DOESN'T HAVE WORDS MISSING?

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY MISSING. IT'S JUST --

MR. HERTZBERG: -- BECAUSE OF BLACK STREAKS.

MS. PLEVIN: IT'S JUST THE EDGE OF A THICK VOLUME, AND IT HAS A DARK END ON IT.

THE WITNESS: IT DOESN'T END.

MS. PLEVIN: WAIT A SECOND.

THE WITNESS: I'LL WAIT.

MS. PLEVIN: LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THE OTHER PAGES.

THE WITNESS: GO AHEAD. I'LL WAIT.

MS. PLEVIN: IS SOMETHING PARTICULARLY FUNNY MR. RATHBUN, MR. LIEBERMAN?

MR. LIEBERMAN: NO.

MS. PLEVIN: I'D LIKE THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT FOR VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE AFTERNOON, MR. RATHBUN, MR. LIEBERMAN, MR. HELLER, AND OCCASIONALLY MR. HERTZBERG, HAVE BEEN WALKING UP AND DOWN, OFTEN IN GROUPS, OFTEN CONFERRING, WHILE TESTIMONY IS BEING TAKEN, QUESTIONS ARE BEING ANSWERED.

THE ATMOSPHERE HERE HAS BEEN ONE OF A ZOO AND NOT ONE OF MY MAKING. I FIND THAT THIS COMBINED WITH THE EXTENSIVE SECURITY ATMOSPHERE SURROUNDING THIS WHERE MY CLIENT IS NOT PERMITTED TO GO TO THE BATHROOM UNESCORTED, WHERE THERE ARE SECURITY MEN WITH WALKIE-TALKIES DOWN IN THE LOBBY, IN THE RECEPTION AREA, WHERE WHEN WE GO TO LUNCH IN A CONFERENCE ROOM THAT MR. DRESCHER HAS PROVIDED, WE ARE OBSERVED AND ESCORTED, HAS BEEN OPPRESSIVE IN THE EXTREME, WHICH I DON'T BLAME MR. DRESCHER FOR. IT'S A SCIENTOLOGY MATTER; I'M QUITE SURE.

BUT I -- IT IS -- BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH WE HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO IN ORDER TO TAKE THIS DEPOSITION AND WHICH HAS BEEN, IN ADDITION, THE ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH THE DEPOSITION HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IS EXTRAORDINARY AND CONTRARY TO WHAT -- AND TOTALLY CONTRARY TO REASON AND GOOD FAITH AND IS AN EMBARRASSMENT FOR THE PROFESSION TO PERMIT IT.

NOW WE'RE HAVING TO CONTINUE WITH THIS SORT OF CONDUCT AFTER ALL OF THIS TIME TO -- TRYING TO GET THIS RESOLVED AND CONCLUDED. IT IS OPPRESSIVE IN THE EXTREME. I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS DEPOSITION CONCLUDED. I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE GOING TO BE GETTING IT CONCLUDED TODAY AT ALL, AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE CONDUCT OF COUNSEL HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THAT POSSIBILITY BUT HAS, IN FACT, INTERFERED WITH IT.

MR. DRESCHER: MISS PLEVIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SCOPE AND SPECIFICS OF YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, WHAT I'VE HEARD YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT IN THAT LAST STATEMENT IS THAT THE WITNESS HAS CONVERSED WITH COUNSEL DURING THE DEPOSITION; THAT COUNSEL HAVE CONVERSED WITH EACH OTHER DURING THE DEPOSITION; THAT YOU HAVE FOUND IT OPPRESSIVE TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED A CONFERENCE ROOM HERE AT WYMAN, BAUTZER AT YOUR REQUEST; THAT YOU FIND IT OPPRESSIVE TO HAVE LUNCH PROVIDED FOR YOU EACH OF THE LAST TWO

DAYS; THAT YOU FIND IT OPPRESSIVE OR UNUSUAL THAT A LAW FIRM OF SOME 140 OR 150 LAWYERS TAKES SOME CARE TO MAKE SURE THAT OPPOSING COUNSEL HERE DO NOT HAVE FREE ACCESS TO THE CORRIDORS, THE HALLWAYS, THE CONFERENCE ROOMS AND THE OFFICES, MOST OF THE DOORS OF WHICH ARE LEFT OPEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE WORKING THERE. TO THE EXTENT THAT'S OFFENDED YOU, I CAN ONLY SAY I'M SORRY.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY SORT OF DELAY OR DISRUPTION OF THIS PROCEEDING, I DON'T QUITE SEE HOW THAT CAN BE BY TEE CONSULTATION THAT NORMALLY TAKES PLACE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND THE WITNESS OR COUNSEL AND THE CLIENT, AS JUST HAPPENED AS I WAS SPEAKING BETWEEN MISS PLEVIN AND MR. CORYDON.

NOR DO I SEE HOW ANYTHING HAS DELAYED THIS DEPOSITION BEYOND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SPENT THE BETTER PART OF TWO DAYS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT LAWSUIT YOU'RE TAKING THIS DEPOSITION FOR.

TO THE EXTENT YOU'VE CHARACTERIZED THE PROCEEDINGS AS A ZOO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. ALL I KNOW IS THAT IF YOU'RE INSULTED BY FREE LUNCH, INSULTED BY HAVING AN OFFICE AND TELEPHONE AND XEROX FACILITIES AND MY SECRETARY MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU, WELL, THEN, I'M SORRY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING --

MS. PLEVIN: I'M GOING TO --

MR. HERTZBERG: -- TO THAT STATEMENT --

MS. PLEVIN: -- RESPOND TO MR. DRESCHER, FIRST. AS I SAID TO MR. DRESCHER, I DO NOT THINK THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MATTERS YOU SPOKE TO ABOUT A ROOM BEING PROVIDED AND LUNCH. AND OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY I OFFERED -- I TOLD YOU QUITE SPECIFICALLY THAT I WOULD OFFER TO PAY; THAT'S NOT THE POINT HERE. THE POINT HERE IS -- AND I'M SURE THE RECORD WILL REFLECT -- THE DEGREE TO WHICH THERE HAS BEEN CONFERENCING BETWEEN MR. MISCAVIGE AND MR. HERTZBERG AND/OR OTHER COUNSEL BETWEEN VIRTUALLY EVERY QUESTION, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, WILL SHOW UP IN THE TRANSCRIPT, AND THAT AT THE SAME TIME THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS CONFERENCES AMONG COUNSEL THEN RELAYING THOSE ADVICES TO MR. MISCAVIGE AND THE TIMES IN WHICH THE QUESTIONS SEEM TO BE SO DIFFICULT OR PROBLEMATIC THAT FOUR COUNSEL AND CLIENT TRAIPSE ENMASSE OUTSIDE OF THE DEPOSITION ROOM FOR UPWARDS OF FIVE AND TEN MINUTES BEFORE RETURNING IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

THOSE THINGS ARE THE THINGS WHICH I THINK DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS HAS -- THAT THE CONDUCT -- THAT THE WAY IN WHICH YOU HAVE APPROACHED THIS DEPOSITION .HAS BEEN TO BE OBSTRUCTIVE; AND OF COURSE, THE RECORD WILL SPEAK TO ITSELF WITH RESPECT TO OBSTRUCTIVE OBJECTIONS AND EVASIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I'M GOING --

MR. LIEBERMAN: MISS PLEVIN IS INTENT ON FILIBUSTERING THIS SO THAT SHE THEN CAN MAKE AN EXCUSE -MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. LIEBERMAN: -- FOR NOT COMPLETING THE DEPOSITION.

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. LIEBERMAN: NOW ASK YOUR NEXT QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO --

MS. PLEVIN: I INTEND TO.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE WE MOVE ON. I'LL BE BRIEF.

I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE HAS BEEN SECURITY HERE, IT'S WELL -- THE PURPOSE IS A VERY VALID PURPOSE, IN VIEW OF A COUPLE OF FACTORS, WHICH INCLUDE YOUR CLIENT'S TESTIMONY IN HIS OWN DEPOSITION IN THIS CASE THAT HE WENT TO GILMAN HOT SPRINGS FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ANNOYING THE PEOPLE OVER THERE; THAT'S HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY UNDER OATH, AND AMONG OTHER REASONS, FOR PURPOSES WHICH RELATE TO WHAT WAS EVIDENT FROM YOUR CONDUCT AT THE INITIAL -- AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SESSION THIS MORNING, AND WHAT -- THAT AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE WAS THAT YOU WERE SERVING AS A PROCESS SERVER FOR LAWYERS IN OTHER CASES; THAT'S NO. 1.

MS. PLEVIN: INCLUDING FOR MY CLIENT.

MR. LIEBERMAN: IN WHICH YOU ARE NOT THE ATTORNEY.

MR. HERTZBERG: AND NO. 2 -- THEN WE CAN MOVE ON. I THINK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING THAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE COUNSEL OR THE FACILITIES HERE -- AND, OF COURSE, I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY PART OF WHAT YOU SAID -- I THINK THE RECORD WILL VERY MUCH -- AND THE TAPE FOR THAT MATTER, WHICH YOU HAVE HAD RUNNING -- WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DEPONENT HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT COURTEOUS, SOLICITOUS AND PATIENT BEYOND REASON IN THE FACE OF WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY A HARRASIVE DEPOSITION AND WHICH ALSO HAS HAD A COMPONENT THAT I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE, THE PRETEXT OF BRINGING HIM IN TO THE DEPOSITION SO THAT YOU CAN SERVE HIM AS A PROCESS SERVER IN OTHER LITIGATION IN WHICH YOU'RE NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD.

NOW LET'S MOVE ON BECAUSE WE WANT TO FINISH THIS DEPOSITION TODAY JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DO.

MS. PLEVIN: THERE IS NO PRETEXT HERE. THIS DEPOSITION IS BEING CONDUCTED BECAUSE MR. MISCAVIGE IS A DEFENDANT IN THE CASE IN WHICH THERE ARE MANY CHARGES MADE. I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DEPOSE MR. MISCAVIGE AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO. I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DEPOSE HIM ALONG -- ABOUT A SERIES OF ISSUES AND MATTERS WHICH I RECOGNIZE ARE NOT WELCOME BY COUNSEL FOR THE VARIOUS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ENTITIES BUT NEVERTHELESS WHICH IS MY DUTY AND RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH.

MR. HELLER: PROCEED.

MR. DRESCHER: COUNSEL FOR THOSE ENTITIES WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT HE WOULD WELCOME A QUESTION NOW AND AGAIN RELEVANT TO THIS LAWSUIT. MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. DRESCHER: I WISH YOU WOULDN'T TRY TO --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S MOVE ON. LET'S FINISH IT.

MR. DRESCHER: -- ASSERT SOMETHING THAT'S IN MY MIND.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S FINISH IT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SHOWING YOU A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE. INT FINANCE ED 1" (INDICATING).

THE WITNESS: YES. I HAVE THAT IN MY HAND.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT DOCUMENT?

A. NO.

Q. YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE?

A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. DRESCHER: DID I MISS SOMETHING, OR DID HE JUST TESTIFY THAT HE HADN'T SEEN IT?

MR. LIEBERMAN: IF HE'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DOCUMENT, HOW WOULD HE KNOW WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH IT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE DOCUMENT REFERS TO INT FINANCE. DO YOU KNOW WHO ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE ASKING HIM TO GUESS NOW, SINCE HE NEVER SAW THE DOCUMENT, TO SPECULATE AS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE ON THE PLANET WHO MAY HAVE SEEN THIS DOCUMENT -MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- AT ONE TIME?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, THAT'S HOW I HEARD IT.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION, MR. HERTZBERG. THE QUESTION WAS: WHO, TO MR. MISCAVIGE'S BEST UNDERSTANDING, ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT -MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: -- PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE INT FINANCE RESPONSIBILITIES OR THE LIKE.

Q. CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

A. I THINK SO.

Q. WHO WOULD THAT BE?

A. I DON'T KNOW. I LOOKED FOR AN INITIAL HERE. IT JUST SAYS, "WDC," AND ALSO, AS I COMMENTED YESTERDAY, I'M JUST NOTICING IN PASSING THAT THIS IS AN ED. WATCHDOG COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I KNOW, HAVE CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME. SO I REALLY COULDN'T ANSWER THAT. IT'S EIGHT YEARS AGO. SO, NO, I DON'T KNOW.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I'M SHOWING YOU A SINGLE-PAGE DOCUMENT REGARDING THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE (INDICATING)? A. I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q. DO YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS, "LRH PERS COMM"?

A. YES.

Q. I BELIEVE THAT MEANS --

A. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

Q. -- PERSONAL COMMUNICATOR; IS THAT WHAT THAT WOULD SIGNIFY, FOR THE RECORD?

A. YES, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

Q. FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS?

A. IT SAYS ON THE ISSUE, "LRH PERS COMM FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS." ARE YOU ASKING ME TO LOOK AT THAT?

Q. YES.

A. I SEE THAT, YES.

Q. OKAY. LOOKING AT THIS DOCUMENT, CAN YOU DETERMINE WHAT BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT IS REFERRING TO?

A. NO, IT DOESN'T SAY.

Q. WELL, WHAT CORPORATION ISSUED -- BY LOOKING AT THIS, CAN YOU TELL WHAT CORPORATION ISSUED THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. HELLER: IF A --

MR. HERTZBERG: IF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS ISSUED IT.

MR. HELLER: IF A CORPORATION ISSUED IT, THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: IT SAYS, "BD" AT THE BOTTOM. I DON'T KNOW, NO. NO, IT DOESN'T SAY. NO, I CAN'T.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS DOCUMENT, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. I GUESS SOMETIME IN 1979. I'M GUESSING THAT BECAUSE IT'S A 1979 DATE.

Q. I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE ON THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE COMMENCING SOMETIME IN 1979, APPROXIMATELY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. LATER IN THE YEAR THAN THIS. I THINK I SAID THE LATTER PART OF THE YEAR.

Q. IS THIS AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE PURPOSE OF THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE IN PARAGRAPH 27?

A. NO.

Q. THIS WAS NOT AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION AT THAT TIME? IN WHAT WAY IS IT INCORRECT?

A. OH, THAT -- YOU'RE ASKING ME AT THAT TIME?

Q. AT THAT TIME, OF COURSE.

MR. HELLER: WELL, WAS THIS --

THE WITNESS: I WAS NEVER TOLD THIS, I MEAN, PERSONALLY. NO, I DON'T -- THAT DOESN'T REFRESH ANYTHING TO ME.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THIS IS NOT -- IT IS NOT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WAS THE PURPOSE AT THAT TIME?

A. MY -- NO. MY STATEMENT IS: I DON'T KNOW IF -- THIS MAY HAVE BEEN OR THIS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN, I DON'T KNOW. IN 2 APRIL, 1979, I DON'T KNOW. I WAS NOT PART OF THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE. MS. PLEVIN: LET'S IDENTIFY THIS AS NEXT IN ORDER, PLEASE.

(THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS MARKED BY THE C.S.R. AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IS ATTACHED HERETO.)

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SHOWING YOU A THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CENTRAL BUREAUX ORDER 621, NOVEMBER 29, 1979" (INDICATING).

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THIS HAS WRITING ON IT.

MS. PLEVIN: I REALIZE SOMEBODY WROTE IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO THOSE INITIALS MAY STAND FOR. FOR OUR PURPOSES, WE COULD COMPLETELY CROSS THAT OUT. I RECOGNIZE THAT BUT THAT'S THE ONLY COPY I HAVE. THE WITNESS: DO YOU KNOW WHO WROTE THIS?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, I DO NOT.

THE WITNESS: WHERE DID THIS COME FROM?

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: IT CAME FROM MISS PLEVIN, APPARENTLY.

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT.

MS. PLEVIN: WE COULD JUST --

MR. HERTZBERG: THE PENDING QUESTION IS WHAT?

MR. HELLER: WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE DOCUMENT?

A. THIS DOCUMENT? NO.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A POLICY LETTER OR ORDER ENTITLED "BYPASS OF MANAGEMENT SECTOR, HANDLING OF"?

A. A POLICY LETTER ON THAT?

Q. OR A CENTRAL BUREAU ORDER.

A. ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS IS?

Q. WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT, I'M JUST --

A. NO, I'M NOT.

Q. -- TRYING TO EXPAND TO CLARIFY WHETHER YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH A DOCUMENT OF THAT NAME.

A. NO.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PRACTICE OF BYPASS?

A. "THE PRACTICE OF BYPASS," I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Q. THAT MANAGEMENT SECTORS CAN BE BYPASSED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ACTION BECAUSE SOMEONE IS FALLING DOWN ON THE JOB, SO TO SPEAK.

A. AS STATED, NO. JUST TO CUT THIS SNORT. I THINK I CAN -- OKAY.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I'M SORRY. WHAT WERE YOU SAYING?

A. I ANSWERED YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: WOULD YOU, PLEASE, READ BACK THE ANSWER?

MR. HELLER: HE SAID, "AS STATED, NO."

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT DOES "BYPASS" MEAN?

A. IN NORMAL ENGLISH DEFINITION, I GUESS, TO PASS SOMETHING BY.

Q. DOES IT HAVE A SIGNIFICANCE AS MANAGEMENT POLICY WITHIN SCIENTOLOGY?

A. THE WORD "BYPASS"?

Q. CORRECT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN NOW?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: I MEAN, NOW YOU'RE ASKING ME A TECHNICAL QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO -- JUST ONE SECOND.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: HE'S CONFUSED. MR. MISCAVIGE SAID TO ME THAT HE'S CONFUSED BY WHAT YOU MEAN.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: COULD YOU REITERATE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? HE WANTS TO BE HELPFUL, BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE IDEA THAT A STAFF PERSON OR AN AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY OR A ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY CAN BE IN A CONDITION OF DANGER?

A. I'M FAMILIAR THAT ANY AREA OF LIFE IN ANY INDIVIDUAL LIVING IN THIS WORLD CAN BE IN A CONDITION OF DANGER.

Q. AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL MATTER, WHEN AN ENTITY OR A DIVISION IS IN A CONDITION OF DANGER --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- IS IT THE DUTY OF MANAGEMENT TO BYPASS INTO THAT AREA AND TAKE CHARGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS GET BACK ON TRACK AND OUT OF THE CONDITION OF DANGER?

A. WELL, WOULD YOU CLARIFY TO ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY "MANAGEMENT"?

Q. A SENIOR.

A. OKAY, I'LL ANSWER THE QUESTION, THEN. IF A DIVISION IN KEOKUK ORG IS IN A CONDITION OF DANGER -- AND THAT'S THE TREASURY DIVISION AND THAT'S IN A CONDITION OF DANGER BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER THEY HAVE UNPAID BILLS THAT HAVE GONE OVERTIME, AND

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HANDLED BY THE TREASURER SECRETARY, THE MANAGEMENT OF THAT ORG IS THE AC AND THE EC. IT WOULD BE PART OF THE HANDLING OF THE DANGER CONDITION FOR A MEMBER OF THAT "A" -- WELL, OF THE EC AT THAT POINT, IF IT WAS THE TREASURY SECRETARY. THE TREASURY SECRETARY COULD APPLY THE CONDITION OF DANGER TO THE DIRECTOR OF DISBURSEMENTS WHO HAD NOT PAID THE BILL; IF THE TREASURY SECRETARY DIDN'T DEAL WITH THAT, THEN THAT COULD BE DEALT WITH BY THE HCO EXEC SEC; AND THEN IF IT WAS NOT HANDLED, BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APPOINTED TO HANDLE THE DANGEROUS SITUATION.

BY "MANAGEMENT" I'M REFERRING TO THE ORG MANAGEMENT AND THAT IS A PRIME -- THAT IS A MANAGEMENT OF THAT ORG OR THE MANAGEMENT OF THAT ORG. Q. DOES BYPASS, SUCH AS YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED IT --

A. UH-HUH.

Q. -- EVER OCCUR BETWEEN ORGS, A SENIOR ORG BYPASSING THE ED OR CO OF A JUNIOR ORG?

A. THESE ARE VERY HYPOTHETICAL. GIVE ME -- WHO DO YOU MEAN? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT, "BYPASSING"?

Q. ALL RIGHT.

A. I WANT TO BE UTTERLY PRECISE HERE. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE MEANS BY THIS.

MR. HERTZBERG: SHE'S GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS; LOOK AT THE MAGAZINE ITSELF (INDICATING).

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: DO YOU HAVE A COPY FOR COUNSEL?

THE WITNESS: THERE'S ONE.

MS. PLEVIN: THIS IS A MAGAZINE, A MULTIPAGE MAGAZINE, ENTITLED "HIGH WINDS," SUBTITLE, "ETHICS AND EXPANSION, THE MAGAZINE OF THE SEA ORGANIZATION, ISSUE 10." THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER --

A. I SEE THAT.

Q. -- SEEN THIS BEFORE?

A. I BELIEVE SO, YES. I THINK SO, YES.

Q. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT PAGE -- WELL, THEY'RE NOT NUMBERED BUT -- OR AT LEAST IT'S NOT VISIBLY NUMBERED.

A. THERE'S NUMBERS HERE. HERE, WHY --

Q. OH.

A. -- DON'T YOU LOOK AT THIS ONE, AND YOU'LL COME TO IT. HERE, THERE'S NUMBERS HERE.

Q. OH, ON YOURS, YES.

A. YES.

Q. OKAY. ON THE ORIGINAL IT'S EASILY SEEN, "6."

A. OKAY.

Q. THE TOP OF THE PAGE SAYS, "THE SEA ORG REMOVES ALL STOPS TO EXPANSION."

A. OKAY.

Q. NOW, IF YOU WOULD READ, PLEASE, WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE STEVENS CREEK ORG, STARTING AT THE BOTTOM IN THE CENTER COLUMN.

A. UH-HUH.

Q. UP TO, BUT NOT GOING BEYOND, WHERE IT SAYS, "ZURICH ORG."

A. OKAY. JUST SO I'M CLEAR, YOU WANTED ME TO READ FROM STEVENS CREEK ORG TO THE LAST COPY ON PAGE 7.

Q. YES.

A. OKAY, I'VE DONE THAT.

Q. THAT DESCRIBES A SEA ORG MISSION GOING INTO THE STEVENS CREEK ORG AND FINDING THAT -- I'M READING FROM THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 7:

"THE IN-ETHICS EXECS AND STAFF MEMBERS WERE VALIDATED FOR THEIR HARD WORK. TWO EXECS WHO REFUSED TO GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD WERE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH GUNG-HO IN-ETHICS EXECUTIVES."

NOW, DOES THAT REFER TO THE SEA ORG GOING INTO THE STEVENS CREEK MISSION AND REMOVING PERSONNEL FROM THE STEVENS CREEK MISSION?

MR. HERTZBERG: JUST FOR THE RECORD, BEFORE HE ANSWERS THE QUESTION, ARE YOU MAINTAINING THAT THE STEVENS CREEK ORG HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS LAWSUIT?

MS. PLEVIN: I AM TALKING ABOUT THE KIND OF POWER EXERCISED BETWEEN CORPORATIONS BY OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN SCIENTOLOGY SUCH THAT THERE IS NO CORPORATE INTEGRITY OF THE CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE THUS INVADED. MR. HERTZBERG: FINE. WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT IS IN THE LEAST BIT RELEVANT, HE MAY ANSWER.

MR. HELLER: WELL, WAIT I --

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL COMMENT --

MR. HELLER: -- HAVE ONE FURTHER OBJECTION. THE QUESTION ASKS HIM TO INTERPRET A DOCUMENT WHICH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, A DOCUMENT WHICH WE HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED THAT IN FACT WAS WRITTEN OR HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DEPONENT WHICH IS IMPROPER.

MR. DRESCHER: AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS HARKENING THIS ALTER EGO BUSINESS, I DON'T SEE ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANY OF THIS AND MR. CORYDON WHICH, OF COURSE, IS A PREREQUISITE OF AN ALTER EGO THEORY IN THIS CASE.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

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

A. I THINK YOU ASKED ME DOES THIS REPRESENT A SEA ORG MISSION -- GIVE IT TO ME AGAIN. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. MS. PLEVIN: WHY DON'T YOU READ BACK THE QUESTION, PLEASE?

(RECORD READ AS FOLLOWS: "QUESTION: DOES THAT REFER TO THE SEA ORG GOING INTO THE STEVENS CREEK MISSION AND REMOVING PERSONNEL FROM THE STEVENS CREEK MISSION?") THE WITNESS: I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: IT'S STEVENS CREEK ORG, BY THE WAY, NOT MISSION.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: I'LL READ IT. IT SAYS,

"THE IN-ETHICS EXECS AND STAFF MEMBERS WERE VALIDATED FOR THEIR HARD WORK. TWO EXECS WHO REFUSED TO GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD WERE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH GUNG-HO, IN-ETHICS EXECUTIVES." THAT'S ALL I KNOW ABOUT IT. IT DOESN'T SAY HOW THEY WERE REMOVED OR WHO REMOVED THEM. SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S MARK THIS AS NEXT IN ORDER.

(THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS MARKED BY THE C.S.R. AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 5 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IS ATTACHED HERETO.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, I'M SHOWING YOU A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT "GUARDIAN ORDER GO 121689," I BELIEVE, AND FOLLOWED BY THE INITIALS "MSH, DECEMBER 16, 1969" (INDICATING). ARE YOU FAMILIAR --

A. I DON'T SEE WHERE YOU SEE "MSH," I'M SORRY.

Q. IT'S BLURRED.

A. OH, I SEE. OKAY.

Q. IT'S BEEN COPIED TOO MANY TIMES. FOR IDEAL PURPOSES --

A. OKAY.

Q. AFTER THE NUMBER.

A. OKAY.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

A. NO, I'M NOT.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH AN ORDER ISSUED BY MARY SUE HUBBARD THAT REQUIRED OR ORDERED THE INVESTIGATION AND CULLING OF INFORMATION FROM PC FILES FOR SCIENTOLOGISTS WHO WERE DEEMED TO BE ENEMIES? A. AM I FAMILIAR WITH AN ORDER -- NO.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: THAT'S MY ANSWER.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WAS THERE ANY SUCH ORDER, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q. WAS THERE EVER ANY PRACTICE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, OF CULLING PC FILES BY THE GUARDIAN'S OFFICE?

MR. HERTZBERG: ARE YOU ASKING WHETHER HE HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER THAT OCCURRED?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M ASKING WHETHER HE HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED, AND THEN WE CAN EXPLORE THE BASIS OF THE KNOWLEDGE.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT IT MAY HAVE OCCURRED, LIKE HE MIGHT HAVE HEARD THAT SOMEBODY ALLEGED THAT?

MR. HELLER: RIGHT; WAS THAT THE QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: WE'LL START WITH THAT.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE HEARD IN THAT CONTEXT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU EVER CONFIRM THAT THAT HAPPENED?

A. NO.

Q. ARE YOU EVER AWARE THAT SUBSEQUENT -- LET'S GO BACK TO -- WHEN DID YOU HEAR OF THAT PARTICULAR PRACTICE AS HAVING BEEN ALLEGED?

A. SOMETIME BETWEEN 1981 AND THE PRESENT, BUT I WOULD EVEN PUT THAT BETWEEN 1981 AND 1985.

Q. DID YOU EVER ORDER PC FILES TO BE CULLED?

A. NO, I DIDN'T.

Q. DID YOU EVER ORDER THE PC FILE OF BENT CORYDON TO BE CULLED?

A. NO, I DIDN'T.

Q. DID YOU EVER ORDER MATERIAL OF -- STRIKE THAT.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I -- WHEN I SAY, "CULLED," I MEAN EXAMINED AND INFORMATION TAKEN OUT OF IT THAT WAS DAMAGING TO THE PERSON OR COULD BE INTERPRETED AS BEING DAMAGING TO THAT PERSON OR UPSETTING TO THAT PERSON THAT IT GOT AROUND THAT -- WHAT THEY SAID IN SESSION.

A. SO WHAT WAS THE QUESTION THEN?

Q. WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING --

A. OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT YOU'RE STATING "CULLED" MEANS? Q. YES. DID YOU EVER ORDER PC FILES TO BE CULLED?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY WHO EVER DID?

A. NO.

Q. DID MARY SUE HUBBARD EVER DO THAT?

A. I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q. DID YOU EVER SEE ANY DECLARATIONS OF PERSONS WHO CLAIMED THAT THEY DID IT? A. THAT THEY DID WHAT?

Q. CULLED PC FILES ON ORDERS FROM NORMAN STARKEY AND YOURSELF.

A. SOMEBODY WROTE A DECLARATION THAT SAID I ORDERED PC FOLDERS CULLED?

Q. DID YOU EVER SEE DECLARATIONS? LET'S START WITH NORMAN STARKEY. WITHDRAW THE FIRST ONE.

DID YOU EVER SEE ANY DECLARATIONS WHICH SAID THAT NORMAN STARKEY HAD ORDERED PC FILES TO BE CULLED? A. I DON'T THINK SO.

Q. PRIOR TO TODAY, HAVE YOU NEVER BEEN ASKED WHETHER PC FOLDERS WERE EVER CULLED BY RTC?

MR. LIEBERMAN: ASKED BY WHOM?

MS. PLEVIN: EXCEPT COUNSEL.

MR. HELLER: ANYBODY? EVERYBODY?

THE WITNESS: WAS I EVER ASKED IF PC FILES WERE EVER CULLED BY SOMEBODY?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: AS A MATTER OF FACT, NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. I'M SHOWING YOU A SINGLE-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE. TR L," AND ASK YOU IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE (INDICATING). A. NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q. DID YOU EVER HEAR OF TR L?

A. HAVE I EVER HEARD OF TR L? YES, I HAVE HEARD OF AN ALLEGATION THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED TR L.

Q. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'VE -- WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT TR L IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS?

A. A PLOY BY DISAFFECTED SCIENTOLOGISTS SUING THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TO BLACK PROPAGANDA ANYBODY IN SCIENTOLOGY BY TRYING TO USE BROAD SWEEPING STROKES TO STATE THAT THEY LIE; THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT IS. Q. HAVE YOU EVER REVIEWED A MULTIPAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "THE INFORMATION FULL HAT" ....

A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q. -- A GUARDIAN OFFICE TRAINING DOCUMENT CHECK SHEET?

A. A GUARDIAN'S OFFICE DOCUMENT?

Q. CORRECT.

A. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q. DID YOU EVER LISTEN TO A TAPE OF AN LRH AIDES CONFERENCE REGARDING COVERT OPERATIONS?

A. NO.

Q. OR SEE A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CONFERENCE OR SUCH A CONFERENCE?

A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BUT IF YOU HAVE A TRANSCRIPT, I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND LET YOU KNOW.

Q. I DO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MS. PLEVIN: WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT ONE.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT SEVERAL MINUTES HAVE GONE BY WHILE MISS PLEVIN SEARCHED FOR AN EXHIBIT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE AT LEAST THREE, PROBABLY NOT MORE THAN THREE.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT, "18 JANUARY, 1981, BRIEFING: NEW ISSUE LINE FOR HCOPLS/HCOBS" (INDICATING)?

A. NO.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT -- STRIKE THAT.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY L. RON HUBBARD IN JANUARY OF 1981 REGARDING HCO PL'S AND HCOB'S?

A. NO, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE -- YOU ASSUME THERE WERE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY HIM IN JANUARY OF 1981, AND I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY COMMUNICATIONS TO ANYBODY, AT LEAST NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, UNLESS POSSIBLY

-- ANYWHERE FROM L. RON HUBBARD IN 19 -- JANUARY, 1981. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT WHATSOEVER.

Q. WHAT ABOUT IN 19827

A. ON THE SUBJECT OF NEW ISSUE LINE FOR HCOPLS/HCOBS? THERE WAS NO -- YOU'RE ASKING ME IF THAT'S SOMETHING -- WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? Q. ON ANY SUBJECT.

A. SOME LINES ESTABLISHED BY L. RON HUBBARD ON WHAT? MIMEO ISSUES. I DON'T -- I CAN'T -- I HAVE TO SAY NO TO ANYTHING ON THAT.

Q. I'M SHOWING YOU A THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED -- WELL, IT'S AN HCO PL OF 15 AUGUST, 1960, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT DOCUMENT (INDICATING)? A. I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE. IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO READ IT, I WILL.

Q. IS THIS -- WAS THIS POLICY EVER CANCELLED?

A. I DON'T KNOW.

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S MARK THAT AS NEXT IN ORDER, PLEASE.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S ASSUMING IT WAS EVER IN EFFECT. HE SAID HE HASN'T SEEN THE DOCUMENT BEFORE. SO I DON'T WANT HIM TO ASSUME FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE WITNESS: I DID.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR.

THE WITNESS: I THINK I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE.

(THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS MARKED BY THE C.S.R. AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 6 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IS ATTACHED HERETO.)

THE WITNESS: WERE YOU ASKING ME TO READ THIS OR NOT? I WASN'T SURE.

MS. PLEVIN: NO, THAT'S OKAY. I ONLY HAVE ONE OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE AIDES CONFERENCE AT THIS TIME; IF YOU'D JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT (INDICATING). DON'T READ THE WHOLE THING, BUT LET ME KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT AND CONFER WITH COUNSEL, SINCE I REALIZE I DON'T HAVE A COPY FOR HIM, AND HE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE ONE.

THE WITNESS: NO, I'VE NEVER READ THIS. BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. YOU'VE NEVER READ THAT?

A. NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q. AND YOU'VE NEVER HEARD THAT NAME? A. NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT AN AIDES CONFERENCE BY L. RON HUBBARD REGARDING COVERT OPERATIONS?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: OTHER -- MY CLIENT IS CONCERNED, MISS PLEVIN, THAT TO ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WOULD BREACH AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. SO I WANT TO -MS. PLEVIN: IF THE ONLY CONTEXT OF HIS HEARING OF THAT WOULD BE IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, I'M NOT ASKING FOR THAT COMMUNICATION. THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SHOWING YOU A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT THAT'S AN HCOB OF 21 JANUARY, AD10 (INDICATING).

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

A. I'VE SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE, YES, NOT THIS ONE. I MEAN, I'VE -- I ASSUME THAT THIS IS A COMPLETE REPRESENTATION OF THE ONE I'VE SEEN, WITH THAT ASSUMPTION. Q. OKAY. WOULD YOU -- IF YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE DESIGNATION "AD10" AT THE TOP?

A. "AFTER DIANETICS," MEANING 1960, TEN YEARS AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF "DIANETICS, THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH."

Q. WAS THAT A DESIGNATION USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR THE USUAL YEAR DESIGNATION BY L. RON HUBBARD FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IN 1960?

A. I DON'T KNOW. IN 1960? THIS WAS WRITTEN BEFORE I WAS BORN.

Q. ARE THERE MANY DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT CARRY THAT TYPE OF DESIGNATION, AD10, AD11?

A. NOT NECESSARILY AD10 OR AD11. SOMETIMES I'VE SEEN AD USED IN PLACE OF THE ACTUAL YEAR.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR BULLETIN WAS EVER REISSUED?

A. "REISSUED"? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "REISSUED"?

Q. REDISTRIBUTED, RECOPIED, REDISTRIBUTED.

A. WELL, THOSE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS. I MEAN, WHEN YOU SAY, "REISSUED," IT MEANS, I GUESS, THAT SOMEBODY TURNED ON THE PRESS AND REPRINTED A COPY OF IT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT BUT -Q. IS IT STILL IN FORCE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. "IN FORCE"? WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

Q. CURRENT POLICY.

A. IT'S NOT A POLICY. IT'S AN HCOB.

Q. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "IN FORCE." IT'S A STATEMENT ABOUT SOMETHING. IT'S A RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION AND A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT OF JUSTIFICATION. YOU ASKED ME IF IT'S STILL IN FORCE. IT'S A STATEMENT. Q. OKAY.

A. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

Q. YES.

A. OKAY.

Q. AND THIS IS -- THIS IS SOURCE, IS IT NOT?

A. NO. L. RON HUBBARD IS SOURCE.

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S IDENTIFY THIS AS NEXT IN ORDER, PLEASE.

(THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS MARKED BY THE C.S.R. AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 7 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IS ATTACHED HERETO.)

MR. LIEBERMAN: WHAT IS EXHIBIT K ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS?

MS. PLEVIN: IT'S BEEN USED AS AN EXHIBIT IN SOME DOCUMENT OR OTHER. THE BATES STAMP NUMBERS ARE AN EXHIBIT DESIGNATION AND ARE, OF COURSE, NOT PART OF THE DOCUMENT ITSELF.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, DO YOU KNOW --

MR. LIEBERMAN: DO YOU KNOW WHERE --

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT'S BEEN EXHIBIT K?

MS. PLEVIN: I MAY HAVE USED IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M SORRY?

MS. PLEVIN: I MAY HAVE USED IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHERE?

MR. LIEBERMAN: IN WHAT CONTEXT?

MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE.

THE WITNESS: AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I'D HAVE TO CHECK TO SEE IF -- YOU WERE ASKING ME THAT QUESTION -- I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE GIVING ME SOMETHING THAT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THAT ISSUE AND ASSUMING THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT CHANGES THIS, BUT I AM ALSO STATING THAT THIS IS A STATEMENT OF A MECHANISM THAT OCCURS WITH A PERSON BEING A BEING; AND, THEREFORE, WHEN YOU ASKED ME IF IT'S STILL IN FORCE, I TAKE THAT QUESTION TO MEAN COULD SOMEBODY STILL OBSERVE THIS TO BE THE CASE.

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: IN OTHER WORDS, THE STATEMENTS MADE IN HERE -- COULD SOMEBODY ELSE WALK AROUND THE WORLD AND OBSERVE THIS TO BE THE CASE? BECAUSE THIS IS A STATEMENT. IT DOESN'T -- UNLESS I READ THE WHOLE THING, I DON'T THINK IT COULD SAY ANYTHING ELSE. SO I

THINK I'M CLEAR ON WHAT I SAID THERE.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. I'M SHOWING YOU A SEVERAL-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "HOLLYWOOD GUARANTY BUILDING" (INDICATING). THE WITNESS: UH-HUH.

MS. PLEVIN: IT'S FOUR PAGES.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. THE PICTURE ON THE FRONT I BELIEVE IS THE BUILDING AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOLLYWOOD AND IVAR; IS THAT CORRECT? A. YES. WELL, IT'S A DRAWING, BUT IT LOOK SIMILAR.

Q. A DRAWING.

A. YEAH.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN IT BEFORE?

A. NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q. LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE WHERE IT SAYS, "FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HCB," SO FORTH AND SO FORTH, "PLEASE WRITE" -MR. HERTZBERG: "HGB."

MS. PLEVIN: "HGB" I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I SAID, "PLEASE WRITE PUBLIC OFFICER HGB, 6331 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD."

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR -- IS THERE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, A PUBLIC OFFICER HGB THAT'S LOCATED AT THAT BUILDING?

MR. HERTZBERG: HE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT NOW I'M GETTING THAT FEELING THAT WE ARE SO FAR AFIELD FROM THIS COMPLAINT AGAIN THAT -MS. PLEVIN: WELL, I'LL TIE IT IN.

MR. HERTZBERG: I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY WE'RE WASTING TIME ON THIS, BUT YOU MAY ANSWER.

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL TIE IT IN.

THE WITNESS: THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE I HAVE OF THAT IS THIS. SO IT'S THE SAME KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE OF IT. I HAVE NO OTHER KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. OKAY. THE STATEMENT -- IF YOU'LL TURN TO THE SECOND PAGE --

A. OKAY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BEING THE SECOND PAGE (INDICATING)?

Q. THE FIRST PAGE OF TEXT.

A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. THE SECOND PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT.

A. OKAY.

Q. IS THAT -- I'M GOING TO FIRST -- THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE THIRD SENTENCE,

"THE MANAGEMENT OF SCIENTOLOGY" -- "MANAGEMENT" IN CAPS, THE WORD "MANAGEMENT" WITH THE INITIAL "M" IN CAPS, "THE MANAGEMENT OF SCIENTOLOGY HAS A KEY PURPOSE, THE EXPANDING OF ORGS TO SAINT HILL SIZE. THE HGB WAS SET UP TO FACILITATE THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF

THAT PURPOSE IN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME."

IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SETTING UP OF THE HGB? MR. HELLER: OBJECT ON RELEVANCE.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

MR. DRESCHER: I'LL JOIN IN THAT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION EITHER. MR. HERTZBERG: YEAH.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

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

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO PURCHASED THE HOLLYWOOD GUARANTY BUILDING?

MR. HELLER: OBJECT ON RELEVANCE. ARE YOU DOING A FINANCIAL DISCOVERY AT DEPOSITION NOW? THE WITNESS: DO I ANSWER THIS?

MR. HERTZBERG: GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO CURRENTLY OWNS IT?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU EVER HEAR OF AN ORGANIZATION CALLED BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES?

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THIS IS. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE MOVING INTO AN AREA OF FINANCIAL DISCOVERY WHICH IS CLEARLY IMPROPER. I WANT TO KNOW IF I'M MISTAKEN IN THAT BECAUSE -MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T INTEND TO GO ANY FURTHER. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF HE KNOWS.

MR. HELLER: NO. WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE OF THIS QUESTION? YOU WENT PRETTY FAR ALREADY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T INTEND TO GO ANY FURTHER.

MR. HELLER: DO YOU WANT HIM TO ANSWER? WELL, THAT'S MR. HERTZBERG.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

MR. HELLER: I DON'T SEE THE RELEVANCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T INTEND TO GO ANY FURTHER ON THIS.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO INSTRUCT HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: IN VIEW OF YOUR FAILURE TO EVEN BEGIN TO ASSERT ANYTHING THAT'S RELEVANT ABOUT IT, LET'S MOVE ON.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT, MR. MISCAVIGE; THIS IS A FOUR-PAGE DOCUMENT "P.A.B. NO. 53" (INDICATING)? IT WAS TWO-HOLE PUNCHED PREVIOUSLY, AND THE 53 IS TAKEN OUT, "PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN." A. DO YOU HAVE -- THERE'S SOMETHING UP HERE.

Q. YEAH. IT'S "P.A.B. NO. 53, PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN."

A. OKAY.

Q. THAT WAS WHERE IT WAS TWO-HOLE PUNCHED PREVIOUSLY.

A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS BEFORE?

A. I THINK SO.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER REFERRED TO THIS DOCUMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW TO TREAT SQUIRRELS?

A. NO. IS THAT IN HERE?

Q. YES.

A. NO.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER REFERRED TO THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY DISCUSSION OR MEETING WHATSOEVER?

A. NO, I HAVE NOT.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME -- I WANT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION, THE PRIOR QUESTION, WHEN YOU ASKED HIM -- I'D LIKE YOU TO -- I'D LIKE YOU TO REASK THE QUESTION, MISS PLEVIN, WHETHER HE EVER SAW THE DOCUMENT. I'D LIKE HIM TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WHETHER HE EVER SAW IT ASIDE FROM --

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: -- ASIDE FROM THE CONTEXT OF THIS LAWSUIT. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT IN THIS LAWSUIT; AND, THEREFORE, IT MAY WELL BE THAT MR. MISCAVIGE SAW THE DOCUMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS LAWSUIT. AND I THINK SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR, YOU SHOULD ASK HIM WHETHER HE EVER SAW IT OTHER THAN IN THAT CONTEXT SINCE YOUR CLIENT INJECTED IT INTO THE LITIGATION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS DOCUMENT, MR. MISCAVIGE? (ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: WOULD YOU HAVE TO SPECULATE? YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST TIME I SAW IT. I MEAN, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN GLANCING THROUGH A VOLUME, AND I MIGHT HAVE SEEN A COVER OF IT. BUT BY SEEING IT -BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER READ THE DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY?

A. YES.

Q. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS LAWSUIT?

A. WHEN DID THIS LAWSUIT COMMENCE?

Q. 1988, AUGUST OF 1988.

A. NO.

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

A. I WOULD ASSUME SO. IT DOESN'T HAVE A SIGNATURE ON IT, BUT IT SAYS, "PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN FROM L. RON HUBBARD." SO -- I HAVEN'T SEEN A HANDWRITTEN MANUSCRIPT OR A TYPED VERSION; BUT I WOULD ASSUME SO. Q. DO YOU RECOGNIZE MR. HUBBARD'S HANDWRITING?

A. DO I RECOGNIZE HIS HANDWRITING?

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU MEAN WHEN, NOW? DO YOU HAVE HIS HANDWRITING?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M ASKING HIM. HE SAID IT WASN'T IN MR. HUBBARD'S HANDWRITING.

THE WITNESS: WELL, THERE'S NO INDICATION HERE. EVEN IT DOESN'T --

MR. LIEBERMAN: THERE'S NO HANDWRITING ON IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: THERE'S NO HANDWRITING HERE.

THE WITNESS: EVEN IF IT'S TYPED L. RON HUBBARD --

MS. PLEVIN: I UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU COMMENTED --

THE WITNESS: YOU ASKED ME IF --

MS. PLEVIN: YOU COMMENTED --

THE WITNESS: -- TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE IT WAS WRITTEN BY HIM.

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY --

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S WHAT I ASKED, AND YOU --

THE WITNESS: IF I RECOGNIZED --

MS. PLEVIN: -- MADE A RESPONSE AND MY NEXT QUESTION WAS: CAN YOU RECOGNIZE -- DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE HANDWRITTEN MATERIALS OF L. RON HUBBARD?

MR. DRESCHER: I THINK THE --

MR. HELLER: WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM --

MR. DRESCHER: -- PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE QUESTION IS --

MR. HELLER: -- IF HE'S FAMILIAR WITH IT?

MR. DRESCHER: -- FAMILIARITY WITH HIS HANDWRITING.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HANDWRITING OF L. RON HUBBARD?

A. I'VE SEEN SOME.

MS. PLEVIN: BEFORE WE GO FORWARD, THIS IS TO BE MARKED NEXT IN ORDER WHICH MR. LIEBERMAN HAS ASKED --

MR. LIEBERMAN: NO. 8.

MS. PLEVIN: -- WHAT THE NUMBER IS. IT IS 8.

(THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS MARKED BY THE C.S.R. AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 8 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IS ATTACHED HERETO.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT, MR. MISCAVIGE? THIS IS A -- LEVEL O CHECK SHEET IS A HUNDRED-PAGE VOLUME WHICH, OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT. THESE ARE PAGES -- RUN FROM PAGES 50 TO 55. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH IT IN THIS -- AT ALL? MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU MEAN PAGES 50 THROUGH 55?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: I'D HAVE TO READ ALL OF THEM TO TELL YOU.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. BUT THE LEVEL O CHECK SHEET WAS A COMPILATION OF MATERIALS WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD?

A. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THE LEVEL O CHECK SHEET.

Q. ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY L. RON HUBBARD:

"THE LAW CAN BE USED VERY EASILY TO HARASS; AND ENOUGH HARASSMENT ON SOMEBODY WHO IS SIMPLY ON THE THIN EDGE ANYWAY, WELL KNOWING THAT HE IS NOT AUTHORIZED, WILL GENERALLY BE SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE HIS PROFESSIONAL DECEASE. IF POSSIBLE, OF COURSE, RUIN HIM UTTERLY."

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. BEFORE HE ANSWERS THAT, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT SINCE I DON'T KNOW -- WHEN YOU SAY, "ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THESE WORDS OF L. RON HUBBARD?" ARE YOU TESTIFYING THAT YOU KNOW THAT THOSE ARE HIS WORDS? MS. PLEVIN: I DON'T INTEND TO. I'M ASKING MR. MISCAVIGE IF HE UNDERSTANDS THESE WORDS TO BE THE WORDS OF L. RON HUBBARD. LET ME BACK UP.

Q. "THE PURPOSE OF A SUIT IS TO HARASS AND DISCOURAGE RATHER THAN TO WIN"; LET'S JUST FOCUS ON THAT SENTENCE.

A. SO WHAT'S THE QUESTION NOW?

Q. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE ARE THE WORDS AND SENTIMENTS OF L. RON HUBBARD?

A. NO. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE JUST READ A SENTENCE OFF OF SOMETHING OUT OF CONTEXT IN A VERY LENGTHY DOCUMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE SENTIMENTS AT ALL. IF YOU READ THOSE WORDS EXACTLY, POSSIBLY, BUT THE POINT IS THAT I CANNOT ANSWER ANY

FURTHER THAN THAT.

MR. LIEBERMAN: CAN I HAVE A ONE-MINUTE CONFERENCE WITH THE CLIENT?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT. MY CLIENT INFORMS ME THAT YOU ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER WITH AN IMPRECISION, WHICH IS OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE IN TERMS OF SCIENTOLOGISTS. SO HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR MISSTATEMENT, AND HE WANTS THE RECORD TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR SO THAT THERE'S NO IMPRESSION --

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- LATER ON.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO IDENTIFY WHAT IT IS. MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU ASKED HIM WHETHER HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH LEVEL ZERO, AND HE SAID --

MR. LIEBERMAN: LEVEL O.

MR. HERTZBERG: EXCUSE ME, WITH LEVEL O; AND, IN FACT, HE SAID HE WAS NOT. AND THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LEVEL O. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: AND IN FACT, MR. MISCAVIGE ADHERES TO HIS ANSWER IN THAT RESPECT BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LEVEL O IN SCIENTOLOGY.

HE DOES WANT TO POINT OUT, SO THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION AT SOME SUBSEQUENT DATE, THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS LEVEL ZERO, WHICH IS A RATHER SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENT WHICH IS NOT THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU SHOWED HIM. MS. PLEVIN: YOU KNOW --

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AREA.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. YOU ARE FAMILIAR, THOUGH, MR. MISCAVIGE, WITH A LENGTHY DOCUMENT THAT'S CALLED LEVEL ZERO CHECK SHEET OR MAGAZINE ARTICLES ON LEVEL ZERO CHECK SHEET?

A. I'M AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF IT. I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS FROM FRONT TO BACK.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE CONTENTS FROM FRONT TO BACK ARE A COMPILATION OF MATERIALS WRITTEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES, OR IS IT A SINGLE DOCUMENT ON A SINGLE SUBJECT?

A. NO, I DON'T KNOW. I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.

Q. WE'LL MAKE A COMPLETE SET AVAILABLE TO YOUR COUNSEL.

A. OKAY.

Q. I'M SHOWING YOU A THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT --

A. I WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING MR. HERTZBERG SAID. I'M NOT -- THAT I'M NOT TESTIFYING IS THE LEVEL ZERO CHECK SHEET (INDICATING).

MR. HERTZBERG: RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: I'M TRYING TO BE EXTREMELY PRECISE HERE. I REALIZE IT MIGHT SOUND LIKE AN IMPRECISION OR SLICING HAIRS, BUT IT IS VERY PRECISION IN SCIENTOLOGY. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS "THE" LEVEL ZERO CHECK SHEET. I AM SAYING TO YOU -- AND I THINK WE GAVE THE UNDERSTANDING -- THAT I'M AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT (INDICATING), WHICH I GUESS IS MORE COMPLETE, THAT SAYS ON IT, "LEVEL ZERO CHECK SHEET."

MS. PLEVIN: CORRECT.

MR. HERTZBERG: FINE. WHAT HE MEANS IS -MS. PLEVIN: I THINK THAT'S UNDERSTOOD. THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: JUST SO IT'S CLEAR WHEN HE WAS REFERRING TO "THAT," MR. MISCAVIGE WAS --

MR. PLEVIN: POINTING TO --

MR. HERTZBERG: -- POINTING TO THE LAST DOCUMENT YOU HAD IN FRONT OF HIM.

MS. PLEVIN: YES. THIS IS BOARD POLICY LETTER OF 30 MAY, 1974, OVER THE SIGNATURE OF ALTHEA C. TAYLOR ACTING LRH, PERS SEC FOR LRH, PERS COMM AS ORDERED BY L. R. -- L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER (INDICATING). THE WITNESS: ALETHEA, JUST SO YOU KNOW.

MS. PLEVIN: THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

A. NO, I'M NOT.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING HOSTILE CONTACTS OR DEAD AGENTING, HOSTILE PERSONS?

A. CAN I ASK YOU: ARE YOU ASKING ME, AM I FAMILIAR WITH THIS IN THAT CONTEXT?

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH --

A. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS ISSUE.

Q. OR THE DATA IN THIS ISSUE.

A. I HAVEN'T READ THE ISSUE; DO YOU WANT ME TO?

Q. PLEASE DO, YES.

A. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT AT ALL. I'M ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE WAY THROUGH THE PAGE, AND I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS.

I NOTICE THAT IT ALSO SAYS, "PASSAGES FROM DG PRO WW WRITEUPS," WHICH I KNOW, FACTUALLY, I'VE NEVER READ. SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

Q. THIS DOCUMENT WOULD APPEAR TO BE, BY LOOKING AT IT, A COMPILATION OF EXCERPTS FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS AS A COMPILATION, OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THE MATERIAL IN IT?

A. I'M SAYING IT'S A BOARD POLICY LETTER WHICH DOESN'T EVEN EXIST IN SCIENTOLOGY ANY LONGER. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT, AND I READ THERE THAT IT SAYS, "A COMPILATION." I HESITATE TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE IF IT IS SOMETHING PULLED OUT OF MULTIPLE PAGES OR WHATEVER, I HAVE NO IDEA -- I MEAN, I DON'T FEEL SAFE ANSWERING THAT. BY "SAFE," I MEAN I'M NOT GOING TO BE QUOTED ON SOMETHING --

Q. OKAY?

A. -- WITHOUT BEING CERTAIN.

Q. OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I ALSO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF THE CLIENT, MR. MISCAVIGE, HAS AN UNNUMBERED FRONT PAGE. THE NEXT PAGE IS PAGE 8, AND THE NEXT PAGE IS PAGE 9. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR PURPOSE WAS IN DOING THAT. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT IT IS GOING TO EXPEDITE THIS INQUIRY AT ALL OR BE RELEVANT AT ALL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT THE DOCUMENT IS STAMPED 943 CONSECUTIVELY TO 94 -- 945. MR. HERTZBERG: BY WHOM?

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: NO. NO, NOT OKAY. BY WHOM?

MS. PLEVIN: THOSE ARE OUR BATES STAMPS ON IT.

MR. HELLER: SO?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOUR BATES STAMPS?

MR. LIEBERMAN: I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT THE STAMP IS ALTERED BY HANDWRITING.

MS. PLEVIN: BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGIBLE. THE STAMPS WERE --

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME -- LET THE RECORD --

MS. PLEVIN: -- CREATING A PROBLEM.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- BE CLEAR HERE BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HAD -- WE'VE ALREADY HAD AT LEAST ONE PROBLEM WITH AN ALTERED DOCUMENT TODAY IN -MS. PLEVIN: HE --

MR. HERTZBERG: -- THE DEPOSITION TODAY. DID -- ARE YOU -- IS THAT YOUR BATES STAMP?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE MY OBSERVATION, THEN, ABOUT GIVING MR. MISCAVIGE A DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE A COMPLETE DOCUMENT WITH ONE FRONT PAGE AND THEN THE NEXT PAGE IS PAGES EIGHT AND NINE NUMBERED, OR WHATEVER YOUR BATES STAMP NUMBERS ARE.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL THAT MEANS IS YOU TOOK A DOCUMENT, PUT IT TOGETHER IN SOME WAY OR MAY HAVE COMBINED SOME DOCUMENTS AND YOU, TOBY PLEVIN, CONSECUTIVELY BATES STAMP NUMBERED THEM. MS. PLEVIN: MAKE WHATEVER ASSUMPTIONS YOU WISH, MR. HERTZBERG.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

I DO THINK, THOUGH, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING -- AN ASSUMPTION WHICH YOU MAY TELL ME IS INCORRECT, THAT ANY FUTURE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU SHOW TO MR. MISCAVIGE ARE NOT COMPOSITE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'VE PUT TOGETHER FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE AND BEING PRESENTED AS A SINGLE DOCUMENT.

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, I'LL STATE VERY CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD THAT IT IS NEVER MY INTENT TO PRESENT OR CREATE OR REPRESENT THAT A DOCUMENT IS OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS ORIGINALLY AND WAS INTENDED TO BE OR COMBINED WITH ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS OR INCOMPLETE IN ANY FASHION --

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: -- WHATSOEVER.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON. MAY I INQUIRE, MISS PLEVIN: DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. MISCAVIGE OTHER THAN IN THE CONTEXT OF SHOWING HIM DOCUMENT AFTER DOCUMENT AT THIS POINT? MS. PLEVIN: YES, I DO.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU DO?

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY. HERE'S A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "FOUNDER, HCO PL, 1 SEPTEMBER, '66. RA REISSUED 10, DECEMBER, 1980."

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M GOING TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION NOW. WE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS GOING THROUGH DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING DUG OUT OF YOUR BRIEFCASE IN NO ORDER THAT I CAN PERCEIVE, WHICH ARE VERY OLD IN TIME, MOST OF WHICH MR. MISCAVIGE COULD NOT IDENTIFY AND NONE OF WHICH YET REFER TO BENT CORYDON, SQUIRRELS, WITH THE EXCEPTION, POSSIBLY, OF ONE DOCUMENT, OR MISSIONS.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HELLER: OR THIS LAWSUIT OR ANY ALLEGATION IN IT OR ANYTHING CONNECTED TO THE LAWSUIT.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE WASTING A LOT OF TIME. I HOPE THAT YOU'RE NOT JUST SHOWING HIM THESE DOCUMENTS ONE AFTER ANOTHER UNTIL THE DAY HAS BEEN WILD AWAY, AND THEN YOU CAN CLAIM THAT YOU STILL NEED MR. MISCAVIGE TO COME BACK FOR SOME PURPOSE.

MR. HELLER: THEY APPEAR TO BE PRECISELY THE TACTIC.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. THIS ONE? THIS REISSUE -- IT SAYS, "REISSUED 10 DECEMBER, 1980." Q. YEAH.

A. IT ALSO SAYS, "REVISED AND REISSUED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER." I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS DOCUMENT. I'VE SEEN THE DOCUMENT, THE ORIGINAL, 1 SEPTEMBER, 1966, AND MAYBE IT'S "R" I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN THIS ONE.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS REISSUED IN DECEMBER OF 1980?

A. I WOULD ONLY HAVE TO ASSUME BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT.

Q. FOR THE RECORD, WE'LL NOTE THAT THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION.

A. OKAY.

Q. NOW, ON DECEMBER 10, 1980, WAS MR. HUBBARD IN COMMUNICATION WITH CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: ON --

MS. PLEVIN: TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

MR. DRESCHER: THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE KNEW THAT ON THAT SPECIFIC DATE, TEN YEARS AGO --

MS. PLEVIN: WELL--

MR. DRESCHER: -- MR. HUBBARD WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CSC?

MS. PLEVIN: WELL, IN DECEMBER OF -- LET ME WITHDRAW IT AND REPHRASE IT.

Q. AT VARIOUS TIMES, MR. MISCAVIGE, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT MR. HUBBARD WAS UNAVAILABLE AND GENERALLY NOT IN CONTACT WITH MOST PEOPLE AND WAS FAIRLY MUCH CONSIDERED IN HIDING?

A. WELL, WITHOUT THE LAST PART --

MR. HERTZBERG: WHOA. HOW CAN HE KNOW WHETHER -- WHAT MR. HUBBARD -- WHAT OTHER PEOPLE PERCEIVED OF MR. HUBBARD, WHETHER HE WAS IN HIDING OR NOT?

MR. HELLER: DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

MR. HERTZBERG: ASK THE QUESTION.

MR. HELLER: ASK THE QUESTION, PLEASE.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT IS ABSURD.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IT IS TRUE MR. HUBBARD WAS IN HIDING FOR MANY YEARS STARTING IN 1979 AND '80; ISN'T THAT TRUE? THAT MOST SCIENTOLOGISTS DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HE WAS?

A. WELL, I DISAGREE --

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, I DISAGREE.

THE WITNESS: -- WITH THAT, YEAH, SCIENTOLOGISTS NOT KNOWING WHERE HE WAS AND HIDING. I'LL ADOPT THE FIRST, SCIENTOLOGISTS NOT KNOWING WHERE HE WAS, AND I WILL NOT ADOPT THE LATTER.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY, THAT'S FAIR.

THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER AT ABOUT THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER, 1980, HIS WHEREABOUTS WERE KNOWN TO THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA?

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

THE WITNESS: THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY --

MR. HELLER: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY"?

MR. HERTZBERG: -- THAT MEANS. THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT A PERSON. IT'S A CORPORATE ENTITY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

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

MR. DRESCHER: WELL, I SURE DON'T. I DON'T KNOW --

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

MR. DRESCHER: -- HOW A CORPORATION CAN KNOW.

MS. PLEVIN: THROUGH ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.

MR. DRESCHER: WELL, IF THAT'S YOUR QUESTION --

MR. HELLER: THEN ASK THE QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: THEN ASK THE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN DECEMBER OF 1980 THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY KNEW WHERE HUBBARD WAS?

MR. LIEBERMAN: ALL OF THEM OR SOME OF THEM OR ANY ONE OF THEM?

MR. HELLER: LET'S ALL TAKE A VOTE ON IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, SINCE WE HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS, I GUESS WE CAN. I'M SORRY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: SORRY.

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

MS. PLEVIN: ANY ONE OF THEM WOULD BE FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY --

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW, NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE DOESN'T KNOW.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SHOWING YOU A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT "SEA ORGANIZATION" ON TOP, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CONDITIONS ORDER 5, NOVEMBER 25, 1982 (INDICATING).

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO. LET ME GLANCE AT THIS; OKAY?

Q. SURE.

A. YOU ASKED ME IF I'VE SEEN THIS.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

A. NO, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ITS CONDITIONS ORDER?

A. NO, I'M NOT.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PRACTICE OF WRITING -- STRIKE THAT.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE COMMAND CHANNELS BOOKLET.

A. OKAY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: ARE YOU THROUGH WITH THIS DOCUMENT?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: JUST TO CORRECT, MAYBE I'VE SEEN THIS; MAYBE NOT. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS. I WAS READING IT. IT DOESN'T RING A BELL.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IS IT AN OPERATIVE ORDER AS FAR AS YOU KNOW?

A. THIS?

Q. YES, CONDITIONS ORDER 5.

A. THIS, NO.

Q. LOOKING AT PAGE 48 OF THE COMMAND CHANNELS BOOKLET --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- ON THE BOTTOM THERE'S A BOX REGARDING KNOWLEDGE REPORTS. IS THAT POLICY STATEMENT CURRENTLY IN EFFECT?

A. LET ME JUST READ THIS.

Q. SURE.

A. WHEN YOU SAY "THAT POLICY STATEMENT," WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

Q. THAT KNOWLEDGE REPORTS BE WRITTEN ABOUT PERSONS WHOSE CONDUCT IS OFF POLICY.

A. WELL, THERE'S A POLICY LETTER REFERENCED HERE, "HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 JULY, 1982, KNOWLEDGE REPORTS."

Q. IS THAT STILL IN EFFECT? STRIKE THAT.

HAS THAT BEEN IN EFFECT CONTINUOUSLY FROM THE DATE IT WAS ISSUED TO NOW TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A. THE POLICY LETTER?

Q. YES.

A. YES.

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN, I'M LETTING MR. MISCAVIGE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS; BUT, AGAIN, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE LAWSUIT. I DON'T REMEMBER ANY CLAIMS BY MR. CORYDON THAT KNOWLEDGE REPORTS WERE WRITTEN AGAINST HIM, AND -MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- WE'RE REALLY WASTING TIME.

MS. PLEVIN: I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE COMPLAINT, BUT --

MR. HELLER: IT

MS. PLEVIN: I CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S IN THE COMPLAINT.

MR. HELLER: THAT'S NOT PART OF THE COMPLAINT; SO THAT'S NOT CORRECT. THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT KNOWLEDGE REPORTS IN THE COMPLAINT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE'LL GO OFF THE RECORD.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: WHILE MR. MISCAVIGE WENT TO THE MEN'S ROOM, I ASKED MISS PLEVIN HER ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WAS REQUIRED TO FINISH THIS DEPOSITION TODAY. SHE STATED THREE HOURS, WHICH, OF COURSE, IS A TIME THAT SHE KNEW WAS BEYOND THE TIME THAT

THE COURT REPORTER COULD STAY. SHE ALSO KNEW FROM THE CONVERSATION THE COURT REPORTER HAD WITH HER OFFICE THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTITUTE COURT REPORTER WHO COULD COME IN; AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY TO CONTINUE FOR THREE MORE HOURS TODAY.

MY POSITION, MISS PLEVIN, AS I STATED TO YOU OFF THE RECORD, BUT I WANT IT ON THE RECORD: YOU NOTICED THE DEPOSITION FOR TWO DAYS. YOU TOLD ME ON THE TELEPHONE ON AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT MORE, OCCASIONS THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO MR. MISCAVIGE'S DEPOSITION IN TWO DAYS MAXIMUM, OR LESS.

WE WERE HERE FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME YESTERDAY. I BELIEVE THE RECORD WILL SHOW SIX AND A HALF HOURS OF INTERROGATION. WE WERE HERE PROMPTLY AT ALL TIMES YESTERDAY AND TODAY; AND MY POSITION IS THAT WHEN THIS COURT REPORTER LEAVES, IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEBODY TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE COURT REPORTER, THIS DEPOSITION IS OVER. I WANT THAT TO BE MADE PLAIN. WE WOULD BE WILLING TO STAY EXTRA HOURS IF YOU'D MADE ARRANGEMENTS; BUT IF YOU HAVEN'T, IT CAN'T BE DONE.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN THE REMAINING 20 MINUTES YOU CHOOSE QUESTIONS THAT YOU THINK -- IF YOU HAVE ANY THAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO COME BACK INTO THIS DEPOSITION ABSENT A COURT ORDER. MS. PLEVIN: YOU'RE FINISHED?

MR. HERTZBERG: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT ANY ONE OR MORE LAWSUITS WERE COMMENCED TO PREVENT THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK "L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR MADMAN"?

MR. LIEBERMAN: COULD WE HAVE A TIME PERIOD? ARE YOU ASKING WHETHER HE'S AWARE NOW, OR ARE YOU ASKING WHETHER HE WAS AWARE AT THE TIME?

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S START WITH NOW.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE NOW THAT THERE WERE ANY LAWSUITS FILED TO PREVENT THE PUBLICATION OF "L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR MADMAN" ABOUT THE TIME IT WAS DUE TO BE RELEASED WHICH WAS THE MIDDLE OF 1987, APPROXIMATELY?

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. SO WHEN YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION, THAT WOULD INCLUDE HIS AWARENESS -- BECAUSE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, YOU WOULD INCLUDE IF HE WAS AWARE FROM THAT SOURCE 'OR FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE? MS. PLEVIN: WE'LL START WITH, IS HE AWARE OF IT NOW.

THE WITNESS: "MESSIAH OR MADMAN," THAT'S BENT'S BOOK?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. I WAS CONFUSED. I'M SORRY. I WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS, I THINK, A LAWSUIT.

MS. PLEVIN: YEAH.

THE WITNESS: I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE THAT THERE WAS A LAWSUIT WITH REGARD TO THE BOOK?

A. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME, BUT I KNOW THAT IT HAD TO DO WITH -- I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH THE COVER OF THE BOOK.

Q. ONE OF THE LAWSUITS -- THERE WERE SEVERAL LAWSUITS, MR. MISCAVIGE. ONE OF THE LAWSUITS HAD TO DO WITH THE COVER OF THE BOOK.

A. I WAS --

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT, WAIT. THAT'S NOT A QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: NO, IT ISN'T.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY. HE SAID HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH A LAWSUIT HAVING TO DO WITH THE COVER OF THE HOOK.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

MR. HELLER: HAVE YOU GOT A QUESTION?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THAT LAWSUIT? THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

MR. HELLER: FINE.

THE WITNESS: I THINK THERE WAS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS. WASN'T THERE A PRESS ARTICLE IN, POSSIBLY, "PUBLISHERS WEEKLY"?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DID YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAWSUIT APART FROM WHAT YOU READ IN SOME TRADE JOURNAL; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

A. I THOUGHT YOU ASKED ME WHEN I BECAME AWARE OF THAT. NO, I WASN'T SAYING THAT.

Q. OKAY.

A. I MAY HAVE HEARD OF IT ELSEWISE. I THINK THAT WAS IN REFERENCE TO -- I MENTIONED A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE COVER OF BENT'S BOOK HAVING A LETTER ON IT. I THINK AT THAT POINT I WAS AWARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SUIT TO CHANGE THE COVER BECAUSE IT HAD A -IT WAS A RIP-OFF OF "DIANETICS."

Q. WHEN DID YOU -- SORRY.

A. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Q. WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THE LAWSUIT ABOUT THE COVER?

A. WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE DATE, BUT I WILL TRY TO TIME TRACK IT FOR YOU. I KNOW THAT -- I BELIEVE THAT THE SUIT HAD BEEN WON. SO WHENEVER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OR AFTER THAT POINT, THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN; THAT APPARENTLY THE "DIANETICS" COVER COULDN'T BE USED.

Q. THE FIRST TIME YOU BECAME AWARE OF THAT LAWSUIT WAS AFTER IT HAD BEEN FILED; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? A. NO. I BELIEVE THE ISSUE WAS OVER WITH. I MEAN, MAYBE THE SUIT WAS EVEN DONE. I CAN'T EVEN -- OKAY.

Q. LET ME CLARIFY.

A. AT ANY RATE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER THE LAWSUIT.

Q. AFTER THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED?

A. OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT WASN'T DIRECTLY AFTER; THAT'S NOT A TIME FRAME I HAVE. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME ISSUE ABOUT A RIP-OFF OF THE "DIANETICS" COVER; THAT WAS ONE. Q. WERE YOU EVER --

A. OKAY, SO WHENEVER THAT IS; THAT'S HOW I COULD BEST PLACE IT.

Q. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE FILING OF SUCH A LAWSUIT PRIOR TO ITS BEING FILED?

A. NO.

Q. SO IT'S CLEAR IN MY MIND, YOUR TESTIMONY, THEN, IS THAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT UNTIL, AS YOU SAID, THE LAWSUIT WAS WON. I THINK THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS.

MR. HERTZBERG: IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. YOU CAN ANSWER IT ONE MORE TIME.

THE WITNESS: I THINK THE LAWSUIT WAS WON; I'D HAVE TO SAY THAT. HERE'S WHAT I -- EXACTLY --

MS. PLEVIN: I'M JUST FOCUSING ON THE TIME.

THE WITNESS: WELL, WAS THE LAWSUIT --

MS. PLEVIN: NOT WHETHER --

THE WITNESS: -- WON?

MS. PLEVIN: -- IT WAS WON OR LOST.

THE WITNESS: OKAY. THAT TIME, BUT THE --

MS. PLEVIN: BUT --

THE WITNESS: IN OTHER WORDS, DID --

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: THAT THE COVER --

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S ALL.

THE WITNESS: -- TO RIP OFF "DIANETICS" COULDN'T BE USED.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK, DID YOU INSTRUCT ANYONE TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CONTENT OF THE BOOK WAS GOING TO BE?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU ISSUE ANY ORDERS OR REQUEST THAT ANY ORDERS BE ISSUED TO OTHERS TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CONTENT OF THE BOOK WAS GOING TO BE?

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU INSTRUCT OR ORDER ANYONE TO ATTEMPT TO STEAL A COPY OF THE MANUSCRIPT?

A. OF COURSE NOT.

Q. DID YOU EVER SEE A COPY OF THE MANUSCRIPT OF THE BOOK BEFORE OR AFTER IT WAS PUBLISHED IN MANUSCRIPT FORM?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE WHO DID SEE --

A. NO.

Q. -- A COPY OF THE MANUSCRIPT IN MANUSCRIPT FORM BEFORE OR AFTER IT WAS PUBLISHED?

A. NOT THE BOOK.

Q. THE MANUSCRIPT. YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO IT COMING OUT IN HARD COPY.

A. NO.

Q. THE MANUSCRIPT OF THE BOOK.

A. NO.

Q. DID YOU EVER SEE A COPY OF THE DUST JACKET? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY THE TERM "DUST JACKET"?

A. THE PAPER THAT WRAPS AROUND THE BOOK.

Q. CORRECT. DID YOU EVER SEE A COPY OF THE PROPOSED DUST JACKET WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE LAWSUIT?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER SAW THE DUST JACKET. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PICTURE OF IT IN SOME PUBLICATION, LIKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF IT, YOU KNOW, PRINTED. MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: BUT THE DUST JACKET -- WHEN YOU SAY -- I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS BECAUSE I ASSUME YOU'RE SAYING THERE WAS AN ACTUAL DUST JACKET.

MS. PLEVIN: CORRECT.

THE WITNESS: I NEVER SAW THAT, NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. BUT YOU SAW SOME -- TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION YOU SAW SOME REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE DUST JACKET WAS THAT WAS CONSIDERED THE OFFENDING DUST JACKET? A. I THINK SO.

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT PUBLICATION THAT WAS?

A. NO.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY POLICY REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF ENTHETA ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD, E-N-T-H-E-T-A?

A. HOW DID YOU SPELL THAT?

Q. E-N-T-H-E-T-A.

A. OKAY. ANY POLICY? PLEASE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.

Q. OKAY. IS IT A POLICY -- STRIKE THAT.

A POLICY TO PREVENT THE PUBLICATION OR MAKE MORE DIFFICULT THE PUBLICATION OF BOOKS CRITICAL OF L. RON HUBBARD.

A. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY SUCH POLICY. BY "POLICY" I TAKE IT YOU'RE REFERRING TO A POLICY LETTER; IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS?

Q. LET'S START WITH THAT, POLICY LETTER.

A. NO. IN ANY CASE, I JUST WANT TO -- IN ANY EVENT, NO MATTER HOW YOU DEFINE "POLICY," NO.

Q. GUARDIAN ORDER?

A. NO. "NO" MEANING I -- YOU ASKED ME IF THERE'S A GUARDIAN ORDER. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY GUARDIAN'S ORDER LIKE THAT, NO.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED TO PREVENT THE PUBLICATION OF BOOKS THAT ARE CRITICAL OF L. RON HUBBARD, LAWSUITS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BY OR ON BEHALF OF NEW ERA AND/OR THE EUROPEAN VERSION OF NEW ERA PUBLICATIONS, DK?

MR. HELLER: I'M CONFUSED.

MR. HERTZBERG: HE CAN ANSWER THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I GET --

MR. HELLER: I'M VERY CONFUSED BY THE QUESTION. ANY LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED TO PREVENT A BOOK THAT'S BEEN CRITICAL OF L. RON HUBBARD, MEANING THAT'S WHY THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED, OR THERE WAS A LAWSUIT FILED AND THE BOOK WAS CRITICAL OR WHAT? MAYBE YOU'RE --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, MR. MISCAVIGE? A. WELL, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I THINK YOU SAID. Q. OKAY.

A. AM I AWARE OF A POLICY REGARDING STOPPING THE PUBLICATION OF SOMETHING THAT'S ENTHETA ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD FROM NEW ERA PUBLICATIONS? WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU SAID? I'M GOING TO LISTEN CLOSELY. Q. OKAY.

A. IT WAS PRETTY LONG THERE.

Q. OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER LAWSUITS HAVE BEEN FILED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTEMPTING TO STOP THE PUBLICATION OF ENTHETA ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD?

MR. HERTZBERG: FOR THAT PURPOSE, THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO STOP ENTHETA AS OPPOSED TO SOME LEGAL PURPOSE; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT HIM TO BE TRICKED. THIS QUESTION --

MS. PLEVIN: I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO TRICK HIM.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET ME JUST SAY THAT THIS QUESTION IS, IN MY POINT OF VIEW --

MS. PLEVIN: I'M SORRY?

MR. HERTZBERG: IT'S SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION, AND I DON'T WANT TO --

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHAT -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- I THINK MISS PLEVIN IS ASKING: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY LAWSUITS THAT WERE FILED WHERE THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE LAWSUIT, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHER PURPOSE, WAS TO STOP AN ENTHETA ABOUT MR. HUBBARD; THAT'S AS OPPOSED TO FILING A SUIT BECAUSE A COVER MAY VIOLATE --

THE WITNESS: I GET IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- SOME STATUTE OR --

THE WITNESS: I GET IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- THERE MIGHT BE COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS OR SOMETHING ELSE LIKE THAT; THAT'S WHAT -THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- SHE'S ASKING YOU.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS PLEVIN: WITH ONE EXCEPTION, I DON'T NECESSARILY SAY THAT'S THE SOLE PURPOSE. I DON'T ATTEMPT THAT TO BE A TRICK QUESTION. THERE HAVE BEEN LAWSUITS -- IF I MAKE COMMENTARY, MR. HERTZBERG GETS FURIOUS. SO I HAVE A PROBLEM IN MAKING COMMENTARY. BUT THERE ARE LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED ON COPYRIGHT GROUNDS. I AM SUGGESTING THAT WE TAKE -- THAT THE PURPOSE OF THOSE LAWSUITS, SUBSTANTIALLY, WAS NOT TO PROTECT COPYRIGHTS BUT TO STOP THOSE BOOKS FROM BEING PUBLISHED.

Q. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THOSE LAWSUITS WERE ABOUT?

A. NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S GO ON THE RECORD AND --

THE WITNESS: BY THE WAY, THOSE LAWSUITS, I DON'T -- I'M ASSUMING THAT THOSE LAWSUITS -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY "THOSE LAWSUITS."

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: I ALSO WANT THE REGARD TO REFLECT I'M NOT FURIOUS ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT IF I'M ANGRY ABOUT ANYTHING, IT'S TWO THINGS: WHAT YOU'VE DONE ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THIS DEPOSITION, WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO MY UNDERSTANDING, AND WHAT YOU DID THIS MORNING WHEN YOU ACTED AS A PROCESS SERVER FOR ATTORNEYS IN OTHER CASES; I'M FURIOUS ABOUT THAT.

BY MS PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF DENNIS CLARK?

A. YES.

Q. DO YOU KNOW -- IS HE PRESIDENT -- OR HAS HE BEEN PRESIDENT OF CCHR? A. I DON'T KNOW.

Q. IN WHAT -- DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE HAS A POSITION WITH ANY SCIENTOLOGY ENTITY OR ORG, OR IS THIS -- WELL, TO START WITH, IS HE A SCIENTOLOGIST?

A. I BELIEVE HE IS.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE HAS A POST?

A. OKAY. I COULD ASK YOU WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT LET ME JUST -- I'LL ANSWER IT IN THIS FRAMEWORK JUST SO IT'S CLEAR: BY "A POST" -- I ASSUME YOU HAVE A POST, TOO. SO IN THAT CONTEXT, IT'S A LABEL, AND I BELIEVE THAT DENNIS CLARK -- I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS HIS POST, BUT CCHR SPOKESMAN.

Q. OKAY.

A. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN OFFICIAL POST, BUT I'M JUST PUTTING THAT LABEL ON HIM, AS I WOULD PUT ATTORNEY LABEL ON YOU. Q. FAIR.

A. THAT WAY -- OKAY, GO AHEAD.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MR. CLARK EVER ATTEMPTED TO BEAT UP BENT CORYDON?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS EVER ASKED OR INSTRUCTED TO FIND BENT CORYDON AND BEAT HIM UP?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF KURT WEILAND?

A. YES.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER HE WAS EVER UNDER INSTRUCTIONS TO ASSAULT BENT CORYDON ON ANY WAY?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE EVER DID?

A. NO.

Q. DID IT EVER COME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT IT WAS ALLEGED THAT HE DID?

A. IS THAT SOMETHING MENTIONED IN THIS LAWSUIT?

Q. YES IT IS.

A. THEN I GUESS I READ IT IN THERE WHEN I READ THE LAWSUIT.

Q. DID YOU EVER AUTHORIZE A LETTER TO BE SENT TO THE "ST. PETERSBURG TIMES" THREATENING TO SUE IT IF IT PUBLISHED A REVIEW OF THE BOOK, "L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR MADMAN"? A. NO, I DIDN'T.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANYONE AUTHORIZED THAT LETTER TO BE SENT ON BEHALF OF ANY SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION OR CHURCH?

MR. DRESCHER: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. HELLER: EXACTLY.

BY MS PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANYONE DID AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO DO THAT?

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: SAME PROBLEM.

MR. DRESCHER: SAME OBJECTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF THERE WAS SUCH A LETTER.

MS PLEVIN: ASSUMING THERE WAS SUCH A LETTER.

THE WITNESS: NO.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE

THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T KNOW. AND I'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A LETTER EITHER, SINCE THAT SEEMS TO BE APPROPRIATE TO WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE

MS. PLEVIN: OFF THE RECORD FOR A SECOND,

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WHAT'S THE FUNCTION OF THE OSA?

A. THAT MEANS OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS. NOW, "FUNCTION" TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU ASK ME THAT.

Q. OKAY. ZONES OF RESPONSIBILITY.

A DEALING WITH LEGAL AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC MATTERS.

Q. DOES IT EMPLOY ATTORNEYS?

A. "IT"?

Q. LET ME CLARIFY THAT.

A. OKAY.

Q. ATTORNEYS WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF OSA, RATHER THAN RETAINED BY ANY CHURCH ENTITY.

A. I DON'T KNOW.

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THIS IS, MISS PLEVIN.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. IT HAS FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE BOTH LEGAL AND NONLEGAL, HOWEVER?

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT THIS TO BE CLEAR.

MR. DRESCHER: YEAH.

MR. HERTZBERG: I HOPE YOU'RE NOT IMPLYING IT HAS FUNCTIONS THAT ARE ILLEGAL AND LEGAL.

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: AND THAT WAS IMPLIED BY THE WAY YOU PHRASED THAT QUESTION.

MR. LIEBERMAN: NO.

MS. PLEVIN: FUNCTIONS IN THE LEGAL ARENA AND AS WELL AS IN MATTERS NOT PERTAINING TO LEGAL MATTERS, LAWSUITS, SO FORTH.

THE WITNESS: SHOULD I ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: YES. YES OR NO.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU SUPERVISE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE OSA WITH REGARD TO ITS HANDLING OF LEGAL MATTERS?

A. NO.

Q. DOES ANYONE AT RTC HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSEEING THE ACTIVITIES OF OSA WITH REGARD TO LAWSUITS, IN GENERAL?

A. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "OVERSEE"?

Q. A PERSON WHO WOULD BE THE SENIOR OF OSA WITH REGARD TO LAWSUITS AND THE CONDUCT OF LAWSUITS.

A. IN RTC?

Q. YES.

A. NO.

Q. IN ASI?

A. NO.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: JUST SAY YOU WANT HER TO CLARIFY.

THE WITNESS: JUST SO I'M CLEAR I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING: IS RTC THE SENIOR OF SOMEBODY IN OSA IN DEALING WITH LAWSUITS; IS THAT THEIR DUTY?

MS. PLEVIN: CORRECT.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S HOW I'M ANSWERING THE QUESTION. OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DOES ANYONE EXERCISE THAT FUNCTION, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT THEIR DUTY?

A. NO. I'M -- NO.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE NORMAN STARKEY IS?

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING, MISS PLEVIN, SINCE YOU'RE A PROCESS SERVER AS WELL AS AN ATTORNEY. MR. HELLER: I'LL JOIN.

MS. PLEVIN: AS A POTENTIAL WITNESS IN THIS LAWSUIT --

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL --

MS. PLEVIN: -- I'M ENTITLED TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHERE HE'S LOCATED.

MR. HERTZBERG: I CAN'T -- IN VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED, I CAN'T TRUST ANY MORE THAT THAT'S -- EVEN IF THAT WERE A VALID REASON FOR THAT QUESTION, I CAN'T TRUST ANY MORE WHAT YOUR PURPOSE IS IN SEEKING ADDRESSES.

MS. PLEVIN: WELL --

MR. HERTZBERG: WHEN YOU COME IN HERE AFTER NOTICING MY CLIENT'S DEPOSITION AND YOU COME IN HERE AND THEN YOU GO ON THE RECORD AND THEN YOU SERVE HIM OR TRY TO SERVE HIM WITH PROCESSES IN VARIOUS CASES THAT YOU'RE NOT INVOLVED IN, I CAN'T TAKE THAT AT FACE

VALUE.

MS. PLEVIN: THEN I HAVE TO ASK WHETHER IT IS YOUR PURPOSE, MR. HERTZBERG, TO ASSIST PEOPLE IN AVOIDING SERVICE OF PROCESS? MR. HELLER: HOW SO?

MR. HERTZBERG: ASK THE NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

THE REPORTER: I HAVE 5:00 O'CLOCK.

MS. PLEVIN: THE COURT REPORTER JUST INFORMED ME THAT SHE HAS TO LEAVE; IT'S 5:00 O'CLOCK.

I AM NOT FINISHED. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO PROLONG THE RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OUR VIEWS ON THAT.

I WILL NOT CONCLUDE THE DEPOSITION. I WILL ADJOURN IT, SUBJECT TO WHATEVER SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS MAY HAPPEN OR NEGOTIATIONS MAY HAPPEN ON THAT SUBJECT AND LET'S LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR NOW. MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. I DON'T WANT THE RECORD TO BE UNCLEAR IN ANY WAY. WE CONSIDER YOUR DEPOSITION OF MR. MISCAVIGE IN THIS CASE NOW TERMINATED.

MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S YOUR -- YOU HAVE MADE THAT RECORD. YOU HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: NO STIPULATION.

(WHEREUPON, AT 5:00 P.M., THE DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE.)