William T. Drescher
23679 Calabasas Road, Suite 338
Calabasas, California 91302
(818) 591-0039

Michael Lee Hertzberg
740 Broadway
New York, New York 10003
(212) 982-9870

Attorneys for Non-Party
DAVID MISCAVIGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a California Non-
Profit Religious Organization,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

CASE NO. CV 91-6426 HLH (Tx)

DECLARATION OF DAVID
MISCAVIGE

I, DAVID MISCAVIGE, declare and say:

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State

of California. I have personal knowledge of the matters set

forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness I

could and would competently testify thereto.

2. I am not a party in the above-referenced case, nor am I

1

affiliated in any corporate capacity with the plaintiff, Church

of Scientology International (”CSI”). I make this declaration

for several reasons. First, until January 4, 1994, the date on

which I was informed that my deposition had been ordered in this

case by Magistrate Judge Tassopulos, I had no idea that I would

be required to testify in this case. I was never served with any

subpoena for such testimony, I have never had any contact

whatsoever with either defendant, and I had nothing whatsoever to

do with this case until now. In fact, it was not until January 6,

1994, after my deposition had been ordered, that I first read the

outrageous papers filed by Geertz’s counsel when he sought to

have my deposition ordered. Second, upon reading those papers,

I discovered that Geertz’s counsel made arguments to the

Magistrate Judge that gave her the absolutely false impression

that I was evading service of subpoena. It caused me great

concern to learn that the Magistrate Judge had asked, “Why has

Mr. Miscavige avoided service?” I did no such thing, and were it

not for the baseless allegations which Geertz’s counsel

proffered, I believe the Magistrate Judge would instead have

asked Geertz’s counsel, “Has Mr. Miscavige been served?” The

truthful answer to that question is “No.” Third, my lawyers’

efforts to arrange for my deposition to be taken have been

rebuffed by Geertz’s counsel, who, at the same time, is

threatening to move for a contempt citation against me for not

appearing at a deposition he has refused to schedule. It is

inconceivable to me that Geertz’s counsel can seriously contend

that I am to blame for a deposition not going forward when he has

refused to depose me. Finally, in the course of these

2

proceedings, Geertz’s Counsel, Robert Vaughn Young and Stacy

Young have made a number of allegations about me and about the

Scientology religion which require a response, so there can be no

doubt that those allegations are false.

3. I have read the vile declarations filed by Vaughn and

Stacy Young in this case. It is clear to me that the false

allegations they have filed have been offered solely for the

purpose of making me the centerpiece of this litigation, and that

their motivation is to forward a litigation tactic of harassment

to the point of a hoped-for default by the only plaintiff to this

action, CSI. The foregoing is based on the falsity of the claims

they have made, my personal knowledge that both of these

individuals are not qualified to testify to the matters they have

addressed by declaration, and because I have seen the same

litigation tactics used before in instances where Vaughn Young

would have learned this “technique.” Therefore, this declaration

is submitted to demonstrate that I have no knowledge of the

defendants in this case, to set the record straight concerning

the false allegations of Vaughn and Stacy Young, and to comply as

fully with the court order concerning my deposition as Geertz’s

counsel’s actions permit, since Geertz’s counsel has declined all

opportunities to do so. I also submit this declaration because I

feel the Court has been poisoned into believing that I have had

some role in this litigation by the statements of the Youngs and

counsel for Geertz, to which I have neither responded nor even

had the opportunity to respond.

3

BACKGROUND

4. I have been a practicing member of the Scientology

religion since 1971. In 1976, I joined staff of the Church of

Scientology of California (and the Sea Organization — the

Scientology religious order). During my tenure in this

corporation, I held many positions. In 1977, I had the

opportunity to work directly with L. Ron Hubbard in many

different capacities. In 1978, Mr. Hubbard was engaged in the

production of Scientology films which had the purpose of training

Scientology counselors (called “auditors”) in the practice of

Scientology. During this time I was the Chief Cameraman. Later,

I worked directly with Mr. Hubbard as a member of the Commodore’s

Messenger Organization (”CMO”), which duties consisted of

assisting Mr. Hubbard in whatever activities he was engaged in.

The functions are best described as an assistant. Later, when

Mr. Hubbard went into seclusion to continue his researches on

Dianetics and Scientology, and to engage in his own writings, I

became part of a newly formed CMO organization, CMO

International.

5. CMO International’s role was to see that the

management of the Church operated in accordance with Scientology

policy and technology. The title of my position was Action

Chief. In short, this post was responsible for missionaire

activities of the Church, where personnel from the Mother Church

would travel to different parts of the world to see to the proper

operation of various Church activities and to take corrective

action where necessary. The types of missions I generally

supervised were those that saw to the correct functioning of the

4

Church management and the correction thereof.

6. From the beginning of 1982 until March of 1987, I was

Chief Executive Officer and later Chairman of the Board of Author

Services, Inc. (”ASI”), a California corporation which managed

the personal, business, and literary affairs of L. Ron Hubbard.

Later in this declaration, I describe how I came to that

position.

7. Since March of 1987, I have been Chairman of the Board

of Religious Technology Center (”RTC”), a California non-profit

religious corporation recognized as tax exempt under Section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. RTC is not part of

Church management, nor is it involved in the daily affairs of

various Church of Scientology organizations or missions. RTC

ensures that the trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology, and the

technology they represent, are properly used around the world.

It exists to see that Dianetics and Scientology technology is

safeguarded, is in good hands, and is properly used.

8. RTC was formed with the specific purpose of seeing that

the religion of Scientology was kept pure and true to the source

materials of the religion. In fact, a major reason for its

formation was to have such a Church organization that performed

these functions in a capacity entirely separate from the actual

management of the various Churches and Missions of Scientology.

Not only is RTC not involved in the management of the

international hierarchy of Scientology churches, but its very

existence and performance of its true functions depends on the

fact that it is NOT part of Church management. The authority of

the Religious Technology Center stems from the ownership of the

5

trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology. In brief, RTC’s

maintenance of these trademarks is threefold: A) ensuring that

when something is represented as Dianetics or Scientology, that

it actually is; B) seeing that any organization representing

itself as Dianetics or Scientology (and using those names), while

actually being something entirely different, is prevented from

doing so; and C) seeing that anyone offering Scientology, but

calling it something else (a name other than Dianetics or

Scientology) is prevented from doing so. I could give various

such examples where actions listed in B) and C) have actually

occurred, although it is not necessary here. Suffice it to say

that when such has occurred, RTC has acted, with litigation when

necessary, and has been able to uphold the proper use of the

marks in every instance.

9. As Chairman of the Board, the most senior position in

RTC, I am uniquely interested in the standard application of the

Scripture of Scientology as detailed in Hubbard Communications

Office Policy Letters (HCO PLs) and Hubbard Communications Office

Bulletins (HCOBs) and the spoken words of Mr. Hubbard on the

subjects of Dianetics and Scientology as recorded on audio tape,

video, film and, in some cases, written transcriptions of these

materials. I inspect and correct departures from the standard

application of the Scripture of the religion. I also ensure that

any attempted perversion of the technology of Dianetics and

Scientology is rapidly dealt with, to keep the religion pure so

that all people may benefit from the application of Mr. Hubbard’s

breakthroughs in the fields of the mind, the spirit and life.

10. In the course of my duties I travel widely. I often

6

appear at Church events and briefings which serve to keep

Scientologists around the world aware of the widespread

application of Mr. Hubbard’s writings. In all such appearances,

my position as Chairman of the Board of RTC is known, as is its

distinction from actual Church management officials of CSI. I

also oversee the affairs of the Religious Technology Center in

its function of verifying that the source writings of the

religion are kept pure. This specifically includes the

verification that the materials representing themselves as being

Dianetics and Scientology are in fact that, and that they

honestly reflect the source writings of the religion by L. Ron

Hubbard. I also oversee RTC’s function of assuring that the

trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology are legally registered

and kept current in over 190 countries around the world.

11. Neither RTC nor I has any corporate authority over any

Scientology church, including CSI. CSI is the Mother Church of

the Scientology religion and has been since its inception in

1981. As such, CSI is responsible for the activities

commensurate with such a role, including the ecclesiastical

management of Churches, dissemination and propagation of the

faith and defense of its activities, including external and legal

affairs. All of the foregoing facts were submitted to and

thoroughly reviewed by the Internal Revenue Service prior to the

recent recognition of the tax-exempt status of CSI, RTC and a

host of other Church corporations and entities.

FAILURE TO SERVE SUBPOENA

12. Apparently Geertz’s counsel made some attempts to serve

7

me with a deposition subpoena in Los Angeles in December of 1993,

when I was away from California on business in the United Kingdom

and Washington, D.C. I keep a busy schedule that requires

extensive travel in the course of handling a wide range of

ecclesiastical duties, and my schedule has nothing to do with the

presence or absence of process servers. In January, I was away

on business in Clearwater, Florida and Washington, D.C. In

Washington, I met with the head of Interpol, Raymond Kendall, on

one of the days that Geertz’s counsel unilaterally set for my

deposition. This meeting had been arranged for more than a month

and since this individual was traveling all the way from

Interpol headquarters in Europe, it was hardly something I could

cancel. During that same week, and on another day arbitrarily set

for my deposition, I met with IRS officials in a similarly pre-

arranged meeting. In fact, I was only home for approximately 25

days in all of 1993. I was simply not in the State of California

during the entire time in which service attempts on me were

apparently being made. I understand this fact was made known to

the Magistrate Judge in this case and later to the Court. To

this day, I have never received a subpoena in this case.

13. Any suggestion that I try to avoid giving testimony is

just false. In May of 1992, I testified at a legal proceeding in

Toronto, Canada, although there was no legal means to compel my

testimony. I testified for four full days in the summer of 1993

in Church of Scientology International v. Eli Lilly. et al., a

case pending in federal court in Washington, D.C. There are over

1100 pages of deposition transcript that comprise that

deposition, with very little in the way of objections or

8

colloquy. I did so because I knew my testimony was needed and

relevant. In 1990, I was deposed for two full days in Bent

Corydon v. Church of Scientology International. In that

instance, I was “rewarded” for appearing by having plaintiff’s

counsel serve me with various subpoenas in other disrelated

matters. In both Lilly and Corydon, the opposition first

attempted to notice my deposition while concurrently arguing that

I would “refuse to appear.” In each instance I was forced to

refute such nonsense and in fact did appear. To claim that I

evade service or avoid being deposed or otherwise avoid

giving testimony is nonsense on its face.

14. I want the Court to be aware that upon learning that my

deposition had been ordered by the Magistrate Judge on January 4,

1994 and upon reading the allegations that apparently led to

that order, which I first read on January 6, 1994, I consulted

with my counsel in this matter, who advised that I seek the

Court’s review of the Magistrate Judge’s order concerning my

deposition. At the same time, I also instructed my counsel that

in spite of the fact that I had no knowledge of the issues raised

in this case, and in spite of the lack of any service of a

subpoena on me, and in spite of the fact, as noted above, I was

to be out of town for much of January, counsel should try to make

arrangements for my deposition to be taken, should the Court not

reverse the Magistrate Judge’s order. Efforts to make such

arrangements commenced on January 10, 1994 and continued through

February 4, 1994. I am informed that Geertz’s counsel was not

willing to discuss a mutually acceptable date for my testimony,

particularly at the end of that period, when Geertz’s counsel

9

declined even to propose a date for my deposition. In the

meantime, while refusing to depose me, he threatens me with

contempt for not having been deposed. I am convinced that this

entire tactic of attempting to bring me into a case where my only

involvement stems from this pursuit of my testimony, is for the

purpose of harassment and to forward a litigation tactic of

avoiding litigation of the actual case by use of abusive and

irrelevant discovery tactics.

15. As a result, I feel I should make whatever effort I

can to set the record straight on many of the false and

inflammatory allegations that have been injected into this case.

Therefore, I am using this written declaration to inform the

Court of what my testimony would have been. I also am making my

testimony available, because of my great concern that my name has

been attacked in such a way that the Court has made rulings

regarding my appearance based entirely on falsehoods presented by

Geertz’s counsel and Vaughn and Stacy Young.

NO KNOWLEDGE OF DEFENDANTS

16. I first heard the name Steven Fishman in the summer of

1990, when it was brought to my attention that someone by that

name had been sentenced to prison for mail fraud and obstruction

of justice and that in the course of being sentenced, he had

referred to me by name and it had been alleged that illegal acts

he had committed were as a result of Fishman being ” implanted”

and caused pain by inserting BIC pens in his penis and forcing

him to smell human feces. As I had never heard of Fishman and

because the allegations were such tabloid rot, I assumed this was

10

some new form of “insanity defense” and that Fishman had picked

my name out of the press or something. I never thought about the

matter again, until 1991, when I read the 8 page cover story in

Time Magazine concerning CSI in the May 6, 1991 edition. At no

time, either before or since I read their names in that magazine,

have I met with, spoken to, communicated with or otherwise had

any contact or communication of any kind with either Geertz or

Fishman. It was when I read that article that I first heard the

name Uwe Geertz.

17. Geertz has submitted copies of purported correspondence

from defendant Steven Fishman to Church members making reference

to me as a participant in Fishman’s mail fraud crimes. These

references to me are pure fiction. Indeed, I have been informed

that CSI has filed with the Court an unrebutted declaration of a

typewriter expert who concluded that these letters could not have

been created on the dates claimed by Fishman.

18. Other than the falsified documents of a convicted

felon, the defendants have identified no other “evidence” that I

even knew Fishman, much less ordered or condoned crimes for which

he was imprisoned. Instead, Geertz has submitted two vicious

declarations, from Vaughn and Stacy Young, which attack and

vilify me personally without reference to any issue in this case.

Most significantly, neither of the Young’s ever suggests that they

ever heard me or any other senior official in the Scientology

religion mention Steven Fishman or Uwe Geertz in their presence.

At no time does either one even suggest that they know anything

that connects me to any issue in this case. The reason they have

failed to do so is clear: they have no such evidence of my

11

involvement with Fishman or Geertz because no such evidence

exists.

19. Exemplifying the unsupportable, irrelevant and

malicious nature of Vaughn Young’s personal assault on me is his

false and repugnant insinuation that I was involved with the

death of my mother-in-law, Mary Florence Barnett. Not only is

there no evidence to support this claim by Young, but there is

clear evidence to the contrary. With the reports of the coroner

and the medical examiner’s investigator, and with the deposition

of the medical examiner taken by Geertz’s counsel at hand — all

to the unanimous, unequivocal conclusion that Ms. Barnett died

from self-inflicted gunshots — Young has the temerity to suggest

that I should be investigated to determine what he calls my role

in that tragic suicide. With complete disdain for the facts and

no regard whatsoever for any sense of decency, Young has taken a

personal tragedy in my family’s life, the suicide of my

mother-in-law, and attempted to make this an issue in this

lawsuit by twisting it to imply non-existent wrongdoing on my

part. I not only had nothing to do with this tragic incident,

but Vaughn Young’s gratuitous embellishment that I ordered the

matter “hushed up” is equally false. My only association with

this tragedy was to console my wife who was understandably

emotionally traumatized and grief stricken. Vaughn Young’s

effort to exploit this tragedy is malicious in and of itself, but

his innuendo and attempts to recast the incident, despite the

uncontroverted evidence as to the true cause of Ms. Barnett’s

death, show the depths to which he is willing to sink.

20. At this point, I have stated all I know of Steve

12

Fishman and Uwe Geertz and anything that could possibly be

relevant to this case. However, Vaughn and Stacy Young have

taken it upon themselves to introduce into this case their

version of my history with the Church. I cannot understand the

relevance of this under any circumstances, but since counsel has

now refused to take my deposition while concurrently leveling

threats, I feel I am forced to give a brief history of what

actually occurred to be in compliance with the Court’s order if

such is considered relevant, and to show in proper context how

Vaughn and Stacy Young are simply incapable of competently

testifying to events they have “described” in their declarations.

HISTORY OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS

21. False allegations leveled against me in the context of

litigation or in the media are nothing new. I raise this point

only so that the Court will understand that the sort of

scurrilous personal attack on me launched by Geertz’s counsel and

Vaughn Young is the latest in a pattern of such attacks in

litigation over the years. I recognize that it is not uncommon

for leaders of organizations and movements to be subjected to

such attacks. I can only assume that I am attacked because I am

visible as the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion.

I note that I am the ecclesiastical leader of the religion, not

the Church. The mischaracterization of my role made by the

editors of Premiere magazine in an editorial note cannot convert

me from the leader of the religion to the head of the Church.

Neither can the imprecise use of language by Ted Koppel on ABC’s

Nightline Show. Both of those erroneous designations are

13

examples of the media not understanding the nature of what I do

or the nature of my relationship to the Church. In the case of

Premiere, the same article that contained the erroneous statement

by the editors, also contained a photo caption which I did

compose and which did correctly identify my position as “David

Miscavige, Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center,

Holder of the Trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology.” On

“Nightline,” I was sitting on live, nationwide TV, engaged in

rebutting a set up video for the show, containing 15 minutes of

false and outrageous charges about Scientology and did not deem

it important to pause from correcting those false charges so I

could educate Mr. Koppel on matters of corporate structure.

22. My name has now been dragged through the mud in this

litigation, not only by means of a mean-spirited personal attack,

but also as part of what appears to be a tactic of hurling false

and irrelevant allegations against Church of Scientology

International, the Scientology religion and its Founder. It is

unfortunate that I am now put in the position of defending my

reputation and refuting lies about my religion that have become

part of the record in this case. In that regard, I must note

that in reviewing the sordid and outrageous allegations made

about me by Geertz’s counsel and Mr. Young, I was struck by their

technique of using vague, innuendo-filled vignettes and

unsubstantiated rumors in an effort to sound authoritative. I

was also struck by the way that their declarations attempt to

portray normal things as abnormal. I can only submit that trying

to make the usual seem strange and trying to color events by

innuendo are the tools by which bigotry is crafted and prejudice

14

is spread.

23. The personal attacks on me, as well as many other

irrelevant and malicious falsehoods that have been brought in

this case, have largely been introduced through declarations of

Robert Vaughn Young and Stacy Young and forwarded by Geertz’s

lawyer, Graham Berry. The Youngs left Scientology almost five

years ago, have no personal knowledge of the current activities

of RTC, CSI, or any other part of Scientology and, by their own

admission, have no personal knowledge of the defendants in this

case. Neither Vaughn nor Stacy Young ever worked with me or even

near me during the entire time I have been employed by RTC. They

couldn’t possibly testify to any of my activities as RTC’s

Chairman of the Board since 1987 because they simply were in no

position even to observe such activities. They are not experts

on anything relating to Scientology, but have apparently been

hired to file inflammatory declarations on non-issues in this

suit. The Youngs are, however, generally aware of the fact that,

through the years, attempts to malign me personally and create a

false picture of the Church with sensational allegations have

been the stock-in-trade of litigants opposing the Church and the

former Scientologists upon whom counsel rely to swear to matters

they do not know and to make false allegations for which they

have no basis. I believe that the Youngs’ awareness of that

litigation ploy explains their involvement in this case and

defines the role they are playing.

24. For example, part of Vaughn Young’s attack is his

complete mischaracterization of my role in the dismantling and

permanent disbanding of the Guardian’s Office (”GO”). The

15

Guardian’s Office and the fallout that resulted from it is

particularly significant as it is the linchpin of a litigation

tactic that has been employed for years against me and the

Church. Vaughn Young is simply revisiting the same path trod by

others before, but as this has now been injected into the case I

feel it important to address this matter, even if necessarily

briefly.

25. Young would have the Court believe that I was an

opportunist, using the jailing of Mary Sue Hubbard as a means of

taking control of the GO, while leaving its criminally tainted

substance unchanged and operating under a different name. This

is a complete perversion of the true events, as set forth below.

I would not have expected Young to know all of the details of how

I directed the disbanding of the GO and the permanent expulsion

of its leaders and other wrongdoers, as he was in a low level

position in the GO at the time. However, he knows that when the

staff of other Church units completely took over the GO offices

and put an end to it as an organization, literally hundreds of

his fellow GO staff members were dismissed, expelled from the

religion, and forever barred from ever holding any position in

any Church organization again.

DISBAND OF THE GUARDIAN OFFICE

26. To understand the magnitude of this upheaval, a

description of the history, power and authority of the GO is

vital. The GO was established in March of 1966 because legal and

other external facing matters were consuming the time and

resources of Churches of Scientology. In particular, Church

16

leaders were being distracted from their primary functions of

ministering to the spiritual needs of their expanding religious

communities and building their organizations. During the 1970s

the GO operated as an entirely autonomous organization unchecked

and unsupervised by the ecclesiastical management of the Church.

The power of the GO was absolute. Unless a member of the GO, one

could not even enter their locked offices. They held all

corporate directorships. They and they alone dealt with legal

affairs of the Church. The GO operated in complete secrecy, and

conducted its affairs independently of the Church and its

management and personnel. Any attempt to find out their affairs,

by Church ecclesiastical staff or any Scientologist, was met with

the same “treatment” they handed out to others. For instance, GO

staff carried out illegal programs, such as the infiltration of

government offices for which eleven members of the GO were

prosecuted and convicted. There were also instances in which GO

staff used unscrupulous means to deal with people they perceived

as enemies of the Church — means that were completely against

Scientology tenets and policy, not to mention the law.

27. In 1981, a Church investigation was begun into the

activities of the GO. That investigation was prompted by the

existence of a number of civil law suits which had been filed at

that time against Church of Scientology of California and Mr.

Hubbard, and which the GO was supposed to be responsible for

handling. Not only was the GO not handling these suits, the GO,

and particularly Mary Sue Hubbard, even refused to answer our

questions about the suits because they viewed themselves

answerable only to persons within the GO. My involvement in the

17

purge of the GO arose from my position at the time, Action Chief

CMO International. My duties included directing Church

missionaires conducting the investigation of the GO to determine

the reasons for the GO’s ineffectiveness and why the GO had

departed from its original purpose.

28. Our attempts to get information were thwarted by Mary

Sue Hubbard. She informed us that she did not appreciate our

investigation of the GO and that if one were needed she would do

it. In March 1981 she cut all of our communication lines to the

GO, except through herself. It must be noted that Mary Sue

Hubbard believed her position as Controller and as the “Founder’s

wife” to be unassailable and beyond reproach by anyone but Mr.

Hubbard — who was not around at the time, a fact that she was

well aware of. This, plus her absolute control of the GO, made

it difficult for the Church missionaires to get anything done.

29. In April 1981, in an unprecedented move and without

Mary Sue Hubbard’s knowledge, I sent a mission to the

headquarters of the GO in England — GO World Wide (”GOWW”) — to

inspect the Legal Bureau under the guise that it had been

authorized by Mary Sue Hubbard. What the mission found confirmed

our worst suspicions.

30. We discovered that the GO had grossly mismanaged the

legal affairs with which it had been entrusted, and displayed a

disdain for the basic policies by which a Scientology

organization is supposed to be guided. Whatever else the GO was,

it was not Scientology, and it was not adhering to Scientology

policy. Moreover, the GO continued to withhold from Church

management the darkest of its secrets — the criminal acts

18

committed by GO staff against the United States government and

others. We only learned of these crimes when we read copies of

GO documents attached as exhibits to court papers filed by

litigation adversaries. These documents had been removed by the

GO from its own files in order to continue to hide their

criminality from the Church. While the FBI had seized these

documents in their 1977 raid of the Church, the GO had obtained

an order sealing these materials from the public, including the

Church. During a short period, the Court had lifted its sealing

order and litigation adversaries obtained copies. And that is

why we were only able to start discovering these acts when filed

by the opposition in civil litigation.

31. When further investigation proved the documents to be

authentic, it was made clear that we had no choice but to

overthrow the GO and dismiss everyone who had violated Church

policy or the law. These activities ultimately led to a complete

disband of the GO. I gathered a couple of dozen of the most

proven Church executives from around the world and briefed them

on the criminal and other unethical conduct of the GO. Together,

we planned a series of missions to take over the GO, investigate

it and reform it thoroughly. On July 13, 1981, a matter of weeks

after we had uncovered what was going on, and with no advance

warning to the GO, a coordinated series of CMO missions were sent

out concurrently to take over the GO.

32. However, there were a number of obstacles to overcome

before the termination of the GO could be accomplished. Mary Sue

Hubbard was still asserting her authority over the GO from her

position as Controller. Contrary to Young’s statements, she was

19

not in jail, but was still very much in control of the GO. At

the same time, Mary Sue Hubbard was covertly attempting to expand

her power through her friendship with and influence over Laurel

Sullivan, a Church staff member who was in charge of a project

she referred to as the “MCCS project” — the purpose of which was

to “sort out” the corporate structure of Church of Scientology of

California.

33. Instead of addressing a sensible reorganization of that

Church, Sullivan and her GO supporters were making their own

plans to establish trusts and for-profit entities which would

have placed even greater corporate control of the Church in the

hands of Mary Sue Hubbard and other GO executives in a fashion

that would have assured the permanency of GO dominance and power.

34. Shortly before the purge of the Guardian’s Office, I

discussed with Laurel Sullivan various illicit GO activities we

had already uncovered. Sullivan was aware of these activities.

Sullivan did not agree that the acts the GO had committed were

atrocious and that Mary Sue Hubbard and the rest of her criminal

group needed to be removed. She insisted that Mary Sue Hubbard

remain in power and that at all costs she and the Guardian’s

Office should maintain total control of the organization

regardless of the criminal acts exposed by the government and

others, in which Sullivan felt the GO was completely justified in

committing.

35. Upon learning of Laurel Sullivan’s alliance with the GO

and the plans to reorganize the Church under Mary Sue Hubbard and

her GO allies, I removed Sullivan from her position and disbanded

the MCCS project altogether. In fact, recently released

20

documents reveal that Laurel Sullivan — who would later become

an adverse witness against the church and me — long ago admitted

to law enforcement officials that the corporate restructuring of

the Church actually implemented, differed entirely from that

envisioned in her MCCS project.

36. Contrary to Young’s claims, Mary Sue Hubbard was

removed from her post before she went to jail. I know, because I

personally met with her and obtained her resignation. Vaughn

Young was not present at that meeting nor was he present at any

of the events described here. He does not and cannot know what

occurred. I do. At first, Mary Sue Hubbard was not willing to

resign. Eventually she did so. Mary Sue Hubbard and the GO,

however, did not simply capitulate.

37. Within a day of Mary Sue Hubbard’s resignation, senior

GO officials secretly met with Mary Sue Hubbard and conspired to

regain control of the GO. Mary Sue Hubbard signed a letter

revoking her resignation and condemning the actions of the CMO.

Scores of GO staff responded, locking the missionaires out of

their premises and were intending to hire armed guards to bar

access by me and the other Church officials who had ousted them.

I then confronted the mutineers, and persuaded Mary Sue Hubbard

to again resign, which ended the last vestige of GO resistance.

38. When it was decided that cleaning up and maintaining

the Guardian’s Office in any form was not workable and that it

needed to be disbanded altogether, this was accomplished by a new

series of CMO Int missions sent to GO offices around the world.

The pattern of the missions was to remove all GO staff from their

ositions and put them on estates work and physical labor around

21

the church. Before being disbanded the GO’s Finance Bureau had

monitored some aspects of the Church’s finances, including the

production of and maintenance of accounts and financial records.

With the disbanding of the GO, this function was taken over by

the International Finance Network, where it remains. Public

relations activities were put under the direction and supervision

of the L. Ron Hubbard Personal Public Relations Officer

International and his staff. All GO social betterment functions

- drug rehabilitation, criminal rehabilitation and educational

reform, were taken over by a new organization known as Social

Coordination. Later this function was assumed by Association for

Better Living and Education (”ABLE”), recognized as a tax-exempt

organization by the IRS. To administer legal affairs, the Office

of Special Affairs (”OSA”) was formed from a mixture of Sea Org

staff who had been on one or more of the missions that had

disbanded the GO, new staff recruited to work in the area and

some former GO staff who had survived investigation and scrutiny

and had undergone ethics clean-ups relating to their former

affiliation in the GO. Completely unlike the GO, the Office of

Special Affairs is not an autonomous group. OSA International is

part of the Flag Command Bureau and the highest OSA management

position is that of CO OSA Int. The Watchdog Committee has a WDC

member, WDC OSA, whose sole job is to see that OSA Int

effectively performs its functions and operates according to

Church policy. Local OSA representatives, called Directors of

Special Affairs, are staff at their local church subject to the

supervision of the church’s Executive Council.

39. To further ensure that the old GO influence was

22

completely terminated, all “Guardian Orders,” the non-standard

issues which GO staff followed instead of Mr. Hubbard’s policies,

were canceled. These numbered in the thousands. Today, none of

the individuals involved in the criminal activities of the

Guardian’s Office are serving on the staff of any organization

within the Church hierarchy. During the years 1981 through 1983,

the Church kept a record of the names of individuals we found to

have been involved in illegal activities, who condoned them, or

who were in a position where they should have known and done

something to stop them. Any individuals who were found at that

time to be on staff were dismissed and informed never to apply

for reemployment. A list of names of ex-GO members either

involved in, condoning, or being in a position to stop criminal

acts is maintained by the International Justice Chief (IJC) at

Flag Bureaux. Church organizations are required to check with

IJC prior to hiring any ex-Guardian’s Office staff member; that

means anybody who was ever employed by the GO, whether he was

involved in or cognizant of any criminal acts or not. The IJC

then checks the names against the list of those banned from staff

and informs the local Church organization whether it can hire the

individual or not. The Church has thus ensured that no

individuals involved in the criminal activities of the GO ever

serve on staff. Ironically, the lone exception, discussed below,

was created by Vicki Aznaran.

40. Vaughn Young displays his ignorance of the actual facts

concerning the dissolution of the GO, for this was no mere

“cosmetic alteration,” as he so ridiculously asserts. In a police

interview, Laurel Sullivan, the GO ally and architect of the

23

stillborn MCCS project, characterized the purge of the GO as a

“blitzkrieg,” in marked contrast to Vaughn Young’s vastly

understated description. It was, in fact, a major, dramatic, and

permanent overhaul, with over 800 GO staff dismissed as

unqualified or because of their disagreements with Church

policies or because of their complicity in criminal conduct. It

required approximately 50 separate missions to purge the GO.

The posts of Guardian and Controller were abolished.

41. As a direct result of the GO corruption and its

ultimate overthrow, the Church embarked on a complete corporate

reorganization, in part to prevent such criminality from ever

occurring again and to make sure a “new GO” could never come

about. This is where CSI and RTC came into existence and the

reasons for their place in the Church hierarchy are clearly

stated in the Church of Scientology International reference book

What is Scientology?

NOVEMBER 1, 1981

The Church of Scientology International was founded,

signaling a new era of Scientology management. A

strong standardized corporate structure was required to

facilitate the rapid expansion of Scientology and

maintain high ethical standards in a widespread

international network of churches. This followed a

series of Sea Org inspections that discovered that the

Guardian’s Office (which had been established in 1966

to protect the Church from external attacks and care

for its legal matters) had become entirely autonomous

and corrupt. The Guardian’s Office had been

24

infiltrated by individuals antithetical to Scientology

and had become an organization that operated completely

apart from the day-to-day activities of the Church.

Their secret actions in violation of Church policy had

resulted in eleven members being jailed for obstruction

of justice. Sea Organization executives overthrew the

Guardian’s Office and disbanded it. Part of the

measures taken to ensure a similar situation could

never recur was the formation of the Religious

Technology Center on 1 January 1982. L. Ron Hubbard

bestowed the trademarks of Scientology to RTC, whose

purpose is to safeguard the proper use of the marks and

ensure they remain in good hands and are properly used.

42. Vaughn Young calling the dismantling of the GO

“cosmetic” is the functional equivalent of someone referring to

World War II as a “tiff.” He wasn’t where the dismantling

occurred, he doesn’t know what happened, and he has no clue.

43. It is important to point out how far from the actual

practice of Scientology the GO had departed and to point out the

reason that Young is attempting to trivialize the purge of the

GO. Unless Young characterizes the GO dismantling as “cosmetic, ”

he cannot argue that his allegations of what he calls “Fair Game”

continued to be committed after the GO was eradicated. It is a

standard ploy for opposing litigants to point to the GO and

allege “Fair Game” being practiced today on the basis of what the

GO did thirteen or more years ago. In Young’s “Fair Game”

accusations, he is merely trying to stigmatize the Church today

by dredging up the type of illicit activity in which the GO

25

indulged and falsely ascribing it to the people who are

responsible for ridding Scientology of the GO. What the GO did in

the 1970’s was not pursuant to “Fair Game.” One should call

their actions by the precise term that describes them: illegal.

But which side was Vaughn Young on during the early 1980s when

all of this criminal conduct came to light? I was cleaning out

the GO; Young was in the GO. We became aware of the acts of the

Guardian’s Office and were more horrified by the GO and its

crimes than law enforcement officials and others outside the

Church. Eleven people were indicted by the authorities; we

discharged 800 GO staff. There isn’t one iota of evidence

concerning my involvement in any GO activities, or that of any

other current Church executive. None of us had any involvement in

the GO other than to obliterate it forever. Moreover, there isn’t

one iota of evidence that any current Church staff or executive

ever engaged in any conduct reminiscent of the GO.

44. Once the Guardian’s Office was disbanded there was much

that needed to be done to deal with the legal and public

relations matters that had been mishandled by that office for so

many years. The years of neglect and the GO’s destructive acts

had put the Church in a position where it was repeatedly being

attacked in civil cases, and even the Founder of the religion was

being pulled into these suits, despite the fact that he had no

connection with any of the claims or acts alleged by civil

litigants.

FORMULATION OF AUTHOR SERVICES

45. Mr. Hubbard took no part in the disbanding of the GO or

26

removal of Mary Sue Hubbard. In fact, the first he heard of it

was five months after the initial purge, in July of 1981. While

he had been out of communication and uninvolved in Church

activities for the previous two years, he had engaged in further

researches on Dianetics and Scientology. More relevant, however,

was that he had also, for the first time since the release of

Dianetics in 1950, resumed his writing of fiction. Mr. Hubbard

understood that the representation of these works and their

publication could not be handled within the Church. Accordingly,

in 1982, Author Services was formed to manage the personal

affairs of L. Ron Hubbard including his literary, financial and

legal matters. As I was held in some regard by Mr. Hubbard, I

was given the opportunity to be part of this new endeavor.

Beginning in 1982, I devoted my full time and attention to Mr.

Hubbard’s personal affairs from my position as Chief Executive

Officer of Author Services. Youngs’s contention that I was

somehow managing all Scientology Churches internationally at the

same time that I was supervising Mr. Hubbard’s affairs is

preposterous.

FALSE ALLEGATIONS AS A LITIGATION TACTIC

46. Since the purge of the GO, I have been repeatedly

forced to deal with the points of false allegations that Mr.

Young has made here, as well as other lies circulated by a

handful of the very individuals I had kicked out. I have become

the target of attack for the activities of the very individuals I

purged from the Church. In this litigation, Fishman has made

numerous allegations about my “involvement” in his criminal

27

enterprise. These allegations are not only false, but resulted

in his criminal conviction. Vaughn and Stacy Young have littered

the record of this matter further by giving “expert” testimony to

support Fishman’s allegations by stating, “they might have

occurred” based on the acts of the old GO. This is not the first

time this tactic has been used as a litigation ploy to harass me

and divert the Court’s attention from the actual facts in

litigation. Each time similar allegations have been raised in

the past, however, I have been completely vindicated.

47. The first bizarre episode — of which Mr. Young is

aware, but of which he makes no mention — illustrates Mr.

Young’s knowledge of the tactic of generating false allegations

as a litigation ploy. This particular episode led to an FBI

investigation and a bogus lawsuit, but ultimately led to complete

exoneration of me. Shortly after I became Chief Executive

Officer of ASI, a call came in to ASI from a New England-based

bank. The phone caller was calling to verify that a check

supposedly signed by Mr. Hubbard should be cleared. After

ascertaining that the check was not valid, I stopped payment on

it in my capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Mr. Hubbard’s

personal, business and literary agency. The matter of this

forged check, however, assumed even greater proportions when a

so-called “probate” action was commenced against the ” estate” of

L. Ron Hubbard.

48. The probate action was filed by a Boston-based

personal injury attorney who induced Ron DeWolfe (L. Ron

Hubbard’s estranged son who had long since been written out of

his will), to claim that Mr. Hubbard’s estate was being looted

28

and that DeWolfe should be appointed to “protect it.” This

Boston attorney was the same one who had pending literally dozens

of damage suits naming Mr. Hubbard and which portrayed the Church

and the religion’s Founder in the most outrageous and prejudicial

manner imaginable. Yet, suddenly, in the probate action, that

lawyer was suing to “protect” Mr. Hubbard’s estate.

49. To buttress the false claim that Mr. Hubbard’s estate

was being looted, DeWolfe and his lawyer made reference to the

forged check mentioned above. I had no idea how they were aware

there had been an attempt to pass a forged check on Mr. Hubbard’s

account. Upon examining the facts we were able to develop, we

learned that the bank had informed the FBI about the forged

check, and that the first and only person the FBI contacted for

information was this same Boston attorney, who told the FBI that

I, one of Mr. Hubbard’s closest and trusted friends, was the most

likely candidate to have committed the forgery! As a result, I

became the target of an FBI investigation, even though I had been

the one who stopped payment on it when I was alerted to the

check’s existence. Eventually, the entire probate case was

dismissed and I was cleared of any involvement with the forgery.

Nonetheless, I had been unjustly subjected to negative press in

all manner of media publications literally all over the world.

Furthermore, this incident of the forged check and the probate

case marked the emergence of a new litigation tactic, one that

Vaughn Young and Geertz’s counsel are trying to exploit here.

50. Upon the dismissal of the probate action, DeWolfe’s

attorney announced that his “real” purpose in bringing the

probate action had been to force Mr. Hubbard out of seclusion so

29

he could be served in the civil damages cases filed by DeWolfe’s

lawyer. The idea was simple. Aware that Mr. Hubbard wanted to

maintain his privacy and seclusion, the lawyer would notice

Mr. Hubbard’s deposition as both an individual and as a “managing

agent” of the Church. Default or settlement then would follow a

managing agent finding and non-appearance. This ploy was

particularly effective since Mr. Hubbard went completely out of

touch with any and all Church entities from May of 1984, until he

passed away in January of 1986. Even if they had so desired, the

Church was literally incapable of presenting Mr. Hubbard for

deposition to give testimony to end this ruse. Vaughn Young knew

that Mr. Hubbard was not in communication with the Church during

the time that ploy was being pursued. Vaughn Young also knew

this litigation tactic, and his knowledge of it is evident in

this case. It is precisely what is happening here, except

Young’s false claims of managing agent of the Church status are

directed at me.

51. I am not L. Ron Hubbard, nor am I in seclusion. I am

visible and I testify. Most of all, as set forth in detail

above, I am not CSI’s managing agent, and Vaughn Young’s attempt

to characterize me as such collapses from the weight of his

ignorance of the corporate, tax, legal and financial structures

of RTC, CSI, and every other Church- related organization.

Ironically, this tired litigation tactic was finally put to rest

with respect to L. Ron Hubbard hours before his death on January

24, 1986, when Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer definitively ruled that

L. Ron Hubbard was not the managing agent of any church. A copy

of that order is annexed as Exhibit [A].

30

52. Next, I was subjected to a two and a half year criminal

investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. Ironically, the

very people I had kicked out of the GO exploited the government’s

concern over acts the GO had committed to make me the target of

an investigation based on the very acts they had committed. Of

course they didn’t make their previous associations with the GO

known. In fact, the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division

(”CID”) was based on specious allegations filed in civil

litigation and spread in the media. The thrust of the

investigation was an alleged criminal conspiracy begun in 1966 to

impede the Internal Revenue Service. I was the primary target of

this investigation even though I was only six years old when I

began the “conspiracy.”

53. The CID’s massive investigation was ultimately rejected

outright by the Justice Department. However, the IRS dossier on

me, an accumulation of over 100,000 pages of documents — the

largest in the Service’s history — was filled with falsehoods

from a handful of bitter former Scientologists and ex-GO like Mr.

Young. It contained the same allegations that have been

repeatedly disproved, but which are nevertheless being made again

in this case.

54. For example, Mr. Young repeats the allegations made by

Gerry Armstrong that the Church practices “Fair Game”and that

Gerry Armstrong was in “fear of his life.” To bolster the

validity of this allegation, Vaughn Young refers to the

Breckenridge decision. What Mr. Young fails to disclose,

however, is the fact that following that opinion, Armstrong was

proven a liar. In a police- sanctioned investigation , Gerry

31

Armstrong was captured on video tape acknowledging his real

motives, namely a plot to overthrow the Church leadership and

gain control of the Church. On those very video tapes, Armstrong

acknowledges he not only isn’t ” afraid,” but that he “will bring

the Church to its knees.” While plotting his overthrow attempt

he gives advice that the Church should be accused of various

criminal acts. When told no evidence exists to support such

“charges,” he responds, “just allege it.” It should be noted

that while Gerry Armstrong had been an “informant” during the IRS

criminal investigation, based on these tapes and statements, the

IRS dropped him as a witness, thereby repudiating his

credibility. Vaughn and Stacy Young were fully aware of these

facts as Stacy wrote the cover story in Freedom Magazine that

exposed Armstrong’s plot. [See Armstrong Declaration 02-22-1994]

55. The steady barrage of such falsehoods poisoned the IRS

with respect to the Church generally and me personally. Years

later, IRS Internal Security agent Keith Kuhn filed a declaration

in several cases, falsely accusing me of threatening another IRS

agent with whom I had never spoken in my life. That declaration

was stricken as unsupported and scurrilous, and the IRS was

ordered by Judge Keller of this Court to pay sanctions for having

filed it at all. [Ex. 8, Order and transcript, Church of Scientology

of California v. IRS, No. CV 90-5638 WDK (C.D.Cal.)]

56. The attempts to harass me in litigation have extended

to creating not just false allegations, but false documents as

well. In 1984, a former staff member, who was employed by a

splinter group that was seeking to pull Scientologists away from

the Church for the splinter group’s profit, created a forged

32

document entitled SMASH THE SQUIRRELs which was allegedly written

by me and which purported to show that I intended some form of

harassment towards apostates of Scientology. One would normally

ignore such wild incidents, except this document was continuously

used against me in litigation, most particularly to prevent me

from gaining access to government files on me. I have had to

fight this issue for years and only last year was this matter put

to rest. This document was recently examined in a Freedom of

Information Act case, Miscavige v. IRS, No. CV 88-7341 TJH

(C.D.Cal.) by Special Master Jack Tenner, who found that it was,

in fact, a forgery and could not be used in court. That decision

was affirmed by Judge Hatter of this Court. [Ex. D, Order of

Judge Hatter.] Even though this document has been ruled to be a

forgery, Geertz’s attorneys have now referred to it and seek to

use it in this case as if it were real.

57. Perhaps the most telling indication that the allegations

made by Mr. Young and other apostates regarding corporate and

financial affairs of various Church entities are false, is the

recent recognition of the tax exempt status of all Scientology

Churches in the United States by the IRS. This recognition of

exemption followed the most exhaustive review of financial

records and corporate structure of any exemption application ever

filed. That process is described in detail in the accompanying

declaration of Monique E. Yingling. [Ex. C.] As part of the

exemption process, the IRS also considered and rejected virtually

all of the same allegations that are now being made against me in

this case. These discredited and untrue charges should not have

to be dealt with time and time again. After the most extensive

33

review in IRS history, to have uninformed apostates

second-guessing the IRS’s determination, and regurgitating false

claims that the IRS and Courts have rejected again and again,

putting me in the position of defending against the same old

allegations, is ludicrous! This has to end somewhere, as it is

not just wasting my time, but the Court’s time as well. All the

while further false accusations are made that the Church likes

litigation. Magistrate Tassopulos stated on January 4, 1994,

“You know you people enjoy the fight…” To the degree this

statement is directed at me, she is just wrong. I despise

litigation and in fact know of no Scientologist who enjoys it.

However, we have been forced to defend ourselves because of

unfounded allegations the courts seem too willing to accept or

which they are incapable of preventing.

THE YOUNGS’ LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENTOLOGY CORPORATE MATTERS

58. Putting aside Mr. Young’s familiarity with the tactic

of maligning the Church and me as a litigation weapon, I simply

do not understand from where Mr. Young purports to derive his

self-proclaimed “expertise” about Scientology as a religion, or

about the corporate, legal, or financial affairs of RTC, CSI, or

any other Scientology organization. I know Mr. Young, having

worked with him briefly on specific projects in 1981 and 1983,

and once held him in some personal regard. He never occupied any

position of corporate or ecclesiastical authority in any Church

or in ASI, and certainly did not have any significant personal

exposure to how the corporate or ecclesiastical structure of

Scientology is established or how it works. He cannot claim any

34

personal knowledge in that regard since July of 1989. At no time

did he occupy any “inner circle” in Scientology leadership and,

in candor, he was never in any position to have any knowledge of

what I do or how I do it. To that I must add that despite his

outrageous claim to the contrary, I never in my life laid a

finger on Vaughn Young, let alone beat him unconscious or

otherwise, as he claims. Indeed, this allegation only surfaced

once he attempted to enmesh me in this case. It is absurd on its

face for Mr. Young to have omitted this alleged incident from his

earlier affidavits which purportedly cited the reasons “why he

left the church.” In my mind, his need to invent complete lies

such as this reveal that his motives are personal, his character

is spiteful, his aim is money, and his means to those ends know

virtually no limits.

59. Vaughn Young completely misstates my relationship to

the plaintiff Church of Scientology International. Young claims

that I somehow direct, manage and control every facet of CSI’s

operations and activities. This also is ludicrous. CSI has well

over a thousand staff members who deal with international

promotion and dissemination efforts, evaluate situations in

Scientology churches around the world, and provide plans and

programs that give guidance to these churches. This is the

activity of international and middle management of CSI, which has

an entirely different purpose and sphere of activity than RTC.

My job as Chairman of the Board involves many functions, but does

not include management of CSI or any other Scientology church. I

do not create corporate strategy nor do I direct or manage the

personnel of CSI. I do not remove CSI’s directors or officers. I

35

do not run CSI or its executives. Anyone who would testify to

the contrary is either uninformed or untrustworthy.

60. The Youngs have chosen not only to malign me

personally, but also to attack the very religious beliefs and

practices which they once professed to follow. Although the

religious nature of Scientology has been recognized by courts and

administrative bodies throughout the world for decades, the

defendants and their witnesses are attempting to enter the

constitutionally forbidden area of judicial evaluations of

religious tenets by placing the meaning and efficacy of religious

beliefs and practices of Scientology on trial. Deliberately

distorted interpretations of Scientology religious doctrine have

been filed in this Court concerning Scientology concepts such as

PTS Type 3 and Black Dianetics. At the same time, defendant

Steven Fishman has also invented entirely fictitious terms such

as “EOC,” and claimed that they are part of Scientology. They

are not. His claim that there is anything in the Scientology

religion that even resembles a directive to commit murder or

suicide is as outrageous as it is ridiculous. These are all

total misrepresentations of religious doctrine made by people who

are not in the least qualified to make doctrinal judgments. I can

say categorically that “EOC” does not exist in Scientology, and

the concept ascribes to it in this case by the defendants is

false and scandalous.

61. Young tries to gain credibility by stating he was one

of maybe ten people summoned to Mr. Hubbard’s ranch when he

passed away. He was not the first to be called, but arrived with

a cook, a carpenter, gardeners, and a guard. More importantly,

36

the press on LRH’s passing away was not handled from the ranch.

Vaughn Young was at the ranch to deal with any local inquiries

and with the neighbors and farmhands who had been friends of Mr.

Hubbard, and he worked under the guidance of another ASI staff

member.

62. Young also mentions Pat Broeker, and attempts to

position Broeker as someone who had power and legitimacy within

the Church structure. Young, who never held a senior management

position during the entirety of his time in the Church, falsely

claims that there was a power struggle between Broeker and me

after the death of L. Ron Hubbard. This assertion demonstrates

Young’s lack of knowledge of the actual corporate structure of

the Church. Pat Broeker was neither an officer nor a director

nor a trustee of Religious Technology Center, CSI or any other

Church corporation. It was only an ignorant and destructive

few, such as Vaughn Young and Vicki Aznaran, who ever believed or

supported Broeker’s claims to authority. No removal of Pat

Broeker occurred or was necessary. He simply did not hold any

position in any Church corporation. Vicki Aznaran, on the other

hand, was removed from her position as President and Inspector

General of RTC. She herself has testified to the reasons for her

removal — employing an ex-GO staff member involved in criminal

acts and allowing false Church scriptures to be presented as

authentic writings of Mr. Hubbard, when she knew they were not.

63. All of the foregoing should be viewed in the context of

Scientology being a new, evolving religion. Although

unfortunate, all emerging religions in history have gone through

a period of turmoil, especially following the death of its

37

Founder. Scientology is no exception. However, we have entered

into an extended period of calm and expansion since these

upheavals in the 1980s. The resolution of the long-standing

conflict with the IRS is perhaps the best indicator of this.

“OF AND CONCERNING” CSI

64. The only issue mentioned by the defendants in

connection with taking my deposition which is even arguably

relevant to this case is the so-called “of and concerning” issue.

That can be disposed of in a few sentences. When a person makes

a statement about “Scientology” or the “Church of Scientology, ”

the most reasonable conclusion is that the reference is to CSI.

CSI is the Church corporation that is viewed as ” Scientology” by

the public at large. Major Scientology publications found in

public bookstores regularly contain introductory remarks from

CSI. For example, the book What is Scientology?, which has just

recently been distributed in paperback around the country, has an

introduction from CSI. Freedom Magazine, which Stacy Young tried

to sever from the Church, proudly states that it is published by

CSI. Likewise, when a Scientology spokesman is wanted by the

media for virtually anything about “Scientology” or the ” Church,”

they routinely contact CSI. When the IRS recognized CSI as tax

exempt and established a group exemption so that new churches

could immediately become tax exempt on the authority of the

Mother Church, it was CSI to whom the group exemption authority

was given. It certainly is reasonable for the public to

understand statements about “Scientology” and the ” Church” as

referring to CSI.

38

CONCLUSION

65. The thrust of the declarations filed by Vaughn and

Stacy Young is that the allegations made by Fishman should be

believed. This is remarkable in itself since the Youngs have

apparently never met him and never knew him. They appear

completely willing to accept this convicted felon at face value,

although he served a prison sentence for obstructing an FBI

investigation of his financial scam, by telling the same lies

about the Church that he is telling this Court. The Youngs

devote pages to descriptions of a “Fair Game” policy that no

longer exists. Yet they are silent as to their own experiences

between the time they left the Church in 1989 and the time they

began their careers as paid for hire witnesses. What did happen

after they left the Church? There was no harassment. They were

free to leave, which they did. We got on with our lives and paid

them no attention. Now, nearly five years later, they have

resurfaced, making outrageous accusations and participating in an

effort to resurrect in this case the tactics of the GO of which

Vaughn Young was once a part. The conclusion that necessarily

flows from those facts is that the only reason that the Youngs

feel safe enough to make their outrageously false allegations of

bad conduct and harassment against the Church and me is because

they know there will be no “Fair Game” retaliation, thanks to my

kicking out the GO and putting a permanent end to their abuses.

66. Since 1981, I have heard this allegation of Fair Game

literally thousands of times. Yet, I had never even heard the

term until I saw it used in civil litigation, and to this day

have never once heard the term used within the Church. Nor have

39

I ever heard, even from civil litigants anything actually done

to them. Its use is strictly as a smear tactic when one has no

act to point to. Vaughn and Stacy Young know the trick and since

they know the truth about the use of this tactic against