SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE
|CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,
MARY SUE HUBBARD,
|No. C 420153|
REPORTERS’ DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Friday, May 25, 1984
Pages 3195-3389, incl.
(See Volume 15)
|NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644
HERB CANNON, CSR #1923
INDEX FOR VOLUME 19
Pages 3195 – 3389, incl.
|Friday||May 25, 1984||A.M.||3195|
|WERTHEIMER, Alan S.||3195-F|
|78 – Sea Org document 9-4-71, Orders of the Day||3224|
|79 – Document “Flag Ship Apollo Ship’s Complement” 7-7-71||3226|
|80 – Flag Order 2367, 3-3-70, LRH Personal PRO Hat||3300|
|81 – Document 1-21-80, LRH Senior Pers PRO||3312|
|82 – Certified copy of Fictitious Business Name Statement||3315|
|83 – Copy of Letter 3-9-83 Laurel to Ger & Jocelyn||3330|
|EE, FF, GG – previously marked for identification||3202|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, MAY 25, 1984: 9:03 A.M.
THE COURT: All right we are back in session.
Miss Sullivan, you nay come forward.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I have got Mr. Wertheimer here. He is an attorney. It will just take a few minutes.
THE COURT: Very well.
ALAN S. WERTHEIMER, called as a witness in behalf of the defense, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Be seated on the witness stand. Please state and spell your name.
THE WITNESS: Alan, A-l-a-n, middle initial S., last name Wertheimer, W-e-r-t-h-e-i-m-e-r.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q You are an attorney, Mr. Wertheimer?
A I am.
Q And you are licensed to practice in the State of California?
A I am.
Q How long have you been so licensed?
A I believe since 1972 which would be almost 12 years.
Q And what is your current office address?
A 1888 Century Park East, Los Angeles.
Q You responded to a subpoena in connection with your appearance here today?
A I did.
Q In the year 1980 were you retained as an attorney for L. Ron Hubbard?
A I believe I was.
Q And who retained you?
A Let me correct the last answer. I believe that I was initially retained prior to 1980.
Q When were you first retained?
A At least a year, I believe, prior to when these letters were written. I am not sure of the exact date.
Q And who retained you?
A I was initially contacted by a gentleman whose name, frankly, I don’t remember at this time. But he was represented by some people at the Writers Guild to see me concerning a screen play that Mr. Hubbard bad written.
Q At some point in time did you meet Laurel Sullivan?
A I did.
Q Do you recall approximately when that was?
A Some time before these letters were written.
Q And were you retained at that time to be the attorney for Mr. Hubbard in connection with the biography project on his life?
A In connection with my representation of Mr. Hubbard which was ongoing at that time, the biography project was a matter upon which I was retained, correct.
Q And was — did you deal with other attorneys who represented Mr. Hubbard in connection with other business affairs that Mr. Hubbard had.
A Could you read that question back?
THE COURT: The reporter will read the question. (The question was read.)
THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I don’t remember.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: All right.
Do you recall dealing with a person named James Murphy?
A I do.
Q And do you recall whose interests he represented?
A James Murphy was an associate of mine at the same law firm that I was at, so I did not understand your question to include attorneys at my own law firm.
Q Fine. He worked with you in connection with the representation of Mr. Hubbard?
A He did.
Q Now, did you become involved in negotiating a contract or contracts in connection with the biography project on behalf of Mr. Hubbard in the fall of 1980?
A Apart from the correspondence that you have showed me, I have no recollection of negotiating any contracts; if by contracts you mean documents that usually start out, “This agreement made this blank date of blank.”
Q Your answer is you have no present recollection; is that correct?
A Well I am not sure how you are defining the word “contract.”
Q Well, let me show you what has been marked as exhibit G in this case.
Do you recall that agreement?
A I have no present recollection of this agreement.
Q Let me ask you this: Do you recall working
with Laurel Sullivan in connection with the biography project?
A I do.
Q Do you recall working with Laurel Sullivan in connection with negotiating any type of an agreement on the biography project?
A I remember negotiating an agreement with Mr. Garrison on behalf of Mr. Hubbard in connection with the biography project.
Q Do you recall negotiating an agreement in which a corporation called AOSH DK was involved in the biography project on behalf of Mr. Hubbard?
A You have shown me letters which would lead me to think that I was involved in negotiations with — as it refers to in the letter PDK on behalf of Mr. Hubbard.
Q You have in front of you exhibits double E and double F which are two letters on the letterhead of your law firm; is that correct?
A My former law firm, correct.
Q Former law firm.
That was the law firm you were working at in November and December of 1980?
Q Did you write those letters?
A I did.
Q And did you write those letters as the attorney for Mr. Hubbard?
A I did.
Q Do you have any present recollection about any
of the items within the letters?
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor. That is a bit overbroad.
THE COURT; Well, overruled.
THE WITNESS: Could you ask the question in a way that I could answer it?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Well, I will direct your attention to exhibit double E on the second page, first paragraph which starts out “First.” Would you read that to yourself, please?
Q Do you have a present recollection about the matters set forth in that first paragraph?
A I don’t.
Q Let me direct your attention to what has been marked as double F.
A By present recollection, are you asking me whether I remember conversations, details, facts which led me to write this first paragraph?
A I do not.
Q Do you remember Mr. Armstrong?
A I do.
Q Do you remember what position Mr. Armstrong had in the biography project?
A My recollection is that he was the person who was going to go through all of the so-called archives on behalf of Mr. Hubbard.
Q And while — to your recollection was he the person who was contemplated as doing the work set forth in exhibit double E in that first paragraph on page 2?
A I have already told you that I don’t have a present recollection of the conversations and so forth leading up to my writing this.
But if you are asking me to give you an opinion as to whether or not he would have been –
Are you asking me to give you an opinion as to whether he was the person contemplated by this first paragraph?
Q Do you have any memory that he was the one who was contemplated within that first paragraph?
A I don’t have any memory of that at this present time.
These events happened nearly four years ago.
Q Apparently. Do you have an opinion?
MR. LITT: I object to an opinion, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will just sustain the objection.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Go over to exhibit double F, Mr. Wertheimer and the first sentence of what is the — what starts off as the second paragraph on that page where it says, ” … Mr. Hubbard already has ownership and possession of the archives … ”
Do you see that?
A On FF, are we?
Q We are on FF, second page.
A Oh, second page.
Q Second starting paragraph, ” … Mr. Hubbard already has ownership and possession of the archives …”
A I see that.
Q Do you have a present memory of the facts underlying that statement?
Q In any event, you wrote these letters at that time on Mr. Hubbard’s behalf; is that correct?
A That is correct.
MR. FLYNN: That is all I have. Your Honor.
THE COURT: You nay cross-examine.
MR. LITT: I don’t have any questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir. You are excused.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I would move to admit double E and double F at this time.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. HARRIS: No objection.
THE COURT: They will be received in evidence.
MR. FLYNN: Also exhibit double G, the response of Mr. Brennan dated 2 January, 1981.
MR. HARRIS: On the assumption that it is accurate. Your Honor, we have no objection to it being admitted. We haven’t verified it? that is why we are talking. But I think –
THE COURT: Well, it is presumably on Scientology Publications Organization paper.
MR. HARRIS: Yes; that is why I say we presume that it is accurate. So we have no objection.
THE COURT: It will be received.
MR. HARRIS: If we find something later that it isn’t, we’ll come back in and tell you.
THE COURT: Very well.
Miss Sullivan, come forward, please. Have a seat. State your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Laurel Sullivan.
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Harris.
LAUREL SULLIVAN, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Miss Sullivan, you testified yesterday that you actually helped someone go through PF [PC] folders to prepare documents for people to sign; is that correct?
Q Whose PC folders did you go through specifically.
A I don’t recall the names.
Q Not one of them?
A No, I don’t.
Q What documents did you prepare?
A Well, I didn’t actually prepare the documents. I wrote some lists of some items to Fred Rock who prepared the documents and had them signed.
Q Did you see the final documents?
A I believe I did.
Q When you routed out of the organization in 1982, was it?
A Yes. In February.
Q Did you sign any sorts of documents which listed your crimes?
A No. I didn’t have any.
Q Well, were you presented any items from the PF folder to look at to see if it looked like it was a category of crime.
Q Did you sign any promissory notes?
A I was requested to, but I didn’t.
People who had the type of information that I had such as Vicky Livingston, Doreen Gillam, myself, we weren’t asked to sign those kinds of things.
Q Had you ever seen a promissory note for what is called a “Freeloader Debt”?
A Ys [Yes], I have.
Q And whose was that?
A Well, I have seen them. I have seen them on file. I don’t recall specific names.
Q Can you recall any name?
A A promissory note signed by a person? Do you want it signed, or just the form, or what?
Q Well, signed, for a start.
A Well, I don’t recall a specific name. I do
know the practice was customary.
Q Do you know anybody against whom any action was brought, legal action was brought, to collect a Freeloader Debt?
A Personally, no.
I have heard of the practice.
Q You have heard of it?
A Well, I personally have received letters from organizations asking for money that I apparently owe which I do not. And I have just trashed them.
So I know that Jim Dincalci has received such things; I know that Debbie and Bill Fosdick have received
And as far as the documentation connected to it, I don’t know any other names or legal actions taken against people. I am not certain that it can be taken against them.
Q And you understood that at the time that you were aware of this practice; is that right?
A Pardon me?
Q You were aware that there were no legal actions against people, whether they could be or couldn’t, at the time that you were aware of the practice; isn’t that correct?
A I simply was uninformed of legal actions taken against people. I am aware of the practice.
Q And you say you participated with someone in writing a policy letter with respect to such Freeloader –
A Yes, Lyman Spurlock over a period of a year.
Q Now, as I understand your testimony, you had had a conversation with Kima Douglas. At that time her name wasn’t Kima Douglas; right, in 1972?
A That is correct; Kima Dunleavy.
Q And you are quite certain it was in 1972; is that correct?
Q What month of 1972 was it that you had this conversation with her?
A I am not certain.
Q Do you know what quarter it was?
A No I do not. I know where it was.
Q Where was it?
A In her cabin on A deck on the Apollo.
Q And where was the ship located at that time?
A That I am not certain of, but I would say above
anywhere else Tangiers, Morocco.
Q And that is because in 1972 the ship was in Tangiers most of the year?
A I don’t know.
Q Well can you date anything else that was happening at the time that you had this conversation with Kima Dunleavy?
A No, I really can’t. I remember that we worked in HCO together and I know that she was the Org officer or the HCO chief, and we worked together and we were handling some business together, and it was rather sudden that she was leaving and she spoke to me as she was packing and again on her return.
Q Now, what was the period of tine that she was gone?
A I think about five days, but I didn’t see her immediately on return, and on return from the Mission you get 24 hours off and you get your time to write up your debrief.
Q How long after she returned and did her debrief and got her 24 hour leave did you talk to her again about Religious Research Foundation?
A Right after that. As I recall, she was unpacking.
Q So that also would have been in the year 1972?
A I think so, yes.
Q You don’t recall it being Christmas or New Years or anything like that as far as when?
Q In August of 1973 you were in Los Angeles with Bill Franks; is that correct?
A Yes, part of that time, I think.
Q And then you took leave to Canada and then went aboard the ship?
Q Now –
A No. As a matter of fact, I think that it was in July.
Q In July of 1973?
Q You did what?
A Well I did a trip to Los Angeles for three weeks and then after that I went back to Canada for four weeks, and then I was back on the ship, and then LRH returned in September and shortly after that, he reviewed the mission that I did to Los Angeles and I remember him remarking at the statistics they were all going up, and he said, “You are just under the wire six weeks.”
So I guess it was before that.
Q Well, let me understand this: When did Hr. Hubbard come back to the ship in 1973?
A I believe it was September.
Q And do you know beginning, end of September?
A I am really not familiar with the dates, getting months is hard enough.
Q You testified in a deposition in this case;
do you recall that?
A Yes, I did.
MR. HARRIS: Page 33, Mr. Flynn.
Q You recall testifying that in August of ‘73, “I did a one month project to the Los Angeles Organization with Bill Franks, and then I took a month leave to Canada, returned to Setubal, Portugal and was assigned as a PRO in the LRH personal PRO bureau.”
Q And you were assigned as personal PRO in the latter part of October or first of November, 1973; is that correct?
A Well the dated that I recall on November ‘73 is the one that the issue cane out on, I think. So I was working in the PR bureau shortly before that date as I recall.
Q How long had you been working in the PR Bureau prior to that date?
A It seemed about three weeks.
You can easily tell the date by COLRHED No. 2 because it is right at that time.
Q Your recollection of that is November –
A My recollection of the issue assigning me to the post is November 4th. And my recollection of the COLRHED No. 2 is when I am still an intern, but shortly after that I was assigned. So I imagine that COLRHED No. 2 is either late October or very early November. And it is right in that week.
Q So the three weeks prior to the last week in October you were working in the PR Bureau, but not off of that COLRHED or interning, I should say?
The sequence is I was doing expedited work, doing files work, doing photographic sort out and cleaning model ships from the Lisbon Maritime Museum for a photo shoot there.
COLRHED came out; I was assigned to the Pers PRO. And it was in that period, early November, as I recall, late October.
Q By the way, during the time that you were aboard the ship did you ever work in the Treasury Division?
A Well, I was senior to the Treasury Division at one point, but I didn’t work in it per se.
Q Did you inspect the Treasury Division at any time?
A Yes, I did.
Q Where specifically did you first see a check made payable to Religious Research Foundation?
A I am not certain I specifically saw a check made payable to Religious Research Foundation.
Q At any time that you were aboard the ship do you recall seeing a check made payable to Religious Research Foundation?
A No. But I am not certain that a check would have been made payable to Religious Research Foundation. It probably would have been made payable to somebody else from Religious Research Foundation that was on the ship.
Q You were asked yesterday at page 3018, line 28 over 3019 –
A May I have a copy of that to have with me here?
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn, if you want to let the –
MR. FLYNN: I don’t have one, Your Honor.
I’ll point out in the last reference Mr. Harris did not read the sentence just above the one he did read where she says she was HCO International.
THE COURT: Of course, you have a right to read whatever you want to in redirect, Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN: Right at that time that he is referring to.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: I’ll accommodate you this time.
A Maybe we can go over it together if you don’t have two copies.
Q I don’t have two copies, but I am looking at
THE COURT: There should be one available to the Court if you want to use the deposition.
MR. HARRIS: This is the transcript of yesterday.
Q In terms of people actually coming on board, did you have personal knowledge that people were making checks out to RRF?” And you answered, “Yes.”
THE WITNESS: Yes. But where they paid the money may have been in Europe someplace. So they go and get the service aboard the ship. So the practice was something I was aware of.
The actual signing of checks on board the ship, I personally didn’t see.
And since that time –
Q Well, before –
A I have a friend who says she has a receipt. So it just seems to be –
Q Who is that?
A My friend?
A Henrietta Thompson of New Jersey. I asked her specifically about it.
Q In 1983?
Q Now, when you were over the Treasury Division, what year was that?
A Well, it was in 1971 when I was the LRH
There was no executive structure which had been removed. And LRH had put roe on as the LRH communicator over all seven divisions.
Division 3, the Treasury Division, was part of that. I was senior to the Treasury ESTO; I was establishing the Treasury Division as the senior. I was in there from time to time.
Q What month in 1972 would that have been?
A I think it would have been over a period of a couple of months, February, March, April, somewhere in there.
Q That would have been by your recollection prior to Religious Research Foundation being in existence, or was it?
A I’m not exactly sure of the dates.
Yes, it would have been prior, I suppose, yes. It would have been.
Q And after 1972 did you have any responsibility over the Treasury Division?
A Not directly. But I did survey people in the Treasury Division. And I had access to everybody aboard and their business.
Q By the way, when you got paid aboard the ship, it was called an allowance; right?
A There are times it was called pay. At times it was called an allowance.
Q And you also received your berthing and food aboard the ship while you were there?
Q And that was true when you were off on mission to Advanced organization Los Angeles?
A Yes, I had expenses.
Q And similarly when you were forming up the Advanced organization in Edinburgh?
Q And also your medical was paid for; is that correct?
Q And you also received training and auditing; is that correct?
A From time to time.
Q And was it the practice in the 1970’s to have a staff member sign a no-charge invoice for auditing and training?
A Yes. It was also a practice to put the amount on the no-charge invoice, and you’d sign a thing that said “To be billed in case of breakage of contract.”
Q So the practice of the so-called Freeloader Debts was known to you at the time that you were receiving training in auditing in the 1970’s?
Q You said that in –
A Can I see that when we go over my statement?
Q Well at the moment I am not reading your statement.
A Oh, okay.
Q You said that there was a shore story connected with Mr. Hubbard while you were aboard the ship, and that is that he had no relationship to Scientology; is that correct?
A There — there were varying shore stories at different times. There were even shore stories that said he wasn’t aboard when he was aboard, so I have to really nail down a time and the circumstance.
Q Well, did you ever personally represent to any press people as LRH Pers PRO while you were aboard the ship that Mr. Hubbard had no relationship to any Scientology Organizations?
A I very specifically left that part out on a couple of press interviews.
Q You stated that he was a consultant to OTC; is that correct?
Q And you also stated that Scientology Organizations were clients of OTC; isn’t that correct?
A Yes. I am not real sure if I said that to the press or just to the public in general.
Q And you also stated, as I recall, that for the Scientology public — I don’t know if it is a shore story or
not, but that were told that he was on management lines?
A Oh, yes. In fact, I had a column in the Flag Management Newsletter which explained how much he was on Management lines. It was called the Commodore’s Week — Highlights of the Commodore’s Week, and it told about business ashore. It told about contacts with government officials. It told about management activities, the evaluations and the statistical results.
Q And by your observation on the ship from the time you were Pers PRO — well, which would have been November 1973 forward, he did appear to be managing; is that correct?
A Yes, he appeared to do a number of things. I worked on personal projects with him. I worked on management with him.
Q And he was in control in your opinion of all Scientology Organizations all over the world?
A When he chose to be, yes.
Q Well, you say when he chose to be. Do you mean he wasn’t in control of the organizations 24 hours a day?
A No. I mean on a 24-hour basis he could give an order to anyone on any matter on any Scientology matter whatsoever, and it would be done, and if it wasn’t done, then there would be some repercussion, and it would be done. And if it still wasn’t done, then there would be a repercussion and it would be continually ordered until it was done.
Q Well, was it the case, Miss Sullivan, from the time that you were Pers PRO that Mr. Hubbard on a daily basis would be issuing orders to all organizations across the world?
A On a daily basis he reviewed all the Telex traffic and all the reports. He also reviewed all of the replies to Telex traffic and made sure that the replies were accurate.
He called for evaluations. He checked work being done by the aides. He had weekly reports from them. He saw aides’ council minutes and he had me in there intimately briefed with his instructions and following down those instructions to make sure that they were, in fact, done.
Q And –
A So on a day-to-day basis during that period, yes.
Q What were the Aides Council meetings?
A They would like get together, go over the International statistics. And they would in broad responsibility for their divisions, do International long range campaigns which would affect those divisions.
At tines they would order down the lines to those specific divisions organization by organization.
The minutes were kept — I think the secretary was Diana Hubbard. For a time she was the chairman. And they were sent to L. Ron Hubbard including the replies to organizations and any major handling of those organizations.
Q Was it your experience aboard the ship from 1973 forward that the Aides Council — strike that — that individual aides would themselves generate programs, projects, and the like?
A Yes. But at that time he was approving them all.
Q Do you mean they went by him for his approval?
A Uh-huh. And then they set up an authorization verification unit.
Q And then the authorization and verification unit consisted of people who checked the accuracy of issues; is that correct?
A In part. And programs and activities and all communications out. And it was in the office of LRH.
Q And this particular unit had access to Mimeo facilities; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And, in fact, issues were being Mimeoed aboard the ship?
A That is correct.
Q And those which had Mr. Hubbard’s name alone were authored by him; is that correct?
A Not 100 percent.
Q Pardon me?
A Not 100 percent correct.
Q Do you mean other people would put Mr. Hubbard’s name at the end of an issue which he didn’t author?
A Well –
Q Yes or no.
A I can’t answer that yes or no.
A yes or no answer really wouldn’t be accurate.
Q Well, did you learn at some point prior to the MCCS Mission that somebody had written an issue with L. Ron Hubbard’s name on it that wasn’t written by L. Ron Hubbard?
Yes or no.
A I have to have a time period and I have to have some specifics because I can’t answer your question accurately yes or no.
THE COURT: An issue of what?
MR. HARRIS: An issue being a written Mimeo issue, Your Honor, like you have seen a few of, like a HCO policy letter or a Flag order.
THE WITNESS: You are getting into areas that became clear to me on MCCS regarding copyright and in that issue.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Prior to the MCCS Mission, Miss Sullivan, did you have any knowledge that people were writing issues that had L. Ron Hubbard’s name on them which he didn’t write?
A I have knowledge of a LRH Compilations Unit which authored books for him and policies and bulletins and compiled from his work materials with his name on it that he didn’t specifically write, but which may have been a derivative work. And the practice changed from time to time.
Q Is it your knowledge prior to the MCCS Mission that aides would write issues which would have L. Ron Hubbard on them without the aide’s name and not having been written by L. Ron Hubbard?
A With his approval and his authorization, yes.
Q If an issue was proposed by an aide, it would go to the authorization and ratification unit; isn’t that correct?
A Yes, and then it would go to L, Ron Hubbard if it was his signature. I myself signed his signature to issues and they went to L. Ron Hubbard, and I didn’t ever sign it without his approval until later.
Q In all cases issues that you saw had been approved by Mr. Hubbard prior to the MCCS mission?
A I can’t say in all oases.
MR. HARRIS. May I have 500 L, I believe it is.
Q Now, when did you first see exhibit 500 L?
A I don’t recall, but it would have been around 1969.
Q And where would you have first seen that?
A I have no idea. Could have been on the ship. Could have been in England. Could have been in Scotland.
Q Directing your attention to approximately two-thirds down the page the sentence that starts, “There are considerable outstanding sums”; do you see that?
“There are considerable outstanding sums loaned by me to Orgs or owed to me by Orgs and these should be paid as feasible carrying me as creditor and disbursement files.”
Do you recall that?
A I see that, yes.
Q Now did you become aware, other than from a PR perspective, prior to the MCCS mission 1980 that Mr. Hubbard had forgiven some huge sum of debt?
A Well the press articles that says that he did that $13 1/2 million is dated right around the time when he released this policy letter, so I don’t quite know what he intended when he said he forgave it and then he said a policy letter saying it should be paid as feasible. I don’t understand that date coincidence at all.
Q So it is your recollection that around the 1st of September, 1966 Mr. Hubbard, at least by way of a press release, said that he forgave the debt; is that correct?
A As I understand it, yes.
Q Did you ever see an issue saying that Mr. Hubbard had forgiven the debt?
A No, but I saw several press releases that continually reiterated that point.
Q The issue is what I am talking about, Miss Sullivan, as opposed to a press release.
A How about a Telex?
Q Well, no. I was specifically looking for an issue.
A I don’t recall an issue.
Q There is no issue?
A There might be an issue. There might be something written that says it as part of a story, but I am not sure if there is one. There could have been. I think it was in the press packs written as an article maybe.
I have seen it in Telexes. I have seen it in the press. Might even be in the biographical sketch, might be.
Q You don’t recall specifically any issue?
A Not specifically covering that point as a subject.
Q Now, toward the end of the page, “My office of LRH as founder remains mine.”
Q And you commented upon that yesterday?
A Uh-huh, and just above that it says, “I am still available for consultation and for signature.”
The signature being purchased by the Orgs, so therefore we are on the signature.
Q “I am still available for consultation and for signature”?
Q Now, what did you have to say about that?
A I was just on your earlier point about whether or not he signed them and the signature on the issues.
Q Well, let me ask you this: You implied yesterday, I believe, that HCO became the personal office; is that correct?
A Yes, by way of development. There is still an HCO that is distinct from the personal office, but the existing HCO that existed developed into a personal office which then moved aboard a ship and then HCO went on about their other duties on an international basis.
Q Well, on board the ship you received orders of the day like others, I assume?
A Yes, I did.
Q And read them?
A Yes, I did.
MR. HARRIS: I have an order of the day, 4 September, 1971, Your Honor. May that be marked plaintiff’s next in order?
THE CLERK: 78.
THE COURT: 78, okay.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may I comment that I find this ability to retrieve all of these documents from 1966 and daily documents from 1971 to be curious when we can’t find the photographs on the subject of this case.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Showing you exhibit 76, Miss Sullivan, can you take a look at that and see if you recognize it from the time?
Q Let me see if I can hurry up the process.
Could you look at the last page under “Sick List on Duty”?
Q And tell me, was Rico your name at that time?
A Yes, it was.
Q Now you can take a closer look and see if you can recognize it from the time –
A What do you mean “Sick List on Duty”? What is the point?
Q I just wanted to direct your attention to that.
A I see it.
Q Now, do you recall receiving this order of the day when aboard the ship in September, 1971?
A Not specifically. But I did receive them routinely.
Q Yesterday I believe you testified that you believed that the aides were in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?
A Yes. They were in Division 7.
Q Well, now you are talking about divisions on an organization board?
A Well, the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard is Department 21, Division 7. And they were in there.
You see, it depends on a couple of things. It could be stated that they were part of the Flag Bureau during a reorganization. It could be stated that way. But they were aides and they considered themselves personal
personal officers and so did he. And from time to time they did do these management things.
Q Well, let me get this straight: You are talking about they were in Division 7?
Q How many divisions was there aboard the ship?
A I don’t know. There were many organizations. There were many — they all were either 7 or 9 divisions.
MR. HARRIS: I have a document called ‘The Flag Ship Apollo, Ship’s Complement” dated 17 July, 1971.
May that be marked Plaintiff’s next in order, Your Honor, No. 79?
THE COURT: All right. 79.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Now, is it your testimony — strike that.
Is it your recollection. Miss Sullivan, that at all times the aides were in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?
A I can’t make absolute statements like that.
Q Can you tell me any time when you are certain that the aides were in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?
Q When was that?
A When I was doing the reorganization of the PR Bureau –
Q All right. I’ll pass on that one.
All of my questions are directed to prior to MCCS.
A That was an answer prior to MCCS.
Q When you were doing the reorganization? I thought you were about to step into an area having to do with MCCS.
A I said when I was in the reorganization of the PR Bureau in 1973.
Is that all right?
A Shall I continue?
A Okay. I was asked at that time by Ken Urqhardt, LRH’s personal communicator and part of the Aides Council in the personal office to do a seven division organization report for the personal office. I did that. And the aides were part of it.
It didn’t get implemented as an issue, as I recall, because my thing was still unsettled and the personal secretary’s office was still unsettled.
But essentially, the aides were Division 4 as well as Division — Department 19.
Q But this was an issue or a reorganization that was not approved; is that correct?
A It was not not approved. It was just held for further development.
And as I understand it, the aides were always personal office. They certainly ate with the personal office; they lived in the best accommodations, personal office A Deck quarters. And that is where they were.
He told them they were his aides and that is how they worked from the beginning right on through.
THE COURT: We’ll take a 10-minute recess. (Recess.)
THE COURT: All right, we are back in session as before. The witness has retaken the stand. Just state your name again for the record, ma’am. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Laurel Sullivan.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Have you had a chance to look at that over the break?
Could you take a look at that and see if you recognize that as being the ship’s complement on or about the date indicated?
A Yes, that is what it says.
Q And based upon your — well, let’s do this: If you turn to page 7, you will see there is a missionaire unit at the bottom where your name is listed.
A Yes. This is out of date, this crew list.
Q The what?
A This is out of date.
Q Out of date?
A It is very inaccurate.
Q Inaccurate for 17 July, 1971?
A Well, yes, and also these people are listed in this unit, doesn’t necessarily mean that they weren’t
Q Well, let me ask you this: Can you tell me specifically any part of exhibit 79 which you immediately noticed being inaccurate?
A Well, as it is, John Horwich is listed as the Commanding Officer on the Flag Admin Org, page 3, and he had been removed from that position.
Q Prior to 17 July, 1971 he had been removed from that position?
A I think so.
Q Anything else?
A You have got Ron Loving and Sally Chaleff on mission in that organization, so they’re being the product office and the organization officer which puts them junior to the person that they are mission to handle, and there is a serious situation going on there then.
Q What page is that?
A That is No. 3 right under John Horwich, and I am in the missionaire unit, but at that time I was posted. I never did anything in the missionaire unit and neither did any of the other people except for — well, I don’t remember doing anything in there.
Q Now, that would have been on page 7 that you are making reference to now; anything else?
A Well, no.
And here you have all the aides listed in the personal office of LRH.
Q Where is that, on page 1, you’re talking about?
A Yes, Bureau 7, Bureau 1, Bureau 2, Bureau 3, Bureau 4, Bureau 5, and Bureau 6.
Q And that is your understanding of what exhibit 79 shows; is that correct?
A Most certainly is.
Q The Flag — by the way, how many organizations were aboard the ship at that time in ‘71?
A Well, there was Flag Admin Org. And there was — I guess the FSO; maybe the FSO, Flag Ship Org.
And then the Messengers called themselves an organization within an organization.
Q In 1971?
A They nay have been a unit or an organization. It was pretty interchangeable at that time.
Q Let me ask you this: you see up at the top it has “L. Ron Hubbard Commodore” and then immediately before that it says “Flag Bureau Org.”
Q Is it your testimony that the Flag Bureau Org did not contain Bureau 7, Bureau 1, Bureau 2, et cetera in –
A Well –
Q — in July, 1971?
A I can just tell you this: That this crew list is different from a lot of crew lists I have seen. And it has got things kind of out of sequence here. And I don’t understand this crew list. It is all compiled by one person, an administrator, a secretary in Division 1 somewhere. And they issue it without the approval of very many people because they are just recording the people aboard and their positions as they see them. And it comes from a very junior level person. And I see discrepancies here which don’t reflect the real situation. So I can’t really comment on this issue.
Q I’ll repeat the question.
Is it your testimony that in July, 1971 the Flag Bureau Org did not have a Bureau 7, Bureau 1, Bureau 2, et cetera?
A No. It says that it did.
Q I’m asking you right now what is your testimony with respect to that, not looking at this piece of paper, 79, which you say is riddled with inaccuracies.
THE COURT: That is your word, “riddled.” She said there were inaccuracies.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: There are inaccuries [inaccuracies].
What I am asking is your present recollection that in July 1971 the Flag bureau did not contain the bureaus that are listed on pages 1 and 2 of exhibit 79.
A I don’t think that is my testimony.
Q So is it your testimony that the Flag bureau did contain those bureaus?
A Well, looking at it, this looks like everybody aboard, so I am not really sure. I really can’t comment on it.
Q The personal office of LRH was in the Flag Bureau Org; isn’t that correct?
A No, it wasn’t.
Q And you are sure of that as of July 1971?
A What I am saying is that the personal office of LRH and the head of these bureaus was the personal office, and in my experience that is the case.
Q And it is your testimony that in July of 1971 there was a Bureau 7, Bureau 1 in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?
A Those Commodore staff aides were in the personal office.
Q And the HCO aide was in the personal office in July of 1971?
A That was my understanding at the time.
Q And the dissemination aide was in the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard in 1971?
A All these aides; LRH personal comm, Mary Sue,
Hanna Eltringham, Robin Roos, Louise Quirion; these people were all Commodare [Commodore] staff aides.
Q And in the personal office of LRH?
A Yes. I understand that is their understanding, too. I was in that Flaf [Flag] Admin Org.
Q Could you tell me, Miss Sullivan, what is the difference between the central office of LRH, the personal office of LRH and Hubbard Communications office?
A Not a great deal of difference.
The central office of LRH was created with the new issue series, actually central office of LRH ED No. 1 is the one that tells about the central office of L. Ron Hubbard which is supposedly where he was, and that is an issue series and it explains it right in the first issue, and then my next issue on my reorganization was No. 2. So he made that clear in that issue.
The personal office was pretty much one and the same. You will never find on a crew list like this the central office as LRH as an office. You will find the personal office listed because that is what it was called. The issue series was the central office.
Q So, in other words, the unit was called the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard, but the issues that eminated [emanated] from that office were called central office of LRH?
A No, the issues that governed that office, the specific issues which governed that office in which were unique to that office, regardless of who authored them, and most of them were authored by LRH for the personal office
although the issue series was called the central office of LRH.
Q So, physically insofar as people performing functions, there was no space called the central office of LRH?
A Right, and no specific people called the central office of LRH other than personal office.
Q But there was a unit consisting of people doing functions which was called the personal office of LRH?
Q And then there is the Hubbard communications; is that correct?
Q Now there is a Hubbard communications office in all organizations across the world to your knowledge; right?
Q So far as you know to this day there is still a Hubbard communications office?
A As far as I know that tradition has continued.
Q And that is different than the personal office of L. Ron Hubbard?
A It is now. What I say is that –
Q Well, prior to February, 1980 prior to your MCCS Mission, was the Hubbard Communications office at any time the same as the personal office of L. Hon Hubbard?
A Yes, it was.
Q And when was that?
A I would say that at any time when prior to 1966 and during the time when it was the Hubbard Association HASI International he operated his personal office out of there.
He also at that time didn’t have a Division 7. In 1965 he revised the organization and we got the seven-division organizational board. And the Hubbard Communications Office retained power over personnel, communications and ethics matters. And his secretarial accounting and so on was moved into the office of LRH. And it was a developmental thing.
You also had HCO Worldwide.
You also had personal secretaries at Worldwide. At times there was only person. They were called a unit.
As they grew from 30, 5O, 60 people in the personal office, it was a different thing, entirely separate entity, run entirely different.
Q First, there was Hubbard’s Communication Office and then there was the personal office of LRH?
Then there was LRH communicators and secretaries and then the personal office of LRH, as I recall it in my personal knowledge, became or I knew of it in 1966 when I
first arrived on the scene.
Q Now, you were the person who was in charge of Mr. Armstrong; is that correct in –
By the way, had you met Mr. Armstrong prior to your Scientology experience?
Q What did you mean in your deposition when you said you were high school rivals in Canada?
A We discovered that we were high school rivals after we met.
He was from Chilovac [Chilliwack] and I was from Surrey. We played basketball and football.
Q In February, 1980 when you — it was February that you came to Los Angeles with some of the materials that had been in R storage at Gilman Hot Springs; is that right?
A Yes, I believe so. It was February 23rd when I first got briefed. And then there was a five-day period or so when we gathered things up and got back to the Cedars Complex. So, it could have been the beginning of March, also.
Q When you moved to the Complex did Mr. Armstrong follow you with some materials?
A Yes. He essentially moved with me.
We made a couple of trips and we brought the essential things and then more and more.
Q How many — strike that –
At Gilman Hot Springs had you been in the
Del Sol Hotel?
Q And were you able to see generally what was the R-storage area?
Q How big was that?
A It changed. And it was not all in Del Sol. It was some in the spa, also.
Q All right. Taking Del Sol first, how many times did you view the materials that were in Del Sol?
A I didn’t view them in Del Sol. And the doors were locked. And I didn’t — I wasn’t in charge of storage; so I don’t know specifically which rooms were R-storage. It wasn’t really my job to even know.
Q So you had not been in the Del Sol Hotel where the R-storage was?
A I had been in a couple of the rooms. And I did observe that there were boxes open to the weather. And I didn’t look in them.
I knew from Kima earlier that there were private documents in there; that they had earlier been discovered by her in the warehouse at La Quinta.
I knew that there were several boxes. Which boxes were closed and which were open, which rooms, is nonspecific to me.
Q Kima had told you earlier that R-storage was in Indio; is that correct?
A She hadn’t told me that. It was in La Quinta
in the warehouse.
She told me that she had seen somebody go into the warehouse or was cleaning the warehouse, about five people, and they knocked over a box. And she said, “You are not going to believe this. Excalibur is in there.”
Q And when did Kima tell you this?
A Well I want to say the summer, but I remember the desert was mostly summer, so it could have been the spring.
Q Of what year?
A I guess it was ‘78.
Q And so you were aware there was some place that had these — that was a warehouse that had these old manuscripts, including “Excalibur” in 1978?
Q And when you went into Del Sol to view what was — I don’t know if you went in there to view it.
A Yeah, I was just inspecting, just going through.
Q There were items like furniture in there; correct?
A I didn’t see the furniture. The furniture was in the spa, but I saw similar boxes to those that I had seen in the warehouse in La Quinta.
Q So you had earlier –
A I had earlier been in the warehouse in La Quinta.
Q And you had seen some items in there?
Q Now that warehouse at that time, did it have furniture in it?
A There may have been furniture. However, it was under a program of getting cleaned and it is very, very dusty in the desert. You would never put furniture in a corrugated warehouse in the desert. You might as well leave it outside because there are dust storms, so whatever
was in there was covered with thick plastic or thick cardboard boxes or moved out of there for the purposes of cleaning, so what was normally retained in that warehouse, as far as the inventory or furniture, I can’t really say.
Q Did you at the time that Kima told you of the warehouse and your going — when did you go to the warehouse, by the way?
A Shortly thereafter.
Q Some time in 1978?
Q And when you went in there, did you have it in mind since she had told you about “Excalibur” and so on that there might be items that would be of biographical interest there?
A Yes, I did know that.
Q Did you make any effort in 1978 or 1979 to try to retrieve these?
A No, but when I went in there, the people who were cleaning, I asked them to be very, very careful of the boxes and they said they would. And I said that there were valuable documents in there and that they should lock it and that they should be very careful because at that time they were doing this project off hours; early, early in the morning or late, late at night, and they weren’t really being supervised as well as I thought that they should be. I did have it in mind, but I was not in charge of the biography project at that time.
Q Was there anybody in charge of the biography
project at that time?
A Yes, Sue Anderson was pers PRO international, and as I understood it she had programs going on on the biography so I did not specifically consider, even though an original manuscript of “Excalibur” might have been in there said she would need that or that I would retrieve anything from there. I wasn’t working for her. I was mainly interested in the security of materials.
Q So the first time that you became aware that the materials that you had seen at the warehouse at La Quinta had bean moved to the Gilman Hot Springs, Del Sol Hotel was at the time of the shredding party; right?
A No, before that. I knew that they had been moved. There had been a massive move and everything was out of La Quinta and now on the property at Gilman Hot Springs.
Q And when did you become aware that there were materials stored at the Del Sol?
A Well, I’d have to say during the beginning of the operation at the Special Unit. I guess it was somewhere around March of ‘70 –
Q March of ‘79?
A I guess it was around then. I was already at Gilman Hot Springs, so I wasn’t moving things from La Quinta to Gilman, but I did know that the moving was going on. I was in the RPF at the time.
Q From March of ‘79 to the time of the shredding party did you see the materials in Del Sol?
A I believe I saw the boxes they were in, but
I don’t know if I saw the materials, no.
Q And when would that have been?
A It would have been on one of my trips up to see Lyman in the Del Sol where he had his office or to see Barbara DeCelle, his personal secretary, who also had an office there.
Q I am just trying to get approximately when; before 1980, I assume?
Q And some time in the last part of 1979?
A Yeah. Probably would have been from — let’s see — from June ‘79 until December.
Q All right. Now, you still had no responsibility for any biography project at the point where you became aware that there were materials in the Del Sol?
A Well, here is the thing: The biography project was, as I understood it, kind of on hold or not going forward for various reasons.
Sue Anderson, who was a personal PRO International and in charge of the liaison with the Guardian’s Office had taken over the biography project for a time during the filming. And I was personal PRO at the special unit, she was, again, transferred by LRH under me which made me responsible for her project.
And then after that I went to the RPF for a few months. And various people were taken off post. And she was moved under me wholesale. I mean all the PR Bureau.
And we really didn’t regroup on the biography until a time later. So the biography wasn’t significant at that time to me.
Q And when was the shredding party?
A As I understand it, later December, early January, somewhere in there.
Q And it was at that time that Mr. Armstrong brought you a box of materials?
Q And recognized those materials as being from the Del Sol, or he told you they were?
A He told me that they were from the Del Sol. I asked him, “Where did you get these?”
He said they were from the Del Sol. Brenda had brought them to him and basically said, “What do you think? What do you think we should do?”
Q Well, up-shot of him bringing it to you was that you decided that they should be preserved; right?
A That is correct.
Q And you copied them and you stored the originals in your office?
A Yes, for a time.
Q For the entire time the materials remained in your office; isn’t that correct?
A Yes. I guess they did. I’m not sure.
Q When you came to Los Angeles from the Gilman Hot Springs area Gerry was with you; in other words, you made a few trips back and forth?
Shaking your head doesn’t register.
Q And you carried the boxes of materials from the Del Sol at that time or just your filing cabinets where you had preserved the materials?
A Well, I didn’t bring any filing cabinets. I just brought the material that I needed.
We made several trips. And we sometimes took material back and sometimes brought it from there.
Q I am now interested in the — what was the beginning of the archives, the materials that had been gathered up by Mr. Armstrong at Gilman Hot Springs.
What did you have when you moved to Los Angeles,
in other words?
A What was in there?
Q Give us a rough estimate of what you had.
A Oh, gosh, journals and diaries, letters, some ledgers. Some ledgers that his father had written in. I think there were some personal baby things of his own and of his children. There were a few photographs. There were photographic albums. There were — some photographs people had taken of him, some photographs he had taken. There were some old organizational dispatches and letters, some carbon copies of poems, as I understand it.
Q Well, when you say, “as I understand it,” you observed the materials that you were taking to Los Angeles; correct?
A Yes. But I didn’t read it all.
Q I understand. Okay.
Now, when you got to Los Angeles — well, just so I get an idea of the mass of it, how much material in volume did you bring to Los Angeles from Gilman Hot Springs when you came to move into the Cedars Complex?
A Several boxes. It wasn’t all archives.
Q What is several?
A Approximately — it is hard for me to tell. I had boxes with legal files, Pers Bureau, archives boxes. And I don’t know which ones were which.
Q Do you recall how many trips you made?
A More than three.
Q Now, when you first got back to Los Angeles you
moved into the PR Bureau Offices; correct?
A Yes, Pers Bureau US Office.
Q And subsequently you moved into another area?
Q Now, would you describe that other area for me?
A Yes. It had one access, double doors, locked. And then there was a foyer. It was sort of circular. And off that entrance to the left was another locked office which had been the former x-ray area of the hospital.
And so it was a fairly large room and it had two adjacent rooms off of it. To the right it had smaller offices, cubicals, cubical offices. And it had one larger office in the far corner at the back of the complex center.
Q And prior this had been some X-ray room?
A In the hospital it had been the x-ray room. It was pretty clear that it was.
Q I take it you had some security precautions with respect to the archives materials that were in that area?
A Yes. I had keys; Gerry had keys; Omar had a key. And the door that Gerry and Omar were in had a separate lock so that people who could get in in the beginning doors who worked with me on the legal project didn’t have keys to the archives. They only had keys to that office that they were working in.
Q So in terms of people that could get to the actual archives, you had a key and Mr. Armstrong had a key?
Q And Mr. Garrison had a key?
A Yes, he did.
Q And anybody else who wanted to get in there had to go through you?
A Or walk in when one of us was there with the door open.
Q All right. And on occasions, at least, you would not even let people in the archives; right?
A That is correct.
Q And you would direct Mr. Armstrong to provide them what they needed?
A That’s right. I didn’t want anyone to see volume or the area or anything.
Q Now, you stated yesterday, I believe, on direct examination that you — actually, you said, “We clearly kept apart the things that belonged to the church and the things that belonged to Mr. Hubbard”; right?
Q How did you do that?
A Well, in the church office of the MCCS project where Lisa Britowich and Midge Hunt and Greg Huff were, there was a bookshelf and I think we left some Scientology — I mean not Scientology but science fiction magazines and things like that which had been purchased by the church in there, and in the other office where Gerry was he had the cabinets which were LRH archives and then eventually the science fiction stuff went over to his side.
Q So, in other words, as far as the materials that you had in the archives, you were certain at the tine that you moved into the archives that those were the property of L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?
A I was certain of specific documents as belonging to him. There were some things I wasn’t sure of as far as ownership and that was still to be determined. There were others that I knew were very specifically church-owned collections.
Q What specifically do you recall being a church-owned collection?
A The science fiction library was specifically a church-owned collection.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may note, I believe, this is all part of MCCS; is that correct. Miss Sullivan?
MR. HARRIS: Well, I am talking about the archives. Your Honor.
MR. FLYNN: Who owned what?
THE COURT: Well, let’s go forward.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: I am going to show you what has been marked exhibit 12, Miss Sullivan, and ask you if that appears to be generally the layout of the archives area?
A Well, that one right there. This is the archives. That is MCCS.
Q All right.
A And this is from time to time MCCS, and that was MCCS, and some of this is Pers PRO.
Q Just so we get these this’s and that’s straight –
A This is the archives.
Q This down at the bottom of the building diagram?
A Here. Then, after MCCS moved out, then Gerry moved in up here.
Q All right. So first the archives were in the bottom part of exhibit 12?
A Yeah, in boxes and storage along there.
Q Meaning on the right-hand side of exhibit 12 going up?
A I seen to remember some boxes there, yes.
Q And then after July 1981 he moved into the area at the top that is designated to the top of exhibit 12?
A This area. This thing doesn’t belong here. That is not in it. That is something else. That is an entrance from another way. This is the only entrance to this area, so that back in there — he moved into this area, this area, this area, and this was a lounge which was just
Q All right. Now, where within the area that he subsequently occupied did you keep the church materials separate?
A I don’t know. I was not part of it at that point.
Q Now, I am talking about when you first gathered the materials together in one place in Los Angeles, did you consider that writings that Mr. Hubbard made as executive director worldwide were church or Mr. Hubbard’s?
A I wasn’t certain. Some of them were carbon copies, and as I understand it, they could have been his original manuscripts. His manuscript, the original, could have been to the church. I don’t know.
Q Well, let’s put it this way: Was there any specific thing that you knew for sure was church other than the early science fiction writing, that collection you talked about?
A Not specifically.
Q Were you aware from your own personal knowledge that from time to time Mr. Hubbard would be given gifts that he would give to the church?
A Nothing specific comes to mind, but I think that maybe so. I know that he said at times, “This should go in my office in New Zealand” or “This should go in my office in England.” And I would send the article.
Q Each organization had within it an empty office for Mr. Hubbard, should he arrive; is that correct?
A Well, not empty. It was a decorated office.
It was a show place.
Q But empty of people other than people who went into [in to] look at what was there?
A It was an office for him.
Q And as far as the — your view at the time you first got the materials from the Del Sol, you weren’t certain what was church and what was Mr. Hubbard’s from your personal knowledge?
A Well, there were some things which I felt was his. And as far as I was concerned, this was going to be part of the archives, sort of.
And that gets into the later thing as far as determining who owned what and who it would be advantageous to own what as far as determination. And that significance could have shifted.
MR. HARRIS: May I have exhibit 9, please?
Q Miss Sullivan, I am going to show you what has previously been marked exhibit 9 and ask you if you recognize that.
In the meantime, I’ll take the rest of this stuff.
A Yes. I have seen that.
Q You approved some expenditures that Mr. Armstrong made?
Q And the purchase of, for example, Barbara Schnader’s collection of L. Ron Hubbard documents, did you keep those separate from Mr. Hubbard’s?
A Well, I didn’t personally place them anywhere or make a distinction of where they should go other than that they should be safe.
And what I can say is that if L. Ron Hubbard
had told me later that that was his, it would have been his to me.
If he had said I gave it to her, then it would have been Barbara Schnader’s.
If he had said it should belong to the church, then it would have been the church’s.
I held that reserve on a lot of these things because, first of all, it doesn’t — it isn’t real specific what he collected from Barbara Schnader.
Q But you knew what he collected from Barbara Schnader, didn’t you?
A Well, we had a tape interview of her; who owned the physical tape, I guess it was the church at that time. The information on that tape and the documents that were collected or any photographs that might have come from her, my main concern at that time was that they be kept secure and that ownership be determined in the future.
Q All right. Now, is that also true of the $65,000 Virgil Wilhite purchased?
A Well, that was a library, so that was separate. That was just on shelves, separate.
Q And in respect to other purchases by Mr. Armstrong, you were aware, were you not, that they were being paid for by funds from the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes. However, on the science fiction library, I had talked to LRH about it previously.
Q When was this that you had talked to L. Ron Hubbard about the science fiction library?
A It would have been in 1975 in the fall, and my PR at that time, Mike Smith, who later ended up as LRH’s accountant, he was the PR US and he had recovered a number of such magazines and books and had determined the fair market value on them as collector’s items at that time and sent me an inventory. I sent it to LRH.
He called me in and said, “Boy, this is great.” And I said, “Yeah, these things are going from value 10 cents to value $5, $14, $25, $100.”
Value, original value, a dollar or $1.25 to hundreds of dollars, and I said, “Yeah, I am going to do my best to collect up all these originals.”
And also at that time –
Q This was in 1975 you were doing your best to collect up originals?
A Yes. Well, original copies, like original magazine articles, and they were now collector’s items,
and any manuscripts that editors might still have in their files or any such things, and Mike Smith who was working with Forrie Ackerman, LRH’s science fiction editor.
LRH said, “Boy, I don’t think you are going to find them all.”
I said, “I am going to do my best.”
Q Where did you collect all these old manuscripts?
A Well they were collected in the PR office US, and even then some of them made it to the LRH Comm office US, and some of them came to the PRO, but at that time we were moving off the ship to Daytona and I didn’t want to keep moving stuff around, so I left them there, and it was my decision and my thought at the time was that if LRH wanted to own that library in the future to have as his own as a recovered piece of material, then he would do so and he would probably reimburse them for it.
Q This was in 1975 that you were thinking this; is that right?
Q And did you cause some library to be purchased?
A Well, yeah. At that time it wasn’t so prohibitive. I mean, $65,000 was when it was really getting to be very, very rare.
Q Did you use Church of Scientology of California funds to purchase this 1975 library?
A I am not sure. I guess Mike could say. He might have gotten money from LRH’s account in L.A. to get them or he might have purchased them himself.
Might have been given to him. I think some of them were given to him by Forrie Ackerman.
Q But ultimately did they wind up in the archives area?
A Not all of them, no.
Q Some did?
A Some did.
Q Now I am talking about purchases in 1980 and ‘81 paid by Mr. Armstrong approved by you.
A Approved by David Miscavige. I am the division head approval here.
Q Well you did approve the purchase and somebody else approved it above you?
A That’s right.
Q The $65,000 Wilhite collection, did you approve the purchase of that?
A I did. However, it was an independent decision made by the church, and rather than transfer funds, that Virgil Wilhite would be given a credit for service as opposed to a fund transfer.
Q And so it is your understanding that there was never $65,000 paid from church funds?
A That is correct, and also — it was also my understanding that if at any time LRH ordered that a friend of his receive a free service, they were delivered a free service within the church so it was possible for LRH in the future to say, “These are mine.”
Q Let me just go back because I think I might be
confused. There was some arrangement with the church and Mr. Wilhite that he is supposed to get some services at the church and in turn he is going to give the church something?
A He is going to turn them over to Gerry Armstrong.
Q And did that happen to your knowledge?
THE COURT: We will take a 10-minute recess. (Recess.)
THE COURT: We are back in session.
The witness has retaken the stand. State your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Laurel Sullivan.
THE COURT: You may continue, counsel.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: The materials originally brought to you by Mr. Armstrong at the time of the shredding party, at that time you didn’t know whose they were; right?
A I knew some of them were LRH’s. I knew that they came from the storage area and I knew that LRH had said that at least they were referred to as the DC boxes and referred to them as his own.
Q Did you testify in a deposition in this case that they could have belonged to Mary Sue Hubbard?
A Well, possibly some of them could have. But at that time, I hadn’t inspected them. I would say that they were owned jointly, since some of them were their children’s materials and then there were some things that were from former wives and so on which she probably had no interest in.
Q Did you testify that they could also have belonged to the children personally?
A If he so wished, yes.
Q And they could have belonged to his former wives personally?
A Well, if he determined that, I suppose so.
Q Now, at the time that you had the archives in
your area and Mr. Armstrong was working with them did you supervise how he should classify the materials?
A Well, I –
Q By this, I don’t mean ownership; I mean subject matter or chronological or how.
A Well, I asked Gerry to work out a system. And at the time he was so overloaded with incoming material that I don’t think the system was ever actually worked out fully.
But I did ask him to work out a system to classify. He did have some things in chronological order and I asked that a card file be set up with chronological order, places and addresses that he had held. But as far as whether I approved or not approved how Gerry set up the files, I didn’t do that specifically.
Q Did you ever see anything in writing from him as to how he proposed to set up the files so that they would be accessible?
A Well I may have, I think that at the time even Gerry was not sure just exactly how they should be set up. I knew that he was mainly concerned with getting material to Omar and getting it in the sequence and order that Omar wanted it as well as keeping things in order chronologically and subject-matterwise.
Q So if you wanted to go into the archives and find a document, how would you go about doing that? Well, some of them I knew where they were and I would just go in the drawers and just kind of feel my way through. Sometimes the heading on the front of the drawer would be something like “1932 to 1934? something like that, so I don’t really know how all that was in the drawer, but I could say, if I was looking for something during that period I could probably look in there and I would just go in and look in a couple of drawers and find it.
There wasn’t anybody else looking in the drawers except Gerry and Omar, so they seemed to know where things were.
Q And other than by chronological — by the way, do you specifically recall that the drawers of the file cabinets had some labels on them?
A Well, yeah, and they changed from time to time as we reorganized things and as we got more materials.
Q When you say we reorganized things, did you help in the reorganization of things in the archives?
A Not very much. Gerry did the shifting of material around. It really wasn’t my job to move files.
Q Do you specifically recall a file drawer with 1931 to ‘34 on it?
A Not those dates specifically, but that type of thing, yes.
Q Were there drawers that had other than dates on them?
A Yes, and there were inserts in specific drawers dividing subject matter as well.
Q Do you recall any of the subject matters that were in this system?
A Well, there was family and relatives.
Q Family, any date?
A Family and relatives, and then there was manuscripts like originals or carbons.
Q There was a file drawer or cabinet that had just manuscripts?
Q Any dates?
A Well, not just any old dates. They were in sequence of dates, but I don’t remember exactly when they started or when they ended.
Q Any others?
A And there were — there was an envelope document area. There was an area that had the ledgers themselves
in a folder.
Q Ledger? I am not sure –
A Well they were diaries, but they were written on like old account ledgers, so they looked like green, carboard [cardboard] account ledgers but they weren’t really.
Q All right. These were diaries?
A Or accountings things. Some of them were written by his father on one page going one direction, and than you’d flip it over and they are written by L. Ron Hubbard going the other direction, so different subjects.
Q Any others that you can recall?
A Not specifically, no.
Q Now, when you were — what’s the word — busted; is that what you used in July 1981?
A Yes. That is a pretty common title for when it is kind of messy.
Q After July of 1981 did you go back into the archives area?
Q And were you still in charge at any time after July of 1981?
Q After July, 1981 did you go back Into the archives area?
Q And was that just a visit or a post?
A Well I was trying to get posted there and I didn’t really have a post, and I was doing some auditing at
the New World Corps, and I had off time from my sessions.
The only friends I had left was Gerry and Joscelyn, so I went down to see them and I sat in their office for a while. I did some personal typing on their typewriter. My security clearances had never been withdrawn or anything like that, so I asked if I could come work in the archives.
Q Who did you ask that?
A Gerry. He said, “Yeah.”
So I called Susan Anderson in Clearwater, who was now in charge, and said, “Hey, I’d sure like to work in the archives.”
She said, “Great.” So she tried to get that approved and was turned down a couple of times. She kind of retried to get it approved. Nobody knew what to do with me, it seemed, and she told me that.
So I asked Gerry, I said, “Give me some work. Give me some work.” I was very upset at that time. I said, “Give me some work.”
So, he did. He said, “Sort through that box over there.”
Q And what were the boxes that you were sorting through at the time?
A All the Rhodesia letters and documents.
Q These were from the Controller’s Archives, as you understood?
A I didn’t make a distinction.
Q Well, there was a set of materials that was from what was called R-storage at Del Sol?
Q And that was — that had all arrived by July of 1981?
A That, I don’t know.
Q Well, okay. Did you have any knowledge of anything arriving from the Pers Sec WW?
A Yes. There was correspondence on that, to get all of those things. Collection is ongoing, you see?
A And that occurred prior to July, 1981?
Q And did you see anything that came from the Pers Sec WW files?
A I would assume that those Rhodesia documents had come from there.
Q That was your assumption?
A I would assume that because that was — Irene Thrupp was secretary at that time. And that is where those things would have been.
Q Were you at any time prior to July, 1981 in the Controller’s Archives?
A Well, in them — I helped moved some trunks when there were some in the warehouse at La Quinta. But I didn’t actually get into the archives.
I have seen the trunks open. I have seen them during moving periods from place to place. But I am not familiar with the archives at all.
Q You know Tom Vorm; correct?
Q And there was a time when he had some trunks in his archives area which were called Controller Archives?
Q Did you see those trunks when they were in Tom Vorm’s area?
Q Did you ever see the contents of those trunks?
A No. But I have seen issues on the Controller Archives.
And it is my understanding that it is original carbons or original manuscripts having to do with the technical materials of Scientology.
Q What I’m asking now is if you had seen any of the materials that were in the trunks in the Controller Archives prior to July, 1981?
Q All right. Did you see any in November of 1981 when you were back in there unposted?
A I don’t know what came from the Controller Archives to make a distinction. I would assume that the Rhodesia documents that I specifically reviewed were from Irene Thrupp’s office.
And Gerry showed me a couple of other things
at that time. I don’t know where they came from. He just showed them to me.
Q When was it that you were in archives unposted and asking Gerry for things to do?
A It was in the middle of November, ‘81.
Q And in the middle of November, ‘81 you had already decided that you were going to leave the church; is that correct?
Q When did you come to the decision that you were going to leave the church?
A The Saturday that I left.
Q And what date was that?
A I believe it was November 21st, 1981.
Q Now, who, if anybody, was Mr. Armstrong’s senior, to your understanding, from July when you got busted to November 21st?
A I wasn’t sure. I considered he didn’t have a senior.
Q And did you consider that he would therefore not be writing weekly reports to someone?
A I didn’t know.
Q You didn’t, in any event, see him writing weekly reports to anyone?
Q And at the time that you were in the archives in November you had discussions with Mr. Armstrong about leaving before November 21st; didn’t you?
A It is possible the day before. I told him that – I was going to leave and I knew I was. And I was sort of announcing to him in a roundabout way that I was going to split.
I also needed to borrow some money because I was broke.
So I said – I said things like, “I can’t really take it around here any more. I can’t get posted.”
And I think I said something like, “The writing is on the wall. I’m sure I’m going to be in real hot water here in any day. Nobody quite knows what to do with me and I think I’m going to sort of –”
I didn’t really say “leave.” I just kind of intimated I’m going to split or I’m going to get out of here. And he wouldn’t really know –
Gerry kind of was shocked. And he didn’t — it took me about an hour to get out of him that he was thinking that he might. And he never really told me that he would. But I was agitating because I needed to borrow some money and I was trying to find out where he was. And I was afraid that he was not and that he was going to report me for even saying that I might be.
So it was a very touchy situation.
Q Did you testify in your deposition, “When Gerry and I discussed leaving, we actually discussed it before I left. In fact, he helped me leave.”
A That is correct.
Q And that is true?
A That is true.
Q Did he discuss his leaving, too?
A Well, I said, “How about you guys? Are you coming?”
Gerry said, “I can’t.”
And I said – I wanted them to drive with me to Canada because I didn’t have any money, and then Gerry said that he had an obligation to Omar and couldn’t, and that he had to complete the project.
Q And those were the words that he used?
A He had this obligation to Omar, pretty much. He had an obligation to the project. He couldn’t just walk out.
Q And by the way, the Xeroxing that Mr. Armstrong did of documents for Mr. Garrison, that was paid for by the Church of Scientology of California funds; right?
A As I understand it, up until the time I was approving the PO’s, yes. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that it was MCCS funds or church funds. I guess it was church funds, MCCS. Some of it was strictly archives, same machine.
Q When you say “strictly archives,” did you have a separate account for archives?
A No but I couldn’t necessarily mingle the subjects. It was the same machine.
Q Well are you talking about the same Xerox machine that you were using for MCCS, he was using to copy?
Q But the PO’s, that is the purchase orders for the Xerox paper for copying of the biography, you approved those; didn’t you?
A Up until July, yes.
Q And they were paid so far as you knew by the Church of Scientology of California?
A Yes, from the reserves.
MR. HARRIS: The deposition of Miss Sullivan page 181 lines 9 through 11:
“Q But when you and he talked about your leaving, it was agreed at the same time that he would be leaving as well?
THE WITNESS: He didn’t specify when, though.
MR. HARRIS: May I have exhibit DD, please.
Q Now, Miss Sullivan, you made reference to exhibit DD or something that you had read at this Safe Environment Fund Affair; is that correct?
Q Now did you have any documents in the archives which indicated that Mr. Hubbard had written a screen play for “Dive Bomber”?
A Well there was a story called “Dive Bomber,”
but it wasn’t the same as the story line here.
Q I understand. Did you have any documents that indicated that Mr. Armstrong — that Mr. Hubbard had written the screen play for “Dive Bomber”?
A Other than him saying he did, no.
Q Well when you say him saying that he did, his meaning Mr. Hubbard?
Q Did you see this in any writing?
A I believe it was a taped transcript, so typed.
Q And what was that tape?
A Well it may have been the source mission briefing tape or it might have been an excerpt from any tape reference.
Q Did you prepare any publication for PR purposes that stated that L. Ron Hubbard was the writer of the screen play for “Dive Bomber”?
A No, I think. Susan Anderson did that if it was done. It may have been in the science fiction pack if there was something like that.
Q When you say “may have been,” are you speculating?
A Yes, I am. There is very specific references on that type of thing in that pack.
Q You specifically recall that within that pack, that is, the science fiction pack, there was a statement that L. Ron Hubbard wrote the screen play for the moving picture “Dive Bomber”; is that correct?
A Well, I am not sure. I don’t know whether it says “I wrote Dive Bomber,” or whether it says “I wrote the motion picture,” or whether it is collective. I’m not real sure. I’m speculating here. I don’t recall.
Q When Mr. Armstrong started talking to you about the statement of Mr. Hubbard contained in exhibit DD, you asked him to try to find out whether this was true; is that correct?
A Well, I didn’t say “find out if it was true.”
I assumed it was true. I just wanted some more meat to make a 20-minute speech.
Q When you wanted some more meat to make a 20-minute speech, did you ask Mr. Armstrong to do all that he could to get you some back up or documentation about the Dive Bomber?
A Yes. I wanted specifics like when, where, what shoot lot, what directors, what authors, how the story line was gotten, did he get it from personal experience, or whether he made it up, that sort of thing.
Q And you supervised his activities in searching out that information; is that correct?
A I supervised his activities generally. I didn’t follow him around or go with him.
Q At some point prior to the giving of the speech
by you at this Safe Environment Fund affair, he told you that he couldn’t find any information that Mr. Hubbard was associated with that movie; right?
A Well, I asked him. I didn’t have very much time from the time I got back from Clearwater. I think it was the next day was the event.
I had to get my clothes together; get back to LA; get debriefed on my mission; get a little sleep. I asked Gerry, “Okay. Where is the stuff?” He said, “Well, I really didn’t get much. We don’t have much on this.”
Q Did he tell you that he searched every place that he could search and he couldn’t find any information that Mr. Hubbard was associated with the Dive Bomber?
A Well, I can’t confirm your words, but I can say that I questioned him about specific lists that he checked, any book references.
“Did you go to the studio? Do they have an archive? Do they have a historian? Do they have –” all those sorts of things.
Q He told you that he had done all of that; right?
A He told me he had done some of those things. And he didn’t come up with anything, including people that LRH knew at the time. He was not able to contact them or whatever.
Q What people did he say he talked to that –
A I don’t recall.
Q — that he knew at the time?
A I don’t remember. But I questioned –
These are my questions to him. And the answers generally to those questions was I couldn’t verify this. He couldn’t verify this letter.
So I pressed him on specifics. And he said, “I can’t verify this letter.” So I used the letter as the main documentation that I had, assuming that it was true.
Q But you were at that time — which was February, 1980?
Q “Uh-huh” means “yes”?
Q At that time you were convinced that Gerry was very thorough and you had asked him many times to be very thorough and you checked his sources; right?
A Well, I didn’t check his sources. I asked him and tried to give him leads with sources.
Q And at the conclusion of your conversation with him were you quite convinced that he had done all that he could?
A Yes, I was.
Q And as you sit there now you do not or you believe that there is no contract between Mr. Hubbard and Warner Brothers; is that right?
A I have never seen one.
Q And Gerry told you there wasn’t any; right?
A I don’t remember that.
Q But in any event, you were convinced when you were delivering the speech before the Safe Environment Fund that you would have to use only Mr. Hubbard’s writing because there wasn’t any back up for it?
A Mr. Harris, I was not convinced of anything. I wasn’t certain. I was very confused. And the words that I trusted were L. Ron Hubbard’s. So I used what I could of his own words as the most trustworthy words that I knew of, despite Gerry.
I went to the event and lied to some people, I thought. I was very worried that I might stretch the issue. So I stuck to the facts in there because I did not know. I was not convinced of anything.
As far as I was concerned, I figured, well, maybe in the course of this project we’ll uncover something. Who the heck knew?
Q Well, during the course of the project you never did uncover anything on the Dive Bomber; did you?
A Right. We uncovered a story called “The Dive Bomber,” but it turned out to be a different story line. It was one of those things, peeling the onion again.
Q Does Mr. Hubbard in exhibit DD say that he wrote the screen play for the “Dive Bomber”?
A Well it says here for the story my name is not on the subtitles of the credits for the story. “The reason for this is that Warner Bros. shot the whole film and got it in the can before somebody had noticed they had forgotten to contract with me and pay me for it.”
So he says they forgot the contract or there wasn’t one and to pay me for it, meaning the story as the subject, so I assume that means he assumes that he wrote it and that he owned that story prior to Warner Bros. having it, so –
Q That was your assumption; is that correct?
Q So you read this first paragraph and concluded from the first paragraph that Mr. Hubbard had written the screen play for the “Dive Bomber”?
A Yes, and I have heard him mention it to me personally, also.
Q When was that?
A Well –
MR. FLYNN: May I see that, Mr. Harris? Thank you.
THE WITNESS: That is just kind of shooting the breeze in 1975.
Q BY MR. HARRISs Shooting the breeze in 1975?
Q Was anybody else present when you were shooting the breeze in 1975?
A I don’t recall specifically who was present. There stay have been people within earshot, might have been ‘74. Yeah, probably was ‘74.
Q And do you recall this conversation where Mr. Hubbard specifically told you that he bad written the screen play for the “Dive Bomber”; is that right?
A Well I will tell you what he said.
Q And this was in 1974 or 1975?
A Yeah. I will tell you what he said to me.
Q Tell me what he said to you.
A We were sitting in the radio recording studio. It was a radio studio in Tenerife and we were recording a record album and Quentin, his son, was considering flying lessons in France. So we got on the subject of aviation and he said, “I had a story once about flying.” And he went into a story about some, you know, hell raisers and so on, and it was “Dive Bombers.”
Q He told you –
A He said, “I had a story once.”
Q He told you the name at that time being the “Dive Bomber”?
A Yes, I recalled it. I don’t recall the specifics of the story, but he was kind of chuffed, and then we went to different stories.
Q what does that mean; “chuffed”?
A Kind of blown up a little bit, kind of proud of himself and in a good mood. It is an English expression, sorry.
And we discussed it as a Warner Bros. story, and we discussed other stories, and it was just shooting the breeze, waiting for the mechanics and the crew to get their microphones set up, sitting there in the lounge.
Q And you don’t recall who else was present other than Quentin?
A No, Quentin was not present.
Quentin had come to me and said, “I don’t think my dad is going to let me do these flying lessons. If it kind of comes up, maybe you could say something.”
Q Is that the extent of the conversation that you had?
Q Now, yesterday you testified that you felt that a truthful treatment of LRH’s past would cause you to become a target; is that right?
A Well, I felt that the revealing of all –
A I felt that the revealing of all the details of his life was not necessary. If, in fact, there were some things that made him look less like a god and more like just a man that makes mistakes like everybody else, then that would be considered a downgrade or somehow degrading to him, and I had been accused of that before and I felt that I would become a target as a denigrating force. But it never — I mean the book was never published, so I don’t know.
Q Mr. Armstrong routed his communications through you that contained critical comments about prior biographies;
Q And he started doing this in 1980; didn’t he?
A I recall only two. One was to me only. One was to Susan Anderson in Clearwater, who was my junior, so there was no threats because it wasn’t anybody’s senior.
Q You mean to say that the communications to your junior were not a threat even though they may have been denigrating or whatever it is that you described, degrading to Mr. Hubbard?
A Well they were truthful. They were truthful statements, but this is inter-office communication and we were all concerned with the proper and positive image of L. Ron Hubbard.
Nobody had it in mind to make him look bad. Nobody has it in mind now. It is just the truth.
Q When you say, “Nobody has it in mind now,” do you have in mind now, Miss Sullivan, to be writing your own biography of Mr. Hubbard?
Q Have you ever told anybody that you intend to write a biography of Mr. Hubbard?
Q Did you tell anybody that you and Mr. Flynn planned to write a biography of Mr. Hubbard?
Q Never have?
Q Now, you recall only two communications that went through you by Mr. Armstrong which were cryptical [critical] of previously published biographies of Mr. Hubbard; is that correct?
A Well, I recall two communications which were — which pointed out specific inaccuracies.
And as far as the criticalness, that is opinion. But they were very specific as far as the inaccuracies.
One went to me, which was for me. The other one via me to Sue Anderson, as I recall.
Q And the one that was to you — strike that.
The one that went to Sue Anderson, you talked to Mr. Armstrong about; right?
A No. The one to me, I talked to him about, as
Q You didn’t talk to him about the one that went to Sue Anderson?
A I’m not sure.
Q In any event, you thought at some point that you were going to stopped from doing the biography project; is that right?
A No. I never thought that.
MR. HARRIS: Page 3089, Mr. Flynn, lines 16 through 23. Well, through 21, actually.
“I was very concerned that if anyone did hear about the gory details, that we would become targets.”
THE WITNESS: Right. But that doesn’t mean stop –
MR. HARRIS: “And I think that is what happened.
“Q What do you mean when you say you would become targets?
“A Well, we would be stopped from doing the project.”
Q That was your state of mind; right?
A Well, I felt that might have been the reaction.
Q And you, to this day, believe that you did become a target because of these gory details?
A I think this is kind of being taken out of context.
Q Let me ask you this: When you were busted in July –
A I was a target anyway for being friends with Mary Sue Hubbard. That is what I was a target for.
Q That is your present belief?
A Yes. She wrote to me. And that is what I was told.
Q That didn’t have anything to do with the biography project; right?
A No. It had to do with MCCS.
Q Now, you have –
May I have exhibit RR?
Q You testified that you came back to the church and routed out because you were fearful of being Fair Gamed; is that correct?
A Well, that and other things.
Q And you claim that you became Fair Gamed anyway; right?
Q Now, I’m going to show you exhibit RR and ask you if you have seen that before.
A Yes, I have.
Q And when was the first time that you saw it?
A Well, probably around late ‘67 probably right as soon as it came out.
Q Where were you at that time?
A I was a student at Saint Hill. I may have seen it later in the Sea Org.
Q Well, at the time that you saw it in 1967 what did you understand it to be?
A Just like it says here.
Q “Penalties for lower conditions”?
A Well, it says here “Enemy SP OD Fair Game.”
Q The title of exhibit RR is what?
A “Penalties for lower conditions. Applies both Orgs and Sea Org.”
Q And if you had seen it at Saint Hill you would have seen it in a two-day period that you were there prior to setting up the AO in UK; is that correct?
A A two-day period?
Q Didn’t you testify yesterday that there was a two-day period when you were in Saint Hill prior to setting up the Scotland AO?
A Mr. Harris, that is in 1968. This is dated 1967.
Q Right. You were on the ship from 1967?
A I was on the ship from November 26, 1967.
This is 18 November, 1967. I was a student at Saint Hill prior to going on the ship.
Q That is where you first saw it?
A I assume I saw it at that time as a student. I wasn’t on staff. I may not have seen it. I may have seen it on his part of my briefing on those early days on the ship. As it turns out, I have seen it. I am not really sure when I saw it.
Q What is a condition?
A Well, do you mean a Scientology definition?
A It is a designated level or state of mind that a person is in and –
Q In respect to what?
A Their personal ethics and integrity. And it is assumed that on that gradation of state of mind, they would dramatize that condition by their appearance and their behavior and how they were treated.
Q Well, it is not just on their personal matters; you could be in a condition on your family, your group, and the like; right?
A Whatever. That is my personal definition.
Q Your personal definition.
A Yeah, that is my working definition that I considered to be.
Q Have you read any policy on the ethics system of Scientology prior to seeing exhibit RR for the first time?
Q And it was your understanding that these penalties were attached to being in a particular condition; is that correct?
A It seemed so.
Q And you yourself over the years have assigned yourself a condition of enemy; have you not?
A Yeah, under pressure.
Q And sometimes you had it assigned to you whether or not you did it?
A That’s right. You might as well do it yourself.
Q And the formula for enemy is to find out who you are; right?
Q And you did that?
A I already knew that, but I wrote it down who I was.
Q Now, what do you understand that policy letter to mean, particularly the last part which is enemy?
A It seems that when you are declared an enemy, you are no longer considered to be a member of the group. You get a Suppressive Person Declare or an order and you are Fair Game.
You may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologists without any discipline of the Scientologist. You may be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed. That is what it means to me.
Q And that is what you understood it to mean the first time that you saw it?
Q And you believed that that particular policy letter, exhibit RR, was not cancelled?
A Well, it was revised later and the conditions were — the order of the conditions were changed somewhat. Treason became below enemy and then there was — let’s see — the other conditions added and so on. There have been revision^ of that policy, I know.
Q At any time prior to 1977 did you believe that the policy letter that is before you, exhibit RR, gave Scientologists a license to trick, sue, et cetera enemies?
A Yeah. There is two other conditions that LRH told me about, too, that aren’t really part of the policy letter; shark bait and Board of Trade.
Q Shark bait and what?
A And Board of Trade.
Q Board of Trade?
A Meaning Board of Trade in England.
Q And what is the Board of Trade in England?
A Well there is some people who inspected the ship and there was some dealings with Lloyds of London over the insurance and whether or not the ship was sea-worthy and
Lloyds of London wouldn’t insure the ship, and the Board of Trade was involved somehow and we sailed anyway under a different flag, and LRH told me one evening shortly after that that, “Yeah, there is two conditions lower than enemy on the policy letter; shark bait and Board of Trade.”
Q And what year was this that he told you that?
A This was in 1967.
Q And, in fact, subsequently there was something below even treason; right?
A Yes; no condition.
Q Confusion; right?
A Right. And then no condition.
THE COURT: We’ll take a recess with that. 1:30
(At 11:57 a.m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, MAY 25, 1964; 1:30 P.M.
THE COURT: We are back in session. Everybody is here.
The witness has retaken the stand. State your name again for the record. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Laurel Sullivan.
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Harris.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
LAUREL SULLIVAN, the witness on the stand at the tine of the noon recess, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. HARRIS:
Q Miss Sullivan, was it your understanding that Mr. Hubbard wrote exhibit RR, the Penalties for lower conditions?
A This policy letter?
I’ll give you my copy.
Q And during the period — strike that.
Did you say that it was canceled, to your knowledge?
THE COURT: She said it was revised.
THE WITNESS: I understood it was revised.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: But you didn’t understand it to be canceled?
A No. It was updated a couple of times and revised.
Q And during the period before its revision had you seen anybody declared “Fair Game”?
Q How many would you say?
A About –
THE COURT: Is Fair Game synonymous with SP?
MR. HARRIS: No. Well, whatever the witness’s understanding.
THE COURT: Well that particular paper seems to indicate that it is synonymous with SP.
MR. HARRIS: Well, we will see –
THE COURT: I don’t know whether that is so or not.
THE WITNESS: I have seen Suppressive Person Declares.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: But you haven’t seen anybody declared Fair Game?
A Well, not heading an issue Fair Game.
Q And within any Suppressive Person Declares during the period before this was revised did you see Fair Game?
A I do believe I have seen it printed, but I think that it is one and the same.
Q You think that –
A An SP order and a Fair Game order is one and the same. At times penalties have been waived. When you are in Sea Org and you get declared in a condition of enemy, you’d be declared but not suppressive. You’d be declared in a condition of enemy, and then let’s say penalties waived, which meant fair game, and then you’d do your conditions and
When you are out of the organization and disconnected from and out in the street, it is synonymous and I do recall, I think, Fred Hare got declared in October ‘67 or November ‘67 in that fashion, and I think I saw his on the notice board.
Q So, what happened to Fred Hare?
A Well be got harassed by Scientologists on the street and then he was disconnected from, and then he kind of got recovered by Mary Sue and taken to the ship and he was working up through enemy and treason on the lower conditions on the ship I think on his own, I think without pay and without being a Member of anything, and given a chance to redeem himself.
Q And when you left the church, he was still around?
A Well –
Q As far as you know?
A Well, still around, he didn’t really have a post that I knew of.
Q Miss Sullivan, you testified at a deposition in Florida in 1976; you recall that?
Q And let me see if I can show you.
A This is the Bette Orsini case?
A Yes, Times Publishing Company and Bette Orsini, and there is somebody else, Susan Denley and Ardith Hilliard vs. Church of Scientology et cetera.
A Yes, it is the St. Petersburg Times newspaper, I believe.
Q And you were placed under oath at that time? A Yes.
MR. HARRIS: You are welcome to look over my shoulder, Mr. Flynn.
THE WITNESS: I haven’t seen this in eight years.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: I want to direct your attention to page 73. You were shown what was marked as exhibit 5 and questioned as follows:
“Exhibit 5 is HCO policy letter of 18 October, 1967; have you ever seen that before reviewing it in connection with this deposition?”
Your answer, “Yes. Once.”
“Q When was that?
“A On the ship.
“Q There is a reference at the bottom under the caption ‘enemy’; do you see that it deals with the subject of SP OD Pair Game?”
Your answer, “Yes.”
“Had you seen that before preparing for these depositions?
“Q Had you prior to preparing for these depositions seen any written orders canceling, revising, or amending this particular order, Plaintiff’s exhibit 5?
“A Yes. This says it was canceled in ‘71, but it was canceled earlier. It was canceled, I think, in 1968.
“Q When had you first seen any orders canceling this order?
“A Actually, the first time I saw this, I saw the canceled order with it. So it was a matter of record. There is this, but there is also this cancellation. So they were like clipped together.
“Q What was the occasion on which you saw this, this order together with the cancellation?
“A Well, let me think. It was on the ship.”
“Q Did you ever discuss this, particularly the portion under the caption ‘enemy’? Did you ever discuss it with anybody?
“A No, not that. You see, these are conditions of existence for Scientologists. And if a person does a bad action, they may consider themselves as an enemy to themselves. So they’ll see an ethics officer or master at arms and discuss it until they feel better about it. It is a personal discussion. It is not something you go and discuss with
other people to try to propagate –”
A “. . .or try to propagate.”
Q “. . .or try to propagate.
“Q Do you know what these various references here under ‘enemy’ mean? For instance, it says, ‘may be deprived of property or injured by any means.’
“Do you know what that is supposed to mean?
“A I think I do. It means if a person takes a bad action against someone who is already doing destructive actions towards Scientology or Scientologists, that the church itself will not attempt to discipline that person, but leave it to the civil authorities.”
“Q Have you ever heard of declaring people Fair Game?
“A Not specifically. I mean I know what it says here.
“Q But beyond the words, you really don’t –
“A I have no personal recollection of it. I have never witnessed any such thing.”
“Q Did it concern you or bother you
that a policy that read like this was, apparently, once promulgated by the church or by the founder of the church?
“A Well, knowing Mr. Hubbard as I know him, I have doubts that that signature was really in terms of his own authorship. It didn’t seem like something that he would be concerned about.”
MR. FLYNN: Is this a question, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I don’t know. It is not evidence as such until it is adopted by the witness in some fashion.
It is not a deposition in this case. There has to be testimony to that, that this is what she said or she has to admit it.
Just reading something at the moment.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Did you testify under oath at this proceeding?
A Yes, I did. I was sworn.
Q You were sworn?
Q It appears to be what you said?
A It appears to be what I said.
This copy isn’t signed?
A I did make some corrections on the final one. I don’t know if you have the final one or not.
Q Do you recall what they are now?
A No, I don’t recall.
Q Is something that I read something that you corrected that you can recall?
A Well, in that I was protecting L. Ron Hubbard at the time, I omitted some specific points.
Q Let’s continue on page 79:
“Q There are lots of policies on this general subject matter; what I’m concerned about is more a question of the propriety or the wisdom of such a policy.
“Are you saying this isn’t the kind of thing that he would associated with, his actions?
“A This was issued on the 18th of October, 1967 originally. He was not in England at the time. This was issued in England, he was in Las Palmas. And that is the reason why I went. I questioned it in my mind. I didn’t ask anybody about it, but I remembered it.”
You did testify to that?
“Q You remembered he was physically somewhere else?
“A He was physically in Las Palmas.
“And this was in England.
“Q I take it you have never discussed this with Mr. Hubbard?
Do you recall testifying to that?
Q Page 80:
“Q Now, when you say ’staff members would have access to a document like this,’ I take it at the time you first came across it you were in fact a staff member?
“A I was actually in the ethics department. And that is how I ran across it. I wouldn’t have run across it otherwise that I know of.”
That is what you testified; right?
A Yes. I was — I said the ethics department.
Do you want to clarify something, or do you want to go on?
Q Well, go ahead if you want to clarify something.
A I think I was in the ethics department but I wasn’t actually working there much. I am not sure. I might.
Q Well, let’s see page 18.
“Q You were in the ethics department in what capacity?
“A Master at Arms.”
That is what you testified to.
“Q Is that a step [staff] position?
“Q You were a staff member?
“A Yes. That was on the ship. This was in very late ‘67, very early ‘68.”
You did testify to that?
“Q Have you ever heard people discussing this policy, this particular one?
“Q Never heard it discussed at all?
“A No. It was cancelled. It was on record, but it was cancelled so there was no need for it. It was like it probably was a no situation. We have no situations, so why have something that doesn’t deal with anything.”
You testified to that?
A Uh-huh. When you say did I testify to it –
A I think I have already answered that.
Q Page 88:
“Q Now about the designations themselves, the designations enemy and that; does that apply solely to Scientologists, too?
“A Let’s suppose that a person was on staff and had access to some training materials. Let’s suppose he was a supervisor in a course room. As far as Scientologists are concerned and the organization is concerned, he is an active staff member and a nice guy and doing his job and training his students and everything is fine. Well, one day he steals a pack of materials. Me had access to them because he was a supervisor. Let’s suppose he didn’t have the responsibility of taking them off the premises. Let’s suppose they weren’t his. They belonged to the church. Well, that is stealing something from the church. If he wouldn’t come back and say, ‘I am sorry and here they are,’ you know, if he was madly copying them and writing a book or something in his misuse of the material, well he would get a writ of expulsion because at that point he is no longer a Scientologist. Be is somebody else. He is working to use the materials of Scientology destructively and that is something that can’t be tolerated.”
Do you recall testifying to that?
“Q So, he would be expelled?
“A Yes. Any certificates and awards he had would be cancelled. He wouldn’t be allowed to be trained or processed in any group or org or mission. Be would be considered a danger and night steal again.”
You testified to that?
“Q Would he be considered a Suppressive Person? “A Probably, but mainly for himself because people who do things like that axe not usually in very good shape personally and spiritually.”
You testified to that?
Q Bottom of page 84:
“Q Outside of someone who is expelled from Scientology, are you aware of any practices within the Church of Scientology toward persons who voluntarily decide to leave or stop active participation in Scientology?
“A An I aware of what?
“Q Any policies with respect to persons who tried to leave Scientology. Are there any
restraints on their leaving, any policies or practices to try to convince then or prevent them from leaving active participation in Scientology that you are aware of?
“Q You testified to that?
“Q None at all?
“A No, they might be encouraged to if they are not really that bad.
“Q I am not talking about people who are bad. I am talking about people who presumably are in good standing at whatever level here but who stopped participating. Is there any policy or practice with respect to preventing them from terminating any relationship with Scientology?
“A Only in the aspect that if a person did this, he disaffects someone.”
You testified to that?
“Q You said ‘disaffects’?
“A Yes. Then they would probably be counseled and asked, ‘Well, what is it?’ Did you misunderstand something? Did something not go quite right?
“There would be an effort to salvage the person and whatever was bothering him.”
You testified to that?
Q Page 86:
“Q Are there any policies or practices that you are aware of about what, if anything, is to be the attitude of Scientologists toward a Scientologist disaffect?
Is that what you testified to?
“Q Nothing at all?
“A My only experience is that it would be kind of too bad. I have personally known people who have left organizations and say ‘look, I don’t want any more Scientology.’ And I have sat down with them and talked to them about it. And one for one, I’ll find some misunderstanding of something that occurred”
A “. . .or something that occurred.”
Q — “or something that occurred and I’ll say ‘well, you are welcome any time, you know.’
“If somebody is expelled, I wouldn’t associate with them because somebody has already tried to help them. But if somebody just left and said ‘I don’t want anything more to do with it’ and didn’t do anything destructive, just left, then I would sit down and talk with them. And usually the people would come back to the Org. But there aren’t
that many cases.”
You testified to that?
Q Now, at the time that you testified in 1976 you were telling the truth?
A I thought so, yes.
Q In fact, the understanding that you had at that point was that — well, strike that. I’ll get onto a different subject.
There has been a document marked exhibit 7 which is “Advance No. 7?; have you seen that before?
Q Did you have anything to do with the publication of that?
A Yes, I did.
Q What did you have to do with it?
A Well, I probably did the art work and layout on it with Annie Tasker at the Advance Organization.
Q When you say you probably did, is this something –
A Well, this is No. 7. And I laid out the first issues with her. And I was her senior during this time; did the issue authority on it; got it printed at LA Lithograph, if that is where it says it was printed.
Q I wouldn’t know where to look.
THE COURT: When you say “her,” who did you refer to?
Who did you mean?
THE WITNESS: Her? With her?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Annie McGinsky, formerly Annie Tasker.
No, it doesn’t say, but I think it was printed at LA Lithograph.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: And within exhibit 7 there is a page that says “Operation Earth”?
Q I think it is marked exhibit T-l. But it is — oh, you have it?
Q Is that something that was prepared by you?
A I don’t know. I would have to see the original copy.
Q You don’t recall?
I have written hundreds of articles for magazines like this.
Q If you don’t recall, I’ll take it back.
A I may have.
I helped her put it together. Whether we took it from somewhere else or wrote it ourselves, I’m not real sure.
Q And is that a photograph of the Apollo, or some other ship?
A This is the Avon River. It says here “The Athena.”
Q The one below –
A It says “The Neptune”; one of the Pacific ships.
Q All right. Now, when you first took the post of LRH personal PRO you said there was only a couple of items in the Hat and that ultimately you worked off of COLRHED No. 2?
MR. HARRIS: All right, I have a document, Your Honor, dated 3 March, 1970. May that be marked exhibit, I think it is 80?
THE COURT: All right, 80.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Let me ask you if you recognize exhibit 80?
A Yes, I do.
Q And was that in your hat if you can recall?
A I saw it at the time. I don’t know if it was specifically in the folder or not.
Q You saw it at the time that you took over the post?
A Yes, I did. This was written for Sylvia Calhoun/ a photographer.
Q Well you recall that it was written for Sylvia Calhoun, the photographer?
A Yeah. That is who was occupying the position at that time, I think.
Q But subsequently you occupied the position?
Q And did you use this exhibit 80 in your work?
A Well I did, but the photography and the audiovisual was transferred out of my office and put under the personal secretary, so I worked on Presence and in Far Areas, and Featured Writings, and Local PRO Presence, but I didn’t prepare An Image for Elsewhere by taking photographs of him.
Q So in other words, as far as on page 1, this falls into various categories which are mainly audio visualization
Presence in Far Areas, Featured Writings, Local PRO Presence. The first one was taken out of your area and put in some other area?
A Yeah, and then it later goes in two actions, photographs and tapes, and he also says here what stayed and what was consistent was, “Therefore, there has to be a certain amount of PR work undertaken in my personal behalf.” That stayed, of course. His general statement stayed the same but a lot of specifics on how I went about it changed.
I never looked into portraiture manuals or studied lighting. That was something the portrait photographer did which was Sylvia Calhoun.
Later, much later I wrote some film strips stuff and directed story boards.
Q All right, but at the time that you were on the ship that section that is audiovisual was not in your post purposes?
A Well, Bill Broderick was in there with me, and he did some audiovisual, but then the LRH AV shortly thereafter went into the personal secretary’s office, and LRH decided that the PR’s should be doing strictly PR and not productions like compiling books or quality control of letters or audiovisual or any of that stuff. So it was very short-lived in the PR bureau, and we already had COLRHED No. 2 to reorganize, so that is what we did.
Q As far as item No. 2 Presence in Far Areas — I am looking at page 3 under the category Presence in Far
Areas, and there it is stated, “I usually have an office in any major Org with desk, et cetera.”
That was something that was your responsibility as Pers PRO?
A Yes, and then that was — it was mainly the responsibility of the LRH Comm, so in order to get that effected, I worked through them.
“There should be a photo of me in any Org adequate framed and in reception.” You made sure that that was in?
A Yes, I did, I sent photographs all over the world.
Q And as far as Featured Writings, that was part of your hat as well; right? Item No. 3 on page 3?
Q And as far as No. 4, Local PRO Presence, that was also a part of your hat?
Q Which was included, “Barring off pleasantly social engagements and appointments.” You did that?
A Yeah, for the most part.
Q And “Handling social presence so I don’t just get put back on post.”
You did that?
A Yeah, but he also said here, “It wasn’t very natural to me as I hate desks and like people.”
So he liked people, so he’d do it anyway.
Q So you tried to handle his social presence so he didn’t get put back on post, but it didn’t matter?
A Well, he asked me from time to time to make sure he wasn’t asked specific questions or that he didn’t have to stay at an event very long or whatever, and we just worked it out together as to what he would do.
Q And “to handle social obligations tactfully and effectively.”
A Yes, I did. Did all that.
Q And at the bottom of page 4 it says, “thus, overall purpose of the LRH Personal PRO post could be said to be help LRH with his personal duties in PRO and Dissem.”
“And provide an image for presentation elsewhere.”
That was in part what you did as LRH Pers PRO?
A Yeah. That was it and we expanded on that.
MR. HARRIS: All right. I have a document, Your Honor, dated 21 January, 1980. May that be marked exhibit 81?
THE COURT: Yes, 81 for identification.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Showing you exhibit 81, is that something that you recognize?
Q And that was your nonexistence formula for the post of LRH Senior Pers PRO?
Q And that was when you took that post in January of 1980?
A Well, that is when it became called Senior. I wasn’t Senior all along.
Are you saying that I was?
Q No. I’m not saying anything. I’m just asking if that was the new post title.
A Yes. That is the date when I sent the new post nonexistence formula out.
I had been on that for awhile.
C And this was a new post; right?
A No, it wasn’t.
Q It wasn’t?
A It was my old post. I went back on there in June and then there was a distinction being made because I had a deputy at Flag. And I wasn’t any longer at the special unit. I had been gone from there. I had been gone from Flag for years.
Since ‘77, you couldn’t call me Pers Bureau Flag any more. And Pers Bureau Flag was doing Flag things and deserved the full title.
The deputy got removed; she got that title. And
this was added. But it was the same old post.
Q Okay. I just didn’t know because it starts out “. . .a new post has grown out of the one I was formerly holding which was LRH Pers PRO SU”; right?
Q It wasn’t really a new post; it was going back to an old post with a new title?
A I was on my old post. And it developed into a new thing which was long range planning. And you’ll see that many of these are major activities that LRH himself was working on. And the Flag people who were formerly my deputies were now given their full title of doing their thing.
It was short range planning. And that was the division. It was really a distinction. I don’t know if there was a personnel order out at that time. I don’t think there was.
Q I didn’t understand that.
A It is not a post assignment. It is a clarification of duties.
So even though I am doing a new circulation, this is just one person. I, obviously, sent it to many people to say “Okay. We are redefining our jobs here. So bear with us. And this is what I’ll be doing and this is what Sue will be doing.” And she did her own too.
Q Did you petition L. Ron Hubbard to get this post?
A I don’t know. I think he told me that is what
I was doing. We might have worked it out. I don’t know. I was — a proposal was sent to LRH to put me back on the post in June, 19 — well, 1979. I think it was the 2nd of June. And by Michelle Jaramillo, J-a-r-a-m-i-1-l-o.
Q Who is she?
A She was a messenger.
MR. HARRIS: I have — well, strike that.
Yes. I have a document, Your Honor, which is a fictitious business name statement. May that be marked 82?
THE COURT: All right. So marked for identification.
Q BY MR. HARRIS: Was New World Corps a part of the Church of Scientology of California as far as you knew?
A I don’t know. It might have been incorporated on its own. I don’t know.
Q You were taking some sort of course or auditing there?
A Yes. I did the purification thing there and some auditing.
Q Okay. And what was Source Production, if you know?
A Source Production was a — it was the film crew organization which changed their name.
Q The film crew that was working with Mr. Hubbard in making the films for the Scientology organization?
A Right. Then it became Golden Arrow [Era] studios.
Q Had you seen exhibit 82 before?
A I don’t believe I have.
Q Pardon me?
A I don’t remember seeing this.
Q Mr. Plotke, did you know who he was?
MR. HARRIS: No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn or Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LITT:
Q Miss Sullivan, you indicated in your, I believe, both direct examination and in response to Mr. Harris that you had become fair game; is that right?
A Well –
Q Is that what you said? Is that what you said?
A I feel that is the way it is, yes.
Q Will you tell me — let’s take — when was the last time that you took any services from the church? Was that in January, did you say, ‘82 or was that in November?
A Well, I guess it was November ‘81, but no, I just found out that the New World Corps where I took it isn’t part of the Church of Scientology of California. The registrant is the Church of Scientology of California, so that was in November ‘81.
Q You left, you said, on November 21, 1981?
A Yes, it was a Saturday. I guess that would be the date.
Q That was after you had been gone for a while and come back and had routed out and taken some auditing; correct?
A No, I had been away on a holiday leaving about October 12 and returning about a month later, and then I went to the New World Corps and got some auditing, and then
November 21 I walked out, blew, in the Scientology word, and then I came back and routed out in February ‘82.
Q Now, what was done to you after November 21, 1981 that constituted treating you as fair game?
A Well fair game can be tricked, lied to or sued. Can be. Doesn’t say does. Can be.
A private investigator went to an employer of mine or former employer representing himself as my parent and looking for me. My parents are in very regular communication with me, know where I am, and his name was Tim Reyas, and that upset that person.
Q A private investigator went to your parents –
A No. A private investigator in Long Beach went to a former employer and said he was representing my parents and looking for me.
Q Well were you there when this occurred?
A No, but he called a friend of mine who called me.
Q So this is what somebody else told you?
A February 16, ‘84.
Q What else after February 14, 1984?
A What else after that time?
Q Yes. What else was done to you that constituted treating you as fair game?
A Well, first she started since February of ‘82.
Q BY MR. LITT: I am sorry. I thought you said ‘84.
This event occurred in February of this year?
A Yes, February 16th is what they told me.
Q Let’s try to go in chronological order. Will you give me the first instance?
A Well, you see I don’t know all the instances because events happen in my life. I don’t know who caused then. All I know is that they are upsetting.
Q Tell me what you know was done to you by the Church of Scientology of California or a Scientology Organization, as you understand that.
Q That you know was done by Scientology that in your judgment constituted treating you as fair game after February 1982? Please do it in chronological order.
A Okay. Well the church sent Kevin True up to interview me in March 1983, and expected help from me in locating documents within the personal PRO bureau and expected help from me and information from me, all of which was contained in the files, having to do with internal investigations to find out who in the organization was saying that LRH didn’t have it all together, and I had conducted such things before and I told him where they were.
The guy came and I talked to him. Later he lied to my father, so it can be tricked, lied to. He lied to my father and said that I said things.
Q Let’s stop for a moment.
So the first instance was in March 1983; is that correct?
A Well, my letters to my husband never reached
him and I found out about that later, but it occurred earlier.
Q You found out about that from a third party?
A I found out about it from Richard Sullivan.
Q Did your husband want to get letters from you?
A Yes, he did. He said, “I am your friend even though we are split up. I want to hear about you. I want to hear about how you are proceeding. I will write to you.”
I said, “You promise?”
He said, “I do. I promise. I do want to hear from you.”
I said, “Okay, I will write if you promise.”
Q And when did this event occur?
A In February ‘82 when I went down there to route out at his request and on behalf of the organization.
Q And what was the next incident that you say constituted treating you as fair game? Was that in March 1983?
A Well the next incident was I had correspondence with Mary Sue, and when I said in By letter, “For all I know, I am declared Suppressive,” that is the last letter I got from her.
Q And that was suing you, the fact that there was no response to that letter was suing you, harassing you, tricking or lying to you?
A I have since found out that other events occurred, that Mary Sue wasn’t responsible for her communication, that
someone else had intervened and that mail had been picked up.
Q Do you know this of your own personal knowledge?
A Well I heard this from John Nelson who was there at the time.
Q After he left, the church/ you heard from John Nelson about something that happened to Mary Sue Hubbard after she had been out of the church for eight months?
A Well –
Q Including the mail that you sent to her, Miss Sullivan?
A That is what –
Q The mail that was sent to her, Miss Sullivan, was that an address? Was that a post office box that she used?
A It never went to the address, Mr. Litt.
Q Where did you address them to –
THE COURT: You have got about three questions, Mr. Litt. Slow down.
Q BY MR. LITT: You didn’t address them to any church; did you?
A No, I didn’t.
Q You had been provided with an address which you understood was an address through which Mary Sue received personal mail; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And you sent personal mail to Mary Sue there; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And she received it there; is that correct?
A That is correct. At least she answered me.
Q Yes. And you have provided letters to me concerning the exchanges of correspondence?
A Pardon me?
Q Your counsel has provided letters that you had from that correspondence?
Q And so it is my understanding that it is your testimony that the failure of Mary Sue to respond to a letter of yours constituted somebody’s treatment of you as Fair Game?
A Well, in my last letter to her I said, “For all I know, I am declared suppressive.”
Mary Sue always answered mail from me. And she didn’t seem to care about my standing up until that time.
I really don’t know. You would have to ask her.
Q This was also right after you had given Mr. Armstrong, who had taken all of these archives materials that this case is about, that address; isn’t that correct?
A Yes. And Mary Sue said that didn’t make any difference.
Q She said that?
A Yes. Read the letter.
Q I’ll take a look at it.
A I asked her, I said, “I hope you don’t mind my giving this to Gerry, but he wanted to return something to you and I felt it was personal and important enough to do so.”
Q Do you know whether at the time Mrs. Hubbard answered you she was aware that Mr. Armstrong had taken thousands and thousands of pages from the archives?
A Well, she was informed of what he was doing.
Q Didn’t she say to you in the letter that she didn’t know what Gerry was doing with this and that if he took it from the archives and that is where it was, he certainly shouldn’t have?
A She said — you are getting that out of sequence. She said that afterwards.
Q In response to your letter?
A Maybe we should examine the letter.
Q Just tell me what you recall right now.
A Maybe you should ask me the question and I’ll do my best.
Q The letter that you are referring to is a letter from Mrs. Hubbard to you where you told her that you had given Gerry Armstrong her address and she had made reference to the fact that she didn’t know what he was doing with any letter of hers; is that correct?
A You just said it was a letter from her in which I told her. I can’t tell her in her letter.
Q You wrote her a letter and she responded to you; right?
A I wrote her a series of letters and she responded.
The last letter was mine.
Q And in one of those letters you informed her that you had given Gerry Armstrong her address, her mailing address?
A That is correct.
Q And you said that he had something, a letter of hers, that he was trying to return, something like that? Is that correct?
A I said that he had something he was trying to give to her.
Q Okay. And she wrote back to you in response to that letter and said that she didn’t know what he would be doing with any such letter; is that right, or any such item, whatever it was?
A Similar, yes.
Q And when she wrote that you don’t know what information she had at that time concerning what Mr. Armstrong had actually done; is that right?
A I only [only] know what she said in that letter.
Q Okay. And is it your contention that this was an example of Mary Sue using Fair Game against you because she didn’t answer your letter?
A No. She told me in response that it didn’t make any difference because it was only a mailing address, which is the first time I knew it was only a mailing address for sure. That was on that little thing.
And I also had written to her and said, “For all I know, I am declared suppressive.”
She asked me if I would like to stay in her apartment.
I said, “Gee, I really appreciate that and all that, but for all I know, I am declared suppressive.
You might not be willing to do that.”
And I never got an answer.
Q And it is your view that — that letter that you wrote her was in September, 1982?
A I think so, yes.
Q And it is your view that her failure to answer your letter constituted the use of Fair Game against you?
A It is possible. I mean she obviously disconnected, which is a practice. She didn’t write to me any more.
Q Is the practice — if someone chooses not to associate with someone, is that part, in your view, of what constitutes using Fair Game against them?
A Yes. I figure if she invites you to stay in her home and you tell her you might be declared suppressive and you don’t hear from her again, chances are you are now Fair Game or suppressive.
Q That is the implementation of Fair Game; right?
A Well, it may be. I may be. I don’t know, it may be just her way of saying I don’t want to have anything to do with you. I don’t know. I don’t know what her frame of mind was. I have no idea.
Q After the use of the Fair Game against you by Mrs. Hubbard not responding to your letter, what is the next instance of using Fair Game against you?
A Well, that I know of, this guy came up to see me –
Q Is this Kevin True you are talking about?
And he wanted information from me. And he said, “Of course, you know I can’t promise that any of this is going to change. You are still going to be declared and everything.”
I said, “You have got a lot of nerve, coining up here and asking me for help.”
And he said, “I am not really in a position to lift your suppressive declare or your this or that, ethics action.”
So I said, “You don’t have any information for me as far as what Mary Sue requested as far as a justice action or my standing or whatever came to anything?” And he said, “No.”
After that he lied to my father. And he also, apparently, lied to me –
Q Just a moment –
A — about Dick Sullivan.
Q And the lie to your father that you are talking about, were you there when he lied to your father?
A My father told me, called me long distance and told me.
Q Told you of some conversation he had with Mr. True?
A He called me and said, “There is a guy named Kevin” –
Q I am not asking you what he said.
THE COURT: Counsel, you asked her about her knowledge of these events. If you want her to answer, let her answer the question as best she can.
MR. LITT: My question was only if he called and if she had a conversation.
THE COURT: You started asking her about what her knowledge was, whether she had been harassed. She is attempting to give you some answers.
She can’t be in ten different places. If somebody takes harassing actions against some relative of hers and it gets back to her, that goes to her state of mind. This is what occurred. Maybe somebody else would have a different version of it. But –
Q BY MR. LITT: Now, do you know whether this conversation between Mr. True and your father occurred contemporaneous with his visit with you?
A Do you mean at the same time?
Q On the same trip or whatever?
A No, it didn’t. It occurred much later.
Q How much later? Do you know?
A Well, let’s see. Sometime last year.
Q Can you, this conversation with Mr. True, as I understand it, was in March of 1983; is that right? I thought
that is what you had said.
A Yes, March, ‘83.
You called me in August or I called you in August. It was around that time. Somewhere in between there.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I assume this whole area is being offered to determine whether or not the church actually engaged in the practice of harassing people with the Fair Game Doctrine.
THE COURT: It goes to credibility and so forth.
MR. FLYNN: We could be here for six months with the witnesses I could put on the witness stand who have been harassed.
THE COURT: Let’s deal with Miss Sullivan at the moment.
I’m not going to spend the next six months on this case to accommodate you, Mr. Flynn.
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor. You would be doing me a favor.
Q BY MR. LITT: So the time sequence was that your contact with Mr. True occurred in March, 1983 and sometime several months later — you’re not sure where in ‘83 — this conversation with your father –
A There were several calls from Kevin True to my father.
My father said, “Hey, this guy says he is a friend of yours and that you said it was all right to give him your address.”
I said, “Is it –”
He said, “His name is True,”
I said, “No. He is calling from the church. You can’t give him my address.”
My dad called me once a week and said, “This guy is still calling. These people are still calling.”
I said, “Don’t tell them anything. Just forward any mail,” which is how I finally got your letter.
A But the guy, what he said — what my father said he said is a lie, so it can be tricked, lied to or sued.
Q It is a lie that you weren’t a friend of his?
A That is true, and it is a lie that I ever said he could have my address. I told him, “You can’t have my address because I an moving.”
Q And how long did you spend with Mr. True speaking with him on the occasion that he visited you?
A Well I took him out to dinner and went back to his hotel room where he put me on the meter, sec checked me for a while until about 2:00 in the morning.
Q I take it you agreed to let him do that?
A Sure. I said, “Sure. Ask me the questions.” I didn’t really care. I liked the guy.
God, he was the candidate, was polled. I took him out to dinner and talked to him for a while.
Q So it didn’t seem too harassive; is that correct?
A No. We had a long, friendly conversation. I later found out some of the things he told me weren’t true, but I didn’t care. He was a nice kid.
Q And after that, you sent a letter to Gerry Armstrong and Joscelyn Armstrong and sent a copy to Kevin True; is that right?
Q This, I believe, would be plaintiff’s 82.
MR. HARRIS: 83.
MR. LITT: 83.
THE COURT: All right, 83 for identification.
Q BY MR. LITT: Do you recognize this document, Miss Sullivan, as a copy, true copy of the letter that you sent to Gerry Armstrong and Joscelyn Armstrong, a copy of which you also sent to Kevin True?
Q And you sent that letter after Mr. True had left?
A Pardon me?
Q You sent that letter after Mr. True had left, after you and he had had dinner, et cetera?
A Yes, shortly thereafter.
Q And you wrote the letter; right?
Q You typed it?
Q And you composed it?
Q In the letter you said that you felt that essentially that both the church and Mr. Armstrong were wrong in this dispute between them?
A Yeah. There were a couple — I was not fully briefed on the issues at that time, but –
Q But that was your view at the time, at least?
A I can tell you the specific actions which I disagreed with if you like.
Q Well, we will get to that in a moment, and you said in the letter, did you, “That I know you both” –referring to the church on the one hand and Mr. Armstrong on the other — “feel that you have done nothing illegal and that you are just defending yourselves.”
And then you went on to say, “However, there is a part to that that just doesn’t ring true for me; that is, that I think, you” — referring to Mr, Armstrong I presume — “have provoked attack.”
Did you say that?
Q Now, after Kevin True visited you, is the next incident of treating you as fair game when people were trying to obtain your address in order to notice your deposition in this case?
A I don’t know what they were trying to do.
Q Well you knew that, in fact, or you found out some time in August 1983 that I was trying to get in touch with you; correct?
A Yes, to talk to me, not to take a deposition.
Q If you were willing to talk to me?
A Right, and after about five friends were called, I finally decided to call you and get it over with and spare my friends.
Q And when Lisa Britowich contacted you, you said that she said that I wished to speak with you; I wanted to basically interview you?
A I already knew that. My father had already told
me that he told you I didn’t want to talk to you, and I didn’t want to talk to you, but since Debby Fosdick, Fred Rock and a couple of other people, Helen Geltman and other people were being telephoned, I figured okay, I will talk to you. You obviously didn’t get the message.
Q Assuming that having received the Information from your father that you didn’t want to talk to me, did you consider efforts to find someone’s address in order to serve them with the proper notice for deposition or subpoena for deposition to be also a use of the fair game policy?
A No. What I heard was that you were trying to find out where I was. I didn’t hear anything about a notice for deposition and I didn’t get your letter to discuss anything with me until much later. I didn’t get your letter until after our phone call.
Q You understand, of course, that in order to subpoena a person, you must know where they are; right?
A Yes. That is not why I didn’t want you to know where I was, though, and as I told you, if you remember I talked to you on the phone, I said, “Please call the dogs off.” I was pretty upset.
Q In fact, I said to you that I had requested if anybody could find your address because if X couldn’t talk to you, then I had to be able to subpoena you, right? This was when you had called me, something to that effect, we had some conversation about that?
A That part I don’t recall specifically, but you may have said that.
Q And you said, “I really don’t want people to have ay address”; is that right?
Q That is what you told me?
And I said to you, words to the effect, “Well, look, at this point I just need to talk with you, and as long as we can arrange that I can talk with you just to find out information from you, then that is really all that is needed”; right? Words to that effect?
Q And you said to me, “Call off the dogs,” I think. I think that probably was your language or something like that; right?
Q And I said to you that –
A You couldn’t guarantee anything.
Q But that I would make every effort to have the efforts to find your address stopped because it had been initiated because I needed it; right, something like that?
THE COURT: I don’t know what “something like that” means.
MR. LITT: I’m just trying to refresh her recollection.
Q Does that sound roughly like what was said?
A What I recall you saying was that you couldn’t guarantee anything; that you couldn’t guarantee that my address wouldn’t be circulated and you couldn’t guarantee what the Church of Scientology would or would not do. And if we could just trust each other at that point we could talk. And we went into our conversation.
Q And, in fact, to your knowledge there was no further efforts –
A In fact, my friend, Helen Geltman in New York, told me people were calling her. And she is declared — not declared, but out.
Q When was this?
A She told me they were calling her that fall. I don’t know what you guys were trying to do exactly. An awful lot of people phoned.
Q To find out where you were?
Q And you considered trying to find out whether you were the implementation of Fair Game?
A Well, I wasn’t real sure, Mr. Litt.
I figured if somebody wanted to talk to me, they could let me know for what or they could provide these people with specific questions that I was willing to answer.
I told Lisa that. And I didn’t want direct communications until I knew what it was about.
I have since learned that I couldn’t trust anybody in that organization. And so I was very cautious.
Also, I was working full tine on a project for a client in Texas and simply could not leave or spend a lot of time discussing these things. I just couldn’t.
So I phoned you and we had a two-hour conversation. I thought that was pretty decent. And that was the way it was.
Q And did you phone me twice, right?
A I phoned you and you couldn’t speak to me and I phoned you back.
Q Right. The first time I couldn’t talk to you and we agreed that you would phone me so that I wouldn’t have your phone number; right?
A And address. And it wouldn’t be on your bill so that you could give it to the church.
Q It wouldn’t be done collect so that I wouldn’t have your phone number and address.
A And you would pay me $50.
Q And I sent you a check for the call.
A For which the person who owned the phone was paid.
Q So that was reasonably fair, at least.
Q That is right. We had a good business relationship going there.
Q Now, in that conversation I understand — I was not at your deposition, but I understand — oh, before I get to that, you asked me if I was going to prepare anything as a result of our conversation that would be provided to the church; is that right?
A I asked you if you were taping it?
Q No, you didn’t ask.
A No. I am not asking you the questions.
Q I understand that you made reference to a tape recording.
You were never told that that conversation was taped, Miss Sullivan, were you?
A I believe I was, yes.
Q Well, we’ll have testimony later on that issue.
A That is fine.
Q If I tell you that there was no tape of that conversation and that there is no transcript or tape of that conversation, does that — do you feel that you would disagree with that statement?
THE COURT: How would she know?
THE WITNESS: I don’t necessary believe you. But I
don’t have any reason to doubt you.
I simply considered it was taped. I asked for a transcript. When I got a summary of it, I was very disappointed. I wondered, “Where is my transcript?”
So it was my understanding at that time or shortly thereafter that I would get a transcript. And I didn’t get a transcript and I got a summary, four pages.
Q In fact, what occurred is that you said well, in some form will there be something that is going to the church about this conversation. And we said most likely that there would be; right?
And you said, “Well, I would like to be provided a copy of whatever it is that will be provided to the church”; is that right?
A Right. Because you said you were representing Mary Sue, but were reporting to the church. And I couldn’t figure out who was representing who.
Q And I told you that we would provide you with a copy of whatever the church would also have access to; is that right?
Q And you were sent approximately six pages?
A Four pages.
Q A memo prepared by Mr. Magnuson.
A Four pages.
Q Prepared by Mr. Magnuson; is that correct?
A I don’t know if it was prepared by him.
Q That is what it says?
A I was sent a copy of a summary of a transcript or a summary that somebody had written.
Q Now, in that conversation that we had, that was forwarded to you, was it, through your father?
A No. It was through Lisa who sent it with the $50 or something.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I’ll object to this. This is all hearsay.
THE COURT: Which, the conversations back and forth between Mr. Litt and Miss Sullivan?
It goes to credibility, whatever may have been said.
We’ll take a 15-minute recess.
THE COURT: All right. We are back in session. The witness has retaken the stand. Just state your name again for the record, ma’am. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Laurel Sullivan.
THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Miss Sullivan, in the conversation that you had with Mr. Magnuson and myself, you told us, did you not, that Mr. Armstrong’s archives post was a CSC assignment?
A May I see the summary?
A This is precisely why I wanted a transcript, so we wouldn’t have to go through this.
THE COURT: I don’t know that it has been established that the telephone conversation was with you and Mr. Magnuson. She testified she had a conversation with you, Mr. Litt.
MR. LITT: Well, I will ask her.
Q Miss Sullivan, the conversation that you had as far as you could tell was on the speaker phone; is that right?
Q And was another voice aside from mine that also participated in the conversation?
A Yes, in the second conversation, not the first one.
Q Right, and these notes are from the second conversation.
Q Is that correct?
A Well if that is what you tell me.
Q Wel [Well] as best you recall.
A As best I recall is that you tell me that Mr. Magnuson took these notes of the second conversation, that it was on a speaker phone.
Q In any event in the second conversation, there was another voice and you were introduced to that voice as being that of Mr. Magunuson [Magnuson]; is that right?
Q You have to answer so the reporter –
Q Now did you tell me and Mr. Magnuson in that conversation –
MR. FLYNN: I am going to object to this procedure. I think he can ask the witness whether these notes refresh your memory, but to read from a third person’s notes –
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
MR. LITT: Nell she asked to see the notes.
THE COURT: Or she can refresh her memory. I suppose she can adopt it as her testimony if she wants to.
MR. LITT: I am prepared to just ask the questions of what she told me and what she recalled.
THE WITNESS: The thing is I clarified all of this stuff paragraph by paragraph in my deposition.
THE COURT: He wants to do it all over again here. So go ahead and do it.
Q BY MR. LITT: At this point all I want to know is do you recall, did you tell Mr. Magnuson and me — I’m not asking for whole conversations, but in the course of the conversation did you tell us that Mr. Armstrong’s post was a Church of Scientology of California assignment?
A I may have. But I think I clarified that.
Q You think you added something else to that?
A I clarified it.
Q But did you tell us that to the best of your recollection? If you don’t recall, that is fine.
A I may have said that.
Q You’re not sure?
A I’m not sure.
Q And did you tell us that that post would terminate if Mr. Armstrong left the church, if you recall?
A I don’t recall. And I consider this out of context.
Q I’m not asking you that. I’m just asking whether you recall saying those things.
A Okay. No. I don’t recall saying what is written here or those things.
Q Without necessarily considering what I have asked
you as a quote, did you say something to the effect that –
THE COURT: When you say “something to the effect,” ask her did you say in sum and substance that this is what you said, yes, no, maybe.
MR. LITT: Fine, Your Honor.
Q In substance did you tell us that Mr. Armstrong’s archives post was a Church of Scientology of California assignment?
I’m not asking for everything, but just whether in substance you said that among other things.
A I may have said that among other things.
Q Do you know whether you did say it or only whether you may have said it?
A I may have said it among other things.
Q Do you know whether you did say it? Yes or no. If you don’t know, that is fine.
A I may have. I don’t know.
Q And did you tell us in substance that if Mr. Armstrong left the church, that that archives post would terminate upon him leaving the church?
A I may have said that among other things.
THE COURT: Hadn’t he already left the church by then?
MR. LITT: This is referring to the circumstances at the time.
THE COURT: Proceed.
THE WITNESS: Maybe yes. I would say that if Gerry Armstrong left and said he was not a Scientologist, I don’t think LRH would have wanted him to continue with the biography
project too much.
Q But –
A I just don’t. I don’t recall specifically what I said about those points. And I have been confused and then I clarified that in the depo.
It seems like we went over this point by point.
Q I understand. But hopefully we don’t have to spend an hour on it point by point today.
It is a fact, isn’t it, Miss Sullivan, that Mr. Armstrong’s appointment, like many appointments within Scientology, was an appointment to a church post; isn’t that right? Isn’t that your understanding?
A No. His appointment was from LRH which is a little different from your average assignment.
Q Did you tell us in substance when you spoke with Mr. Magnuson and me that the assignment to the archives post was simply approved by Mr. Hubbard?
A Wasn’t that the same thing?
Q Well, wasn’t it your testimony earlier that Mr. Hubbard approved many things?
Q Now, I take it it is not your testimony that everything and every appointment within Scientology International that was approved by Mr. Hubbard made someone an employee, a personal employee of Mr. Hubbard; is that –
A Say that again, now?
Q Is it your testimony that anybody who was approved to a post by Mr. Hubbard became his personal employee?
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, as long as it is understood that the witness can answer this question in the context of MCCS, then I have no objection to it.
But I believe based on my numerous conversations with the witness that this is what MCCS was about, specifically with regard to Mr. Armstrong.
MR. LITT: This question doesn’t go to Mr. Armstrong specifically, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what “personal employee” means; like his butler, his servant, or his hairdresser, his chauffeur?
You used the word “personal employee.”
MR. LITT: Miss Sullivan testified that Mr. Armstrong was an employee of Mr. Hubbard.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q BY MR. LITT: Is it your testimony that anyone who was approved to a Scientology post by L. Ron Hubbard was an employee of Mr. Hubbard?
A No, not necessarily.
Q Did you –
A This is a personal office thing, a different deal.
Q Did you tell us, Mr. Magnuson and myself, in substance that all that the petition represented was an approval of the posting?
A Well, I don’t think I said that was all it represented because there was a written letter in response which laid out for Gerry to go ahead.
Q And didn’t you tell us that that was essentially an approval to a church post?
A Well, that remained to be sorted out.
Q I’m just asking you now whether you said that to us or not.
A I don’t recall saying those words, no.
Q You don’t recall saying anything like that?
A Not specifically.
The thing is that Gerry’s appointment in itself was a touchy issue because the Inurement issue –
Q That is not my question to you, Miss Sullivan. My question is when you said this to us –
I move to strike. There is no question pending.
MR. FLYNN: I submit that his legal status vis-a-vis Mr. Hubbard goes directly to these issues.
THE COURT: Well, we will cross that bridge later. Right now we are talking about cross-examination on this telephone call. Let’s go ahead.
Q BY MR. LITT: And you also said, did you not, that the destruction of the archives materials that — that Mr. Armstrong’s claim that he had saved the archives materials from destruction was an exaggeration?
A You asked me if it was an exaggeration. Those are your words, not mine.
Q Well, did you answer?
A Well, I told you that there wasn’t any question in my mind that they would be preserved or not.
Q And didn’t you also say that his claims to have saved them was an exaggeration?
MR. FLYNN: Objection, asked and answered. She said it was his word.
THE WITNESS: I didn’t say those words.
Q BY MR. LITT: Did you agree with the characterization that it was an exaggeration?
A I don’t know. The way I answered questions had to do with protecting LRH at that point.
Q The way you answered questions in your conversation with me?
A Well, as far as the CSC thing and — I think, well it is very hard for me to discuss this.
Q All right. Now, the archives materials themselves were considered by you at all times while you dealt with them to be confidential materials; is that right?
A For the most part. Some were not. Borne were just records of published material, so therefore not confidential.
Q Other than something that was published material?
Q You did consider them confidential?
A Yeah. It was largely my discretion whether or not it was confidential, whether or not I wanted something like that known publicly.
Q And you considered them all confidential other than what was published?
A No, not all of them. I gave staff briefings on a lot of the stuff.
Q And you didn’t tell me and Mr. Magnuson that you considered the archives material confidential?
A I considered the embodiment of the archives material confidential and to be kept in a secret place because it was all together, but I personally read from some of those diaries and, you know, publicized some of the material in there, so I can’t really say that it was all confidential.
Q Now, Mr. Flynn is presently your attorney; is that correct?
Q How long has he been your attorney?
A Since the end of February or middle of February.
Q And without telling me what was said, have you had conversations with Mr. Flynn in which you revealed
details of the MCCS activities?
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, obviously she has. She filed an affidavit because we prepared it and submitted it.
THE COURT; Well she can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Well, some of the material I discussed with Mr. Flynn was both pre-MCCS and after MCCS.
Q BY MR. LITT: So among what you discussed include details of MCCS?
A I wouldn’t say details.
Q Did you provide information, and again I am not asking you for what you told him, to Mr. Flynn in which you related to him advice that had been provided by attorneys in the course of the MCCS mission?
A Well I don’t recall discussing any attorney letters.
Q How about attorney conversations?
A I believe you already had information on attorney conversations. Actually it was Mr. Flynn asking questions.
Q Of you?
A At that time.
Q Of you?
Q And you providing the answers?
A Well at times. He would ask me, “Do I know anything about this subject?” And I said, “Yeah.”
Q And in answring [answering] his questions when you knew something about those things, and again without telling me
what was said, you provided to him facts that you had learned in the course and information that you had learned in the course of the MCCS mission; is that correct?
A As part of an overall but not specifically.
Q And, again, in all of this series of questions I’m not asking you what was said.
A Sometimes it is very hard for me to say yes or no. So I have to kind of do what I’m doing.
Q That is fine.
If you recall, when was the first time that you provided to Mr. Flynn information that in part related to what you learned in the course of your activities for the MCCS Mission?
Q And was this before or after you had retained him as your attorney?
Q And I take it you had several conversations with Mr. Flynn? I think you said you had something like 20 conversations with him; that was before this trial?
Q Right. And I take it that in several of those conversations you have discussed with Mr. Flynn information that you learned in the course of the MCCS Mission?
A Well, certainly not in all 20. I was moving at the time. I had to call his office and say what my address would be, which changed.
I left messages and he got back to me. So all in all, it was not — he didn’t have time for me all the time. There were some conversations which were very short which had no legal discussions at all and sometimes they were longer. So there were not 20 discussions on these points.
Q But would it be fair to say that there were several such discussions?
A I would say it would be fair to say there were a few, but a few.
Q Quite a few?
A But a few.
Q Four or five?
A I would say less, possibly three.
Q And is it Mr. Flynn who has represented you in the immunity that you have received from various agencies?
Q What was the first agency that granted you immunity from prosecution?
A They were all at the exact same time.
Q Tell me what the agencies are that have granted you immunity from prosecution?
A The Canadian government; the State Attorney’s Office –
Q State Attorney’s Office where?
A In Florida. And one other, I think. I don’t know.
Q I think you mentioned before Federal authorities; is that the United States Attorney’s Office?
A I guess so, I am not real sure.
I know who was there representing me, but I don’t know what their powers are, all of them.
Q Was it the Federal authorities, someone from the United States Attorney’s Office in Florida?
A Yes, two people.
Q From the United States Attorney’s Office in Florida?
Q And also someone from the State Attorney’s Office in Florida?
A Yes. I believe so.
They interchanged. They were not all there at the same time.
Q And who were the people that you met with from –
THE COURT: What is the relevancy of all of that, counsel? This is not a discovery proceeding.
MR. LITT: Okay, Your Honor.
Q These transactions for obtaining immunity, did they all occur in a single physical place?
MR. FLYNN: I’m the one who did the transactions.
Does the witness know what I did?
MR. LITT: I’m only asking her what she knows about what she did.
MR. FLYNN: She had conversations with me.
THE COURT: Is there a question?
Do you want to know where physically she was seated?
MR. LITT: I want to know if she met all of these authorities in a single place physically.
THE COURT: At the same time?
Q BY MR. LITT: First, if it all occurred in the same city.
A When the immunity itself was granted?
A In the same place, same room.
Q In California?
Q In Florida?
Q In Tampa, Florida?
Q Where in Florida was it?
Q And the Canadian authorities, do you have a document from them providing you with immunity?
Q This was a verbal agreement, as you understood it?
Q And they told you that you would not be prosecuted in connection with any of your activities in Scientology from the time you joined it?
A As a matter of fact, there was only one immunity. And I think that was stated by the lady who represented the State Attorney’s Office in Florida.
I just verbally had other conversations with the Canadians that that covered them too. But this wasn’t done from one county and one from another country. It was just stated once.
Q I take it the representatives from these three
agencies were present when these discussions occurred?
A Yes. And the exact coverage or who authorized it, Mr. Flynn just told me that, yes, I was immune.
That was it. I could proceed.
Q Have you received a document from the state Attorney’s Office in Florida?
A No, I have not.
Q Is it your understanding that the immunity you were granted was immunity from any prosecution or anything connected with any of your activities in Scientology from the time that you joined?
MR. FLYNN: Well, Your Honor –
THE COURT: I think it is getting way beyond –
MR. FLYNN: There were proffers made.
MR. LITT: I am not asking for any other details. I am just asking for what the nature of the immunity was.
THE COURT: What difference does it make?
MR. LITT: Well I think –
THE COURT: She is not testifying in Florida at this time. She is testifying here in Los Angeles. She is not under any immunity order as far as the State of California is concerned.
MR. LITT: All right.
Q Miss Sullivan, when did these events occur?
A The latter part of February.
THE COURT: As I said, this is not a discovery proceeding.
MR. LITT: I understand.
THE COURT: I don’t know that Mrs. Hubbard has any interest anyway so far as I know.
MR. LITT: It goes to the weight of some of the testimony which apparently is being applied to Mrs. Hubbard.
THE COURT: I don’t know what the immunity has to do with Mrs. Hubbard. Maybe it has, but by the same token, if she testified, ordinarily you are sworn not to divulge whatever
you testified to.
MR. LITT: I haven’t asked or anything that she told them. Your Honor. I don’t intend to.
Q Now, Miss Sullivan, do you know whether your immunity covers any immigration matters?
A Immunity covers immigration?
A I don’t think immunity covers immigration.
Q Well have you ever made application for what is called a Green Card to be in the United States based upon your church employment?
A Yes, I have. Based upon my marriages, not based upon my church employment.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, what is the relevance?
THE COURT: I don’t know.
MR. LITT: The relevance, Your Honor, well if the court will just indulge me for a minute, I think the relevance will become clear.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LITT: I will let it go, Your Honor. I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FLYNN:
Q When you first contacted me. Miss Sullivan, just yes or no, were you concerned with your status as to
whether you could be prosecuted in connection with your MCCS activities?
Q And were there discussions in connection with whether or not you could be prosecuted for those activities in connection with tax fraud issues as to whether other individuals involved in the MCCS mission could be prosecuted?
Q Did you have a conversation with L. Ron Hubbard in which he told you that you worked for him?
A Yes, several.
Q And when was the last conversation prior to your leaving?
A That covered that subject?
Q And what at that time did he tell you?
A “You work for me, nobody else.”
Q And did he tell you you should not take orders from church organizations but from him?
Q And when Mr. Armstrong worked for you, did you consider that order of Mr. Hubbard to apply?
Q To Mr. Armstrong and to you?
THE COURT: Well, you said you were busted, put in RPF. Was this Mr. Hubbard that busted you or got messengers that
busted you or the Church of Scientology of California that busted you?
THE WITNESS: Well, messengers are the ones who busted me, and there is an issue on the messengers which says that they represent L. Ron Hubbard and that their decision is one and the same, and that he would never discipline them for making a mistake with a staff member. So I assume that they were representing him when they busted me, and he also had told me earlier that no one could ever remove me without his approval, so I brought that up at the time and since he wasn’t around, I had no recourse.
THE COURT: Where did you do your penance, RPF?
THE WITNESS: Well I did it in Los Angeles and in Gilman Hot Springs.
THE COURT: Who were your jailers? The messengers or the Church of Scientology?
THE WITNESS: Well, David Miscavige and Steve Marlow who I think are still working for LRH somewhere, and Gary Reisdorf, who is now in South Africa with his wife, and people who were guarding me were messengers.
THE COURT: All right, you may continue.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you answered some questions with regard to the fair game doctrine; do you recall that?
Q And Mr. Harris showed you a deposition that was taken of you apparently in 1976 in a case involving the St. Petersburg Times and the Church of Scientology.
Q At that time you considered yourself an employee of L. Ron Hubbard; is that correct?
Q And when you testified in that deposition, Miss Sullivan, about the fair game doctrine, was that the PR line of the church as to what the fair game doctrine was?
Q And was that in itself a shore story?
Q Was that in fact based on what you knew about the Fair Game Doctrine, what it was in 1976?
A Well, on the issues of cancellation and revision and so on, it was the PR move taken in ‘68 to — based on the New Zealand inquiry. And those issues were revised and changed a number of times. They were issued for public relations purposes. And I just followed that line.
Q In fact, the cancellation dated in 1968 which, unfortunately, we don’t have here but we’ll bring in on Tuesday, do you recall the language of that cancellation?
Q What does it say, or the purported cancellation?
A It says that the Fair Game Doctrine is canceled because it creates bad press relations. It doesn’t change or cancel the mode of treatment or the procedure or some similar wording for how a suppressive was handled or treated.
Q Let me ask you this question: Do you recall if the purported cancellation in substance where it states at the top “Cancellation, the practice of placing SP Declares or Fair Game Declares on Ethics Orders will cease. It causes bad public relations; however this does not cancel any policy with regard to the treatment of SP’s”?
A You are good, aren’t you?
That is pretty close if not verbatim.
Q Now, did Mr. Hubbard make a distinction between
intelligence security and public relations?
Q And what was that distinction?
A Well, I think I explained earlier, when a person is declared or assigned a condition of enemy within the church and chooses to stick around and do penance and go back up the scale, the penalties are waived and it would often say on the order.
Q When you say “penalty” –
A “Penalties,” not “penance.” They have to do penance. But a person is declared in a condition of enemy, penalty is waived. And sometimes they even would say that a person was declared suppressive and Fair Game, but the penalties were waived. Somebody on the bottom of a committee of evidence or just on a small order. And that meant that they had chosen to do penance and to stay within the organization.
People who were declared enemies or on an enemies list were not waived.
Q Who left the organization?
A Who left the organization or any group declared as an enemy.
Q Then the penalties were not waived; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q And the penalties are set forth in what has been marked as exhibit RR; correct?
Q Sued; lied to; deprived of property; cheated or destroyed?
Q Now, in addition to that, within the Guardian’s Office did a Fair Game Declare have a particular meaning, if you know, for people who had never been in the organization?
A I know about operations done against people within the organization that involved those activities.
Q Against people who had never been in the organization?
Q And how do you know about those?
A Well, in the course of our little ethics handling there toward the end of my tenure, I met with senior Guardian officials.
A David Gaiman; Jane Kember; Herbie Parkhouse; Debbie Reisdorf; Diane Hubbard; Ann Mulligan; Jim Mulligan, the upper strata, Henning Heldt.
Q Jimmy Mulligan worked directly for Mary Sue Hubbard; is that correct?
A Yes, he did.
Q Did you have conversations with those people with regard to actions that had been taken against people pursuant to the Fair Game Doctrine?
A Yes. And I had conversations about their confessions with people like Steve Marlowe and Gary Reisdorf
who told me things that they were told. Because I was not coming around, really, they wanted to make sure that I understood how bad they were and they were really laying it on.
Q When you say you weren’t coming around, what do you mean by that?
A I didn’t agree with a lot of things that they said and did and I knew that the things that they said they did weren’t true.
Q Like what?
A Well, their attempts were to disband the Guardian’s Office. Regardless of what the Guardian’s Office did, which was real bad at the time, I felt they were good people. I didn’t think they deserved to be busted any more than I deserved to be busted. I felt that somebody was just wiping out a whole faction of the organization regardless of who it was.
Q Did you think that was done for PR purposes?
A Yes. They even announced it to the press.
Q Those Guardian people had in fact, under Mary Sue Hubbard, run the organization; is that correct?
Q Did discussions take place as to what had been done to various people such as putting LSD in their toothpaste?
Q And in regard to assassination plots –
A What was said no one actually admitted to murder.
Q Now, did you know a messenger named Ann Rosenbloom?
Q And had she worked in the desert with L. Ron Hubbard at La Quinta?
Q And when she tried to leave the organization do you know what was done to her?
Q Do you know whether she ended up in the hospital?
MR. HARRIS: Did she just say no, Your Honor?
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You had a conversation with Lisa Britowich who has filed an affidavit in this case. Who is Lisa Britowich?
A She was working for the Guardian’s Office in the Legal Program Bureau and was assigned as MCCS Second.
Q Now, did you have a conversation with Miss Britowich in which she told you that your fair game declare would be lifted or cancelled if you testified on behalf of the organization in this case?
A Yes, she said that.
Q And when did that conversation take place?
A She was trying to set up the meeting for me and Kevin True.
Q And this was the meeting that took place — that was the meeting with Mr. True that took place just prior to your writing –
A This letter of March 9th.
Q This letter of March 9th, 1983; is that correct?
Q Now, prior to that, around the tine that you wrote that letter, did you have conversations with Mr. Armstrong as to what was being done to him or what had been done to him?
Q And what were those conversations?
A Well I came down on holiday in February and I spoke to Gerry and he was very upset and afraid and told me about people following him, three or four at a time and so on, and him trying to get mail out of his PO box and people following him there, and Joscelyn having to bring the car around to pick up where somebody was trying to accost him, and we discussed the kinds of things that had been done and I told him some of the things that I knew that had been done,
and we just basically told each other to be careful. What can you say?
Q Did you [say] that you didn’t want those things being done to you?
A Oh, yes.
Q And until you contacted me in February 1984, had you basically tried to remain away from the organization and not speak out about the type of activities that had gone on?
A Yeah. I was in a Catch-22. Either I spoke out and risked attack or I didn’t speak out and because I knew so much, I risked attack to be snuffed some way so that I couldn’t speak out. So that my final decision was it’s just got to come out and I will just tell what I know.
Q Now at the time you wrote that letter in March 1983 what was your state of mind with regard to whether the organization would attack you, Miss Sullivan, like they were attacking Mr. Armstrong as he described to you?
A Well the [they] knew that I was in touch with Gerry and they had published a Declare, declaring me because I remained in touch with Gerry. So I knew that they were hot on that one.
The one thing I disagreed with that Gerry said he had done was go into the organization and call L. Ron Hubbard a name.
Q Was this when his photographs were taken?
A Yes, but I wasn’t familiar with the legal
proceedings at that time. We didn’t really discuss it, and there were things that Gerry had going that I didn’t want him to tell me. I was in preparation to move down to the United States and I simply couldn’t afford to be harassed in conjunction with Gerry, so I wrote him a letter saying it is really better that we just don’t get into communication about these things.
Q You disconnected from Gerry?
A Well, I sent him a few messages through Nancy Dincalci and the Fosdicks, but I didn’t see him again until he called me.
Q Now, in Scientology there is a formal process called disconnection; is that correct?
Q And that process can call for one spouse even disconnecting from another spouse if one spouse is PTS or Suppressive?
A In this case I wrote him a letter and said I wanted Gerry to know what stand I was taking and what stand I was taking was that if both parties could possibly get together and resolve this mess, that I would be willing to be a party to that but I wasn’t willing to take sides and to basically not ask me to do that.
Q You didn’t want to get caught up in any harassive activities against you?
MR. LITT: Objection; leading.
MR. HARRIS: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, Miss Sullivan, when you wrote this letter, you sent a copy to the church; is that correct?
Q And did you tell Gerry and Joscelyn that you were sending a copy to the church?
THE COURT: Before or at the time or what?
THE WITNESS: It is not on the letter and I didn’t have communication with Gerry and Joscelyn after the letter until 1984. However, I asked my friends to tell then that and I don’t know if they got the message or not. I don’t think they did, but –
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Did you send it to the church to show the church that you were not fighting with Gerry?
Q So that they wouldn’t come after you?
A Absolutely. That was the whole reason for the letter and I had already told Lisa that I didn’t care if they listed me declared or not, so now I really was out there.
Q Now, when you had this conversation with Mr, Litt, it was your understanding it was being taped-recorded; is that correct?
Q Did you know how many people were in the room when they were listening on the speaker phone?
A The only voices or conversation or people that I spoke to that I know of were Mr. Litt and Mr. Magnuson.
Q Did you know whether there were any extensions of other telephones that people were listening on?
A No, I forgot to ask that question.
Q Whether there were any church officials or employees or agents who were on extensions?
A I don’t think I asked that question. I might have. I don’t think so.
Q Do you know whether there are any training manuals or operations procedures or intelligence measures with regard to having conversations taped on extensions where one party knows it is being taped and the other doesn’t?
A Yes, it is pretty standard intelligence.
Q Now, you testified you didn’t want people to have your address; is that correct?
Q Why didn’t you want the organization to have your address?
A Well, I was fearful that my car might be tampered with or I might be harassed at night or whatever.
Q At that point you hadn’t really done anything to speak out against the organization; had you?
A That’s right. But that does not mean anything.
Q Were you still fearful?
A I had a low profile. I knew a lot. So it seemed as though there would be every advantage for the church to insure that I never said anything.
Q When this individual called and lied to your parents in an attempt to get your address, that was of great significance to you; wasn’t it?
Q Because then the organization would know where you were and they had used a lie to try to get it from your parents; isn’t that correct?
Q Now, you were questioned by Mr. Harris about whether you ever told anyone about writing a book, about writing a biography of L. Ron Hubbard; do you recall that?
Q And you responded no to a series of questions?
Q Now, in connection with several conversations which you and I have had in the middle of lounges after court in connection with your testimony have you talked about writing a book about your own personal experiences in Scientology?
Q And did that have anything to do with a biography about L. Ron Hubbard?
Q How many people do you know, Miss Sullivan, that have left the Church of Scientology that are talking about writing books about their experiences?
A I have heard of about 10 or 20.
Q Now, you testified that you considered yourself a target because of your connection to RRF or your connection to MCCS and your knowledge of RRF; do you recall that?
MR. HARRIS: That is not what she testified to, Your Honor. It misstates the evidence.
MR. FLYNN: A target for being associated with MSH and MCCS.
Q Do you recall that, Miss Sullivan?
Q Now, you put Mary Sue Hubbard and MCCS together; is that correct?
A Well, yes, in a sense.
Q Why is that?
A Well, there is — the LRH-MSH affair that I knew
of. And they were part of MCCS. They were a big part of MCCS.
Q And those related to control over bank accounts?
MR. LITT: Objection.
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection at this time.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Now, you testified that in the fall of 1981 someone accused you of downgrading L. Ron Hubbard, the late summer or early fall of 1981?
THE COURT; “Downgrading” or “denigrating”?
THE WITNESS: Downgrading and denigrating.
MR. HARRIS: That also was not her testimony. It was her fear, Your Honor, as I recall that someone would.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: At that time were you accused of denigrating or downgrading L. Ron Hubbard?
A At that time I had already been busted. I had been accused of downgrading L. Ron Hubbard by him at earlier times for not using superlative descriptions of him in my written articles. And I had been accused of it by messengers in the past. And I was fearful that if enough superlatives or fiction or legend wasn’t in the biography, that I would be accused of it again.
Q And in the mid-1970’s when Tomkins was going to do a biography, did you have a conversation with Mr. Hubbard about the fact that that biography was not laudatory about Mr. Hubbard?
A In the mid what?
Q In the period 1974 and 1975, in the period of the Tomkins biography did you have a conversation with
L. Ron Hubbard about whether or not that biography or the effort at it was not laudatory enough?
MR. HARRIS: It is a compound question.
THE COURT: The answer is “no.” I’ll let it stand.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: You testified when you were leaving you were fearful of expressing, a few days before you left, to Mr. Armstrong the actual extent of your thoughts because he would be required to write up a report?
MR. HARRIS: That misstates the testimony.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: He could write up a report?
MR. HARRIS: She said she didn’t know where he was coming from, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If you want to direct the witness’ attention to some subject or material, develop it.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: Do you recall your testimony with respect to your concern that Mr. Armstrong would write a report?
Q Were there requirements in the organization for an individual to write a report on such a thing as someone else leaving?
Q What were those requirements?
A That they should notify others.
Q And were husbands and wives required to write up reports on each other with regard to those types of conversations?
MR. HARRIS: Objection. Beyond the scope of cross-examination, Your Honor, or recross-examination.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q BY MR. FLYNN: And when you were in the organization when you were married were you fearful and was your husband fearful that each was writing up reports on the other?
MR. HARRIS: Compound and calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: If you have knowledge, you can answer about your husband; you can answer about your own feelings.
THE WITNESS: Well, my husband wrote up a knowledge report about me which he later showed we copies of that I didn’t know were being written at the time. They were discussions about my ethics and about things I had told him. They were also –
THE COURT: Well, I think we will — you can step down. Miss Sullivan. We are going to recess a little bit early, but I wanted, before we did, to perhaps get an idea, Mr. Flynn, on where you are coming from on this whole subject of MCCS. I am not talking about any offer of proof, I tried to get back to this lawsuit.
As I recall, there were two tapes under seal that were taken, and I assume if the sole purpose of this has to do with whether or not Mr. Armstrong was justified or reasonably in good faith believed that it was necessary to take those in order to defend himself in this action, maybe the plaintiff is willing to stipulate to that. That might be a defense, and that might end the subject if that is the only purpose of it.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I would also like to keep the matter narrowly focused, and if they would stipulate to that and one other item perhaps that would resolve the problem.
The one other problem relates to Mr. Armstrong’s status, which is a significant issue in this case, as to who he was working for, as this witness would testify and as I understand in some detail, the issue regarding inurement to Mr. Hubbard in connection with whether people were working on his projects for which he was receiving the benefit when, in fact, they were being paid by a charitable organization was a sigificant [significant] issue in MCCS.
In fact, there is a case which I have here which dates back to 1959 in which Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard were in litigation with the Internal Revenue
Bureau regarding the precise issue of inurement in connection with getting, among other things, benefits from charitable organizations which resulted in the termination of the tax status of those organizations for a certain period of time and the payment of taxes on income received by the organization.
That same issue is presently being litigated — that was for the tax years ‘56, ‘57 and ‘58, I believe. That same issue is presently being litigated for tax years ‘70, ‘71 and ‘72, and it was being litigated right during the MCCS project.
The issue, therefore, with regard to who someone like Mr. Armstrong worked for was a major part of MCCS.
And for a bulk of the time, because of the ongoing tax case, it was understood by the people in MCCS, including Mr. Wertheimer, as he set forth in his letter, including Miss Sullivan and including Mary Sue Hubbard that Mr. Armstrong was working for L. Ron Hubbard.
Then when an additional problem arose with regard to items such as the minimum wage laws and working for an individual and not being paid the minimum wage, a shift had to take place. That was all being sorted out.
Finally, when they didn’t know what to do and Mr. Armstrong inquired in the summer of 1981, they said well, for now you are CSG, even though he had understood that he he was working for L. Ron Hubbard on this particular project.
Shortly thereafter the people in the Pers Office that had always believed that they were working for L. Ron Hubbard, such as Miss Sullivan, were then placed in a for-profit corporation called “Author’s Services Inc.” in 1981.
MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I’ll object to this. He is disclosing — I mean he is –
THE COURT: I didn’t want to get into all of this, an offer of proof. I just wanted to find out where you are coming from.
MR. HARRIS: If it is to be made, it could be made — that is just the problem, Your Honor. When he is arguing this, he is disclosing it right in open court.
MR. FLYNN: My intent, Your Honor, is to show the court that his status, we feel, is a significant issue
in the case.
Then we come down to the tapes and what is MCCS and whether the testimony about MCCS is admissible in this proceeding.
As Your Honor knows, it was a legal project. So there are exceptions to the attorney-client privilege if the attorney-client privilege obtained, one of which would be if the intent of MCCS was to further a crime or a fraud.
I will simply say that — I have given the Court a copy of an affidavit of Mr. Armstrong which recites a portion of the tapes. Those tapes, in our view, support that exception which would open up the admissibility of at least a part of MCCS with regard to Mr. Armstrong’s status.
Now, if the plaintiff and/or the intervenor were willing to stipulate that Mr. Armstrong’s status was that he believed he was working for L. Ron Hubbard and that the sort of process was doing precisely that, sorting out in a legal context who he was working for and that the personal office essentially ended up in Author’s Services Inc. which is now running Mr. Hubbard’s affairs which was formerly run by the personal office, then I think the whole issue would be obviated.
I am kind of in a Catch-22 situation; in order to prove who he worked for, I believe I have to make a sufficient showing to show that these issues are what was being sorted out in the MCCS Mission at the time.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, it seems to me that you have given the Plaintiffs some idea of what kind of a stipulation you would be interested in that might obviate getting
involved in this further process. And so maybe by Tuesday Plaintiffs can let you know whether you can enter into such a stipulation.
MR. HARRIS: I can tell you on behalf of the Church of Scientology of California that I would not enter such a stipulation. What he believed, I can’t stipulate to. Because his belief, I think, Your Honor has to determine with all the evidence.
Insofar as the disclosure of MCCS items, I wouldn’t — I can’t agree that the stipulation would in any way go to what is in the MCCS items — I can’t say that. But I won’t stipulate to that.
I mean I know it would make Your Honor’s job easier, but it would make mine a whole lot harder although I am not sure. I mean, even if he were working for L. Ron Hubbard personally, it might not make a difference for the case. I am just not sure about that. I will have to take a look at that over the weekend, but I think not.
MR. FLYNN: I might add one more thing.
THE COURT: Of course, I don’t know on the evidence before me it is almost L. Ron Hubbard is the alter ego of the Church of Scientology of California and they are one and the same. In substance, they ignore it when it is to their advantage to ignore it.
MR. HARRIS: We will, of course, have evidence on that issue as well.
MR. FLYNN: I might suggest one more thing. I realize this is a very thorny problem.
Over the weekend let me see if I can narrow our focus and obviate as many problems as I can with respect to it and possibly then all –
THE COURT: I don’t mind problems, that is what I am here to do.
I can see as lot of preliminary questions and problems that can arise. It seems to me that the witness could certainly testify to a lot of things that she observed and saw that were, for example, documents that had an existence apart and separate from any relationship that might have had to do with any attorney-client communication. The things which there is case law to the effect that items which if
known about could be discovered legally. The fact that they might be later transmitted to an attorney or be submitted to an attorney through other means doesn’t mean that they are privileged, so it seems to me that there could well be a number of things which the witness could testify to in that regard based upon the declaration that has been submitted here.
Furthermore, while I have read some of these matters that have been submitted, it does appear that the attorneys undoubtedly were attempting to come up with an answer which, if genuinely followed through, may have solved their problem. If the plaintiff is in a position to testify that notwithstanding what might have been told to the attorneys that the organization had no honest, genuine intention of abiding by the legal strictures that would established by the lawyers, it seems to me that all of that would be then be admissible because it would be part of a perpetration of a fraud on creditors, on the Federal government, State government and so forth.
But I am just saying that is some of the thoughts that I have and I haven’t ruled upon anything because nothing has been presented to me yet.
MR. LITT: Your Honor, if I may, a couple of points. On the last point, if the Court ends up having to deal with that, I would simply raise two things in relationship to that: The first is — and this also goes to how Mr. Flynn presents the argument.
We have cited to the Court cases. And I think the law is clear that you cannot use privileged information to try to pierce the privilege.
THE COURT: The point is obviously but that would be in the context of this case. I couldn’t look at the tapes that are under seal and conclude therefore that the privilege does not exist; on the other hand, there would be no reason why evidence cannot be provided by Laurel Sullivan or other witnesses which would create the situation. So I –
MR. LITT: I understand that.
And if the Court were to choose that option, it would appear to me that the Court would have to hold an independent evidentiary hearing where evidence was presented on both sides and make a finding as to what the actual situation was.
What I am raising is I have some concern that because Miss Sullivan says that doesn’t make it so. There must be a preliminary fact determination as to whether that is in fact the case, if it comes to that.
THE COURT: Well, maybe that is something we’ll have to deal with. I think I would be inclined to agree that, certainly, there are two sides to an issue of such fundamental importance as that. Both sides should be heard before any
determination is made.
MR. LITT: The other thing, Your Honor, is that Mr. Flynn’s own characterization, it seems to me, shows that this issue is not in question.
Mr. Flynn’s contention is that because of whatever concerns there was a view in some people’s minds that something should happen that might have a retroactive effect –
THE COURT: He has raised two points: One is the reason for taking the two tapes from Mr. Garrison and turning them over to his lawyers; at least he said that his client relied upon what was there as a basis for his good faith, honest, reasonable belief that they were evidence in support of his defense to his cases. That is why he turned them over.
MR. HARRIS: That is a different thing. I might be willing to stipulate to that.
MR. LITT: I think we could stipulate there is no damages. Neither side has sought to introduce any of those documents. There are no damages sought.
THE COURT: I wonder why we have been here for three weeks if we are not seeking damages.
MR. LITT: I am talking about that document. The tapes because they are privileged and because in order to seek damages for their return, you would have to disclose there, there is no effort to seek damages for those.
I think Mr. Harris would agree with that.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, I agree with that. Not on the tapes. That is for sure.
MR. LITT: So, in that respect, it seems clear that there is not a problem and, of course, if they are privileged, regardless of those reasons, we are entitled to their return so that seems to me as a possible means to deal with that portion of the issue that Mr. Flynn raises. I don’t know if it meets what he thinks is acceptable or not.
But it seems to me that it can resolve that part of the problem and then we are left with this employment question, and while we may have to get into it, it does seem to me that one thing is that since that there is no evidence that, in fact, whatever was thought about, there is no evidence other than people’s beliefs in terms of the actual evidence of who actually employed Mr. Armstrong during the period of time and who paid him, and in a corporate sense what entities he was part of; that the MCCS shed no light on that in any event because all that relates to is ideas, plans and intentions, discussions without any evidence, because none of these people can introduce evidence that any of these were, in fact, implemented and furthermore
with respect to his position, that is not the case. The fact is that Mr. Vorm has testified that he holds these documents for the Church of Spiritual Technology, not Author’s Services.
THE COURT: The Church of Spiritual Technology?
MR. LITT: Yes.
MR. FLYNN: Taking his orders from Lyman Spurlock, who we are going to put on the witness stand, who works for Author Services, Incorporated.
THE COURT: I guess you can have as many corporations as you have got paper to write on, I suppose.
MR. LITT: My point being, Your Honor, that it does seem to me that it is possible to avoid this problem in another sense which is the MCCS is not relevant to whether he was employed because MCCS has to do with future plans based on assessment of the problems, not facts of what occurred and without evidence that the things that certain people perhaps thought should occur or would occur actually occurred with respect to Mr. Armstrong, that it is essentially irrelevant because it is speculative as to what might happen or advice that people were giving about how to solve certain problems. Where there is no evidence that at least in certain respects that problem was solved in that particular way, and it is not that it was solved improperly, but most problems can be solved in a variety of fashions.
And what is really being talked about here is to introduce evidence of what was being thought about by some people who ultimately were not the people who made these determinations; and that, in fact, these things didn’t occur, in which case, why are they relevant in any event to the question of who actually employed Mr. Armstrong? Because if they didn’t happen it doesn’t matter if some people thought they should happen.
MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, Mr. Armstrong went from OTC to the Friends of Norton Karno to the Scottish Highlands Quietude Club to Mrs. Schneider’s Uncle to a variety of corporations when he believed he was working on a project for L. Ron Hubbard. He was trying to find out who he was working for; even wrote that letter to Mrs. Sullivan saying, “Who do I work for now? with the termination of MCCS, now what is the shore story?”
She said, “For now it is CSC.”
And she said, “Well, now, it is CSC, but we will cross other bridges when we come to it.”
Well the bridge that was crossed not four months later was they created Author Services Incorporated and these people went to Author Services Incorporated, a separate corporation, to manage Mr. Hubbard’s affairs.
In addition to that, if they stipulate that there is no damage arising from the tape recordings, then I submit if Your Honor hears the tape recordings and then reviews the bulk of the documents, even the letters of Mary Sue Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard which have not been brought out and of which six inches of them relate to the control of the organization by L. Ron Hubbard through his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, and you weigh the contents of those types of letters, for example, against the contents of the tape recording where it is agreed by all these highest officials of the organizations with their lawyers present basically the fact that there is no corporate –
MR. LITT: Objection, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Objection, Your Honor.
He is reading from a transcript of the tape.
THE COURT: Let’s not get into that.
MR. FLYNN: If you take what the thrust of the document is, one of the fundamental issues, who ran this organization, where the money was going –
THE COURT: As I said before, up to this point it all seems to be the alter ego of Mr. Hubbard. He does what he wants. He tells them to do what he wants; everything is issued in his name; everything is controlled by him. But we haven’t finished the case yet.
MR. FLYNN: If there is no damage in the tape recording, I don’t see how there can be any damage, any exposure from any other document.
MR. LITT: Nobody has said there was no damage from the tape recording.
THE COURT: I think we are tired. It is time to go home.
Tuesday at 9 o’clock.
(At 3:50 p.m., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, May 28, 1984; at 9:00 a.m.)