A more complete copy of this affidavit may be found at Karin Spaink's page. (5/2000)
Other copies of this transcript may be found by running this search on AltaVista.
(court-stamped page numbers in (parenthesis)) (occassional descriptions of drawings in ( brackets also)) STEVEN FISHMAN filed Dismas House, Room 324 clerck US District Court 141 N.W. 1st Avenue APR - 9 1993 Dania, Florida 33004 central district of california Defendent Pro Se GRAHAM E. BERRY JUDITH M> TISHKOFF LEWIS, D'AMATO,BRISBOIS & BISGAARD 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90012 Attorneys for the Defendant, UWE GEERTZ, Ph.D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ) CASE NO. 91-6426 HLH (Tx) INTERNATIONAL ) ) DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. Plaintiff, ) FISHMAN FILED IN SUPPORT OF ) DEFENDANTS STEVEN FISHMAN AND vs. ) UWE GEERTZ'S JOINT NOTICE OF ) MOTION AND MOTIONS TO (1) STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ, ) RECONSIDER THE COURT'S MARCH _______________________________) 22, 1993 CHANGE OF VENUE ORDER; AND (3) FOR EXCERCISE OF THE COURT'S INHERENT EQUITABLE POWERS CONNECTION WITH THE COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 CHANGE OF VENUE. Date: May 3, 1993 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 7 Discovery Cut-off: July 7, 1993 Pretrial Conf.: August 6, 1993, 1:30 p.m. Trial Date: Sept., 1993 1 DECLARATION OF STEVEN FISHMAN I, Steven Fishamn, declare as follows: 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, unless stated on information and belief, and if called upon to testify to those facts I could and would competently do so. 2. I am a Defendant in the case of Church of Scientology v. Steven Fishman and Uwe W. Geertz. I am currently serving a five year sentence for mail fraud and I am under the direct custody of the Bureau of Prisons. I am currently housed in Dismas House, a "half-way haouse" run by the Bureau of Prisons, and under the direct supervision of the Community Corrections Manager of the Southern District of Florida. My release date from incarceratyion is June 28, 1993. 3. I am prohibited from leaving the Southern District of Florida during my incarceration. After my period of incarceration, I will be under the supervision of the United States Parole Commission, from June 29, 1993 until November 28, 1993, and I am prohibited from leaving the Southern District of Florida. After my period of Parole, I will be under the supervision of the United -3- (0017) States Probation Office, from November 29, 1993 until November 28, 1995, and I am prohibited from leaving the Southern District of Florida, without permission of the United States Probation Office or as ordered by the Court. 4. Due to the period of incarceration, parole and supervised release, it is very difficult if not impossible for me to conduct discovery and/or prepare for trial which is tentatively scheduled to occur in the summer of 1993. The trial is scheduled to take place in the Central istrict of California. 5. This very Court in this very action declared me indigent -pursuant to a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis signed by the honorable Judge Harry L. Hupp on May 28, 1992. 6. My financial condition is still indigent. I am employed as a receptionist and data entry clerk at the wage of $ 5.00 per hour. My gross pay is $ 200.00 per week, as I work a forty hour week. My net pay after deductions is $ 164.00 per week. Out of that check I pay $ 50.00 In subsistence payments to the Dismas House, and I make child support payments of $ 41.00 per week to my ex-wife, Jaime Lee Nureyev, in order to help support my two minor children. I further make a monthly non-committed fine payment of $ 25.00 to the Debt Collection Unit of the 4 (0018) Northern District of California and I contribute $ 20.00 per week to the support of My father, Jack Fishman, who is also destitute and has been adjudicated bankrupt by the Southern District of Florida, and is living only on his social security chock. I wish the Court to know that I am indigent and destitute and besides not being able to afford the cost of bringing witnesses to testify at trial in the Central District of Cdlifornia I cannot afford even a plane ticket or money for a hotel room to come out there for the trial myself. 7. I cannot afford nor have I been able to afford to conduct discovery in this case, nor to issue subpoenas, hire court reporters etc., in the Central District of California, a jurisdiction which is convenient for the Plaintiff but not for myself as a Defendant in this case. 8. Although my ability to conduct discovery in either jurisdiction is impossible due to my financial circumstances I ask the Court to recognize my right to attend My own trial as the Defendant, which would be impossible in California unless my traveling and hotel expenses were paid for by the Plaintiff or my co-Defendant, and I do not wish to be a burden upon either of them. If the case were transferred to the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. 1404(m), I would be able to attend my trial as the Defendant in this case since no travel or 5 (0019) hotel expenses are involved. 90 1 do not expect my financial situation to change in the foreseeable future. I also still personally owe in excess of $ 10,000 in credit card debt, some of which I used to purchase books and tapes from bridge Publications Inc., the publishing house of the Church of Scientology, while I was still brainwashed and under the mind control of the Scientology cult. 10. I have been ordered by Counselor Roxana Boyco and Director Tammy Jodway of Dismas House, as well as Mr. Conrad Lopez of the Bureau of Prisons to begin My required Mental Health Aftercare at the Henderson Clinic South, a psychiatric out-patient treatment center in Hollywood, Florida. My treatment begins on March 9, 1993, and may require psychotropic medication, according to Ruth Watkins at the clinic. I may not be reemitted by my treating psychiatrist to discontinue treatment during the period of time required for my trial appearance in California, even if the Court were to order the Bureau of Prisons to allow me to appear in California, and even if any expenses were to be Paid for by either the Plaintiff or Defendant Geertz, which is not likely-or customary. I will need to call Margery Wakefield as a witness. Margery Wakefield is a Florida resident. As an 6 (0020) ex-member of Scientology, and As a victim of abuse while a member of the cult, she will be called upon to testify as -to the illegal and criminal practices Of the Church of scientology, as well as information regarding the church's -policies on suicides, murder and the Church policy known as "changing history". I cannot afford to bring Margery Wakefield as a witness to California. Margery wakefield told me that she is also indigent and destitute but has Indicated that she would appear as a witness if the case ,were brought to trial in the Southern District of Florida. She is a key witness in my defense. 12. Dr. Ron Johnson is a doctor of veterinary medicine and a resident of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I wish to be able to call him to trial in order to testify regarding my membership in the Church of Scientology in the year 1981, a fact strongly disputed by the Church in their attempt to cover up their involvement in the crimes for which I am charged in the criminal case. I cannot afford to bring this witness to California in order to testify. 13. Dr. Ron Neuhring is a psychologist from Miami, Florida. He was my Fishman's treating psychologist when I was first arrested at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a Federal prison facility. Dr. Neuhring will be called to testify regarding my mental state at the time of my arrest, as well as statements which I made to him regarding my 7 (0021) involvement with the Church of Scientology. I cannot afford to bring this witness to California in order to testify. 14. Special Agent Angelo Troncoso of the Internal Revenue Service 'is a resident of the Tampa, Florida area. I will call him to testify to his knowledge of the criminal investigation being conducted by the internal Revenue Service into the Church of Scientology, and to the extent of knowledge and details supplied to him by myself, establishing to the Court his understanding of my familiarity with upper-level Church management decisions and business. I cannot afford to bring this witness to California in order to testify. 15. Special Agent Terry R. Kroggel is a Certified public Accountant with the Internal Revenue Service and a resident of the St. Petersburg, Florida area. I will call him to testify to my knowledge of the civil investigation being conducted by the Internal Revenue Service into the Church of Scientology, and to the extent of familiarity with details supplied to him by myself, establishing my the his understanding of my knowledge of upper-level Church management decisions and business. I cannot afford to bring this witness to California in order to testify. 16. Detective Dennis Angelo is an investigator with 8 (0022) the Clearwater Police Department, and is a resident of the Clearwater, Florida area. I will call him to testify to his Knowledge of the civil investigation being conducted by the Clearwater Police Department into the Church of Scientology, and to the extent of familiarity with details supplied to him by myself, establishing my knowledge of upper-level Church management decisions and business. I cannot afford to bring this witness to California in order to testify. 17. Dr. Enyin Aksu is a psychiatrist who is a resident of Broward County Florida. Dr. Aksu was my treating physician at the time when I was, an in-patient at the Hollywood pavilion psychiatric facility in Hollywood, Florida, from February 13, 1989 until march 20, 1989. Dr. Aksu will be called to testify regarding my mental state at the time of my involuntary commitment in the mental hospital, as well as statements made to him by myself Fishman regarding my involvement with this Church of Scientology. I cannot afford to bring this witness to California in order to testify. 18. I will also need to call certain hostile witnesses who are staff members of the Church of Scientology, including but not limited to Mr. Frank Thompson, Mr. Ray Jourdain, Mr. Humberto Fontana, Ms. Beverly Flahan, Mr. Luis Gonzales, Mr. Charles Fox, Mr. 9 (0023) Mark Witt, Mr. Michael Hambrick, Mr. Peter Letterese, Mrs. Barbara Fawcett Letterese, Ms. Denise Franklin Monco Mancha Ms. Fran Hardy Andrews, Ms. Barbara Koster, Ms,. Leona Littler Grimm, Ms. Celia Alvarez, Mr. Tom Staley, Ma. Karen Staley, Ms, Shirley Hambrick, Ms. Leah Abady, Ms. Colette Atzel, Mr. Jamie Gurlaccio, Mr. Bob Levy, Mr. Doug Carr, Mr. Roberto Naya, Ms. Nancy Witkowski, Mr. Paul Dibble, Ms. Linda Miller, Ms. Vicki Kirkland, Mr. Roggie Monce, and others who are residents of either Dade or Broward County, Florida. These witnesses will be called upon to testify regarding the physical abuse and hypnosis performed upon myself, AS well as Church policies regarding these practices. Some will be asked to testify regarding the Church policy regarding suicide and murder, as well as specific orders directing me to assassinate Dr. Geertz and to have me Defendant commit suicide under the auspices of an "End of Cycle" order. others will be asked to testify regarding the Church's involvement and direction in ordering me to commit securities class action fraud in a Church operation known an Operation Acting Classes, for which I was arrested and plead guilty in an Alford Plea (of Innocent but responsible for the acts alleged), and other criminal acts which I was directed to commit on behalf of the cult, including the Ethics Bait Project and Bingoing. I cannot afford to bring any of these or other similarly situated witnesses to California for the trial, as they are nearly all residents of the Southern District of Florida, 10 (0024) with the exception of Denise Franklin Monce Macha, who may be residing in Clearwater, Florida to the best of my recollection. 19. I will also need to call Mrs. Dorli Geertz to testify Regarding psychological tests which she administered on me over the Years between 1979-1990 which will establish my deteriorating state of mind during the time I was a devotee to and member of the Scientology cult. I cannot afford to bring this witness to California in order to testify. 20. Dr. Daniel M. Lipshutz. M.D. is a resident of Singer Island, Florida, and is my uncle. He is a retired psychiatrist formerly licensed to practice psychiatry in New York. He has been familiar with my psychiatric history during my entire lifetime arid will be called to testify about how the Scientology cult had adversely affected my thinking, belief system and my mental condition. I cannot afford to bring this witness to California in order to testify. 21. Mr. Samuel J. Kern, is a resident of Plantation, Florida, and is also my uncle. He is a retired trial attorney from Brooklyn New York, and although cannot represent me an counsel in this case because he is not admitted to the bar in Florida, he will assist me and act 11 (0025) as my personal representative if the trial were conducted in Florida. I cannot afford to bring my uncle to California in order for him to assist me in the preparation of my defense as my personal representative. 22. Consequently, and in the interest of justice, I plead with the Court to transfer the venue to the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1404(a). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the above is true and correct to the best of my recollection and understanding. Executed March 1, 1993 at Dania, Florida. (signed steven fishman) Dated: march 1 1993 Defendant Pro Se Register Number 17280-004 Dismas House Room 324 141 N. W. 1st Avenue Dania, Florida 33004 12 (0026) Exhibit A (title page no number just Exhibit A) PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF BROWARD ) ) ____________________) On march 1, 1993, 1 served the following documents described as MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); DECLARATION OF STEVEN FISHMAN, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR COURT TO QUASH DEPOSITION OF CINDY L. BUSCH, LAW REGISTRAR, PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.26(4) (c) ; DECLARATION OF STEVEN FISHMAN, and MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR COURT TO DESIGNATE TIME OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FISHMAN PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 26 (4) (c) ; DECLARATION OF STEVEN FISHMAN on the following parties in this action byplacing a true copy thereof in sealed envelope and forwarding them to the parties as follows and in the following manner: By First Class Mail: Timothy Bowles or Robert A. Wiener Bowles & Moxon 6255 Sunset Boulevard suite 1 2000 Hollywoode California 90028 By Federal Express: Judith Tishkoff or Graham Berry Lewis;iD'Amatot brisbois sgaard 221 North Figueroa Street Suite 1 1200 Los Angeles, California 90012 Dated; March 1, 1993 (signed Steven Fishman) STEVEN FISHMAN, Defendant Pro Se Dismas House, Room 324 141 N. W. 1st Avenue Dania, Florida 33004 (0027) Exhibit B (title page -no number just 'exhibit B' nia. Dismas House, Room 324 141 N. W. 1st Avenue Dania, Florida 33004 (0027) Exhibit B (title page -no number just 'exhibit B' ON CONTROL AND LYING ____________________ THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them. When you find an individual is lying to you, you know that the individual is trying to control you. One way or another this individual is trying to control you. That is the mechanism of control. This individual is lying to you because he is trying to control you - because if they give you enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so that they can control you. Conversely, if you see an impulse on the part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human being is lying to you. Not "is going to", but "is" lying to you. [last sentence is underlined in original] Check these facts, you will find they are always true. That person who is trying to control you is lying to you. He's got to tell you lies in order to continue control, because the second you start telling anybody close to the truth, you start releasing him and he gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you cant control somebody without telling them a bunch of lies. You will find that very often Command has this as its greatest weakness. It will try to control instead of leading. The next thing you know, it is lying to the [illegible]. Lie, lie, lie, and it gets worse and worse, and all of a sudden the thing blows up. Well, religion has done this. [Following sentence is underlined] Organised religion tries to control, so therefore must be lying. [end underline] After a while it figures out (even itself) that it is lying, and then it starts down tone scale further and further, and all of a sudden people get down along this spring-like bottom (heresy) and say, "Are we going into apathy and die, or are we going to revolt?" and they revolt, because you can only lie to people so long. Unfortunately there is always a new cycle of lying. L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88 (0029) Letter of Authenticiyy Exhibit C (no number just title page exhibit C) 26 January 1982 WITNESS PREPARATION:HATTING THE WITNESS Preparation of an individual witness to give evidence for us at trial can be broken into three steps: 1. The basic witness hat, which is unvarying from one witness to the next; 2. Full debriefing and resulting understanding of prospective testimony;, and 3. Finalization of the testimony with the lawyer. Steps 1 and 2 would be handled by the GO terminal assisting the lawyer for that portion of the case, and step 3 would be done by the GO terminal and the lawyer. There is basic data about being a witness which should be given to every witness, to give them reality on what It will be like, answer their questions. etc. Following are the areas which we would cover (for the IRS case) as basic witness hatting. 1. It is helpful to describe to the person the physical space 'of the courtroom (and, If possible, to have the person visit the actual courtroom where he will be giving his evidence). Tell (or show) the witness where he will sit; where the judge, the clerk, and the reporter each sit; and what roles they play. , Tell (or show) him where counsel and where the audience will be seated. The witness may want to do a little reach and withdraw on the space of the courtroom, and this can usually be accomplished during a recess. The witness should be encouraged to 'take control of the courtroom. -1- (0031) 2. The statistic for a witness Is something like 'length of time on the Stand' (keeping In mind the purpose of each witness to deliver certain evidence comfortably, persuasively and honestly so the judge can duplicate and agree with it). A witness will always experience discomfort. anxiety, etc., and will have (at first) a strong desire to get It over with." The danger here Is that his/her testimony will become condensed or abbreviated to as to get off the stand as quickly as possible. The witness should be warned against this phenomenon. We want a witness to understand that (under ordinary circumstances) they will have done better to stay on a long time, and they should get their TRO In and be there comfortably for as long as It takes. After a time, they Invariably loosen up and actually begin to enjoy the experience such that they become willing to stay on and on. A witness who makes only a brief appearance leaves little or no Impression on the judge. A trial judge or a juror must, as part of his hat, determine what degree of credibility each witness possesses, and accordingly what relative weight to give to that witness' evidence. A judge or juror does this by observation of the witness' demeanor as much as by the testimony given. A witness who is willing to be there, and answer in as much detail as necessary (not chopping his evidence short out of desire to "blow" from the stand), gives the judge or juror more time to observe, and get to know that witness;. it is a matter of increasing ARC between witness and Judqe or juror which results In the judge retaining the data better and also according It more weight as he will have sussed out that witness for believability. 3. The witness should know that he may be questioned by the judge directly on some point of Interest or at a lull In the examination being done by counsel. If that occurs, the witness should give his answer directly to the judge, respectfully and with high ARC and attention to fully and actually answering the question asked. -2- (0032) Also there are times, though they Should be rare and sparsely used, When the Witness may want to address himself to the judge, seeking his advice or aid. For example, If witness feels he simply cannot answer a Cross-exam question both a yes or no, but must make an accompanying explanation, he may ask the judge for leave to explain or qualify his answer. 'This comm line can be used to good advantage In a situation where the line of questioning Is probing an area of the witness' religious belief (or where, perhaps, the questions are designed to address or elicit upper level material): The witness can originate that this question is improper as it seeks Information about his personal religious belief Or data that he considers confidential as part of his beliefs, and that he has taken a perpetual vow never to disclose. Address to the judge Is not to be over-used or relied on by the witness to any advantage, but the witness should know that he can have a comm line to the judge, to appeal for protection. 4. Related to point 2 above, a witness should also be told that his testimony should be calm and reasonable. Although it Is part of his purpose to persuade the judge, this is done by creating credibility, not by acting as an advocate. Advocacy is the lawyers job, and the representations of a lawyer are not evidence; the statements of a witness under oath are. Emotional reactions by the witness, argument with a cross-examining attorney, or attempts to "handle" an antagonistic cross-exam by tone scale handling are not OK. A PR-trained witness may get Into handing his Interrogator, Instinctively, and this is to be warned against. One of the judge's chief tools for according weight or credibility to a witness and his testimony is the presence or absence of bias: an argumentative witness, or one-who tries to persuade, is seen as biased, and his testimony is given less weight. . The judge's thinking Is along the line that this witness has something at stake (money, status, his job, having to be right, etc.), and would thus be willing to say almost anything in defense of his position. Credibility comes about by being honest, willing to answer/explain, and natural. (The useful -3- (0033) exception to this is "righteous Indignation' of a witness questioned about his personal beliefs, as discussed above). 5. The prospective witness rust be instructed on the actual comm cycle of giving testimony. If the person is our witness, then direct exam will be conducted by our lawyer, followed by cross-exam done by the opposition lawyer. Then comes a redirect exam, done again by our lawyer (followed possibly by a short recross-exam). During direct exam our witness will be asked the questions which have more or less been prepared In advance by ourselves (the witness, the GO terminal responsible, and the lawyer). None of these questions should come as a surprise, though they may be taken up in relatively random order. In response to these questions, we are usually looking for relatively detailed answers, with specific points to be made. These answers may be fairly lengthy, depending on what the court will allow. Some judges may allow 'narrative' type answers, where others may demand that the questioning attorney stick to a strict question-and-answer format. 6.. During cross-examination (conducted by the opposition lawyer, for the purpose of unmocking the credibility and consistency of the witness), the witness should NEVER VOLUNTEER ANTHING. The exact question asked should be answered, no more, no less. Q: "When did you read that policy letter? A: "On the 16th May as best I can recall." NOT A: "I recall It was the 16th May as I had just returned that morning from a mission." (The latter would give the lawyer a string to pull--what mission? Where? Why? Etc.) Part of answering only the exact question asked Is bearing and responding to only the words used; the tone level of the question is to be Ignored. Most cross-exam Is conducted at the tone of covert hostility, and this Is to be taken into consideration. A clever cross-examiner can make any statement sound suspicious and any question -4- (0034) sound accusatory; but our witness, expecting this and listening only to the words and not the tone, will not take the bait. A cross-examination proceeds by the opposing attorney asking questions designed to (1) expose known or recognized out-points In the direct testimony of our witness, and (2) lead our witness to volunteer other data which will become a 'string' to be pulled. A good cross-examiner will pull each and every string In the hope that he will find the Sherman tank which destroys that witness' credibility. A good witness who can answer the questions exactly without volunteering data or being drawn into argument or acting evasive, will emerge unscathed. The cross-examining attorney may simply give up after a few failed lines of questioning. But the witness must be willing to sit it out comfortably: we have seen witnesses who gave one day of direct testimony and then had to sit through four or five days of cross-exam (and they came out of it quite keyed out and ready to go on for as long as it took:) but this is the exception and not the rule. 7. By sticking to short, directly responsive answers (basically: yes, no, I don't know, I don't remember), the witness will Invariably find that some of these answers felt incomplete, or sounded unfavorable: they would like to have explained the answer a bit,, remedying the sense of " omitted" data with "all related facts known." But cross-exam is not the time to correct our own outpoints: this is handled on redirect exam. Our lawyer will have listened carefully to all the cross-exam testimony, and noted down the points which sounded Incomplete or unfavorable. These will each be cleaned up or rehabbed on redirect, so that any negative effect Is minimized. Also there Is often a short recess between cross-exam and redirect exam, so the witness can tell the lawyer any points which he feels should be cleaned up. Knowing this in advance, the witness can be willing to have his needle "dirtied" on cross-exam and "cleaned" on re-direct. -5- (0035) 8. When a question is asked of the witness, he should see if there is an objection forthcoming from the opposite attorney. This Is especially true during cross-examination where our attorney will be trying to protect our witness from Improper lines of questioning. This does not mean that the witness pauses and looks at our attorney.. An obvious comm lag can look like the witness has to "think up an answer" and this hurts his credibility. If there Is an objection made, It occurs by the attorney standing up and stating: "Objection--that question Is Improper because of blah blah blah." There may be argument back and forth on this by the attorneys for both sides, then the judge will rule. The objection will either be sustained by the court (i.e., the judge agrees that the question is improper, and the witness Is to ignore the question) or overruled (i.e., the objection does not stand, and the witness must now answer.) If the witness is not paying attention, and simply hurriedly answers the question, he has cut off our lawyer from making any meaningful objection. If the witness answers the question while an objection is being interposed, the court reporter may ignore the objection and record the answer given by the witness or the judge may say, "Well, the answer's in. Neither of these situations is optimum, so the witness should see If there are objections. If the witness sees the attorney start to rise, he should shut up; otherwise, he should continue measured comm. 9. A small point, perhaps, but the witness should be told that he cannot expect to be acknowledged while giving testimony. The comm cycle is question-answer, next question-next answer, etc. There Is no ack in this comm cycle, and in fact this is sometimes used as a tool by the cross-examiner. He may ask a question, then turn and walk away from the witness, seemingly ignoring him even after completion of his answer. An uninformed witness might feel uncomfortable, unacknowledged, and feel compelled to answer further, to fill the silence, to ltsa. That Is what the cross-examiner wants. for the witness to run on and on, volunteering -6- (0036) data, giving up strings to pull, and. looking uneasy to the judge. So watch out for this phenomenon too. 20. The witness is sworn to tell the truth, And he must, of course, do no. The scope of his testimony and the patter for certain areas will be worked out with counsel, so that there can be minimum risk to our case and to the witness In sensitive areas. If a witness Is privy to "too much" sensitive or possibly unfavorable data, he may well have been eliminated from our witness list early on. Perjury, i.e., lying under oath, is a crime (and, as we know, Is usually self destructive for the individual); we want our witnesses to tell the truth. Impeachment is a term which just means that this witness is, in the judge's eyes, unworthy of belief (due to his demeanor, numerous or major Inconsistencies in the testimony, or bias). Both these terms (perjury and impeachment) should be gone over with our witnesses so it is no mystery or MU if they come up in court. We had one witness who, hearing the opposition announce that they would try to impeach her, clammed up on the stand, thinking she would be taken off to jail. (During a recess we cleaned up the MU and she then did fine.) 11. Our witness should be Informed that it Is OK that they have talked with the lawyer (and hit assistants--the GO staff) prior to testifyi ng. No lawyer would ever put on a witness he had not worked with, and for a witness to deny this destroys his credibility immediately. It Is a Common tactic for the cross-examining lawyer to ask the witness if he had discussed his testimony with the Church's lawyer; If our witness doesn't know about this, he will either manifest a "missed withhold of nothing" (and be enturbulated in his testimony), or worse yet, lie about it (thus losing all credibility before the judge). -7- (0037) 12. The witness should not look at the lawyer for our side or the GO terminal or the audience when being cross-examined. He should look at the cross-examiner, unless our attorney takes an objection. If the witness looks continuously at our lawyer, the judge or juror will think that the witness is seeking guidance from the lawyer and this affects credibility. This Is not OK. Rather, the witness should be natural, looking at the person originating the comm. If the above points 1-12 are gone over with each of your witnesses at the outset, they will be much more comfortable, cooperative and successful. They need to know what to expect if they are to help. Answer all their questions, as best you can; some questions the lawyer may have to answer (e.g., If the particular witness needs independent advice about claiming a 5th Amendment,, attorney/client, priest/penitent or other privilege). These points have been taken from notes of witness hatting sessions done with the trial lawyers for the IRS case; they should be useful In the circumstances of most US trial work. That's it. (0038) Exhibit D (Title page no number) (rubber stamped) CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT Privledged Materials 27.January 1982 Addendum to Hat Writeups re (1) Hatting the Witness and (2) Preparing the Witness HATTING A few additional points should be included in the description of how to hat a person on what it is to be a witness in a Scientology case. These are: 1. The witness must have a good feel for what particles, comm lines, command lines, writings, activities etc., in a Scientology org are "ecclesiastical" and those that are "secular/corporate/legal." In this regard, the potential witness should definitely read Bob Harris' short exposition on the area called "Understanding Corporate Integrity II" and any disagreements or questions should be handled right away. He must have a flexible understanding of what things are corporate/legal matters and what are not. This is an area that will have to be gone over very carefully in preparing any witness for cross-exam, for it is a very fertile area for such. The witness must understand the hierarchical nature of the Church of Scientology and the nature of the relationships among Scientology terminals and organizations. You might want to show him a chart to help tin understand the area. Such a chart was put into evidence in the 70-72 case (but may not be of use to everyone as It .depicts relationships only during that period. Watch out, however, as -the witness' understanding and ability to answer questions about this Area must still and always be realistic, practical, and from the reality and point of view of that individual: In other words, a person who was the Mimeo operator at the Hawaii org for six year s will have a general understanding that comes from being a staff member and a Scientologist, but his 'personal knowledge' and experience will be vastly different from that of a person who held high exec positions (e.g., Commodore's Staff -Aides or WW terminals) . You don't want your witness to appear to have (0040) been "briefed," you want him to have his own understanding and personal knowledge--OR LACK OF IT. You Just want to be sure that he either is Perfectly equipped to handle this area, by virtue of intelligence, training, nature of posts and experience and duplication of the concepts Involved. or you want him to really recognize his limitations In the area so he cannot be led Into testifying about It. (This approach Is really a general rule for all witnesses--It Is patently incredible for a comm runner to tell the court about management activities at Flag, or the compensation of the Founder, e.g.) 2. The witness, while testifying, should always refer to any particle by Its exhibit number: whenever he talks about a tangible particle In front of him, it's not "this" or 'that,' It's always "Exhibit AB," or "the document marked Exhibit 236," etc. Otherwise the transcript of the testimony cannot be understood when read. The transcript, together with the exhibits themselves, are the complete RECORD of the case. It Is what we will have to refer to in part If we are to appeal any case. Without an intelligible record, we cannot prove our case. So this particular bit of admin (marking documents as exhibits by letter or number) was developed to ensure a readable record. The witness should know this so that he can be careful to refer to everything by name or number. 3. Another aspect of understanding the comm cycle of the courtroom and particularly the comm cycle of cross-exam is something I call the "alter-ack." I have seen the cross-examining IRS attorney use this technique continually. He will ask the witness a question, and then appear to not understand the answer given; he will ask further clarifying questions. still seeming to get It all wrong (when he probably understands full well what he Is shooting for with that particular witness). This is of course, very frustrating to the witness: he is not only not receiving any verbal ack from the lawyer, he is also not being duplicated at all. There is an eagerness on the part of anyone in a comm cycle to achieve duplication, and the witness may want to clarify ,the matter. But watch out. The lawyer, after a series of questions that (0041) make it seem he simply didn't get it, he will say something Iike, "OK, let me understand this--you said Blah Blah Blah"; he will almost restate the witness' words back to him. The witness will then leap to say "Yes!" and get the relief of having been duplicated. Usually, though, the lawyer will have restated the testimony with some sort of cunning alteration in It, some hook in it that is not what the witness would have said had he really thought about It. but if the witness has agreed, then there it is on the record. There was an example of this In the IRS 70-72 case where a witness was being asked a series of dumb questions off of an ASHO ethics order, and the cross-examining attorney was getting it all mixed up, finally restating part of the witness' words and stretching It to the conclusion that "ASHO Is a subsidiary of the Sea Org"--to which our witness said "yes!" Well that is simply untrue, and is even preposterous to anyone who knows the facts (that ASHO was part of the corporation CSC, that the SO has never been a corporate entity, and that there is NO legal relationship between the two--and the term "subsidiary" is wholly a legal term). The witness was dying for an ack and some duplication from the lawyer; what he got was a false duplication ("Oh, I see: ASHO is a subsidiary of the SO") and what we got was a false and/or damaging statement on the record by someone who had no real knowledge of the facts of that area. 4. Generalities vs. specifics. 'Scientologists usually try to avoid dealing in generalities, but there are such things as good generalities. Entheta and suppressive statements from the cross-examining attorney will often take the form of generalities. When confronted by the opposition lawyer by generalities, our witness should ask for specifics. That will often totally cut the lawyer's line of cross-exam (as he Is proceeding by generalities and cannot have or use the specifics). On the other hand, our witness should look for opportunities to use theta generalities; since It's theta, the cross-examiner will not ask for specifics--he's stung and he'll want to Set away from that area. If he does ask for specifics, the witness should supply them, and chances are It will end up hurting the (0042) opposition. Examples: "Every Scientologist knows it would be violative of the creeds and codes to lie about or falsify recorfd," or "Scientology has helped thousands of people to better lives," or "We all know, or any Scientologist who has read and understood the writings of our religion would surely know, that it is a religion and it deals with the Spirit of Man," or "We all know that the aim of Scientology is a civilization without war, crime, Insanity . . . . " An entheta cross-examiner will steer away from that stuff like a vampire from a cross. Just let him have it--with theta!! 5. A witness is to testify to things he knows of his personal knowledge only (except when he's launching a theta generality). He can only testify to what he did or saw; he cannot say what another told him he saw or did. This aspect is very useful to our witnesses on cross-exam: when being questioned about a difficult area, the witness should ask himself, -How do I know that? Did I see It or do It?" and he won't let himself be led into an area where he Is not prepared, or isn't competent to testify or is speculating or making conclusions. Speculation and conclusion are not usually admissible testimony, but a clever cross-examiner can lead the witness off into an area where he assumes what the "right" answer is, but doesn't really have personal knowledge. Example: Q--"What would you do If LRH ordered you to sell the ship?" The correct answer (if your -witness never received such an order)-would NOT be: A-'Well,, gosh. I guess I'd sell the ship..."; the proper answer would be: A--"That never happened." Period. That answer will alert the judge that the question was improper, a request for speculation on the part of the witness.. 6. Along the line of answering the exact question asked, and not getting outside of personal knowledge, the witness should keep in mind on cross-exam this tip: BE LITERAL. If the attorney doesn't know enough to ask the right question, he won't get the answer he's after. Don't help the poor, blundering soul. Sit back and answer the questions literally. 7. It Is favorite trick of government lawyers (at least It sure was In the IRS 70-72 case) to try and Impeach a Scientology witness on the text of PLs. One can only be Impeached by being led to testify contrary to what one has previously written or said. One cannot be Impeached (or shown to be Inconsistent and therefore not cre dible) by being shown a PL (0043) which says something different from what one has testified to (unless, of course, the witness Is the author of the PL and cannot explain satisfactorily the circumstances and Intent of the Issue). The natural reaction of most staff members Is to adjust or modify what he has said so Chat It does conform to policy letters; as a good Scientologist or staff member he doesn't want to be accused of disagreement with or noncompliance to PLs. But the courtroom Is different; no one Is going to get into trouble for saying they didn't follow a particular PL. The ,witness Is better off sticking to his own reality and previous statement than by back-pedalling and modifying his testimony to make it "agree" with a PL he Is confronted with. Don't be intimidated by this tactic! A PL says what it says, and the witness In not responsible for those words, nor for whether or not he applied that particular PL. That may sound heretical at first, but unless the witness understands it and is flexible enough to be "in court" and not "on post" or before an ethics Investigation, he can be led Into very uncomfortable situations (and into making statements that could hurt the Church's case). B. In summary, the above points to teach a witness regarding cross-exam are these: Specifics vs. Generalities Personal Knowledge Be Literal Ecclesiastical vs. Corporate/Legal Don't Fear "lmpeachment" From PLs 9. The witness will also need to have a thorough understanding (once again, commensurate with his post, training and experience, and Intelligence) of the religious nature of Scientology and how this is evident in many interrelated things. For example, we all know that the Tech Volumes are clearly religious In content; but what about the OEC? It contains Issues on how to run an organization, how to get orders Issued and complied with how to write an (0044) Invoice and keep financial records. What's religious about that? well, take a look at It. We have a 1st dynamic tech In auditing; we also have a 3rd dynamic tech of dealing with groups/organizations. On the grade chart there Is also (up the center) an Awareness Scale with awareness characteristics In an ascending gradient. Those same awareness characteristics appear on the org board, assigned to each of the 21 departments. Those 7 divisions of the org board are the 7 volumes of the OEC. What is the org board? It's not a chart of any specific org; it's a description of relationships and a way of handling life. An org may operate off an org board, but it's equally applicable to any size group, ox even to any individual. It's a philosophic machine, not a chart of some commercial company. It Is based quite exactly on Scientology doctrinal concepts. The OEC contains ethics PLs. Are they religious? Certainly. They deal with doctrinal concepts about the being and how to handle him. Even something as mundane and "secular" as writing an invoice can be traced to a basic Scientology concept that "Truth Is the exact time, place, form and event." If one cared to undertake the project, the entirety of LRH policy could be traced to basic concepts of communication, ethics, etc., and into the Axioms and Factors. The key here is that to almost any Scientologist who stops to think about It, the concepts underlying the org board and the OEC are part of our religion. to an outsider they may seem "secular," but they carry a different and deeper meaning for the Scientologist if for no other reason than they are written by LRH, the Founder. Understanding this, the witness cannot be caught off guard or put in an uncomfortable position regarding PLs, org boards, etc. Be can know they are religious in nature and can believe that to be true. It's really part of his belief, it can't be questioned beyond that by a civil court. 10. You will have seen from the points listed in this writeup and the others about hatting and preparing witnesses that what it comes down to Is that EVERY SCIENTOLOGY WITNESS CAN AND WILL BE ASKED ANY AND ALL (0045) KINDS OF QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAM. Don't think that a witness who was only called to Identify a piece of paper from a file can't and won't (if the judge is blind enough to allow this) be cross-examined on org boards, ethics. nature of policy, hierarchical and corporate relationships, etc. To the opposing attorney, all Scientology witnesses are "Fair Game" for all entheta cross-exam. So ALL SCIENTOLOGY WITNESSES HAVE TO BE READY TO HANDLE VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING, regardless of the scope of direct exam. Prepare them accordingly and they will do well and we will win; leave them unprepared in any of these areas an they will get caught in something they can't control. Few Scientology witnesses are naturals at this; some only take a little work, some take days and days. There is no substitute for going over direct and expected or-even unexpected cross-exam with the witness and the lawyer until it Is perfect. The way we handled witness prep was to work up an outline of the points to be covered in direct exam (as described In another hat writeup). We would use this in prepping the witness, and the lawyer would use it in court (the lawyer cannot work from a script, but he needs the BC of an outline or list of areas to cover); the staff person working with the lawyer will then also rely on this outline to ensure the direct exam Is complete. Since every Scientology witness must be prepared for cross on a multitude of areas, we used a checklist as a tool for this. It was rather like assessing a list with a PC. We had an overall list of areas To cover. These are some examples: Corporate vs ecclesiastical Nature of Policy Is DEC Religious? Relationship of Flag to S0 What was 0TC? Ever asked to backdate a document? Flag's relationship to CSC Fair Game (0046) We would run down that list with each witness asking a question or two about the item to see how the witness would handle; perhaps he knew nothing about corporations or OTC or Flag. When we would hit a "hot" area (where the witness appeared to have knowledge and could be questioned but gave an unfavorable answer or otherwise showed he didn't duplicate the implications of cross-exam In that area), we would take it up at length, Practicing cross and hatting the witness on the concepts (e.g. OEC as religious) until he was stable and confident. Once through the entire list (this might take days), that witness was ready to testify and only needed brushup on direct and cross on the day before going on the stand. The purpose Of going over direct and anticipated cross is not to inculcate "Pat" answers or robotism, but to nurture understanding and the ability to handle the cross-exam questions. It goes without saying that you also have to have a lawyer who (1) Is very experienced at trial work, And 2) has a very thorough working knowledge of Scientology. For an experienced lawyer who doesn't really understand Scientology, It will be unreal to him that every witness has to be able to defend himself in every area. He will think that he can effectively use the "Rules" (of Evidence) to prevent improper cross-exam. He could be in for a very unpleasant surprise about that at trial. There is no other animal on the face of the Earth like a Scientology trial and he'll have to know It--or we get another Christo case. That's It. DD/GUS (0047) (continued) EXHIBIT E (title page) EYE'S ONLY TOPSECRET Duke, Here is plan discussed, love Bryce PROJECT QUAKER (Refer to the persons concerned as "the friends") INFORMATION: It may be deemed necessary for all the DC Staff who could be pulled in for questioning 'to suddenly leave. This must be done in such a way So that they never can be accused of "fleeing prosecution". MAJOR TARGET To ensure that all those DC staff concerned are not available for questioning by Scales yet cannot be prosecuted for fleeing. PRIMARY TARGETS 1. US B1 SEUS SEC is responsible for seeing that this project gets speedily done. He is to work closely with DC INFQ US and DG US on this project. 2. The purpose of this project is to protect the Church from Scales actions. 3. D/NAT'L SEC is responsible for the overall planning of those actions and their debugging as necessary. (0049) VITAL TARGETS 1. To ensure that extremely tight security is maintained on this project. 2. To ensure that it gets done speedily. 3. To ensure that each aaction is smoothly worked out so that if evaluation is necessary it will be done without a 'hitch' or mistake. 4. To get finances quickly for this project. 5. To get approval up lines on this project "super fast" so that it can be got done really fast. OPERATING TARGETS 1. Each person to whom this project pertains must immediately get his/her passport. This must be done withing security's framework, meaning the person doesn't mention CofS on the passport. For occupation list Researcher - Public Relations Consultant - etc. or houswife for girls that are married. Production target 2 weeks on this. As assigned. 2. US D1 SEUS SEC is to work up an ED or some such official type proclamation entitled "Sabbatical Leaves." This can be worked out with both D/NAT'L SEC US B1 and DDG US. The above shall basically state that about 10 GO personnel shall be chosen for Sabbatical leaves. This shall start with the Founding Church in Washington DC. This is being done as an award for upstats who consistently produce well, and as an experiment to see what an energetic staff member will do on his own if given 3 to 6 months to travel and study and use scn tech. The rules are (0050) the persons are to: 1) To observe coventry and to not communiacte to a fellow Scngist during this time 2) They are to spend at least some of this time in "retreat" where they are to study their choice of topics. 3) They may travel anywhere in the world to do this. 4) They are to produce at the end of this time a product of use to Scn. 5) They may prepare ahead of time but must start from scratch. This project is called "Ten Talents" after the biblical tale. A quote should be gotten from the bible and put into the ED. US B1 SEUS SEC 3. When the above Ed is completed, it should be sent to all GO DC staff wherever needed. It should appear real to those whom it does not affect. US B1 SEUS SEC 4. US B1 SEUS SEC is to work out the comm the pertinent persons are to give on this to thier relatives or fellow staff. This should be done ahead of time A.S .A.P so that when and if persons have "to go" it will not cause any flaps or PTS situations. "All" should be ready to leave at any time. US B1 SEC 5. US B1 SEC is to ensure that all concerned are ready to leave at any time and that all personal cycles finances, 2D, bills, are completely up to PT and there are no PTPs or stops to immeduate departure. US B1 SEUS SEC. 6. US B1 SEUS SEC is to see AG DC keeps all staff actions written up to PT and that machinery exists, to as best as possible, take over, for each person (including the AG) if this action were needed to be done. This should be worked out in liason with DDG US and (0051) DG US. US B1 SEUS SEC. 7) US B1 SEUS SEC is to immediately do up a confidential CS-W for "set-aside" finances for this project. This is for seven or eight people so the amount should be about $10,000 for starters. Any help needed on this can come from DDG US or DG US. These finances should be given to AG DC to hold in case this actions is implimented. US SEUS SEC B1 8) SEUS SEC B1 is to ensure that the "need to know" is strictly followed on this project. No communicators are to know. The Need to Know is limited to DG US; DDG US; DG I US, DDG I US; US b1 NAT'L SEC, D/NAT'L SEC US; any US DG's that must know are told by DG US; and those DG staff that this concerns. 9) SEUS SEC US B1 is to set up an "early warning" system whereby he or DG US can be notified immediately with any info needed to decide to put 'Failsafe' into action. SEUS SEC US B1 10. A "safehouse" or "safehouse area" should be chosen in an out of the way place, like a ski resort - Dude ranch - farm - Canada - Mexico - etc., This "place" ahould be investigated to ensure it can be used anytime of the year by people just "showing up". This "safe house" is for Sabbaticals to go til it is shown one way or another that they must stay away or come back. SEUS SEC US B1 11. A cover story as to why "they" all went there; without the Church knowing it, must be worked out - as this breaks Sabbatical rules. SEUS SEC US B1 12. Seven safe different places (or as many as needed) must be worked out, where the Sabbaticals will go if they must extend extend their leave. One for each person. SEUS SEC US B1 (0052) 13. Secure comm lines, codes, etc., must be worked out for this "safe house" are in #10, and each different plave in #12 above. This must be done before any Sabbaticals are taken. SEUS SEC US B1 14. The entire DC Org should be alerted in some way to this Sabbatical "cover story". And if needed to be implimented the DC Org should be informed of this "award for" those concerned. (The one, two - 10 Talent analogy should be used). This is to take all the mystery off the line and make it no surprise as well as handling any testimony in court by any staff. SEUS SEC US B1 15. When all of the above actions are worked out to the DG I/DG US's satisfaction, a chock list, code words, etc., are to be worked out so that if deemed necessary the Sabbaticals will go off like clockwork. SEUS SEC US B1 16. Upon completion of targets 1-15, D/NAT'L SEC is to fly to DC on mission. His MO's will be the briefing and any necessary drilling to be done to prepare the "persons" for thier "Sabbaticals" if necessary to impliment. MOs to be written by SEUS SEC US B1 and approved by DG I US and DG US. SEUS SEC US B1. --------------- (0053) (written in bottom corner '#37 (illegible initials) 7/8/77)
Approximately 78 pages of exhibits deleted
STEVEN FISHMAN Dismas House, Room 324 141 N.W. 1st Avenue Dania, Florida 33004 Defendant Pro Se GRAHAM E. BERRY JUDITH M. TISHKOFF LEWIS, DIAMATO, BRISBOIS BISGAARD 221 North Ficlueroa Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 250-1800 Attorneys for Defendant, UWE GEERTZ, Ph.D- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CASE NO. 91-6426 HLH (Tx) INTERNATIONAL, VERIFIED JOINT PRELIMINARY Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION BY DEFENDANTS STEVEN FISHMAN AND UWE GEERTZ FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 ORDER TRANSFERRING THE VENUE OF THIS VS. CASE TO U.S.D.C., SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THAT SAME ORDER PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P. 60 STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ, Date: April 26, 1993 Time: 10:00 a.m. Defendants. Place: Courtroom 7 PRELIMINARY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that defendants Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz will shortly be filing a joint notice of notion and motion for reconsideration of this court's March 22, 1993 order to transfer the venue of this case to the United States (0134) District Court for the Southern District of Florida (pursuant t Local Rule 7.16) and a motion for relief from that same order pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF MOTIONS IS TO AVOID ANY FURTHER INCONVENIENCE OR EXPENSE ON THE COURTS PART WITS REGARD TO THE TRANSFER OF THE FILE PENDING THE FILING AND REARING OF SAID MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND F.R.CIV.P. RULE 60 RELIEF. DEFENDANTS GEERTZ AND PIS EXPECT TO FILE THEIR JOINT MOTION BY MONDAY, APRIL S. 1993. THIS DELAY IS OCCASIONED BY FISHMAN, GEERTZ AND GEERTZ'S COUNSEL GRAHM E. BERRY, BEING ENGAGED FROM MARCH 15 TO APPROXIMATELY MARCH26 IN VARIOUS DEPOSITIONS, FROM DAY TO DAY, IN FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, INCLUDING THE DEPOSITIONS OF DR. GEERTZ AND MR. FISHMAN. This motion will be made, inter alia, on the following grounds: A. AS TO DEFENDANT FISHMAN: Prior to the March 22, 1993 hearing on his motion for change of venue: 1. Mr. Fishman mistakenly thought that IRS officials, (Messrs. Tronscoso and Kroggel) from Tampa, Florida could be compelled to attend the trial of this matter in Miami, Florida and that they could be compelled to testify about ongoing government investigations; 2. Mr. Fishman mistakenly thought that Detective Angelo could be compelled to attend trial in Miami, give testimony about an ongoing police investigation and Mr. Fishman also did not realize that statements by Detective Angelo regarding what Fishman told Detective Angelo about Scientology would be hearsay; 3. With regard to "certain hostile witnesses who are staff (0135) members of the Church of Scientology": (a) Mr. Fishman had not realized that these persons would have to be subpoenaed for depositions, deposed, subpoenaed for trial and paid witness fees, all at an impossible expense to himself; (b) Mr. Fishman had inadvertently forgotten that these witnesses would have been subjected to Scientology's TR-L (training routine-lying) , witness training program ("hatting the witness") and security procedures - all to subvert the truth and so render their testimony futile to the standpoint of Mr Fishman's defense; 4. Mr. Fishman had mistakenly and inadvertently failed to realize that the witnesses he really needs in this case are largely ex-Scientologists -- most of whom are more readily available to testify at trial in Los Angeles; 5. Fishman had mistakenly filed his motion for change of venue after reviewing his file and noticing that defendant Geertz once had filed the same motion, and without knowing that defendant Geertz had subsequently made a determination that the case was better venued in Los Angeles for an assortment of different reasons. 6. Mr. Fishman had mistakenly and inadvertently failed to consider the logistical problems he faced in trying his case in Miami without the support services of Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard being available with regard to the dozens of boxes of documents that will be introduced into evidence in his case. 7. Mr. Fishman had not received Lewis, D'Amato's offers to: (a) provide him with law library, support and office services during the trial in Los Angeles; (b) provide him with accommodations, air transportation and a per them for food costs during trial in Los Angeles and to the (0136) extent plaintiff Scientology failed to do so; (c) pay for the travel and accommodation of Marjorie Wakefield to testify at trial in Los Angeles; (d) take videotaped depositions of so many of the so- called "Scientology hostile witnesses" in Fort Lauderdale and Miami who could be subpoenad for deposition; (e) use their best efforts to find Mr. Fishman a pro bono trial counsel for a trial in Los Angeles; (f) file a motion for summary judgment in Los Angeles, in which Mr. Fishman would join; and (g) transport his over 50 boxes of evidence to Los Angeles and store it for him there pending trial and for six months thereafter. 8. Mr. Fishman had not developed the close working relationship he now has with Graham E. Berry of Lewis D'Amato as a result of the Steven Fishman, Jack Fishman, Jamie Lee Nuryev, Keith Nosetta and Dr. Geertz depositions now being conducted in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 9. Mr. Fishman had not realized that the granting of his motion for change of venue may adversely affect Dr. Geertz's representation by the Lewis D'Amato firm and threaten the informal assistance now being received by him from the Lewis, D'Amato firm including but not limited to receiving copies of all deposition transcripts, discovery propounded and received that he had not hitherto been able to afford himself and that plaintiff had been unwilling to provide him. (0137) B. AS TO DEFENDANT GEERTZ: 10. The defense of defendant Dr. Geertz was "stayed" by his bankruptcy petition until only days before the February 22, 1993 hearing on Fishman's motions. [Scientology has since moved to reconsider the bankruptcy court's exemption of Dr. Geertz from personal liability when it partially lifted the stay.) 11. Mark Augustine was originally responsible for handling this matter on behalf of Lewis, D'Amato. During the pendency of the automatic stay Mark Augustine resigned from the Lewis D'Amato firm and was replaced on this matter by Graham Berry. 12. Only hours after the February 22, 1993 continuance of Fishman's motion, and this court orders that Fishman submit declarations as to the change of venue, Graham Berry was admitted to Cedar Sinai Hospital on an emergency basis. During his hospitalization and recuperation, Mr. Fishman served a new motion for change of venue (by Federal Express and not first class mail on Lewis, D'Amato). Due to either mistake or inadvertence, either Judith Tishkoff, Esq. or her paralegal, failed to ensure that Graham Berry saw the new motion and failed to ensure that the date for new opposition papers was properly calendared. Accordingly, at the March 22, 1993 hearing on Fishman's motion for change of venue, Graham Berry was not aware that Mr. Fishman had filed new motion papers now supported by the declaration the court had previously ordered. 13. Defendant Geertz selected the Lewis, D'Amato law firm as his counsel partly because of its considerable experience in handling Scientology litigation. Over $100,000 has been expended on this defense to date. Transfer of the case to Florida would mean (0138) either: (a) the appointment of replacement counsel at enormous cost and expense and the loss of Lewis, D'Amato's general expertise and acquired knowledge in this case, or (b) the appointment of unnecessarily expensive and duplicative Miami co-counsel. 14. If defendant Geertz's counsel (Lewis, D'Amato) has to try this case in Miami instead of Los Angeles: (a) over 80 boxes of documents in this case will have to be transported and accommodated in Miami; (b) selected boxes of documents from over 200 boxes of documents acquired from other Scientology cases will have to be transported and accommodated in Miami; (c) document handling and logistical support services would have to be specially hired in Miami; (d) The cost of trying this case will vastly exceed the $300,000 already projected because of the travel and accommodation costs that will be incurred by the attorneys and staff in contrast to merely transporting and accommodating Messrs. Fishman, Geertz and certain witnesses in Los Angeles. C. PLAINTIFF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL As to plaintiff Church of Scientology International, it would be argued that it opposed Fishman's motion for change of venue now sought to be set aside. (0139) Dated: March 26, 1993 LEWIS, D'AMATO BRISBOIS & BISGAARD By: (bears signature of) Graham E. Berry Attorneys for Defendant UWE GEERTZ, Ph. Dated: March 26 1993 (bears siganture of) Steven @shman Dated March 26 1993 (bears signature of) Dr Uwe Geertz VERJOINT.MOT (0140) VERIFICATION I, STEVEN FISHMAN, hereby declare and state as follows: I have read the foregoing verified Joint Preliminary Notice of Motion, etc., and know its contents. I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26 day of March, 1993 at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. (bears signature of)STEVE FISHMAN (0141) VERIFICATION I, UWE GEERTZ, hereby declare and state as follows: I have read the foregoing Verified Joint Preliminary Notice of Motion, etc., and know its contents. I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that,the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of March, 1993 at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. (Bears siganture of) UWE GEERTZ (0142) VERIFICATION I, GRAHAM E. BERRY, hereby declare and state as follows: I have read the foregoing Verified Joint Preliminary Notice of Motion, etc., and know its contents. I am a one of the attorneys for defendant Uwe Geertz, a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 26th day of March, 1993 at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. (bears signature of)GRAHAM E.BERRY (0143) PROOF OF SERVICE 1013A (3) CCP Revised 5/1/88 State of California, County of Los Angeles I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. On March 30, 1993 I served the foregoing document described as: VERIFIED JOINT PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF MOTION BY DEFENDANTS STEVEN FISHMAN AND UWE GEERTZ FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT"S MARCH 22, 1993 ORDER TRANSFERRING THE VENUE OF THIS CASE TO U.S.D.C., SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THAT SAME ORDER PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P. RULE 60 on the following: ROBERT A. WEINER, ESQ. BOWLES & MOXON 6255 SUNSET BLVD. Suite 2000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90028 [X] BY PERSONAL SERVICE I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on March 30, 1993 at Los Angeles, California. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [X) (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Type or Print Name Signature (0144) PROOF OF SERVICE 1013A (3) CCP Revised 5/1/88 State of California, County of Los Angeles I am employed in the county of Los Angeles,.State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, California 90012. On March 30, 1993, I served the foregoing document described as: VERIFIED JOINT PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF MOTION BY DEFENDANTS STEVEN FISHMAN AND UWE GEERTZ FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 ORDER TRANSFERRING THE VENUE OF THIS CASE TO U.S.D.C., SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THAT SAME ORDER PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P. RULE 60 on all interested parties: STEVEN FISHMAN REGISTER NO. 17280-004 DISMAS HOUSE 141 N.W. 1ST STREET DANIA, FLORIDA, 33004 [x) by placing [ ] the original [x) a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: [x) BY MAIL (x) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, services is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on March 30, 1993, at Los Angeles, California. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Type or Print Name signature (illegible) (0145) PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, California 90012. On April 9, 1993 I served the foregoing document(s) described as DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. FISHMAN FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS STEVEN FISHMAN AND UWE GEERTZ'S JOINT ]NOTICE OF MOTION -AND MOTIONS TO (1) RECONSIDER THE COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 CHAMGE OF VENUE ORDER; (2) VACATE AND SET ASIDE THE COURT'S CHANGE OF VENUE ORDER; AND (3) FOR EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S INHERENT EQUITABLE POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 CHANGE OF VENUE ORDER on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Robert Wiener BOWLES & MOXON 6255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90028 (BY MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence by mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal tervice on that same day with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (X) (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [XI (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of this court at whote direction the service was made. Executed on April 9. 1993, at Los Angeles, California. (0146) PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, California 90012. pn April 9. 1993 I served the foregoing document(s) described as DECLARATION OF STEVEM A. FISHMAN FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS STEVEN FISHMAN AND UWE GEERTZ"S JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONS TO (1) RECONSIDER THE COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 CH"GE OF VENUE ORDER; (2) VACATE AND BET ASIDE THE COURT'S CHANGE OF VENUE ORbER; AND (3) FOR EXERCISE OF THE COURTFS INHERENT EQUITABLE POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURTFS MARCH 22, 1993 CH"GE OF VENUE ORDER on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Steven Fishman 17280-004 C/N Unit FCI Tallahassee PMB 1000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3572 IX) (BY MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence by mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the-party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Ix] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on April 9, 1993, at Los Angeles, California. (signature by)FARNAZ MORADPOUR (0147) PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of .California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 221 North Figueroa street, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, California 90012. On April 9, 1993 I served the foregoing document(s) described as DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. PIS FILED IN SUPPORT Or DEFENDANTS STEVEN FISHMAN AND UWE GEERTZ"S JOINT NOTICE Or MOTION AND MOTIONS TO (1) RECONSIDER tHE COURT'S MARCK 22, 1993 CH"GE 0 VENUE ORDER; (2) VACATE AND SET ASIDE THE COURT'S CKMGE OF VENUE ORDER; AND (3) FOR EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S INHERENT EQUITABLE POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 CHANGE OF VENUE ORDER on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Robert Wiener BOWLES & MOXON 6255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90028 (BY MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence by inailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on notion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [X) (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Ix) (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of this court at whose direction the service was nade. Executed on April 9, 1993, at Los Angeles, California. (siganture by) MAURICE HUNTER PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, California 90012. On April 9, 1993 I served the foregoing document(s) described as DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. FISHMA.N FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS STEVEN FISHMAN AND UWE GEERTZ'S JOINT ]NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONS TO (1) RECONSIDER THE COURTIS MARCH 22, 1993 CHANGE OF VENUE ORDER; (2) VACATE AND SET ASIDE THE COURT'S CIWGE OF VENUE ORDER; AND (3) FOR EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S INHERENT EQUITABLE POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 CH"GE OF VENUE ORDER on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Robert Wiener BOWLES '& MOXON 6255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90028 (BY MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence by mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. IX) (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) I caused such envelope to'be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [XI (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a member of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on April 9, 1993, at Los Angeles, California. (not number stamped) END OF DOCUMENT AS RECEIVED