Graham Berry Declaration

3 Jul 1996



(a)  I was one of the counsel for defendants in a matter  known  as 
Church  of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz....    4

(b)  The Geertz case was dismissed in February, 1994..........    4

(c)  The Geertz F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11 Motion  was  supported  by  the 
necessary documents, including declarations...................    5

(d)  The declarations were not altered as alleged by
Complainant...................................................    5

(e)  All payments to expert consultants  and  witnesses, 
reimbursing them  for their time, were proper.................    5

(f)  No settlement demands were made for individuals I did not
represent.....................................................    7

(g)  The Aznaran Declarations, in the Geertz case, were only
filed after the Aznarans had given their express authorization
to the changes and filing.....................................    8

(h) The May 19, 1994 Aznaran Declarations are inherently
suspect.......................................................   10

        (i) The declarations are obviously
            suspect on their face.......         10

       (ii) Scientology attempted to
            procure a perjured 'recant' from Andre
            Tabayoyon...................         10

      (iii) Scientology attempted to
            procure a perjured 'recant' from Vaughn
            and Stacy Young..............        10

       (iv) Scientology attempted to
            procure a perjured 'recant' from Garry
            Scarff.......................        11


      DIFFERENT OFFENSIVE PURPOSES............................   12

      FALSE...................................................   13

      RECORDS REBUT THE AZNARANS CLAIMS.......................   14



      HAS BEEN WELL DOCUMENTED................................   22

IX.   CONCLUSION..............................................   23


(a) I was one of the counsel for defendants in a matter known as Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz.

Complainant is correct that I was one of the counsel for the defendants in Church of Scientology v. Fishman and Geertz ("The Geertz case"). However, I was assisted by numerous other counsel, e.g. partner Gordon J. Calhoun, Esq.) Indeed, I had ten lawyers and five paralegals working on the Geertz case at various times.

(b) The Geertz case was dismissed in February, 1994.

The Geertz case arose out of a May 6, 1991 cover story in Time magazine. The story was entitled "Scientology, the Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". This cover story, and other media articles concerning that case, are included in the two volumes of exhibits delivered to you on June 20, 1996 as Exhibit 1.(1) Scientology filed a number of lawsuits in connection with the Time magazine article.

One of these lawsuits was filed against Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz in connection with their reported testimony on page 55 of the Time magazine article (Exh. 1). In essence, the testimony alleged that Scientology had been involved in financial fraud, instructions to commit murder and then to commit suicide. During the course of this litigation we set about proving that those allegations were either true or substantially true. Predecessor counsel had failed to request a jury trial. Accordingly, United States District Court Judge Harry Hupp decided to receive direct evidence in the form of declarations and then to permit opposing counsel to cross-examine the declarants on the contents of these declarations.

To that end, designated expert witnesses and percipient witnesses worked on preparing declarations in connection with their proposed areas of testimony.(2) These declarations were to present evidence of Scientology involvement in financial frauds, murders and suicides. Rather than contest this evidence in court, and to avoid Scientology leaders and celebrities being deposed, on the eve of trial Scientology filed a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a) dismissal of the case with prejudice. In essence, this meant that defendants were the prevailing parties. Accordingly, the court invited defendants to file a motion not only for prevailing party fees but also for costs. Accordingly, Geertz decided to file a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 motion which, in essence, required him to establish that Scientology's case lacked any objective or subjective legal or factual merit. In this regard, I refer you to the contents of my December 2, 1994 declaration (Exh. 18). Specifically, you are referred to Exhibit 18, paragraph 11 and Exhibit C thereto.

(c) The Geertz F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11 Motion was supported by the necessary documents, including declarations.

Geertz's F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11 motion was supported by a memorandum of points and authorities and over 40 declarations, the contents of which were tied together by a 63 page "separate statement" linking claims with legal authority and supporting evidence in support of Geertz's application for costs, litigation expenses, attorney sanctions, etc.(3)

(d) The declarations were not altered as alleged by Complainant.

As the two volumes of exhibits previously sent you clearly demonstrate, and this response will subsequently argue, Scientology attorneys, officials and investigators engaged in a massive project to obstruct justice and intimidate various of the declararants to recant portions of their declaration and to falsely allege improper conduct on my part. Specifically, Mr. Lynn Farny claims that the declarations of Vicki Aznaran, Richard Aznaran and Andre Tabayoyon had been altered from their original state. Andre Tabayoyon's June 3, 1994 declaration specifically refutes Mr. Farny's allegations. (See Exh. 2, para. 9.) Indeed, the Tabayoyon, Stacy Young, Robert Vaughn Young and Garry Scarff declarations raise the spectre of a very insidious attempt to procure a prejurious recanting of prior testimony (see Exh. 2, 11 6-10). Significantly, Mr. Farny's Scientology organization made the very same allegations, and filed the same perjurious recantments by the Aznarans, to Judge Hupp. The judge ignored them.

(e) All payments to expert consultants and witnesses, reimbursing them for their time, were proper.

As indicated on pages 2 and 3 of my May 9, 1996 letter to you, Vicki Aznaran, Richard Aznaran and Andre Tabayoyon were initially retained as expert consultants in the Geertz litigation and were later designated as expert witnesses. Indeed, a copy of the third and fourth supplemental and amended brief narrative statement of experts intended to be called at trial by Dr. Geertz was included with the two additional volumes of relevant documents that I am unable to provide to the State Bar at this time because of the sealing order that Complainant obtained in the Geertz case.

There is nothing unusual or improper about the payment of expert consultants and expert witnesses for their time engaged in connection with litigation. Indeed, there are many persons who make their living exclusively, or predominantly, by being paid for their time testifying in court or deposition as designated expert witnesses. Indeed, Andre Tabayoyon's declaration talks of the payment he was to receive for his time spent in preparing his declaration. (Exh. 2, para. 7). Andre Tabayoyon, who was paid approximately $125.00 per hour spent a number of months working almost full time as an expert consultant, and preparing to testify as an expert witness. Similarly, in one of Vicki Aznaran's May 19, 1994 declarations (Exh. 17, para. 20) she states that they were hired at the rate of $125.00 per hour and were paid an advance or retainer for this purpose. Once again, expert witnesses frequently receive retainer payments. Because Dr. Geertz was being defended under a professional liability insurance policy, his insurance carrier was ultimately responsible for the payment of expert consultants and expert witness fees. Mr. Farny's knowledge of these facts make his complaint in this regard even more frivolous. For example, Mr. Farny's organization retained Professor Hazard as an expert witness in the Yanny I case and retained a number of expert witnesses in the Geertz case. Presumably those experts were also compensated for their time.

The real rub, as far as Scientology is concerned, is that it believes that only currently practicing Scientologists in good standing with 'the Church' can be designated as expert witnesses. If the courts were to accept that rationale, there would be obvious difficulties for their opponents in litigation. Indeed, the Geertz case was probably the first Scientology case where the defense made extensive use of expert witnesses. Scientology vehemently objected to the designation of these former high ranking Scientologists as expert witnesses calling them "apostates" and worse. However, Robert Vaughn Young subsequently provided expert witness testimony against Scientology in a Chicago case, was deposed as an expert witness in a Sterling Management (a Scientology front corporation) case and testified as an expert witness before the trial court in Religious Technology Center (a Scientology corporation) v. FACTNET.

I defended Mr. Young during his testimony in the Sterling Management case. On that occasion, Scientology repeatedly objected to his testimony on the ground that he was being paid as an expert witness. Retired California Supreme Court Justice Eagleson, who was refereeing the deposition, repeatedly told the Scientology attorneys that many people make a career of testifying as expert witnesses and the only relevant issue is the testimony that they actually give. The issue of payment for their time is something that goes to their credibility.

As indicated above, a large number of lawyers were involved in the defense of this case by Scientology. The senior partner of my law firm, Robert F. Lewis, was personally reviewing all time and disbursement entries (such as expert witnesses expenses). AIG, known to be a very frugal insurer, was also monitoring the case very closely and authorizing all significant expenditure. Accordingly, Mr. Farny's preposterous allegations become even more frivolous when considered against the extent to which this lawsuit was micro managed by more senior counsel and insurance representatives.

(f) No settlement demands were made for individuals I did not represent.

Reference is made to Exhibit 20 which is a February 16, 1994 letter from myself to one of the Scientology attorneys in the Geertz case. Exhibit 20 memorializes the events in relation to settlement meetings that took place on February 16, 1994. The letter is self explanatory and rebuts Scientology's repeated accusations that this letter was an extortion attempt. Scientology itself requested the global settlement proposal and I spoke with everyone, or their attorney, who was listed on the attachment.

In that regard, I note the following: AIG, Dr. Geertz's insurance carrier, was our client and authorized the settlement figure of $1.6 million which was calculated in accordance with the fees and costs that had then been expended in the defense of Dr. Geertz. Dr. Geertz was also my client and authorized me to demand $4 million in settlement of his claims, now being asserted by way of a separate action for malicious prosecution. Similarly, Steven Fishman, Dr. Geertz's co-defendant in the Geertz case also authorized me to make the settlement demand on his part and he is now similarly pursuing a claim for malicious prosecution against Scientology and certain of its officers and attorneys. Likewise, the Aznarans were, at that time, represented by attorney Ford Greene and both the Aznarans themselves and their attorney Ford Greene authorized me to make a settlement demand on their behalf.(4) Indeed, one of Vicki Aznaran's May 19, 1994 declarations confirms this fact. (Exh. 49, para. 23).

Again, Lawrence Wollersheim was a designated expert consultant and expert witness in the Geertz case was also being represented by Craig Stein and Ford Greene, and both Wollersheim, Greene and Stein gave me authority to make the demand I did on their behalf which included the payment in full of a Superior Court judgment worth over $5 million at that point in time. Indeed, Wollersheim/Factnet is about to retain me in connection with the defense of another Scientology-related lawsuit. Dennis Cantin and Sam Occhi were also clients of Ford Greene who authorized me to make the settlement demand I did on their behalf. Similarly, William Jordan had been, and still is, requesting me to represent his interests in litigation against the Scientology organization and authorized me to make a settlement demand upon his behalf. Likewise, Joseph Yanny was my client in both Yanny I and Yanny II and continues to be my client, and he also authorized me to make the settlement demand I did. That represented the unpaid judgment and other monies then properly owed to either him or ourselves.

Vaughn and Stacy Young were also designated as expert witnesses and served as expert consultants in the Geertz case. I was one of their attorneys and represented them at their deposition in the Sterling Management litigation. They authorized me to make a settlement demand on their behalf. Similarly, Andre and Mary Tabayoyon were engaged by me as expert consultants and expert witnesses and they authorized me to make a settlement demand for them. Gary Scarff gave approximately 17 days of deposition testimony in the Geertz case (see Exh. 56 and 57) and he authorized me to make a settlement demand upon his behalf. Again, Hana and Jerry Whitfield were expert consultants and designated expert witnesses in the Geertz case and they expressly authorized me to make the settlement demand I did on their behalf. Indeed, in a May 29, 1994 letter (Exh. 33, p. 3, last para.) Hana Whitfield referred communications through me and showed me as a cc on that letter.

Accordingly, Mr. Farny's allegations in this respect are also frivolous and unfounded.

(g) The Aznaran Declarations, in the Geertz case, were only filed after the Aznarans had given their express authorization to the changes and filing.

One of Vicki Aznaran's many May 19, 1994 declarations, Exh. 17 herein, claims that there were passages inserted in her declaration without her knowledge or authorization and that they included statements that were either untrue or about which she had no personal knowledge. (Exh. 17, para. 25). Moreover, in paragraphs 23 and 26 of Exh. 17, Vicki Aznaran suggests that she never spoke with me after February 24, 1994.(5)

I had first met Vicki Aznaran some three years earlier when their deposition was taken in Dallas, Texas during the course of Scientology v. Yanny ("Yanny I"). On that occasion, I spent a number of lunches and dinners with both Vicki and Richard Aznaran and Vicki's sister, Karen McCrae, Esq. I had read approximately 40 volunmes of prior deposition testimony by the Aznarans, numerous declarations they had previously prepared and I had sat through several days of deposition by both of the Aznarans in Yanny I. Subsequently, I had a number of telephone conversations with both Vicki and Richard Aznaran. At one point, in either late 1993 or early 1994, Vicki and Richard Aznaran asked me to associate into their lawsuit against Scientology as lead trial counsel. Their then attorney, Ford Greene, Esq. also made the same request. I requested my law firm's management committee to approve the retention of this plaintiff's contingency case and they declined the representation. I also had occasion to contact the Aznarans during the course of the Geertz case to request their services as expert consultants and expert witnesses. Because of the senior Scientology positions that both Aznarans had held, I believed that they could offer percipient testimony as to certain relevant matters and that they could offer expert opinion testimony on other matters. After discussing the issues in the Geertz case with both Vicki and Richard Aznaran, they discussed the areas of testimony and opinion that they could provide and agreed to serve as expert consultants and designated expert witnesses. Both Vicki and Richard Aznaran agreed to bill for their time expended as expert consultants/witnesses at the rate of $125 per hour which was the same rate that we were paying most of the other Scientology expert consultants and witnesses. The Aznarans requested a $2,500 retainer and we agreed to pay that retainer. Indeed, expert consultants and witnesses regularly request advance retainer payments.

The retention and payment of the expert consultants and witnesses was also approved by Dr. Geertz's malpractice insurance carrier (AIG) in accordance with its regular billing guidelines. Dr. Geertz had a $1 million non self-liquidating policy of indemnification. That meant that Dr. Geertz's defense costs were paid separate and apart from the limits of its policy. In other words, his defense costs could exceed the policy limits which would still be available, in their totality, to indemnify a judgment or pay a settlement. I recall this information coming as a shock to the Scientology attorneys. We had requested a settlement meeting and had flown a senior insurance company executive out from New York.

Scientology sent at least nine attorneys from about five different law firms, some from New York, to the settlement meeting. One of them stated that all these attorneys and law firms were now of record for Scientology in the case, and Scientology would just keep adding law firms and attorneys to the case until Geertz's defense crumbled. Geertz's insurance carrier representative then said that AIG could add lawyers, from the Lewis, D'Amato firm alone, just as fast as could Scientology. At that point the Scientology attorneys stated that they believed that Dr. Geertz's insurance policy was almost exhausted and that Lewis, D'Amato would have to withdraw from his representation. The insurance company representative then told a shocked, stunned and surprised group of Scientology attorneys that Dr. Geertz's policy was non self liquidating and that the carrier had to fund his defense whatever the expense that Scientology cost.

(h) The May 19, 1 994 Aznaran Declarations are inherently suspect.

 (i) The declarations are obviously suspect on their face.

Vicki Aznaran executed at least three declarations on May 19, 1994 (Exhs. 16, 17 and 49). These May 19, 1994 declarations were executed during the course of a settlement between the Aznaram and Scientology. Indeed, Vicki Aznaran even admits that she went behind the back of her own counsel to settle directly with Scientology, cutting her counsel out of the settlement loop and avoiding payment of his share of the settlement monies (rumored to be $250,000). (Exh. 49, para. 24). Moreover, this was the second occasion on which Scientology attorneys had gone behind the back of Ford Greene, Esq. to deal directly with the Aznarans.(6) Clearly, the declarations were prepared by Scientology representatives and for different purposes.

 (ii) Scientology attempted to procure a perjured 'recant' from Andre Tabayoyon.

The declaration of Andre Tabayoyon executed on June 3, 1994, details Richard Aznaran's May 19, 1994 attempts to induce Andre Tabayoyon with offers of employment, etc. in an effort to have him recant the contents of his declaration and to make similar allegations to those the Aznarans made against me. (Exh. 2, para. 3-10)

 (iii) Scientology attempted to procure a perjured 'recant' from Vaughn and Stacy Young.

Likewise, Stacy Young, in her December 14, 1994 declaration, testifies that Scientology representatives offered the Youngs nearly $200,000 to sign their false and penurious declarations, but [they] refused . . . because [they] would never perjure themselves nor would [they] become pawns in Scientology's vendetta against Graham Berry." (Exh. 3, 1 38.) Similarly, Robert Vaughn Young, in his December 14, 1994 declaration, states that "Vicki and Rick Aznaran had earlier met with Sutter and Rinder and had 'recanted' their declarations and were now making ridiculous statements on behalf of Scientology. [He] had heard that the Aznarans had been paid a large amount of money to retract their testimony and to help Scientology instead." (Exh. 4, para. 6)

The same Scientology representatives, told Vaughn and Stacy Young that they wanted them to execute declarations stating that they had lied, that Graham Berry had put them up to it and that they had only done it for money. For that, the Scientology representatives were prepared to pay the Youngs $200,000. (Exh. 4, paras. 7, 8 & 10.)

 (iv) Scientology attempted to procure a perjured 'recant' from Garry Scarff.

Scientology representatives also tried to procure a perjured 'recant' of testimony from Gary Scarf. Scientology attorney Timothy Bowles implied threatened further harassment, etc., of Mr. Scarff, and that he could "walk down Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood by the Scientology offices and not be afraid" if he signed a total retraction of his previous testimony in the Geertz case. (Exh. 18 (Internal Exh. E) and Exh. 56.)(7)


In 23 years of legal practice in New Zealand, New South Wales, Australia, London, England, New York, New York, Los Angeles, California, I have been the subject of only one previous State Bar complaint. That was also filed by the Church of Scientology in connection with my successful handling of the Scientology v. Geertz case. That complaint was made by Kendrick Moxon, Esq. and was handled by John Noonen, Esq. of the State Bar.(8) Mr. Moxon's earlier complaint to the district court was also given short shrift by both Magistrate Tassopolous and Judge Hupp. A transcript of the relevant hearing is among the two volumes of documents withheld because of the sealing order in the Geertz case. Similarly, Mr. Moxon made a criminal complaint based upon the same alleged facts. The L.A.P.D. terminated its inquiry upon completion of initial interviews. (See Exh. 19, paras. 30-31). Scientology has continued to run its various operations against me even through until the present day. For example, see Exh. 2, paras. 6, 8, 9. Exh. 3 paras. 13, 18, 27, 37 and 38. Exh. 4, paras. 5, 8 and 15. Exh. 18, Exh. 19, paras. 21, et seq. Exhs. 21, 22, 23, 2633, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 57.

Lynn Farny has made State Bar Complaints against other attorneys who have had the temerity to oppose the Church of Scientology International in litigation. For example, Lynn Farny filed complaints on February 1, 1989 and April 28, 1989 against attorneys Joseph A. Yanny, Lisa Wilske, Richard Wynne and Mary Grieco. My understanding is that those complaints were investigated and not proceeded. Similarly, Lynn Farny again filed further complaints against Joseph A. Yanny and Ford (Aylswarth Crawford) Greene in 1992 (Case Nos. 92 0 11637 and 91 0 11638). Indeed, I understand Scientology to have filed approximately seven State Bar complaints against Ford Greene. Again, I understand that the State Bar investigated these complaints and dismissed them. Similarly, other complaints have been filed by Scientology investigator Eugene Ingram. For example, Scientology has filed numerous bar complaints against Charlie O'Reilly, Jerold Fagelbaum, Gary Bright and Toby Plevin. In fact, Scientology filed 23 bar complaints against Michael Flynn in Massachussetts. All were dismissed. In Texas, they filed a complaint against Vicki Aznaran's sister and sometime attorney Karen McCrae, Esq. In Florida, Scientology filed State Bar complaints against counsel Gabe Casares.

Moreover, Garry Scarff testified that I was a target of Scientology and the Bowles & Moxon law firm, Exh. 57, pp. 102 and 103. See also, p. 153 in connection with an allegedly false State Bar complaint filed by Eugene Ingram, an employee of Bowles & Moxon, against Ford Greene. Indeed, at page 198 of Exh. 57, there is an extract of Garry Scarff's testimony in connection with Eugene Ingram of the Bowles & Moxon law finn's false State Bar complaint based upon a deliberately created false declaration allegedly created by Bowles & Moxon, Eugene Ingram and Garry Scarff who was paid for his false testimony. Moreover, Garry Scarff testified at Exh. 57, p. 101 in connection with Scientology's harassment of judges and opposing counsel. This harassment is done by Scientology's Office of Special Affairs. The Kendrick Moxon law firm is part of the Office of Special Affairs (See Exh. 57, pp. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60.)


As indicated above, the three May 19, 1994 declarations that I am aware of were each written for a different purpose. Exhibit 16 is clearly a generic declaration to be used by Scientology representatives generally in a Scientology litigation where opponents raise issues regarding Scientology's controversial "fair game" policy.

Exhibit 49 is clearly an attempt to justify Scientology representatives going behind the back of the Aznarans counsel of record (Ford Greene), to try and intimidate Ford Greene into not to suing recovery of his fee and to provide the basis for yet another state bar complaint by Scientology against Ford Greene.(9) The perjurious nature of at least part of the declaration, paragraph 15, is demonstrated by Exhibit 50. Exhibit 17 was obviously prepared by Scientology as part of their efforts to destroy me. In part, iT tracts the first seven pages of exhibit 16.


With reference to exhibit 17 generally, I shall now deal with some of Vicki Aznaran's specific allegations. I have no knowledge of any "team of anti-scientology witnesses who have been paid for their testimony" [which] is being altered and falsified." (Exh. 17, para. 19.) Furthermore, the declarations from ex-Scientologists that were filed after the Fishman case was dismissed were filed in connection with a Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 11 motion for sanctions against Scientology, etc. The declarations were not "purchased." To the extent that any declarants were paid, they were paid for their time as expert consultants and expert witnesses. Some of these declarants spent many months assisting Geertz and Fishman as expert consultants and expert witnesses. Moreover, the very reason professionals, such as Geertz, have malpractice insurance is so that they can fund the cost of defending litigation and indemnifying judgments out of insurance monies. (Exh. 17, para. 19.) In Scientology cases, the costs of defense alone are enormous and, in my experience, average over a million dollars a case.

With regard to paragraph 20 of Exhibit 17, expert witnesses are able to testify on the basis of their opinion. That opinion can be based on the things such experts usually rely upon and can include the testimony of other witnesses, textbooks, reports, their own experience, etc. One difference between percipient witnesses and expert witnesses, in part, is that expert witnesses do not necessarily have to be "actually witnesses to the events atissue." (Exh. 17, para. 20.).(10)

Paragraphs 21 and 22 of Exhibit 17 are clearly the product of Scientology 'scribes'. Paragraph 23 also parrots other statements by Scientology officials. Scientology has made much of the filing of declarations after the case has been dismissed while ignoring the fact that those declarations were filed in connection with the F.R.C.P. Rule 11 motion for costs, etc., in connection with litigation that, we alleged, lacked a proper legal and factual basis and that is now the subject of a malicious prosecution action.

Furthermore, I deny that any portion of Vicki Aznaran's declaration, as filed, contained passages inserted without her knowledge and/or authorization. (Exh. paras. 24, 25, 26.) Moreover, Vicki Aznaran implies that she had no contact with me after February 24, 1994. (Exh. 17, paras. 23, 26.) This is incorrect as my own time records indicate.


Enclosed herewith, to be inserted as Exhibit 51 and the two volumes of exhibits previously submitted to you, are redacted extracts from the billing records for January, February and March, 1994. Those redacted extracts are as follows:

These billing record extracts indicate the following: On January 26, 1994 I had a telephone conversation with Vicki Aznaran regarding her services as an expert witness. This telephone conversation lasted 30 minutes. Also on January 26, 1994, one of our associate attorneys, Matthew D. Berger, drafted an expert consultant/witness retainer agreement for the Aznarans to sign and selected certain documents for their review. He spent 7/10 of an hour doing this. On the same date, paralegal Bfidget McLaughlin (BEM) prepared documents which were to be sent to Richard and Vicki Aznaran. These included a check for $2,500, a description of the testimony of other experts, a copy of the Rule 9 memorandum of contentions of fact and law, copies of prior declarations of Graham E. Berry, Robert Vaughn Young and Stacy Young, and a moving and reply brief filed in support of Geertz' motion that Scientology's reputation was so bad that it was libel proof. She spent 1.5 hours on this task.

On January 27, 1994 I had a .4 of an hour telephone conversation with Richard Aznaran regarding his expert testimony and that same evening an express mail package was sent to Phoenix Investigations, which is the Aznarans' private investigation company. On February 14, 1996 I worked on prior deposition transcriptions of the Aznarans, presumably in connection with the preparation of their testimony in the Geertz case. I spent .3 of an hour on this task. On February 15, 1996 1 had a .3 of an hour telephone conversation with Vicki Aznaran regarding the preparation of her declaration.

On February 15, 1996 Gordon Calhoun, Esq. also had a .4 of an hour telephone conversation with Vicki Aznaran regarding the current position of the Church of Scientology regarding settlement and Scientology's request to explore a global resolution of all pending litigation involving CSI. Clearly, this calendaring entry supports the above contention that exhibit 20, and the settlement demands therein, were made with the Aznaran's knowledge including as to the amount.

On February 16, 1996 I had a .4 of an hour telephone conversation with Vicki Aznaran regarding the preparation of a declaration of her in rebuttal of Scientology head David Miscavige declaration. It was David Miscavige who had toppled Vicki Aznaran as head of the Religious Technology Center and sentenced her to three months in the California desert at Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force ("the "RPF"), which is described by many ex-RPF'ers as a concentration camp-like facility.

On February 17, 1994 another Federal Express package was sent to Vicki Aznaran at Phoenix Investigations at a cost of $31.16.

On February 21, 1994 1 had a .4 of an hour telephone conversation with Vicki Aznaran regarding the drafting of her declaration and Richard Aznaran's declaration. Again on February 21, 1995, I spent 30 minutes reviewing faxes from Vicki and another expert consultant and witness, Lawrence Wollersheirn.

On Februarv 22, 1993 1 had three telephone calls totaling 8/10 of an hour with both Vicki and Richard Aznaran regarding revisions to their declarations. Then on February 22, 1992 an express mail package was sent to Vicki Aznaran at a cost of $17.00.

Similarly, on February 23, 1994 an express mail package was sent to Vicki Aznaran at a cost of $10.00 and again on February 25, 1996 an express mail package was sent to Vicki Aznaran at a cost of $21.50. Curiously, Vicki Aznaran claims that no changes to her declaration were authorized after February 24, and that she had no communications with me after that date. Her declarations are dated February 17, 1994 (Exh. 10), February 21, 1994 (Exh. 11), Exh. 21, 1994 (Exh. 12) and March 7, 1994 (Exh. 14). Vicki Aznaran's March 7, 1994 signature on exhibit 14 rebuts her claim in paragraph 23 of exhibit 17 that she did not communicate with me or authorized the filing of any declarations after February 24, 1996.

On March 4, 1996 1 had a .3 of an hour telephone conversation with Richard Aznaran regarding his declaration. Similarly, on March 7, 1994, I had four telephone conversations (totaling 1.5 hours with Vicki and Richard Aznaran) regarding their declarations. On that same date, I also spent time revising the declarations of Richard and Vicki Aznaran and preparing additional exhibits.

Further time was spent revising these declarations on March 8, 1994. Also on March 8, 1994 I had three telephone conversations with Vicki and Richard Aznaran regarding the declarations. These conversations totaled 4/10 of an hour and would have been the conversations during which I received the express authority from Vicki and Richard Aznaran to file their declarations with a prior signature page -- because of the lack of sufficient time to get the declarations down to Dallas, Texas and back before they were due to be filed the next day. Exhibits 14 and 15 indicated those exhibits were filed on March 9, 1994.

Also on March 9, 1994, a federal express package was sent to Vicki Aznaran at a cost of $9.75. Presumably, this federal express contained the Vicki and Richard Aznaran declarations that had been filed earlier that day, and contradicts the assertions in paragraphs 23 to 26 of Vicki Aznaran's May 19, 1994 declaration. (Exh. 17.)


Vicki and Richard Aznaran have provided over 40 volumes of deposition testimony in their own case and in other Scientology-related cases. Moreover, they have executed numerous declarations in both their own case and other Scientology-related cases. I had the benefit of the copies of most of these transcripts, and these declarations, when working with the Aznarans on their declarations in the Geertz case.

Indeed, Vicki Aznaran's June 29, 1993 declaration and exhibits (Exh. 7), and her July 18, 1990 declaration (Exh. 8) were clearly primary sources for the contents of the declaration of Vicki Aznaran that was filed in the Geertz case. (Exh. 14.) Vicki Aznaran cannot escape the inconsistencies, that clearly rise to the level of pe@ury, which now exist between her earlier testimony under oath and her testimony, also under oath, in exhibits 17, 18 and 49. Indeed, I recently spoke with Karen McCrae, Esq., who is Vicki Aznaran's sister and attorney. When I told Ms. McCrae what had occured in connection with the May 19, 1994 Aznaran declarations, Ms. McCrae said that she was present at the settlement meetings and does not recall either Vicki or Richard Aznaran executing the May 19, 1994 declarations. Indeed, she was surprised that they would do so because of the time we have all spent together working on cases against the Scientology organization. Moreover, when she received a copy of the declarations herein, (Exhs. 7, 17) she expressed her surprise at the contents of the May 19, 1994 declarations (Exhs. 16, 17) and expressly recognized the testimonial difficulty in which the May 19, 1994 declarations place the Aznarans. During that conversation Karen McCrae and I discussed the possibility of the Aznarans having forgotten, during the 'pressure' of settlement discussions with Scientology, the many phone calls we have had regarding the contents of their declarations, and the phone calls authorizing their filing of those declarations of March 9, 1994. However, Karen McCrae later faxed me a letter saying that she was no longer representing Vicki and Richard Aznaran and could assist no further. For obvious reasons, I have not contacted the Aznarans directly. I had been advised that their settlement agreement with Scientology is in standard form and contains the usual gag provisions. Exhibit 48 is copy of a fairly standard form Scientology Gag Agreement restricting the settling party from making public statements and from providing voluntary assistance to others engaged in litigation against Scientology. Indeed, such persons are precluded from making themselves amenable to the service of process. (Exh. 48, para. 6). Those provisions are clearly questionable.

Reference is made to paragraph 25 of exhibit 17. In paragraph 25 of exhibit 17, Vicki Aznaran lists a number of passages which she alleges were inserted without "her knowledge or authorization," including "statements that are untrue" and about which she has "no personal knowledge," and that she has "never heard of before."

For example, Vicki Aznaran states that she has never heard of "Project Quaker." Exh. 17, para 25(a). The Project Quaker documents were seized by the FBI during the 1977 FBI raids on Scientology.(11) Project Quaker was discussed during the deposition of former scientology operative Gary Scarff. (Ex. 57, page 223.) Project Quaker, in essence, was a Scientology policy statement detailing how to hide Scientologists who were being sought for the purposes of either civil or criminal litigation. The stipulation of evidence in the Mary Sue Hubbard case details Scientology's involvement in hiding fugitives. Indeed, it details Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon's own significant role in some of those illegal activities. (e.g., Exh. 58, pgs. 198, 209, 213, 214, 238, 239, 274 and 275.) Indeed, the two declarations that Vicki Aznaran actually admits to preparing and executing in the Geertz case referred to, in essence, Project Quaker. Paragraph 5 of exhibits 10 and 11 is illustrative in this regard. Moreover, paragraph 5 of exhibits 10 and 11 is almost identical to paragraph 7 of exhibit 14 which Ms. Aznaran now denies (Exh. 17, para. 25(a).) In which declarations is she lying? In the ones she prepared or in the ones Scientology prepared?
Exhibit 17, paragraph 25(b) claims that statements concerning the death of Michelle Miscavige's mother were added to without authorization by Vicki Aznaran. However, reference is made to exhibits 10, paragraph 8; exhibit 11, paragraph 8, exhibit 12, paragraph 8 and exhibit 14, paragraph 11. Exhibits 10, 11 & 12 were prepared, signed and faxed by Vicki Aznaran herself. Paragraph 11 of exhibit 14 is word for word identical to paragraphs 8 of exhibits 10, 11 & 12 with the exception of the final sentence. As indicated above, this final sentence was approved by Vicki Aznaran during three telephone calls on March 8, 1994 prior to its filing on March 9, 1994. Again, which of Vicki Aznaran's declarations are perjured? Paragraphs 8 of exhibits 10, 11 and 12 (prepared by herself) or paragraph 25(b) of exhibit 17 (apparently prepared by her former litigation adversary Scientology)?
In exhibit 17, paragraph 25(c), Vicki Aznaran falsely claims "the entirety of paragraph 16 on page 10 of the declaration filed by Mr. Berry concerning L. Ron Hubbard and the IRS was written by someone other by me and was inserted into my declaration without mv knowledge or authorization." In this regard, reference is made to paragraph 10 of exhibit 11, and paragraph 11 of exhibit 12. These were prepared by Vicki Aznaran herself and faxed to us. Similarly, paragraph 15 of exhibit 14 contains statements originally prepared, signed and faxed to me as part of exhibit 10, paragraph 11 and exhibit 11, paragraph 11. Again, by Vicki Aznaran herself.

With regard to the other statements in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of exhibit 14, as set forth above, all of these were either prepared by Vicki Aznaran herself or discussed with Vicki Aznaran, and in any event read to Vicki Aznaran on a number of occasions, before being finally authorized by her to be filed during three telephone conversation on March 8, 1994. (see Section V above).

See above.
Mike Rinder is one of Scientology's senior intelligence officials. He worked with Richard Aznaran and was close friends with him in the past. (Exh. 2, para. 8, p. 4:1318). Mike Rinder was probably one of the Scientology officials involved in the Aznarans' settlement and their recanting of their declarations. Vicki Aznaran states that she never made the statements in Exhibit 14, para. 18. However, the contents of Exhibit 14, para. 18 are identical, in almost every respect, with the contents of Exhibit 10, paragraph 11, which Vicki Aznaran prepared, typed and signed on February 17, 1994, Exhibit 11, paragraph 11, which Vicki Aznaran prepared, typed and signed on February 21, 1994 and paragraph 11 of Exhibit 12 which Vicki Aznaran prepared typed and signed on February 21, 1994. Again, in which declaration is she lying? The ones she prepared (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12), the one she authorized to be filed (Exhibit 14) or Exhibit 17 (apparently prepared by Scientology lawyers and officials)?
In Exhibit 17, paragraph 25(f), Vicki Aznaran claims that paragraphs 21-35(b) were added to her declaration and that she has never seen them before.

As to Exhibit 14, para. 21, I distinctly recall discussing this paragraph with Vicki and Richard Aznaran on several occasions. It was consistent with the deposition testimony of a number of witnesses provided by Scientology itself and with the testimony of other former Scientologists.

In Exhibit 17, paragraph 25(f) Vicki Aznaran claims that she never saw the contents of Exhibit 14, paragraphs 22 and 23. However, those paragraphs are identical to page 2:10 to page 3:7 of Exhibit 8 which Vicki Aznaran executed, under penalty of perjury, on July 18, 1990. Again, in which declaration is she lying? Exhibit 8 (prepared by herself) or Exhibit 17 (prepared by Scientology)? Similarly, in Exhibit 17, para. 25(f) Vicki Aznaran claims she "never saw" the contents of Exhibit 14 para 24 before that declaration was filed. Again, is the Scientology-prepared declaration correct, or is page 3:19 through page 4:2 of Exhibit 8 correct. Exhibit 8 was executed under penalty of perjury by Vicki Aznaran on July 17, 1990.

In Exhibit 17, para. 25(f), Vicki Aznaran also claims she never authorized and never ever saw the contents of paragraphs 22 to 27 of Exhibit 14. However, those paragraphs are identical to the contents of pages 5:3 to 5:14 of Vicki Aznaran's July 18, 1990 declaration. Again, which is true, her July 18, 1990 declaration or the Scientology inspired May 19, 1994 declaration recanting those same statements. For the record, I had no part in the creation of Exhibit 8. In Exhibit 17, para. 25(f) Vicki Aznaran claims that the contents of Exhibit 14, paras. 28-33 were not authorized before and that she had never seen them before. However, those statements are identical to earlier statements made in Exhibit 8, page 5:16 to page 7:24 of Vicki Aznaran's own July 18, 1990 declaration. Again, which declaration is correct: the May 19, 1994 Scientology inspired declaration or Vicki Aznaran's own July 18, 1990 declaration.

In Exhibit 17, para. 25(f) Vicki Aznaran also claims that she never gave authorization in connection with paragraph 34 of Exhibit 14 and that she has never seen the contents of this paragraph before. Again, paragraph 34 of Exhibit 14 is identical to Exhibit 8, page 7:25-10. This is the declaration that Vicki Aznaran executed on July 18, 1990. Again, which is the perjurious statement -- her earlier statement or the latter statement prepared by Scientology? Moreover, the statements Exhibit 14, paragraph 34 are supported by Exhibit 58 which is the 284 paged stipulation of evidence agreed to by Scientology in the United States of America v. Mary Sue Hubbard case. Obviously, from her lofty position in Scientology she would have been aware of these events which were highly publicized at the time.

In Exhibit 17, paragraph 25(f) Vicki Aznaran denies authorizing the contents and filing of paragraphs 35(a) and 35(b) of Exhibit 14 and claims that she never saw them before. However, these two paragraphs are virtually identical to Exhibit 8, page 9:24-p 11:16 which are part of Vicki Aznaran's July 18, 1990 declaration. Equally important, is the fact that Vicki Aznaran herself signed page 19 of Exhibit 14 of March 7, 1994. Page 19:1-9 contain the same statements that Vicki Aznaran made under oath on page 11:4-16 of her July 18, 1990 declaration.

Exhibit 17, para 25(g) Vicki Aznaran takes issue with the contents of Exhibit 14, para 20. These allegations is dealt with above. In Exhibit 17, para. 25(h) Vicki Aznaran takes issue with the use of the phrase "end of cycle" in Exhibit 14, para. 19. However, in Exhibit 14, para. 19 is identical to Exhibit 10, paragraph 12, Exhibit 11, paragraph 12 and Exhibit 12, paragraph 12. Each of those paragraphs were typed, signed and faxed by Vicki Aznaran on February 17, 1994, February 21, 1994 and February 21, 1994. Again, Vicki Aznaran's own hand reveals the truth of her earlier statements and obvious subsequent involvement in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. In addition, I deny that Vicki Aznaran earlier verbally told [me] when I first contacted [her] for this exact information. (Exhibits 17, para. 25(h). See Exhs. 10, para. 12, Exh. 11, para. 12, and Exh. 12 para. 12, which were prepared by Vicki Aznaran. Indeed, in addition to three versions of the declaration being signed by Vicki Aznaran, the subsequent version was read to her and its filing authorized before being filed with the court on March 9, 1994 and sent to her.

With regard to Exhibit 17, para. 26, these allegations are dealt with in Section V above and are denied in their entirety.(12)


Vicki Aznaran has provided numerous volumes of testimony and numerous declarations detailing her involvement in serious criminal activity while a senior Scientology official and on behalf of the Scientology organization. For example, in Vicki Aznaran's June 19, 1993 declaration, she testifies in connection with "dirty tricks" against opposing litigants, their lawyers and the judges (Exhibit 7, paras. 3-11). These "dirty tricks" included destroying evidence, stealing documents, illegal surveillance, blackmail, assault, other intimidation and "securing perjured testimony" Exhibit 7, paras. 3 and 4. Indeed, Vicki Aznaran's Scientology organization even tried to set Judge Swearinger's son up in a compromising underage homosexual encounter in order to pressure the judge to rule favorably for Scientology. Significantly, internal Exhibit A (a printout of certain 1986 computer traffic) reports the progress of the Judge Swearinger investigation being carried out by Scientology Investigator Eugene Ingram. Exhibit 7, paras. 5 and 6.

In Exhibit 7, para. 7, Vicki Aznaran describes Scientology "ambush" interview tactics which involves doing whatever it takes - - threats, physical violence, bribery or whatever -- to get an unprepared and unsuspecting target to say what is wanted. In paragraph 8 she describes her involvement in the destruction of evidence by Scientology. She also testifies that Lynn Farny is a liar and attaches both a Scientology training drill to teach Scientologists to lie convincingly. Exhibit 7, paras. 8 and 9. In Exhibit 7 paragraph 11, Vicki Aznaran describes the operations that Scientology conducted against opposing counsel Charles B. O'Reilly and the Brown-Greene law firm. "The purpose was to ... manufacture information which could compromise O'Reilly."

In Exhibit 7, para. 12 and Exhibit 7 (internal Exhibit C), Vicki Aznaran testifies to her own training of certain witnesses to tell lies, thus giving testimony under penalty of perjury.

In Exhibit 8, p. 3:23-26 Vicki Aznaran testifies that Scientology's fair game activity included burglaries, assaults, destruction of enemies' businesses, spying, harassment, investigation, abuse of confidential communications in parishioners' files and so on." In Exhibit 8, page 5:3-9 she testifies that it is the stated policy and practice of Scientology to use the legal system to abuse and harass its enemies ... the policy is to do anything and everything possible to harass the opposing litigant without regard to whether any particular motion or maneuver is appropriate or warranted for the facts or applicable law."

In Exhibit 8, p. 5-22-6:6 Vicki Aznaran testifies about further obstruction of evidence that she engaged in on behalf of Scientology. Again, in Exhibit 8 p. 6:10-10:5, Vicki Aznaran testifies that other witnesses were coached and grilled for hours to lie convincingly or avoid telling the truth ... that huge volumes of evidence were destroyed, that government and private agencies were infiltrated by Scientology agents who stole documents as part of the SnowWhite program.

Vicki Aznaran also testifies that Scientology framed Paulette Cooper with a false bomb threat and that Ms. Cooper was only cleared when an FBI raid of Scientology premises resulted in the seizure of Scientology documents exposing the Paulette Cooper operation. Exhibit 8, p.8:13-21.

Small wonder that Vicki Aznaran subsequently states that Scientology "is a criminal organization day in day out." Exhibit 1(b) and describes how Scientology members "worked day and night shredding documents that the IRS sought." Exhibit 1(c). Likewise, former Scientology lawyer Joseph Yanny, also a client of mine, "believes the church has so subverted justice and the judicial system that it should be barred from seeking equity in any court. Exhibit 1(d).


Exhibits 56, 57 and 58 evidence Scientology's involvement in a wide range of serious criminal conduct -- even conspiracies to murder opposing counsel. See generally, Exh. 57, table of contents. Indeed, Exh. 58 represents an agreement between Scientology defendants and the United States Department of Justice. This agreement, or stipulation of evidence, was made in connection with the largest ever known infiltration of the United States government. This was by Scientology as part of its "Snow White program." As a result of this infiltration, dozens of United States government departments, 11 senior Scientologists went to jail including L. Ron Hubbard's wife (Mary Sue Hubbard). Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon is named a number of times in this stipulation of evidence -- in connection with activities to obstruct the course of justice. See Exh. 58, pp. 197-198, 212, 213, 214, 239. Even Kendrick Moxon's wife, Carla Moxon is mentioned on Exh. 58. p. 24. Similarly, Moxon is mentioned on numerous occasions throughout Exh. 57 which probably represents the most serious allegations ever made against practicing attorneys anywhere in the United States. Moreover, the many volumes of exhibits to the Scarff deposition contain documents evidencing many of Scarff's allegations. One allegation, involving the alleged theft of bank funds, at Timothy Bowles, Esq.'s instructions, was so serious that Gary Scarff pleaded the fifth on it, e.g. Exh. 57, pp. 127, 142 and 150.

In 1994, Scientology became the first church ever convicted of criminal conduct in Canada. Again, for obstructing justice. Similarly, in 1994, a Canadian appellate court upheld a jury award against Scientology for levelling false charges against a Canadian attorney. At that time, the jury award plus interests was approx. $4,000,000. See Exh. 24. Similarly, earlier this year the Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals upheld a $2.9 million sanction award against Scientology in connection with its litigation misconduct before United States District Court James Ideman (whose chambers adjoin those of Judge Hupp who handled the Geertz case). Exh. 46.

In 1988, the president of the Church of Scientology International and dozens of other Scientology officials, were arrested on serious criminal charges in Spain. They are on bail and in trial. Similarly, in Germany, Scientology has lost its not for profit status in one state and is the subject of federal government minister demands that it be monitored as a terrorist organization. Scientology has also been facing major problems in France and Greece.

In earlier years, the governments of Great Britain and the State of Victoria in Australia issued danming reports against Scientology after extensive government investigations. Indeed, for a period of time, Scientologists were banned from entering Great Britain. Moreover, a French Court convicted L. Ron Hubbard of criminal conduct in absentia.

More recently, Scientology investigator, Eugene Ingram was alleged to have impersonated a peace officer and a warrant for his arrest has been issued in Florida. See generally, Exh. 25. Many more examples of alleged Scientology criminal and ethical misconduct could be provided.


As I represented to you on page 3 of my June 20, 1996 letter,
"at the very least, [this letter demonstrates] that the complainant herein has been engaged in a massive obstruction of justice, subordination of perjury, interference with witnesses and other improper, unlawful and unethical conduct in an attempt among other things to neutralize me as an effective advocate on behalf of defendants sued by Scientology entities. At the very least, Mr. Famey's allegations are false. Indeed, they evidence an insidious assault upon the State Bar and judicial system.

If you require further information, assistance or documentation, please do not hesitate to telephone me.

In the meantime, I thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

   Very truly yours,
   Graham E. Berry



All exhibit references hereinafter will be to said two volumes of exhibits, unless otherwise indicated.
Back to text.
The various witness lists, listing those designated experts, are among the documents in two further volumes of exhibits being withheld because they are clearly subject to the temporary sealing order that complainant successfully sought in connection with the court file in the Geertz case.
Back to text.
The Separate Statement is also included in the two volumes of documents being held back because of the temporary sealing order.
Back to text.
Previously, the Aznarans had requested me to become co-counsel for them in their litigation against Scientology.
Back to text.
See Section V herein.
Back to text.
On the first known occasion, former L.A. County Bar President John J. Quinn (on behalf of Scientology) and Scientology attorney William Drescher met with Barry Van Sickle, Esq. and induced him to go directly to the Aznarans and have them fire their attorney Ford Greene, Esq. because Scientology could not "deal" with him.
Back to text.
The same time, Scientology officials were also conducting harassing operations against my client, Dr. Geertz. (See Dr. Geertz' November 29, 1994 letter. Exh. 18 (internal Exhibit F.))
Back to text.
See, Case No. 94 010183, Complainant, Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq.
Back to text.
As evidenced by declarations, and the deposition testimony of John J. Quinn, Esq. Barry Van Sickle, Esq., William T. Drescher, Esq., Vicki Aznaran and Richard Aznaran in Yanny II, this was the second occasion on which Scientology had improperly gone behind the back of the Aznarans' attorney of record, Ford Greene. Sec also, footnote 5 infra.
Back to text.
Scientology has not had much experience encountering the use of ex-Scientologists as experts against Scientology. It is launching this offensive against their use because such experts cannot be so easily coerced, intimidated or 'drilled' as current Scientology staffers.
Back to text.
These 1977 FBI raids on Scientology were the agencies largest ever. They resulted from the largest known infiltration of the United States Government - by Scientology. Subsequently 11 Scientologists were sent to federal prison, including L. Ron Hubbard's own wife. Scientology attorney Kendrick Moxon was named as an unindicted coconspirator in this massive criminal enterprise. Exh. 58.
Back to text.
Obviously, the Scientology attorneys who prepared Exh. 17 did not have the benefit of Exhs. 10, 11 and 12 which were only in our files - and perhaps the Aznarans own files.
Back to text.

more affidavits