I. RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS................. 4 (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 II. SCIENTOLOGY REGULARLY FILES STATE BAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL AS PART OF THEIR HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.............. 11 III. THE CURRENTLY KNOWN MAY 19,1994 AZNARAN DECLARATIONS WERE EACH PREPARED BY SCIENTOLOGY FOR DIFFERENT OFFENSIVE PURPOSES............................ 12 IV. THE AZNARANS' ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME ARE DEMONSTRABLY FALSE................................................... 13 V. THE LEWIS, D'AMATO, BRISBOIS & BISGAARD BILLING RECORDS REBUT THE AZNARANS CLAIMS....................... 14 VI. VICKI AZNARAN'S MAY 19,1994 DECLARATION (EXH. 17) IS CONTRADICTED BY HER OWN PRIOR TESTIMONY.............. 16 VII. VICKI AZNARAN'S PREVIOUS TESTIMONY ADMITS HER MASSIVE PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY....... 20 VIII. THE INVOLVEMENT OF SCIENTOLOGY, AND ITS ATTORNEYS SUCH AS KENDRICK MOXON, IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN WELL DOCUMENTED................................ 22 IX. CONCLUSION.............................................. 23
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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 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.
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.)
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."
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).
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.
With regard to Exhibit 17, para. 26, these allegations are dealt with in Section V above and are denied in their entirety.(12)
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).
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.
"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