SCI
page 1 / 4
exhibd
---
title: "Fishman Declaration — exhibd"
source: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/exhibd.html
retrieved: 2026-06-28
---
## Exhibit D
'''
US District Court, Central District of California
Fishman Case # 91-6426 HLH (Tx) Continued
(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