SCI
page 2 / 4
alteration in It, some hook in it that is not what the witness would have
said had he really thought about It. but if the witness has agreed, then
there it is on the record. There was an example of this In the IRS 70-72
case where a witness was being asked a series of dumb questions off of an
ASHO ethics order, and the cross-examining attorney was getting it all
mixed up, finally restating part of the witness' words and stretching It
to the conclusion that "ASHO Is a subsidiary of the Sea Org"--to which
our witness said "yes!" Well that is simply untrue, and is even
preposterous to anyone who knows the facts (that ASHO was part of the
corporation CSC, that the SO has never been a corporate entity, and that
there is NO legal relationship between the two--and the term "subsidiary"
is wholly a legal term). The witness was dying for an ack and some
duplication from the lawyer; what he got was a false duplication ("Oh, I
see: ASHO is a subsidiary of the SO") and what we got was a false and/or
damaging statement on the record by someone who had no real knowledge of
the facts of that area.
4. Generalities vs. specifics. 'Scientologists usually try to avoid
dealing in generalities, but there are such things as good generalities.
Entheta and suppressive statements from the cross-examining attorney will
often take the form of generalities.
When confronted by the opposition lawyer by generalities, our witness
should ask for specifics. That will often totally cut the lawyer's line
of cross-exam (as he Is proceeding by generalities and cannot have or use
the specifics). On the other hand, our witness should look for
opportunities to use theta generalities; since It's theta, the
cross-examiner will not ask for specifics--he's stung and he'll want to
Set away from that area. If he does ask for specifics, the witness
should supply them, and chances are It will end up hurting the
(0042)
opposition. Examples: "Every Scientologist knows it would be violative
of the creeds and codes to lie about or falsify recorfd," or "Scientology
has helped thousands of people to better lives," or "We all know, or any
Scientologist who has read and understood the writings of our religion
would surely know, that it is a religion and it deals with the Spirit of
Man," or "We all know that the aim of Scientology is a civilization
without war, crime, Insanity . . . . " An entheta cross-examiner will
steer away from that stuff like a vampire from a cross. Just let him
have it--with theta!!
5. A witness is to testify to things he knows of his personal knowledge
only (except when he's launching a theta generality). He can only
testify to what he did or saw; he cannot say what another told him he saw
or did. This aspect is very useful to our witnesses on cross-exam: when
being questioned about a difficult area, the witness should ask himself,
-How do I know that? Did I see It or do It?" and he won't let himself be
led into an area where he Is not prepared, or isn't competent to testify
or is speculating or making conclusions. Speculation and conclusion are
not usually admissible testimony, but a clever cross-examiner can lead
the witness off into an area where he assumes what the "right" answer is,
but doesn't really have personal knowledge. Example: Q--"What would you
do If LRH ordered you to sell the ship?" The correct answer (if your
-witness never received such an order)-would NOT be: A-'Well,, gosh. I
guess I'd sell the ship..."; the proper answer would be: A--"That never
happened." Period. That answer will alert the judge that the question was
improper, a request for speculation on the part of the witness..
6. Along the line of answering the exact question asked, and not
getting outside of personal knowledge, the witness should keep in mind on
cross-exam this tip: BE LITERAL. If the attorney doesn't know enough to
ask the right question, he won't get the answer he's after. Don't help
the poor, blundering soul. Sit back and answer the questions literally.
7. It Is favorite trick of government lawyers (at least It sure was
In the IRS 70-72 case) to try and Impeach a Scientology witness on the
text of PLs. One can only be Impeached by being led to testify contrary
to what one has previously written or said. One cannot be Impeached (or
shown to be Inconsistent and therefore not cre dible) by being shown a PL
(0043)
which says something different from what one has testified to (unless, of
course, the witness Is the author of the PL and cannot explain
satisfactorily the circumstances and Intent of the Issue). The natural
reaction of most staff members Is to adjust or modify what he has said so
Chat It does conform to policy letters; as a good Scientologist or staff
member he doesn't want to be accused of disagreement with or
noncompliance to PLs. But the courtroom Is different; no one Is going to
get into trouble for saying they didn't follow a particular PL. The