SCI
page 3 / 15
appearances, my position as Chairman of the Board of RTC is
known, as is its distinction from actual Church management
officials of CSI. I also oversee the affairs of the Religious
Technology Center in its function of verifying that the
source writings of the religion are kept pure. This
specifically includes the verification that the materials
representing themselves as being Dianetics and Scientology
are in fact that, and that they honestly reflect the source
writings of the religion by L. Ron Hubbard. I also oversee
RTC's function of assuring that the trademarks of Dianetics
and Scientology are legally registered and kept current in
over 190 countries around the world.
11. Neither RTC nor I has any corporate authority over any
Scientology church, including CSI. CSI is the Mother Church
of the Scientology religion and has been since its inception
in 1981. As such, CSI is responsible for the activities
commensurate with such a role, including the ecclesiastical
management of Churches, dissemination and propagation of the
faith and defense of its activities, including external and
legal affairs. All of the foregoing facts were submitted to
and thoroughly reviewed by the Internal Revenue Service prior
to the recent recognition of the tax-exempt status of CSI,
RTC and a host of other Church corporations and entities.
FAILURE TO SERVE SUBPOENA
12. Apparently Geertz's counsel made some attempts to serve
me with a deposition subpoena in Los Angeles in December of
1993, when I was away from California on business in the
United Kingdom and Washington, D.C. I keep a busy schedule
that requires extensive travel in the course of handling a
wide range of ecclesiastical duties, and my schedule has
nothing to do with the presence or absence of process
servers. In January, I was away on business in Clearwater,
Florida and Washington, D.C. In Washington, I met with the
head of Interpol, Raymond Kendall, on one of the days that
Geertz's counsel unilaterally set for my deposition. This
meeting had been arranged for more than a month and since
this individual was traveling all the way from Interpol
headquarters in Europe, it was hardly something I could
cancel. During that same week, and on another day arbitrarily
set for my deposition, I met with IRS officials in a
similarly pre-arranged meeting. In fact, I was only home for
approximately 25 days in all of 1993. I was simply not in the
State of California during the entire time in which service
attempts on me were apparently being made. I understand this
fact was made known to the Magistrate Judge in this case and
later to the Court. To this day, I have never received a
subpoena in this case.
13. Any suggestion that I try to avoid giving testimony is
just false. In May of 1992, I testified at a legal proceeding
in Toronto, Canada, although there was no legal means to
compel my testimony. I testified for four full days in the
summer of 1993 in Church of Scientology International v. Eli
Lilly. et al., a case pending in federal court in Washington,
D.C. There are over 1100 pages of deposition transcript that
comprise that deposition, with very little in the way of
objections or colloquy. I did so because I knew my testimony
was needed and relevant. In 1990, I was deposed for two full
days in Bent Corydon v. Church of Scientology International.
In that instance, I was "rewarded" for appearing by having
plaintiff's counsel serve me with various subpoenas in other
disrelated matters. In both Lilly and Corydon, the opposition
first attempted to notice my deposition while concurrently
arguing that I would "refuse to appear." In each instance I
was forced to refute such nonsense and in fact did appear. To
claim that I evade service or avoid being deposed or
otherwise avoid giving testimony is nonsense on its face.
14. I want the Court to be aware that upon learning that my
deposition had been ordered by the Magistrate Judge on
January 4, 1994 and upon reading the allegations that
apparently led to that order, which I first read on January
6, 1994, I consulted with my counsel in this matter, who
advised that I seek the Court's review of the Magistrate
Judge's order concerning my deposition. At the same time, I
also instructed my counsel that in spite of the fact that I
had no knowledge of the issues raised in this case, and in
spite of the lack of any service of a subpoena on me, and in
spite of the fact, as noted above, I was to be out of town
for much of January, counsel should try to make arrangements
for my deposition to be taken, should the Court not reverse
the Magistrate Judge's order. Efforts to make such
arrangements commenced on January 10, 1994 and continued
through February 4, 1994. I am informed that Geertz's counsel