SCI
page 6 / 25
47. One afternoon, I was informed, along with the other staff members of the
FREEDOM office, that our office was to be moved to another location across
the street, outside the big blue Scientology complex which used to be
Cedars of Lebanon Hospital at Sunset and Berendo in Hollywood, California.
We were instructed to move to an office on the second floor of B building
on Catalina Street. I was told that the FREEDOM office and the Treasury
office of OSA US were to move out of the Scientology Complex because it
looked like Lawrence Wollersheim was going to win his suit against CSC and
the corporation had to be gutted of all its assets before the decision was
handed down. All that would be left of CSC would be a shell consisting of
a Treasury office and the FREEDOM office. When Wollersheim tried to
collect from CSC, he would discover that there were no assets at all in
CSC .
48. We did move our office to the building on Catalina. The
Treasury office also moved. I was told by the Treasury Secretary, Rhea
Smith, that all of the assets of CSC had been taken out of the CSC
accounts. The motto of OSA US during the Wollersheim trial was "Not One
Thin Dime," meaning Scientology would never pay even a dime to Lawrence
Wollersheim. The OSA US
The OSA US staff were briefed on the gutting of CSC at a staff meeting, and
all of
the staff cheered because now Wollersheim couldn't get his hands on any
money even if he won his suit.
49. This gutting of CSC to hide assets
from a litigant and then cheering about it at a staff meeting is an
example of the contempt in which the Scientology Command holds the UPS.
justice system. The corporate structure of Scientology is created and
recreated depending upon the convenience of the moment, as illustrated in
the above example.
50. The idea that the remarks attributed to Fishman
and Geertz in the Time Magazine article upon which CSI's claims are
purportedly based refer to CSI rather than to Scientology generally is
absurd. Inside the Scientology empire no one takes the corporate structure
seriously. The corporate structure is a contrivance to enable Scientology
to interface to its advantage with the "wog" world. This Court should not
be fooled by the corporate sleight of hand which was attempted in this
case. "Scientology, "Scientologist" and "the church" refer to the
overall, generic empire of Scientology, not to CSI, and no one even within
Scientology would think of CSI when reading those words, much less the
general public.
It is CSI That is Harassing. Not the Defendants
51. CSI asserted that this case must be dismissed to protect several
Scientology
celebrities who were noticed for brief depositions not to exceed two hours
each. CSI claims that these celebrities were served for the express
purpose of harassment and abuse. CSI asserted that it feared these
celebrities would be exposed to confidential upper level materials if CSI
allowed them to be deposed. CSI further asserted that "CSI has seen its
religious tenets and scriptures assailed; it has been compelled to
produce or offer for deposition the religion's most senior ecclesiastical
leaders so they can be reviled; and it has endured a transparent campaign
to harass CSI into default." CSI cited this as its excuse to move to
dismiss this entire case.
52. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The CSI manag- ing agents and the other Scientologists who have been
deposed in this case have been interrogated only about the use and misuse
of L. Ron Hubbard's technology ("Tech") for secular purposes. The fact
that the same Tech is also used for so-called religious purposes does not
make inquiry about the Tech a reviling of the Scientology belief system or
its most senior members.
53. Even I, who spent many years helping to
create this kind of utterly hypocritical rhetoric for the Church of
Scientol- ogy, am stunned at this latest fantasy concocted by CSI.
54. Dr. Geertz's attorneys have never expressed in my presence any intention
whatsoever to bring up Scientology's confidential upper level materials
during the deposition of the Scientology celebrities. I have been advising
Graham Berry and Gordon Calhoun, Dr. Geertz's attorneys, as an expert
consultant on Scientology Tech matters. I would know from the type of
advice and guidance they have sought from me whether they intended to
inquire about the "religious" or "ecclesiastical" uses of the Tech as
opposed to the secular use of the Tech. Their inquiries have been limited
to secular uses of the Tech. Why should they ask these people about
Scientology's confidential upper level materials? There would be no point
in bringing up those materials. For the Scientologists to assert a concern
over this is simply another example of their assuming that others will use
their own harassing tactics. In fact, I advised Dr. Geertz's attorneys to
depose the Scientology celebrities about the lack of corporate boundaries