Notes
- This document in PDF format. ↩
Scientology's fair game on Gerry Armstrong
by Clerk1
by Clerk1
United States v. Zolin
491 U.S. 554 (1989)U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989)
United States v. Zolin
No. 88-40
Argued March 20, 1989
Decided June 21, 1989
491 U.S. 554
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 1
Syllabus
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its investigation of the tax returns of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology (the Church), filed in the Federal District Court a petition to enforce a summons it had served upon the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court demanding that he produce documents, including two tapes, in his possession in conjunction with a pending suit. The Church and Mary Sue Hubbard, intervenors in the state court action and respondents here, intervened to oppose production of the materials. They claimed, inter alia, that the IRS was not seeking the materials in good faith, and that the attorney-client privilege barred the tapes’ disclosure. The IRS argued, among other things, that the tapes fell within the exception to the attorney-client privilege for communications in furtherance of future illegal conduct — the so-called “crime-fraud” exception — and urged the District Court to listen to the tapes in making its privilege determination. In addition, the IRS submitted a declaration by a special agent which had included partial tape transcripts the IRS lawfully had obtained. The court rejected respondents’ bad-faith claim and ordered production of five of the requested documents, but it conditioned its enforcement order by placing restrictions upon IRS dissemination of the documents. The court also ruled that the tapes need not be produced, since they contained privileged attorney-client communications to which, the quoted excerpts revealed, the crime-fraud exception did not apply. The court rejected the request that it listen to the tapes, on the ground that that request had been abandoned in favor of using the agent’s declaration as the basis for determining the privilege question. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conditional enforcement order. As to the privilege issue, it agreed with respondents that the District Court would have been without power to grant the IRS’ demand for in camera review of the tapes because the Government’s evidence of crime or fraud must come from sources independent of the attorney-client communications on the tapes. Reviewing the independent evidence (a review that excluded the partial transcripts), the court affirmed the District Court’s determination as to the inapplicability of the crime-fraud exception.
Page 491 U. S. 555
Held:
1. Insofar as it upheld the District Court’s conditional enforcement order, the Court of Appeals’ judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. P. 491 U. S. 561.
2. In appropriate circumstances, in camera review of allegedly privileged attorney-client communications may be used to determine whether the communications fall within the crime-fraud exception. Pp. 491 U. S. 562-575.
(a) Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), which provides that a court is bound by the rules of evidence with respect to privileges when determining the existence of a privilege, does not prohibit the use of in camera review. Pp. 491 U. S. 565-570.
(b) However, before a district court may engage in in camera review at the request of the party opposing the privilege, that party must present evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief that such review may reveal evidence that establishes the exception’s applicability. Once this threshold showing is made, the decision whether to engage in in camera review rests in the sound discretion of the court. Pp. 491 U. S. 570-572.
(c) The party opposing the privilege may use any relevant nonprivileged evidence, lawfully obtained, to meet the threshold showing, even if its evidence is not “independent” of the contested communications as the Court of Appeals uses that term. Pp. 491 U. S. 573-574.
(d) On remand, the Court of Appeals should consider whether the District Court’s refusal to listen to the tapes in toto was justified by the manner in which the IRS presented and preserved its in camera review request. If its demand was properly preserved, that court, or the District Court on remand, should determine whether the IRS has presented a sufficient evidentiary basis for in camera review and whether it is appropriate for the District Court, in its discretion, to grant the request. Pp. 491 U. S. 574-575.
809 F.2d 1411, 842 F.2d 1135, and 850 F.2d 610, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except BRENNAN, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Page 491 U. S. 556
JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arises out of the efforts of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate the tax returns of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology (the Church), for the calendar years 1979 through 1983. We granted certiorari, 488 U.S. 907 (1988), to consider two issues that have divided the Courts of Appeals. The first is whether, when a district court enforces an IRS summons, see 26 U.S.C. § 7604, the court may condition its enforcement order by placing restrictions on the disclosure of the summoned information. [Footnote 1] The Court of Appeals in this case upheld the restrictions. We affirm its judgment on that issue by an equally divided Court.
The second issue concerns the testimonial privilege for attorney-client communications and, more particularly, the generally recognized exception to that privilege for communications in furtherance of future illegal conduct — the so-called “crime-fraud” exception. The specific question presented is whether the applicability of the crime-fraud exception must be established by “independent evidence” (i.e., without reference to the content of the contested communications themselves) or, alternatively, whether the applicability of that exception can be resolved by an in camera inspection of the allegedly privileged material. [Footnote 2] We reject the “independent evidence” approach and hold that the district court, under
Page 491 U. S. 557
circumstances we explore below, and at the behest of the party opposing the claim of privilege, may conduct an in camera review of the materials in question. Because the Court of Appeals considered only “independent evidence,” we vacate its judgment on this issue and remand the case for further proceedings. [Footnote 3]
I
In the course of its investigation, the IRS sought access to 51 documents that had been filed with the Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in connection with a case entitled Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, No. C420 153. The Armstrong litigation involved, among other things, a charge by the Church that one of its former members, Gerald Armstrong, had obtained by unlawful means documentary materials relating to Church activities, including two tapes. Some of the documents sought by the IRS had been filed under seal.
The IRS, by its Special Agent Steven Petersell, served a summons upon the Clerk on October 24, 1984, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7603, demanding that he produce the 51 documents. [Footnote 4] The tapes were among those listed. App. 33-38. On November 21, IRS agents were permitted to inspect and copy some of the summoned materials, including the tapes.
On November 27, the Church and Mary Sue Hubbard, who had intervened in Armstrong, secured a temporary restraining
Page 491 U. S. 558
order from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The order required the IRS to file with the District Court all materials acquired on November 21 and all reproductions and notes related thereto, pending disposition of the intervenors’ motion for a preliminary injunction to bar IRS use of these materials. Exh. 2 to Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Summons. By order dated December 10, the District Court returned to the IRS all materials except the tapes and the IRS’ notes reflecting their contents. See App. 30.
On January 18, 1985, the IRS filed in the District Court a petition to enforce its summons. In addition to the tapes, the IRS sought 12 sealed documents the Clerk had refused to produce in response to the IRS summons. The Church and Mary Sue Hubbard intervened to oppose production of the tapes and the sealed documents. Respondents claimed that IRS was not seeking the documents in good faith, and objected on grounds of lack of relevance and attorney-client privilege.
Respondents asserted the privilege as a bar to disclosure of the tapes. The IRS argued, among other things, however, that the tapes fell within the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, and urged the District Court to listen to the tapes in the course of making its privilege determination. In addition, the IRS submitted to the court two declarations by Agent Petersell. In the first, Petersell stated his grounds for believing that the tapes were relevant to the investigation. See Declaration in No. CV850440-HLH.
by Clerk1
1423
VICKI J. AZNARAN VOLUME 9 5-9-89 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VICKI J. AZNARAN AND RICHARD N. AZNARAN VERSUS
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.; SCIENTOLOGY MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, INC.; AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF LOS ANGELES, INC.; MISSION OFFICE WORLDWIDE; AUTHOR FAMILY TRUST; THE ESTATE OF L. RON HUBBARD; DAVID MISCAVIGE; AND NORMAN STARKEY1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*NO. CV 88-1786-WDK ORAL DEPOSITION OF VICKI J. AZNARAN
VOLUME 9
On the 9th day of May 1989, at 10:00 a.m. the oral deposition of the above-named witness was taken at the instance of the defendants before Roger W. Miller, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, at the offices of Stanley, Harris, Rice, 3100 McKinnon, Suite 1000, in the City of Dallas, County of Dallas, State of Texas, pursuant the agreement hereinafter set forth.
1495
VICKI J. AZNARAN VOLUME 9 5-9-89 A. What money was spent or how much money was spent, which I believe was 250,000.
Q. Anything else you remember telling the FBI about that incident?
A. I told them that it was Dick Story and Dick Bass were largely the players involved.
Q. Any other details you recall telling the FBI about that?
A. No, not offhand, I don’t recall anything else.
Q. Are there any other instances involving judges that you discussed with the FBI?
A. They wanted to know about Scientology executives going to see Marianna Pfaelzer one night.
Q. Anything else? That’s what you already talked about with Mr. Cooley, is it not?
A. Yeah. I think we went into that.
Q. Any other judges?
A. Yeah. Breckenridge and the Judge on the — the original Judge on the Wollersheim case. I don’t know if “original” is the right word, but he was a judge on the case during, I believe, pretrial.
Q. What did you tell the FBI about Judge Breckenridge?
A. I told him about destroying documents that
1496
VICKI J. AZNARAN VOLUME 9 5-9-89 Judge Breckenridge had ordered produced.
Q. What did you tell him about destroying those documents?
A. What did I tell him? I don’t remember specifically. That there were documents that he ordered his folders produced, and myself and some others went through those folders and took out and destroyed documents out of them that we did not want turned over.
Q. When you say he wanted his folders produced, who is that, judge Breckenridge?
A. Yeah. He ordered them turned over to him.
Q. His own folders?
A. Armstrong’s, Jerry Armstrong’s.
Q. And what did you tell the FBI about the first judge on the Wollersheim case?
A. Well, supposedly he had a son who was homosexual, and there was some — some operation withthe son’s boyfriend, which was brought up to the Judge in order to try to get rid of that Judge, if —
Q. Do you recall any more —
A. I believe that’s what I told him, the drift of it, anyway.
Q. Do you recall telling him anything else about that incident?
A. Not specifically, no.
1501
VICKI J. AZNARAN VOLUME 9 5-9-89 Q. Were you involved in that incident in any way?
A. Peripherally. No, not really. I was just there part of the time.
Q. It was not done at your instigation?
A. No.
Q. You did not participate in anything involving the Judge Pfaelzer incident directly?
A. Staff members — well, no, not really.
Q. You personally, I’m not —
A. Yeah. No, not really.
Q. Now, your knowledge of the facts that you related to the FBI concerning Judge Breckenridge is firsthand, from what I understand you are saying?
A. The destruction of the documents?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. You participated in it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told that to the FBI?
A. Yes: .
Q. And what is the source of your information concerning the first Judge on the Wollersheim case?
A. I believe David Miscavige.
Q. He told you about it?
1580
VICKI J. AZNARAN VOLUME 9 5-9-89
STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS
) )
This is to certify that I, Roger W. Miller, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, reported in shorthand the proceedings conducted at the time and place set forth in the caption hereof and that the above and foregoing pages contain a full, true, and correct transcript of said proceedings.
Given under my hand and seal of office on this the 9th day of May, 1989.
[signed Roger W. Miller]
Roger W. Miller, Certified
Shorthand Reporter No. 328
in and for the State of Texas
My commission expires December 31, 1989.
by Clerk1
I, Richard N. Aznaran, hereby declare and state:1
1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. There are many factors surrounding the releases attached to defendants Motion for Summary Judgement, attached as Exhibits A & B which are false and/or misleading.
A. The first point is that I do not believe these are the papers which we signed when we left the cult in 1987. We were forced to sign quite a few different papers before being allowed to leave. At the time, we had asked for copies of all of the papers we had signed but were not allowed to have copies of the releases.
B. One of the conditions of being allowed to leave without being declared “fair game”1 was that we report to Mark Rathbun
_____________________
1When the cult declares a person a Suppressive Person he automatically becomes Fair Game. Per the cult’s founder and existing policy when a person is Fair Game he may be lied to, cheated, stolen from and destroyed with no protection from the cults ethics codes. If the person is considered a threat in the eyes of the cult, then scientologists and their agents are encouraged or even paid to do so. This has been documented on many occasions and I am personally familiar with it.1
on a regular basis. We did do this for a while and repeatedly asked for copies of these releases. We were put off with various excuses on each occasion. We never did obtain a copy of the releases. It is clear to my now that this was so that the cult’s “dirty tricks unit” could change the releases to fit their claims and then supply them as “evidence” if and when they felt they needed them. They didn’t dare supply us with doctored copies which we did not sign as they knew that this alienate us and they didn’t want to supply us with actual copies as this would preclude them from making changes later.
3. At the time that these releases were signed both my wife and myself had been receiving intensive “security checking”. This “security checking” was conducted by Ray Mithoff. Ray Mithoff was at that time (and still is to the best of my knowledge) the highest trained and most senior security checker in all of scientology. He is so senior in fact that normally all he ever does is oversee others doing it. There were two reasons why he was used. The first was obviously because of the intimidation factor he would have and the second is not so obvious.
A. Part of our security checking was so that we could be interrogated on how much we knew and so that the potential
2
threat of our leaving could be analyzed by David Miscavige. Miscavige trusts few people and lives in constant fear that his crimes will become public and land him in jail as it has the cult’s earlier leaders. Mithoff is the only security checker Miscavige was willing to trust. This was the second reason Mithoff was used. 2
B. In retrospect, it is easy to see that this security checking was done to soften us up and remind us of what powers the cult could bring to bear on us should we refuse to cooperate fully. Their tactics obviously worked because at the time, we were in terrible fear that we would not be allowed to leave.
4. We were not allowed to seek legal counsel at the time that we signed these releases. Two of the cults’ attorneys were brought out to further intimidate us. We were told that we could ask them questions if we had any. It was made clear that
________________2 Mithoff was normally used in such cases as he is trusted and considered a loyal minion by David Miscavige. David Miscavige is the senior most of the founders “messengers” and took control upon Hubbard’s demise. It was Mithoff under the alias of “George Jones” who personally oversaw Michael Meisner’s security checking after the cult had kidnapped him. Meisner was the cult’s agent who had infiltrated various government agencies and stolen documents under the direct control of Hubbard, Hubbard’s wife and the rest of the cult’s management. It was Meisner (having again escaped from the cult and sought protection from the Justice Department) whose evidence lead to the 1977 raids on the cults Los Angeles and D.C. offices by the FBI. I know of Mithoff’s involvement because he spoke to me personally about it displaying great pride in his activities.
3
we could definitely not seek other counsel.
5. It had been my understanding through earlier contacts with scientology’s dirty tricks unit known as the Guardian’s Office and later the Office of Special Affairs that these releases had no legal binding whatsoever. In my early years as a staff member I had seen the various policies issued by the Guardian’s Office concerning releases. Releases were to be signed by every public person and staff before and after every single service they received. The idea being that the person was to be convinced that he had no recourse for lousy service and false promises. Guardian’s Office personnel had told me repeatedly that they did not hold water and were merely a deterrent. This was later confirmed by cult attorney John Peterson.
6. To me the intention behind the releases themselves appeared unlawful. Although not trained in law, it was obvious to me that the intent included the obstruction of justice. Part of our security checking was to ensure that we had no plans to go to any government agencies to give them evidence of crimes being committed by cultists or their agents. It was stressed at the time of the signing of the releases that if we spoke to government agents about any “confidential information” we had concerning the cult that we would be in violation of our agreements and that we would be sued. Additionally we were to
4
withhold information and avoid testimony in any civil litigation where the truth may be harmful to the cult or aid someone else seeking justice. With the purpose of the releases including the withholding of information from lawful authorities I certainly did not feel that they could possibly be legal or binding.
7. The conditions surrounding the sale of our horse and the loan from the cult need to be made perfectly clear. Defense attorneys constantly try to twist this into some evidence of philanthropy on the cult’s part. This just isn’t the case at all.
A. David Miscavige came to visit us in our motel room a few days before we were allowed to leave. Miscavige asked us what our plans were. We told Miscavige that we didn’t have any specific plans but that since I knew some people in the area (southern California) I would probably work something out. Miscavige made it clear that he did not want us to stay in southern California but wanted us to go to Texas. He did not want us connecting up with any of our friends in southern California be they current or former scientologists. We told him that we had limited funds and would have to stay in California long enough to sell our horse and make a little money so that we could travel. Miscavige reiterated his objection to us staying in California and stated that we would have to work it out to go back to Texas.
5
B. The next day Mark Rathbun suggested that the cult buy the horse from us and that they loan us some money so that we could leave right away and go to Texas. Rathbun stated that this had been Miscavige’s idea.
C. This loan and purchase of the horse had nothing to do with the releases.
8. There had been a fire at one of the ranches I had worked at and all of the belongings of four people had been destroyed in the fire. I was one of them. A claim was being negotiated with the insurance company. Rather than have me wait for the insurance claim to settle I was given $1,040.90 which was the value of the goods destroyed in the fire. This is money which I understood was going to be later reimbursed by the insurance company.
9. I received the pay due to me according to their rules but this was just for the previous pay period. I never received any compensation or wages for many hundreds of hours of work I had performed and been forbidden to include on my time card during the previous thirteen months or so while I worked for the Norman Starkey, Trustee of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard. This was not religious work and the estate was not a non-profit entity. I was supposed to be receiving minimum wage.
6
10. The cult purports that my wife Vicki had overall responsibility for RTC’s legal matters and litigation and such. This is only partly true. David Miscavige, the Chairman of the Board at Author’s Services, Inc.3 had final say over what did or did not occur and constantly issued streams of orders concerning everything from personnel transfers to finances. Miscavige either directly or indirectly oversaw all major decisions and even minor ones if it were his whim.
11. While it is true that Vicki (and even myself on occasion) did assign others to the Rehabilitation Project Force, it is not mentioned that there is a basic tenet in scientology’s ethics policies which state that if you fail to assign someone to the RPF and your boss feels you should have then you can be assigned to the RPF with them. In other words it is enforced from the top down. Miscavige as the senior person often assigned people for no other reason that whim. I saw him do this to others and he threatened me on several occasions. He considered such activities his “management style”.
________________
3Author Services, Inc (ASI) was a corporation set up by Miscavige, Starkey and Lyman Spurlock. It’s purpose was to manage Hubbard’s money and oversee the cults’s finances and ensure that Hubbard was getting his “cut”. I was briefed on this by Miscavige himself when ASI was first being set up.
7
12. It is stated that after Vicki escaped from the desert camp where she was being held that she was able to travel freely on her own. This is not true. We were under constant surveillance by the cults’ security personnel and all of our belongings were being held to ensure our cooperation. We feigned cooperation to prevent being declared suppressive persons and opening ourselves up to “fair game”.
13. It is stated that the cult paid three hundred dollars more for our horse than I had paid for it. This is false and in fact they paid three hundred dollars less than I had paid for it.
14. While I am not a psychologist nor am I a psychiatrist, it is clear to me now that both Vicki and I had previously been brainwashed by the scientology cult. This process began in 1972, continued through 1973 when we were forced to give all of our worldly possessions to the cult leaders and has only recently ended since we were able to escape their influence. At the time we left in 1987 we were heavily under their influence and even to this day my wife has nightmares where she is still being held captive by the cult.
A. It was only once we started to become “unbrainwashed” that we began to realize the extent of suffering, misery, fear and intimidation that we were put through.
8
15. Claims are being made to the effect that due to the cult’s philanthropic efforts on our behalf we left as happy little cultists. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At the time of my wife’s escape from Happy Valley I was called in by Miscavige and Mithoff and interrogated until four o’clock in the morning in an attempt to get me to break up with her. When this failed I was called upon to try to get her back. I pretended to do this and even went so far as to encourage Jesse Prince and David Bush (the two men who escaped with Vicki) to go back. But during this whole time we planned to go along with whatever the cultists wanted in order to be allowed to leave without being declared “fair game”. We lived in constant apprehension and fear, not daring to believe that we could pull it off but praying against hope that we could. By the time we had successfully made it through our security interrogations we would have signed anything to be allowed to leave.
16. Scientology purports itself to be a religion. In the early 1970’s when I first became involved with scientology, the cultists were quite open about the fact that they called themselves a religion only for tax purposes. It was only later, in the mid 70’s that the Guardians Office forced the “churches” and franchises to conform to “religious image programs”. These programs covered everything from hanging up crosses to having staff “ordained” and having get togethers on Sundays and calling
9
them Sunday services. It would never stay in though because it was obviously bogus. Finally the threats became great enough to force it in. Hubbard himself, in earlier unedited versions of his taped lecture called “The Road to Truth” stated that there was no god but not to let the “wogs” (non-scientologists) know or they would never join. When scientology was being set up in Mexico it was decided not to make the claims of being a religion due to the fact that it would effect their ability to make money. The same thing goes for a couple of other countries. When the decision was whether to be a religion or make money, make money won out. I know of all of these points from my own personal experience.
17. I have been informed by my former attorney that although we have made discovery requests, Defendants have failed and refused to comply with even the simplest requests. During this time they have barraged us with burdensome and costly demands exceeding all reason. Additional evidence is currently in the hands of Defendants but withheld from Plaintiffs. This evidence is favorable to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement.
I declare under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
10
Executed this 15th day of January 1989, at Dallas, TX.
[Signed]
Richard N. Aznaran
by Clerk1
I, Vicki Aznaran, hereby declare and state:1
1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. There are many factors surrounding the releases attached as Exhibits A and B to defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement which the defendants neglect to mention. Firstly these “releases” appear to be much longer than the one I signed. My husband and I had asked for copies of what we signed at the time and were told that we would get copies later. We never got these. After we filed suit, the releases attached to defendants motion for summary judgement were brought forth by the Scientologists. The releases which were signed (which do not appear to be these) were signed under extreme duress. I had been incarcerated in the desert for the last 6 weeks, under guard, locked up, and not allowed adequate sleep and eating inadequate food. I was physically ill.
A. I was not represented by counsel. Contrary to the affidavit submitted by defendants I was not availed of any counsel of my own. The only counsel present were the cult’s attorneys both of whom I knew were strictly looking after the interests of the Scientology cult which they are paid very well to do.
1
B. Shortly after my escape from Happy Valley I had called my sister in Texas because I was afraid of what the Scientologists might do to me and/or my husband. I had wanted her to know that I was planning to come home and that if she didn’t hear from me to please call the law enforcement authorities. There were no releases in question at that time and the matter of legal counsel had not even come up.
3. There is the matter of “Fair Game” which is known to anyone who has been in Scientology for any length of time. If you do not conform to the power hierarchy in Scientology you can and will be considered to be Fair Game which per Scientology policy means that you can be lied to, cheated, stolen from, sued, harassed and anything else they deem necessary to get you to conform to their wishes. My husband and I had no desire to be declared Fair Game. Had we demanded our own counsel or not signed what we were told to sign or refused to undergo the extensive security checking they demanded we would have been declared “suppressive persons and thus become fair game”. We decided that we would co-operate with whatever was asked of us so that we could get away without being declared “fair game”.
C. Since I left Scientology I have been monitored and harassed. This became increasingly intense when I was asked to testify for Joe Yanny I received threatening phone calls from cult
2
attorneys and cult members came to my home and place of business to intimidate me and attempt to coerce me not to testify for Joe Yanny. Since the filing of my lawsuit I have been declared suppressive and thus fair game. Private investigators follow and harass me and my family. My sister has been sued as well as myself and my husband. The cult has interfered with our business in an attempt to cause us to lose business. They have run phoney credit checks on us through a Ford dealership in Sacramento California. They have told the postal authorities that we were under investigation for drugs.
4. Additionally, I was told by Mr. John Peterson, one of the Scientology Cult’s attorneys for many years, that the releases that the Scientologists had people sign were not worth the paper they were written upon. He said that one could never sign away their right to sue nor could they refuse to testify against Scientology should they be subpoenaed before a court of law. Mr. Peterson said the value of the releases was that once someone had signed them, that person would think that he could not bring suit or testify against Scientology and that would act as a deterrent. One of the major purposes of these releases is to prevent anyone from testifying hostilely against Scientology to the U.S. government. Scientologists are trained to believe that the U.S. government is involved in a conspiracy to wipe them out. They also have a legitimate fear of being prosecuted for their criminal activity such as tax fraud, tax evasion, and obstruction
3
of justice.
5. The Scientologists also neglect to mention that they held all of my personal belongings and did not release them to me until I had signed the release. I know of others who did not sign releases and their pets were given away and their belongings destroyed. I did not wish for that to happen to me. It was not much but it was all I had to show for the fifteen years of exploitation by the cult.
6. I believe that there are other cases brought against the Scientology cult in which releases such as these were held to be invalid. We have not had adequate discovery into this matter to learn all the facts and need some more time in order to do that. Defendants have continuously refused to comply with my prior attorneys discovery requests although we have cooperated in their extensive, lengthy discovery with many days of depositions including depositions of our families.
7. These releases were not negotiated at all nor were they mutual in that we received nothing in return. In regard to defendants’ Exhibit H, a loan to be paid back with interest is not recompense. We did not request any loan and were told that we were getting it to keep us “out of enemy hands”. In regard to defendant’s Exhibit C they paid for personal belongings which were destroyed in a fire caused by the negligence of management,
4
overcrowded conditions and a lack of adherence to fire codes is merely putting back what was already there. This vas being repaid by the insurance company regardless of any releases. The fact of Richard’s $387.37 in wages that were owed would have been paid as his wages. These were not in question and nothing about them was negotiated. The reason the cult wished to indemnify me in any lawsuit I might be named in or subpoenaed in was to keep me from testifying hostilely in any of the litigation against them or to government agencies. The horse was purchased for less than we had put into her. We made no profit from that and did not even wish to sell the horse but the Scientologists wanted us out of California quickly so we would not be served with any subpoenas in the cases that were going on against them at that time. That was why they offered to purchase the horse.
8. I was forced to assign myself to the RPF. I was told that if I did not write an issue assigning myself that David Miscavige would write it and it would be far far worse than anything I could ever imagine. In other words he would write anything he wished to and make it broadly known. One example of this is a case where a girl refused to conform as ordered to and the Scientologists wrote an issue stating that the girl was a lesbian and published it to all of her friends. She escaped them and sued for libel and slander. It turned out that it was completely false and the Scientologists paid her to drop her suit and be quiet. This was in the San Francisco area in 1982. I was informed of this by the
5
cult member in the Office of Special Affairs who handled the lawsuit.
9. I did not decide on March 31, 1987 that I should leave the RPF. I had attempted to escape two weeks before that but had been caught by guards. I had expressed my desire to get away to several people on different occasions.
10. During the time I was in a motel in Hemet California, after leaving the RPF and up until any releases were signed, my husband and I were being security checked daily (an intense and lengthy form of interrogation) and we were being watched by guards. We had hardly any money, less than fifty dollars and we were extremely afraid of being declared fair game if we did not co-operate. I was in a very bad physical and mental state and would have signed anything in order to get away. The only thing I was grateful for was getting away.
I declare under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 15th day of January, 1989, at Dallas, Texas.
[Signed]
Vicki J. Aznaran