I, VICKI J. AZNARAN, hereby declare as follows:1
1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.
2. From 1972 until 1987, I was a member of various Church of Scientology (“Church”) entities. During that time I held a number of important positions in the corporate and ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church. I was also a devout believer in the religion of Scientology. In March of 1987, my husband Richard Aznaran and I left our positions with the Church and returned home to Texas from California. At the time we left, Richard and I voluntarily executed certain releases and waivers in full settlement of any and all disputes we had with the Church. In April 1988, notwithstanding our execution of those releases and waivers, Richard and I filed a lawsuit against several Church entities and individuals in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
3. During the time I was a senior Church executive, I gained first hand knowledge of the manner in which some apostate former Church members had pursued civil claims against the Church, and obtained successful verdicts or judgments or favorable settlements notwithstanding the merits. The courts consistently allowed the Church’s adversaries leeway to introduce allegations without regard to the normal rules of procedure and evidence. At the time, this was a source of great concern to me, both as a Scientologist and a Church executive, particularly
1
since my staff duties included responsibilities regarding certain areas of litigation.
4. Thus, having participated in Scientology litigation both as a Church executive and as a litigant against the Church, I bring two distinct, but related, perspectives to this declaration from my personal knowledge and observation. First, at the time my husband and I brought our own suit I understood that the legal system could be used to pursue my position. Later, upon having sued various Scientology churches and having allied myself with other litigants and their counsel suing Scientology churches, I observed first hand the ways in which the legal system is successfully used by litigants and counsel opposing the Church.
5. The fundamental premise upon which the Church’s adversaries and their lawyers operate is the likelihood that courts and juries are willing to believe any allegation made against the Church by a former member, without regard to plausibility, contrary evidence or the true facts. That concept was most succinctly expressed, on videotape, by anti-Scientology litigant, Gerald Armstrong, when he stated that a lack of documents or evidence was no impediment to litigating against the Church when the litigant can “just allege it.” The active pursuit of that litigation approach has now led to the formation of a small group of disaffected Scientologists who are now employed by an even smaller number of attorneys who are making a practice of litigating against the Church. This stable of witnesses can be relied upon to furnish “corroboration” for any allegation which an attorney wishes to make against the Church in
2
pleadings, at deposition, in affidavits, and ultimately in trial testimony.
6. The abusive device most consistently utilized by litigants and counsel adverse to the Church occurs in connection with the filing of declarations or affidavits. It is common knowledge among the stable of disaffected ex-Scientologists who supply such sworn statements that the attorneys dictate the desired content of such testimony with the primary, often sole, purpose of presenting inflammatory accusations that prejudice the Church in the eyes of the court. In such declarations or affidavits, context, the truth, and relevance to the issues in the case are disregarded altogether. As time has passed and this technique has evolved, anti-Church litigants and their counsel have become more and more emboldened in making such declarations and affidavits because the tactic has proven to be so effective in poisoning courts and juries against the Church.
7. The most common and probably the most devastating manifestation of this tactic is the use of allegations concerning the so-called “Fair Game” policy of the Church. The term “Fair Game” has been misrepresented and repeatedly used by the Church’s litigation adversaries as a means to create prejudice against the Church. To accomplish that end, counsel fashions a declaration in which the witness identifies an ugly event — real, imagined, or just plain invented — and then alleges that it was a deliberate act which was committed by the Church. The idea is to create the false impression that the Church is committing acts of retribution in pursuit of “Fair Game.
8. A central element of exploiting the “Fair Game” tactic
3
is to make certain that the allegations are crafted so they cannot be objectively disproved. In other words, the declarant makes an allegation of a bad or harmful or harassing act that cannot be documented in a tangible form and then alleges that it was done by the Church pursuant to the Fair Game “Policy.” By so doing, the declarant has put the Church in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative and trying to prove it without documentation. It becomes a matter of the declarant’s word against that of the Church, and by making the act alleged sufficiently despicable, the result is prejudice against the Church.
9. The Fair Game policy was a policy to forward Scientology’s belief that any attacks on Scientology by those seeking to destroy it were to be vigorously defended by legal means and never ignored. It was not a policy condoning or encouraging illegal or criminal activities. The policy was misinterpreted by others and was thus canceled. It has since been used by litigants over the years as a vehicle to give credibility to allegations to try to prejudice courts against Scientology. An event happens such as someone’s wife dies in a car accident, and the allegation is made that this is a murder committed by the Church pursuant to “Fair Game” policy. This technique is known to those who attack the Church and so they continue to use this term to try to prejudice the courts. These people feel comfortable making scandalous allegations, knowing that the Church does not have such a policy. I am unaware of any allegations of “Fair Game” being made by persons who have simply left the Church. Rather, the charges of Fair Game are invariably
4
made by parties who have subsequently become involved in litigation with the Church and who have started working with other anti-Scientology litigants familiar with this tactic.
10. It has been my experience that these litigants and lawyers become emboldened because the history of Scientology litigation demonstrates that virtually any charge leveled against the Church in litigation by an avowed enemy, no matter how outrageous or unfounded, will be accepted and believed. Based on my experience it is a matter of common knowledge that efforts by the Church to refute such prejudicial allegations have commonly not been believed in the courts.
11. Thus, it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term “Fair Game”. They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the context of litigation so that they can win money or force the Church to settle.
12. While I was in the Church I witnessed the “Fair Game” allegations made by Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim in their litigation against the Church. My position in the Church at the time gave me broad access to what was occurring and I would have known were the allegations made by Armstrong and Wollersheim true. Wollersheim, for example, made the allegation that a pipe bomb was found on his parent’s lawn and, without any corroboration, blamed the Church. I know from my own personal
5
knowledge that this outrageous allegation of Church involvement is absolutely false. During the Wollersheim trial, rumors began to spread throughout the trial courtroom that Judge Ronald Swearinger had been followed, his tires had been slashed, and his pet dog had drowned, and that the Church was responsible for that supposed activity. All of those allegations of Church complicity were false, as well, as I now personally attest. Armstrong alleged the Church was trying to kill him and this allegation also was just made up. I know of its falsity of my own personal knowledge. Both Armstrong and Wollersheim continue to make the same type of outrageous allegations of Fair Game to forward their litigation to this day, due in no small measure to the fact that they practiced Fair Game so effectively in their earlier, victorious litigation against the Church.
13. The term “fair game” has become a catch phrase for those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and that those allegations were nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them. From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that “Fair Game” as they portray it is not Church policy. “Fair Game”
6
exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and under the laws of each individual state thereof, including the laws of the states of California and Texas, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 19th day of May, 1994 in Dallas, Texas.
[signed]
Vicki Aznaran
Declaration of Vicki J. Aznaran (Sell-out No. 2) (May 19, 1994)
I, VICKI J. AZNARAN, hereby declare as follows:1
1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.
2. From 1972 until 1987, I was a member of various Church of Scientology (“Church”) entities. During that time I held a number of important positions in the corporate and ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church. I was also a devout believer in the religion of Scientology. In March of 1987, my husband Richard Aznaran and I left our positions with the Church and returned home to Texas from California. At the time we left, Richard and I voluntarily executed certain releases and waivers in full settlement of any and all disputes we had with the Church. In April of 1988, notwithstanding our execution of those releases and waivers, Richard and I filed a lawsuit against several Church entities and individuals in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
3. During the time I was a senior Church executive, I gained first hand knowledge of the manner in which some apostate former Church members had pursued civil claims against the Church, and obtained successful verdicts or judgments or favorable settlements notwithstanding the merits. The courts consistently allowed the Church’s adversaries leeway to introduce allegations without regard to the normal rules of procedure and evidence. At the time, this was a source of great concern to me, both as a Scientologist and a Church executive, particularly
1
since my staff duties included responsibilities regarding certain areas of litigation.
4. Thus, having participated in Scientology litigation both as a Church executive and as a litigant against the Church, I bring two distinct, but related, perspectives to this declaration from my personal knowledge and observation. First, at the time my husband and I brought our own suit I understood that the legal system could be used to pursue my position. Later, upon having sued various Scientology churches and having allied myself with other litigants and their counsel suing Scientology churches, I observed first hand the ways in which the legal system is successfully used by litigants and counsel opposing the Church.
5. The fundamental premise upon which the Church’s adversaries and their lawyers operate is the likelihood that courts and juries are willing to believe any allegation made against the Church by a former member, without regard to plausibility, contrary evidence or the true facts. That concept was most succinctly expressed, on videotape, by anti-Scientology litigant, Gerald Armstrong, when he stated that a lack of documents or evidence was no impediment to litigating against the Church when the litigant can “just allege it.” The active pursuit of that litigation approach has now led to the formation of a small group of disaffected Scientologists who are now employed by an even smaller number of attorneys who are making a practice of litigating against the Church. This stable of witnesses can be relied upon to furnish “corroboration” for any allegation which an attorney wishes to make against the Church in
2
pleadings at deposition, in affidavits, and ultimately in trial testimony.
6. The process of “just alleging it” begins with the complaint. For example, in the complaint which was filed on our behalf against the Church, there were numerous allegations which were either false or which we could not substantiate. When I was initially deposed in our case, I conceded that numerous portions of the complaint should not have been drafted by counsel in the fashion they were. Thus, for example, in deposition in June, 1988, I testified that the allegation in paragraph 7 of our complaint, that the “[Church] organizations were created solely for the purpose of making money from the sale of copyrights of the book Dianetics…” was not true. I testified that I did not create corporate structures within the Church and that I do not know where this allegation in paragraph 16 of our complaint came from.
7. There were several other improper or incorrect allegations which should not have appeared in the complaint that I had to acknowledge in deposition. As another example, the complaint alleged in paragraph 16 that I worked for Author Services, Inc., in managing the sales of copyright of the book Dianetics. In deposition I testified that I never worked for Author Services, Inc. and was not aware of any such sale of copyrights.
8. Paragraph 16 of the complaint included the allegation that I had been employed as a “missionaire” to remove assets of Defendant Church of Scientology of California to overseas trusts where they could not be accessed. This allegation was false, and
3
it was not an allegation that either my husband or I requested be included in the complaint. I was definitely not employed for that reason, and I have never claimed that I was.
9. It was also alleged in paragraph 16 of the complaint that I was employed as a “missionaire” to “set up sham corporate structures to evade prosecution generally.” This allegation is also false. I was never employed for that purpose. I had never even heard of that allegation until I read it in the filed complaint. I did not make that allegation, and I do not know where it came from.
10. Paragraph 12 of the complaint contains the false allegation that my husband and I were forced to “involuntarily abandon [our] identities, spouses, and loyalties…” My depostion testimony established that this was not the case. For example, my husband used to engage in his hobby of target shooting during his years in the Church. We had pets, including a German shepherd which my husband trained in his spare time. I took riding lessons. I also trained in karate, because I was interested in learning that discipline. These were all ways in which my husband and I expressed our individuality while on staff and demonstrate no abandonment, forced or otherwise, of our individual interests.
11. My husband and I both testified to numerous separate, factual errors in the complaint. Our attorney firm, Cummins & White, and later our subsequent counsel, Ford Greene, were aware of these errors to which we testified. Even though we asked them to, no attempt to file a corrected or amended complaint was ever made, nor did any such correction ever occur.
4
12. The abusive device most consistently utilized by litigants and counsel adverse to the Church occurs in connection with the filing of declarations or affidavits. It is common knowledge among the stable of disaffected ex-Scientologists who supply such sworn statements that the attorneys dictate the desired content of such testimony with the primary, often sole, purpose of presenting inflammatory accusations that prejudice the Church in the eyes of the court. In such declarations or affidavits, context, the truth, and relevance to the issues in the case are disregarded altogether. As time has passed and this technique has evolved, anti-Church litigants and their counsel have become more and more emboldened in making such declarations and affidavits because the tactic has proven to be so effective in poisoning courts and juries against the Church.
13. The most common and probably the most devastating manifestation of this tactic is the use of allegations concerning the so-called “Fair Game” policy of the Church. The term “Fair Game” has been misrepresented and repeatedly used by the Church’s litigation adversaries as a means to create prejudice against the Church. To accomplish that end, counsel fashions a declaration in which the witness identifies an ugly event — real, imagined, or just plain invented — and then alleges that it was a deliberate act which was committed by the Church. The idea is to create the false impression that the Church is committing acts of retribution in pursuit of “Fair Game.”
14. A central element of exploiting the “Fair Game” tactic is to make certain that the allegations are crafted so they cannot be objectively disproved. In other words, the declarant
5
makes an allegation of a bad or harmful or harassing act that cannot be documented in a tangible form and then alleges that it was done by the Church pursuant to the Fair Game “policy”. By so doing, the declarant has put the Church in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative and trying to prove it without documentation. It becomes a matter of the declarant’s word against that of the Church, and by making the act alleged sufficiently despicable, the result is prejudice against the Church.
15. The Fair Game policy was a policy to forward Scientology’s belief that any attacks on Scientology by those seeking to destroy it were to be vigorously defended by legal means and never ignored. It was not a policy condoning or encouraging illegal or criminal activities. The policy was misinterpreted by others and was thus canceled. It has since been used by litigants over the years as a vehicle to give credibility to allegations to try to prejudice courts against Scientology. An event happens such as someone’s wife dies in a car accident, and the allegation is made that this is a murder committed by the Church pursuant to “Fair Game” policy. This technique is known to those who attack the Church and so they continue to use this term to try to prejudice the courts. These people feel comfortable making scandalous allegations, knowing that the Church does not have such a policy. I am unaware of any allegations of “Fair Game” being made by persons who have simply left the Church. Rather, the charges of Fair Game are invariably made by parties who have subsequently become involved in litigation with the Church and who have started working with
6
other anti-Scientology litigants familiar with this tactic.
16. It has been my experience that these litigants and lawyers become emboldened because the history of Scientology litigation demonstrates that virtually any charge leveled against the Church in litigation by an avowed enemy, no matter how outrageous or unfounded, will be accepted and believed. Based on my experience it is a matter of common knowledge that efforts by the Church to refute such prejudicial allegations have commonly not been believed in the courts.
17. Thus, it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term “Fair Game”. They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the context of litigation so that they can win money or force the Church to settle.
18. The term “fair game” has become a catch phrase for those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and that those allegations were nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them. From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see
7
that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that “Fair Game” as they portray it is not Church policy. “Fair Game” exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church.
19. There are other things I have seen and experienced in anti-Scientology litigation that seem very unusual to me. There is a group or “team” of anti-Scientology witnesses who are being paid for their testimony, and based on my experience, this testimony is being altered and falsified, either by the witnesses themselves or the attorneys. For example, Graham Berry, counsel of record for a defendant in the case of CSI v. Fishman, filed numerous declarations from ex-Scientologists after the lawsuit was dismissed which had been purchased for many thousands of dollars. Mr. Berry told me that these payments were made possible because his client had insurance coverage.
20. In February of 1994, Mr. Berry called my husband and me and offered to hire us at the rate of $125 per hour for us to study materials in the Fishman case and to write declarations supporting issues Mr. Berry wished us to support in the Fishman case. Mr. Berry gave us an advance of $2,500, which we were expected to bill against services rendered. He told us that because his client in the Fishman case had insurance coverage, the insurance money enabled him to do this. He said he was able to get the insurance company to pay our salaries by naming us as “experts”, which also enabled the use our declarations without regard to whether we were actually witnesses to the events at issue in the Fishman case, which we were not.
8
21. Mr. Berry told us he had assembled a team of former Scientologists for use in litigation, all of whom were employed by him in the Fishman case as so-called experts. Although we were not eager to get involved in Fishman’s litigation, we agreed to do because the $2,500 advance by Mr. Berry was attractive. Mr. Berry sent us some documents from the court record in the Fishman case, which I read, since I was being paid $125 per hour to do so.
22. I know from subsequent conversations I have had that Andre Tabayoyon is similarly employed, as are Vaughn and Stacy Young and others, each paid to create declarations for Mr. Berry when he needs them. On the basis of my knowledge of the Church and the declarants, I can state that these individuals are not “experts’ in any recognized sense of the word as I understand it. They are nothing more than witnesses who are being paid to make sworn statements against the Church. More than just being paid, they are actually employed by Mr. Berry as a source of signed declarations of testimony or as a “source” of allegations, the need for such is decided by him.
23. Later in February 1994, Mr. Berry called us again. He said that the Church had dismissed the Fishman case and he needed declarations from us on an immediate basis for use in his motion to recover attorneys fees and costs. I thought this was odd, since it seemed to me that one would support such a motion with receipts, bills, invoices, and such. Even though it seemed senseless to provide declarations after the case was dismissed, I told him I would provide a declaration because he had already paid and I would rather have done this than return the money he
9
had paid us. He then told us what areas of testimony he wanted us to cover in the declarations. Accordingly, I transmitted to Mr. Berry’s firm a eight-page declaration which I had prepared on my word processor and signed on the last page bearing the date of February 24, 1994.
24. I recently learned that Mr. Berry actually filed a nineteen-page declaration purportedly signed by me. Mr. Berry attached my signature to a declaration which I never saw or authorized.
25. Passages inserted without my knowledge or authorization in the version of my declaration filed by Mr. Berry include statements that are untrue and/or about which I have no personal knowledge. Not only did I not make these statements, I never heard of them before. The following are some examples of these falsities:
a) In my declaration there are statements concerning “Project Quaker” which are false. In fact I have never heard of “Project Quaker,” and the statement in the version of my declaration Mr. Berry filed (paragraph 7) was not in the declaration I sent to Mr. Berry. It could not have been as I have never heard of “Project Quaker”;
b) The statements in the filed declaration concerning the death of Michelle Miscavige’s mother were added to without authorization by me. This included mention of the death of Heber Jentzsch’s wife which is not something I had ever spoken to Mr. Berry about, and I have no knowledge and never heard anything
10
that indicated there was anything unusual about Mr. Jentzsch’s wife death. She died of natural causes. The statement concerning Flo Barnett’s death were not put in context and were not meant to imply that there was any wrongdoing surrounding her death. In approximately September 1985, when I was the Deputy Inspector General of Religious Technology Center (“RTC”), I learned that Mary Florence Barnett, Mrs. Miscavige’s mother, had committed suicide. She had been involved with a group of disaffected former Scientologists who practiced altered versions of Scientology. I only know that after hearing about her death both David and Shelly Miscavige were very upset over the fact that Flo Barnett had killed herself. I also wish to make known that I have seen mention in an affidavit by Vaughn Young that David Miscavige ordered the matter “hushed up.” This was stated in the context of indicating wrongdoing on Mr. Miscavige’s part and insinuating he had some participation in the matter. A careful and literal reading of the statment shows that Mr. Young never actually says he knows Mr. Miscavige was involved in this suicide, or that there was any evidence of such, but by innuendo his statement still leaves this impression. To my knowledge there was never any order by David Miscavige or anyone else to keep the matter quiet. If any such order existed it would most likely have been given to me. And since I took actions to make the matter quite well known and
11
never heard anybody, let alone David Miscavige, ask for the matter to be hushed up, I know this statement and the innuendo to be false;
c) the entirety of paragraph 16 on page 10 of the declaration filed by Mr. Berry concerning L. Ron Hubbard and the IRS was written by someone other than me and was inserted into my declaration without my knowledge or authorization. This entire paragraph makes unfounded and outrageous allegations intended to create the impression that David Miscavige or any other Scientologist would want Mr. Hubbard to die in order to avoid supposed IRS problems. This is unthinkable to any Scientologist, and I never heard this or any similar statement made by anyone in the Church.
d) Paragraph 15 of the declaration claims that “Earle Cooley Esq. and others convinced the San Luis Obispo coroner not to do any autopsy on Hubbard’s body” implying there was something hidden or covered up about Mr. Hubbard’s death. This is false. It was not written by me and I know of no such thing. I was in a position to have knowledge of this matter and I know that Mr. Hubbard died of natural causes and the statement attributed to me is a complete fabrication.
e) There is also a statement made in paragraph 18 that Mike Rinder’s child received “Hubbard’s baby care technology.” The implication is that the child’s death had something to do with Scientology which I never believed to be the case. I did not make this statement and have no
12
information that this was the case.
f) In fact, paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35A and 35B were not in the version of the declaration that I sent to Mr. Berry to be filed. He added them after the fact, and I never saw them before this declaration was filed and I never gave authorization for Mr. Berry to add any of these things to my declaration.
g) The statements concerning the Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and whether the Time article concerned CSI, and the corporate structure of the Church (paragraph 20) were also not in the version I signed and sent to Mr. Berry. And again, I know the statement to be entirely false.
h) One other point I wish to clarify concerning the use of “End of Cycle.” There is nothing in Scientology writings which relates the term “End of Cycle” to connote murder or suicide. To my knowledge, this characterization of the term “End of Cycle” was invented by Steven Fishman. I have never heard this term used by the Church to mean “suicide” or “murder” and even though I am a disaffected ex-Scientologist, I know it to be a false allegation. Its only use is to smear the Church for litigation purposes as detailed earlier. I earlier verbally told Mr. Berry this when he first contacted me for this exact information.
26. I gave no authorization for my declaration to be changed after I sent the signed copy of it to Mr. Berry and the changes made to my declaration were made without my knowledge or
13
consent. Mr. Berry never contacted me after he filed the manufactured 19 page version of my declaration. Had I not later obtained a copy of the declaration filed by Mr. Berry from another source, I never would have found out about any of these alterations.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and under the laws of each individual state thereof, including the laws of the states of California and Texas, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 19th day of May, 1994 in Dallas, Texas.
[signed]
VICKI J. AZNARAN14
Notes
Affidavit of Vicki J. Aznaran (January 27, 1992)
I, Vicki J. Aznaran, of Mesquite, Texas, U.S. Citizen, Passport No. 03197042, do herewith depose and swear:1
1. That from the approximate dates of 1984 until 1987 I held the positions of President and Chairman of the Board of Directors in the Scientology organization called the Religious Technology Center, INC, (RTC) which is now the senior governing entity of the International Church of Scientology, the Church of Scientology of California, and all affiliated organizations within the U.S., as well as senior governing entity for all foreign Scientology organizations and the civil associations of Scientology such as those called Dianetica or Narconon in Spain.
2. That despite efforts to cloak the fact, the true role of the Religious Technology Center, Inc. is that role explained above, and it holds this managerial position within the matrix of all of the interrelated organizations of Scientology: The Church of Scientology International, Inc., The Church of Scientology of California, Inc., The Church of Spiritual Technology, Inc., Authors Services, Inc., Missions International de Scientology, Inc., Religious Technology Center, Inc., Authors Family Trust, Asociacion Civil de Dianetica, Asociacion Civil de Narconon.
3. That these various organizations exist in this manner to provide an ” arm’s length” appearance in order to protect the current board of directors from actual legal culpability for any illegal acts committed by or through the churches of Scientology or any of their other affiliated organizations, as well as to confuse any issues, investigations or litigation which might expose the illicit actions of any individual Scientology orqanization or member thereof.
4. That as a former senior executive of this body, from 1984 until 1987, I have observed and have certain knowledge of the activities of RTC and of its finances as well as its manner of incorporation and related documents.
5. That during the period of my employment by the RTC I reported to David Miscavige, who was at that time Trustee of the corporation. Miscavige maintains absolute control over all officers and board members of this corporation, controlling these other members of the board of directors by fact of his possessing undated, signed resignations of each member, the holding of which gave and gives him complete control over each member of the board.
6. That also, to my certain knowledge, David Miscavige conceived, planned and ordered the implementation of the basic strategic and tactical actions of the church against those whom he considered to be causing legal or public relations conflicts against any church or against his personal and absolute control of Scientology. He also ordered the allocation of and made available funding for the financing of these actions, which included the declaring of those whom he considered to be his “enemies’ as Suppressive Persons, the implementation of the policies known as “Fair Game” against these persons once so declared, the infiltration of private and governmental environments which he deemed hostile to his absolute control over Scientology, the organization of vigilante groups within the organizations of Scientology to be used against those individuals whom he deemed to be his enemies.
7. That following Miscaviges’ orders, I transferred monies to Spain, and witnessed briefings by Miscavige to Heber Jentszch, who was in fact the “puppet” president of the church, but who actually is a .camouflage for Miscavige, concerning covert operations taking place in Spain against former Scientologists and concerninq false testimony and concerning the attempt to offset a rumored investigation by the spanish authorltles lnto the activities of Scientology in Spain, the very investigation which resulted in the surprise arrest of Jentszch himself in November of 1988. These operations included orders for investigations by the private detectives employed by the Scientology organizations to obtain information by any means possible to incarcerate the leaders of a reform movement who had not been silenced previously by Miscavige’s policies and declarations, with the express intent of obtaining their incarceration.
8. That during this same period and as part of these same operations, a plan was formulated to destroy the reform movement in europe by completely eliminating the leaders of this reform movement, William Robertson, John Caban and others, by any means possible. This included the infiltration of the reform group in Spain by covert agents of RTC, Kurt Weiland and William Knight, continued investigation and harassment by detectives employed by the scientology organizations in Spain and by recruiting others who would help to splinter the reform movement and to render it ineffective.
9. That additional orders were given to institute any action necessary including false denunciations, assaults by covert agents apparently in bad standing with the church, to infiltrate, offset and attack those leaders of the reform movement who were thought. to be responsible for reporting Scientology activities to the spanish authorities and undermining Miscaviqes intentions.
10. That the policies known as “Fair Game” are, as described in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, ethics policies, and other organizational policies are in fact continued as originally written by Hubbard, and that it is the purpose of the RTC to see that all of his policies are followed exactly as intended. It was common knowledge that the “Cancellation of Fair Game” referred only to the use of the term, since it had obtained bad public relations for Scientology, and that the same tactics and actions which referred to those so-called Suppressive Persons were and are continued in effect.
11. That the organization known as the Guardian’s Office, while apparently abandoned, in fact was moved from the position as a separate organization or network, and incorporated within the organizational structure of Scientology, and all of the purposes and most of the Guardian personnel have remained the same. Again, the purpose of these changes were to obtain complete control by Miscavige over all Scientology organizations, and to obtain a more favorable image after Hubbard’s wife was found guilty of crimes as head of the Guardian’s Office.
12. Since my departure from the church my husband and I have been repeatedly threatened and harassed by members of Scientology, and we are now in fear for our safety.
Many of the statements made above contain information which has been testified. to by others and/or are matters of publlc record within other areas of litigation within the United States.
I swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Texas that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Date 1 – 27 -92 Vicki J. Aznaran (signature)
1-27-92
signature
Notary Public
Dallas County, Texas
USA
Notes
- Document source: Document source: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/aff_va92.html ↩
Declaration of Richard N. Aznaran (January 15, 1989)
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
Declaration of Vicki Aznaran (January 15, 1989)
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
Notes
- Signature page in Image format. ↩
