the fishman affidavit

fishman index

Exhibit D: Addendum to "Witness preparation"

 US District Court, Central District of California
 Fishman Case # 91-6426 HLH (Tx) Continued
                      (Title page no number)

                      (rubber stamped)
           Privledged Materials

       27 January 1982

  Addendum to Hat Writeups re (1) Hatting the Witness and (2) Preparing the


  A few additional points should be included in the description of how to
  hat a person on what it is to be a witness in a Scientology case. These

  1. The witness must have a good feel for what particles, comm lines,
  command lines, writings, activities etc., in a Scientology org are
  "ecclesiastical" and those that are "secular/corporate/legal." In this
  regard, the potential witness should definitely read Bob Harris' short
  exposition on the area called "Understanding Corporate Integrity II" and
  any disagreements or questions should be handled right away. He must
  have a flexible understanding of what things are corporate/legal matters
  and what are not. This is an area that will have to be gone over very
  carefully in preparing any witness for cross-exam, for it is a very
  fertile area for such. The witness must understand the hierarchical
  nature of the Church of Scientology and the nature of the relationships
  among Scientology terminals and organizations. You might want to show
  him a chart to help him understand the area. Such a chart was put into
  evidence in the 70-72 case (but may not be of use to everyone as it
  depicts relationships only during that period. Watch out, however, as
  the witness' understanding and ability to answer questions about this
  area must still and always be realistic, practical, and from the reality
  and point of view of that individual: In other words, a person who was
  the mimeo operator at the Hawaii org for six years will have a general
  understanding that comes from being a staff member and a Scientologist,
  but his 'personal knowledge' and experience will be vastly different from
  that of a person who held high exec positions (e.g., Commodore's Staff
  Aides or WW terminals). You don't want your witness to appear to have


  been "briefed," you want him to have his own understanding and personal
  knowledge--OR LACK OF IT. You just want to be sure that he either is
  perfectly equipped to handle this area, by virtue of intelligence,
  training, nature of posts and experience and duplication of the concepts
  involved or you want him to really recognize his limitations in the area
  so he cannot be led into testifying about it. (This approach is really a
  general rule for all witnesses--it is patently incredible for a comm
  runner to tell the court about management activities at Flag, or the
  compensation of the Founder, e.g.)

  2. The witness, while testifying, should always refer to any particle by
  its exhibit number: whenever he talks about a tangible particle in front
  of him, it's not "this" or "that," it's always "Exhibit AB," or "the
  document marked Exhibit 236," etc. Otherwise the transcript of the
  testimony cannot be understood when read. The transcript, together with
  the exhibits themselves, are the complete RECORD of the case. It is what
  we will have to refer to in part if we are to appeal any case. Without
  an intelligible record, we cannot prove our case. So this particular bit
  of admin (marking documents as exhibits by letter or number) was
  developed to ensure a readable record. The witness should know this so
  that he can be careful to refer to everything by name or number.

  3. Another aspect of understanding the comm cycle of the courtroom and
  particularly the comm cycle of cross-exam is something I call the
  "alter-ack." I have seen the cross-examining IRS attorney use this
  technique continually. He will ask the witness a question, and then
  appear to not understand the answer given; he will ask further clarifying
  questions, still seeming to get it all wrong (when he probably
  understands full well what he is shooting for with that particular
  witness). This is of course, very frustrating to the witness: he is
  not only not receiving any verbal ack from the lawyer, he is also not
  being duplicated at all. There is an eagerness on the part of anyone in
  a comm cycle to achieve duplication, and the witness may want to clarify
  the matter. But watch out. The lawyer, after a series of questions that


  make it seem he simply didn't get it, he will say something like, "OK,
  let me understand this--you said Blah Blah Blah"; he will almost restate
  the witness' words back to him. The witness will then leap to say "Yes!"
  and get the relief of having been duplicated. Usually, though, the
  lawyer will have restated the testimony with some sort of cunning
  alteration in it, some hook in it that is not what the witness would have
  said had he really thought about it. But if the witness has agreed, then
  there it is on the record. There was an example of this in the IRS 70-72
  case where a witness was being asked a series of dumb questions off of an
  ASHO ethics order, and the cross-examining attorney was getting it all
  mixed up, finally restating part of the witness' words and stretching it
  to the conclusion that "ASHO is a subsidiary of the Sea Org"--to which
  our witness said "yes!" Well that is simply untrue, and is even
  preposterous to anyone who knows the facts (that ASHO was part of the
  corporation CSC, that the SO has never been a corporate entity, and that
  there is NO legal relationship between the two--and the term "subsidiary"
  is wholly a legal term). The witness was dying for an ack and some
  duplication from the lawyer; what he got was a false duplication ("Oh, I
  see: ASHO is a subsidiary of the SO") and what we got was a false and/or
  damaging statement on the record by someone who had no real knowledge of
  the facts of that area.

  4. Generalities vs. specifics. Scientologists usually try to avoid
  dealing in generalities, but there are such things as good generalities.
  Entheta and suppressive statements from the cross-examining attorney will
  often take the form of generalities.
  When confronted by the opposition lawyer by generalities, our witness
  should ask for specifics. That will often totally cut the lawyer's line
  of cross-exam (as he is proceeding by generalities and cannot have or use
  the specifics). On the other hand, our witness should look for
  opportunities to use theta generalities; since it's theta, the
  cross-examiner will not ask for specifics--he's stung and he'll want to
  get away from that area. If he does ask for specifics, the witness
  should supply them, and chances are it will end up hurting the


  opposition. Examples: "Every Scientologist knows it would be violative
  of the creeds and codes to lie about or falsify record," or "Scientology
  has helped thousands of people to better lives," or "We all know, or any
  Scientologist who has read and understood the writings of our religion
  would surely know, that it is a religion and it deals with the Spirit of
  Man," or "We all know that the aim of Scientology is a civilization
  without war, crime, Insanity . . . . " An entheta cross-examiner will
  steer away from that stuff like a vampire from a cross. Just let him
  have it--with theta!!

  5. A witness is to testify to things he knows of his personal knowledge
  only (except when he's launching a theta generality). He can only
  testify to what he did or saw; he cannot say what another told him he saw
  or did. This aspect is very useful to our witnesses on cross-exam: when
  being questioned about a difficult area, the witness should ask himself,
  "How do I know that? Did I see it or do it?" and he won't let himself be
  led into an area where he is not prepared, or isn't competent to testify
  or is speculating or making conclusions. Speculation and conclusion are
  not usually admissible testimony, but a clever cross-examiner can lead
  the witness off into an area where he assumes what the "right" answer is,
  but doesn't really have personal knowledge. Example: Q--"What would you
  do if LRH ordered you to sell the ship?" The correct answer (if your
  witness never received such an order) would NOT be: A-"Well, gosh. I
  guess I'd sell the ship..."; the proper answer would be: A--"That never
  happened." Period. That answer will alert the judge that the question was
  improper, a request for speculation on the part of the witness.

  6. Along the line of answering the exact question asked, and not
  getting outside of personal knowledge, the witness should keep in mind on
  cross-exam this tip: BE LITERAL. If the attorney doesn't know enough to
  ask the right question, he won't get the answer he's after. Don't help
  the poor, blundering soul. Sit back and answer the questions literally.

  7. It is favorite trick of government lawyers (at least it sure was
  in the IRS 70-72 case) to try and impeach a Scientology witness on the
  text of PLs. One can only be impeached by being led to testify contrary
  to what one has previously written or said. One cannot be impeached (or
  shown to be inconsistent and therefore not credible) by being shown a PL


  which says something different from what one has testified to (unless, of
  course, the witness is the author of the PL and cannot explain
  satisfactorily the circumstances and intent of the issue). The natural
  reaction of most staff members is to adjust or modify what he has said so
  that it does conform to policy letters; as a good Scientologist or staff
  member he doesn't want to be accused of disagreement with or
  noncompliance to PLs. But the courtroom is different; no one is going to
  get into trouble for saying they didn't follow a particular PL. The
  witness is better off sticking to his own reality and previous statement
  than by back-pedalling and modifying his testimony to make it "agree"
  with a PL he is confronted with. Don't be intimidated by this tactic! A
  PL says what it says, and the witness is not responsible for those words,
  nor for whether or not he applied that particular PL. That may sound
  heretical at first, but unless the witness understands it and is flexible
  enough to be "in court" and not "on post" or before an ethics
  Investigation, he can be led Into very uncomfortable situations (and into
  making statements that could hurt the Church's case).

  B. In summary, the above points to teach a witness regarding
  cross-exam are these:
  Specifics vs. Generalities
  Personal Knowledge
  Be Literal
  Ecclesiastical vs. Corporate/Legal
  Don't Fear "lmpeachment" From PLs
  9. The witness will also need to have a thorough understanding
  (once again, commensurate with his post, training and experience, and
  intelligence) of the religious nature of Scientology and how this is
  evident in many interrelated things.
  For example, we all know that the Tech Volumes are clearly religious
  in content; but what about the OEC? It contains issues on how to run an
  organization, how to get orders issued and complied with how to write an


  invoice and keep financial records. What's religious about that? Well,
  take a look at it. We have a 1st dynamic tech in auditing; we also have
  a 3rd dynamic tech of dealing with groups/organizations. On the grade
  chart there is also (up the center) an Awareness Scale with awareness
  characteristics in an ascending gradient. Those same awareness
  characteristics appear on the org board, assigned to each of the 21
  departments. Those 7 divisions of the org board are the 7 volumes of the
  OEC. What is the org board? It's not a chart of any specific org; it's
  a description of relationships and a way of handling life. An org may
  operate off an org board, but it's equally applicable to any size group,
  ox even to any individual. It's a philosophic machine, not a chart of
  some commercial company. It is based quite exactly on Scientology
  doctrinal concepts. The OEC contains ethics PLs. Are they religious?
  Certainly. They deal with doctrinal concepts about the being and how to
  handle him. Even something as mundane and "secular" as writing an
  invoice can be traced to a basic Scientology concept that "Truth is the
  exact time, place, form and event." If one cared to undertake the
  project, the entirety of LRH policy could be traced to basic concepts of
  communication, ethics, etc., and into the Axioms and Factors. The key
  here is that to almost any Scientologist who stops to think about it, the
  concepts underlying the org board and the OEC are part of our religion.
  to an outsider they may seem "secular," but they carry a different and
  deeper meaning for the Scientologist if for no other reason than they are
  written by LRH, the Founder.

  Understanding this, the witness cannot be caught off guard or put in
  an uncomfortable position regarding PLs, org boards, etc. He can know
  they are religious in nature and can believe that to be true. It's
  really part of his belief, it can't be questioned beyond that by a civil

  10. You will have seen from the points listed in this writeup and
  the others about hatting and preparing witnesses that what it comes down


  KINDS OF QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAM. Don't think that a witness who was
  only called to identify a piece of paper from a file can't and won't (if
  the judge is blind enough to allow this) be cross-examined on org boards,
  ethics, nature of policy, hierarchical and corporate relationships, etc.
  To the opposing attorney, all Scientology witnesses are "Fair Game" for
  HANDLE VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING, regardless of the scope of direct exam.
  Prepare them accordingly and they will do well and we will win; leave
  them unprepared in any of these areas an they will get caught in
  something they can't control. Few Scientology witnesses are naturals at
  this; some only take a little work, some take days and days. There is no
  substitute for going over direct and expected or-even unexpected
  cross-exam with the witness and the lawyer until it is perfect.
  The way we handled witness prep was to work up an outline of the
  points to be covered in direct exam (as described in another hat
  writeup). We would use this in prepping the witness, and the lawyer
  would use it in court (the lawyer cannot work from a script, but he needs
  the BC of an outline or list of areas to cover); the staff person working
  with the lawyer will then also rely on this outline to ensure the direct
  exam is complete.
  Since every Scientology witness must be prepared for cross on a
  multitude of areas, we used a checklist as a tool for this. It was
  rather like assessing a list with a PC. We had an overall list of areas
  to cover. These are some examples:

  Corporate vs ecclesiastical
  Nature of Policy
  Is DEC Religious?
  Relationship of Flag to S0
  What was 0TC?
  Ever asked to backdate a document?
  Flag's relationship to CSC
  Fair Game


  We would run down that list with each witness asking a question or
  two about the item to see how the witness would handle; perhaps he knew
  nothing about corporations or OTC or Flag. When we would hit a "hot"
  area (where the witness appeared to have knowledge and could be
  questioned but gave an unfavorable answer or otherwise showed he didn't
  duplicate the implications of cross-exam in that area), we would take it
  up at length, practicing cross and hatting the witness on the concepts
  (e.g. OEC as religious) until he was stable and confident. Once through
  the entire list (this might take days), that witness was ready to testify
  and only needed brushup on direct and cross on the day before going on
  the stand.
  The purpose of going over direct and anticipated cross is not to
  inculcate "pat" answers or robotism, but to nurture understanding and the
  ability to handle the cross-exam questions. It goes without saying that
  you also have to have a lawyer who (1) is very experienced at trial work,
  and 2) has a very thorough working knowledge of Scientology. For an
  experienced lawyer who doesn't really understand Scientology, it will be
  unreal to him that every witness has to be able to defend himself in
  every area. He will think that he can effectively use the "Rules" (of
  Evidence) to prevent improper cross-exam. He could be in for a very
  unpleasant surprise about that at trial. There is no other animal on the
  face of the Earth like a Scientology trial and he'll have to know
  it--or we get another Christo case.

  That's it.