IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs Case No: 99-21857
MMANO-E

ROBERT S. MINTON,
Defendant.

PROCEEDINGS: Trial for Charge of Battery
BEFORE: Hon. Robert J. Morris

County Court Judge
DATE: May 23, 2000
PLACE: Criminal Justice Center

14250 49th Street North
Clearwater, Florida 33762
REPORTED BY: Pamela Jenkins, VR

Court Reporter

KANABAY COURT REPORTERS
TAMPA AIRPORT MARRIOT HOTEL (813) 224-9500 ST. PETERSBURG - CLEARWATER (727) 821-3320

2

APPEARANCES:
WILLIAM JOSEPH TYSON, ESQUIRE
Assistant State Attorney
Criminal Justice Center
Clearwater, Florida 22762

DENIS M. DE VLAMING, ESQUIRE
and DOUGLAS M. DE VLAMING, ESQUIRE
KYM B. RIVELLINI, ESQUIRE
1101 Turner Street
Clearwater, Florida 22756
Attorneys for the Defendant

CONTENTS
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
FRANK OLIVER 8 42 63 69
ROBERT S. MINTON 72 118 161 --

3

EXHIBITS
For ID In Evidence
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1A,B C 85 86

Photographs
Defendant's Exhibit No. 5 13 14

"Fair Game Policy"
Defendant's Exhibit No. 6 13 29

Cancel of "Fair Game"
Defendant's Exhibit No. 9 64 65

Excerpt from book
Defendant's Exhibit No. 10 101 102

Video
Defendant's Exhibit No. 11 109 110

Photograph
Defendant's Exhibit No. 12 92 93

Photograph
Defendant's Exhibit No. 13 92 93

Photograph
State's Exhibit No. 7 44 44

Excerpt from book
State's Exhibit No. 8 47 48
Video

4

PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: Counsel approach for a second.

I've just something for you all to be looking at during
the course of the day.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Jury instructions?
THE COURT: I am taking no position. This

is just a think-piece, for you all to kind of go through,
we like this. we don't like this. Just something for you
to be thinking about when we get to the charging
conference.

Is there anything that we need to do
before we get underway this morning?
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I just need to get

Ms. Rivellini. My brother is in another courtroom. We
can start without him. He has got a pre-trial.
THE COURT: That's fine. Take your time.

We are fine. Let me know when you are ready. Is
everybody ready go.
MS. RIVELLINI: We are actually still

waiting on the first witness. I would like to take a
moment to clarify. I think that I am still having trouble
understanding your ruling from the proffer yesterday
morning and I do not want to do anything that you are
going to take in violation of that proffer. We are all
here to run a clean trial. So if I could ask you what

5

you are specifically letting in, and you recall what you
absolutely heard and do not want to hear again. I plan
getting in from Mr. Oliver his background, and his
training and experience in Scientology in the general
mode. Going over the courses that he took, and some the
training he took without going into the whole heart of
what he believes as a Scientologist. I plan on going
into his experience with the Office of Special Affairs
and the way he was taught to carry out what he knows to
be the "Fair Game Policy". And I plan to bring out the
"Fair Game Policy" and its subsequent cancellation, and
how it was still used in lieu of that cancellation.

I plan in getting into the reward system,
points and certificate, how you can lose those. And how
testifying contrary to what Scientology deems to be
proper would result in a demotion of Scientologist in
OSA. I planned on bringing out evidence of the carrying
out of "Fair Game" in the videos tapes he watched. Not
to formulate an opinion, but to point out specific
instances of "Fair Game". For instance, that's a twin,
that's this, that's that, and I was taught to carry out
those exact drills.

THE COURT: I think what you would like me
to do is basically, tell you what to ask. I can't do
that, of course. What I said would be appropriate, I did

6

not accept him as an expert for the reasons that I
explained. So his background information is marginally
relevant. Obviously, there has got to be some
explanation as to why he is in a position to know what he
knows. But because you are not qualifying him as expert
I don't expect to go on in tremendous detail about every
course that he took, everything he did, everything he
knows.

I expect that you are going to establish that
he was a member of the Church of Scientology, that he
knows what the "Fair Game Policy" is, how he knows of his
personal knowledge "Fair Game Policy", what the "Fair
Game Policy" exactly is, what the expressed policy is in
other words. And what penalties, if any, there may be
for violations for church members carrying out the "Fair
Game Policy". I wrote that down then, and I read from my
notes now. That's exactly verbatim what I said last
time.

Beyond that I will leave it to your good
judgment and to stay within the parameters and I will
rely on Mr. Tyson to jump up when he thinks you have
strayed and I will make that call when, and if those
happen.

MS. RIVELLINI: Do you have any problem me

7
carried out in the videos, and if so, what those --

MR. TYSON: Judge, that is an expert opinion.

THE COURT: It is.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, the way I see it is
this, and you can tell me how you feel about it, if Mr.
Oliver were a football player and he practiced on a team
for years, left that team and then watched a game and
could say, "Oh, look they carried out what we used to do
as the A to Z plan." Or, "Look they carried out such a
play." That's the analogy that I make, rather than him
having expertise, and making an expert opinion, but just
identifying, "Oh, look, we used to wear red jerseys,
there's a red jersey."

MR. TYSON: Judge, this isn't a NFL show

and color announcer. This a court of law where someone
needs to qualified as an expert before they can render
those types of opinions.

THE COURT: I agree with Mr. Tyson. I

think if there is going to be a connection made in this
regard, that's what closing argument is all about. Okay.

MS. RIVELLINI: I am going to find out if
my witness is here yet. If I could just go check?

THE COURT: That's fine, take your time.

8

Bring in the jury.

(Whereupon, the jury was brought in.)

THE COURT: Good morning ladies and
gentlemen of the jury. As you recall we ended last night
with the State resting. This is the time in the trial
where the Defendant has an opportunity to make a
presentation should the Defendant choose to do so. You
will recall that the Defendant has no obligation to do
anything. Okay?

Mr. de Vlaming, how would you like to
proceed?

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, the defense would
call Mr. Frank Oliver.

(Whereupon, the witness was sworn.)

Whereupon,

FRANK OLIVER,

a witness, was called for examination by counsel for the
Defendant, and having been duly sworn, and was examined
and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Good morning, would you tell us your name
please?

A My name is Frank Oliver.

Q And what city do you live in?

9

A I live in Miami, Florida.

Q How long have you lived there?

A I lived there since 1979.

Q What do you do for a living?

A I am a graphic designer.

Q How long have you been doing that?

A About ten years.

Q At one point were you also a member of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, I was.

Q What years were you a member of the Church of Scientology?

A I joined Scientology in June of 1986. I was a member until 1992.

Q Were you also a graphic designer artist while you were a member?

A Yes, I did that part-time as well.

Q Did you also do some graphic art design for them while you were a member?

A In 1989 I was doing some graphic for the Office of Special Affairs.

Q You mentioned the Office of Special Affairs, do you call that OSA?

A Yes, we do.

Q All right, and you were particularly a member

10

of OSA?

A I was recruited for OSA in late 1989 and I
worked as an investigations officer in OSA until I left in 1992.

Q When you were a member were you actually member down in Miami?

A Yes, I was, and in California as well.

Q So you did some traveling for the church?

A Yes.

Q Was that for some training?

A Yes, it was for upper level training as an investigations officer.

Q Can just anybody become a member of OSA or do
you have to go through any particular courses?

A No, they recruit specific individuals for the
Office of Special Affairs, it's not something that you
join within the organization. They have to select you
and qualify you in order to become a member of the Office
of Special Affairs.

Q Is it a way of working your way up the ranks?

A Yes, it is.

Q What kind of things do you learn when you
become a member of OSA?

A I learned that organization perceives that it

11

out to Los Angeles I also learned that many of the things
that are done by the Office of Special Affairs are not
known to the general membership of the Scientology. A lot
of the activities are kept in secret.

Q What exactly is the purpose of the Office of Special Affairs?

A That is a little bit of a difficult question
because there is a stated purpose and then there is an actual purpose.

Q What is the stated purpose?

A The stated purpose if to handle the legal and
public relations of the Church of Scientology as it
perceived by the public.

Q What is the actual purpose?

A The actual purpose is to investigate and to
impede the forward progress of any tries to stop
Scientology or to criticize Scientology.

Q That's the actual purpose?

A That's the actual policy of the investigation
division of the Office of Special Affairs, yes.

Q Does that policy have a name, or did it have
name that you learned?

A It's actually the stated, it's like the product
of the Office of Special Affairs. It's like, what it
does. Every single department in Scientology has like,

12

it's product or what it does, it's description. That
would be the description of the Office of Special
Affairs.

Q Was there not a code name, but a special
name that you understood codified those policies?

A There were different policies that we operated
under Scientology. And when you are doing a specific
thing then that has -- then that is referred to as
something. A lot of the activities that we were involved
in, confidential operations, operations against
individuals that we targeted, that came under a policy
that was called "Fair Game".

Q "Fair Game", is that actually a written policy?

A Yes, it was.

Q And was something that you relied upon when you
were a member of Church of Scientology?

A That is just something that you had to do. I
mean that's what you are assigned to do.

MS. RIVELLINI: Your Honor, may I approach
the witness please?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, I'm going to show you two documents
that have previously been marked as Defense Exhibit for
identification, numbers and 5 and 6. I am going to ask

13

you to take a look at them and tell me if you recognize
what they are?

A This is-

Q Just tell me first if you recognize what both
documents are?

A Yes, I recognize both documents.

Q Now, could you tell me what the documents are?

A Okay. This one here that says, "Penalty for
Lower Conditions." If someone is --

Q Before describing the contents, can you tell me if you know what it is?

A Yes, I do know what it is.

Q What would you call this?

A That's a policy letter on penalties for lower
conditions, it's "Fair Game". It talks about how to
treat someone that has been classified as an enemy of the
organization. They are subject to the "Fair Game
Doctrine".

Q This is actually a written policy of "Fair
Game"?

A Yes, it is an excerpt of "Fair Game" is in that
section there.

(The documents hereinafter referred to were marked as
Defendant's Exhibits Nos. 5

14

and 6 for identification.)

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Is this something that you have had a chance to
review and highlight?

A Yes.

Q And who wrote this "Fair Game Policy"?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

Q Were you required to read this during your tenure at OSA?

A Yes, you are required to read it and know the
policy, not just read it., You have to have an
understanding of it and be able to apply anything that
you read.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, at this time I
would like to introduce what has previously marked for
identification Defendant's Exhibit Number 5, and go over
the portion described by the witness with the jury.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I would have a standing
objection.

THE COURT: It will be admitted and so
marked.

(The document heretofore marked as Defendant's
Exhibit No. 5 for identification was received

15

into evidence.)

MS. RIVELLINI:

Q First tell me, Mr. Oliver, who is "Fair Game"
applied to?

A It's applied to anyone who is considered an
enemy of the organization or identified as a suppressive
person of the organization.

Q Is suppressive person synonymous with enemy
then?

A Yes.

Q Can you describe exactly what the "Fair Game
Policy" is and how it is used?

A Basically, if someone is categorized as being
suppressive person and they are subject to "Fair Game"
the gloves are off so to speak, just about anything can
be done to the individual because they are viewed by the
organization as being a person who is trying to impede
the goals and purpose of Scientology.

Q And if you can read the screen can you tell us
exactly "Fair Game Policy" order is?

A Well, it says here an "SP Order" which is a
Suppressive Person Order on someone is "Fair Game". That
person is now subject to "Fair Game". It says there,
they may be deprived property, or injure by any means, by
any Scientologists without any discipline of the

16

Scientologists. If for example, someone in the
organization has been decreed to be "Fair Game" or
someone outside of the organization --

Q I am going to ask you speak a little bit
louder.

A Okay. If someone within the organization or
outside the organization has been categorized as a
suppressive person and they are subject to "Fair Game"
just about anything done to them without any fear of
retribution by the organization to the person doing that
to them.

Q Okay.

A For example if they were cheated in some way,
then you are not subject to any of the ethics of the
organization as having done anything wrong, because that
person has been classified as "Fair Game".

Q What else does it tell you that you can do to a
suppressive person?

A They can be tricked, sued, lied to, or
destroyed. That pretty much opens the door, you can do
just about anything to the person.

Q Okay, there is a line in there that says a
Scientologist can do anything to any of these individuals
without any discipline of that Scientologist. Is
discipline something that is common?

17

A Throughout different levels of the
organization, discipline varies from someone losing a
position maybe, even something much more severe.

Q Is there a place where people who are
disciplined go to?

A Yes. If you are a member of the Sea
Organization, which is an internal organization within
Scientology, it's like a fraternal organization that runs
Scientology.

Q Is that the organization that is down in
Clearwater?

A Yes, Flag Land Base. Those people can be sent
to what is called the RPF, which stands for
Rehabilitations Project Force. It is basically a gulag,
or boot camp where they send dissidents or people that
have failed at something, too. They send them there to
pretty much anything they want them to do. You are
subjected to harsh treatment, corporal punishment, manual
labor.

Q Is Scientology essentially based upon rewards
and punishments?

A Yes, it is.

Q So when it says, "Not to be subject to any
discipline." That is understood by the members?

A Correct.

18

Q All right. You actually were a member of OSA
and you actually followed this policy?

A Yes, we did.

Q It specifically says, "May be tricked, sued, or
lied to, or destroyed." Were you taught certain skills
on how to trick, sue, lie, or destroy individuals?

A Within the Office of Special Affairs some of
the training that we received, that we drilled, were
things that an ordinary member of the organization
wouldn't know about, however anyone within the Office of
Special Affairs would know about what we were taught.

Q When you say drilled, what do you mean by
drilled?

A When you drill it means that you receptively go
over something with someone else, maybe a twin that they
hook you up with, so that you have two people.

Q A twin?

A A twin is let's say for example, if you and I
were in the Office of Special Affairs and we were going
to have to do this project, you and I would twin, we
would get together and I would practice on you and you
would practice on me until we both had a full
understanding of what we going to do.

Q Would these practice drills go on for big
complex points to carry out, or for a variety of events?

19

A It could be something small, it could be
something within in group of individuals. It wouldn't
necessarily be a -- we wouldn't have fifty people
drilling on something. Normally, it is something that
would happen within an academy, a teaching setting, if
you will. It would be for smaller groups.

Q Was this constantly going on?

A Yes.

Q So you learned specifically from the directors in OSA how to trick?

A We learned several different techniques. They
teach you things, and they have names for them. For
example, if they wanted me to go in somewhere and
impersonate someone, or say that I was someone that I
wasn't, that's called a suitable guise. And they
actually showed you how to do a suitable guise. How to
go in and say that you are somebody else. Or how to ask
a question without them thinking that you are really
digging for information on someone.

Q You also mentioned that one of your duties
while you were in OSA is to carry out investigations.
Would you tell us a little bit about that?

A Anyone identified by the organization as an
enemy the first action that is taken is intelligence
gathering. That's used -- there are different methods

20

that they teach you gather intelligence on an individual.
Some are legal, some are not.

Q What would be an example of something that you
would want to find out about a critic?

A If for example there was someone that was
identified as a critic that was saying something against
Scientology the first thing that would be done would be a
complete check on the person, what they called an ODC,
which stands for Overt Data Collection. What that is,
you would get all the information on the individual,
name, address, you would obtain their social security
number. You would check all court records. Any kind of
information that would be publicly available would be
in ODC.

Q And that would be something that you would
actually go after?

A Yes, I did many of these. There was something
also called a CDC, which is Covert Data Collection. CDC
were obtained by other individuals that had access to
private information on individuals. We would obtain
credit card information, all your credit information,
copies of your phone bills, private investigators would
be hired, and they would go through your garbage. They
would talk to your neighbors. They would talk to your
friends. They would previous employers.

21

Q What about travel arrangements?

A We would try and obtain any information there
was on the individual and if they were put on, if we were
running a surveillance operation where we were actually
watching the individual, we would try and find out
exactly what they were doing and when they were doing it.
There was even a document that was sent down from senior
management to us that listed all the airlines on it, and
showed us how to obtain information on an individual by
using the frequent flyer miles programs of major
airlines. You would pretend that you would be that
individual, you would call up and give the name and
social security number and the airlines would provide you
with all that person's travel, itinerary, anything that
they might currently have on the record. You would just
pretend that you are that person and say, "Yeah, I want
to know how many frequent flier miles I have." And they
would say, "You just got an extra thousand for your trip
you are taking next week." "Oh, yeah, can I confirm that
with you." They would give you all the information and
we would have the intelligence information in the subject
that we were trying to get the information on.

Q So you learned how to obtain itinerary
information for travel?

A Absolutely.

22

Q For example, when someone was going to arrive
in an airport?

A Yes.

Q You mentioned that you sometimes hire outside
personnel, what kind of people would you hire?

A The actual hiring of private investigators was
done by the senior management of the Office of Special
Affairs in conjunction with the attorneys at the church.

Q Were you actually taught how to use them as an
in-between from Scientology?

A Well, the way that it works is this, the
private investigator should, in essence, work for an
attorney, however, within the Scientology organization
that was not the way it was done. They were paid by the
attorneys but the actual people running the operations
and giving the marching orders to the investigators were
the people in the Office of Special Affairs. Some of the
training I received when I went to Los Angeles was on how
to run a PI, or private investigator. We were actually
given a check sheet, if you will, of the project that we
were going to do. It delineates on there exactly which
things we want the private investigator to do. The
private investigator is given a description of what his
targets are and he reports back to me, and I would write
reports, send them up to senior management, and there

23

were different people in my capacity doing this with
different private investigators.

Q Why are these outside sources used, and why are
the lawyers used as shields?

A The organization itself, it would be deemed
inappropriate in any other setting, that an organization
like a church, if you will, would be doing an
investigation on someone. So a shield needs to be
created in order to justify the investigation of a
private individual. So they bring in the attorneys and
say we need so many PI's, we need some investigators from
inside the organization to obtain intelligence
information on a private individual. How can we do this?
Well, this is one way we can do it.

Q Is that more for public relations?

A Completely.

Q Who is really in charge?

A The Office of Special Affairs, actually the Sea
Org. senior management is in charge.

Q How long did you actually practice in the
Office of Special Affairs?

A Two years.

Q During those two years was there ever any
discretion on your part about what you might do and carry
out?

24
A No, you can come up with an idea, but you have
to go up the chain of command to make sure that they want
you to do, your idea may be great, or your idea cannot be
so great. So everything has to get cleared with whoever
your senior is, or whoever is right above you. And maybe
even several steps above that.

Q So while you were in the Office of Special
Affairs if you wanted to go check out where someone was,
could you just leave the building and go check it out, or
would you have to clear it first?

A No, I would have to be given instructions,
check this person out, and then I would check them out.
If I discovered that someone was saying something about
the organization I would have to write a report, send it
up the line, and they would tell me what to do next.

Q Why work under that strict of a policy, was
there some benefit of doing that, did you actually get
some rewards?

A Well, if you do what you are told, naturally
you move up. Your statistics, you are measured in the
organization by statistics, just like you would anywhere
else. You do good, your Statistics go up, you are
regarded better. If your statistics are up you are
rewarded with more time for study, maybe more time for
spiritual counseling that they call. If you are in the

25

Sea Organization, which is their internal fraternal
organization, it's run like a military organization, you
may be, if your statistics are going up, then maybe you
are given liberty that weekend and you can actually go
out, or do something outside of the organization.

Q Okay, at one point I take it that these rewards
were extremely important to you?

A Yes, they were.

Q You took it to heart, you found it very
important?

A Yes, I did.

Q Now, for example in a workplace your rewards
might be based on money?

A Yes.

Q Is that fair?

A Yes.

Q Maybe if you do well for a year, you get a

raise at the end of the year?

A Correct.

Q Is that how it was in Scientology?

MR. TYSON: Judge, I am going to object to
this continual line of leading questions here. I'd ask -
- it has gone on for quite awhile now.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

26

Q In Scientology is the reward system more on an
annual long-term basis, or is based on something more
quickly?

A Yeah, it's sporadic and it's pretty much, what
have you done today kind of thing. What have you done
this week kind of a thing. If you do something that is
instantly then you are rewarded pretty much at the same
time. Cumulatively it may help you ultimately move up in
the organization.

Q How are these point systems or these statistics
charted?

A It's different for each different department.
If for example --

Q How is for OSA, for example?

A Okay, if the Office of Special Affairs there
are about a dozen statistics that measure our performance
when you are in the Office of Special Affairs, they could
be identifying threats to the organization, could be one
statistic. Number of threats against the organization
that we do a successful operation against. Number of
inches of positive writing in the newspaper. A negative
statistic would be number of inches of negative writing
in the newspaper about the organization. Number of
operations carried out successfully. Number of national
-- let's say there are different categories for our

27

enemies of Scientology, they could be local, regional, or
national. If someone that is nationally attacking the
organization gets downgraded to someone who is not doing
it nationally any longer, maybe they are just identified
as a local, then those statistics go down. Your personal
statistics go up. This person is being neutralized in
some way.

Q Is that something that you continuously worried
about?

A That was how my performance was measured.

MR. TYSON: Judge, may we approach?

THE COURT: You may.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held
outside the hearing of the jury.)

MR. TYSON:: Judge, based on your prior
ruling you said that you were going to let him say that
he was a member Scientology, the "Fair Game Policy" say
what it is, the penalties and violations. You said that
you were not going to let them put the religion on trial.
He said everything that he needs to say. From here on
out it is cumulative, and they are putting the religion
on trial. He has already said that they can be lied on,
trick, cheated, sued. It's all cumulative from here on
out.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, the "Fair Game

28

Policy" and I didn't read it. We are just talking about
specifically the words punishment and points. I thought
that was one of the things that could get into.

MR. TYSON: Judge, there is a limit to it.
You said that it was very limited. I sat there, let them
put it all out there according to your ruling. I am
suggesting that they should be done by now.
THE COURT: I have a strong tendency to

agree with Mr. Tyson. You are well into this, and well
beyond, frankly, what I envisioned.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, that is where I
don't understand where you are drawing the line, and why
I tried to clarify. If you are saying the line is drawn
then I will move on.

THE COURT: I am saying that you are close
to the line. And you need to move through this and get
to something that's more directly relevant.

MS. RIVELLINI: Okay. May I approach the
witness, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, you testified that this is a policy
that you practiced while you were in OSA organization?

A Yes.

Q And you have also said that you recognized a

29

second document here.

A Yes.

Q Can you take a look at it and tell me what the
document is called?

A It's called the "Cancellation of Fair Game."

Q This is something that you also read and
practiced and understood while you were in Scientology?

A Yes.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, at this time I
would move the second document, what has previously been
marked for identification as Exhibit Number 6 for the
Defense and ask that it be entered into evidence.

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson?

MR. TYSON: I have an outstanding
objection.

THE COURT: It will be admitted and so
marked.

(The document heretofore marked as Defendant's
Exhibit No. 6 for identification was received
into evidence.)

MS. RIVELLINI:

Q This document, Mr. Oliver, is called
"Cancellation of Fair Game"?

30

A Correct.

Q Could you go ahead and read that to me?

A It says, "This PL" which means policy letter --

Q Well, actually the practice of --

A Oh. "The practice of declaring people "Fair
Game" will cease. "Fair Game" may not appear on any
ethic order, it causes bad public relations. This PL,
which stands for policy letter, does not cancel any
policy on the treatment or the handling of an "SP".

Q Who wrote this?

A That was also written by L. Ron Hubbard.

Q And that done obviously before he died?

A Yes.

Q And he has since died?

A Yes.

Q Do you remember about what year that was?

A 1986, I believe.

Q Tell me how it is if that says it cancels "Fair
Game" that you actually practiced "Fair Game" while you
were in the Office of Special Affairs?

A The way that it is actually written, if you
take a good look at it, says that it doesn't cancel any
policy on the treatment or handling of a suppressive
person, all it basically does is eliminate the badge of
"Fair Game". So we are not to call it "Fair Game" any

31

longer. Nor is it to supposed to appear on any document
as "Fair Game". However, there are still policies in
place how someone that is declared a suppressive person
is treated, and that is basically "Fair Game". We just
can't call it that any longer.

Q It is still practiced then?

A Of course.

Q Even well after that was issued?

A All that says is to stop calling it "Fair Game"
and that they can't -- that "Fair Game" cannot appear on
an ethics order, but the things that you can do someone,
it says it does not cancel any policy on the treatment or
the handling of an SP. The treatment of an SP --

Q Suppressive person?

A Yeah, a suppressive person, as defined in "Fair
Game" is not canceled, just the name "Fair Game".

Q Who can actually change a policy in
Scientology?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

Q How about once he has passed on, can any policy
be changed?

A There are policies written, the first policy
that is in every single document, every single course in
Scientology is called keeping Scientology working. It

32

in Scientology. In there it delineates that no one has
the authority to change policy, but L. Ron Hubbard.

Q So if a written document were to come out in
the '90's after he has passed on, which would rule?

A It couldn't come out. No one can rewrite the
bible today. So no -- according to the dogma of
Scientology, unless L. Ron Hubbard comes back to life
again, no one can rewrite the policy of the Church of
Scientology, but L. Ron Hubbard.

Q Okay, if a written document were to be sent
around it would not have the effect that this --

A No, they would investigate who was issuing an
illegal order, or creating a policy letter without issue
authority.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, if I may have a
moment?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Now the terms suppressive person and enemy are
used as being synonymous?

A Yes.

Q What exactly makes somebody a suppressive
person?

A Anyone that has committed an act that is
contrary to or against the beliefs of the Scientology

33

organization.

Q So if I didn't believe in Scientology that
would SP necessarily?

A No, not unless you actually shared that view
with someone, or made it public, or did something to the
organization.

Q Would Mr. Minton be considered a suppressive
person?

A According Scientology, he would.

Q Are the practices and beliefs of Scientologists
supposed to be kept in --

MR. TYSON: Judge, objection, a continuing
objection. And I would ask if we can approach?

THE COURT: Please approach.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held
outside the hearing of the jury.)

MR. TYSON: Judge, are we over the line yet?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, in the
proffer she asked him, and I think she is doing a pre
emptive question. He asked him whether not he signed a
non-disclosure form and cross examined on that.

MR. TYSON: I am not getting into that.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Oh, you are not.

MR. TYSON: Not unless she does. I only

34

got into because you did.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, you did tell us

that we could go towards Mr. Howd's reasons to be
completely honest in his testimony. I was going to ask
him if he signed a non-disclosure form when he was a
member of the Office of Special Affairs.

MR. TYSON: Judge, the reason why I
crossed examined him is because they brought all that up.
My initial position was that they were going to put the
religion on trial, and it's relevant, and I think we are
way past that now.

THE COURT: I agree with everything you
said, but what Ms. Rivellini said that she wants to do is
get testimony and demonstrate a basis as to why Mr.
Howd's testimony would be less than truthful. I cannot
prohibit her from doing that.

MR. TYSON: I don't think it is allowable
to have one witness to testify on another witness'
truthfulness. I think that is exactly what she is going.

THE COURT: I don't think she is going to
do that.

MS. RIVELLINI: No.

THE COURT: I think she is going to
demonstrate that there may be policies that would
motivate him to do that, and I do not believe that she

35

will go beyond that. Am I correct?

MS. RIVELLINI: That's correct. My next
question was going to be, did you sign a non-disclosure
form, and would you have been able to come out and say
anything against Scientology that was not prescribed to
you, and is there a penalty for doing so.

MR. TYSON: I am just wondering how far,
because we just keeping further and further.

THE COURT: Your points are very well
taken. But I am going overrule the objection on this
point.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, are most of the policies of
Scientology supposed to remain internal?

A Yes, there is a great deal of information,
according to the organization, maintained confidential.

Q Did you actually have to sign a form stating
that you would keep everything a secret, a non-disclosure
form?

A When I joined the Office of Special Affairs, a
non-disclosure form, and a complete life history on my
part was required.

Q And tell me what that form required of you?

A The non-disclosure required that I not divulge
any of the secret information that I would be privy to

36

the Office of Special Affairs under penalty of, I
believe, it is a million dollars per infraction.

Q Were there also penalties from the organization
itself about your rank?

A You would be -- if you violated those policies
you would be subjected to the internal ethics of the
ethics practices of the organization. You are subject to
lose any ranking that you had, any position, your
certificates, and the organization felt that your
spiritual freedom was at stake as well, if didn't have
access or availability Scientology practices.

Q If you were still a member of the Office of
Special Affairs or when you were still a member of the
Office of Special Affairs, if you were called in to
testify would you be free to testify?

MR. TYSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, would there have been a penalty --

MR. TYSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let her finish her question.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Based upon the non-disclosure form that you
signed if you had come into court, or any arena and
testified contrary to what Scientology wanted you to,

37

based on that form would there be a penalty for doing so
freely?

A Yes.

MR. TYSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, may I have a
moment.

THE COURT: You may.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, may we approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held
outside the hearing of the jury.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We are about
through. The only other area that I wanted Ms. Rivellini
to ask is as to what happened on the tape. There is a
policy of "Fair Game" that they want to have them labeled
as criminals. I think that you heard that in the
proffer. I think it goes right to the defense of
allowing the touching so that he could be arrested and
declared a criminal. She wasn't sure whether you would
permit that area of inquiry. It would be brief, but I
think it goes to the heart of the defense.

MR. TYSON: That is his opinion, and that
is going straight to what is in the province of the jury.

38

MS. RIVELLINI: It's not an opinion, it's
a fact.

THE COURT: It sounds to me like it is
part and parcel of the "Fair Game Policy", and to the
extent that it is I will overrule, but let's make sure we
understand what we are doing. You are merely going to
elicit information from him that the "Fair Game Policy"
includes efforts to have someone as a criminal.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's fine.

MS. RIVELLINI: Correct. The only other
question that I had planned on asking him, because they.
made a point during Mr. Howd's testimony that "Fair Game"
is not currently in place, and not being used, is if he
knows -- how recently he knows "Fair Game" has been used.
And if he has personal knowledge about it. And that goes
to them contacting his family as recently as within a
week ago. Because it goes' to impeach Mr. Howd's
testimony.

MR. TYSON: Judge, it is prejudicial.

That's hearsay as the contacting his family.

MS. RIVELLINI: The fact that he knows a
call was made goes to his knowledge that "Fair Game" is
still being implemented and it contradicts what Mr. Howd
testified.

MR. TYSON: Judge, that is highly

39

inflammatory to the jury.

THE COURT: I agree with Mr. Tyson. You
are not going to go there for the reasons that he just
stated.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, in line with the "Fair Game
Policy" and the labeling of someone as an enemy,
suppressive person, or a critic, telling about the
understanding that you have about criminality comes into
place, and why it is important that someone is labeled a
criminal?

A There is different policies within the
organization where "Fair Game" and the practices "Fair
Game" are delineated, it's not just limited to this one
particular policy letters. There are other policies
within the organization.

Q Tell me what it means to be labeled by
Scientology, not what it means out common knowledge?

A Any one who attacks Scientology is a criminal
according to Scientology.

Q Is that a word that is used over and over
again?

A Yes, if a minister were to speak out against
Scientology he would be labeled a criminal, and if he
didn't have a crime they would dig into his past and find

40

one. No matter who.

Q It is important for Scientology to expose a critics crimes?

A Absolutely.

Q Were you taught to do this?

A Yes.

Q How would you go about it?

A Using investigative technique. We would obtain
any kind of information that would be on an individual,
his background. We would talk to neighbors, we would
have private investigators sent out. We would obtain any
kind of information that would either prove that the
person had been a criminal, link them to criminal
activity, or if that failed then to try and create
criminal activity.

Q Would you stop until you had created that
criminal activity?

A I saw things done when I was in the Office of
Special Affairs, which I personally didn't participate
in, however, I did see them done, I did hear of them when
I was in the Office of Special Affairs, and the higher
the threat level of the individual, the subject was, the
more efforts that would be expended on proving that that
person was a criminal.

Q If you were told to manufacture a crime, to

41

make that critic a criminal, okay if that was your job
that day --

MR. TYSON: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q If that was your job that day and the event
were about to end and you had not completed that task,
would there be sanctions?

A There would sanctions on anyone who accepts
that task and not complete it successfully. I was
fortunate that I was never placed in a position of having
had to do it. I felt bad for anyone that was in that
position, people that I saw that were subjected to having
to do that.

Q Is that why you left the church?

A That was one of many pivotal reasons why I left
the organization.

Q Okay, when you left were you handed a document?

A I tried to leave the organization the right way
through using their own policy, however, in the end I was
handed a document by Scientology, it was as Suppressive
Person Declare.

Q What does that mean?

A I was declared an enemy of Scientology because
I wanted to leave the organization for that reason.

42

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, if I may have just
a moment.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, that's all I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson, cross examination?

MR. TYSON: Judge, if I could have a
moment.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. TYSON:

Q How are you doing, Mr. Oliver?

A Very good, sir.

Q Now, you left there in 1992, right?

A Correct, sir.

Q Does this book look familiar to you?

A Yes, I have seen that book before.

MR. TYSON: Judge, may I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. TYSON:

Q You have seen this book before?

A Yes, sir.

Q What is that chapter on?

A That says, "Suppressive Acts, Suppression of
Scientology, and Scientologists."

Q That's what we are talking about here, right?
A Yes, sir.

43

Q I want you to look into the chapter and tell me
what the last thing it says in there is, starting with
"nothing"?

A It says, "Nothing in this policy letter shall
ever or under any circumstances justify any violation of
the laws of the land or -

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, I am going to
object to him reading it without it being entered into
evidence first, and then being published to the jury.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I can enter a copy it.
I have a copy. That's not my book.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. RIVELLINI: We would ask that he go
ahead and do it.

MR. TYSON: I will go ahead and do it now.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, under the rule of
completeness we would ask that the entire section be
entered, not the entire book.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I am offering it only
to impeach him as to whether that policy does still
exists, that's all I am offering it for.

THE COURT: Okay. I am going to accept
what has selected from that book to use for feature. So
you objection is overruled.

44

BY MR. TYSON:

Q Mr. Oliver, I want you to look at this, this is
a same thing as that photocopy? Can you give me the book
back?

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson, that is Exhibit
Number?

MR. TYSON: Number 7.

THE COURT: Okay, State's Exhibit Number
seven is admitted into evidence.

(The document hereinafter referred to was marked and
State's Exhibit No. 7 for identification and was
received into evidence.)

BY MR. TYSON:

Q Mr. Oliver, please look at 7, that is in
evidence. Read that please to the jury?

A It says, "Nothing in this policy letter shall
ever, or under any circumstances justify any violation of
the laws of land, or intentional illegal wrongs. Any
such offenses shall subject the offender to penalties
prescribed by law, as well as ethics injustice actions."

Q Now, that says that you can't do anything
illegal, right?

A Yes.

45

Q Were you aware of that?

A I see this document, and I see what it says.

Q When was the last time you have seen that
document -- you have never seen that document, have you?

A I don't recall ever seeing this particular
document.

MR. TYSON: Judge, may I approach the
witness?

BY MR. TYSON:

Q Mr. Oliver, you don't know Richard Howd, do
you?

A No, sir, I don't.

Q And you have never been in the Clearwater
office, have you?

A Yes, I have.

Q Were you stationed there?

A No.

Q When were you there?

A In Clearwater?

Q Uh-huh.

A The last time I was inside Flag, the Flag Land
Base was in 1990, I believe. It may have been '91.

Q Is it fair to say that you no longer
Scientologists?

A No, that is not fair to say.

46

Q Could you tell me why on February 6th of this
year you were shining a laser light pen, similar to this
one, with a laser dot in their face when you were across
the street from them in Clearwater?

MS. RIVELLINI: I am going to object to him testifying. The facts are not in evidence. I think he first has to ask him if, in fact, he was doing so, and
then ask him why?

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

BY MR. TYSON:

Q I'll repeat it, why are you showing the laser
light pen -- you do admit that you did that, right?

A No, I don't recall shining it anyone's eyes,
sir.

Q Shining it around their face and their camera?

A No, I remember shining it specifically into
someone's camera, who was videotaping.

Q With their eye right behind, which means that's
right where their face is, doesn't it?

A No, they were holding it down around their
waist.

Q If I showed you a video, would that maybe help
you?

A It might, it's been some time.

Q Let me ask you this, Mr. Oliver, have you ever

47

given them the finger?

A Sure.

Q What does that mean?

A That means that I don't like them.

Q Does it mean, fuck you?

A It might.

Q Is it fair to say that the average person that
when you give somebody the finger it means fuck you, is
that fair to say?

A Yeah, if someone did it to me, I would know
what it would mean, and I would probably do it right
back.

Q That would be a provocative act, wouldn't you
agree, something that would provoke people?

A If somebody did that to me I would consider it
provocative.

Q Also a laser light pen in their face would be
provocative, too, wouldn't it?

A It might.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I can mark this State's~
Exhibit Number 8 for identification.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The video hereinafter referred to marked as
State's Exhibit No. 8 for

48
identification.)
MR. TYSON: Judge, if I can publish it to the jury?

THE COURT: Are you admitting that into evidence.

MR. TYSON: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MS. RIVELLINI: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay, it will be admitted and
you can publish it.

(The video heretofore marked as State's Exhibit
No. 8 for identification was received into
evidence.)

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, I am going to assume that
there are no other contents other than what I have
viewed.

MR. TYSON: Judge, may we approach on
that?

THE COURT: Approach.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held
out of the hearing of the jury.)

MR. TYSON: There is a little bit of him
picketing, but if the jury wants to see that tape we can

49

bring them back and let them look just at the portion.

MS. RIVELLINI: I couldn't remember what
else was on there. We looked about five videos.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, I have never
seen this.

MR. TYSON: He gave them the finger.

MS. RIVELLINI: Right, and then shining
the light.

MR. TYSON: The laser light in the face.

MS. RIVELLINI: Right.

MR. TYSON: And then he just walking
around picketing. I will stop it, and I will stop at the
laser light, and then if they want to see the video again
we can bring them into court and play that relevant
section. I just can't edit it this quick.

MS. RIVELLINI: Is there anything else on
the video besides him even picketing?

MR. TYSON: No.

MS. RIVELLINI: The whole video is only a
couple of minutes?

MR. TYSON: It's not even that long, about
thirty seconds.

THE COURT: Are you okay with that?

MS. RIVELLINI: Yes. I just didn't know
if there was any second part to the video.

50

(Whereupon, the video was played for
jury.)

BY MR. TYSON:

Q You are giving them the finger, aren't you?

A Yes, I am.

Q That's you with a laser pen, isn't it?

A Yes, I believe so.

Q Is Mr. Minton with you?

A Yes.

Q You are across the street from the Scientologists?

A Yes.

Q They are not up in your face with the video, are they?

A No, they aren't.

Q It is going right in the camera, isn't it, Mr. Oliver?

A Yes, it is.

Q And your testimony is that the camera is down to their side?

A I believe he had it down by his waist.

Q You are flashing it all around, wouldn't it be
fair to assume that you got it in his face?

A No, sir.

Q I didn't see the Scientologists picking on

51

anybody there, were they?

A Not at that particular moment, no, sir.

Q You're messing with them though, aren't you?

A If that is how you choose characterize it, sir.

Q Laser light in somebody's face, that's not a
good thing, right?

A No.

Q If I put it in the Judge's face I am going out
of here in handcuffs. Would you agree?

A Yeah, but I haven't shined it anyone's face.

Q You just shined it at them?

A I didn't shine it in anyone's face. I was very
clear when I was doing it in anyone's eyes. I wouldn't
want that done to me.

Q Would it be safe to assume that the average
person may be provoked with somebody doing that?

A They may be.

Q Okay. Your intention was to provoke them,
wasn't it?

A No, it wasn't. I objected to being videotaped.

Q Let's talk about that. Wait a second. If I
play it back, Mr. Bunker, part of your group is holding a
videotape on them, isn't he?

A Uh-huh.

Q Do you want to see it again?

52
A No, I don't need to see it again.

Q Okay, but you object to them videotaping you,
but it's okay for your group to videotape them? Is that
what you are telling this jury?

A The technique of videotaping is someone that --
from my understanding you can do freely in this country,
however, I don't need my life chronicled.

Q So is it fair to say that when you do it, you
are doing it freely, but when they do it they are
chronicling your life?

A No, not particularly in that, no, not at all.

Q Nobody forced you to be in Clearwater? It's a
free country, but you don't have to be here, do you?

A I can if choose to be.

Q Absolutely. You can be on any street you want.
Okay, can you provoke people when you are doing that
though?

A Define provoke.

Q Messing with them, stirring them up, egging
them on, looking for a fight. Did you do that?

A No, I don't go around looking for a fight, sir.

Q Is it fair to say that you went to them when
you gave them the finger, didn't you?

A No, I was responding what had been done to me
just before that, which wasn't shown.

53

Q Okay. Much like we all have clips of videos,
right. We will get into that later. You were shining
the laser light at them though, right?

A I was shining it into the camera of the person
recording me.

Q Now, have you ever received any money either
directly, or indirectly from Mr. Minton?

A I believe we went out to dinner and Mr. Minton
bought everybody in the restaurant dinner that night. I
think that would be direct.

Q You are involved in the Lisa McPherson civil
suit, aren't you?

A Yes, I am.

Q And you plan on testifying for the Lisa
McPherson family, I guess is the best way to describe
that?

A Actually, no.

Q What do you plan on doing there?

A I am a legal consultant on that case.

Q Are you being paid for that?

A No, l am not.

Q Okay. But the case is being funded by Mr.
Minton, isn't it?

A I believe so.

Q Mr. Minton is paying for a third party to sue

54

the Church of Scientology, isn't he?

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, I am going to object
if the answer calls for hearsay.

MR. TYSON: He has already basically answered it, Judge.

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

BY MR. TYSON:

Q Mr. Minton is funding a third party to sue the
Scientologists, isn't he?

A I believe so.

Q Okay. The Lisa McPherson Trust, do you have
any knowledge about that at all?

A Yes, I am on the advisory board.

Q You are on the advisory board. That Trust is
funded by Mr. Minton, isn't it?

A Yes, it is.

Q And that Trust in turn is funding the civil
suit, isn't it?

A I don't know that to be a fact.

Q Well, you are on the board, where is the money
going?

A Sir, I don't know that for a fact.

Q I don't quite understand your answer.

A I haven't --

Q You said that you don't know for a fact, is

55

this working --

A No, not at all, I haven't seen any
documentation of that sort, so I can't honestly answer
the question. My capacity is an advisory capacity.

Q I am not talking about documentation. I am
talking about day-to-day talk around the Lisa McPherson
Trust as to where that money is going. How many people
are involved in that?

A There may be a dozen or so. I am not there
everyday. I live in Miami.

Q I understand that, you understand the gist of
my question though?

A You are asking me to speculate on something
that I have no first-hand knowledge of.

Q Let's leave at that then. Basically, you have
told this jury that you are trained in dirty tricks.
That is basically what you are telling them, right?

A I was trained in specific investigative
technique.

Q You can call it that if you want. You don't
mind if I call them dirty tricks, do you?

A I don't know, would you categorize what I did
as a dirty trick?

Q Putting a laser light on somebody.
A Is that a dirty trick?

56
Q If you are trying to provoke them it is.

A You are assuming that I was trying to provoke
them.

Q Have you ever met Richard Howd before?

A I don't believe I know Mr. Howd.

Q You don't know anything about Mr. Howd?

A Only what I have heard thus far.

Q Hearsay, right, all you have heard is from
other people talking about him?

A In the courtroom here, too.
MR. TYSON: Judge, if I could have a moment please.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. TYSON:

Q You say the church brings in attorneys to mess
with people, is that what you said?

A No, I didn't say that.

Q What do they bring them in for?

A The attorneys that I worked with for the Church
of Scientology are in-house counsel. Moxon, Kobrin.

Q When you were involved in these activities, or
alleged activities that you testified to, you chose to be
involved in those, didn't you?

A It was what I was required to do as a member of
the Office of Special Affairs.

57

Q Well, I am required to be here in court today,
but you know what, I can turn around and walk right out
the door.

A True.

Q I can quit my job the same as you can quit your
job, right?

A I-

Q But you made a choice, didn't you? If that is
even true and this stuff even happened, that would have
been your choice to that kind of stuff, wouldn't it?

A Yes.

Q And as far as illegal activities, you are
saying that you were never involved in any. Is that what
you are telling this jury?

A Yes.

Q Okay. You are not going to dime yourself out,
are you?

A Nope.

Q Of course not, of course not. So any illegal
activities that you are telling this jury about is stuff
that other people may have told you?

A No, not exactly right, sir.

MR. TYSON: That's all I have, Judge.

THE COURT: Redirect?

MS. RIVELLINI: Yes, sir, but we need to

58

approach before we do that.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held
outside the hearing of the jury.)

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, I believe Mr. Tyson clearly opened the door for me to get out the point that there have been ramifications for him leaving the church, and that, in fact, he has been followed and harassed. He
asked him, "Well, they didn't go around provoking you,
did they? They didn't do anything to you, did they?"
And, in fact, he asked, "If you didn't like it, you could
just leave and walk out?" Like there would be no
repercussions, and in fact, there have been.

MR. TYSON: Judge, there wasn't any response to him saying he couldn't leave. I didn't open any door there. I was very careful about that. I didn't
mention the videos, I didn't mention what Mr. Minton did
on the videos and whether that was "Fair Game" what he
did. I kept the door very tight so that we wouldn't get in that part.

MS. RIVELLINI: He wasn't responding to questions that I asked him. He was responding to questions asked of him by the prosecutor.

THE COURT: Give me a for example. If you go into this line of questioning, what do you expect to

59

get him to say that he hasn't otherwise already said?

MS. RIVELLINI: He asked him if what he
was doing, standing out there picketing was just because
he hates Scientologists and the fact is that they didn't
do anything to provoke you, and in fact, they have done
things to provoke him. Also, Judge, he specifically
said, "When you were there you were there of your own
free will, and you could have just left, just like I
could quit my job." And that is not the case. And he is
misleading them by leaving them on that point.

MR. TYSON: He has already testified about RPF, whatever that stuff is, he has already been there. It's all what you put out.

MS. RIVELLINI: It was upon your line of questioning. I didn't ask him if he was there of his own freewill.

MR. TYSON: I went no further than yours was.

THE COURT: I am going to let you hit it real brief. Real briefly.

MS. RIVELLINI: That's all I need. That's all I need.

THE COURT: I don't want to dwell on it, because we have already gone way far beyond it. Let me make sure that I understand what it is you expect to get

60

out.

MS. RIVELLINI: I plan on asking him, "Theprosecutor asked you, if you were there of your own freewill." "Yes, I was." And when you stopped liking what was going on, you tried to leave? Just like the prosecutor said you could? "Yes, I did." And you weren't allowed to leave peacefully, were you? "No." So, in fact, it is not just like Mr. Tyson leaving his job, you, in fact, were harassed? "Yes, I was."

MR. TYSON: In 1992. Relevance, and I didn't do anything else other than to comment on the fact that he didn't have to do anything that he wanted to do. He said that he didn't do any of those activities.

MS. RIVELLINI: You asked him specifically

THE COURT: We are going further and further. He can say yes, he was harassed. And I don't want to hear about what those harassments were.

MS. RIVELLINI: That's why I phrased it that way, so I could cut it off just there.

THE COURT: I don't want to hear all the gory stories.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I would ask if he starts going into it that you would interrupt so that I don't look like I am trying to hide anything.

61

MS. RIVELLINI: That's fine with me.

THE COURT: She is not going to do it.

MS. RIVELLINI: If he responds further than I've asked then I have no problem with how you conduct the courtroom. But I would only the question the way that I just phrased.

MR. TYSON: My question is that she may ask a very simple question, he may just ramble on.

THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.

MS. RIVELLINI: I don't know if you want to argue that at the bench. He entered only one page of a document.

THE COURT: I've already ruled. Do you want to argue that again?

MS. RIVELLINI: You ruled that only he had to enter it. I would like to enter it under the rule of completeness. And we can either argue that now, or come back up.

MR. TYSON: I don't know how it is completeness, Judge. He just testified it is for the limited purpose of showing that they have -- showing that they can't do anything illegal. I didn't go into any of the policy. I did nothing about that.

THE COURT: Is there anything in that document that you find to be relevant to the issue that

62

Mr. Tyson was addressing, other than the portion that he used?

MS. RIVELLINI: Yes, sir, on page 883 where it talks suppressive acts, anybody who does those things, any person who agrees that would do such thing, a suppressive act, out of self-interest, only to the detriment of all others they cannot be granted the rights ordinarily accorded rational beings. So this paragraph within its own policy completely contradicts that you can't do someone. They don't even treat them like a human being.

THE COURT: But his paragraph pertained to violations of the law. I am not sure those two things are congruous.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, I think if you look at one versus the other, to take just his portion out of context is completely misleading as to what their real policy is, which is if you don't treat someone like a rational human being --

THE COURT: So you want to enter just one page?

MS. RIVELLINI: I will be happy to limit it to that.

MR. TYSON: I will object to that. It is putting the religion on trial. It's obvious from the

63

motions in limine.

THE COURT: I am drawing the line.

MR. TYSON: They keep going and going and going.

THE COURT: I am going to let you put that one page in, and I am let you ask that one question. If he goes beyond, yes, I was harassed, then I will interject and stop it.

MS. RIVELLINI: I will be happy to ask it as a leading question.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, the prosecutor asked you if you disliked Scientology or Scientologists, and you told him no?

A Yes, that is true.

Q Okay, but then you expressed that you have gone
out and picketed and some things against Scientology.
How do you reconcile that?

A I don't have anything against Scientologists, a
lot of them don't really know what goes on within the
organization itself. My problem, if you will, or my
concern is the abusive practices of the organization as
deemed and carried out and told to be done by the
management. Individual Scientologists I have no qualm

64
with them. A lot of people are my friends in Scientology
that I can't talk to anymore because of the situations.

Q So is it fair to say that the anger, or the
discontent that you seem to express on that video is not
with the people, but with the policies?

A Absolutely. It's with their abusive and
hurtful policies. Not with the individuals. Some of
them don't even know what is really going on in there,
they don't.

Q You weren't trying to mislead this jury?

A Not in any way.

Q Now, Mr. Tyson showed you the last paragraph of a policy.

MS. RIVELLINI: If I can approach the witness?

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Just one other page from that policy, and it's in Defendant's Exhibit Number 9 for purposes of identification. Can you just take a look at it, and take a look at the cover page to see where it comes from. Do you recognize that chapter?

A Yeah.

(The document hereinafter referred to was marked as

65

Defendant's Exhibit No. 9 for identification.)

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Okay, turn directly to the page that I have
pointed out and highlighted. Can you just read the
highlighted paragraph and tell me if you understand what
it means?

A It says-

Q Read it to yourself and tell me if you understand it?

A I understand it.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, at this point I would like to enter into evidence only page 883 from the same chapter that the prosecutor entered the page from.

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson?

MR. TYSON: I would renew my relevance objection, Judge.

THE COURT: I understand it will admitted as Defense Exhibit Number?

MS. RIVELLINI: Number 9.

THE COURT: Number 9. Okay.

MS. RIVELLINI: And only this section will be published to the jury and entered it into evidence.

THE COURT: You may go ahead and publish it.

66

(The document heretofore marked as Defendant's
Exhibit No. 9 for identification was received into evidence.)

MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Would you go ahead and read the highlighted portion from page 883, from the Chapter of Suppressive Acts?

A It says, "Suppressive Acts are clearly those
covert, or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or
destroy the influence, or activities of Scientology or
prevent case gains, or continued Scientology successes,
and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons
or groups that would do such a thing act out of self
interest, only to the detriment of all others. They
cannot be granted the rights ordinarily accorded rational
beings."

Q And you said that you understood that paragraph?

A Yes, I do.

Q Is there anything in that paragraph that
contradicts what you learned as "Fair Game"?

A No. It's just phrased nicely.

Q In fact, the prosecutor showed you that this is

67

dated 1991, correct?

A Yes.

Q Could anything that is written here directly
conflict or change "Fair Game" as it was done by L. Ron
Hubbard?

MR. TYSON: Judge, I am going to object. He is incompetent to answer that question. He has been out of the organization for eight years. How he would even know about this. He has never seen this before.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q From what you learned when you were involved so
heavily in Scientology, from what you learned can a
policy later after L. Ron Hubbard died be changed?

A No, it can't. That one, in fact, you showed me
didn't seem to be written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was
another author listed underneath the name on the bottom.

Q That makes a big difference?

A Big difference.

Q The fact that it says that people who commit
suppressive acts that they cannot granted ordinarily
accorded rational beings. Is that essentially saying
that you don't treat them like they are humans?

A That is how I interpret it.

Q Now, the prosecutor kind of made the connection

68

in your involvement in Scientology and his job here with
the State of Florida. When you were in Scientology, no
one forced you to become a member?

A No one forced me to become a member.

Q Okay, no one forced you at the time you were
there to stay a member, is that right?

A No one forced me to stay a member.

Q And for a while you liked being a member?

A Yes.

Q You even have a tattoo and it meant a lot to
you?

A Yes.

Q At some point to you did that change?

A Yes, it did.

Q Did you try to take the steps that were taught
to you to properly leave the church?

A Yes, I did.

Q When you tried to do that were there any
repercussions?

A Yes, there were.

Q In fact, it is not just like for Mr. Tyson if
he were to quit his job, and he said he could walk out
the door. You couldn't just walk out the door and say
that I am done with you all and never hear from them
again?

69

A I could, and suffer the consequences, sure.

Q So there were consequences when you left the
church?

A Yes, there were.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, that's all I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson, anything further?

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. TYSON:

Q You do recognize that book there, right?

A Yeah, I've seen that book.

Q So Mr. Hubbard, he is dead?

A Yeah, he's dead.

Q Are you sure, we are not talking about Elvis
being alive? He is dead, right?

A As far as I know, sir, he is dead.

Q That's the typical book that you all have in
Scientology?

A It's typical, yeah.

Q Now, you said the reason for activities, you
are not mad at the people,. but the policies, but you
aimed the laser light at the people, right?

A Yeah, a particular security guard, yes.

Q That's a person, right?

A Excuse me?

Q That is a person though, right?

70

A Correct.

Q And for lack of a better term, I am not going
to claim ignorance here, but I really don't know that
much about Scientology, I really don't. I don't know
that much about you guys. That's why I say Scientology
and anti-Scientology. I am not trying to offend you when
I say that. But your message for lack of a better way to
describe it, to simply it would be anti-Scientology?

A No, I wouldn't say that. I don't have a
problem with people being Scientologists.

Q I am talking about anti-Scientology policies.
I mean that is why you are picketing and protesting, to
get your message out against Scientology, you want to
expose them, right?

A I want to expose the abusive practices.

Q Okay, fair enough. Let me ask you this
question, how is shining a laser light on them sending a
message to the rest of the public that you want to expose
their policies, tell the jury that?

A That particular person that was filming me --

Q I asked you a question, how does that send your
message to the public, your protest, if I go to a car
dealership I get a lemon, I am out in front holding a
sign, right, that's protest, right? I am shouting in the
street, they're bad. Okay? They are bad, that is why

71

you are holding signs, right?

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, there hasn't been a question. I am going to ask that he stop editorializing and just phrase one simple question.

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson, please ask your questions.

BY MR. TYSON:

Q You were there to protest to get your message
out, aren't you?

A Correct.

Q And your message that you want to get out is
to the public, isn't it?

A No, not necessarily. It's also to the
Scientologists.

Q For them too, but also to the public, would it
be fair to say them, too?

A Well, whatever public would be there at 10:30
at night, or 11:00, whatever time it was.

Q You picket during the day too, right?

A Yes, I do.

Q And speaking of nighttime, there's not a lot of
people there at night. I mean it's 12:00 at night you
are doing that laser pen, isn't that?

A There are a lot of people walking in and out,
they were all Scientologists.

72

Q My question to you is, you have a message that
you want to get out, how is putting a laser light on an
individual, on a person, aiming it right at them in the
camera, how is that getting your message out?

A It wasn't. The picket sign in my other hand
was getting the message out.

Q That's right it wasn't, was it?

MR. TYSON: No further questions.

THE COURT: Any further questions of this witness?

MS. RIVELLINI: Just a moment, Judge. No, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Please step down.

(Whereupon, the witness was excused.)

THE COURT: We are going to take a fifteen minute recess. We will be adjourned until 10:15.

(Brief break)

Part Two