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 22, 2000

PLACE: Criminal Justice Center
14250 49th Street North
Clearwater, Florida 33762

REPORTED BY: Pamela Jenkins, VR
Court Reporter

KANABAY COURT REPORTER5
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 N. DE VLAMING, ESQUIRE
and DOUGLAS M. DE VLAMING, ESQUIRE
KYM B. RIVELLINI, ESQUIRE
1101 Turner Street
Clearwater, Florida 22756
Attorneys for the Defendant
CONTENTS

DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

FRANK OLIVER 14 25,45 57 61

RICHARD HOWD 210 226 258 260

MARK BEAUDETTE 264 269 -- --

-3-
EXHIBITS

For ID In Evidence

State's Exhibit No. 1 215 216
(sign)

State's Exhibit No. 2 220 220
(Photograph)

State's Exhibit No. 3 222 225
(video)

State's Exhibit No. 4 222 225
(video)

State's Exhibit No. 5 223 225
(video)

State's Exhibit No. 6 224 225
(video)

-4-

PROCEEDINGS

THE COURT: Let's talk a little bit before we
start a proffer, because in the motion we talked
about a lot of things. And you all touched on some
of these things. The reason that I reserved ruling
on them is because we really did not with
specificity identify them. It may be that each of
you can identify these things, tell me what they
are, and some of them I can rule on with what you
tell me they are, others I may say, no, I need to
hear witnesses. Why don't we do that? Who would
like to go first?

MR. TYSON: Judge, I filed a motion in limine, I
am not sure what they are going to come forward
with.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, I think our witness,
Frank Oliver, will the person testifying to the
bulk of the policies and procedures, and beliefs
that might be relevant in this trial. Not every
belief involving Scientology, obviously, that is
not relevant and that would take too long. The
policies that we did not specifically identify and
did not go into depth about go a little bit beyond
"Fair Game". As a matter of fact, Frank Oliver
has with him some credentials that show he was a
member of Scientology. He was in the Office of
Special Affairs, which you will hear referred

-5-
to as OSA, and was involved for a number of years.
He went through numerous training activities and
then actually practiced these beliefs and these
policies.

So we plan on putting on Mr. Oliver for you and
firming up his --

THE COURT: I will probably need to hear from him.
We will probably need to hear about that.

MS. RIVELLINI: Okay. We planned on introducing
some of his certificates of completion of those
classes that teach the policies that we would be
getting into under the Office of Special Affairs.

You heard a little bit about "Fair Game", and we
actually have it delineated for you. It's actually
in writing, and it was published by L. Ron Hubbard,
"Fair Game" being a suppressive person order on
how to treat the enemy. "Fair Game, may be deprived
of property, or injured by any means by any
Scientologist without any discipline of the
Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, or lied to,
or destroyed." That was what was referred to as
"Fair Game" on how to treat the enemy.
Now, the actual "Fair Game Policy", the written
policy was very quickly thereafter canceled. When
they canceled that policy what they said in the
cancellation of "Fair Game" is, "The practice of
declaring people "Fair Game" will cease. "Fair
Game" may

-6-
not appear in on any ethics order. It causes
bad public relations. This policy letter does
not cancel any policy on the treatment or
handling of a treatment of a suppressive person."

So, although the State's witnesses may testify
that they don't know what "Fair Game" is and
they don't implement it, the cancellation order
clearly shows that the policy of treatment is
still in place, they just don't say anything
about it. And Mr. Oliver will testify about that.

We told you and you ruled upon it in your order
on the motion in limine about our posture that
the entire policy per Scientologist and their
treatment of critics is to prove them up to be
a criminal. We found a lot of that documented
in the Scientology paperwork and in their books.
We brought with us some books written by L. Ron
Hubbard, that are relied upon by Scientologists,
and by people in OSA. We have paperwork that
shows how critics of Scientology are to be
treated.

What they state is that every time they have
investigated the background of a critic of
Scientology we have found crimes for which that
person agreed to be imprisoned under existing
law. We do not find critics of Scientology who
do not have criminal pasts. Over and over we
have proved this. If you oppose

-6-
Scientology we will promptly look up and will
find and expose your crimes. If you leave us
alone, we will leave you alone. All of these
beliefs and policies are what the Scientologists
follow to expose someone who is against them, as
a criminal, and goes to our theory of defense,
which is this was set up so that they could
therefore call Mr. Minton a criminal.

There is some documentation in their Department
of Governmental Affairs books that talk about
how to manufacture threats, use the court system
to
harass, and to threaten. There is some paperwork
on how to stop attacks and how their belief is
to attack, attack, attack.

There is more documentation on suppressive
persons, and "Fair Game". "Outright or covert
acts knowingly designed to impede or destroy
Scientology or Scientologists is what is meant
by acts suppressive of Scientology or
Scientologists." It goes to the theory that Mr.
Minton is the main suppressive person right now
targeted by Scientology. That their goal is to
create him into a criminal and quiet him.

Along another line, we talked about why Mr.
Howd would have done this in the first place,
why he would have had good motive to invent
this situation. And then why he would have
motive to not be truthful with

-8-
your Honor under oath while giving testimony.
We told you that because of the reward and
punishment system laid out by Scientology he
would have a motive other than to tell the
truth. There is documentation to that as well
that Mr. Oliver can testify to. He learned
when he was acting with Scientology and it's
what the entire religion is based on.

Now, again we are not going to get into the
religious aspects, whether it is good, bad, or
indifferent, but the fact that it exists, the
point system. It talks about you get points for
attacking, one point for a local attack, five
points for a regional attack. You will hear about
what they call stats, statistics, which is when
you do something that considered positive by
Scientology, your statistics goes up. If you do
something that is frowned upon they drop and
you receive punishment by they way you are made
to dress, what privileges you have, what doors
you can enter, and so forth.

Mr. Oliver will testify that upon his leaving
the church he was declared a suppressive person,
and he has been the target of such attacks as well.
There is actually a Department of Special Affairs,
this OSA Department that Mr. Howd is a member of.
Check lists on how to carry out such drills as
targeting someone,

-9-
turning them into a criminal, and creating an
engagement upon which they can rely for their
propaganda. You will hear him testify about how a
twin was used, and you will actually see this in
the videos. Where you see two females together,
that is actually part of their tactics on using a
twin. You will hear him testify about the way
everybody had scanned outside, be a witness,
assumed the action took place, and then turned
around. That this is not all coincidental, it's
part of their tactics. They are actually taught
this and they rehearse this. Mr. Oliver will testify
to that.

As far as Mr. Howd's reasons for not being honest
in court, you will find that there was a non
disclosure bond and release form that he was made
to sign, and that if he were to ever say anything
negative about Scientology that he would be fined
in the amount of one million dollars, and punished
by the church.

There is also numerous checks lists on how to
create these episodes, how to practice them, the
drills and so forth. And that would be the bulk
of his testimony. We are going to keep it
tailored as closely as possible to your Honor's
ruling.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, we are probably going
to proffer his testimony. Is that the only area
that you want to proffer?

-10-
MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: No, your Honor, we also
have a witness, Jesse Prince, who is a former
member of the Church of Scientology. He also
was a member of OSA, the Office of Special
Affairs. He has personal first-hand knowledge
on how the Office of Special Affairs worked, and
how they target individuals. And we did supply
the Court with a copy of the September 10, 1998
Boston incident. And he intends to explain how the
tactics that he was taught were used against Mr.
Minton in that particular incident.

THE COURT: Anybody else? Is that it?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes, that's it?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's it, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, we probably need to hear from
both of these witnesses, but I am going to tell
you right now, you all have opened the scope far
beyond anything that I had in my mind when I wrote
that order. Okay. But I am going to listen to your
witnesses with a mind of trying to figure out what
part of this comes in and what part of it doesn't.
It sounds like you plan to bring far beyond what
I envisioned in my ruling. I am going to tell you
right now.

So, who do you want to call right now?

-11-
MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, we would start with Mr.
Oliver. We can either start from scratch, or you
want to clarify which issues you thought were
beyond the scope?

THE COURT: Well, I had ruled on the "Fair Game
Policy." I expected there to be a succinct
explanation of what that is, and how it was
connected to this incident. I am not sure that
I expected to have a two-part witness, long
explanation of it. I ruled on the -- said that
the Boston, Massachusetts incident was admissible,
but I did not intend to make that a feature of this
trial. It merely comes in for the purposes for
which you addressed and argued in your motion,
and which I addressed in writing my order. We are
not trying the Boston incident here today.

MS. RIVELLINI: That's correct, Judge. What
we intend on tailoring it to was the fact
that it was set up and it could be proven so
based on Mr. Oliver's experience in the church
and that he was taught to do this. We really
did try to tailor it down as closely as possible
to those issues to what would affect Mr. Minton's
state mind.

THE COURT: That really is the issue, right?

MS. RIVELLINI: Correct. And what would

-12-
go towards Mr. Howd's manufacturing of this
incident and that it was not an intentional
touching on Mr. Minton's part, but in fact,
an invited touching by Mr. Howd for the purpose
of declaring him a criminal.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. TYSON: May I address you on the issue, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes, of course.

MR. TYSON: While you listen to the witnesses I
would like you take into account, obviously
relevance; number one.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Number two; state of mind is an issue
on self-defense of the case. I would like to
remind you on the videos Mr. Minton is heard
telling the police that this was an accident,
Mr. Howd walked into the sign. So state of mind
relevancy is a pretty big hurdle for him to shift
gears, and it would be an inconsistent defense.
It's allowed under the law, but you can't have
a defense of bad faith. There is a difference.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. TYSON: I would like you take that into account
when you are considering the testimony.

THE COURT: Before we get underway, I in

-13-
reviewing my own order I may not have been completely
clear on one point, and if you all were confused,
you would have a reason to be, and that addresses
the video taken by Mr. Minton and someone with him
of the Slaughter home in Largo. That's in. I don't
know if you all understood that from my ruling,
but my intention was the predicate can be laid.
I expect that it can from what I heard. That's in.

Let me ask a question about the July Clearwater
segment of the video. I ruled on that
understanding that it was Mr. Minton who was
the videoer?
Am I correct about that?

MR. TYSON: Judge, if we look we confused, it is
because we have so many videos right now.

THE COURT: I know that, I understand. Let me
explain it, the videos that I saw --

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: The --

THE COURT: Forget that one, I am not talking
about that. What I am talking about is the video
that starts with an incident in California that
doesn't have anything to do with either of these
parties, and it is very actually hard to follow
it, but it 'looks like it breaks to a Clearwater
incident. I had understood that that July Clearwater
incident Mr. Minton was either the videoer or was
present for it. Am I correct about that,

-14-
or not?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Present, you can see him
in the video.

THE COURT: I don't recall that you do.

MS. RIVELLINI: Not the taken --

THE COURT: I don't recall seeing him in that
segment. We might want to look at that one again,
because I ruled that that comes in with the
understanding that he was there. Okay, and if I
am confused about that I want to make sure that
we clear that up. Okay. So the Slaughter video
comes in, the Slaughter part of the Clearwater
incident, and I ruled and said that all of those
come in, but I wasn't specific about that part of
it, and that was made an issue in that hearing.
My intention is that it happened that day, it's
part and parcel, it goes to state of mind, it
comes in. It is relevant. Okay. I want to make
sure that you all are clear on that point,
because I was not sufficiently clear in my order.
Okay. All right, well, let's hear from Mr.
Oliver. I think that is where we go.

MS. RIVELLINI: It is, Judge. The only issue that
we have not had time to address because we didn't
know that you would let us proffer this early is
I have some documentation that I would asking
Mr. Oliver to identify and perhaps introduce. So
I have not had time

-15-
to get those pre-marked.

THE COURT: That's fine. That's okay. This is a
proffer. The jury is not here. I'd rather hear
it all so that I can determine what part of this
should be a part of this trial, and what part
shouldn't. So don't worry about that. Don't
worry about that, I understand.

MS. RIVELLINI: The defense would call Mr. Oliver.

(Whereupon, the witness was sworn.)

THE WITNESS: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, sir. Please proceed.

MS. RIVELLINI: Thank you, Judge.

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

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Would you state your name please?

A Frank Oliver.

Q Mr. Oliver, how old are you?

A I am thirty-seven years old.

-16-
Q What city do you live in?

A I live in Miami, Florida.

Q When did you move there?

A 1979.

Q What do you do for a living?

A I am a graphic designer.

Q How long have you been doing that?

A I have been doing graphics for about ten
years.

Q Were you also a member of the Church of
Scientology?

A Yes, I was.

Q When was that?

A I joined the Church of Scientology in June
of 1986. I left the Church of Scientology
officially in 1992, I believe, November.

Q Did you leave on general good terms or
bad terms?

A I left on what would be considered by the
church on bad terms.

Q Do you know that reason?

A I was given a document by the Church of
Scientology, which is called a "Declare", which
states that I can no longer be a Scientologist
because of some type of offense that they believe
I committed.

Q Okay. Did you actually receive a document

-17-
stating so?

A Yes, I did.

Q What was the nature of the offense that
they said that you committed?

A According to the Church of Scientology my
of fense was that I had secretly made plans
to leave the Church of Scientology.

Q Okay. Were you not allowed to just leave?

A Under Scientology's rules and policies you
don't secretly make plans to leave. It has to be
something that has to be done by a certain
procedure. had been following that procedure,
so it came as a shock to
me when I received a document when it said that
I had done something, when, in fact, it was done
very much in the open.

Q How did you receive that order declaring
you a suppressive person?

A It was handed to me by Eric Arnet, who
is the Director of Inspections and Reports at
the Church of Scientology in Miami.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, may I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, we haven't had a chance to
pre-mark these exhibits, but I am going to show
you something.

-18-
Can you tell me if you recognize it?

A Yes, that is the Suppressive Person
Declare on me.

Q This has a seal on it, and this is
photocopy?

MR. TYSON: Judge, if I could have one second.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. TYSON: Ms. Rivellini has given me all of
these documents, if she could just show me.

THE COURT: Ms. Rivellini, the jury is not here
so move about the courtroom as you feel the
need to. Don't ask, just move.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, this has a seal on it, but
this has a seal on it. Can you just take a look
and tell me if this is substantially the same
situation as the original?

A Yes.

Q A suppressive person that this declares
you as, what is that?

A A suppressive person means that I am
suppressive to the aims and goals of the Church
of Scientology, and to mankind in general as well.

Q Is that what they call an enemy of Scientology?

A Yes, I am now considered an enemy of
Scientology, actually as of that date.

-19-
Q Okay. Now when you were with Scientology did
you actually have identification cards?

A I was issued an identification card when I
was sent to Los Angeles to work in the Office of
Special Affairs in the CAN Unit.

Q CAN being?

A Cult Awareness Network Unit. It was a unit
established, that I was brought in to help
establish for the Church of Scientology to help
destroy the Cult Awareness Network.

Q Okay. And I am going to show you three
photo copies of identification cards. Can you
just tell me if you recognize them?

A Yes. This is the one that I was issued in
California that allowed me access to secured
areas of the building. This is a card that I
received in 1987, it was a temporary card that
I was given for being a member of the International
Association of Scientologists.

Q And keep in mind that the court reporter
has to repeat each and every word that you say.

A I'm sorry. And this last card was issued
to me

MR. TYSON: Judge, if it will speed matters up,
I am not going to dispute that he was a member
of Scientology.

-20-
THE COURT: Okay.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q While you were in Scientology did you actually
have to take some courses?

A Yes. The purpose of the indoctrination of
Scientology is all based on the person taking
certain courses and acquiring information that way.
It is not a lecture type of indoctrination.

Q Do you actually receive certificates for these
courses?

A Yes, for every course that you complete you
receive a certificate.

Q About how many courses would you say that
you have completed?

A Over the course of seven years in Scientology
it is probably over a dozen courses I did.

Q Do you have a sample of some of these
certificates here, and are these copies of them?

A Yes, these are photocopies of the originals
that I do still have in my possession.

Q Okay. Does it take quite a bit of studying
to obtain these certificates?

A Yes, some of these courses, depending on
whether you are full-time or whether you have a
job, and go there on a part-time basis, do take --
some courses

-20-
people have been on for several years.

Q Okay. Other than reading materials does it
require any other specialized training or knowledge?

A You have to listen to video tapes and actually
demonstrate that you have understood the materials
that you have listened to to show your confidence in
that particular area of what ever course that you
have done.

Q Okay, and you did that?

A Yes, I did.

Q When you are part of Scientology and you take
these classes, and you receive these certificates
do you move up, what I will call a ladder?

A Yes. The structure of Scientology is two-fold.
On the one side is what they refer to as processing,
which is their type of spiritual counseling, and you
move up different levels. They call this a bridge.
The other side is the training side, which trains
you in the processes and techniques, and that the
other side of the bridge where you receive -- you
go up different levels there.

Q Did you essentially move up the ladder in both?

A Different individuals move more or less on
different sides, depending on what your side is.
Because I was in an administrative position I moved
up on the counseling side, if you will. But the training
I

-22-
received was specific to the areas that I worked in.

Q So you were higher up on the hierarchy?

A On one side I was what is known as clear, and
on the other side my training was in an administrative
capacity, and I was considered a Status II, which is
what is called in Scientology when you are a fully
trained staff member. Then you take an additional course
in your particular area of expertise, for example mine
was in the Office of Special Affairs. So I was an
investigations officer, and I took a course on being
an investigations officer, and any related course to
that I had to take.

Q Do you actually have some documentation on what
the Office of Special Affairs is, and how it is run?

A Yes.

Q Could you just briefly explain what this packet
contains?

A Every course in Scientology, if you will, a
curriculum, and it identifies the different materials
that are required for study in order to achieve the
certificate in that area. This is a check-sheet, and
this check sheet is for the Office of Special Affairs.
They call it a HAT check sheet.

Q Is a HAT essentially the job that you have?

A Yes, exactly. What this does, it explains what it
is that the objective to the course that you are

-23-
completing. It delineates the materials that need to be
covered, what you need to know and understand, what you
need to read. There are different things you have to do
here. For example, in order to have a full understanding
you may be asked to demonstrate something you have
learned here on a table made of clay using figures, just
so that you can explain to someone else that you do have
a full understanding of it. So, that it is very clear
that you when you complete the course you are
considered an expert, or qualified in that area.

Q And you did that?

A I completed probably two-thirds of this course
here before I left Scientology.

Q So Scientology themselves would have considered
you an expert in the areas that you completed?

A I was already doing the job while I was taking
the course. They don't have you finish the course
and then start doing the work. You immediately start
doing the work. They do something called a Mini-HAT,
which is basically a smaller version of this that
you complete,
and then you immediately are put in so that you can
start producing for the organization.

Q Okay. Do you have to learn these materials
very thoroughly?

-24-
A Absolutely.

Q And do you have repeat them back on a consistent
basis?

A You are constantly being drilled on different
things. If there is a particular area that you show
some kind of weakness on they send you to a specialist,
who is called a cramming officer. What they do is they
go any materials or any deficiency that you might have
in any area.

Q Okay. Now, you left the Church of Scientology
in what year?

A 1992.

Q Have you continued to follow news and occurrence
that deal with the Church of Scientology?

A From '92 until '94 I limited my exposure to what
was going on because of the way in which I left, and
how I felt about the organization, and why I left. I
became more involved after '94. Because of the Internet's
proliferation of information in the current scene, and
I have kept very much up to date on what is going on.
..
Q Have you talked to people who have left the
Church of Scientology to keep up on what goes on
inside the church?

A I have-

-25-
MR. TYSON: I'm going to object on the hearsay. I know
it is a proffer, but I just want you consider that.

THE COURT: I understand. Thank you.


THE WITNESS: Yes, I have talked to individuals
who are still in, and individuals who have recently
left.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Are you involved with any litigation
involving the Church of Scientology?

A I am personally not involved in any litigation.

Q Do you follow it and keep up to date on it?

A Yes, I do.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, at this time I would ask that
Mr. Frank Oliver be declared an expert in the field
of Scientology based on his training.

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson?

MR. TYSON: Judge, may I voir dire the witness?

THE COURT: Yes, please.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

BY MR. TYSON:

Q Mr. Oliver, when did you leave Scientology?

A 1992.

Q When were you in OSA?

-26-
A I was in OSA -- I started doing things for OSA
out of the Church of Scientology in Coral Gables in
late 1989. I was officially brought into the department
in 1990.

Q Okay, and you left in 1992 you said?

A Correct.

Q Can you show me any documents you have post-
1992, post-1992 showing any of the policies and practices
of OSA?

A No, I can't. I wouldn't need to.

Q You wouldn't need to, that's your opinion,
correct?

A Yes.

Q So if you don't have anything, then you don't
know if anything has changed there, do you?

A I do know one thing, that since the founder of
Scientology passed, no document or policy of the
Church of Scientology can be changed by any individual
other than L. Ron Hubbard. That is in policy. So it
would be some kind internal Scientology crime for
someone to change the written word of L. Ron Hubbard.

Q So in perpetuity no more doctrines or memos can
ever come out, according to your knowledge?

A No more policy letters can be issued, other than
L. Ron Hubbard, yes.

-27-
Q Things change over time, don't they, Mr. Oliver?

A I believe things do change.

Q Policies change over time, don't they?

A No, they don't.

Q Any that you're aware of?

A I have never seen a policy change since L.
Ron Hubbard passed.

Q Now, you are on the outside, right?

A Even when I was. Hubbard died in 1985, I
believe.

Q Mr. Oliver, that is not my question. You
are on the outside looking in from 1992 to the year
2000. In those eight years you haven't been involved
in the internal workings or policy decisions of the
Church of Scientology?

A No, I have not.

MR. TYSON: That's all I have, Judge. Judge, I'd ask
that he not be declared an expert. It has been eight
years since he has had any dealing with the internal
policies at work with Scientology.

THE COURT: Ms. Rivellini, do you want to respond to
that?

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, based on Mr.Oliver's answer to
the prosecutor's question that

-28-
policies cannot change, the testimony that he can
offer is still relevant as to what was going on
when he was there as to what is going on here.
Also, Judge, you will have enough evidence before
you in the form of testimony and video tapes to
show that what he can testify to is still
consistently carried out. So he is not testifying
necessarily in theories, but he is going to tailor
down his testimony to explain why what you see on
video happened, and the fact that it is so consistent
with what he testifies to in the written policies at
the time that there will be no question about the
relevance.

THE COURT: But his testimony will consist of the
fact that he was a member of the Church of
Scientology from some period of time. That he
knows what the "Fair Game Policy" is. He is going
to explain how he knows what the "Fair Game Policy"
is. And then is going to explain what the policy
is, right?

MS. RIVELLINI: Correct.

THE COURT: And that is really all he is going to
testify to, is that it in a nutshell?

MS. RIVELLINI: Well, not quite, Judge. I asked
that he be declared as an expert so that I can move
into my next area of questioning.

THE COURT: And I guess my question is, why
does he need to be an expert for purposes of
the

-29-
testimony that I have just hit on?

MS. RIVELLINI: I am going to ask him to rely
on some documentation in order to give his
testimony, and rely on documents, and to give
some
opinions as to what he thinks is going on the
video, and why. He will also give specific
testimony about the Office of Special Affairs,
which Mr. Howd is a member of. Mr. Howd has given
previous testimony that he has never heard of
"Fair Game". That he was never directed to go
out and do the things that he did, and this
witness could testify that that could never
happen based on the way the office is run.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. de Vlaming?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, I don't mean to
interrupt. Maybe I can shortcut this. Based on
what you just said when you laid out what our
purpose is, you are real close to the mark on what
we intend to use this witness for. If the hangup of
the Court is as to whether or not we need to
declare him an expert so that when you look to the
tape we can use the "Fair Game Policy" as he
knows and what he was taught to say, "You see when
they went in there, you see when this happened,
this is all part of the policy." Then I don't need
to declare him an expert. If however, Mr. Tyson
jumps up and says, "Objection, opinion." Then of
course we are back into

-30-
this area.

THE COURT: I am reluctant to cloak him with the
mantle of being an expert based on what I have
heard.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's what I understand.

THE COURT: So I am going to be real ginger in
this area. If you would like to continue to
question him I will reserve ruling on that until
I have heard everything that you would like him
to say. Then I will go back and address the
notion of whether he is an expert or not.

MS. RIVELLINI: Okay, Judge, and keeping in mind
that it is hard to be an expert that you just do
everyday. I know Mr. de Vlaming himself has been
declared an expert in the practice of defense law,
and it is along the same lines that we are asking
that he be declared an expert. He was entrenched
in the study of it. He actually did study and
rely on treatises, and for that purpose we are
asking that he be declared an expert.

MR. TYSON: May I address that?

THE COURT: Yes, go ahead.

MR. TYSON: Mr. de Vlaming is here everyday.
Mr. de Vlaming has been continually involved in the
practice of the law. You have eight years on the

-31-
outside. Judge, one other thing I would like to
point out before we move on, is the intent to
argue that their actions are consistent with the
"Fair Game Policy" you have seen enough of these
videos now, and have been educated enough to know
that this is both sides of the
street working here. They may be inflamed because
of what Mr. Minton or any other anti-Scientologists
are doing. So if they are inflamed, they get these
people are worked up, and then the argument would
be invoking
"Fair Game" when it is a two-way street. I want
you to understand that.

THE COURT: I am acutely aware of that. Please
proceed.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, you said that you were involved
with the Office of Special Affairs?

A Yes, I was.

Q In a nutshell, what are the duties of someone
involved in the Office of Special Affairs, you said
that it was to carry out investigations?

A Yes. That is one of the functions of the Office
of Special Affairs, yes.

Q What does that mean, to carry out an investigation?

A Anyone that is identified by the Church of

-32-
Scientology as an enemy, or someone that is a potential
threat to the Church of Scientology is investigated.
This investigation is carried out one of several ways.
It can be carried out using legal methods of obtaining
information on an individual, or illegal methods of
obtaining information on an individual.

Q This is something that you were actually trained
to do, and told how to do by policy?

A Yes.

Q Is that an actual written policy that teaches
you how to do that?

A The legal things are written, the illegal acts
are told to us by seniors.

Q Do you actually have check lists that you follow
to make sure that are doing them to the plan of Scientology?

A Yes, if the project is to obtain information
on an individual there is a program or a project that
is written out, and it delineates all the steps that
need to be taken to arrange for whether it is a
surveillance, whether the person is to be investigated,
followed from where ever they go, followed from work,
from home, investigate their friends, talk to neighbors.
Whatever is part of the program are what we have to
accomplish. All this information is then sent up lines in
Scientology

-32-
to higher level individuals within in the department for
analysis for implementation of another part of the program,
or for orders to be sent back down for additional
investigation to be done.

Q What kind of discretion was there on your part to
carry out these plans? Could you just come up with your
own plan on how to do an investigation?

A No, no.

Q Was everything delineated out specifically?

A Yes, and one of the steps in the check sheet was
for certain actions to be side-checked by the legal
division of Scientology.

Q Are you saying there are random acts in the course
of an investigation?

A Not unless you are prepared to deal with the
consequences of whether your random act is unsuccessful.

Q Let's talk about dealing with the consequences.
How are you rated in Scientology? And keeping in mind
that we don't want to get into what the whole religion
is about, just specifically is there a point system, or
some system that you are rewarded by in the Church?

A Like in any job, you are measured by what you can
actually accomplish. In Scientology if someone is a
counselor they are measured by how many hours of counseling
they give for example. If you are in the

-34-
Office of Special Affairs and you work in intelligence
investigation there are about ten specific things that
are used to measure your performance. If your job is to
combat the enemy or keep negative things to be written
about the organization, then those are things that they
have identified, using their own terminology as to how
to get the points that you need. Everything is graphed and
the statistical analysis determines what your particular
condition is. If your statistics are down you are given you
are told that your statistics are in emergency, for example,
which means that you need to get your statistics up. If
your statistics are up, then you are regarded as being a
better Scientologist almost. You are paid actually more.

Q How important is this on a daily basis?

A In some cases it is important on an hourly basis, when
things are extremely critical, whatever project that you are
working on they want to monitor what your progress is,
sometimes every hour, sometimes every fifteen minutes. What
have you done? What have you got? They are just on top of
you to make sure that you are achieving the projected goals,
whatever that program or project is.

Q So you are either rewarded or punished on a constant
basis, and is that the most important that goes

-35-
on in Scientology?

A That is the most important thing in Scientology.

Q You said that they actually keep graphs and reports
on this?

A On everything.

Q If somebody fails, I call it a mission, if somebody
fails a task, what are some of the consequences that can
happen, and do they ever get to serious levels?

A Depending on where you are within the organization,
for example I was originally based in what is called a Class
Five Organization in the church, and the penalties there are
you can be downgraded in your particular position in the
organization. You can be denied your auditing or counseling
that you receive. You can be sent -- they can have you
washing the toilets if you fail on a mission.

Q Do they actually ever send you away?

A In well -- in different areas of the organization,
if you were for example a member of the Sea Organization,
which is their own internal fraternal organization, if
you will, of Scientology that actually runs Scientology,
there the penalties are more harsh, because those people
actually live there, work there, they don't have any life
outside of the organization. It

-36-
is basically like being interned in the organization.

Q Is that what we have here in Clearwater?

A Yes, this is one of the main centers of the Sea
Organization.

Q What is the punishment if you fail a task in the
Sea Organization?

A Depending on what the severity is you could lose
certificates, you could lose privileges, you could be
subject to doing manual labor. They could have you out
picking weeds. I have heard cases where it has been much
worse than that.

Q Did they ever send you off?

MR. TYSON: Judge, I am going to object to the hearsay,
and ask you to consider that.

THE COURT: Okay, that is an ongoing objection, and I
understand that has been your objection.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Did they ever send you away to what I call the
equivalent of a boot camp?

A Within the Sea Organization the most extreme
level of punishment is called the RPF, which stands
for Rehabilitation Project Force. What they feel
that the individual going there will somehow redeem
himself by doing the most menial grueling labor that
they can subject the individual to. Much more than
just physical

-37-
duress, it is the emotional and mental duress that the
people are put under when they are sent to the RPF.

Q When somebody is a member of the Office of
Special Affairs is one of their jobs to handle critics?

A Yes.

Q Is there a policy that is known to the members
of the Office of Special Affairs on what a critic is
and how to handle them?

A There are several policies that delineate
critics, attacks on Scientology and who the defined
enemies are of Scientology. There are many policy
letters.

Q Have you heard of something called the "Fair
Game Policy"?

A Yes, I have.

Q What is that?

A That was a policy that was originally written
by Hubbard and it delineated that anyone that is
identified as a member of Scientology that has committed
any of these acts, or someone that is suppressive, or
someone that is harmful to the organization they can
be lied, cheated, tricked, sued, anything can be done
to the individual without that individual -- without
you suffering any kind of penalty for having done these
things to someone else.

-38-
Q Okay. At some point was that "Fair Game
Policy" canceled?

A There is an issue that cancels the term "Fair
Game". The policy itself, from my understanding was
never canceled, because the things are still done to
this day. So had the policy been completely canceled
these things wouldn't be done. I wouldn't have done the
things that I did when I was in the organization had
that policy truly been canceled, because I wouldn't
have been ordered to do it.

Q Was that policy issued and then canceled by L.
Ron Hubbard?

A Yes.

Q And that policy insofar as it practices was
even carried out in the '80's and '90's when you were
there?

A Yes.

Q What kind of things did you do to carry out
that policy?

A We investigated individuals using legal, and
depending on which individual was needed, illegal,
credit reports were drawn on individuals by use of
suitable guises. Their phone numbers and the phone
records were obtained by us. We had private
investigators going through people's garbage.

-39-
Q Are people consistently followed?

A Yes. I myself was on a surveillance of two
subjects for three days non-stop while I was in
California.

Q When somebody is followed are they given one of
those check lists on exactly what to carry out?

A The lead person, whoever is handling the
investigation on the individual is the one that runs
the program out in the field and they actually at
that particular time are telling people what they have
to do. For example, when we were on a surveillance in
California we were three teams of private investigators
and we spent three days outside of a home surveilling
two subjects that were identified as suppressive
persons by the Church of Scientology.

Q Okay. You have had a chance to review some
video tapes depicting Mr. Minton picketing on several
occasions, is that correct?

A Yes, I have.

Q Could you tell from watching those videos what
was going on as far as by the members of Scientology?

A Because there is such a potential for litigation
anything that has to do with the type of activities Mr.
Minton is involved in, such as picketing the
organization, the members themselves don't make any

-40-
decisions whether they are going to go out there, or
whether they are going to show outrage. Everything is
handled in that area by the Office of Special Affairs.
They have overriding control of the situation. So they
determine everything that goes on. Any interaction that
there may be between the potential attacker and the
organization. No one acts independently on their own.
Everything goes through OSA. If someone were to show
up to picket one of the organizations and there might
be members outside OSA immediately comes on the scene
and takes control. Members are told to go inside. OSA
handles the operation from that point on. There is no
individual action by anyone.

Q Okay, how can OSA ensure that what goes on outside
is consistent with what they want to go on?

A They have a policy where they never defend and
they always attack. If someone comes at the organization
they will attack. They don't defend, they don't go
out there and try to talk to someone or talk them out
of doing what they are doing. They are on the attack,
because the only way to defend, according to the
Doctrine of Scientology, is to attack.

Q How can members high up in OSA ensure that it
is going to be carried out in manner they want it to,
do they actually practice these exercises?

-41-
A Absolutely. Anything that is done to an
individual, or anything that is done by the
organization, if they want to ensure that they are
going to obtain the desired result it is drilled,
what we call drilling. I am sure that term is used
in the military as well. Where something is gone over
by individuals to ensure that they both have an
understanding of what they are going to do.

Q Is each person on the scene given a specific
task?

A If there are multiple individuals that are
needed for a particular thing, yes. Anybody that is
going to be a part of any particular action has to
be there and present because they need to recreate
the scene exactly as it is going to be implemented,
or carried out.

Q And does the Church of Scientology have a policy
or a belief that if anybody is a critic of Scientology
they must also have committed crimes?

A That's a known fact, and is reiterated over and
over when you are in Scientology. Only criminals
attack Scientology because they feel it is the savior
for mankind.

Q Is there any motivation for Scientology to
expose a critic as a criminal?

A The motivation is to ensure that their dogma
is correct, they have to be right, so they will do
whatever

-42-
they have to do to maintain the fact that they are
right.

Q If the church were to investigate what they
call a critic and look into his history for years
and years and not come up with a known crime?

A They will and have been known to go so far as
to manufacture something to pin on the individual.

Q Would someone be rewarded for doing so?

A If that is the project, if that is acquired
result and that is what is done, and they obtain
the acquired result, naturally they are rewarded.
They have obtained their objective.

Q If someone were -- let me back up. When you
became a member of the Church of Scientology did
you have to fill out a form of non-disclosure?

A Not when I was a member, only when I joined
the Office of Special Affairs.

Q Okay, and tell us about that non-disclosure
form, what was the purpose of it? And what did you
understand the purpose to be?

A I was told that I had to sign the form. The
only way that I was going to continue in what I was
doing was to sign this form. They told me because of
the sensitive nature of what I was going to be dealing
with that they had to have some kind of protection.
Based on the fact that I was trying to move up in the
organization

-43-
the only way I was going to move up or stay in was to
sign this form, because that was the particular
department that I was in at the time.

Q And what were you essentially promising not
to disclose?

A Any of the information about any of the
inner- workings of Scientology in the area that I was
in.

Q Now, if you were still a member of OSA having
signed that form would you be able to testify to the
things that you are telling us today?

A Absolutely no.

Q What if you were under oath in a courtroom?

A Well, that again is up to the individual.

Q What would the church tell you to do?

A Whatever they wanted me to do. If they wanted
me to say something then that is what I would have to
say.

Q So it wouldn't be up to you as to what you
disclose?

A No, because I would have to put the organization
first.

Q Does that disclosure form set out punishments
if you do disclose what goes on in OSA?

A Yes, breaches of a million dollars, or more.

Q Would there also be ramifications within the

-44-
church, and your position there?

A Absolutely, they wouldn't be pleasant.

Q Have you actually seen for yourself people who
have been disciplined by the church?

A Yes, I have talked to individuals who have been
disciplined by the organization.

Q Is there an understanding on how the law and the
court system is to be used by Scientology?

A It's just another tool that is used to harass
individuals, and if the individual doesn't have
money and you really want to get somebody you can
bankrupt somebody in a court.

Q Is that commonly done?

A Yes, it is.

Q What about the criminal law system?

A Anything they have to do.

Q And that's actually taught to you?

A Yes.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, if I can have a moment.

THE COURT: You may.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, I asked you previously if you had a
chance to watch the films and see the pickets that Mr.
Minton was involved in?

-45-
A Yes.

Q Were you able to form an opinion about what
was going on as the Scientologists actions versus Mr.
Minton's actions?

A Yes.

Q What is that opinion?

A The opinion is that Mr. Minton is identified
as their largest critic, their most dangerous threat,
and so they need to really do something about it.
What I was able to see in the tape is a particular
series of events were staged to ensure that their
objective was gotten.

Q What did it look like the objective was?

A To get Mr. Minton arrested.

MS. RIVELLINI: Judge, that is what I have for purposes
of the proffer.

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson?

MR. TYSON: Thank you, Judge.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. TYSON:

Q How are you doing, Mr. Oliver?

A Very good, sir.

Q I am Bill Tyson. I should have introduced
myself before. I'm sorry. Mr. Oliver, you talk
almost as fast as I do.

A Sorry

-46-
Q Not a problem because I talk fast too. So I
was only able to write down as fast I could get. If
I misunderstand something correct me now.

A Okay.

Q Did I understand you to say that when they
thought you were leaving, they threw you out of
Scientology?

A No, that wasn't exactly it.

Q Okay. Can you explain that again?

A When I returned back from Los Angeles having
been working with hierarchy of the Church of
Scientology I was very disillusioned at what I had
discovered there working there in the Office of
Special Affairs. At that time I had made a
decision to make my exit from Scientology, however
still fearing the repercussions of my action of
doing such a -- what is considered a drastic thing
in Scientology after being having been in the
position of trust that I was in, I had to be very
cautious on how I left.

In late '91 I made the decision to go to the
Ethics Officer, which is a particular post within
the organization and make my intention known that
I wanted to leave the organization. I wanted to try
and leave using the appropriate policies and
procedures of the organization for someone leaving.
There is a particular

-47-
check list that a person does when leaving the
organization, it is called "Leaving Staff Routing
Form". Once you make this declaration that you
want to leave the organization the Ethics Officer
acknowledges it and puts you on this form. So
then you become something that they have to do.
So they are put on notice basically that you want
to leave.

It is the proper and correct way to leave per
the policy. Once I made this known I was stripped
of my keys to the building, and I was told that I
would now need to report to the Ethics Office in
the organization to follow the procedures of this
particular check list.

It took many months for me to come into the
organization on a weekly basis. Sometimes I would
go, sometimes I wouldn't. I really wanted to get
through this, and they were putting up road blocks
to have me complete this procedural exit.

In '92 -- it took probably six months for me to
get out of the organization. In '92 I went in one
of these times and I was handed by the Director
of Inspections and Reports, Eric Arnet, I was
handed this
document which she showed me, which I provided
her copies of, which is my "Suppressive Person
Declare." I was basically being expelled from the
organization. The reason listed troubled me
because it said I was leaving because I had made
secret plans to leave the organization, when in
fact, there was never a secret plan to made. I was
very much in the open, and in fact, they had
acknowledged that I was leaving

-48-
because I had made secret plans to leave the organization,
when in fact, there was never a secret plan to made. I
was very much in the open, and in fact, they had
acknowledged that I was leaving already. So it surprised
me that they would expel me for something that I didn't
commit.

However, since I had not committed any infraction within
the organization they needed something to expel me for,
and they chose to say that I was leaving in secret, when,
in fact, I wasn't.

Q Sounds like someone trying to get out of the U.S.
military?

A Something like that.

Q You say that you are not personally involved in
litigation. Are you a witness at all in the Lisa
McPherson case?

A I am a trial consultant in the Lisa McPherson
case.

Q Which side are you with?

A Lisa McPherson's.

Q Okay. So you are against the Scientologists?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now you said that involvement with Scientology, if I
got this right, were for you to carry on investigations on
anybody that is identified as an enemy

-49-
or a threat. Would it be fair to say that U.S. military
does that too, don't they?

A From what I know, yes.

Q And actually companies -- you are a business man,
right?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you compete with other companies?

A Yes, well, I am in a similar business -- my field is
so broad there is not that kind of competition you see
between AT&T and Sprint. It's not like that.

Q The bottom line though, you need to keep ahead of the
competition to make a profit, don't you?

Q So you have got to keep an eye on what the
competition is doing, don't you?

A Sure.

Q So it is not unusual to check out what anybody
else is doing, investigate what they are up to, is it?

A Not to the extreme level that I carried out when
I was in Scientology though. But, yeah.

Q But that begs the question, what type of military
or company experience do you have on how they conduct
their investigations?

A On how-

Q You said not the to the extreme level, you know

-50-
that they don't go to the extreme level that Scientology
does. How extreme does the military go, are you even able
to testify to that?

A How the military investigates?

Q Yes.

A No, I have never been in the military.

Q Okay, so it is difficult for you to make that
comparison. You said that you don't know anybody that
goes to the level that Scientologists do. You really
don't know if that is true or not?

A Not businesses, sir. You asked me about business.

Q Oh, really, is that a fact? What business
experience do you have on their investigations?

A On Scientology investigations?

Q Businesses investigating other businesses,
corporate spying, what do you know about that?

A I have read some articles on it.

Q Do you consider yourself an expert on that?
A No, not at all.

Q So obviously you can't testify on what exactly
they do, can you?

A No, not what a corporation does. No, I have
never done that type of work.

Q If I understand your testimony you said that

-51-
they had documents telling you the legal methods to
investigate?

A Correct.

Q Okay. And the illegal methods were told you
verbally by a senior person?

A Yes.

Q So there is nothing in writing on the illegal
methods?

A No, nothing in writing, but there is plenty of
documentation to substantiate it.

Q Okay. It's fair to say that it would be some rogue
supervisor who wants to get ahead in the organization having
you do illegal activities, wouldn't it be fair to say?

A No, I don't think that would be fair say at all,
sir. There are too many people in the chain of command
that see all the data that is gathered. Even the attorneys.

Q It also begs the questions, you had no problem
performing illegal activities, did you?

A I never performed an illegal activity when
I was a member of the Church of Scientology.

Q You did not?

A No, sir, I did not.

Q You said that your position in Scientology is

-52-
measured by work product performance?

A Correct.

Q Isn't it true that a lot places do that?

A Sure.

Q Isn't it true that just about any place does that?

A As far as I know you are measured by what you
actually get done.

Q So that's not unusual for them to do that, is it?

A It's not unusual for them to do it. I found
it unusual that I was being rated on -- certain
things that I was being rated on like identifying
enemies, and number of attacks that I committed on
individuals.

Q Well, you said attacks. Were these legal
attacks, or illegal attacks?

A It depends on what you mean by legal, or
illegal.

Q Is that true the meaning of the word, is is?

A Is is.

Q You just told me a minute ago that you didn't
do anything illegal.

A I never did anything illegal.

Q Okay, I don't quite understand your last answer.

-53-
A Well, I am sure that someone is measured by the
number of illegal acts that they commit. I, however,
was measured by the number of legal things that I did.

Q And you said that there are penalties you fail
a task, right?

A Correct.

Q And it would be fair to say that there are
penalties pretty much everywhere if you fail a task?
If I don't do my job, and I don't come to work, then
I would get fired?

A Correct.

Q She is a business woman, and she is selling a
product and she doesn't perform, she may lose her job?

A As far as I know that is correct, sir.

Q You said as far as handling critics, they may
sue them?

A Correct.

Q Have you ever heard of false advertising, one
company defames another company's products and they
get sued?

A Yes, I have.

Q So that is really not that unusual, is it?

A If they have got a legitimate reason for it, I
guess it is not that unusual.

Q But your opinion is it is illegitimate?

-54-
A It depends on the circumstance, sir.

Q Now the video tapes, you said that you watched
them?

A That's correct.

Q You watched the four that we have of the scene?

A Excuse me?

Q You watched the four that we have at the scene of
the Fort Harrison, or you have the Boston incident and
some other tapes?

A I watched the four video tapes. I have also seen
the Boston tape, but I have seen the four video tapes.

Q I guess my question to you, is your expertise on
video based on the four that you saw at the Fort Harrison,
and the Boston one, or all the other ones that we all
have? Because we have tons of these things?

A No, I didn't see all the video tapes that you
all have.

Q Okay, but what you see on that video tape would
be in your opinion "Fair Game", what they are doing?

A I know what an operation looks like, sir.

Q Okay. So if I was a Scientologist and you
were peacefully picketing and I was to come up to
you and say that I had sex with your mother, but I
wouldn't say it that way, if I got up in your face
and did that, would

-55-
that be an example of "Fair Game"?

A Sure, I guess that would be an example of "Fair
Game."

Q You talk about they have been known to
manufacture crimes against people. I need you tell me
when, where, and we need to know who that innocent
person was?

A Have you ever heard of something called "Operation
Snow White", it's well documented?

Q When, where, and who is the person sitting in
jail that shouldn't be?

A Well, fortunately she was exonerated, but the
woman's name was Paulette Cooper. It happened
sometime I believe in the late '70's. She was set
up by Scientology. This was later found to be true
when the Church of Scientology were raided by the
FBI. They obtained copies of the operation on how they
were going to set her up. Ms. Cooper was subjected to
two polygraph tests to try to prove her innocence.
Eventually, she was completely exonerated when they found
the documentation after they raided the Churches of
Scientology. That is one specific example.

Q This is 1970, so that would be at least six
years before you were there?

A Excuse me?

-56-
Q At least six years before you were even there, so
we are talking --

A You didn't ask me --

Q So this would be at least twenty years ago?

A Sure. But it did happen.

Q And you know that from first-hand knowledge?

A No, I know that from reading the documentation.

Q From who?

A It's available on the Internet, it's in court
records. It was published in major news records. It was
published in national magazines.

Q You had signed a non-disclosure form?

A Correct.

Q Under penalty of a million dollars?

A Uh-huh.

Q Have you ever heard of signing an agreement to
not release trade secrets under penalty of a suit?

A Yes, I have heard of that.

Q Have you ever heard of signing an agreement with
the military to keep certain things secret under penalty
of imprisonment?

A I think I have heard of that also.

Q So this policy is not that unusual, is it?

A I thought it was unusual because I was a member
of what I thought at the time to be a church.

-57-
Q How old are you?

A Thirty-seven.

Q How old were you in 1986?

A I've got to do math. I was in my twenties. was
in my twenties.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I have no further
questions.

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Rivellini anything
further?

MS. RIVELLINI: Just very briefly.

THE COURT: Okay.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. MS. RIVELLINI:

Q Mr. Oliver, the prosecutor asked you about whether
it was unusual for companies to sue other companies
legitimately?

A Yes, he did.

Q Do you remember when he asked you that?

A Yes.

Q And you tried to make the distinction between
legitimate suits and non-legitimate suits?

A Correct.

Q I want to show the cover of a pamphlet called
"Ability, the Scientologists, a manual on the
dissemination of material, by L. Ron Hubbard." Do
you

-58-
recognize what that material is?

A Yes, I do.

Q Is that something that you studied and relied
upon as a Scientologists?

A Not that particular pamphlet, no, but the contents
are used in different things. They are presented to us
in different ways. In Scientology you could hear them
as a transcript, you could hear them as a separate
issue. They take the information and pull it apart and
use it for specific things.

Q In this pamphlet I notice that you have had time
to look through it and make some highlights. Did you
notice anything that talked about the purpose of filing
suits?

A Yes.
Q Can you just read what you have highlighted down
here, what the purpose of suit is?

A "The purpose of a suit is to harass and to
discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very
easily to harass. And enough harassment on somebody who
is simply on the thin edge, while knowing that he is not
authorized will generally be sufficient to cause his
professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him
utterly."

Q Did you find that to be a little different than

-59-
what you consider to be a legitimate suit, or a legitimate
lawsuit?

A Yes.

Q Have you also had a chance to rely on some book by
L. Ron Hubbard and the following of Scientology?

A Yes.

Q I am going to show you two volumes here, the
Organization Executive Course. HCM Division I and VII by
L. Ron Hubbard, do you recognize these?

MR. TYSON: Short stack or big stack?

MS. RIVELLINI: Actually both volumes.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

Q These books, Mr. Oliver, do they set policies and
procedures for the organization?

A Yes, those two books are part of a larger volume of
books that are used to run and administer the policies of
the organization.

Q Okay, this book, Rules and Regulations on how to
carry out anything from being a member of the Sea Org.
to, how to open up mail?

A Yes, they -- Scientology is very bureaucratic in
that there is a policy for just about everything.

Q So not much is left to individual discretion?

A No, not much is left to individual discretion.

Q Mr. Tyson also asked you about the way an

-60-
investigation is carried out, and do a lot of agencies
do that, and you said that you didn't necessarily know
what the military and other companies do, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q But you do find that some of the investigations
tactics going a little bit over the edge?

A Yes.

Q Okay, in fact, you were listed as a witness for Mr.
Minton just several days ago, is that correct?

A That is correct.

Q And since that time have you learned that certain
people have been contacted in your family and prior
employment?

A Yes, as soon my -- as soon as I was notified that
my name had been put on the witness list, my ex-wife and
my landlord were contacted by a private investigator.

Q Any prior employers?

A Not that I know of thus far, not since Wednesday.
But I haven't talked to any prior employers yet. I am
sure I will be hearing. If that did, in fact, happen I
will be hearing about it when I get back home.

Q Okay, do you recognize those tactics?

A Absolutely.

MS. RIVELLINI: Just a moment, Judge.

BY MS. RIVELLINI:

-61-
Q Individual tactics are expressed by higher-ups?

A What do you mean?

Q Check lists?
A Oh, yeah, all that is issued from senior
management.

Q Okay, and that is derived from the policies
that are still in place?

A Yes.

Q And those can't be changed?

A No. MR. TYSON: Judge, I have just one follow
up question since this is a proffer, I would be allowed
to go back and go outside the scope of the redirect a
little bit, if you will allow me?

THE COURT: No problem, go ahead.

RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. TYSON:

Q If you were filming me right now and I was
putting a little laser pen-light right in your face while
you are filming me, do you know what I am talking about?

A Uh-huh,

Q Do you know what a laser pen is?

A Yes, sir.

Q Would that be "Fair Game"?

A No.

-62-
Q Even though you are the one that did it, right?

A I don't see how it would be "Fair Game". I am
not lying, cheating, suing, or tricking you.

Q Neither is someone when they said that they had
sex with your mother?

A Yeah.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MS. RIVELLINI: No, Judge.
THE COURT: We are going to take fifteen minutes. We
are adjourned.
(Brief break)
THE COURT: Mr. Oliver has been tendered as an expert
by this court, I have listened to his testimony and
both sides in their examination of him. I think as we
all know as to whether or not someone is to
be qualified as an expert is in the sound discretion
of the trial court. And really the question is whether
or not he meets the appropriate criteria, would assist
the trier of fact in any way, whether he has got
specialized knowledge to support an opinion. Well,
let's take this one at a time.
First of all, we heard the testimony and that
Mr. Oliver is clearly not detached. He is not impartial.
He is not what we typically, of an expert, someone who
comes in who has no axe to grind, had no

-63-
interest in the outcome of the case. He does not
fall into that category. His training and expertise
is not common, not readily understood, or
ascertainable. Moreover, we have the unusual situation
in this case, we don't have one video, we don't have
two videos, we don't have three videos. We have four
videos of the incident
itself. The question is how much help can he give
the trier of fact who is going to be able to watch
four videos. So I find him not to be an expert. And
do not
allow him to testify in his opinions in that regard.
Now, as far as I am concerned what I have heard
is that his testimony could be and would be, he was a
member of the Church of Scientology, he knows that
there was a "Fair Game Policy". He will testify as
to his personal knowledge as to how he knows, and not
hearsay knowledge. What it is, and what penalties there
may be for violation of it. Period, that's all.
While I am on this area let me make it really clear
here, because I think there is some confusion in this
courtroom. The Church of Scientology is not on trial
here today and will not be on trial here
today. This is a battery. That is all it is going to
be. Those things that relate to this are strictly
relevant insofar as they may explain some of the
actors behaviors, period. We are not going to digress
onto what

-64-
the Church of Scientology does, what it doesn't do,
what it believes, what it doesn't believe. I hope
that I am clear on that, because I opened the door
a crack and it sounds like we are trying to drive a
platoon through it, and it's not going to happen.
Okay. Who would you like me to hear next?

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Judge, as previously mentioned
Jesse Prince who is present here in the courtroom. He
was present during the videotaping. The Court has
already agreed with it coming in and that's
the September 10th incident of the Boston.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: He is a former member of the
church. He was the number two person in the church
and his title was Deputy Inspector General and
External, meaning all external press. He was responsible
for the Religious Tech Center, which is the highest
Ecclesiastical Organization within Scientology. He
reported directly to David Miscavige who is the leader
of Scientology at the present time. He has firsthand
knowledge of capers that were organized by him and
others
and participated in them and would be able to testify
that what went on in the Boston video was not an
accident, but it was a well orchestrated caper as
referred to in the world of Scientology. He was
actually

-65-
present at the Boston incident.

THE COURT: But the Boston video was submitted and argued
that it should be admissible, and was ruled on as being
admissible to show Mr. Minton's state of mind as to why
he believed certain things would
occur and were relative to his various defensive
theories, which include, but are not limited to
self-defense. So help me understand what you just told
me is relevant, and if so how it is probative value is
not offset by any prejudicial impacts it is going to
have,
because I am having a hard time seeing it.

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Judge, as you mentioned there
are going to be numerous videos shown in this
particular case. The October 31st video shows Mr.
Minton picketing and it shows two members of the
Church
of Scientology filming him. Also, there is the
July 9th video tape, and also a video tape taken
earlier that day at the church. Mr. Minton --

THE COURT: Hang on, stop just a minute. Do you
mean earlier that day at the church?

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: No.

THE COURT: At the Slaughter house?

MR. TYSON: Judge, maybe I can help. If you think I
am planning on playing that, I'm not, because there
is nothing really unusual about that.

-66-
MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: I think the point I am trying
to make here, Judge, it is clear in these video tapes
that Mr. Minton is being agitated by the fact that
the camera is being stuck in his face. It was no
accident that on October 3 1st, the evening of there
were
two videographers present. One, to capture to what
was going on and to document the event. The other
one, to do nothing but to harass Mr. Minton by
placing the video camera in his face. That is part
of what we consider the "Fair Game Policy", what Mr.
Prince would certainly
testify to was going on at that particular time.
What went on in Boston in the form of somebody getting
up and intimidating him by screaming in his ear, and
putting spittle on his face.

THE COURT: But isn't that obvious from the video?
One can watch the video and come to all those
conclusions.

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: But, Judge, if it is an
orchestrated event we believe we are entitled to
show that that is the policy of the Office of
Special Affairs of Scientology and this was a
directed course of conduct which invited the
conduct of Mr. Minton. That is a pivotal portion
of our defense.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: We believe that

-67-
if we are not entitled to go into what the
"Fair Game
Policy" is, and how it works --

THE COURT: Well, I said that you could do that.
I have said that you could do that. We are in
that threshold. Now whether or not we need some
analysis of the Boston video, other than to
see it, that is the
issue that I guess you are offering Jesse Prince
for?

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Right, that this was no
accident.

THE COURT: Well, it doesn't really look like an
accident when you view it. But you are thinking
that you need somebody to tell people -- is that
what I am understanding?

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Yes, your Honor, why
this is an orchestrated event, and why it is the
actions of the church to attack their critics and
use the criminal justice system in an effort to
silence their
critics.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. TYSON: Judge, may I be heard?

THE COURT: Yes, sir, of course.

MR. TYSON: Judge, you have heard my argument on
that, the Boston video is two years ago. It is
1,500 miles away, different victim, a different
set of circumstances. I think that it is
irrelevant. In other

-68-
words when start talking bringing in -- number one,
the video is narrated, which I have a huge problem
with, but you have already watched it. They
narrate their side of the story. Mr. Bunker who
is in the courtroom narrates it and plays it back
the clips that he wants. It hurts bad enough
getting that in, much less having another person
come in. You have got the play by play, and you
have the person doing the analysis of the game,
and that's what they want here. I think just have
the videos put in, I respect the Court's ruling
and will abide by
that, but I think they want the whole thing here.
I think it's getting to the point that there is
going to be a side show just at that video and
they are going to spring back around and put the
religion on trial again

THE COURT: I agree. The video itself I think
speaks for itself. It is abundantly clear what
it is and what it isn't. Any testimony in that
regard is cumulative and not relevant and take
the focus off of this incident and put the focus
on that incident. I don't think it is appropriate.

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Judge, may I be heard?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Judge, I don't think it is
going to out the focus on that incident.

-69-
It's going to help explain to the jury what was
going on on October 31st. It is no accident that
it happened in a similar way, and if it goes to
showing to why the incident ended the way it did.
And there are other things that will help explain
that as well, but I think that it is very important
that we be allowed to get into that area.

THE COURT: I think what you want to do with Jesse
Prince is cumulative, not relevant. It will take
the focus off of this incident and make that Boston
incident a feature of this trial, it should not be.
That video is appropriate to explain the behavior,
what was in Mr. Minton's mind on the day in question.
And I think beyond that it goes farther than is
necessary is go. What else do we need to do?

MR. TYSON: Judge, as far as October 31st, the afternoon
video. I hadn't planned on playing it, mainly because
it is a picket like they always do.

THE COURT: The afternoon video?

MR. TYSON: Yes, the afternoon of October 31st Mr.
Minton was in front of the Church of Scientology
picketing.

THE COURT: I don't think that I have seen that one.

MR. TYSON: You haven't?

-70-
THE COURT: Everything I have seen was at night.

MR. TYSON: They picket all the time.

THE COURT: But it is on the day in question, is that
correct?

MR. TYSON: Yes, it is earlier in the day. I hadn't
planned on playing that one. I'm not sure where we
are going with that.

THE COURT: Is there any intention of anybody using
that video? It sounds like you are not going to use
it. Do you all intend to use it?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, first of all it is not
inflammatory, so I don't think it is the kind of one
that you are going to see right away.

THE COURT: It is also the day in question between
the parties, so I think it is a relatively easy call.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's exactly right. So I
don't want to be committed right now. Right now I
don't plan on playing it, but I don't want to be
committed.

THE COURT: That's fine. Then let's not address it
unless it becomes and issue and then we will address
it then. What then do we need to do?

-71-
MR. TYSON: Before we pick a jury, determine as far
as opening statements what we can use and can't use,
Judge.

THE COURT: We have kind of done that, I thought.
But tell me what else we need to talk about.

MR. TYSON: I'm not sure. We still haven't talked
about whether the coming to Mr. Minton's house is
relevant. The order says --

THE COURT: Again, I have reserved ruling on those
things, and unless and until you want me to -- because
I don't have enough specificity to know what is
involved in those things. You have merely mentioned them
in a very cursory fashion at the last hearing.

MR. TYSON: My theory is that they are going to
bring that up until you realize that it is not
relevant. And it is quite frankly --

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: This might shortcut this.
I am not going bring in the fact that they went
to Minton's house, opening statement is not going
to into that. Anything else?

MR. TYSON: That's it.

THE COURT: Okay. It sounds like we are where we
need to be. It sounds like we are ready to bring a
panel and start the jury selection process. I am
going to go off the bench. We are going to seat the

-72-
panel. I will go back on the bench and we will get
started. We are adjourned until the panel is seated.

(Brief break)

Jury Selection

Start of Trial