Mr. Bernie McCabe

-7-

January 22, 1999

But let me be clear: I have no desire to upset anybody in your office. It was neither significant to me that counsel contacted Mr. McGarry (as opposed to Mr. Crow) nor something I imagined would cause upset. I continue to be willing to meet any of the persons in your office.

Let me add, however, that when I did meet with Mr. Crow prior to our meeting, he made it clear that while he was #3 in the office, and had been for some time, he could not respond to any offer without first discussing it with you. Therefore, if rapid, responsible and meaningful resolution of this case is to be achieved, you and I are the persons to do it.

MEDIA AND ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRATIONS

Perhaps the best proof that this case is perceived — not as a narrow “corporate charge” but, rather, as an indictment of the entire religion — is what it has generated in anti-Scientology activity and how the media have communicated the case to the world.

Prior to the indictment, the volume of media attention this case generated was unprecedented. Since the indictment, that volume has reached preposterous proportions. With this letter I am providing you with a binder of what has appeared:

technically charged.

distinction to any corporate entity.

To take two well-known recent examples of the publicity given to these charges:

The Arts & Entertainment channel ran a two-hour documentary on Scientology and 20/20 allocated an hour to the subject. Both made mention of the case and both described the charges as having been brought against the Church and the religion as a whole.

Possibly the best example of how everybody perceived the charge as against the entire Church is the court notice received by Flag wherein the caption merely states:

Church of Scientology. (No mention of Flag Service Organization or FSO.)