go to part 11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BENT CORYDON, )

PLAINTIFF, ) CASE NO.

)

VS. ) C 694401

)

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ) VOLUME 2

)

INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., ) (PAGES 313-625)

DEFENDANTS. )

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

DEPOSITION OF:

DAVID MISCAVIGE FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1990 10:15 A. M.

OUR FILE NO. 02266

REPORTED BY DAWSHA LAYLAND BAKER

C.S.R. NO. 5166

DEPOSITION OF DAVID MISCAVIGE, THE WITNESS, TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, AT 10:15 A. M., FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1990, AT 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE

DAWSHA LAYLAND BAKER, C.S.R. NO. 5166, PURSUANT TO NOTICE.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

FOR PLAINTIFF & CROSS-DEFENDANT: LAW OFFICES OF TOBY L. PLEVIN BY: TOBY L. PLEVIN,

ATTORNEY AT LAW

10700 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SUITE 4300

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025

FOR DEFENDANTS & CROSS-COMPLAINANTS, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, SCIENTOLOGY MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, HEBER JENTZSCH AND TIMOTHY BOWLES:

WYMAN BAUTZER KUCHEL & SILBERT

BY: WILLIAM T. DRESCHER ESQ.

2049 CENTURY PARK EAST

15TH FLOOR

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

FOR DEFENDANT DAVID MISCAVIGE:

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG

BY: MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG, ESQ.

740 BROADWAY

FIFTH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003

-- AND --

RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD,

KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN

BY: ERIC M. LIEBERMAN, ESQ.

740 BROADWAY AT ASTOR PLACE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10003-9518

FOR DEFENDANTS AUTHORS SERVICES, INC., AND BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS: TURNER, GERSTENFELD, WILK, TIGERMAN & HELLER

BY: LAWRENCE E. HELLER, ESQ.

8383 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD

SUITE 510

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211

ALSO PRESENT: BENT CORYDON MARTY RATHBUN

INDEX

WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE DAVID MISCAVIGE

BY MS. PLEVIN 6

(P.M. SESSION) 122

EXHIBITS

NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION

3 190 HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 OCTOBER, 1962

4 238 EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE OF 2 APRIL, 1979

5 248 "ETHICS & EXPANSION," THE MAGAZINE OF THE SEA

ORGANIZATION, ISSUE 10

6 256 HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 AUGUST, 1960

7 260 HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY, AD10

8 271 PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN, 27 MAY, 1955

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1990; 10:15 A.M.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT ON THE RECORD. I WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT MR. MISCAVIGE WAS HERE WITH HIS COUNSEL AT 10:00 O'CLOCK READY TO PROCEED. MS. PLEVIN: AS WERE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. WHY DON'T YOU PLEASE --

MR. HERTZBERG: THEN I GUESS THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE WAITED FOR THE COURT REPORTER.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE. WOULD YOU SWEAR THE WITNESS, PLEASE.

DAVID MISCAVIGE, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: EXAMINATION

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T GO FORWARD TODAY WITH YOUR BEST TESTIMONY? YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH SLEEP? YOU AREN'T UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY DRUGS?

A. NO.

Q. YOU'RE FEELING WELL?

A. NO. I'M FINE.

Q. AS WELL AS CAN BE EXPECTED?

A. SURE.

Q. OKAY. GOOD. BEFORE WE PROCEED I'M HANDING YOU THREE SUBPOENAS (INDICATING). ONE IS FOR A DEPOSITION IN THE JUDICIAL COORDINATION PROCEEDING, CARMICHAEL VERSUS CORYDON AND JENTZSCH VERSUS CORYDON, OCTOBER 1, 1990, 10:00 A.M.; A DEPOSITION IN THE CASE OF

AZANARAN VERSUS THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CALIFORNIA, ET AL., WITH WITNESS FEE ATTACHED, JULY 31, 1990 AT 10:00 A.M.; AND A TRIAL SUBPOENA FOR THE AZANARAN CASE.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, BEFORE WE PROCEED --

MS. PLEVIN: YOU HAVE RECEIVED THOSE.

MR. HERTZBERG: BEFORE WE PROCEED, MISS PLEVIN -MS. PLEVIN: EXCUSE ME.

Q. YOU HAVE RECEIVED THOSE, MR. MISCAVIGE, HAVE YOU NOT? I HAVE HANDED YOU THESE DOCUMENTS.

MR. HERTZBERG: MISS PLEVIN --

MS. PLEVIN: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE WITNESS REFUSES TO ANSWER. COUNSEL HAS TOLD HIM NOT TO ANSWER WITH A GESTURE.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, MISS PLEVIN, FIRST OF ALL, THE FACT THAT YOU DID THIS CONFIRMS, IN MY VIEW, EXACTLY WHAT THE REAL PURPOSE OF THIS DEPOSITION WAS, WHICH WAS TO CONTINUE HARASSMENT OF MR. MISCAVIGE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. YOU ARE ACTING AS THE AGENT FOR THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE, IN THROWING THESE PAPERS ON THE TABLE; IS THAT IT?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS. I'M SERVING MR. MISCAVIGE.

MR. LIEBERMAN: WE CONSIDER THIS AN ABUSIVE OF PROCESS.

MR. HELLER: YES.

MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE YOU DO.

MR. LIEBERMAN: THE ENTIRE DEPOSITION, OBVIOUSLY --

MR. HERTZBERG: IT HAS BEEN AN ABUSE.

MR. LIEBERMAN: THE USE OF IT FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSES TO OBTAIN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE MR. MISCAVIGE HERE IS OBVIOUSLY AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND WE WILL ACT APPROPRIATELY.

MR. HERTZBERG: INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED, TO GOING TO THE COURT IN THIS CASE TO LET THE COURT KNOW WHAT THIS DEPOSITION WAS ALL ABOUT AND WHAT YOUR REAL PURPOSE WAS IN THIS DEPOSITION. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE AN ACT IN THE UTMOST BAD FAITH, UTMOST BAD FAITH.

MR. DRESCHER: I WILL CONCUR WITH THAT. YOUR REFUSAL TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION WHETHER YOU WERE SERVING AS AN AGENT FOR THE COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THE TWO CASES MENTIONED -- BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING MR. CORYDON OR ANYTHING; YOU'RE ACTING INDEPENDENTLY AS A PROCESS SERVER. I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO AN EXPLANATION. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RESPOND?

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. DRESCHER: ARE YOU HERE AS COUNSEL FOR MR. CORYDON NOW? MS. PLEVIN: YES.

MR. DRESCHER: ARE YOU HERE AS COUNSEL FOR MR. CORYDON NOW? MS. PLEVIN: I BELIEVE SO.

MR. DRESCHER: AS OPPOSED TO A CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVER? I WANT TO KNOW IF WE HAVE A DEPOSITION OR NOT.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M GOING FORWARD WITH THE DEPOSITION.

MR. HERTZBERG: WERE YOU SERVING THESE AS COUNSEL FOR MR. CORYDON?

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. MR. MISCAVIGE HAS BEEN SERVED WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS. MR. MISCAVIGE HAS MADE HIMSELF UNAVAILABLE FOR SERVICE, AND AN ORDER WAS ISSUED TO SERVE HIM BY PUBLICATION. MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN IN THIS CASE?

MS. PLEVIN: IN THIS CASE, AND --

MR. LIEBERMAN: AT THIS TIME?

MR. HERTZBERG: FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T AGREE THAT MR. MISCAVIGE WAS UNAVAILABLE FOR SERVICE. SECONDLY -- IN THIS CASE.

SECONDLY, WHETHER HE WAS OR WAS NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF YOUR ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR PARTIES IN OTHER LITIGATION AND USING THE NOTICING OF THIS DEPOSITION AS A SUBTERFUGE TO ATTEMPT TO SERVE PROCESS ON A DEPONENT IN A CASE IN WHICH YOU'RE NOT COUNSEL.

MR. HELLER: TWO CASES.

MR. HERTZBERG: IN SEVERAL CASES IN WHICH YOU'RE NOT COUNSEL BECAUSE YOU HAVE WHAT YOU PERCEIVE TO BE A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE THROUGH THE NOTICE THAT YOU ISSUED FOR MR. MISCAVIGE'S DEPOSITION IN THIS CASE.

I'LL FURTHER NOTICE THAT IF YOU HAD STUCK TO RELEVANT QUESTIONS YESTERDAY, THIS DEPOSITION COULD HAVE BEEN OVER. WHAT -- MY PERCEPTION -- WE INTEND TO GO TO THE COURT ON THIS -- IS THAT PROBABLY THE PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR THIS DEPOSITION AT ANY TIME, AND MOST PARTICULARLY OUR COMING BACK TODAY, AFTER ALL THE TIME WASTED YESTERDAY ON IMMATERIAL, IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS, WAS SO THAT YOU, IN COORDINATION WITH OTHER ATTORNEYS IN OTHER CASES IN WHICH YOU'RE NOT COUNSEL, COULD ACT AS AN AGENT FOR AN ATTEMPTED SERVICE OF PROCESS.

I THINK IT'S ABUSIVE, AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS UP IN ALL THE APPROPRIATE FORMS. IT ALSO FURTHER COLORS MY PERCEPTION OF WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE AND NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THIS DEPOSITION TODAY.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DEPOSITION.

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

MR. HERTZBERG: I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT YOU -- THE VERY FACT -- AN ADDED ELEMENT OF BAD FAITH IN THIS IS YOU SAW FIT TO MAKE A RECORD IN THIS CASE. YOU WAITED UNTIL THE COURT REPORTER GOT HERE, IN THE CORYDON LITIGATION, AND YOU DECIDED TO MAKE A TRANSCRIPT AND TO ASK MR. MISCAVIGE QUESTIONS IN THE GUISE OF THE DEPOSITION IN THE CORYDON CASE, WHICH YOU INSISTED THAT HE ANSWER ABOUT YOUR SERVICE OF PROCESS, YOU'RE ACTING AS A PROCESS SERVER, MISS PLEVIN.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DEPOSITION.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. ASK SOME QUESTIONS.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. ALL RIGHT. MR. MISCAVIGE, YESTERDAY, I SHOWED YOU AN RTC INFORMATION LETTER DATED JULY 23, 1983, A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT WHICH YOU OBSERVED DID NOT HAVE COPYRIGHT INDICATIONS AFTER THE SIGNATURE. THE COPY I BROUGHT YESTERDAY SLIGHTLY CUT OFF THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE. WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE, PLEASE, AND SEE IF IT HAS THE COPYRIGHT DESTINATION.

MR. HERTZBERG: THIS WAS A DOCUMENT HE IDENTIFIED AS NEVER HAVING SEEN BEFORE AS I RECALL; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DRESCHER: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M ASKING HIM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT.

Q. DOES THIS REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT?

A. NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q. WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO BEST IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: OBJECTION.

MR. DRESCHER: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. HELLER: OBJECTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC, REGARDING A DOCUMENT ISSUED UNDER THE COPYRIGHT OF RTC, WHO WOULD BE BEST BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT?

MR. HELLER: IT STILL CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MS. PLEVIN: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: IF YOU HAVE TO GUESS, DON'T GUESS.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. MY COMMENT WAS ON PAGE 2. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S NO INITIALS; AND THEREFORE, NOBODY COULD.

IF THERE WERE INITIALS THERE AS THERE ARE ON ANY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, I WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL YOU, BUT I CAN'T. THAT IS NOT A COMPLETE DOCUMENT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A COMPLETE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT. MS. PLEVIN: THAT'S FINE.

Q. YESTERDAY WE ALSO LOOKED AT --

A. AND FURTHER TO SHOW YOU, JUST TO SUPPORT WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE OTHER DOCUMENT YOU HANDED ME, YOU CAN SEE INITIALS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE; MAYBE THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION. Q. LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT WHICH WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY AS CONTAINING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE REMARKS AT A MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE IN OCTOBER OF 1982 -- AND WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CONTENT AND STATEMENTS IN THAT TRANSCRIPT. MR. HELLER: I'LL MOVE TO STRIKE THAT ENTIRE PREFATORY STATEMENT. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE ASK A QUESTION. LET'S NOT GET INTO EDITORIALIZING WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY; WE HAVE A RECORD OF THAT.

MS. PLEVIN: WE DID NOT MARK THIS DOCUMENT YESTERDAY. I INTEND TO MARK IT AS THE NEXT IN ORDER TODAY.

Q. IS THIS THE DOCUMENT WE WERE REFERRING TO YESTERDAY, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN, IS THIS -- YOU WANT HIM TO LOOK AND TRY TO GUESS WHETHER THIS IS THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT YOU SHOWED HIM YESTERDAY?

MS. PLEVIN: HE CAN LOOK AT THE PORTIONS THAT HE LOOKED AT YESTERDAY, FINE.

MR. HELLER: WELL, I ALSO HAVE AN OBJECTION BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "IS THIS THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO YESTERDAY?"

OF COURSE, I LEAVE THIS TO MR. HERTZBERG BECAUSE IT'S HIS CLIENT, BUT I BELIEVE QUITE A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WERE REFERRED TO YESTERDAY. THE QUESTION IS UNINTELLIGIBLE. HOW CAN HE ANSWER IT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. MR. MISCAVIGE, IS THIS A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT PROCEEDING WHICH WE -- AND A TRANSCRIPT OF WHICH WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION YESTERDAY?

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE. WHAT PROCEEDING ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

MS. PLEVIN: THE MISSIONHOLDERS CONFERENCE IN 1982, IN OCTOBER.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: IN SAN FRANCISCO.

THE WITNESS: YOU WANT THE ANSWER? NO. THAT WASN'T ON IT (INDICATING). THAT'S A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT.

Q. WELL, CHART NO. 3 WAS NOT ON IT?

MR. LIEBERMAN: NO.

THE WITNESS: SO YOU CHANGED THE DOCUMENT. NEXT TIME TELL ME. THAT'S NOT THE SAME ONE. I'M GOING TO REFUSE TO -- IF YOU WANT ME TO IDENTIFY IT, I'LL READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW --

MS. PLEVIN: FINE, GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: -- AND I'LL TELL YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

THE WITNESS: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: WHILE HE'S READING, SO I CAN TRY TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH TIME -- HOW WE ARE GOING TO SPEND OUR TIME IN THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF TIME --

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE A GREAT AMOUNT OF QUESTIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WANT TO ASK YOU: ARE YOU INTENDING TO REVISIT THINGS --

MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- YOU WENT OVER YESTERDAY?

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE NO INTENTION OF IT. I SIMPLY WANT IT MARKED FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO IT YESTERDAY.

MR. HELLER: WHY DON'T YOU MARK IT?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MEAN YOU FORGOT TO MARK AN EXHIBIT YESTERDAY?

(ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

THE WITNESS: SHE KNOWS SHE ADDED THAT, AND SHE DIDN'T COMMENT ON IT. SHE'S VERY SNEAKY. SO I HAVE TO READ IT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL NOT RESPOND TO THAT.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE TO READ 40 PAGES.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: FINE. THE RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF, MISS PLEVIN, THAT, OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A PAGE IN THE DOCUMENT YOU GAVE MR. MISCAVIGE THIS MORNING WHICH WAS NOT IN THE DOCUMENT YESTERDAY, AND YOU -- IMMEDIATELY, WHEN YOU WERE CALLED ON IT, YOU TORE

IT OFF. THE RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HELLER: NOW, THIS IS YOUR TIME, TOO, MISS PLEVIN, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S INSISTING, FOR SOME REASON, THAT HE READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M NOT INSISTING THAT HE READ THE DOCUMENT. I SUGGESTED HE LOOK AT THE PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, PAGES 3 AND 26.

MR. HELLER: NO. YOU WANT HIM TO SAY THAT IT'S THE DOCUMENT YOU DISCUSSED WITH HIM YESTERDAY, AFTER THE REALIZATION THAT YOU ADDED ONE THING ON IT. NOW YOU'RE COMPELLING HIM TO READ -MS. PLEVIN: NO.

MR. HELLER: -- THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF SITTING HERE WHILE HE READS 40 PAGES.

MR. HELLER: FINE.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL WITHDRAW THE REQUEST. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT.

MR. HERTZBERG: FINE. OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE NO INTENTION OF CREATING THAT PROBLEM. THE OMISSION YESTERDAY OF THE THIRD CHART -- I'M TAKING MR. MISCAVIGE AT HIS WORD THAT THAT WAS NOT PART OF IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU'RE NOT DISPUTING IT THOUGH?

MS. PLEVIN: I HAVE NO BASIS TO DISPUTE IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WILL ADD --

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL NOT -- I WILL NOT DISPUTE IT. I ASKED HIM TO AUTHENTICATE IT. I WILL NOT DISPUTE IT.

MR. HERTZBERG: I WILL ADD THAT I DIDN'T SEE IT.

MS. PLEVIN: I WILL NOTE, BY THE WAY, THAT IT'S THE VERY LAST PAGE OF A DOCUMENT WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF 40 PAGES OF TEXT THAT --

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT MAY WELL BE. NOW, I WILL ADD THAT A LARGE PART OF THE QUESTIONING THAT YOU DID ON THIS DOCUMENT WHICH YOU FORGOT TO IDENTIFY YESTERDAY, IF IT IS THE SAME DOCUMENT, HAD TO DO WITH THE CHARTS AND WHAT WAS ADDED ONTO --

MR. HELLER: THIS DOCUMENT --

MS. PLEVIN: ONE CHART.

MR. HERTZBERG: MAY I FINISH, PLEASE? WHAT WAS ADDED ONTO THIS CHART -- ONTO THIS DOCUMENT, MISS PLEVIN, WAS A CHART. SO I CONSIDER IT -- TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE ALTERATION OF THIS DOCUMENT, I CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF A CHART MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN VIRTUALLY ANYTHING YOU COULD HAVE DONE TO SHOW MR. MISCAVIGE A DOCUMENT DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE YOU SHOWED HIM YESTERDAY WHILE ASKING HIM TO CONFIRM THAT IT WAS THE SAME DOCUMENT SO YOU COULD MARK IT FOR IDENTIFICATION BECAUSE YOU FORGOT TO MARK IT FOR IDENTIFICATION YESTERDAY AND THEN MAINTAIN, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, THAT THE DOCUMENT -- THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENT YOU SHOWED HIM TODAY WAS THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT YOU SHOWED HIM YESTERDAY.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I JUST --

MS. PLEVIN: I HAD --

MR. LIEBERMAN: I WANT TO ADD THAT I HAVE CHECKED A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU HANDED ME YESTERDAY, AND IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE THIRD PAGE. MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. LIEBERMAN: THE CHART.

MS. PLEVIN: ALL RIGHT. NOW THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE THIRD CHART AND WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL REFERRED TO YESTERDAY, IN ANY CASE I'VE WITHDRAWN IT. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF CREATING A PROBLEM. MR. HERTZBERG: THEN LET'S MOVE ON.

MS. PLEVIN: LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. HERTZBERG: THEN LET'S MOVE ON.

qq


go to part 13