go to part 19

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. AND WHAT DID YOU SAY TO MS.

AZANARAN, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. I RESPONDED TO WHAT SHE SAID TO ME.

Q. SHE INITIATED THE SUBJECT?

A. YES.

Q. WHAT DID SHE SAY?

A. SHE TOLD ME THAT, APPARENTLY, SHE

HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN OR KNEW ABOUT -- OR I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PART SHE HAD IN IT -- OF PEOPLE THAT WERE SCIENTOLOGISTS IN GOOD STANDING ATTENDING A BARBECUE THAT WAS HELD AT THE EVENT AT THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER AT SANTA BARBARA IN AN ATTEMPT TO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO, I GUESS, BRING THOSE PEOPLE TO THEIR SENSES.

IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF SCIENTOLOGISTS

GOING THERE AND MEETING THESE SQUIRRELS WHO WERE ALTERING THE PACK AND PASSING IT OFF AS SCIENTOLOGY AND THAT THIS HAD SOMEHOW ESCALATED INTO A CONFRONTATION. BY "CONFRONTATION" I MEAN ARGUING OR -- THAT'S ABOUT WHAT I KNOW. BUT IN

ANY EVENT THAT THAT EVENT HAD THEN RESULTED IN SOME FORM OF RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST BOTH SIDES, HER -- I'M NOT SURE WHO, EXACTLY -- AND THE AAC.

SHE THOUGHT THIS WAS -- SHE THOUGHT

THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE THING THAT THESE PEOPLE WENT TO THE AAC BARBECUE, AND SHE GOT A KICK OUT OF IT. IT WAS JUST CHILDISH.

I INFORMED HER THAT I THOUGHT THAT

IF SHE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS OR HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, I THOUGHT SHE WAS A COMPLETE IDIOT; THAT IN MY ESTIMATION SQUIRRELS WERE ABSOLUTE ZEROS. I DON'T KNOW WHY SHE EVEN PLACED ANY ATTENTION UNITS ON THESE PEOPLE; THAT PER TECH ANY SQUIRREL GROUP WILL EAT ITSELF UP PERSONALLY WITHIN THREE YEARS; THAT SQUIRRELS ABSOLUTELY DETEST THE SUBJECT OF GETTING OFF THEIR OVERTS OR WITHHOLDS AND STAYING CLEAN, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH OUTISH CHARACTERS AND OF SUCH LOW MORAL CHARACTER THAT IF JUST LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES, THEY, ONE BY ONE, WILL EAT EACH OTHER ALIVE PERSONALLY WITHIN THE SQUIRREL GROUP.

I TOLD HER THAT IT WAS MY OPINION

THAT IF ANY OF THESE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE, ALL THAT HE WAS DOING OR PARTICIPATING IN DOING WAS GIVING LIFE TO A LIFELESS ACTIVITY, AND I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS SILLY. I TOLD HER IT WAS MY OPINION THAT

THESE PEOPLE WOULD JUST -- IF THERE WAS A SQUIRREL GROUP OR A GATHERING OF SQUIRRELS THAT IT WOULD -IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME, AND THEY WILL, BASICALLY, FALL APART.

Q. LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND YOU, MR. MISCAVIGE.

A. OKAY.

Q. SQUIRREL GROUPS, BECAUSE OF A

VARIETY OF FACTORS AS YOU MENTIONED, WILL FALL APART WITHIN THREE YEARS, AND TIME SHOULDN'T BE WASTED ON THEM.

MR. HELLER: ARE YOU ASKING IF

THAT'S WHAT HE JUST TESTIFIED? I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, MIKE.

MR. HERTZBERG: YEAH. IS THAT A QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: DO YOU --

MR. HELLER: WOULD YOU ASK THAT -WELL, HE'S --

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT IN TERMS OF A QUESTION.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. GIVEN YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MISCAVIGE --

A. YES.

Q. STRIKE THAT.

YOU ARE AWARE THAT RTC FILED A

LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER, ARE YOU NOT?

MR. HERTZBERG: WAIT. DO YOU MEAN

NOW, TODAY, IS HE AWARE?

MR. DRESCHER: WELL, FIRST, BEFORE

WE GET TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT QUESTION CAN BE UNDERSTOOD, TO THE EXTENT I UNDERSTAND IT, I DON'T KNOW THE RELEVANCE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF THIS.

MS. PLEVIN: I'M TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND MR. MISCAVIGE'S COMMENTS.

MR. DRESCHER: LIKE YOU --

MR. HERTZBERG: THEY WEREN'T

COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, THEY WEREN'T COMMENTS. WHAT YOU ASKED WAS MR. MISCAVIGE'S

P.T., PRESENT TIME, RECOLLECTION, BEST RECOLLECTION, OF A -- OF REMARKS THAT HE MADE TO MS. AZANARAN.

MS. PLEVIN: RIGHT.

MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY, AND HE GAVE THEM TO YOU.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, YOU KNOW, YOU

MAY HAVE A LEGITIMATE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, BUT I PREFER THAT WE NOT REHASH WHAT HE JUST TOLD YOU BECAUSE THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR --

MS. PLEVIN: THE RECORD WILL SPEAK

FOR ITSELF.

MR. HERTZBERG: -- WHAT HIS

RECOLLECTION IS, AND I'D PREFER THAT WE NOT HAVE AN ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTION.

MS. PLEVIN: I DO NOT INTEND TO. MR. HERTZBERG: OKAY.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY, MR.

MISCAVIGE, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE A USEFUL ENDEAVOR TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST A SQUIRREL GROUP?

MR. HELLER: NO.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, IRRELEVANT.

MR. HELLER: SPECULATIVE.

MR. HERTZBERG: SPECULATIVE AND IMMATERIAL.

MS. PLEVIN: ARE YOU INSTRUCTING HIM NOT TO ANSWER?

MR. HERTZBERG: YES, I AM.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY SUCH

LAWSUITS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER?

MR. DRESCHER: SAME OBJECTION.

MS. PLEVIN: STRIKE THAT.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY LAWSUITS

HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ADVANCED ABILITY CENTER IN WHICH RTC WAS A PLAINTIFF?

A. YES.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THAT LAWSUIT -STRIKE THAT.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THE CLAIMS IN THAT LAWSUIT?

MR. HERTZBERG: BY WHOM?

MS. PLEVIN: BY RTC.

MR. DRESCHER: I'M GOING TO CONTINUE

MY RELEVANCE OBJECTION.

MR. HELLER: I'LL JOIN.

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER IF

YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE CLAIMS ARE IN THE COMPLAINT.

THE WITNESS: OR ANY OF THEM; IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

MS. PLEVIN: YES.

THE WITNESS: YES.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO THOSE -- ARE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY

WAY IN THE OVERSIGHT OF THE CONDUCT OF THAT LAWSUIT?

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT SURE --

MS. PLEVIN: ON BEHALF OF RTC.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'M NOT SURE --

MR. DRESCHER: AT THIS POINT, LET ME

INTERPOSE THIS OBJECTION. YOU'VE ALREADY SERVED SUBPOENAS TODAY ON THIS WITNESS IN TWO LAWSUITS UNRELATED TO THIS ONE. NOW YOU'RE SITTING HERE PROBING WHAT THIS WITNESS KNOWS ABOUT STILL ANOTHER LAWSUIT THAT'S UNRELATED.

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL STRIKE THE QUESTION.

MR. DRESCHER: I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH THIS.

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL STRIKE THE QUESTION.

Q. WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

THAT YOU HAD WITH MS. AZANARAN AT ANY TIME THAT RELATED TO MR. CORYDON?

MR. HERTZBERG: OTHER THAN THE ONES HE'S DESCRIBED ALREADY?

MS. PLEVIN: OF COURSE.

MR. HERTZBERG: ALL RIGHT. THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE SO. MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. COULD YOU TELL ME APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS?

A. FOR THE RECORD, I WISH YOU WOULDN'T TALK WHILE I'M ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

MR. HERTZBERG: THE RECORD WILL

REFLECT YOUR OBSERVATION.

MS. PLEVIN: MY CLIENT WAS

WHISPERING IN MY EAR WITHOUT BEING AUDIBLE EVEN TO ME. I COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN --

MR. HERTZBERG: MR. MISCAVIGE

INDICATES TO ME THAT HE'S BEING DISTRACTED.

MS. PLEVIN: GIVEN THE FREQUENCY

WITH WHICH EVERYONE ELSE HERE HAS WHISPERED AMONGST EACH OTHER FOR TWO DAYS RUNNING, MY CLIENT'S WHISPERING ABOUT SIX WORDS IN MY EAR IS NOT DISTRACTING.

NOW, COULD WE GO BACK TO THE

QUESTION, PLEASE. I DID NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE WITH MR. MISCAVIGE'S THOUGHT PROCESSES.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S WHAT THREW

HIM OFF.

MR. HELLER: YOU ASKED HIM ABOUT ANY

OTHER CONVERSATIONS; HE SAID HE THOUGHT SO.

MS. PLEVIN: OKAY.

Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THEM TO

US?

A. THIS CONVERSATION, I BELIEVE IT WAS

IN 1986 IN AN AIRPLANE EN ROUTE TO TORONTO, CANADA.

Q. WERE YOU SITTING WITH MS. AZANARAN?

A. AT TIMES.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS CONVERSATION?

A. ON THE SUBJECT OF -- SQUIRRELS IN

GENERAL WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE BROUGHT UP.

Q. WAS THIS PRIOR TO THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY EVENT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTOLOGISTS?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE

THE DATE -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THIS IS. I MEAN, TO USE THAT AS FIXING IT. DON'T WE HAVE THE DATE ALREADY?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, WE DON'T.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE DON'T? WHY DON'T

YOU JUST ASK HIM WHAT THE DATE IS? WE'RE BACK TO MEASURING --

THE WITNESS: I DID GIVE A DATE. SAID 1986.

MR. LIEBERMAN: HE SAID 1986.

MR. HERTZBERG: THAT'S NOT A SUFFICIENT DATE?

MS. PLEVIN: I'LL STRIKE IT, MR.

HERTZBERG. YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE SUCH A BIG ISSUE.

MR. HERTZBERG: I'LL TELL YOU WHAT.

MY PURPOSE IS TO GET THE DEPOSITION MOVING AND --

MS. PLEVIN: AND THESE KINDS OF --

THESE KINDS OF INTERPOSITIONS ACTUALLY CREATE PROLONGATION, UNNECESSARILY, FOR MINOR POINTS THAT COULD JUST GO AND COME. INSTEAD YOU MAKE --

MR. HERTZBERG: WHY DON'T YOU GET TO THE CONVERSATION?

MS. PLEVIN: YOU MAKE BIG POINTS ABOUT THE NONSENSE.

Q. WHAT WAS THE CONTENT OF THE CONVERSATION, MR. MISCAVIGE?

A. THE CONTENT OF THE CONVERSATION WAS,

JUST IN GENERAL, HER CONTINUING DETEST OF SQUIRRELS AND MY CONTINUING TO TELL HER MY FEELINGS ABOUT IT. AND TO CLARIFY THAT, IT'S

REALLY A PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS NATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF SQUIRRELS, IN THAT TECHNICALLY -- BY "TECHNICALLY," I AM REFERRING TO THE ACTUAL TECHNOLOGY OF SCIENTOLOGY.

IN THAT TECHNOLOGY, IT STATES QUITE

CLEARLY THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE OVERTS OR WITHHOLDS, NATTER, ARE CRITICAL, AND BLOW FROM AREAS -- BY "BLOW," I MEAN WILL HAVE SUDDEN DEPARTURES. THAT TECHNOLOGY ALSO STATES THAT SQUIRREL GROUPS, HISTORICALLY -- BY "SQUIRREL GROUPS," I DEFINED ANY ONE OR TWO, AT LEAST, PEOPLE WHO ARE ALTERING THE TECHNOLOGY OF SCIENTOLOGY OR ENTIRELY INVENTING TECHNOLOGY AND CALLING IT SCIENTOLOGY, USUALLY FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL MEANS, THAT'S WHAT I DEFINE SQUIRREL GROUP AS -- THAT THESE PEOPLE, PERSONALLY, BY THEMSELVES, WILL EAT EACH OTHER

UP.

BY "EAT EACH OTHER UP," I TAKE THAT

TO MEAN THAT THEY WILL HAVE A PARTING OF WAYS; THAT THEY WILL ARGUE AMONGST EACH OTHER; THAT QUITE SHORTLY THEY WILL BE AT EACH OTHERS' THROATS; WHEREAS, THEY ORIGINALLY HAD FANCIED SOME DISPUTE WITH SCIENTOLOGY AS A SUBJECT WILL NOW HAVE A DISPUTE WITH THEMSELVES AND THAT THEY WILL GO SEPARATE WAYS AND THAT THIS GATHERING OF PEOPLE THAT DO WHATEVER THEY DO WILL NO LONGER EXIST OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.

AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY

THAT THEY WILL NOT USE WITH EACH OTHER IS BASICALLY MAINTAINING A HIGH MORAL CHARACTER AND STAYING CLEAN WITH ONE ANOTHER. BY THAT I MEAN

NOT LYING TO EACH OTHER OR COMMITTING VARIOUS OVERTS -- AND THAT'S O-V-E-R-T-S.

AS A RESULT, THEIR DYNAMICS WILL GO

COMPLETELY OUT OF BALANCE, AND THEY WILL GO THEIR SEPARATE WAYS AND THAT IS MY FEELING ABOUT SQUIRRELS IN GENERAL; AND THAT TECHNOLOGY, BASICALLY, SAYS THAT AS A STATEMENT AND NOT A STATEMENT OF ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT PURE TECHNICAL DATA AS TO WHAT ONE CAN EXPECT.

I ADOPT THAT IN THAT I DO NOT PLACE

HIGH CREDIBILITY OR IMPORTANCE ON ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, AND AT BEST MAYBE ONE-ONE-HUNDRED BILLIONTH OF ANY ATTENTION UNITS I HAVE AT ANY GIVEN TIME WOULD BE DEVOTED TO THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE, BASICALLY, LEFT THE CHURCH, AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ME AND THAT IS TO CLARIFY WHAT I MEANT BY THAT CONVERSATION WHICH HAPPENED ON TWO OCCASIONS WITH VICKI AZANARAN; THAT'S THE END OF MY ANSWER.

Q. AS A SCIENTOLOGIST, MR. MISCAVIGE --

A. YES.

Q. -- WHO HAS HAD A VARIETY OF

POSITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, IS IT --

A. WELL, AS A SCIENTOLOGIST. I AM A SCIENTOLOGIST; THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POSITION OR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT AS A SCIENTOLOGIST, OKAY.

Q. WHO HAS ALSO HAD A VARIETY OF POSITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY.

A. OKAY.

Q. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THOSE

RESPONSIBILITIES BE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO SOURCE; IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

MR. HERTZBERG: YOU MAY ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. SOURCE IS THE MATERIAL -- THE WORD

OF L. RON HUBBARD?

A. SOURCE, AS USED IN SCIENTOLOGY, REFERS TO L. RON HUBBARD.

Q. OKAY.

A. MEANING HE IS THE SOURCE OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY.

Q. OKAY.

A. ALL RIGHT.

Q. NOW, WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT

I'M USING THAT DEFINITION OF SOURCE --

A. OKAY.

Q. -- I'LL REASK THE QUESTION.

A. VERY WELL.

Q. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY

BE EXERCISED AND ACTIONS TAKEN ACCORDING TO SOURCE?

A. HOW DO YOU DEFINE "RESPONSIBILITY"?

Q. WE COULD GET BACK INTO THE AREA WE

HAD SO MUCH DIFFICULTY WITH YESTERDAY.

A. NO, THAT WAS "FUNCTION."

Q. ESSENTIALLY --

A. WELL, IT'S SIMILAR HERE. I THINK YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF "RESPONSIBILITY."

Q. LET'S USE YOURS. WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF "FUNCTION"?

A. I MEAN, I'M NOT THE ONE WHO ASKED

THE QUESTION. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN IN THAT SENSE.

Q. PLEASE DEFINE "RESPONSIBILITY."

MR. HERTZBERG: NOW, SEE, THAT'S NOT

A PROPER QUESTION, "DEFINE RESPONSIBILITY." YOU ASKED A QUESTION. THE WITNESS SAYS HE ISN'T SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY AN IMPORTANT TERM IN THE QUESTION. HE'S ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO CLARIFY IT,

LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION. IF YOU DO WANT TO CLARIFY IT, PLEASE CLARIFY IT.

MR. HELLER: WELL, THIS. IS --

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORD RESPONSIBILITY, MR. MISCAVIGE?

MR. HERTZBERG: HE SAID HE DOESN'T

KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY IT. HE WANTS TO TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION; BUT HE HAS TO UNDERSTAND, BEFORE HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHAT YOU MEAN BY IT, AND THAT'S WHAT HE ASKED YOU.

MR. HELLER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO

RELEVANCE TO BOTH OF THESE QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY THE PREDECESSOR QUESTION. IT'S ALL VERY INTERESTING, BUT WHAT'S IT GOT TO WITH WHY WE'RE HERE AND THIS LAWSUIT?

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK FROM THE

POINT OF VIEW OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF

RTC.

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF RTC

PERFORMS -- HAS CERTAIN ZONES OF RESPONSIBILITY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. AS ANYBODY DOES, OF COURSE.

Q. OKAY. AND IN DOING THOSE THINGS

WHICH ARE PART OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD'S ZONE OF RESPONSIBILITY, IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE -THAT THOSE THINGS BE DONE ACCORDING TO SOURCE, AS YOU DEFINE SOURCE?

A. "THOSE THINGS"?

Q. THOSE ACTIONS.

A. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE ASKING ME IF AN

AUDITING SESSION IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO HCOB TECHNOLOGY, YES.

Q. WHAT ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, AREN'T THEY ALSO SOURCE MATERIAL?

A. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES?

Q. THE GREEN VOLUMES.

A. YOU MEAN HCO POLICY LETTERS? Q. YES.

A. THAT WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD?

Q. YES.

A. SO WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

Q. THEY ARE SOURCE?

A. NO, THEY'RE NOT. L. RON HUBBARD IS SOURCE.

Q. BUT THEY REPRESENT THE STATEMENTS OF L. RON HUBBARD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A. NO. I THINK THEY ARE THE STATEMENTS OF L. RON HUBBARD.

MR. HELLER: HE SAID THEY'RE WRITTEN

BY HIM.

MS. PLEVIN: THEY ARE THE STATEMENTS

OF L. RON HUBBARD, OKAY.

MR. HERTZBERG: AREN'T WE GETTING A LITTLE FAR AFIELD HERE?

MS. PLEVIN: NO, WE'RE NOT.

MR. HERTZBERG: IT SEEMS TO ME --

MS. PLEVIN: NO, WE'RE NOT.

MR. HERTZBERG: WELL, LET ME MAKE MY

RECORD, PLEASE. PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT ME.

IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT WE'VE DONE NOW

IS WE'VE DIGRESSED FROM ONE OF THE ONLY ARGUABLY RELEVANT AREAS OF QUESTIONING IN THIS DEPOSITION UP TO NOW, NAMELY, CONVERSATIONS IN WHICH MR. MISCAVIGE HAS MENTIONED --

MS. PLEVIN: THE DEPONENT HAS LEFT THE ROOM.

MR. HERTZBERG: YES.

MS. PLEVIN: PROBABLY TO GO TO THE BATHROOM.

MR. DRESCHER: INDEED, TO GO TO THE BATHROOM ROOM; THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD ME.

MS. PLEVIN: FINE.

MR. HERTZBERG: WE HAVE DIGRESSED,

MISS PLEVIN, FROM WHAT IS ARGUABLY THE ONLY RELEVANT AREA OF INQUIRY SO FAR INTO A SORT OF ECCLESIASTIC DEBATE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS HEADED, BUT LET'S WAIT UNTIL MR. MISCAVIGE GETS BACK.

MR. DRESCHER: I JOIN IN THAT.

MR. HELLER: YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO

TELL US WHAT THE RELEVANCE IS -- BUT I HAVEN'T THE FOGGIEST NOTION.

MR. HERTZBERG: LET'S GO BACK ON THE RECORD WHEN HE GETS BACK.

MR. HELLER: OKAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.) BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.

A. OKAY.

MS. PLEVIN: WHAT WAS THE PENDING QUESTION?

(RECORD READ.)

BY MS. PLEVIN:

Q. HCO PL'S ARE POLICY LETTERS WHICH

HAVE THE FORCE OF SCRIPTURE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. WHAT'S CORRECT IS THAT HCO POLICY LETTERS ARE HCO POLICY LETTERS.

Q. DO THEY HAVE THE FORCE OF SCRIPTURE?

A. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFINE FOR ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.

Q. THE WORD OF L. RON HUBBARD.

A. WELL, THEY'RE WRITTEN BY L. RON

HUBBARD; SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN HAVE THE FORCE OF WRITTEN BY L. RON HUBBARD. THEY'RE SIGNED BY L. RON HUBBARD.

IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, ARE THEY SIGNED

BY L. RON HUBBARD, THE ANSWER IS YES.

Q. L. RON HUBBARD'S STATEMENTS

REGARDING TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY ARE SCRIPTURE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. NO.

Q. OKAY. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WORK WITH

THAT ONE AND COME BACK TO ANOTHER ONE, HOWEVER, AT THE MOMENT.

A. OKAY.

Q. I'M NOT GOING TO WITHDRAW IT. I'M CHANGING MY MIND.

MR. HERTZBERG: WITHDRAW WHAT?

THE WITNESS: I THOUGHT I ANSWERED IT.

MS. PLEVIN: THE PRIOR QUESTION THAT I'M COMING BACK TO.

qq


go to part 21