Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500
159
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
2
3
4
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
5 Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,
6
7 Plaintiff,
8 vs. VOLUME 3
9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS
10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
11
Defendants.
12
_______________________________________/
13
14
15 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
16
CONTENTS: Testimony of William Franks.
17
DATE: June 13, 2002. Afternoon Session.
18
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
19 St. Petersburg, Florida.
20 BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
21
REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
22 Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
23
24
25
160
1 APPEARANCES:
2
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
3 DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
4 Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.
5
6 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
7 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
8 Attorney for Plaintiff
9
MR. KENDRICK MOXON
10 MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
11 Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
12 Organization.
13
MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
14 ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
15 Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
16 Organization.
17
MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
18 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
19 New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
20 Organization.
21
MR. MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG
22 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10003
23 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
24
25
161
1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS
2 WITNESS WILLIAM FRANKS
(Continued from Vol. 2)
3
Direct Examination by Mr. Dandar 162
4 Cross-Examination by Mr. Weinberg 209
Redirect Examination by Mr. Dandar 252
5 Recross-Examination by Mr. Weinberg 271
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
162
1 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Dandar, you may continue.
2 DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED
3 BY MR. DANDAR:
4 Q Before the lunch break, you said that there was no
5 difference between a mentally psychotic person and a person
6 who wanted to leave Scientology, they are both psychotic?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Can you explain that?
9 A Well, the view in Scientology is that they are the
10 only salvation for the planet. And if you want to leave,
11 what could be more psychotic than leaving your soul, to your
12 survival.
13 Q If someone wanted to leave, per the policy of
14 Scientology, what would happen to that person?
15 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Are we talking about
16 a staff member or public person?
17 THE COURT: I don't know.
18 MR. WEINBERG: That is my question. Can we
19 make that clear?
20 THE COURT: Yes, make that distinction, if
21 there is a distinction.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q Is there a difference between a public member
24 wanting to leave and staff member?
25 A Yes.
163
1 Q Okay, how -- what would happen to the public
2 member who said "I want to leave"?
3 A Mmm, he would be sec-checked --security checked,
4 on an E-meter for his overts and withholds against the
5 Church of Scientology or anything.
6 Q How long a process is that?
7 A Mmm, until -- there is a list of questions, until
8 the list is done.
9 Q And that is it?
10 A For a public person?
11 Q Yes.
12 A Mmm, well, then there is a matter of money,
13 getting money back. Mmm, if you have money on account that
14 hasn't been used yet -- Mmm -- a person has to be given
15 that.
16 Q Do you know if there is policies that if someone
17 is psychotic PTS Type III, that any member of Scientology
18 staff or public has to report that person up lines?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And what does that mean, reporting someone up
21 lines?
22 A Mmm, well, for somebody who is Type III, is that
23 what you're asking me?
24 Q Right.
25 A That means it has to go to the next higher org.
164
1 Well, actually it's a management -- whoever management would
2 be.
3 Q Is that Int Management?
4 A Well, for -- a senior -- the senior CS only has
5 one CS, that is senior CSN, so it would go to Int.
6 Q Okay. And do you know what the purpose of that
7 reporting up lines is?
8 A Well, the purpose is -- Mmm -- reporting up lines,
9 making it -- are you asking making it a policy for people
10 who are Type III that has to be reported up lines?
11 Q Right, Type III.
12 A Mmm, because this is where all of the major PR
13 flaps come from are this -- this designation of psychotic
14 individuals, and they don't -- the policy is not to trust
15 the organization to police itself, so that is why you have
16 to report it up lines, in order to get permission just to
17 have this person on lines.
18 Q What does that mean, on lines?
19 A Well, presumably auditing or training. It's off
20 policy to allow anybody who is Type III to be getting any
21 auditing, any training. And if you wanted to, say, like do
22 an introspection rundown, which would be appropriate for
23 somebody who is psychotic -- Mmm -- you would have to
24 petition -- Mmm -- Int in order to get the go-ahead to go
25 ahead and do it.
165
1 THE COURT: To go ahead and audit?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, go ahead and do the
3 introspection rundown.
4 THE COURT: Oh, to even do the rundown itself?
5 THE WITNESS: That is right, yes.
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
7 Q Now, in this case, we have deposition testimony
8 from OSA -- Department 20 OSA employees, Mr. Fontana, who
9 states -- stated he was present soon after Lisa McPherson
10 arrived at the Morton Plant emergency room following her car
11 accident. He knew she had taken off her clothes, he knew
12 that that was a PR flap.
13 And my question to you is why would OSA be in the
14 emergency room on November 18 of '95 when Lisa McPherson was
15 there?
16 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence to answer
17 that question. How would he know in 1981 why
18 somebody was in the emergency room in an
19 organization that didn't even exist when he was with
20 the Church, was at a hospital purportedly in 1995?
21 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar?
22 MR. DANDAR: It is still Department 20. All it
23 was was a change of the name.
24 THE COURT: Well, you say that. Does he know
25 that? Did he say that?
166
1 MR. DANDAR: Well, let me tell the Court that
2 we will -- if he can't, we will have people that
3 will say that.
4 THE COURT: All right.
5 MR. DANDAR: But --
6 THE COURT: I'll allow it then.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q Why would Department 20 be involved in a public
9 member being in the emergency room?
10 A Well, particularly -- as I understand it,
11 particularly with Lisa McPherson, she had already had a
12 psychotic episode per her statement in February of that
13 year, '95. Right?
14 Q Right.
15 A So it's possible that they were already alerted to
16 this situation.
17 And then I also read three knowledge reports that,
18 you know, she was having psychotic episodes just before the
19 18th of November.
20 Q While she was in Orlando?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay.
23 A So they would be there to contain any PR flap that
24 might occur.
25 THE COURT: Is the word flap, PR flap, F-L-A-P,
167
1 is that a Scientology term? I mean, I can imagine
2 lots of things could be PR flaps. I would think if
3 it was a PR situation or public relations incident.
4 THE WITNESS: Now that you mention it, it
5 probably is a Scientology term.
6 THE COURT: The "flap" part?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 MR. LIEBERMAN: Actually, Judge, I think it is
9 a Brit term.
10 THE COURT: A British?
11 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.
12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q And the fact she's PTS Type III PR flap, do you
14 have -- per policy of Scientology, would the Department 20
15 at a higher level be involved rather than -- or in addition
16 to the local level?
17 MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. If he's going
18 to testify about a policy, if we can identify what
19 the policy and policy number and all that is.
20 THE COURT: All right.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Do you know?
23 A I'm not sure what the question is.
24 Q Oh. You said before a PTS Type III is required to
25 be reported up lines to Int, International. The fact that
168
1 now we have a local OSA person at the ER because of the
2 potential PR flap with a public member of Scientology who is
3 PTS Type III, is there a policy in Scientology that would
4 require the OSA person to report, as well, up lines to Int?
5 A Oh, yeah, absolutely. Anything that would be seen
6 as an endangerment to Scientology.
7 MR. WEINBERG: Could we just identify for the
8 record what that policy is, what the number is?
9 What -- you know, when --
10 BY MR. DANDAR:
11 Q Can you recall what policy that is?
12 A Mmm, well, there is a 1966 policy on the
13 Guardian's Office, I think titled "Guardian Office," that
14 talks about any situation like this, you are bound to
15 immediately, under line, immediately report this to the
16 Guardian's Office.
17 Q And are you aware, before you left --
18 THE COURT: Wait a second. Once it is reported
19 to the Guardian's Office, does the same policy say
20 the Guardian's Office shall report it up line to
21 Int?
22 THE WITNESS: No, because Int was established
23 later. When -- the same with the senior CS and
24 introspection rundown, that is when -- that is
25 another policy that requires it be reported --
169
1 actually, it has to get approval from Int to do it.
2 BY MR. DANDAR:
3 Q To do what?
4 A Introspection rundown.
5 Q Okay.
6 THE COURT: And do you know what that policy
7 number -- or what that would be under?
8 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I know that would be in the
9 introspection rundown pack. It has to be there.
10 THE COURT: That would be if you were --
11 THE WITNESS: On the course. On the course.
12 THE COURT: That is the best he can do.
13 MR. WEINBERG: Okay, thank you.
14 BY MR. DANDAR:
15 Q Now, in Scientology, is there an Ethics
16 condition -- or is there a -- a term called "bypass"?
17 A Yes, it's -- I know -- it is called danger
18 condition, whenever there is a -- a situation needing
19 immediate -- immediate emergency attention, a danger
20 condition is assigned, which means that the person who is
21 senior needs to -- he is bound by policy to bypass all of
22 the people on line and correct the situation.
23 I assume this is what this OSA fellow was doing at
24 Morton Plant Hospital because it was an immediate PR or
25 potential PR flap.
170
1 Q Who was he bypassing?
2 MR. WEINBERG: I just object to the testimony
3 about I assume anybody was doing anything. Just for
4 the record, I object to that.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
7 Q It's known that Mr. Fontana at OSA was at the ER,
8 all right, that is in his deposition. He does say it was a
9 PR flap.
10 A All right.
11 Q Now, this policy by Mr. Hubbard, you said, '66?
12 A '66, '67.
13 Q Called danger condition?
14 A That -- yeah, that -- yes. I think that is '65,
15 actually.
16 Q Okay. And how does this bypass occur? That is
17 what I'm trying to have you explain to us because I don't
18 understand it.
19 A Well, when a situation -- this is -- there are --
20 there are lots of policies about this. In fact, this is
21 also part of the Sea Org's responsibility. I'm thinking
22 back to some Flag orders that Hubbard wrote about the Sea
23 Org.
24 The Sea Org is there to handle -- this is why
25 there is supposed to be this flexibility, because the Sea
171
1 Org is supposed to handle potential crisis. And so they are
2 supposed to be ready at any time to bypass and take care of
3 the situation, and not -- Mmm -- not getting off of the
4 situation until it is handled.
5 Mmm, there is a -- a policy letter I think called
6 "Handling Situations" in which he talks about you have to
7 handle it terminatedly. That is the operative word in that
8 policy letter, as I recall, where he said you have to -- you
9 stay there, once you bypass, once you have bypassed all of
10 the people who should have taken care of it but didn't, in
11 this case that would be probably everybody at the Flag Land
12 Base in technical who are supposed to be handling Lisa
13 McPherson and Ethics people who are supposed to be taking
14 care of her. You don't -- once you bypassed, you don't turn
15 it over, you are bound by policy to stay on top of it until
16 the situation is resolved. And specifically until the
17 policy that was found to be out is now implemented and
18 having fixed the situation.
19 Q So in the case of Lisa McPherson, does that mean
20 that anybody at Flag -- everybody at Flag would have been
21 bypassed by Int, wherever Int is located?
22 A Yes.
23 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
24 THE COURT: I don't even understand that.
25 MR. WEINBERG: Objection.
172
1 THE COURT: He said the man you just spoke
2 of -- he wasn't with Int, was he?
3 MR. DANDAR: He was with the local OSA. His
4 senior was OSA Int.
5 THE COURT: But what he said was that he was
6 bypassed -- he would bypass those who were supposed
7 to be correcting or auditing or whoever they were at
8 Flag?
9 MR. DANDAR: That is what he said.
10 THE COURT: That is what you said, right?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 THE COURT: So that doesn't have anything to do
13 with Int.
14 MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, just for the
15 record, the Int he's talking about is an entirely
16 different organization than -- than what occurred in
17 this reorganization after he left.
18 THE COURT: I don't understand why you are even
19 objecting. Why do you care?
20 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not --
21 THE COURT: The man was there, the man was at
22 the hospital. He's telling us why the man was at
23 the hospital. Who cares?
24 MR. WEINBERG: You are right. I agree.
25
173
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Now, who -- who is bypassing Flag under this
3 condition of danger, as you just described?
4 A Int.
5 Q Okay.
6 A When you do introspection rundown, you are
7 basically putting them on notice that they have to be
8 responsible for her by having to report up to them.
9 Q And does the OW that Lisa typed up and was
10 produced in this case where she talked about February of
11 '95, Int Management getting involved in her psychotic break,
12 does that conform with what you just stated as the policy of
13 Scientology?
14 A Yeah, that would be consistent with that. Yes.
15 MR. WEINBERG: I just have an objection, for
16 the record, to what Mr. Dandar said. I don't know
17 what he's talking about, a February of '95 OW of
18 Lisa McPherson.
19 THE COURT: I do. It's about a three-page
20 typed document where it says what was the overt,
21 number one -- what was the overt, then --
22 MR. WEINBERG: There was something in the fall
23 of '95 that she did at her employers.
24 THE COURT: I thought this said February.
25 MR. DANDAR: She wrote it in the fall of '95
174
1 talking about February of '95. And it is in
2 evidence.
3 THE COURT: Yes, it is.
4 MR. WEINBERG: So my recollection was what I
5 thought.
6 MR. DANDAR: I'll have this marked as our next
7 exhibit, please.
8 MR. WEINBERG: That must have been in Teresa
9 Summers' testimony which I wasn't here for when the
10 document was marked. I'm sorry.
11 THE COURT: It could be.
12 MR. WEINBERG: That is the only thing I missed,
13 so that is where it must have been.
14 BY MR. DANDAR:
15 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit for
16 identification Number 96. And, of course, this occurred in
17 1993, well after you left the Church of Scientology. But I
18 want you to turn -- it is about an isolation watch at the
19 top. That is what the words say, correct? An isolation
20 watch of Heidi Dagro?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Turn to the second page. You see the first
23 paragraph where it talks about Alain Kartuzinski at Flag is
24 the CS?
25 A Yes.
175
1 Q In charge of John Taylor's correction?
2 A Yes.
3 Q You see where -- the next line where it says Ray
4 Mithoff?
5 A Yes.
6 THE COURT: You lost me. I don't see where you
7 are reading from.
8 MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry.
9 MR. LIEBERMAN: Maybe if we could all have a
10 minute to read it, your Honor.
11 MR. DANDAR: This first paragraph talks about
12 Mr. Kartuzinski.
13 THE COURT: Okay. I found it. Okay.
14 MR. DANDAR: I'll be glad to do that.
15 MR. WEINBERG: Well, could I ask a question? I
16 don't believe this is something that we produced.
17 Could I ask Mr. Dandar where this came from that has
18 "Confidential" on it.
19 THE COURT: Actually, you can't anymore than I
20 let him ask you where you got certain things.
21 MR. WEINBERG: Before it goes into evidence,
22 we'll state an objection to it, until it is
23 authenticated. That is all.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q Are you aware that Mr. Mithoff -- where it says --
176
1 MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Dandar, I thought we were
2 going to read this first.
3 MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
4 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
5 BY MR. DANDAR:
6 Q This Page 2 says the introspection rundown was not
7 delivered because of the director review having been crammed
8 while at Flag after an earlier similar incident on HCOB 23rd
9 January --
10 MR. WEINBERG: Objection to reading from the
11 document until the document has been authenticated,
12 identified in some way, I mean --
13 THE COURT: All right. Can he authenticate
14 this?
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q Mr. Franks, do you recognize the form of this as
17 being a form that is typical of a board of investigation?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Okay. And do you recognize the way it is printed
20 as being something that is copyrighted, comes from the
21 Church of Scientology?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Now, on the second page --
24 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I don't believe that
25 authenticates this document. If what he wants to do
177
1 is go into detail in it, we have read it, but --
2 MR. DANDAR: I just have one question on this.
3 THE COURT: Well, I'm not so sure -- in other
4 words, it sort of looks like everything else I have
5 seen.
6 MR. WEINBERG: Right, it may be. We didn't
7 produce this document, so -- that I know because it
8 doesn't have a Bates stamp number. So -- so I can't
9 authenticate it. If somebody asked me, you know, do
10 you -- do you stipulate to its authenticity, I
11 couldn't because I have never seen it before.
12 THE COURT: I'm going to assume, based on what
13 he has said, that it is a legitimate document that
14 comes from where it says. You all can go check it.
15 And if it doesn't, you can show me that and we'll
16 take it out of evidence.
17 MR. DANDAR: This document is attached to an
18 affidavit that I filed in support of the motion to
19 add parties in October of 1999. And I believe it's
20 attached to Mr. Vaughn Young's affidavit.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Well, as I said, go ahead.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q Now, the second page, it says that the
24 introspection rundown -- it says: "No auditor or CS was
25 thus qualified to deliver the rundown. This data came
178
1 originally from FSO, Case Supervisor Alain Kartuzinski, who
2 was in charge of John Taylor's correction."
3 And here is the important reason why I'm reading
4 this, the last sentence, "This was later corrected by a
5 telex from Mr. Ray Mithoff who indicated that the rundown,
6 in fact, could be delivered, at which point delivery
7 commenced."
8 I want you to assume -- first of all, let me ask
9 you, do you know Ray Mithoff?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Oh. Okay. Do you know who -- his position?
12 A Well, when I left, he was senior CS FSO.
13 Q All right. And I want you to assume -- and I may
14 be wrong but I think I'm right -- that Mr. Mithoff in 1993
15 was at Int.
16 And would this then conform with what you just
17 previously testified to that Int Management does get
18 involved in orders, rundowns, to commence at Flag?
19 A Yes.
20 MR. DANDAR: I move this into evidence.
21 MR. WEINBERG: I don't know what the
22 authenticity is. But beyond that, I don't have any
23 objection.
24 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to let it in and
25 assume you'll verify it is authentic. And if it is
179
1 not, you'll bring that to my attention.
2 What number is this, Counsel?
3 MR. DANDAR: 96.
4 THE COURT: And you gave the original to the
5 clerk?
6 MR. DANDAR: I actually gave it to the witness.
7 I'll take it back.
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q In Scientology policy, Mr. Franks, does the policy
10 dictate that the tech is infallible?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Does the policy dictate that the tech must be
13 protected at all costs?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Is there any place where the application of the
16 tech and protecting the tech is more important than in the
17 City of Clearwater at Flag?
18 A I would answer yes.
19 Q Yes?
20 A Uh-huh.
21 Q Where is it more important than at Flag?
22 A Maybe I didn't understand the question.
23 Q Okay. Let me start over. Flag is the mecca of
24 technical perfection, right?
25 A Yes.
180
1 Q Is there any --
2 A Oh, where it is more important?
3 Q Where it is more important than at Flag?
4 A No. I mean -- no. Flag Land Base was meant to be
5 the showcase for Scientology working.
6 Q Were you in any way part of setting up the Flag
7 Land Base in Clearwater?
8 A In '75? No. I just was on the ship at the time.
9 Q Okay. What about after '75? Were you involved in
10 Flag?
11 A No, I went to D.C.
12 Q When you were at COB ED Int were you involved at
13 all with Flag?
14 A Oh, yes. Of course.
15 Q And how was that?
16 A Well, I mean, Flag was the most important single
17 organization that we had.
18 Q And what does that mean to you when -- in your
19 position back then?
20 A Well, it meant that it was the single largest
21 source of income. And it was the showcase for Scientology.
22 Mmm, but the income was very important because we made so
23 much money at the Flag Land Base -- Mmm -- you know, because
24 of that.
25 Q Per policy of Scientology, is the protection of
181
1 the tech more important than an individual's medical
2 condition?
3 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competence to
4 answer that question.
5 THE COURT: I think I'll allow him to answer.
6 I think he has competence to answer it.
7 A Could you give me that question one more time?
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q Per the policy of Scientology --
10 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, I have got to ask you a
11 question. Doesn't the introspection rundown -- or
12 doesn't the tech that I have seen introduced here
13 someplace suggest that a person in an introspection
14 rundown may, indeed, have a medical condition that
15 needs addressing?
16 MR. DANDAR: Yes, it does.
17 THE COURT: So that would be part of the tech?
18 MR. DANDAR: Yes, it does.
19 THE COURT: So how can you say that -- that the
20 person is less important than the tech if the tech
21 is that there are sometimes physical conditions that
22 need to be taken care of, that would be part of the
23 tech. It just shows somebody didn't do it very
24 well.
25 MR. DANDAR: The rundown says the physical
182
1 condition must be addressed first with a medical
2 doctor, and then you can go into the rundown.
3 THE COURT: Well, I don't believe I read that.
4 I mean --
5 MR. DANDAR: Let me ask Mr. Franks --
6 THE COURT: I need to see it. Where is that?
7 Madam Clerk, I don't know if you would have any idea
8 what the number is. I don't know if we have the
9 introspection rundown tech in evidence or not, and
10 I'm not sure I know where it is that I have read
11 that, but I have read that.
12 MR. DANDAR: I'm not sure if I have it today.
13 THE COURT: I don't think we've had that -- the
14 rundown introduced in this hearing. But go ahead,
15 ask --
16 MR. WEINBERG: I have a copy of the rundown.
17 THE COURT: Could I see it?
18 MR. WEINBERG: Sure.
19 THE COURT: Maybe that is where I saw this.
20 Maybe it isn't. If it isn't, I saw it somewhere
21 else. I'll just have to see if I can find it.
22 Go ahead with your questions.
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: There may actually be several
24 documents relating to it. This is just one of them.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
183
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q In Scientology policy, is the protection of the
3 tech more important than an individual's medical condition?
4 MR. WEINBERG: That is the same objection I had
5 before.
6 THE COURT: I think somebody that was as high
7 up in the Church as he apparently was can answer
8 that question. So that is overruled.
9 A Well --
10 THE COURT: Of course, there is the First
11 Amendment objection. But I'm not going to deal with
12 that right now.
13 MR. LIEBERMAN: I understand that, right now.
14 I have a standing objection --
15 THE COURT: Yes, you do.
16 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- to all of this.
17 A The overriding policy would be the greatest -- the
18 overriding policy would be the greatest good for the
19 greatest number of dynamics. And, of course, the survival
20 of Scientology would be the most important. Survival, in
21 this case, of the Flag Land Base. So that would be the
22 first -- Mmm -- thing in order of importance.
23 BY MR. DANDAR:
24 Q Are you aware of any policy that says the survival
25 of Scientology is the most important thing for a
184
1 Scientologist to maintain except or unless something else?
2 Is there any exceptions to the greatest good for the
3 greatest number?
4 A No. No.
5 Q Now, in the case of Lisa McPherson, based upon
6 what you know of Scientology policy, is there -- or who was
7 in charge of the -- of Lisa McPherson's stay on Scientology
8 property?
9 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. I mean, this is just
10 pure speculation. He's asking for -- I guess he's
11 asking for an opinion as to who was in charge based
12 on what he knew back in 1980?
13 THE COURT: Yes.
14 MR. WEINBERG: Based on the facts Mr. Dandar
15 told him? Is that it?
16 THE COURT: Yes.
17 MR. WEINBERG: I have an objection to those
18 kinds of questions.
19 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it but obviously
20 he wouldn't know the person. He might know the
21 position.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q What position or division of Scientology would
24 have been in charge of making decisions about Lisa
25 McPherson?
185
1 A After Morton Plant?
2 Q Yes.
3 A Post Morton Plant would have been the GO,
4 Guardian's Office.
5 Q Department 20?
6 A Department 20, yes.
7 Q Now, why is that?
8 A Because it is recognized that the senior issue
9 here is possible -- a possible attack on the Church, a
10 possible PR flap. That is the senior concern. The fact
11 that OSA was there that day -- Mmm -- reflects that.
12 Q Does that include the medical condition of Lisa
13 McPherson?
14 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to comprehensive --
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q As per policy, who was in charge of her stay at
17 the property of the Church of Scientology?
18 A Yes.
19 THE COURT: Who is it? OSA is in charge of her
20 stay? Is that what you said? I just heard a yes.
21 I didn't --
22 MR. DANDAR: Oh, I asked the question who would
23 have been -- I forgot what I asked.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q Would Department 20 be in charge of Lisa
186
1 McPherson's entire stay at the Scientology property?
2 A Absolutely. Yes.
3 Q Does that include the medical condition of Lisa
4 McPherson?
5 A Yes.
6 Q I want you to assume the medical evidence
7 testimony will be -- from the pathologist retained by the
8 estate -- that during the last several days of Lisa
9 McPherson's life, caretakers saw an obvious decline in her
10 physical condition, which also, by the way, was reported and
11 deposed in deposition by Ms. Hof of the INR. And that she
12 wrote reports to Mr. Kartuzinski daily. And she stated she
13 was frantic because of what she saw happening to the
14 physical condition of Lisa McPherson. And she was not
15 getting a response from anyone.
16 Per the policy of Scientology, based upon your
17 experience, can you explain to us why she wasn't getting a
18 response to the reports that she was making?
19 MR. WEINBERG: Well, objection. Improper
20 hypothetical question. I mean, he's given his --
21 his interpretation of part of the evidence, but he
22 hasn't provided to this witness sort of the rest of
23 the story about what other people who were staying
24 with her, what the other medical examiners have said
25 as to what was going on, their constant
187
1 24-hour-a-day care --
2 THE COURT: That is your side of it. He's
3 presenting his side. So your objection is
4 overruled.
5 On a summary judgment, you know, which is where
6 we are, sort of, here --
7 MR. WEINBERG: Sort of --
8 THE COURT: -- you take his evidence, not
9 yours. His. You have to be able to defeat his.
10 MR. WEINBERG: No, that I know. But what he's
11 asking him is an opinion based only on what I
12 believe is a misrepresentation even of his evidence
13 in this case.
14 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm going to allow it.
15 Overruled.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q Further assume that the pathologist retained by
18 the estate opined that the caretakers were watching Lisa
19 McPherson die and that they are guilty of intentional
20 medical neglect.
21 Can you, based upon Scientology policy, written or
22 not, tell us why that would happen to Lisa McPherson?
23 MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, I have an
24 objection.
25 THE COURT: Yes, I'm going to sustain that. I
188
1 have not read all that. I think you have added
2 things in that didn't happen. I don't think I have
3 heard anything about unwritten policy.
4 MR. DANDAR: Oh.
5 THE COURT: All of the policy was written. You
6 were just fine and I overruled the objection, and
7 then you started to add stuff because apparently you
8 thought if I allowed that, I would maybe allow some
9 more.
10 MR. DANDAR: No, I didn't do that.
11 THE COURT: Then you have an improper question,
12 so --
13 MR. DANDAR: All right.
14 THE COURT: -- you can start again and see if
15 you can do it better.
16 MR. DANDAR: I'll try to do it better.
17 THE COURT: Is there unwritten policy? I mean,
18 is there policy not written?
19 THE WITNESS: No. In Scientology a byword is
20 if it isn't written, it isn't true.
21 THE COURT: Right, so as soon as you put
22 "unwritten" policy, you're talking about something I
23 don't know anything about.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q Based upon the testimony of the caretaker INR
189
1 person, Ms. Hof, that Lisa McPherson was physically
2 declining on December 2 through December 5, that she wrote
3 reports to Mr. Kartuzinski daily, including hand-delivering
4 them to his office, that she got no reply, that she was
5 frantic and she wrote that, "We have to do something
6 different for Lisa McPherson," and based upon the medical
7 doctor, unlicensed, Janis Johnson, who saw Lisa McPherson at
8 7 p.m. on December 5 and said she was majorly dehydrated,
9 that is her words, do you have an opinion, based upon
10 Scientology policy, as to why Lisa McPherson was not
11 immediately taken to the Morton Plant Hospital?
12 MR. WEINBERG: I just want to state my
13 objection for the record. Same objection I had
14 before.
15 THE COURT: Go ahead.
16 A Yes.
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q And what is that?
19 A Mmm, that a condition of danger had been probably
20 applied -- had been applied here. They were bypassing. All
21 of the decisions had to be made up at Int, wherever Int is.
22 And the people locally who were down in the trenches
23 watching Lisa were probably very upset. But they had no
24 power to make a decision.
25 Why? Because the element of this being a PR flap
190
1 became senior -- a -- of senior concern to any other
2 concerns. Unfortunately, including her health.
3 Q And based upon what you know, are you able to tell
4 us if David Miscavige, in 1995, December 5 of 1995, was part
5 of Int?
6 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence.
7 MR. DANDAR: I asked him if he knew.
8 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
9 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it.
10 A Mmm, I assume he is, but I don't know that he's
11 there.
12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q Based upon what you know about David Miscavige
14 when you worked with him until 1981, and knowing that he's
15 now chairman of the board, can you tell us -- and his
16 management style, can you tell us, based upon your personal
17 experience, if he would have been involved from day one in
18 knowing about Lisa McPherson at the property of the Church
19 of Scientology?
20 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form.
21 Objection, competence. Would he have? Your
22 Honor --
23 THE COURT: I thought you had a continuing
24 objection?
25 MR. WEINBERG: I didn't say relevance, but --
191
1 okay, just form. I apologize.
2 THE COURT: Go ahead.
3 A He would have been all over this like white on
4 rice.
5 BY MR. DANDAR:
6 Q Why is that?
7 A Because that is the way David is. He's -- he
8 likes to be viewed as an in-charge kind of guy. So he would
9 be all over this, particularly given the mecca of technical
10 perfection, he would be responsible for maintaining that
11 reputation.
12 Q Per your understanding of Scientology, can you
13 explain why, however, Lisa McPherson would not have been
14 taken back to the Morton Plant Hospital?
15 A Well, I saw the pictures of the body. I mean, the
16 ER doctor had released Lisa to Mrs. Webber. Mrs. Webber was
17 taken off the case.
18 To me, that says the condition of danger had been
19 applied. They didn't want -- and the fact that an OSA
20 representative was there means that -- can you hear me --
21 means that this was a PR flap or a potential PR flap. And
22 that took precedence.
23 Q Yes. But why not just take her to Morton Plant
24 Hospital?
25 A Well, I'm assuming -- I mean, look at Lisa
192
1 McPherson. She looked terrible. She certainly looked a lot
2 worse than when they took her the 18th of November.
3 Q Well --
4 A My -- my -- my opinion on this is that as she
5 deteriorated -- in other words, there was no doubt -- we
6 know there was people writing up, hey, this is getting
7 worse, not better. But, Mmm, in a condition of danger, I
8 mean, who is going to go to Int and stick their neck out
9 saying "We better do something"? There is nobody here in
10 Clearwater who can be responsible for taking her to the
11 hospital. And this is a PR flap, foremost.
12 Lisa's individual situation is of less importance
13 now. The PR flap is the primary thing we have to prevent.
14 Q Well, why couldn't they have taken her, per policy
15 of Scientology, to another local hospital, rather than one
16 that took them over 50 minutes to get to?
17 A That is complete speculation.
18 Q Okay. All right.
19 A I mean, for me, I couldn't say.
20 Q All right. Now, before we broke -- well, let me
21 just ask you this question.
22 Are you aware, in your experience in Scientology,
23 of instances where, although Scientology says, in writing,
24 you know, we believe in going to medical doctors and having
25 medical care, not psychiatric but medical care, where people
193
1 who are gravely ill were not sent to medical doctors?
2 A Yes. There was always this tension between you
3 don't -- one, you don't want to meet -- you don't want to,
4 tacitly or -- even tacitly or openly admit technology
5 doesn't work. So if you are auditing the person and the
6 person comes down with cancer, Mmm -- and, secondly -- and
7 maybe even more important, you want to keep auditing that
8 person because you need to keep your auditors busy to keep
9 stats up and you need the money coming in. Then, common
10 sense, when this has become a medical problem.
11 And, yes, I had many, many, many, many experiences
12 with that dilemma.
13 Q The dilemma of what?
14 A Mmm, when to send somebody to a doctor.
15 Q Why is there a dilemma, though? I mean, other
16 than the two things you just said, is there anything else?
17 A Well, I can only tell you my personal experience.
18 In '72 we had this girl who was a class A, a highly trained
19 auditor.
20 I watched -- I was a CO of the L.A. org at that
21 time. I walked by the PC waiting couch. She's waiting to
22 go in sessions. Here she is, her breast is oozing pus. She
23 had an open sore on her breast. And it turned out she had
24 breast cancer, the late stages of it. And she had been at
25 Cedars-Sinai Hospital. They had taken her off the lines and
194
1 they were just auditing her.
2 Q They were what?
3 A They had taken her off -- out of the radiation
4 treatment at Cedars and just started auditing her because
5 the CS at the local organization had decided that here is a
6 person who should just be getting auditing, let's not let
7 her get this radiation treatment. An unqualified decision.
8 And actually an off-policy decision. Their own policy.
9 Which is she should have been on medical lines. And she --
10 she -- two weeks later she subsequently died.
11 Q So even though it was written get medical care
12 from a medical doctor, they took her off of that written
13 policy and decided to do auditing?
14 A Uh-huh.
15 THE COURT: They didn't, the case supervisor
16 did, isn't that what you said?
17 THE WITNESS: It was a case supervisor and
18 director of processing and the registrar, the person
19 who signs them up and takes the money.
20 The only person who I ever really saw had a
21 clear vision of this policy and maintained it was
22 Hubbard. On the ship we -- you know, we had a
23 situation like that. They would be taken home.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q They would be taken home before they died?
195
1 A Yes.
2 Q They would not be sent to a doctor?
3 A No.
4 Q Lisa McPherson had an apartment in Clearwater on
5 December 5 of '95. She had a mother in Texas. And was
6 there any place -- as far as you know, was there any place
7 locally that -- a Scientology facility, where she would have
8 been taken to, to receive emergency medical care?
9 THE COURT: Who says -- who says that the
10 Church said you have to go to a Scientology
11 facility?
12 MR. DANDAR: That is just one question. I
13 didn't say they have to, no.
14 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I guess --
15 A I don't know of any. No.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q And the people that were sent home, in your
18 experience, because they had a medical condition, how were
19 they sent home?
20 A Well, when we were overseas, it would be they
21 would have somebody take them home, usher them through
22 Customs, get them on the plane, go home with them and make
23 sure they got there.
24 Q And what if he were here in the United States, do
25 you know how they were sent home?
196
1 A Usually driven.
2 Q And --
3 A Or put on a plane, depending where they were from.
4 Q But what is the purpose of sending them home?
5 A Put enough distance between Flag Land Base, or
6 Flag, and the imminent death.
7 Q Is that written in policy somewhere?
8 A Yes. He says that -- well, as far as the death
9 goes, no. Not that I know of.
10 Q What -- do you have personal knowledge as to what
11 Mr. Hubbard meant when he wrote, "I would rather have you
12 dead than incapable"?
13 A Mmm -- excuse me -- yes. I think it was sort of a
14 form of iteration of -- it was just his writing style. I
15 don't think he meant anybody had to be dead.
16 THE COURT: You think that had anything to do
17 with -- apparently you reviewed something, things
18 about this case. Do you think that had anything to
19 do with this case?
20 THE WITNESS: Not directly. No.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Have you read the Jesse Prince affidavit in this
23 case --
24 A Yes.
25 Q -- where he talks about end cycle?
197
1 A Yes.
2 Q Is there anything in his affidavit that you
3 disagree with?
4 THE COURT: About the end cycle part of it?
5 BY MR. DANDAR:
6 Q Any part of his affidavit?
7 MR. WEINBERG: Well, then maybe I guess he
8 needs to look at the affidavit.
9 THE COURT: That is an awfully long affidavit.
10 MR. DANDAR: All right.
11 THE COURT: What is that, asking one witness to
12 testify about the credibility of some other person's
13 sworn statement?
14 I will let him talk about whether or not he
15 disagrees regarding what this hearing is about. As
16 far as what the rest of it is, I don't care about it
17 from this witness.
18 MR. DANDAR: Well, all right. Well, we had
19 testimony, if you recall, from Stacy Brooks and Bob
20 Minton --
21 THE COURT: About what?
22 MR. DANDAR: -- about somehow implicating me in
23 making Jesse Prince write this affidavit which was
24 not based in fact, was just her -- what she called
25 it, her fabricated scenario.
198
1 THE COURT: Well, Bob Minton didn't testify
2 about that at all.
3 MR. DANDAR: I think Stacy Brooks did.
4 THE COURT: Stacy Brooks, I think, indicated
5 that he followed the same style that she followed,
6 which was sort of this slanted a little bit to meet
7 the facts or what have you. She didn't say -- she
8 just said she didn't have any firsthand knowledge
9 about it.
10 But go ahead, whatever it is you want to do.
11 You are just dragging this out. You wanted to
12 finish by this morning, you told me.
13 MR. DANDAR: I did. And I'm going to soon
14 finish.
15 THE COURT: One you get to that affidavit and
16 ask him if he read it, you are looking at about a
17 three-day cross-examination. So it is up to you. I
18 mean, I don't care at this point, 29 days, 42 days,
19 it doesn't matter.
20 MR. DANDAR: I just have --
21 THE COURT: You are the one who wants to get to
22 trial in August.
23 MR. DANDAR: I just --
24 THE COURT: Why don't you ask him about end
25 cycle. That is important to this.
199
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Have you heard the term "end cycle"?
3 A Yes.
4 Q How did you understand the term, from your
5 Scientology experience?
6 A That was --
7 Q I can't hear you.
8 A That was utilized when you had a terminal PC.
9 Q Someone who is like dying of cancer?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And what did that mean?
12 A Mmm, I refer back to your questions earlier where
13 I was talking about like persons dying, you let him talk
14 about how he feels about dying, Mmm, is he scared about it,
15 this, that.
16 Q And can it be used on someone else who is dying
17 who you can't have a conversation with?
18 A I'm just thinking. I wouldn't have any personal
19 knowledge of that.
20 Q Let me give you an example. Someone who is in a
21 coma who can't talk, could you have an end cycle of that
22 person?
23 A Yes.
24 Q How?
25 A Well, if they can't talk doesn't mean they can't
200
1 hear you. You could say to them --
2 THE COURT: Well, they can't hear you if you
3 are on introspection rundown because I know you
4 would know they cannot talk to that person, right?
5 THE WITNESS: Right.
6 THE COURT: So there would be no talking, true?
7 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, yes.
8 THE COURT: And there is no question in this
9 record that those people were not talking to Lisa
10 McPherson.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay.
12 THE COURT: Okay? At least nothing that I have
13 read, except maybe on the way to the hospital, and I
14 don't even know that.
15 So based on the fact she was in an
16 introspection rundown, they were following the Step
17 000, what would end cycle have to do with it?
18 THE WITNESS: (No response.)
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q Would Lisa --
21 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, did we have an
22 answer?
23 THE COURT: He didn't answer it.
24 MR. WEINBERG: He was shaking his head.
25 THE WITNESS: I guess I sort of lost the train
201
1 of thought here. Are we saying somebody interfered
2 with the introspection rundown to say, "End of
3 cycle. Lisa, drop your body. Lisa, go home"?
4 THE COURT: Is "drop the body" -- maybe this
5 will help settle this here, is "drop the body" the
6 same as "end cycle"?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: Okay. So you use those terms
9 interchangeably?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
11 THE COURT: Right? The way that I understood
12 you had talked about "drop the body" was situations
13 where somebody was terminal ill, they were dying --
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 THE COURT: -- apparently, and it was a
16 situation maybe similar to hospice where they would
17 be sort of comforted in the fact this was
18 inevitable?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 THE COURT: And that they should -- they should
21 get through it and not be morbid about it and not
22 misunderstand what was happening, what hospice does
23 to try to get people through a dying experience as
24 pleasantly as possible, if there is such a thing.
25 THE WITNESS: That is right.
202
1 THE COURT: I understood that is what you said
2 you knew "drop the body" was.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 THE COURT: So "end cycle" is like that, that
5 would be something similar?
6 THE WITNESS: That is right.
7 THE COURT: Would you use the term "end cycle"
8 to be equivalent in any fashion with a decision to
9 let somebody die that otherwise didn't need to die?
10 I mean, does "end cycle" equal murder?
11 THE WITNESS: I want to be careful what I say
12 here. Mmm, I -- are we sure that they said "end
13 cycle" to --
14 THE COURT: No, that is what he says. That is
15 what Jesse Prince says.
16 And what the Church is saying is there isn't
17 one shred of evidence of that. And I'm trying to
18 decide whether there is a shred of evidence of that
19 or not.
20 You know, I -- there are two different theories
21 of medicine involved here. And that is something I
22 deal with every day and I know about that, doctors
23 disagree as to somebody's cause of death, manner of
24 death and that sort of stuff.
25 What I don't know is whether or not, based on
203
1 your opinion, that somebody would have just said,
2 "Well, just let her die, she's just too much
3 trouble, she's a PR flap, so just let her die and
4 that will somehow lessen the PR flap."
5 I mean, is that what is called "end cycle"? It
6 doesn't sound to me like what you are referring to.
7 It sounds like it means something else.
8 THE WITNESS: The way I understood "end cycle"
9 was it means to let's get this over with. Mmm, so
10 you are asking me to interpret that as saying "Let's
11 have her life be done, over"?
12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q Let's just not do anything and let it run its
14 course. Let's not intervene medically.
15 THE COURT: No, that isn't what you said in
16 your complaint, Mr. Dandar. That even would be
17 different.
18 You said the decision was made to intentionally
19 let her die, as opposed to take her to get
20 treatment.
21 MR. DANDAR: Well, let her die is deciding not
22 to intervene, let her go, not do anything in
23 somebody who obviously needs medical help right
24 away.
25 THE COURT: Okay. You add that caveat to it.
204
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, that I -- that I can see
2 happening. I see that, let's see what happens while
3 we decide what we're going to do about this PR flap.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q And so decide not to do anything while we decide
6 what to do?
7 A Right.
8 THE COURT: That you can see happening, as
9 opposed to the other scenario being a decision is
10 made, let her lay there in the bed and die and then
11 we'll deal with it?
12 THE WITNESS: Right.
13 THE COURT: You do not think that would have
14 happened?
15 THE WITNESS: I do not.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q Is it less of a PR flap for Scientology to deal
19 with Lisa McPherson dying, rather than taking Lisa
20 McPherson, as soon as possible, to the local Morton Plant
21 Hospital emergency room on December 5th?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Why is that?
24 A Well, probably for a couple reasons. One of them
25 being that somebody locally would have had to have made the
205
1 decision. And that would be like jumping onto the third
2 rail, you know, up in the New York subway. It would be a
3 very dangerous move. You would be headed to Ethics, to the
4 RPF, because taking her back to Morton Plant Hospital after
5 you already promised Morton Plant that you were going to
6 care for this woman in the condition that she currently was
7 in -- Mmm -- it would have been viewed as, my God, what is
8 the press going to do with this?
9 Q Compared to -- compared to -- I mean, compared to
10 her being dead and then, what, calling the morgue?
11 A Well, see, that is the thing. Was there anybody
12 competent enough to say this woman is in a coma and she's
13 dying?
14 Q Well, we had a 17-year-old complaining about her
15 for four days, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. She was
16 only 17 years old.
17 THE COURT: There were a whole bunch of others
18 who weren't, right?
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q The others were Mexican doctor, graduate of a
21 Mexican -- City of Mexico University medical school, Janis
22 Johnson, who used to be a practicing anesthesiologist in
23 Arizona, taught medical school.
24 THE COURT: And they weren't saying that. They
25 were not saying that she was in bad trouble.
206
1 MR. DANDAR: Oh, Janis Johnson said she was
2 "majorly dehydrated on the afternoon of December 5."
3 THE COURT: Yes, on the day she died.
4 MR. DANDAR: But she didn't die apparently -- I
5 mean -- well, there is a lot of conflict on when she
6 died.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q Let me ask you this, Mr. Franks. Are you sitting
9 here as a reluctant witness or a willing witness?
10 A I'm pretty reluctant, yeah.
11 Q And when I had you subpoenaed at a restaurant at
12 the International Mall in Tampa, were you expecting to be
13 subpoenaed?
14 A No. I was down here -- I come down here
15 frequently on business, have been for six, seven years now.
16 And I had been asked to get involved in this real estate
17 deal.
18 And I knew Patricia Greenway. Last April, I
19 think, somebody sent me a thing on the Internet about The
20 Profit. And I got in touch with her and we started talking.
21 But actually the conversation turned more into my
22 interest in France where I am studying for a certificate.
23 And so Patricia and I sort of -- that was sort of a common
24 ground for us.
25 Q French?
207
1 A Yeah. Then I happened to hear that she was a
2 realtor. And so I said, "Well, I'm coming down next week,
3 let's get together."
4 So we set up this appointment.
5 Q Were you -- after being subpoenaed, were you
6 contacted by the Church of Scientology to try to tell you
7 not to come?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Was that Attorney Drescher?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And do you know who Attorney Drescher represents?
12 A The Church of Scientology. That is how he
13 presented himself.
14 Q Okay. And did he ask you not to come? Or was he
15 more forceful than that?
16 A He threatened me. He said in the second letter --
17 well, the first letter was reminding me that I had signed
18 this agreement back in 1986 saying that I would not testify
19 unless -- I wouldn't testify against the Church. It's --
20 it's more in-depth than that.
21 Q Do you have a copy of that agreement?
22 A Do I --
23 Q No, did you back then when he first contacted you?
24 A No, I didn't.
25 Q Did ask you him for a copy?
208
1 A No. He sent a copy.
2 Q Okay. And what happened next?
3 A Mmm, then I -- one or two weeks later, I got a
4 letter from him threatening me, basically, saying that they
5 were suing this guy Gerry Armstrong for $110 million, and he
6 had been -- Gerry Armstrong, my connection with him was I
7 had -- in '86, he was part of that global agreement -- in
8 fact, he was the more senior party than I because he had a
9 cause of action against the Church.
10 Q Okay. So how did you take Mr. Drescher's threats?
11 A Well, I wrote him a letter trying to explain that
12 I'm sort of between a rock and a hard place. Mmm, then I
13 pointed out to him, I said, "Look, I'm not an
14 anti-Scientologist," which I'm not. I have not participated
15 in all this other stuff that goes on. The LMT Trust and all
16 that thing is really news to me.
17 And even though I was coming down to Clearwater --
18 well, I also pointed out to him that the Church knows full
19 well that I come down to Clearwater because they threw me
20 out of the park opposite the Sandcastle I think in '97. I
21 was on the bench making phone calls, and they asked me to
22 leave.
23 Q You are on a public sidewalk?
24 A I was on a park bench.
25 So to get to the point I was making, the Church
209
1 knows I come down here regularly. How can you assume that
2 I'm willing?
3 And also, finally I pointed out to him after 20
4 years why would I want to get involved in all this stuff?
5 Q And as you sit here today, do you still feel
6 threatened?
7 A Oh, yeah. I mean, I know how litigious these guys
8 are.
9 Q And did I tell you that once served with a
10 subpoena, that is a court order for you to appear, and I
11 told you what Judge Schaeffer said, you must appear?
12 A Yes, you did.
13 MR. DANDAR: That is all I have.
14 THE COURT: Thank you. You may inquire.
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. WEINBERG:
17 Q Now, Mr. Franks, let's go over a few things at the
18 first.
19 When you say you were the top official or one of
20 the top officials in the Church of Scientology in 1981 -- I
21 think you said -- you didn't order someone to be killed in
22 the Church, did you?
23 A No.
24 Q No. And you don't know anyone in the experience
25 that you had for 13 and a half years in the Church of
210
1 Scientology -- you don't know any staff member or public
2 that was ordered by someone like you in a position of
3 authority to be killed. Do you?
4 A Truthfully? Yes, I do.
5 Q All right. Who is that?
6 A Well, Mo Budlong and Jane Kember. I don't
7 remember who the person was, but it was some fellow in
8 England.
9 Q And this was circa when?
10 A This goes back to the '70s.
11 Q And you were the one that ordered it?
12 A No. I was not the one that ordered it. I
13 happened to come across this.
14 Q And there was no one on any introspection rundown
15 when that was in place that you are aware of that was ever
16 ordered to be killed on the introspection rundown? You are
17 not aware of anything like that, are you?
18 A No.
19 Q And when you did the introspection rundown on
20 people, no one ever instructed you on an introspection
21 rundown to see to it that the person died, correct?
22 A That is correct.
23 Q And the people that -- that you put through the
24 introspection rundown, these were Scientologists that were
25 Type III, right?
211
1 A Yes.
2 Q They had had psychotic episodes. And you, in the
3 course of using Scientology, had gotten them to a position,
4 through rest and relaxation, where they could take this
5 rundown, this auditing, so they could get -- so they could
6 deal with it. Correct?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Right. And, in fact, when the questions were
9 asked you about psychotics in Scientology, the fact of the
10 matter is, is that as of 1973, Mr. Hubbard announced that he
11 had made an amazing breakthrough with regard to dealing with
12 psychotics, and that was the introspection -- that was the
13 introspection rundown, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Right. So that certainly as of 1973 in the Church
16 of Scientology there was a way -- there was technology that
17 was in place to help people that were psychotic -- that were
18 psychotic, correct?
19 A That is how it was presented. Yes.
20 Q Right. So you would talk about some policy back
21 in 1965 where -- and on the ship when somebody was
22 psychotic, you would take them off the ship and send them
23 home.
24 Things changed in 1973 when Mr. Hubbard introduced
25 to the world the introspection rundown, correct?
212
1 A Mmm, yes and no. Because there was a caveat here,
2 you still -- Hubbard went on to say, you know, our job was
3 not to handle the psychotics. And so if you are saying that
4 we didn't -- the Church wasn't obligated to send people away
5 who were Type III, the answer, I would have to say, is no.
6 Q I'm not sure what the question was, but let me
7 just make it clear. If somebody was an insane person, not a
8 Scientologist, he wouldn't be able to come to the Church of
9 Scientology and do auditing. Correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Right. But if there is a Scientologist that for
12 whatever reason has had a psychotic break, a staff member
13 that has a psychotic break and is what has been referred to
14 as Type III, as of 1973 Mr. Hubbard introduced a way in
15 which to help that person, that is the introspection
16 rundown, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And it was your experience that when that happened
19 to people that were Scientologists after 1973, you and
20 others at the Church that were dealing with technology would
21 attempt to help Scientologists that had had psychotic
22 breaks. Correct?
23 A It was a little more selective than what you are
24 saying. Not all people would get the rundown. Some people
25 would be off-loaded and sent home.
213
1 Q But no one you are aware of was ordered to be
2 killed?
3 A That is right.
4 Q Now, you talked some about David Miscavige. And
5 you were asked questions about -- about what you surmised
6 David Miscavige might be doing today.
7 Let me ask you, do you recall how old David
8 Miscavige was when you last saw him?
9 A Mmm, twenty-one.
10 Q And that was about twenty-one years ago, correct?
11 A That is correct.
12 Q And you haven't kept up with David Miscavige in
13 the last twenty-one years?
14 A That is correct.
15 Q You haven't talked to him in the last twenty-one
16 years, have you?
17 A No.
18 Q You don't have any idea, do you, where David
19 Miscavige was or what he was doing in November and December
20 of 1995, do you?
21 A That is correct.
22 Q You don't have any personal knowledge of the facts
23 surrounding what happened to Lisa McPherson in November and
24 December of 1995, do you? You don't have any personal
25 knowledge?
214
1 A No.
2 Q Now --
3 THE COURT: Personal knowledge, I think he's
4 talking about, as being there, seeing, hearing,
5 watching.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 THE COURT: You may have some knowledge from
8 reading a file, like I have knowledge, but not
9 personal, what we would include in that.
10 BY MR. WEINBERG:
11 Q Now, you left -- actually, you were discharged,
12 dismissed, from the Church of Scientology -- from the
13 organization, the staff, of the Church of Scientology.
14 Correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And, in fact, the person that you most hold
17 responsible for having dismissed you was this 21-year-old
18 David Miscavige. Correct?
19 A No. Not really.
20 Q Well, haven't you expressed, since then, some
21 upset at David Miscavige for being part of the reason for
22 you being discharged from your spot?
23 A To who?
24 Q So you don't -- well --
25 A I don't think I have because that is not how I
215
1 think. So --
2 Q When you left -- when you were discharged from the
3 Church of Scientology and left the staff in -- when was it,
4 December of 1981?
5 A That is right.
6 Q That was before the major reorganization,
7 corporate -- the corporate reorganization of the Church, is
8 that right?
9 A Was it? I don't know. I don't think so. I think
10 we were more midstream.
11 Q Well, the Religious Technology Center was not
12 incorporated until after you left. Correct?
13 A That is -- I believe that is correct, yeah.
14 Q And I don't know if you know, do you know who was
15 the chairman of the board of RTC?
16 A No.
17 Q Now, this Int that you were talking about that you
18 had a title in when you left, are you aware that that has
19 changed at this point and that what we have now is -- what
20 took place since is that there is a mother church called the
21 Church of Scientology, Int, International? Are you aware of
22 that?
23 A I don't know what it finally metamorphized --
24 meta -- whatever that word is, I didn't know how it
25 eventually changed. We were in the process of changing it
216
1 all when I left.
2 Q And part of what I think you said that you had
3 done along with, among others, David Miscavige, was to, in
4 essence, rid the Church of wrongdoers, people that had been
5 responsible for some of the -- some of the wrongdoing that
6 took place in the '70s, correct, some of the bad actors?
7 A That is one way of looking at it, yes.
8 Q Well, I mean, didn't you, in essence, brag about
9 that in 1981 in the position that you had that -- that, in
10 fact, you took responsibility for having, in essence, shut
11 down the GO and the -- the Guardian's Office and gotten rid
12 of the bad actors there?
13 A I don't know if "brag" is the right word. But,
14 yeah, that is what we were saying.
15 Q And that was a good thing, wasn't it? It was a
16 good thing that the people in the Church of Scientology took
17 it upon themselves, in 1980, 1981, to get rid of people that
18 were attempting to corrupt the religion. Correct? That was
19 a good thing?
20 A If it's as you said, as you characterize it, yes,
21 that would be a good thing. And at the time that is what I
22 believed had happened. Yes.
23 Q Now, you said that -- that you had looked at --
24 oh, by the way, when you left the Church of Scientology in
25 December of 1981, for several years thereafter you became a
217
1 witness against the Church of Scientology, didn't you?
2 A Mmm, I only once, and that was -- I mentioned
3 that, that was in Julie Christofferson's case in Oregon in
4 1985.
5 Q I thought you testified in a number of
6 depositions. That was the case you testified in at trial.
7 But you testified in a number of depositions in a number of
8 different cases, didn't you?
9 A Well, why don't you tell me because I don't
10 recall.
11 Q Well, I'm asking you first for your recall.
12 THE COURT: He said he doesn't recall.
13 BY MR. WEINBERG:
14 Q Well, do you recall working with certain lawyers?
15 A Mmm, you will be talking about Michael Flynn. And
16 I never worked with Michael Flynn.
17 Q Well, do you remember what lawyer you worked with?
18 A I didn't work with any attorney.
19 Q Were you paid for your testimony?
20 A No. Never.
21 Q Well --
22 A And, in fact, that is a bald-faced, shall I use
23 the word, "lie." It's just not true. I never worked for
24 anybody.
25 Q Well, is it not true that -- I mean, is it true
218
1 that you were never paid to testify?
2 A In what? No, I was never paid to testify.
3 Q Do you remember testifying in March of '84 in the
4 Cooper case?
5 A I don't believe I testified in March of '84 for
6 the Cooper case. I don't think I ever had anything to do
7 with Paulette Cooper.
8 Q Do you know who Mr. Cooper is?
9 A Mr. Cooper?
10 Q Ms. Cooper?
11 A I know who she is by reputation. But I don't
12 think I ever met Paulette Cooper.
13 Q So you don't remember giving a deposition in that
14 case?
15 A I don't. No.
16 Q Do you remember giving a deposition in the Flynn
17 lawsuit?
18 A Mmm, I remember that -- I remember this because
19 Rick Moxon was taking my -- or he was the opposing side of
20 it up in Norristown, Pennsylvania. I really don't know what
21 the case is. I don't even know how I ended up getting
22 there.
23 But I can tell you for an honest fact I never got
24 paid, and I never worked for any attorney or got anything
25 against anybody except --
219
1 THE COURT: Something like this where you got a
2 subpoena and were asked to come in and tell what you
3 could?
4 THE WITNESS: I believe so. I had -- by 1983,
5 Judge, I had started another job and that is what I
6 was doing, and -- with one exception, and that was
7 Julie Christofferson.
8 THE COURT: What are you people doing? What is
9 the big deal? What has he said that hurt your
10 lawsuit?
11 MR. WEINBERG: Nothing.
12 THE COURT: Throwing around a bunch of files.
13 MR. WEINBERG: I'm really not going to be very
14 long.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. WEINBERG: And I agree with you. Very
17 little, if anything.
18 Could I just approach, your Honor?
19 THE COURT: Sure.
20 BY MR. WEINBERG:
21 Q I'll show you transcripts to see if I can refresh
22 your recall. Let me show you a transcript of a deposition
23 taken of you in the Paulette Cooper case on March 13 of
24 1984.
25 Do you remember giving that deposition?
220
1 A Let me just -- where was this taken?
2 Q It probably says on the front.
3 A On the front?
4 Q Here (indicating). Taken in the offices of Cohn,
5 Glickstein, Lurie, Ostrin, Lubell & Lubell in New York City?
6 A Is this -- yes, I remember the Avenue of the
7 Americas. But I don't really recall that now.
8 Q All right. Do you recall giving a deposition in
9 the Hartwell -- do you remember the Hartwell case versus the
10 Church of Scientology -- do you remember giving a deposition
11 on February 25 --
12 THE COURT: Ask him one by one. He never
13 answered whether he remembered the Hartwell case.
14 BY MR. WEINBERG:
15 Q Do you remember the Hartwell case?
16 A No. I remember getting a subpoena. But like
17 Paulette Cooper, I never met the Hartwells.
18 Q This is another transcript, and I believe it is
19 one Mr. Moxon would have taken. Correct?
20 A Yes, I do remember my interchange with Rick. But
21 I don't -- I never -- I'm pretty sure this was the subpoena
22 because I don't think I was very involved with this.
23 Q Do you remember the Van Schaick case?
24 A I know the name.
25 Q Do you remember giving a deposition in that case
221
1 on July 28, 1986?
2 A Where was that? Was that also in --
3 Q In Pennsylvania, Norristown.
4 A Probably the same.
5 Q Then I'll just show you, for the record,
6 indicating a deposition in the Church of Scientology versus
7 Flynn case taken on March 8, 1985 --
8 A But, see, I was subpoenaed to it. I was never --
9 I was under the impression I had to be there.
10 Q I know. But I just asked you if you gave
11 depositions.
12 Do you remember that deposition?
13 A Well, that isn't all you asked me. You asked me
14 wasn't I doing this for hire. I never got paid a dime for
15 it.
16 THE COURT: So that does not change your
17 testimony, his having shown you that?
18 THE WITNESS: Right.
19 BY MR. WEINBERG:
20 Q But you do remember giving those depositions that
21 I just showed you?
22 A Well, they are there.
23 THE COURT: He's right, Counselor, though, you
24 implied he was paid for his testimony. He indicated
25 no, that wasn't true.
222
1 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I'm getting to that.
2 THE COURT: All right.
3 BY MR. WEINBERG:
4 Q Do you remember you entered into -- you and a
5 number of other ex-Scientologists entered into a global
6 settlement agreement with the Church of Scientology, do you
7 remember that?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And do you remember when that was?
10 A Mmm, I believe that -- it was December 5, wasn't
11 it, '86?
12 Q Okay. And do you remember that as a result of
13 that settlement, you were paid some money?
14 A $50,000. Yes.
15 Q And that is the settlement agreement that -- where
16 you were paid $50,000 that apparently Mr. Drescher was
17 referring to and sent you a copy of recently, is that right?
18 A That is right.
19 Q And what kind of claim did you have against the
20 Church of Scientology that entitled you to $50,000?
21 A Well, see, that is the thing. I kind of
22 considered -- you know, I had been in the Sea Org. I didn't
23 have anything. I had just recently gotten married. To me,
24 this was found money. I had no claim against the Church of
25 Scientology. I never have had any claim against the Church
223
1 of Scientology.
2 Q But the -- but you still got $50,000?
3 A To me, it was like found money. In fact,
4 actually, that is how Flynn presented it to me, "Come out to
5 California and get $50,000."
6 Q So the lawyer did a global settlement for, what,
7 ten, fifteen, twenty people, of which you were one?
8 A Yes, the number eighteen, eighteen people, seems
9 to be in my head somewhere.
10 Q And there was a lump sum that was paid to the
11 lawyer in the settlement agreement, and then the lawyer
12 decided how much you were to get from it. Is that the way
13 you understood it?
14 A Mmm, yeah. I guess it would be something like
15 that.
16 Q So Mr. Flynn was your lawyer?
17 A No. I didn't have an attorney. I mean, you can
18 see that I wasn't very sophisticated in these types of
19 things back in that period of time. He just said, "Come out
20 and I'll give you $50,000."
21 Q And this was after you had testified in his case
22 and some other cases that he had?
23 A Apparently, yes.
24 Q And you didn't consider that, at least from the
25 lawyer, payment to you for your previous testimony?
224
1 A No. No, I didn't. I felt at the time that it was
2 the Church of Scientology giving me the money for -- in
3 return for my signature.
4 Q Okay, let me just mark --
5 A The reason --
6 Q Sure.
7 A The reason I felt that way, because I didn't have
8 any claim against Scientology, nor did I have any intention
9 of putting a claim in against Scientology.
10 Q Was it just the lawyer that did this negotiation
11 on your behalf but you didn't know it until he came to you
12 and said, "Hey, I got some money for you"?
13 A What I think really happened, this guy Mike Flynn,
14 I heard he made a lot of money off this, I don't know. But
15 I think what he brought to the Church was saying, "Listen,
16 I'll get all these Scientologists to sign an agreement, this
17 is the money I want."
18 And really, I didn't have a lot of connection with
19 Mike Flynn. I had maybe seen him once or twice before.
20 Q He was --
21 THE COURT: Kind of like a class action
22 lawsuit? Is that how you thought of it? Or do you
23 know what a class action lawsuit is?
24 THE WITNESS: No -- I do, but I wasn't involved
25 in any class action lawsuit. That is why I
225
1 considered this to be found money. It is like,
2 "What, I'm not even suing the Church and you are
3 going to give me $50,000?" Who wouldn't take that?
4 MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, we'll
5 mark --
6 BY MR. WEINBERG:
7 Q Is this the agreement? I don't -- I'll have the
8 clerk mark a copy.
9 THE COURT: I think it is already in evidence.
10 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, it is?
11 THE COURT: I think so.
12 A Yes, this is the agreement.
13 MR. WEINBERG: It's in evidence?
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: We gave it to the Judge.
15 MR. WEINBERG: We gave it to you, but we didn't
16 mark it as an exhibit.
17 If you could mark this as the next exhibit,
18 please. It is 194.
19 BY MR. WEINBERG:
20 Q And is that the agreement?
21 A Yes, it is.
22 Q And attached to that agreement is an affidavit
23 that you prepared and filed at the time, is that right, the
24 last two pages? Is that correct, sir?
25 A Well, this had been prepared for me. I think they
226
1 prepared it at the time.
2 Q And is that your signature and is that your
3 affidavit?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And was it -- is it true -- was it true then, is
6 it true today, if you look at the affidavit, in the first
7 paragraph --
8 THE COURT: Are you going to have him testify
9 about this affidavit? Then you need to give him
10 time to read it, unless he already knows what it
11 says.
12 BY MR. WEINBERG:
13 Q Okay, do you want to read it real quickly?
14 A Sure.
15 THE COURT: It is time to take a break so I'll
16 take a break. You can take all of the time you want
17 to read this for whatever reason it is they want you
18 to read it. And then when we come back you can ask
19 him questions about it. You will have read it.
20 MR. WEINBERG: And I don't have much more.
21 THE COURT: We'll be in recess for 15 or 20
22 minutes.
23 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:51 p.m.
24 to 3:12 p.m.)
25 ______________________________________
227
1 THE COURT: Okay, you can continue.
2 BY MR. WEINBERG:
3 Q Mr. Franks, on that exhibit, your mutual release
4 agreement, the back two pages was that affidavit. Did you
5 have a chance to look at that affidavit?
6 A Yes, I did.
7 Q And that affidavit accurately reflects, does it
8 not, what occurred before you left the Church of
9 Scientology; that you, among others, had dealt with, in
10 essence, ridding the Church of some bad actors that had --
11 that had infected, among other places, the Guardian's
12 Office?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And in this affidavit you, I take it, were
15 correctly swearing that as of the date of the affidavit,
16 which is December 5, 1986, that you no longer had any
17 conflict with the Church and that you were satisfied that
18 the Church's present management had taken a very responsible
19 and forthright position with respect to complaints made
20 about the alleged abuses in the Church, correct?
21 A Yes, I stated that I didn't have any conflict with
22 the Church. Yes.
23 Q All right. Now, back for a moment to the
24 introspection rundown --
25 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I gave you a copy
228
1 but I didn't mark it.
2 THE COURT: Do you know what? That is right,
3 you did, you didn't mark it. This is not what I was
4 thinking of. This may be the complete introspection
5 rundown.
6 What I had seen that I think referred to what I
7 was looking for was a much smaller version, maybe a
8 two-pager or three-pager that specifically said
9 "Step 000, it had to do with PTS Type II, PTS Type
10 III." It isn't a big deal. Just somewhere I read
11 something --
12 MR. WEINBERG: No, there is something like
13 that --
14 THE COURT: Yes.
15 MR. WEINBERG: -- that explains what PTS Type
16 I, II and III is.
17 MR. LIEBERMAN: I am trying to remember what it
18 is. It may have been something I gave you, it may
19 have been Richard Rice's affidavit explaining some
20 of this.
21 THE COURT: No, there is something, and I
22 believe it has actually even been introduced here,
23 in here meaning here in this hearing, or certainly
24 it could have been in another hearing, but I can't
25 even remember now what we were referring to. But
229
1 whatever it was, I read it -- I couldn't be remotely
2 sure that I was accurate in my statement of it,
3 but --
4 MR. WEINBERG: But this did have Step 0 and 00
5 in it. You saw that, right?
6 THE COURT: Yes, but that is not the document
7 that had in it what I was speaking of when --
8 MR. WEINBERG: It's not. And I know what
9 you're talking about. And hopefully this weekend we
10 can locate it.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. WEINBERG: Because I remember the same
13 thing, reading it.
14 BY MR. WEINBERG:
15 Q I wanted to complete the record, however, with
16 you, Mr. Franks.
17 Prior to -- after this 1965 issue that Mr. Dandar
18 had showed you, which was that Search and Discovery, I think
19 is what it was, you do recall that Mr. Hubbard began to
20 release some issues that led up to the introspection rundown
21 in 1973 in which he for the first time set forth that there
22 were things that the Church -- that Scientology could do for
23 people that were psychotic? Do you --
24 A That is what he said. Yes.
25 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. By the way, your Honor,
230
1 I'm going to offer into evidence, before I forget,
2 that release agreement with the affidavit, which is
3 194.
4 THE COURT: Okay. Did you -- did I have mine?
5 Is mine down there? Or did you take it back from
6 me?
7 THE CLERK: Yes, here it is.
8 THE COURT: Yes. All right. The introspection
9 rundown. I think you just took it back.
10 MR. WEINBERG: I did. I'm going to give it
11 back to you in a minute.
12 MR. DANDAR: Judge, may I approach? Just let
13 you look at Search and Discovery, and I think there
14 is what you're talking about.
15 MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, is that in
16 what I just offered, 194?
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MR. DANDAR: That is the affidavit?
19 MR. WEINBERG: Right.
20 THE COURT: You can go ahead. I can kind of
21 read this and listen in.
22 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
23 BY MR. WEINBERG:
24 Q Let me show you three different things, one of
25 which will be the introspection rundown.
231
1 One is a 1970 issue entitled "Psychosis."
2 A Take this back?
3 Q Yes, just let it sit here.
4 The second is the 1973 issue which is the
5 introspection rundown.
6 And the third one is a -- it's a February 1974
7 issue which is additional actions on the -- let's see what I
8 just gave you -- okay, which is additional actions on the
9 introspection rundown.
10 And if you could take a look at those while I hand
11 them out.
12 THE COURT: Yes, this may be it. I don't want
13 to interrupt the witness, but under this Handling
14 Type III, this is under Search and Discovery, under
15 handling Type III, Paragraph 8, it says, "The task
16 with the Type III is not treatment as such. It is
17 to provide a relatively safe environment, and quiet
18 and rest and no treatment of a mental nature at all.
19 Giving him a quiet core with a motionless object in
20 it might do the trick if he's permitted to sit there
21 unmolested. Medical care of a very -- nature is
22 necessary as intravenous feeding and fortified
23 sleeping and quieting drugs may be necessary." This
24 is what I was referring to.
25 "Such persons are sometimes also physically ill
232
1 from an illness with a known medical cure."
2 And that was one -- one place that I had read
3 that.
4 Then I have seen it someplace else, again
5 indicating that --
6 MR. WEINBERG: Right.
7 THE COURT: -- that there may be some folks
8 that need to, you know -- have a medical need that
9 needs to be treated.
10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Just to clarify, your Honor, as
11 Mr. Weinberg is now showing, that 1965 document you
12 are reading came, of course, eight years before that
13 preliminary step was then incorporated as part of
14 the introspection rundown in 1973. Just so you get
15 the continuity of it.
16 THE COURT: Right.
17 MR. WEINBERG: What I just handed up to you
18 were the three documents that I have --
19 THE COURT: All right.
20 MR. WEINBERG: -- given to Mr. Franks. And
21 those we'll have as exhibit numbers for -- the first
22 one, which is psychosis, will be 195; for the
23 introspection rundown, which is the second one, is
24 196. And for the introspection rundown additional
25 actions, which is the 1974 issue, that will be 197.
233
1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. WEINBERG: And for some reason if you want
3 the full issue which has all of the questions of the
4 introspection rundown, I'll give you this back. But
5 that was just the first two --
6 THE COURT: I didn't --
7 MR. WEINBERG: I figured you didn't want that.
8 THE COURT: No, because I don't exactly
9 understand that, and there is no reason why I would
10 have to.
11 MR. WEINBERG: Guess what? Neither do I, so
12 we're --
13 THE COURT: It requires a class auditor
14 beyond -- no class at all is you and me.
15 MR. WEINBERG: Exactly right.
16 BY MR. WEINBERG:
17 Q Mr. Franks, I have shown you 195, 196 and 197.
18 And those are three which is psychosis, introspection
19 rundown, and then the 1974 additional, what do you call it,
20 additional actions in introspection rundown.
21 And you recognize those policies, don't you --
22 A Yes.
23 Q -- or those issues? And, in fact, this is what
24 occurred while you were in the Church in the early '70s when
25 Mr. Hubbard made what he believed was -- was -- was a
234
1 startling discovery that Scientology could be used to help
2 people, particularly Scientologists, that had had psychotic
3 breaks. Correct?
4 A Yes.
5 Q All right. And if you -- and I guess you were
6 trained to deliver these services, correct?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And, in fact, delivered the introspection rundown
9 on several occasions?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And when you were delivering the introspection
12 rundown, it was your goal, in delivering the rundown, to
13 assist the Scientologists that you were doing the rundown on
14 to get through his psychotic state, is that right?
15 A Yes.
16 Q The idea was to help the person?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Right? Not to hurt the person. Correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q You weren't trying to hurt the person?
21 A No.
22 Q And you certainly weren't trying to kill the
23 person?
24 A No.
25 Q Now, if you look at the last one I gave you, the
235
1 introspection rundown, additional actions, which is the --
2 which is the updated issue of February 20, 1974, do you see
3 that?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Under "Programming Data," which is the second
6 paragraph, the issue says, "In the case of a psycho, it is
7 necessary to tailor the introspection rundown steps to the
8 PC, instead of following it as a rote sequence, at the risk
9 of running unreading items on the PC."
10 Do you see that, sir?
11 A Mmm, yes, I think I do. "Programming Data"? The
12 second paragraph?
13 Q Let me just point it out to you. It would be
14 easier. I'm referring to this sentence right here
15 (indicating).
16 A All right.
17 Q Just the sentence down to "PC."
18 A Yes.
19 Q And that's -- and that was the case, the whole
20 idea is that every -- every case is different -- or every
21 person that has this Type III issue is different, and there
22 has -- there had to be, according to Mr. Hubbard, some
23 flexibility in, as he said here, tailoring the introspection
24 rundown in order to address that particular person?
25 A That's right.
236
1 Q It wasn't just taking all these questions that I
2 didn't put in front of you that are also in the issue and
3 asking them -- I mean, you needed to handle a particular
4 case in a particular way depending on that person. Right?
5 A Yes.
6 THE COURT: Is this a direction to the auditor,
7 however? I see in the second -- the paragraph under
8 that "Programming Data," it's talking about the
9 auditors' TR1 and metering must be such," so -- then
10 it goes on from there. But aren't they talking
11 about the auditing?
12 BY MR. WEINBERG:
13 Q This is all direction to the auditor, right? I
14 mean, the whole idea here is that if you can get the person
15 through the initial steps, 0 and 00, get them rested, get
16 them calmed down, what was the word you used?
17 A Destimulated.
18 Q Destimulated, so if you can get the person
19 destimulated, calmed down and rested, then the person could
20 get out of the immediate break, then you can go through this
21 auditing program to help them prevent ever going back to a
22 break. That was the whole idea, right?
23 A Yes, it is the CS's call to when that point has
24 arrived. And I think that is the limbo state that Lisa
25 McPherson was in. And I say limbo state because the
237
1 decision had to be made by the senior CS and the senior CS
2 Int, so that was far away, that wasn't on the scene, as to
3 when Lisa could be released from isolation and be ready to
4 be audited.
5 Q And the auditing would be the second part of the
6 introspection rundown?
7 A Yes.
8 Q The rest, relaxation, isolation is the first part
9 of the introspection rundown, right?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Now, I haven't seen any -- and if you can point it
12 out, please point it out to me -- are there any -- can you
13 point to any references I just showed you in the
14 introspection rundown, any references which talk about
15 reporting to Int, to International, or petitioning to
16 International, before doing an introspection rundown?
17 A No, sir. I don't think it would be on these
18 bulletins.
19 Q I mean, don't these bulletins that you are looking
20 at say that the person that is responsible, the person in
21 charge of the case, is the CS? That is the person in
22 charge, right?
23 A Mmm, I'm not trying to think up a good answer, I'm
24 trying to think up the right answer.
25 Q I'll give you as much time as possible.
238
1 A The responsibility of this on Ethics' line is not
2 covered in these policy orders. L. Ron Hubbard here is just
3 addressing the rundown itself and how it should be run by
4 the auditor and the CS. And in that respect you're right,
5 it is the CS's responsibility.
6 Q So that if a person -- one of the people --
7 THE COURT: Were you done with your answer?
8 I'm sorry, were you done?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
10 THE COURT: All right, continue on then.
11 BY MR. WEINBERG:
12 Q So in those situations where you did the
13 introspection rundown, were you acting as an auditor, or as
14 a CS?
15 A I was the auditor. Hubbard was the CS.
16 Q Okay. In those situations where -- well, when an
17 introspection rundown is going on, whether it's at the
18 isolation stage or the auditing stage, am I correct that
19 the -- that the person that is responsible for that -- for
20 what happens to the individual who is either in isolation or
21 is getting the auditing and introspection rundown is the CS,
22 not a Guardian Office member, not an OSA member, but the CS,
23 that is who is responsible for delivering those services,
24 correct?
25 A That is correct. Yes.
239
1 Q Now, let me show you -- can I show you one more
2 issue, please.
3 MR. WEINBERG: We'll just mark this as the next
4