Statement of Lynn Robert Farny

Date:October 14, 1997




________________________ / 



DATE:                      October 14, 1997 

TIME:                      Began: 9:45 a.m. 
                           Ended: 11:25 a.m. 

PLACE:                     Criminal Justice Center 
                           Office of the State Attorney
                           Room 1000
                           Clearwater, Florida 
REPORTED BY:               Ruth N. Martin, CSR, CP, RMR 
                           Registered Merit Reporter 
                           Notary Public
                           State of Florida at Large 


page 2


         Office of the State Attorney
         Criminal Justice Complex, Room 1000
         Clearwater, Florida 33760
              Attorney for State of Florida

         Zuckerman, Spaeder, Taylor & Evans, LLP
         SunTrust Financial Centre, Suite 2525
         401 East Jackson Street
         Tampa, Florida 33602
         Icot Center, Suite 108
         13630 58th Street North
         Clearwater, Florida 33760
              Attorney for the Witness


         LEE STROPE, Special Agent
         Florida Department of Law Enforcement

         WAYNE C. ANDREWS, Detective Sergeant
         City of Clearwater Police Department

                          INDEX PAGE

EXAMINATION                         PAGE

     BY MR. McGARRY                    3 
     BY SPECIAL AGENT STROPE          71 
     BY SPECIAL AGENT STROPE          82

CERTIFICATE OF OATH                   83

page 3

The deponent herein, LYNN ROBERT FARNY, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. McGARRY: Lee, would you like to place something on the record before I begin?

MR. FUGATE: Yes. Just for the record, we received -- well, pursuant to our conversation of a week or so ago, we've contacted the Church in L.A. and they've voluntarily produced Mr. Farny. And we accepted via fax, which has been the custom in this case, a State Attorney's Investigation Witness Subpoena, Criminal, for Mr. Farny. And he would testify -- would decline to testify, but would testify under the immunity of 91.404 Florida Statutes. And this is the subpoena, and this is the same Mr. Farny, and we're ready to go.

MR. McGARRY: All right. We'll begin.


Q. I'm Mark McGarry. I'm a prosecutor. And I think you met the Detectives here that are working on this case, Sergeant Andrews to your right, Agent Strope.

page 4


THE WITNESS: How do you do?

Q. We're investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of Lisa McPherson. Your name came up as a person that might possess some information regarding that issue. If you would place your name on the record.

A. Lynn Robert Farny.

Q. And your address?

A. X, Los Angeles.

Q. How long have you lived there?

A. Three or four years.

Q. I take it you're a member of the Church?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you're a Staff member of the Church?

A. That's also correct.

Q. And you are a Staff member and you work and reside in Los Angeles?

A. That's right.

Q. Okay. If I could, a little background. I need you birth date.

A. X 1955.

Q. All right. And you began your work as a Staff member in the Church in what year?

A. I started part-time in 1977, full-time in 1979.

Q. All right. Started right off as a Staff member?

page 5

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. I started as a parishioner in 76.

Q. Was that also in L.A.?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you've remained in L.A. since then?

A. That's where my employment has been I've traveled all over' the world.

Q. In reference to --

A. In reference to the Church, yes.

Q. Briefly, I don't want to go into that much detail in the 70s, but if you could, describe what your Staff progress was as you went through the Church.

A. Well --

Q. It inaynot have changed, but

A. I'll do the short version, then anything you want to come back in more detail we can do.

Q. Appreciate it.

A. First couple of years I worked part-time analyzing documents under the Freedom of Information Act. I did that part-time, couple nights a week. In 1979 I joined the Church in California and I worked in the Personnel Department for a couple of years, two or three years. And then I've been in Legal since 1982. 1984, I became the head of the

page 6

Church of Scientology International's Legal Department. And off and on since then I've held pretty much the same position, except for a few times where I was off on different projects or whatever, but I've been pretty much in the same position since.

Q. Okay. Your educational background?

A. Four years of college, didn't graduate.

Q. Okay. Your legal background, is that any formal training in legal or is this mostly self-taught?

A. Well, what I picked up working as a paralegal in the Church, different seminars I was sent to. Evidence, civil procedure, how to do legal research, stuff like that. So I'm pretty well trained as a litigation paralegal and not an attorney.

Q. All right. So what is your -- what is your position right now with the Church?

A. Legal -- Legal Affairs Director for CSI.


A. Yeah. Church of Scientology International, I'm sorry.. .

Q. All right. And who would be your immediate supervisor?

A. Kurt Wyland.

Q. And that's in L.A.?

A. Yes.

page 7

Q. Okay. And what is his title?

A. He's called the Deputy Commanding Officer for Office of Special Affairs International.

Q. Is this also kind of a legal department, legal --

A. No. He's over Legal and Public Relations. I'm the head of the Legal Department.

Q. You're the head of the Legal Department?

A. Yeah.

Q. How many people are in that section?

A. In my immediate office we have 25 staff and five lawyers. And then in the individual legal departments in churches around the world is about 75 in various legal departments.

Q. So there are some lawyers that actually are employed there?

A. Yes. General Counsel has himself and a staff of four lawyers. Q., Who's that?

A. Elliott Abelson.

Q. All right. Because of the sensitivity of your. position, I assume that you've obtained at least Clear in your studies on that side of the board for the Church in order to look at all the documents necessary?

A. That's correct. .

Q. IfI might ask, when did you.obtain that?

page 8

A. October, 1978.

Q. Okay. And how far have you progressed on that side of the board? A.' OT-IV.

Q. Reason why I ask that question is because a lot of people have mentioned documents that they haven't been --

MR. FUGATE: The reason we didn't object, we felt like that was the predicate for him.

MR. McGARRY: I understand that. That's why I did that.

Q. There's been people that have indicated they had an impediment to certain documents, viewing certain documents.

A. That's right. I'm aware of that issue.

Q. Because of that issue, right. When did you first become involved in Lisa Mcpherson?

A. December 5th, 1995.

Q. And how did that come about?

A. One of the other Staff members in the office received a call from Brian Anderson saying that Ms. McPherson had died either en route or at New Port Richey Hospital..

Q. And that was December 5th?

A. Yes.

page 9

Q. So a call was made to California?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And who was the Staff member that took that call?

A. Roman Gaessauer, G-a-e-s-s-a-u-e-r.

Q. And do you remember, was that a late night call?

A. Well, it was late night in Florida. It seemed to be between about 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. L.A. time. Definitely after 7:00, I think it was before 8:00.

Q. All right. And the information was -- was what? What was that information?

A. At that point, there was a woman who had been staying at the Fort Harrison to destimulate, who had been -- who had a mental episode. She had gotten ill suddenly and was taken to the hospital and didn't make it. That was really all we knew. There was a suggestion maybe she had gone downhill as a result of some sort of infectious or contagious disease, which concerned me, because there was a lot of people here at the Base in Florida. So that was my immediate focus, along with finding out what happened to her. You know, how did this happen.

Q. Is that standard protocol for somebody that's -- I mean, what guidelines do you have for Clearwater Flag calling L.A. and informing L.A., hey, there's something something you need to know about? How do you know that?

page 10

A. Well, normally they would deal with things that come up in their area, report up, either send a written report or a phone call. If it's an emergency, and they're not sure what to do, they'll call, any of our Staff will, anywhere. And so it was unusual that a call would be coming in about something like this. It indicated to us --

Q. It got to you because she died?

A. Obviously, people were pretty confused. They were also, you know, upset as a result of this parishioner dying. So I wasn't surprised that he would be calling under a circumstance like that. I probably would havebeen angry at him if he hadn't.

Q. And Brian's the one that made the call?

A. That's right.'

Q. All right. Did you take any action upon that information on December 5th?

A. I asked a bunch of questions. He didn't know the' answers to most of the questions, like what happened, how did she get sick, that sort of thing. I made sure that they were taking steps to find everybody who had been with her and get them isolated until they knew what sort of medical situation existed or not. And that information be gathered so that Bob Johnson could be briefed in the' morning. And I would brief, at that time, the person who's occupying the General Counsel position.

page 11

Q. Okay. And who was that person?

A. That was Bill Drescher, D-r-e-s-c-h-e-r.

Q. So in implementing those plans, who was your -- who was your contact person for implementation for that in Clearwater? Was that Brian Anderson?

A. That was Brian. He was on the phone. I did have a Legal Officer there, Judy Fontana, but she was preparing to go to Italy on another project, so I just dealt directly with Brian.

Q. All right. What was your next briefing on the Lisa McPherson matter?

A. Well, either later that night or the next morning a report came in, which was written by Annie Mora, which had a summary of it. And then by the end of the next day the immediate emergency had passed in terms of any infectious diseases, we found out that she didn't have.

Q. Now, the report you're referring to, let's go back on that, if you could, that was a -- how did you receive that, by fax or mail?

A. No, it was faxed.

Q. Faxed to you?

A. Uh-huh. To somebody in the office. I got a copy. I think it probably was faxed to'Roinan, but I got a copy right of f the fax machine.

Q. And that was -- what day did you receive that?

page 12

A. As I said, either late, very late on the 5th or the morning of the 6th, I don't remember which.

Q. All right. Is that the document you're referring to?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. To the best of your knowledge, if you know, you may not know the answer to this, where -- where did this document -- was this a copy -- you obviously got a fax copy, but where did this copy then go from Annie Mora's hand? I mean the original.

A. The original? I assume into her file.

Q. That would be whose file, Annie's file?

A. Yeah, Annie's. A file that she would put things into. I think it was the one Brian Anderson was keeping, that he started that night'. Because it's a printout from a laser printer, it's really hard to tell the difference between an original and a Xerox, so I don't know.

Q. Well, I don't have an original, but they might have an original. My question is, though, Brian Anderson created a file for Lisa Mcpherson?

A. That's right. Yeah, that night.

Q. A special file?

A. Uh-huh.

page 13

Q. A new file, brand new file?

A. Yeah.

Q. What would that file be called?

A. It was just a working file that Brian Anderson had.

Q. It wouldn't be called a PC file?

A. No, of course not.

Q. Wouldn't be called an ethics file?

A. No.

Q. So it was just --

A. It was a working file.

Q. All right. If you wanted to gain access to that file from L.A., you would call Brian Anderson and you would say, I want that file. And how would you characterize that file? How would you --

A. Any files you have on Lisa Mcpherson.

Q. It would be any files?

A. Yeah.

Q. There isn't a specific name for that Brian Anderson file that was created?

A. No~ No.

Q. Okay. What items would be created -- what items would go into that' file?

A. Well, it was whatever he would need or he felt he would need in order to -- to do whatever he was doing on the

page 14

cycle. Now, that's admittedly kind of vague and general, but it would be the file he would keep at his desk to do whatever he needed to do. Obviously, he was going to be responding to questions from the attorney, questions from the media. So were I in his shoes, I would have whatever summary existed about the matter, and then probably copies of press, if any resulted, correspondence with the lawyers --

Q. Okay.

A. -- that sort of thing.

Q. Before I forget, I was obviously -- I was sent this copy just recently, but I actually got it from a lawyer that represented Annie Mora first. Do you have any specific knowledge how -- I didn't subpoena this document, it was given to me gratuitously by counsel. Do you have any firsthand knowledge of how I came to get this? I mean, were you involved in that?

A. The answer to your' second question is yes, whether -- all of my knowledge isn't firsthand --

Q. Right.

A. -- but most of it is.

Q. Okay.

A. That was one of the documents that I f,ound in -- when I was gathering up documents for our subpoena. There was a concern whether or not it was privileged, because one

page 15

of the reasons that it was prepared was to brief counsel. gave what was the original that I found, which I think is a copy, I'm not sure if it's the actual original, as well as some' copies to the Church's lawyers. And they passed it on to Annie Mora's attorney, who passed it on to you.

Q. All right. I didn't follow you there on all of that. You said a subpoena. Was that'my subpoena you're talking about?

A. Yeah, your subpoena to the Church I gathered everything for.

Q. All right.

A. And then the ,lawyers reviewed it. And now we're getting into an area where -- we're getting into conversations I had with them on decisions we made which documents are privileged, so I don't know how far I can go along that.

MS. VAUGHAN: If it will make it easier, I can answer your question.

MR. McGARRY: Okay.

MS. VAUGHAN: It is our impression that would have been responsive to one of your subpoenas. When he first gathered the documents, the question was, is it work product, because it was prepared for briefing counsel on the issue inanticipatio,n of civil or -- at

page 16

that time probably civil litigation.

MR. McGARRY: It might have been under one of my broader subpoenas.

MS. VAUGHAN: Right. And when John sat down and talked to Sandy prior to his interview here, he said he talked to her and kind of resolved the issue with her, and that she would have created this document in the normal course of her duties, even though it was also created for lawyers. So since that was the case, since it would have been something she would have generated in the ordinary course of her job, in addition to being for lawyers, we decided that there wasn't a very strong work product privilege and we didn't have any problems waiving -- I mean, we didn't want to waivea privilege or work product privilege, but we didn't think it was pure work product or work product at all, so John gave it to you first. And then I just Bates stamped,it and gave it to you.

MR. McGARRY: Okay.


Q. After you' received this copy in L.A. by fax, is there anything else you did in the first week of December in reference to Lisa McPherson, of 1995?

page 17

A. Right. I had several conversations with Bob Johnson by phone.

Q. Okay.

A. And that was really it.

Q. When was the first time you actually came to -- to Clearwater in reference to Lisa McPher~on?

A. In reference to this case?

Q. Yes.

A. December, 1996.

Q. That was almost a year later?

A. Yeah.

Q. Some -- some general questions in reference to standard protocol, if there is such a thing as standard protocol for after a parishioner -- I guess she's a parishioner -- parishioner passes away. What happens -- what happens to her PC folders, ethics folders, all her folders? I know there are a number of different folders, but what happened to them?

A. They will be boxed up and archived and kept.

Q. In Clearwater?

A. Either in Clearwater or Los Angeles, one or the other. It -- it would depend. The files -- the pre-Clear folders are actually owned by Church of Scientology International, as are the

page 18

other folders, and it would be a matter of the local Church's ability to archive them and make sure that they're still there 20, 30 years hence. That would determine whether or not they go -- they stay in Clearwater or go to L.A. Otherwise, if there is any legal issues or whatever, you know, they might be called to L.A. just for -- for safekeeping as well.

Q. All right. So it's my understanding' then that the pre-Clear folders are kept indefinitely?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that -- does that hold true also for ethics folders, central file folders, account folders, personnel folders?

A. Generally, although more care is taken usually with the pre-Clear folder because it's our belief that the person's going to need that when they come back. So that has a record of their auditing, which they're going to require in order to progress later. I haven't found in my practice that the same sense of urgency necessarily applies to like a personnel folder or an ethics folder.

Q. What does happen with those other folders for a deceased parishioner?

A. They're usually kept by the Church where they were either a parishioner or a Staff member. Sometimes they'll

page 19

be called to L.A. Again, it depends.

Q. So we're on the same line of thought on what exactly goes into a PC folder or pre-Clear folder, that's basically somebody's auditing history, correct?

A. That's right. There may or may not be other miscellaneous reports --

Q. That's where I was going.

A. -- that are in there, but generally its purpose is specifically to keep a record of auditing a person has had.

Q. Okay. That's where some confusion has arisen and -- in our investigation, because it appears that many of our documents that we've subpoenaed involving caretakers' notes were placed in various pre-Clear folders. Is that your understanding?

A. Yeah, some documents'were there. The caretaker notes that I found, as well as the reports from Brenda Hubert and Craig Burton, were in the pre-Clear, along with the rest of the documents we previously mentioned.

Q. So were there any other tasks or work that you did on the Lisa Mcpherson situation going from any -- throughout 95 up until when you said your next contact was in Clearwater in December of 96?

A. Well, wasn't much left of 95 at the point. At that point there was just a few weeks.

Q. Right.

page 20

A. I received regular --

Q. I should say the bulk of 96.

A. Yeah, that year, that whole year.

Q. The bulk of 96.

A. I received regular updates, usually telephone calls, from either Judy Fontana, once she was back, or Bob Johnson concerning the interviews that occurred in those two blocks, first the few that were in December and then the ones done in the spring. Bob also sent me copies of letters he received and sent to Detective Sudler. And then around May, I think it was, the information we had was that things were winding up and the Detective on the case was just waiting for the autopsy report. So I told Annie, well, then just box up her files and stuff and send them to me so -- so we can keep ahold of them, since they weren't going' to be needed down in Clearwater anymore, so I thought.

Q. Okay. So that fills in a gap for me. You -- you were the one that requested Lisa McPherson's files be boxed up?

A. , That's right.

Q. And that request went to Annie Mora?

A. That's right.

Q. Okay. And again; I'll go through a lot of various folders here, is that including everything, her central file

page 21

folders, PC folders, ethics folders?

A. Well, everything in the OSA office at the time, which included pre-Clear folders, and I believe it did include the accounts folder, although that wasn't one of the ones I was necessarily interested in. That is supposed to stay with Flag. There was a central file there and personnel folder material. It didn't include any of the stuff we subsequently found from the Celebrity Center in Dallas, it was just the stuff they had at Flag.

Q. Right. So you say -- what month was that that got shipped out to L.A.?

A. I think it was May. Doesn't seem like it was any later or earlier. Seems like the --

Q. 96?

A. 96, yeah.' Seems like the end of May. I know it's been a point of controversy since then, but there was something that Sudler had said to Bob Johnson that indicated to us that the police were basically done and just waiting for the autopsy report. So I said, Okay, well, fine, send everything up here and we'll wait and see what happens.

Q. So you're suggesting that the move of the documents to L.A,~ was of a standard protocol situation?

A. It was of an archival type nature. Okay, we're

page 22

done, fine, send her folders out, that's that. As we both know, we weren't done.

Q. Well, I take it that the autopsy results or Dr. Wood's findings changed everything, and that's what got the investigation ref ired up?

A. I don't know. It seemed like when Sergeant Andrews came on the Base, that he and Bob achieved --

Q. Bob?

A. Bob Johnson. -- achieved a real lack of understanding with each other and that spurred things along. And then Joan Wood's autopsy findings just added fuel to the flames.

Q. Is that when you decided you better come to Clearwater?

A. It was when -- combination of that and the -- the press onslaught we were under in the middle of December. It was obvious to me that things just weren't being dealt with that -- you know, I like Bob, he's a competent lawyer in what he does, but this seemed to be over his head. It was time to get some serious lawyers on it'and actually make sure that this thing is dealt with properly.

Q. Okay. So sometime along in that period in December of 96 is when you came here and facilitated the new lawyers?

page 23

A. That's right. First thing I did was, I sent Ben Shaw and Glen Steilo down, and I followed five days later or so.

Q. And that was in December of 96?

A. Yes. Around the 20th.

Q. Okay. I sent this subpoena here February 4th of 97.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And pursuant to our agreement with the lawyers that represent the Church, I sent it to them. How does this work? I mean, how did this -- I mean, I assume the lawyers would contact you, or who was the person --

A. Well, in this instance they contacted me. Normally the way it works is the person in the local Church who's dealing with the case works with the lawyers, provides them what they need.

Q. Right. But this one was somewhat unusual in that I had come to Florida in December and really made myself part of the team that was working on it, so I was the one dealing both with General Counsel's Office in L.A. andwith the lawyers here.

Q. Okay.

A. And they ,gave that' subpoena to me to answer your question.

Q. Okay. So that must have been kind of complicated

page 24

because I'm asking for stuff that wasn't in Clearwater.

A. Yeah, you were asking for stuff, some of it was in Clearwater and some of it was in Los,Angeles. 1 think the bulk of it was in Los Angeles at the time.

Q. Right. So this subpoena -- the response that I got to this subpoena was most of -- I shouldn't say most, I'd say a percentage of the caretakers' notes. And if you'll have a look at these, from here down --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- these are what we're talking about that came from -- from the L.A. pre-Clear folder?

A. Yeah, that's what these are.

Q. So the first week in February you had received that subpoena. And then tell me how you would progress or investigate the --

A. I assume these are, all here. You don't need me to go through them and see is there a missing page, is this the stuff.

Q. That's everything I was given from you --

A. All right. Q.' -- or the lawyers.

A. Was this the same subpoena that the -- the other files were in response to, or was it several that came?

page 25

Q. That's the subpoena right there.

A. That was just this one. Okay, fine.

Q. There were a few others that were along the same lines though, and I have these here if you need to see them.

A. I assume you'll get to that. So your question is, what did I do in response to the subpoena?

Q. Yes.

A. I already knew the caretakers' notes were in the pre-Clear folder because I actually found those in December. We have to rewind a little bit in order to get to that.

Q. All right. Let's do that.

A. First thing I did is that -- after things were exploding down here was, I pulled out the boxes that had been in archives, just to see what I had.

Q. What city are we talking about?

A. L.A. I was in L.A. Cause I knew stuff had been sent to me in May. pulled that stuff out, pawed through it to see what I had, and opened up the current volume of the pre-Clear folder and saw several of these caretaker reports. So I copied those tobring with me down to Clearwater, made copies of a few other things in the personnel, folder; sent the accounts folder back to Clearwater, cause I didn't need it, and then

page 26

came down. Then when we got the subpoena, by the time we got that I was back in L.A. So I packaged up the originals. Searched the whole folder -- folders, actually -- from beginning to end to make sure there were no others. And made copies again, sent the originals to the lawyers and a copy to -- to Ben and Glen, and I kept a copy. I may have also sent a copy to the lawyers. I know I sent the originals and probably one other copy.

Q. You're talking about Sandy and Lee and Laura?

A. Sandy and Lee and Laura, right.

Q. Let me see if I can follow you. That sounded a little complicated.

A. Sorry. I'm not trying to be complicated.

Q. , You showed up in December --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- and brought with you what you thought you might need from her pre-Clear folders?

A. Yeah.

Q. And that would have been these caretaker notes?

A. Yeah. There was also, and I don't know if it's in that stack --

Q. Copies, I mean.

A. Copies,'yeah. -- copies of Brenda Hubert's report,

page 27

Craig Burton's report.

Q. I have those.

A. Okay.

Q. Why did you anticipate the need for those, because of the subpoena -- the subpoenaing of witnesses or the anticipated interrogation of witnesses?

A. Well, one of the things -- yeah, one of the things Sergeant Andrews was complaining about was not finding -- there were three witnesses he apparently wanted to find. And so I looked to see' if there was any communications from any of them in there. Saw that there were reports from people who were with her the last two weeks of her life, I anticipated I would need them, and so -- coming down here to brief the lawyers and work with them.

Q. You came with some copies of the -- how thorough was your search at that particular moment in December of 96 on you bringing virtually all of the caretakers notes? Do you knowif you did?

A. No. December, I just -- December, I just went through the first volume, saw they were there, kind of grouped together in the front. I didn't do a thorough search at that point.

Q. You're not sure if you got every single one of the caretakers' notes on that December search?

A. I wasn't then. I am now, yeah.

page 28

Q. We'll get to that. So you got here in December. Were the caretakers provided copies of these notes or did you just hold onto them in Clearwater?

A. I held onto them.

Q. All right. And you're saying at that time in December you made copies for counsel?

A. No. That was later, in response to the subpoena.

Q. That was later. Okay. So now you get a subpoena in February from me. That's handed to you. And is that -- are you here in Clearwater or are you in L.A. when you get that?

A. I'm in Los Angeles.

Q. You get that subpoena in Los Angeles?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. All right. So did you leave those copies in -- in Clearwater of those caretaker notes? Did you take them back to L.A.?

A. No, I left a copy. I gave the lawyers a copy of reports sometime I guess in late January, mid to late January.

Q. My question was, is that -- the copies that you carried with you to Clearwater--

A. Uh-huh.

Q. of the caretakers' notes --

page 29

A. Yeah.

Q. -- were those left in Clearwater or did you take those back home to L.A. with you?

MS. VAUGHAN: In December.

A. I took -- in December I,took them back home with me, but I made a copy in Clearwater and gave it to the lawyers. So they had a copy when I left Clearwater in the end of January.

Q. All right. So first week in February you're back in L.A.?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. You did get notice of this subpoena here. And your task at that time was complying with the subpoena?

A. That's right.

Q. And tell me how that -- how that went. What -- what did you do to comply with that subpoena?

A. Well, first thing is, I pulled out the boxes that I had gotten from Clearwater, went through those. Went through all the pre-Clear folders and pulled out the documents that were responsive. Now, my recollection is we responded to more than just, the caretaker reports.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. I thought we responded to the other subpoena.

Q. At the same time.

page 30

A. OSA file, account file, central file, student file.

Q. Right.

A. That we responded, cause I had all that stuff.

Q. All of it was February 4th, you're right.

A. Okay. Cause what I did is, I had some documents with me in Los Angeles and there were some documents in Clearwater. I could have either just sent my stuff to them and had them put it together or have them send their stuff to me and I put it together and send it to the lawyers. I figured, since I at that point had had the most direct involvement with dealing with the lawyers, since we hired them, I figured I would just do it. So I had -- I had the people in Clearwater send me what they had, which was the accounts folder, cause I had taken it down there, a central file, maybe one or two other things. So they sent all that stuff to me. I -- I boxed up the -- the documents, made a set, sent the original and a copy down to the lawyers, and kept.a copy in ,L.A.

Q. Okay. In that process that you're doing, are you analyzing the documents from a legal standpoint? My question is, are you analyzing those documents from a legal standpoint in L.A. to determine what you're going to send these lawyers here in Clearwater?

A. Only in the broadest sense. I left the finer

page 31

analysis to the lawyers out here. We had a central file, which is a particular type of folder in the Church. Correspondence to and from the person usually goes in there. She had been on Flag's lines for a little while, so I just figured there would be -- when we got to that one I took that whole file and just copied it for myself. Except for the detailed search of the pre-Clear folders, it was pretty much a matter of, all right, where is that file? Good, give me the whole thing. The whole thing goes over to the lawyers and let them parse through it to determine what's responsive to the subpoena or not. But the way the subpoena was written, it was written in broad categories of documents that would fit in a certain file anyway, so I just took everything and sent it on.

Q. Okay. So you weren't doing an assessment of documents to the extent that you were' making determinations of whether or not something was falling under a certain privilege, whether or not it was, you know, something -- an area that would be prohibited from the non-Scientologist's view. Were you making determinations in reference to that?

A. No, not really. I didn't really have to. The only one of those that I would make and -- rather than leaving to the lawyers would'be priest/penitent, like something from a pre-Clear folder that was forbidden

page 32

from anybody from seeing. And I didn't have to -- to the best of my knowledge, maybe they can help me here, I didn't have anything that -- I didn't understand the request or the subpOena to ask for any of that stuff, so I didn't have to engage in any of that process.

Q. Okay. When we're talking about boxes of pre-Clear folders, how much -- just give me an amount. How many -- how much of a stack of paper are we talking about for a pre-Clear folder?

A. Well, it depends on the person. I'll get to Lisa's --

Q. Because she's got a long history.

A. She's got a, long history with the Church. She,had a fair amount of folders. She had 33 folders. Each folder is a couple inches. The folders fit into'bankers boxes -- just, I mean -- six bankers type boxes.

Q. But things gointo those pre-Clear folders in a chronological order so you fill up --

A. One normally hopes so.

Q. Imean--

A. Yeah, they're supposed to. The, earliest folder is No. 1, and the latest folder in her case' is No. 33.

Q. So No. 33 would have contained, presumably, the last 17 days of her life?

A. Correct.

page 33

Q. Okay.

A. It would have, if she had any auditing. And in this instance these --

Q. That's what I'm saying.

A. -- caretaker reports were there.

Q. I'm not talking about auditing, I don't think she had any auditing. I'm talking about the caretaker reports.

A. Right. As well as -- just to answer your question, there's a lot of other miscellaneous paper that accumulates during a person's auditing. Different case programs that are written, summaries and things. And those usually travel with the current folder. So sometimes the current folder can be yea thick and maybe only have two or three sessions in it, because of the administrative paper.

Q. Various people's Knowledge Reports and --

A. No. It's more analyses that the Case Supervisor has done over the years for -- it's called a folder error summary, things like that.

Q. Right.

A. Knowledge Reports wouldn't'.-- well, A, normally wouldn't be'in the PC folders, it would be in the ethics folder.' But any other miscellaneous documents would stay in the chronological folder they were in. It's just, the administrative paperwork that goes along with supervising

page 34

the case would travel with it into the current folder, so they' could see earlier case programs a person was on, that sort of thing.

Q. So did you participate in any of the Glen Steilo --

A. Steilo.

Q. I always say it wrong. -- Steilo document search? Were you an active participant in that?

A. Yes. Yeah.

Q. The reason why I ask you that question, you know, a big issue as come up as a lot of caretakers indicated -- several caretakers indicated they did reports in the same fashion that these people did, and presumably the paperwork got routed the same way everybody else's did, but it seems to be missing.

A. Yeah,, no kidding. I've been looking for the damn things for months. Yeah, I participated in that.

Q. Okay. So if they didn't make it -- they didn't make it to L.A.', is that what you're telling me?

A. What I took out of the folder, in L.A. is what you have there, except for another folder that I later found, a little folder that had some caretaker reports.,

Q. Is that the one Annie Mora had in her drawer in' OSA?

page 35

A. Yeah, that made it to Bob Johnson, who gave it to Kurt Wyland, who put in the back of his file cabinet, who didn't even know he had it until we were frantically looking for reports in February. But otherwise, the ones that are there are the ones that were in the folder.

Q. All right. Let me -- another question I had about documents, is there anything that would have been altered or changed on any documents by you or, under your supervision,' by somebody in your department that -- for the reason being, for some reason they thought it would have been under a privilege or non-responsive to my subpoena?

A. What do you mean, altered?

Q. Well, I'll explain., The -- I have a document that was reviewed by the author of the document, that was Brenda Hubert's statement --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- and she indicates it's not in the same form that it was when she wrote it. She had directions of where this went to. And she says that is now missing from the top.. And my question is, who would have -- would have made that -- would have made the decision to remove that?

A. I don't know. I wasn't aware of that.

MS. VAUGHAN: We didn't redact anything on

page 36

the copy that I produced to you of the Brenda Hubert document. What we might be able to do is, maybe you can go back and look at your original copies that you made before you sent them to us and see if you have anything on top of Brenda Hubert's document.

THE WITNESS: Like what?

MS. VAUGHAN: She said she had to the Senior CS or something, that routing.

THE WITNESS: Routing on top, right.

MS. VAUGHAN: To make sure I didn't produce the ANC copy or something.

THE WITNESS: To see --

MS. VAUGHAN: We'll see if we can take a look at another one that Lynn has to make sure that we didn't redact anything. We may have gotten that document from more than one source.

MR. McGARRY: i.e.?

MR. FUGATE:' AMC or something.

MR. McGARRY: Benetta Slaughter.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: I just have a question: You don't have the original of that document? You came with a box of originals --

MS. VAUGHAN: Is there a signature on it?

MR. McGARRY: No, it's not signed.

page 37

MS. VAUGHAN: Then I don't know how you would tell which one is the original.

MR. McGARRY: It came to us as the first two reports, with Craig Burton, it came to us as the first two reports of the caretakers in response to the subpoena.

MS. VAUGHAN: All I'm saying, if it doesn't have a signature on it, I could look at it and I couldn't tell --

MR. McGARRY: She said she didn't sign it anyway.

MS. VAUGHAN: -- if it's an original or copy, because it's just a runoff of a laser printer. We can look at see maybe there is one Lynn, has in the PC folder that has --


DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: My question is, I'm confused, because,when Mr. Weinberg was here with Mr. Fugate, they brought in a big box' of all these original documents. Now, are you saying those originals aren't in there?

MS. VAUGHAN: I'm saying I can tell the caretaker reports that are originals because they're handwritten. I can look at that document and say these' are original documents.

page 38

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: Where are those documents?

MS. VAUGHAN: They're at our office, and we'll make them available.

MR. FUGATE: They're at Zuckerinan, Spaeder.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: My question would be, on the originals that you have of the caretaker reports, what does this report look like?. That's my question, is that, does it look like someone edited off the report?

MS. VAUGHAN: That's what we're going to see.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: You said you're going to have the original PC folder --

MR. FUGATE: He has copies of what he sent nie.

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I have copies of what I sent her. Everything I sent her she has. What she's saying, we may have gotten that one from more than one place, and probably did. So we'll look at the other copies, see if any of them have the routing on them.

MS. VAUGHAN: He knows definitely what would have come out of the PC folder because he ha,s a copy of it sitting in his office.

MR. McGARRY: Let's follow up on'that: If you've got documents from more than one place, give us

page 39

a for instance.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know if Brenda sent another -- a copy of that to somebody at AMC, which is a possibility.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: Why would the -- why would to who it goes to be taken off if it went to ANC?

MS. VAUGHAN: It wouldn't be. If it said to the Senior CS, it wouldn't be taken off.

THE WITNESS: Hypothetically it wouldn't be added if she typed it up and the copy she typed to the Church, she wrote some routing on it.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: No, it's a typed routing.

THE WITNESS: She said it was typed?

MR. McGARRY: I'm not sure.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: I asked her. It was a typed routing.

MR. McGARRY: Typed?

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: Typed routing. MR.' McGARRY: I thought it was a handwritten routing.


MS. VAUGHAN: Then that doesn't make any sense.

page 40

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

MS. VAUGHAN: There'd be no reason to take it off either. So we'll look and see, but

MR. McGARRY: All right.

MR. FUGATE: Once again, for the record, all of the originals of everything there is anoriginal of -- and i.e., what Laura Vaughan is saying, for the record, you can tell the individual handwritten stuff because it's in blue ink, black ink, you can tell it's -- it's, you know, ink or pencil or whatever it happens to be. With the typed stuff, unless there's something that makes it appear as if it was done with a typewriter, it's hard to tell whether it's a copy or the original. But it's all there, and you guys are welcome to look at it whenever you want to in Zuckerxnan, Spaeder's office.

MR. McGARRY: All right.


Q. So the answer to the question is, you -- you have no knowledge of anything being changed or altered?

A. No. No, I don't.

Q. Okay.

A. I'm curious, I'll have to look and see.

Q. Couple other areas of documents that we need to

page 41

explore a little bit. Did you have a conversation with Brian Anderson about this document that he ultimately got from Marcus Quirino?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ultimately discover that he destroyed originals and kept a summary?

A. A summary, yes, I did.

Q. Okay. So you wereaware of that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you -- did an issue come up in reference to a subpoena that we had for three documents that were allegedly created down in the Security Office by Janice Johnson and Paul Greenwood and Laura Arrunada?

A. Security'Off ice? Oh, I remember a subpoena for the debriefs that Paul Greenwood said he saw them typing up.

Q. Right, that all three of' them --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- did together.

A. Yeah.

Q. ,Was there -- did you make any efforts to locate those documents?

A. Yeah, I did.

Q. What efforts were those?

A. Well, I asked each of the three about that. The

page 42

only debriefs that I was able to locate were debriefs of police interviews, the first police interviews for Janice and for Alain and for Laura, actually all three, but that doesn't seem to be what Paul Greenwood said he recalled them doing. I wasn't able to locate any copies of any of the debriefs.

Q. All right.

A. If you're interested, they said they sent it to OSA. And near as I can tell, I'm not sure if they were among the things that -- that Brian threw away that night. They seem to be, but he wasn't certain of everything that he had. He just remembered keeping the summary and discarding any of what he considered to be notes that led to the summary.

Q. Did Kathy O'GorTnan work with you on this project in L.A.?

A. Not directly, but she was the person who received the folders to put them. in'the files. I mean, she's -- she runs our files area, so it was -- the boxes were addressed to her, and she just sent them into the archives. When I got to them, they appeared to have the original tape on the boxes, they didn't appear to have been opened.

Q. What was her -- her mission, to put certain documents in other folders?

page 43

A. No. No. She -- she got these bankers boxes and so she had to put them somewhere, that were sent to her for our archiving purposes, so she just put them in the back files area.

Q. So that was back in May?

A. Yeah, that was in May.

Q. And Becky Ellenberg, she was doing that same thing?

A. No.

Q. did she assist you in that same thing?

A. Becky Ellenberg?

Q. Who is Becky Ellenberg?

A. I don't know.

Q. So in the end of January you returned to L.A. and dealt with these subpoenas?

A. Yeah.

Q. Sent all these items to Clearwater --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. ,-- to the Church counsel? And I take it then -- when' was'the next time you came back to clearwater?

A. Middle of February for Joan Wood's deposition in the public records case.

Q. Did you participate in that?

A. Yes.

page 44

Q. Did you do any other document gathering pursuant to any other subpoenas that happened subsequent to February 5th?

A. Yeah, there were other subpoenas. There were --I believe there were other subpoenas. I know we produced the ANC records and the stuff we, had gotten from Dallas. There was one subpoena that was kind of an omnibus, general one that was issued after several conversations that you had with Laura and Lee about other documents that we had.

Q. Right. Right. That was at -- I think she helped me designate one --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- for items that I didn't articulate well enough the first go-round.

A. Yeah, there was -- there was that go-round. I think -- I think that was all the subpoenas we did.

Q. Why did you participate in the' AMC documents?

A. They were among the things that I said. They were -- I think we were all out in L.A.. at that point.

Q. "All" is who?

A. Well, me and the lawyers. At least Lee and Sandy. And so -- let me just think of --~ recall this. Yeah, that was the meeting we went through the documents, so I had the documents'.there for the -- for Lee and Sandy to look through. Cause it coincided with the

page 45

time we were -- we had schÈdUlÈd a meeting, so we went through them together.

Q. This was the second round or this is the first round, February?

A. No, this is the second round.

Q. Second round.

A. This is the second round, because it was specifically the ANC documents that I gave to counsel at that meeting in L.A.

Q. And what month was that?

A. Seems to be late February. I think it was late February.

Q. How did -- how did ANC -- I'm confused -- AMC documents end up in L.A.?

A. They came when Glen sent me everything that would be in response to the first subpoena, and he had gotten some stuff from ANC. Which surprised me, because we had the originals there. I don't need these, what am I doing with these originals? But they came when the first round of documents were sent to me from Glen in response to the first subpoena. And then it was like a couple weeks later --

Q. What documents are we talking about?

A. The personnel folder that she -~ that AMC had, that Glen had gotten from Benetta to look through. And so I

page 46

gave that over to the lawyers and we gave them back.

MS. VAUGHAN: Actually, Mark, I can answer that partially too.

MR. McGARRY: All right.

MS. VAUGHAN: I think we had gotten a number of folders. There were some documents that Lisa had that ANC -- that AMC had provided to us to review for background information. When the subpoenas came, technically they aren't our documents, they're not the Church's documents, but my take on it was, if I have them in my custody or control, I would provide anything out of those that would be responsive, because I had them. They could have just taken them, I suppose, and given them all back to Benetta. But, you know, they had them and we're looking at them, so I just produced anything out of those as well. She had some -- there were a number,of files, AMC files that I actually still have at my office.


MR. McGARRY: Sure.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: Let me get this straight. We issued or the State issued a subpoena to ANC Publishing directly, to Benetta Slaughter, for

page 47

Lisa's personnel folders, and the lawyers that represent the Church of Scientology gleaned and picked through that filed and then supplied us the personnel records from Lisa McPherson?

MR. McGARRY: I'm getting to that, but I'm beginning to think that's what happened.


DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: That's what I understand.

THE WITNESS: No, that's not what happened.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: As I understand, at that time you just said the original file was in Los Angeles and the lawyers there went through it.

MR. FUGATE: We're not going to argue about it.

THE WITNESS: I'm not going to argue with you. BY MR..McGARRY:

Q. , Let's get to that, because that AMC stuff is -- Steilo sent ANC's folders to L.A.?

A. There were ANC folders in the stuff that Steilo sent to me. Along with the other things there were things he had gotten from Benetta, prior to any subpoena coming up, that he was reviewing. I had them. I gave them to the lawyers. And as far as I know, we produced them in response

page 48

to subpoenas to us. AMC was free to produce whatever they wanted to in response to their subpoena. We didn't talk to anybody there about what they would or wouldn't produce.

Q. Might have been the same thing, is that what you're saying?

A. I would think so, since we're working from the same file.

Q. So Kathy O'Gorman's title would have been?

A. Data Chief.

Q. Data Chief?

A. Yes.

Q. OSA International?

A. That's correct.

Q. Back to AMC a little bit. What exactly did you get from AMC, from Steilo?

A. It was a folder or folders, may have been more than one, about that much stuff, (indicating), which consisted of miscellaneous reports concerning ethics handling that Lisa was doing with Katie Chamberlain. Benetta also had some photographs of Lisa which came at the same time. And that's what'I recall. Those are the things that stood out. There was a bunch of miscellaneous papers that didn't -- didn't really mean anything to me. They appeared to be like note's that Lisa had taken on some sales calls or,something, I'm not sure about those.

page 49

Q. Do you remember whether or not Brenda Hubert's statement was contained in those documents?

A. It may have been, I'm not sure.

Q. Craig Burton?

A. I'm not sure if his was there as well as in the pre-Clear folder. I definitely remember it in the pre-Clear folder, I'm not sure if it was in the -- in the other folder.

Q. Explain to me how that ethics handling business works. This was something that was not done in the usual auditing fashion, that's something that was done in the Hubbard tech for -- for business practices?

A. Well, anyone's free to apply any of the technology. Like, for example, ethics technology is to assist someone to survive better. And you don't have to apply it within the confines of the Church relationship. mean, it's free to use wherever. Normally, if someone is undergoing an ethics handling, it's -- it's with a Church Ethics Officer, it's a more formal, structured thing. But there's a lot' of businesses that use L. Ron Hubbard's materials to manage their businesses and they would also include any use of ethics materials. So it appeared to be handling like that, more related to her production at AMC than anything else.

Q. , Are you aware of how Glen gained knowledge of

page 50

those materials, how did he come to go through them?

A. He asked Benetta, whatever she had, if we could look through whatever she had on Lisa.

Q. Now, Steve Harlan was the guy in charge of the PC folders here in Clearwater?

A. That's right.

Q. He's kind of like a clerk?

A. Yeah, exactly like a clerk.

Q. So currently right now, all of Lisa's PC folders are located in L.A.?

A. Correct.

Q. So if you called L.A. saying you need a document or you want something looked for, who is the person you call?

A. You mean if I'm out here and Ihave to call L.A.? Well, would depend on what it concerned.

Q. Lisa Mcpherson.

A. If it concerned this case, I would call my Deputy.

Q. And that is? ,

A. His name is Ken Long. Although I may ask Elliott Abelson, General Counsel, depending if it's something that he had. So one of them I would be asking.

Q. So at the end of February you had a meeting in L.A. with all the local counsel out,there?

page 51

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Did you do anything else in reference to Lisa Mcpherson's investigation?

A. Sure.

Q. What did you do?

A. I've been back and forth here several times. First thing I did, and that's when I found the file that seemed to travel all over, from Brian to Annie then to Kurt then to me, I came out here in early March.

Q. What did that file contain again?

A. It contained a few caretaker reports, a chronology that we -- that had been started right after she died that was an early version of that, "cause Glen and I expanded it in December. It contains copies of the debriefs of some of the early police interviews. And that's about it.

Q. All right. Okay. I didn't mean to interrupt and --

A. Sorry.

Q. -- derail you there.

A. And I've been back and fourth here several times since February, meeting with lawyers, performing different tasks that came as a result of those meetings.

Q. So back to the missing documents subject.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Did you follow through with any theories or leads

page 52

that you might -- might have had in order to help locate the missing documents?

A. Yes.

Q. What were those?

A. Well, I tried to backtrack several of them through the system back to see if they arrived at Alain's office. Then to determine if they made it from Alain's office over ,to OSA the night of December 5th, cause I learned that Annie Mora and Lacy Spencer went over to Alain's office that night and gathered up what could be found. Most of the things were in a separate folder on top of the pre-Clear folder, cause Lacy wasn't able to look at the pre-Clear folder. And although -- Annie told me they found some stuff kind of scattered around on Alain's desk as well. I tried to determine if any of the people involved remembered specific reports for sure, because by then we were getting witnesses who were saying, you know,, I wrote one report, I wrote three reports, I wrote'-- you know, I hand carried this one to Alain, that sort of thing. And so I tried to piece it together. .

Q. Most of that information came through their lawyers after I took their statement?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay.

A. That's right.

page 53

You know, each one, I'd get either a phone call or come up around the conference table, hey, Lynn, more documents. Okay, where? So I tried as best I could to backtrack it through there'. And I found so many points of, I'll be frank with you, sloppy recordkeeping that I kind of despaired I'd ever find them. Lacy got rid of several at the beginning before she knew they were supposed to be kept. Alain isn't sure if he kept everything, and his office looked like a pig sty, as far as I was concerned. Annie and Lacy didn't get everything when they -- got everything they could find that was there that night. Brian didn't keep everything, we know he shredded some. You know, the only thing I know, from the moment 1 laid hands on those boxes of folders in December, when.I went to pull everything out -- actually from May, because I was pretty, satisfied nobody touched them -- all the pieces of paper that I had my hands on went to the lawyers,and then the responsive stuff went to you. But before that there was just so much sloppy recordkeeping that I knew I wasn't going to find everything. Oh, and there was one -- later on Alice Vangrondelle testified she had written a Knowledge Report complaining she had been woken up'at two o'clock in the morning, to deal with this, and that report

page 54

hadn't come up in any of my searches. I sent Glen over to the ethics files area a couple of times to find it. I told him he wasn't allowed to come back to until he found it, cause I was sick of documents being missing. And he found that misfiled in another part of the ethics folder. Then after that he did the entire formal document search, I guess it was interspersed, where Glen had the people in charge of different areas formally search their documents, in writing to counsel, so we had an actual formalized document search. Before that it was me routing around trying to find what I could find out.

MR. McGARRY: These guys might want to ask a few questions I neglected to ask. If you want to take a break, we can. If you want to plunge ahead, we can do that.

THE WITNESS: I'm fine. Either one.


THE WITNESS: All right. Go ahead.


Q. Now, earlier you said that Lisa -- it was your understanding Lisa was at the Fort Harrison and she was staying there for destimulation?,

A. Correct.

Q. Can you explain' that, define it or what the tech

page 55

is on it?

A. Well, she was there to get rest and to -- well, "destimulate" is the word I used. She was -- she had a mental episode on the 18th of November, as everybody here knows, and she needed quiet, she needed to get to sleep, and she needed rest so that she could be audited. That was her purpose for staying at the hotel.

Q. Was that a common practice?

A. It's the standard practice when someone is in a condition like that. It's uncommon for someone to be in a condition like that.

Q. Earlier you used the comment that "I had Judy over there. It

A. Yeah.

Q. And you were making the comment that you were in Los Angeles and Judy was here. Does Judy work for you?

A. Well, sort of. Let me explain that. Each Church has an Office of Special Affairs or, Department of Special Affairs in it. The people who work there work for that local corporation. But my responsibilities extend internationally throughout the function of handling legal affairs in each Church, so I would have an opposite number in the local Church. She was my opposite number in the Church in Florida.

page 56

Q. All right. So chain of command, she could answer directly with you, bypass Brian Anderson and never violate the chain of command?

A. I would have the authority to issue instructions to her directly. I would then, in the normal course, at least carbon Brian, if not go through him, yes.

Q. The response backwards, the return, she would normally -- she could call you directly on the telephone in Los Angeles without talking to Brian?

A. Certainly. It would be courteous to at least let Brian know, but she certainly had the ability to do that and the authority to do that.

Q. Was it usual for the caretaker notes, along with the Brenda Hubert and Craig Burton report, to be in the PC folders?

A. Craig's and Brenda's, not particularly. It would be information that a Case Supervisor would want to have if one of his pre-Clears had an episode like that. The caretaker'reports, that's where I would expect them t,o be.' Since the Case Supervisor is monitoring her progress and destimulating her, I would expect them to have whatever reports caretakers wrote. It wouldn't be in the normal course to have a lot of those, necessarily, but what ones existed he should have in the pre-Clear folder, yes.

Q. Ben Shaw and Glen Steilo, do they work for you?

page 57

A. Well, not anymore. They work -- Glen is now my opposite number. He took over from Judy Fontana. And Ben Shaw is the Commanding Officer of OSA Flag. So as far as this case is concerned they answer to me, but they don't answer to me directly. He runs the office there.

Q. Okay. As far as their -- let's go back as far as their involvement in the Lisa case. When they were working on this thing along with you

A. Yeah.

Q. -- were you the top of the heap as far as those three people?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. How come in our response -- how come in our request in the subpoena for a person -- personal folder for Lisa from the Church, we received a response from counsel that said she didn't have one cause she was Public? Now I heard you mention several times that she did have a personnel folder.

A. She had a personnel folder from the Celebrity Center in Dallas where she was on Staff. She didn't have one for Flag, because she wasn't Staff there. There was a personnel folder. By the time we collected the document, we'd gotten things from Dallas.

Q. That would be a normal response to a subpoena, no, she didn't have one because she's Public?

page 58

A. Yeah. Yeah, Public didn't have personnel folders. It's like an employment folder for Staff.

MS. VAUGHAN: And there was a time limitation on the subpoena, which was a time when she did not --

MR. McGARRY: First subpoena didn't go back to Dallas and the next subpoena did.

MR. FUGATE: For record purposes, we explained your subpoena encompasses a time when she's not Staff. BY DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS:

Q. The 33 PC folders in Los Angeles --

A. Yes.

Q. -- did you go through every one of them?

A. Yep.

Q. Page by page?

A. Yes.

Q. The last three days of her death, the caretaker reports for the last three days prior to her death you could not find?

A. It's two days, the 4th and 5th, only included in the summary and no caretakers' reports.

Q. The 3rd, 4th, 5th and other dates.

A. There's a lot of dates you're missing -- there's one from the 3rd, Rita's, hers went into the 3rd.

Q. We don't have Rita's, we do?

page 59

A. Whatever you have is there. The last couple of days are missing, as well as Swiss cheese throughout the time period.

Q. I was a little confused on your testimony here. In response to the subpoenas again, is it your testimony that you would gather up folders that you thought the information may be contained in, then supply them to the attorneys, and then the attorneys go through these folders and supply us with the documents we're asking for in the subpoena?

A. I'm not sure I understand your question. That was said in response to a question from him, whether I made the decision to produce or withhold any specific documents. I did not. I went through every piece of paper that I pulled. And the subpoenas were phrased in terms of describing a certain type of folder. So if it was in the folder, I gave it to counsel. But I did go through it and look at it to make sure it was there.

Q. Okay. So then -- and then counsel would not supply the whole folder, they would go through the folder?

A. Well, counsel went through the folder. I believe we supplied everything except for a couple of things that were privileged that -- one is Annie's report that later became available.

MR. FUGATE: Well, let's -- I think where

page 60

you're going, let's make sure there's no misunderstanding, did counsel ever go through the PC folders?


MR. FUGATE: If that's what you're asking.

A. You're talking about the PC folders or other folders, information?

Q. Any folders. I'm confused.

A. Okay.

Q. I'm not sure. You were supposed to come, according to the information that Mr. McGarry gave me, to tell us about who pulled the information in these caretakers' reports from these folders. Yet I understand from this testimony that the attorneys went through some type of folders and supplied information, not all of it.



MS. VAUGHAN: What happened is, he went through the PC folders to find the caretaker reports. The other folders, as you would in any ordinary course, he pulls the documents, then an attorney would sit down with the subpoena and the folders and make sure that what was requested is what's provided.

page 61

In most cases the subpoenas were so broad -- they were broad enough they'd asked for the ethics folders, so I wasn't going through the ethics folder to determine if Document A, B, C was responsive, because the entire folder was called for. I would look through it, Bates stamp it, index it, whatever you needed to do. If the subpoena called for all reports written on Tuesday, he might -- a client may very well provide with you every report, the lawyer might go through and determine what's responsive and provide it. But there was no -- but most of these subpoenas are so broad in that they called for everything, but they were reviewed.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: If the State issues a subpoena for an ethics folder, would it not be a responsibility to turn that over and not decide what's important to give them? Or am I confused on the issue?

MS. VAUGHAN: That's what I'm saying. If the subpoena called for the ethics folder, the lawyers provided that. Lawyers didn't cull through the ethics folder and pull anything, determine whether something was responsive or useful, we just made the sure the documents matched up with the subpoenas.

page 62

THE WITNESS: That's what I was trying to communicate as well.


Q. Okay. Were you involved in any of the -- I don't want to say demotions, but the change in posts for all the people involved with Lisa? A.' I don't know that all the people involved changed positions. I was involved in -- in some, yeah.

Q. Okay. Can we talk about those?

A. Sure.

Q. Janice Johnson?

A. Janice changed positions to be a Staff Word Clear, not out of being demoted, but out of a restructuring in the Medical Liaison Office. I was involved in that decision to restructure it. We wanted to make sure that we didn't have any physicians in the office so that the office didn't become a medical office,' but was a liaison office to local area doctors and everything. And I was -- I participated in that decision.

Q. Now, how does that happen? How did Janice Janice went there on a request for transfer to be Word Clear, not sent out of the MLO, or would that have been anyway --

A. No, she was sent out of the NLO Office because she was a trained, not licensed physician. We didn't want

page 63

anybody like that -- at that time Laura had already gone to Mexico, so there was nobody --

MR. FUGATE: You mean by "Laura"?

THE WITNESS: Laura Arrunada had already gone to Mexico. If she was at Flag at that time, she would have been transferred as well.

Q. How about Alain Kartuzinski?

A. Alain was temporarily holding the Senior Case Supervisor position while Richard Reese was in L.A. training. Richard Reese came back, Alain resumed his others duties. He was removed late spring the following year. He had a Committee of Evidence on a matter unrelated to this, he was removed for something else.

Q. I'm confused. I read a Source magazine article, it was pretty extensive and bragging almost on Alain Kartuzinski being the Senior Case Supervisor at Flag Land Base.

A. Right.

Q. Never once in the article did it mention he was holding a temporary post for Mr. Reese.

A. At the time before Mr. Reese he was the Deputy Senior CS. They had several Case Supervisors, each of whom was a Senior Case Supervisor. When Reese left, Alain became the top man. When Reese came back, Alain went back :to the Deputy position for a while. He isn't on the

page 64

position anymore.

Q. Did you order any, I don't know if you can, did you order any Sec Checks or auditing of the individuals involved with Lisa?

A. I didn't order any Sec Checks. I -- when I came out here in December, one of the things I found out was that in most cases the people who had been staying with her hadn't gotten any auditing concerning it. And it's a pretty traumatic experience to go through somebody dying. And there were some that were still upset over it. I made available a couple of auditors. If they wished, people could have a couple of sessions to relieve upset over it.

Q. Do you have an option --

A. Surely.

Q. If an Auditor calls you up and says come in for a--

A. Of course not.

Q. -- Sec Check, you don't really --

A. As part of an ethics investigation, you don't really have an option; You could refuse, but it's understood you would cooperate with an investigation like that. ,

Q. The reason I ask, I asked the witnesses have they dealt with anyone other than lawyers in this case, most of them have answered no. Yet down the line, asked if you had'

page 65

auditing or Sec Checking, every one of had a session and Sec Check or audit.

A. I don't think Sec Check, no, in relation to her. What I arranged for was to have available -- half of -- I don't know, half of them maybe took us up on that -- have an Auditor available to give them some auditing to'relieve, you know, any emotional trauma.

Q. My question would be, any of that information derived from any of these sessions, who has access and how is that used?

A. No one has access. That's between them and their Case Supervisor and their Auditor. This wasn't done as part of any sort of investigation or to collect information or anything, it was entirely a personal matter between them and their Auditor. Just, you know, so they could talk about the incident without bursting into tears, for example, you know. I was a little annoyed -- well, not a little annoyed, I was upset that no one had cared for these people and gotten them that service in the intervening year before I came down here. Didn't really have anything to do with my job there as the Legal Affairs Director, it was just something that needed to be done, just to take care of the Staff members.

Q. You only, I guess the answeris, you only

page 66

suggested auditing for the benefit' of individuals emotionally?

A. Absolutely. Yes, that's right. Q.' Can you tell us what documents that you supplied to us from the ANC Publishing folder? We didn't issue a subpoena to you for ANC, but you said you gave us documents from the ANC Publishing folder in response to our subpoenas. Do you know what those documents are?

A. The documents that we had from AMC that were sitting in the OSA file, which responded to the category of the subpoena called OSA folder or OSA file, they were -- whatever was there, I don't remember exactly. Would have been copies of some miscellaneous things. I just don't remember.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: Can you remember, Mr. McGarry?

MS. VAUGHAN: I don't know.


MS. VAUGHAN: ,I don't know. And I don't think sitting here today he could know, cause I don't recall.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: Yeah, I don't think so either.

MS. VAUGHAN: I think we probably went

page 67

through them, some of the information we had we had gathered as part of our looking into Lisa's history, and if there were some that came out of there -- but I would have to look at the subpoenas and look at the records to make that determination.

THE WITNESS: I'd have to look at the documents to know as well.

MS. VAUGHAN: We've also been doing civil productions. It may very well be in some request for anything Lisa McPherson ever wrote, that is an actual request we responded to in the civil case, that we'd had some letters or, you know, client information that we produced. But I couldn't sitting here today tell you that. BY DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS:

Q. Let me ask you this: I know we delivered a subpoena directly to Benetta Slaughter for Lisa's personnel record from' work.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. I'm understanding that the records that we got for that did n,ot come from Benetta Slaughter. I mean, even though we actually got it from Benetta Slaughter again. So I'd like to go through that. I'm a'little,confused. And it may be me, but I'm confused that the records and the personnel records from AMC Publishing were in Los Angeles --

page 68

A. Yeah.

Q. -- with you and the lawyers --

A. That's right.

Q. -- Sandy Weinberg and Lee Fugate.

A. Well, I happened to have them. I don't know why Glen sent them, because normally that stuff wouldn't come to me. But when Glen sent me everything he had, so that I could put the subpoena together, they happened to be there. That was within days of us having an attorney conference. So I had them there and I give them to them. What happened to them after that, I assume they went back to Benetta and she, you know, responded to the subpoena via her counsel or not, I don't know. I know that we had them.

Q. The reason I ask that, can you tell me how thick the folder was from ANC?

MS. VAUGHAN: Are you ask'ing specifically about a personnel file?

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: Yeah, the information from ANC that we subpoenaed.

MS. VAUGHAN: Do you know if there was a personnel file in that?

THE WITNESS: I know that we had a collection of documents from ANC. I don't know what would have been considered personnel file, miscellaneous contents of desks, stuff Benetta just had, says here, you want

page 69

to look through it, I don't know.

MS. VAUGHAN: I think what you subpoenaed from Benetta was a personnel file. You're talking specifically about a personnel file?


MS. VAUGHAN: I just want to make sure there's no misunderstanding you're talking about a broader category of documents.

MR. FUGATE: Let's put this on the record, if it helps, I don't know if it does. If it confuses you, I apologize. There were documents that were provided, this is my recollection from looking at them back here, that related to issues that were being raised or we anticipated being raised in the civil case, which is the accident information, the insurance information, the death benefits, some insurance stuff, as well as, I think, out of the PC folder came the Hubert memo. I think that was in there. There's -- there's a larger file than that, I think, that was given back to AMC..And whatever you got out of there, you got out of there. But the information that had been sent out, my recollection, is information that related to this civil case and her immediate time before her death.

page 70

And it's confusing to us, because we're doing both. In other words, we're trying to give you what you want and trying to give Ken Dandar what he wants. And that's how we happen to have that stuff over there.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: I'm confused too. I'm still confused as far as how ANC documents that we request end up coming from, the Church. I'm confused.

MS. VAUGHAN: I don't know.

THE WITNESS: That misstates -- we've been around this three times. That isn't what anybody said. You requested AMC documents. We also had ANC documents. Whatever you got in response to -- from your subpoena came from AMC, they didn't come from the Church. We're just both dealing with the same universe of documents, that's all. BY DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS:

Q. The ethics handling of Katie Chamberlain, were they in the documents from ANC?

A. Yeah, I believe they were. That's right.

Q. All right. Where are those now, do we know?

A. Laura has them.



Q. Is it a serious tech violation for items missing

page 71

and errors in PC folders?

A. Yes.

Q. Has there been any Knowledge Reports or any ethics handling, I don't know what I'm looking for in your terms, in relations to the "very sloppy file handling"?

A. That was part of why Brian was removed from post.

Q. Brian Anderson?

A. Anderson, uh-huh. And, to a certain degree, Judy Fontana.

Q. How about Humberto?

A. No. Humberto was temporarily holding after Brian was off, and he's on his normal post now.

Q. Okay. I'm confused. Why did you request a debrief of the.parishioners after they talked to the police?

A. Cause it's my job to help the lawyers prepare the case. We have a civil case ongoing, I assume to be the same witnesses. Plus, I mean, I work for General Counsel's office as a paralegal in addition to my other administrative duties, and so I felt I needed to stay up on the case to know where to assist counsel the best I could.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: That's all I have. Thank you.

SPECIAL AGENT STROPE: I just have a couple.


page 72

Q. Are you going to make the Katie Chamberlain ethics handling files available to us as a result of ANC Publicating subpoena?

MS. VAUGHAN: Did you subpoena the Katie Chamberlain ethics handling from ANC?

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: We did. We subpoenaed her personnel file. That's where it was included in, but it's not any longer.

MS. VAUGHAN: No, I would -- this is -- this is the problem. If you subpoena a personnel file from ANC, and I didn't participate in the production of the personnel file, but I understand through Ron Cacciatore, who may -- may or may not have asked me if I had something, there was some conversation about that.

MR. McGARRY: The personnel folder has little, or nothing in it, right. Yeah, I mean, a girl that worked there from 1980 something, we got maybe ten documents.

MS. VAUGHAN: It just depends on how business keeps their records. I don't know that you would necessarily find thisin the personnel folder. If you subpoena the ethics handling or the Katie Chamberlain ethics handling, then I'm sure we'll be glad to provide it.

page 73


MS. VAUGHAN: There's no problem to provide it.

THE WITNESS: Also probably subpoena ANC too for that.,

MS. VAUGHAN: You could subpoena ANC for it and we'll make sure --

SPECIAL AGENT STROPE: Well, who has the originals?

THE WITNESS: I think ANC. I think I gave you copies.

MS. VAUGHAN: I'm not sure.

THE WITNESS: Whatever she has, she has. think she has copies.

MR. FUGATE:, Let's make it easy. We'll find out, you let Mr. McGarry know. You can direct it to us.

MS. VAUGHAN: You can direct it to ANC and we'll make sure you get it. BY,


Q. Who has the originals of all the documents?

A. I have the PC folders and the lawyer has everything else.

MS. VAUGHAN: I have everything else.

MR. FUGATE: The originals are still over in

page 74

Zuckerman, Spaeder in'Tampa.

MS. VAUGHAN: We told Mark we will make them available, if you want to look at them.

MR. FUGATE: We actually had them the day Steilo was here.


MR. FUGATE: Yeah, we actually had all the files. BY SPECIAL AGENT STROPE:

Q. Who is your supervisor?

A. Kurt Wyland.

Q. Who was your supervisor during November of 95?

A. Same.

Q. Same?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. He's been your supervisor since --

A. Yeah. ,

Q. Any time you went through the documents with the attorneys, was he available or was he present? You testified you had a meeting with Mr. Fugate, Mr. Weinberg in Los Angeles when you went through the files.' Was he there?

A. Part of it, I think. I don't know if he' was there when we were going through documents. He got called in and

page 75


Q. Who has ultimate say what goes to the attorneys?

A. Ido.

Q. You can look through the files without consulting with your superiors --

A. Yes, I can.

Q. -- in all cases?

A. Uh-huh. I would consult with General Counsel if I had a question.

Q. So your training is such what you can decide what you consider privileged an'd what's not?

A. Our criteria is broad enough I can make that determination. I leave the determination of privilege to the lawyers involved. If the request concerns apples and pears, I'm experienced enough not to pull out reports concerning, oranges in response to it.

Q. Did you -- when you found these caretaker notes, did you look through those caretaker notes?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see any reports written by Heather Petzoid?

A. No, I don't believe I did.

Q. Did you ever see any reports dated the 4th or 5th of December?

A. Just the summary in Annie's -- Annie's report.

page 76

Q. No caretaker notes?

A. No.

Q. Those caretakers' notes that made it to you, they were the originals?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it policy to ever destroy personnel files or any kind of files of a deceased parishioner?

A. Policy exists to maintain the pre-Clear folder. It's really not specific as to the others. Although it's our practice that we wouldn't normally do that unless a person, for example, asked us to or whatever. But you confined it to deceased people. No, we usually would not.

Q. Was anybody in Los Angeles aware of Lisa's problem prior to her death during the stay at Fort Harrison?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Were you aware that Lisa was having a problem?

A. No. First I heard of it was the 5th of December. I don't think anyone else out there was aware of it before that. At least no one I've talked to was.

Q. Explain to me your chain of command up from you.

A. , Well, there's me, and then there's the Deputy Commanding Officer, and then there's the Commanding Officer of the Office of Special Affairs.

Q. And that's in that' division?

page 77

A. Yes.

Q. Who would be the Commanding Officer's direct supervisor?

A. He has -- he has no direct supervisor. He's responsible for running the network. Indirectly he would report to the Board of Directors of the Church.

Q. We found it unusual that when a parishioner, i.e., Lisa, became involved in a relatively minor car accident, she got the attention she did at Morton Plant. Is that standard procedure when a parishioner gets into an accident?

A. When somebody gets into an accident right on our doorstep, people are going down there. I found the number of people that showed up down there unusual, yeah. To me that's unusual.

Q. Office of Special Affairs people, whatever Humberto was, people from the MLO Office and all these other people, that was unusual?

A. , Yes.

Q. Do you know why that happened?

A. The proximity, since it was two minutes away And, I don't know, I have my opinions having backtracked it and talking to people, it seemed there was a certain degree of concern and panic because her -- her reaction to the car accident was extreme, to say the least, and there was a lot of concern that she'd get locked up in a psych hospital, and

page 78

they reacted in the way they reacted to it.

Q. You say that since that incident you no longer allow medical people to work in the MLO?

A. Trained physicians.

Q. Trained physicians?

A. Correct. Except for the dentist. The dentist we resolved would run a dentist office, would administer dental care to the Staff and such. After analyzing it with -- and going over it with attorneys involved in terms of the -- what it would entail insurance-wise and such to have a physician practicing on -- on-board, we determined it was better to -- to not have that'.

Q. , Have you changed the procedure as far as parishioners or.Staff who have psychotic breaks, how those people are now handled? Are they handled at the Fort Harrison?

A. They were never supposed to be handled at the Fort Harrison,, and that's been reiterated. They're not supposed to be there, they're supposed to be somewhere out in the countryside or something like that..

Q. So you're saying Lisa should have been taken somewhere else?

A. Yes.

Q. Who, in your estimation, was in charge of that

page 79


A. It appears to me that Janice was responsible for her physical care and Alain was responsible for her, spiritual care, but that Alain was ultimately the one calling the shots.

Q. Well, we've had testimony here that backs up what you say. We've had people that say that Lisa could not have been moved regardless, unless Alain Kartuzinski gave his okay. Do you agree with that?

A. No.

Q. You don't agree with that?

A. Unh-unh. I think anybody there, if they saw a medical emergency, had the right and obligation to call 911.

Q. Well, I agree with you. I agree 100 percent with you, but that's not what they're telling us. They're telling us --

A. That's not what I heard from -- I mean, that's not what I've heard from everybody that I talked to. If they saw what they considered an emergency, and I know there's some dispute as to what people -- whether people accurately made that decision or not. We're,riot saying whether they accurately made the call at the time in retrospect, I'm saying that any one of those caretakers could,have blown the whistle on it.

Q. I agree with you, but we have taken testimony from

page 80

all caretakers and haven't heard that. So that's the first that I've heard that. Were any -- were any documents added to Lisa's file after her death, such as a result of an investigation internally?

A. Added to her pre-Clear folder?

Q. Added any to any file named Lisa McPherson after her death.

A. Yes. That summary was done post-death, the one from Annie Mora.

Q. I'm talking about as the result of maybe an investigation by your office.

A. No. I talked to counsel about it.

Q. Was there an investigation done by your office?

A. Yes.

Q. Who headed that investigation?

A. This was the investigation I did when I came down here last December.

Q. Is that concluded?

A. No.

Q. I don't know if you answered this, was there a Committee of Evidence in this case?

A. I don't know if I answered it or not either, but there was not.

Q. Wasn't?

page 81

A. No.

Q. Okay. You have no reports being vetted, edited, changed, deleted?

A. Oh, what he was talking about earlier?

Q. Yes.

A. No. That was news to me.

SPECIAL AGENT STROPE: I don't have anything else.



Q. What's the new Church policy on handling of violent PTS-IIIs?

A. The policy hasn't changed.

Q. So you're still going to handle somebody like Lisa, who's violent and breaking things' and crashing, and you're going to still do destimulation?

A. The technology is always been to get them -- get them to sleep, get them quiet, get an immediate physical examination. And once they're -- once they're rested and come out of it, get them audited. That policy hasn't changed.

Q. Okay. Did you guys get Lisa a physical examination?

A. No, they didn't. There was one done at

page 82

Morton Plant, but beyond that there was not one done.

DETECTIVE SERGEANT ANDREWS: Okay. I'm done. Thank you.

SPECIAL AGENT STROPE: Just one quick question on that same thought.


Q. What is your policy about administering drugs of any kind, prescription or otherwise, during those episodes?

A. Well, it would be under the care of a physician, but if they needed a mild sedative in order to get to sleep, they should be given one by a physician.

SPECIAL AGENT STROPE: Okay. I don't have anything else.

MR. McGARRY: All right. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Okay. So I need to look for that Brenda Hubert thing, right?


THE WITNESS: And then --

MS. VAUGHAN: Let me know and I'll --

THE WITNESS: Let you know, okay.


page 83

                    CERTIFICATE OF OATH 


          I, the undersigned authority, certify that the
aforesaid deponent personally appeared before me and was
duly sworn.

          WITNESS my hand and official seal this 20TH day of October, 1997.

                      RUTH M. MARTIN, R.M.R. 
                      Notary Public - State of Florida
                      Commission No. CC 643284
                      Commission Expires: 4/29/2001


           I, RUTH M. MARTIN, Registered Merit Reporter,
certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically
report the sworn statement of the aforenamed deponent and
that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
           I further certify that I am not a relative,
employee, attorney,, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
I a relative or, employee' of any of the parties' attorney or
counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
interested in the action.

              DATED this 20th day of October, 1997. 
              RUTH M. MARTIN, RMR