((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
                                CD - 18
                            3 September 1994
                    Copyright (C) 1994 Vicki Aznaran
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
     Let me get this straight.  Rick Ross is being sued by Jason Scott.
Jason Scott is being represented by Bowles and Moxon.  Bowles and Moxon
also represents the Church of Scientology.
     In the "Scott vs Ross" case, Rick Ross submitted into evidence
Vicki Aznaran Affidavit of 4/4/94 from the FISHMAN Case clearly in an
effort to get the People to see Church corruption.
     After Rick submitted Vicki's 4/4/94 declaration, Bowles and Moxon
countered with this new Vicki declare written 5/19/94.
     Apparently Vicki has switched over to the other side again.
     Have I got this right?
     Rick Ross is being sued by Jason Scott for violation of Jason's
civil rights.  Rick had tried unsuccessfully to "deprogram" Jason from
the United Pentecostal Church in Washington state.  Rick was accused of
some charge just below kidnapping in this case, and was found not
     Jason Scott has been in league with the Church of Scientology for
some time, as I remember meeting him at a CAN conference about 3 years
ago in a room the Scientologists had rented to display their material,
including Jason.
     Jason's is being represented by the offices of Bowles and Moxon,
Scientology attorneys.
     Ross filed Vicki Aznaran's declaration from the Fishman case as an
exhibit.  Jason's attorneys countered with this new Aznaran declaration
to "dead agent" the first declaration.  I do not know why Vicki made
this new declaration, except I understand it was done at approximately
the time she and her husband settled their case against the church out
of co
     The above is how I understand the situation to be.
     I find this declaration ridiculous, as it condemns our judicial
system, plus accuses two attorneys of doing something that could get
them thrown out of their profession.
     Jeff Jacobsen
     I, VICKI J.  AZNARAN, hereby declare as follows:
     1.  I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas.
I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called
upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.
     2.  From 1972 until 1987, I was a member of various Church of
Scientology ("Church") entities.  During that time I held a number of
important positions in the corporate and ecclesiastical hierarchy of the
Church.  I was also a devout believer in the religion of Scientology.
In March of 1987, my husband Richard Aznaran and I left our positions
with the Church and returned home to Texas from California.  At the time
we left, Richard and I voluntarily executed certain releases and waivers
in full settlement of any and all disputes we had with the Church.  In
April of 1988, notwithstanding our execution of those releases and
waivers, Richard and I filed a lawsuit against several Church entities
and individuals in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.
     3.  During the time I was a senior Church executive, I gained first
hand knowledge of the manner in which some apostate former Church
members had pursued civil claims against the Church, and obtained
successful verdicts or judgments or favorable settlements
notwithstanding the merits.  The courts consistently allowed the
Church's adversaries leeway to introduce allegations without regard to
the normal rules of procedure and evidence.  At the time, this was a
source of great concern to me, both as a Scientologist and a Church
executive, particularly since my staff duties included responsibilities
regarding certain areas of litigation.
     4.  Thus, having participated in Scientology litigation both as a
Church executive and as a litigant against the Church, I bring two
distinct, but related, perspectives to this declaration from my personal
knowledge and observation.  First, at the time my husband and I brought
our own suit I understood that the legal system could be used to pursue
my position.  Later, upon having sued various Scientology churches and
having allied myself with other litigants and their counsel suing
Scientology churches, I observed first hand the ways in which the legal
system is sucessfully used by litigants and counsel opposing the Church.
     5.  The fundamental premise upon which the Church's adversaries and
their lawyers operate is the likelihood that courts and juries are
willing to believe any allegation made against the Church by a former
member, without regard to plausibility, contrary evidence or the true
facts.  That concept was most succinctly expressed, on videotape, by
anti-Scientology litigant, Gerald Armstrong, when he stated that a lack
of documents or evidence was no impediment to litigating against the
Church when the litigant can "just allege it." The active pursuit of
that litigation approach has now led to the formation of a small group
of disaffected Scientologists who are now employed by an even smaller
number of attorneys who are making a practice of litigating against the
Church.  This stable of witnesses can be relied upon to furnish
"corroboration" for any allegation which an attorney wishes to make
against the Church in pleadings at deposition, in affidavits, and
ultimately in trial testimony.
     6.  The process or "just alleging it" begins with the complaint.
For example, in the complaint which was filed on our behalf against the
Church, there were numerous allegations which were either false or which
we could not substantiate.  When I was initially deposed in our case, I
conceded that numerous portions of the complaint should not have been
drafted by counsel in the fashion they were.  Thus, for example, in
deposition in June, 1988, I testified that the allegation in paragraph 7
of our complaint, that the "[Church] organizations were created solely
for the purpose of making money from the sale of copyrights of the book
Dianetics..." was not true.  I testified that I did not create corporate
structures within the Church and that I do not know where this
allegation in paragraph 16 of our complaint came from.
     7.  There were several other improper or incorrect allegations
which should not have appeared in the complaint that I had to
acknowledge in deposition.  As another example, the complaint alleged in
paragraph 16 that I worked for Author Services, Inc., in managing the
sales of copyright of the book Dianetics.  In deposition I testified
that I never worked for Author Services, Inc.  and was not aware of any
such sale of copyrights.
     8.  Paragraph 16 of the complaint included the allegation that I
had been employed as a "missionaire" to remove assets of Defendant
Church of Scientology of California to overseas trusts where they could
not be accessed.  This allegation was false, and it was not an
allegation that either my husband or I requested be included in the
complaint.  I was definitely not employed for that reason, and I have
never claimed that I was.
     9.  It was also alleged in paragraph 16 of the complaint that I was
employed as a "missionaire" to "set up sham corporate structures to
evade prosecution generally." This allegation is also false.  I was
never employed for that purpose.  I had never even heard of that
allegation until I read it in the filed complaint.  I did not make that
allegation, and I do not know where it came from.
     10.  Paragraph 12 of the complaint contains the false allegation
that my husband and I were forced to "involuntarily abandon [our]
identities, spouses, and loyalties..." My depostion testimony
established that this was not the case.  For example, my husband used to
engage in his hobby of target shooting during his years in the Church.
We had pets, including a German shepherd which my husband trained in his
spare time.  I took riding lessons.  I also trained in karate, because I
was interested in learning that discipline.  These were all ways in
which my husband and I expressed our individuality while on staff and
demonstrate no abandonment, forced or otherwise, of our individual
     11.  My husband and I both testified to numerous separate, factual
errors in the complaint.  Our attorney firm, Cummins & White, and later
our subsequent counsel, Ford Greene, were aware of these errors to which
we testified.  Even though we asked them to, no attempt to file a
corrected or amended complaint was ever made, nor did any such
correction ever occur.
     12.  The abusive device most consistently utilized by litigants and
counsel adverse to the Church occurs in connection with the filing of
declarations or affidavits.  It is common knowledge among the stable of
disaffected ex-Scientologists who supply such sworn statements that the
attorneys dictate the desired content of such testimony with the
primary, often sole, purpose of presenting inflammatory accusations that
prejudice the Church in the eyes of the court.  In such declarations or
affidavits, context, the truth, and relevance to the issues in the case
are disregarded altogether.  As time has passed and this technique has
evolved, anti-Church litigants and their counsel have become more and
more emboldened in making such declarations and affidavits because the
tactic has proven to be so effective in poisoning courts and juries
against the Church.
     13.  The most common and probably the most devastating
manifestation of this tactic is the use of allegations concerning the
so-called "Fair Game" policy of the Church.  The term "Fair Game" has
been misrepresented and repeatedly used by the Church's litigation
adversaries as a means to create prejudice against the Church.  To
accomplish that end, counsel fashions a declaration in which the witness
identifies an ugly event -- real, imagined, or just plain invented --
and then alleges that it was a deliberate act which was committed by the
Church.  The idea is to create the false impression that the Church is
committing acts of retribution in pursuit of "Fair Game."
     14.  A central element of exploiting the "Fair Game" tactic is to
make certain that the allegations are crafted so they cannot be
objectively disproved.  In other words, the declarant makes an
allegation of a bad or harmful or harassing act that cannot be
documented in a tangible form and then alleges that it was done by the
Church pursuant to the Fair Game "policy".  By so doing, the declarant
has put the Church in the impossible position of trying to prove a
negative and trying to prove it without documentation.  It becomes a
matter of the declarant's word against that of the Church, and by making
the act alleged sufficiently despicable, the result is prejudice against
the Church.
     15.  The Fair Game policy was a policy to forward Scientology's
belief that any attacks on Scientology by those seeking to destroy it
were to be vigorously defended by legal means and never ignored.  It was
not a policy condoning or encouraging illegal or criminal activities.
The policy was misinterpreted by others and was thus canceled.  It has
since been used by litigants over the years as a vehicle to give
credibility to allegations to try to prejudice courts against
Scientology.  An event happens such as someone's wife dies in a car
accident, and the allegation is made that this is a murder committed by
the Church pursuant to "Fair Game" policy.  This technique is known to
those who attack the Church and so they continue to use this term to try
to prejudice the courts.  These people feel comfortable making
scandalous allegations, knowing that the Church does not have such a
policy.  I am unaware of any allegations of "Fair Game" being made by
persons who have simply left the Church.  Rather, the charges of Fair
Game are invariably made by parties who have subsequently become
involved in litigation with the Church and who have started working with
other anti-Scientology litigants familiar with this tactic.
     16.  It has been my experience that these litigants and lawyers
become emboldened because the history of Scientology litigation
demonstrates that virtually any charge leveled against the Church in
litigation by an avowed enemy, no matter how outrageous or unfounded,
will be accepted and believed.  Based on my experience it is a matter of
common knowledge that efforts by the Church to refute such prejudicial
allegations have commonly not been believed in the courts.
     17.  Thus, it has become a routine practice of litigants to make
accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of
threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as
unsupported and scandalous in other litigation.  They do it because it
works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term "Fair
Game".  They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of
the Church in the context of litigation so what they can win money or
force the Church to settle.
     18.  The term "fair game" has become a catch phrase for those who
attack the Church.  When I was in the Church I never heard it referred
to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in
reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church
adversaries.  When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing
the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and
that those allegations were nonsense.  I also know the frustration those
allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to
embrace them.  From my experience in litigating against the Church, I
can see that nothing has changed in this regard.  I also know from my
experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other
litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that "Fair Game" as
they portray it is not Church policy.  "Fair Game" exists only as a
litigation tactic employed AGAINST the Church.
     19.  There are other things I have seen and experienced in anti-
Scientology litigation that seem very unusual to me.  There is a group
or "team" of anti-Scientology witnesses who are being paid for their
testimony, and based on my experience, this testimony is being altered
and falsified, either by the witnesses themselves or the attorneys.  For
example, Graham Berry, counsel of record for a defendant in the case of
CSI V.  FISHMAN, filed numerous declarations from ex-Scientologists
after the lawsuit was dismissed which had been purchased for many
thousands of dollars.  Mr.  Berry told me that these payments were made
possible because his client had insurance coverage.
     20.  In February of 1994, Mr.  Berry called my husband and me and
offered to hire us at the rate of $125 per hour for us to study
materials in the FISHMAN case and to write declarations supporting
issues Mr.  Berry wished us to support in the FISHMAN case.  Mr.  Berry
gave us an advance of $2,500, which we were expected to bill against
services rendered.  He told us that because his client in the FISHMAN
case had insurance coverage, the insurance money enabled him to do this.
He said he was able to get the insurance company to pay our salaries by
naming us as "experts", which also enabled the use ((of)) our
declarations without regard to whether we were actually witnesses to the
events at issue in the FISHMAN case, which we were not.
     21.  Mr.  Berry told us he had assembled a team of former
Scientologists for use in litigation, all of whom were employed by him
in the FISHMAN case as so-called experts.  Although we were not eager to
get involved in FISHMAN's litigation, we agreed to do ((so)) because the
$2,500 advance by Mr.  Berry was attractive.  Mr.  Berry sent us some
documents from the court record in the FISHMAN case, which I read, since
I was being paid $125 per hour to do so.
     22.  I know from subsequent conversations I have had that Andre
Tabayoyon is similarly employed, as are Vaughn and Stacy Young and
others, each paid to create declarations for Mr.  Berry when he needs
them.  On the basis of my knowledge of the Church and the declarants, I
can state that these individuals are not "experts' in any recognized
sense of the word as I understand it.  They are nothing more than
witnesses who are being paid to make sworn statements against the
Church.  More than just being paid, they are actually employed by Mr.
Berry as a source of signed declarations of testimony or as a "source"
of allegations, the need for such is decided by him.
     23.  Later in February 1994, Mr.  Berry called us again.  He said
that the Church had dismissed the FISHMAN case and he needed
declarations from us on an immediate basis for use in his motion to
recover attorneys fees and costs.  I thought this was odd, since it
seemed to me that one would support such a motion with receipts, bills,
invoices, and such.  Even though it seemed senseless to provide
declarations after the case was dismissed, I told him I would provide a
declaration because he had already paid and I would rather have done
this than return the money he had paid us.  He then told us what areas
of testimony he wanted us to cover in the declarations.  Accordingly, I
transmitted to Mr.  Berry's firm EIGHT-page declaration which I had
prepared on my word processor and signed on the last page bearing the
date of February 24, 1994.
     24.  I recently learned that Mr.  Berry actually filed a NINETEEN-
page declaration purportedly signed by me.  Mr.  Berry attached my
signature to a declaration which I never saw or authorized.
     25.  Passages inserted without my knowledge or authorization in the
version of my declaration filed by Mr.  Berry include statements that
are untrue and/or about which I have no personal knowledge.  Not only
did I not make these statements, I never heard of them before.  The
following are some examples of these falsities:
     a) In my declaration there are statements concerning "Project
Quaker" which are false.  In fact I have never heard of "Project Quaker"
and the statement in the version of my declaration Mr.  Berry filed
(paragraph 7) was not in the declaration I sent to Mr.  Berry.  It could
not have been as I have never heard of "Project Quaker";
     b) The statements in the filed declaration concerning the death of
Michelle Miscavige's mother were added to without authorization by me.
This included mention of the death of Heber Jentzsch's wife which is not
something I had ever spoken to Mr.  Berry about, and I have no knowledge
and never heard anything that indicated there was anything unusual about
Mr.  Jentzsch's wife death.  She died of natural causes.  The statement
concerning Flo Barnett's death were not put in context and were not
meant to imply that there was any wrongdoing surrounding her death.
     In approximately September 1985, when I was the Deputy Inspector
General of Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), I learned that Mary
Florence Barnett, Mrs.  Miscavige's mother, had committed suicide.  She
had been involved with a group of disaffected former Scientologists who
practiced altered versions of Scientology.  I only know that after
hearing about her death both David and Shelly Miscavige were very upset
over the fact that Flo Barnett had killed herself.  I also wish to make
known that I have seen mention in an affidavit by Vaughn Young that
David Miscavige ordered the matter "hushed up." This was stated in the
context of indicating wrongdoing on Mr.  Miscavige's part and
insinuating he had some participation in the matter.  A careful and
literal reading of the statment shows that Mr.  Young never actually
says he knows Mr.  Miscavige was involved in this suicide, or that there
was any evidence of such, but by innuendo his statement still leaves
this impression.  To my knowledge there was never any order by David
Miscavige or anyone else to keep the matter quiet.  If any such order
existed it would most likely have been given to me.  And since I took
actions to make the matter quite well known and never heard anybody, let
alone David Miscavige, ask for the matter to be hushed up, I know this
statement and the innuendo to be false;
     c) the entirety of paragraph 16 on page 10 of the declaration filed
by Mr.  Berry concerning L.  Ron Hubbard and the IRS was written by
someone other than me and was inserted into my declaration without my
knowledge or authorization.  This entire paragraph makes unfounded and
outrageous allegations intended to create the impression that David
Miscavige or any other Scientologist would want Mr.  Hubbard to die in
order to avoid supposed IRS problems.  This is unthinkable to any
Scientologist, and I never heard this or any similar statement made by
anyone in the Church.
     d) Paragraph 15 of the declaration claims that "Earle Cooley Esq.
and others convinced the San Luis Obispo coroner not to do any autopsy
on Hubbard's body" implying there was something hidden or covered up
about Mr.  Hubbard's death.  This is false.  It was not written by me
and I know of no such thing.  I was in a position to have knowledge of
this matter and I know that Mr.  Hubbard died of natural causes and the
statement attributed to me is a complete fabrication.
     e) There is also a statement made in paragraph 18 that Mike
Rinder's child received "Hubbard's baby care technology." The
implication is that the child's death had something to do with
Scientology which I never believed to be the case.  I did not make this
statement and have no information that this was the case.
     f) In fact, paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35A and 35B were not in the version of the declaration that
I sent to Mr.  Berry to be filed.  He added them after the fact, and I
never saw them before this declaration was filed and I never gave
authorization for Mr.  Berry to add any of these things to my
     g) The statements concerning the Church of Scientology
International ("CSI") and whether the Time article concerned CSI, and
the corporate structure of the Church (paragraph 20) were also not in
the version I signed and sent to Mr.  Berry.  And again, I know the
statement to be entirely false.
     h) One other point I wish to clarify concerning the use of "End of
Cycle." There is nothing in Scientology writings which relates the term
"End of Cycle" to connote murder or suicide.  To my knowledge, this
characterization of the term "End of Cycle" was invented by Steven
Fishman.  I have never heard this term used by the Church to mean
"suicide" or "murder" and even though I am a disaffected ex-
Scientologist, I know it to be a false allegation.  Its only use is to
smear the Church for litigation purposes as detailed earlier.  I earlier
verbally told Mr.  Berry this when he first contacted me for this exact
     26.  I gave no authorization for my declaration to be changed after
I sent the signed copy of it to Mr.  Berry and the charges made to my
declaration were made without my knowledge or consent.  Mr.  Berry never
contacted me after he filed the manufactured 19 page version of my
declaration.  Had I not later obtained a copy of the declaration filed
by Mr.  Berry from another source, I never would have found out about
any of these alterations.
     I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America, and under the laws of each individual state thereof,
including the laws of the states of California and Texas, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
     Executed this 19th day of May, 1994 in Dallas, Texas.
Homer Wilson Smith           This file may be found at
homer@rahul.net              ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/act/CD18.MEMO
Posted to usenet newsgroup:  alt.clearing.technology