Mr. David Miscavige

February 4, 1999

Page 4

Moreover, I do not think it appropriate that our office or the “Church” dictate to a medical facility the appropriate or “allowed” treatment for a Church adherent. This decision should of course be left to the physician and individual patient, if he or she is mentally competent, or the next-of-kin or other legally authorized person if they are not.

 

Your suggestion that Mr. Crow has some improper personal interest in the case or that he somehow misled you as to the sincerity of our discussions is wholly unwarranted. When you first met with me, it was you who suggested that you were approaching us in confidentiality under the rule governing plea discussions, even though I questioned the applicability of those provisions where there was no offer to plead, but simply a request that the charges be abandoned. Mr. Crow’s comments were initially made to insure that the possibility of future discussions would not be publicly asserted as grounds for delaying the arraignment or other court proceedings. If you are suggesting that, but for this conversation, you intended to publicly use your purportedly confidential discussions with our office to support a public relations effort, then I must question your motives in initially requesting the meeting. Neither Mr. Crow nor I have ever suggested that you or your attorneys refrain from making any other public comments about the facts or the charges or taking any other action you felt was necessary to defend yourself against public criticism.

 

There are also legitimate reasons for my requiring, once you have chosen to involve me directly in the discussions, that plea negotiations be ordered and occur either directly through me or through those senior persons who I have designated. In directing Mr.’ Crow to communicate to you that I had ultimately decided not to make a counter offer, I did not authorize him to disclose in detail either my thought processes or those of other assistants who may have been privy to the decision.

 

Subsequent to a scheduled morning meeting with Judge Peters and Mr. Crow and after additional discussions with Mr. Crow, Mr. Fugate bypassed Mr. Crow and called a subordinate lawyer in an apparent attempt to glean further information. While I would not expect you to necessarily appreciate the significance of this, I believe Mr. Fugate certainly would have. In any event, I trust that Mr. Crow’s last directive has made my wishes clear as to how any future plea discussions should be initiated.