63

interest in the outcome of the case. He does not fall
into that category. His training and expertise is not
common, not readily understood, or ascertainable.
Moreover, we have the unusual situation in this case, we
don’t have one video, we don’t have two videos, we don’t
have three videos. We have four videos of the incident
itself. The question is how much help can he give the
trier of fact who is going to be able to watch four
videos. So I find him not to be an expert. And do not
allow him to testify in his opinions in that regard.

Now, as far as I am concerned what I have
heard is that his testimony could be and would be, he was
a member of the Church of Scientology, he knows that
there was a “Fair Game Policy”. He will testify as to
his personal knowledge as to how he knows, and not
hearsay knowledge. What it is, and what penalties there
may be for violation of it. Period, that’s all.

While I am on this area let me make it
really clear here, because I think there is some
confusion in this courtroom. The Church of Scientology
is not on trial here today and will not be on trial here
today. This is a battery. That is all it is going to
be. Those things that relate to this are strictly
relevant insofar as they may explain some of the actors
behaviors, period. We are not going to digress onto what