The amazing thing about this section of day 3 of Lynn Farny's (head of OSA
legal) testimony is that
he says that the policy letter we all assume to be the Fair Game policy,
"Penalties for Lower Conditions" of October 1967, is actually NOT the policy letter
cancelled by the 1968 policy letter that "cancels" the Fair Game policy.
So, the way I read Farney's statement is that "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
has never been cancelled!
Q. Now, I believe as Exhibit 16 in front of you --
that's it, okay?
A. Do you need this one anymore?
Q. Yes, we will.
A. All right.
Q. Would you identify Exhibit 16, please.
A. It's a piece of paper with some writing on it
purporting to bear a date of 18 October 1967.
Q. And that particular exhibit is -- you've seen that
document before, haven't you?
A. You all have filed it before.
Q. And you've also seen it filed in other litigation,
Q. And that's what purports to be the fair game
A. No. There was a specific policy letter called the
fair game law that during the brief window of time that
the term fair game was used in the church, not as you
people define it --
A. -- described the fair game doctrine.
Q. This one is entitled penalties for lower
A. That's what it says.
Q. And there is an HCO policy letter of 18 October,
A. It's a document that has those words on it. It's
not a policy letter that's church policy or that has been
church policy since the '60's, if indeed this particular
document ever was.
Q. I understand that. And in that regard I'd like to
direct your attention to Exhibit 17.
Q. Now, do you recognize Exhibit 17?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And Exhibit 17 is a single page document that's
entitled HCO policy letter of 21 October, 1968; right?
Q. And that document is entitled cancellation of fair
A. That's also correct.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the last paragraph
of Exhibit 16, the one that says, "Enemy" -- where it
says, "SP order, fair game" -- "may be deprived of
property or injured by any means by any Scientologist
without any discipline of the Scientologist, may be
tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
Now, that's what it says in this document; right?
A. It's what it says in that document, but we're not
necessarily talking about the same thing in the
cancellation of fair game. There was a specific policy
letter called the fair game law and there was another
policy letter issued at the same time in 1965 explaining
what it was and its genesis. This is not that. This
being Exhibit 16.
Q. Well, let's talk about Exhibit 16 a little bit.
Now, the condition that is labeled liability, do you see
Q. Now, liability is a condition that is included
within the doctrine of ethics used within Scientology, is
A. Liability is one of the operating conditions
described in our ethics system.
A. It is not described in the manner in this document.
Q. I'm not asking you that.
A. Which, as I've said, if it ever was -- and I've
never been able, by the way, to verify the accuracy of
this particular document, but in any event, it would have
become a nullity in October of 1968.
Q. That's fine. No. I understand that.
A. Approximately a year before Gerry got involved in
Scientology at all, if I remember correctly.
Q. I know. You know, I'm just asking you some
A. Yeah, but you're asking some questions about
something that isn't. Why don't you ask me questions
about something that is.
This is the sort of nonsense we get in litigation where you
take words and try and twist them around with
ancient writings that have nothing whatsoever to do with,
one, the fraudulent conveyance at issue in this case, which
we still haven't mentioned today, or, two, the litigation
involving Gerry Armstrong.
You want to bring out the original documents that
described what fair game was during its brief, brief
incarnation, all of which occurred prior to Gerry
Armstrong's involvement in Scientology, I'd be happy to
discuss that with you, and the cancellation, and the
reasons for the cancellation.
But I'm not going to have isolated little bits and
pieces of paper that neither you, nor I, nor anybody can
even verify was authentic 30 years ago when it purports to
have been written and have you make statements about my
church on the basis of that. I'm just not going to do
A. So if you want to talk about fair game, since
you've used that in such ominous tones throughout the
deposition, I'd be more than happy to. This is not that.
So I don't know what you want.
Q. To ask you another question.
Q. All right. My next question for you is that within
the doctrine of Scientology ethics, isn't it true that
there's a condition that's known as treason?
A. There are conditions of treason, doubt, enemy,
liability and several others. This is not the formula one
applies in order to deal with those conditions.
Q. I'm not not asking you that.
A. It just isn't.
No what you're-saying-is--- it's just a false
syllogism. You're asking me A, B, C and D and then
jumping to Z as the conclusion.
A. Yes, these are ethic conditions. Yes, there was at
one time a doctrine called fair game. Yes, there is such
a thing as an suppressive person disclaimer. That doesn't
make this church policy.
A. It's just lawyer word games on your part. And we
can play them all day if you want. It's just going to
make the court reporter tired.
Q. Well, I appreciate that this is an item that makes
you feel defensive.
A. I don't feel defensive at all, Ford. I just don't
want you to waste your time trying to construct a house of
cards that evaporates at the first -- actually, the
sensible question is, is this or has this at any time in
the last 20 years been a policy of the Church of
Scientology. The answer to which is no, then it doesn't
allow you to build your little house of cards.
Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Farny, to your knowledge
was Exhibit 16 ever submitted in evidence in Armstrong
A. Probably. One of his favorite things.
A. Doesn't make it real.
Q. Now, the initials SP, those initials refer to a
suppressive person; isn't that right?
A. I don't know what they refer to here. I've heard
them used and they're generally used in that manner, yes.