Haney: "fair game" applied

A-004-061902-Haney-V1.txt

12              THE COURT:  What were you told as a member,
13         second in command of the Ohio org, about the
14         cancellation of the fair game policy, if anything?

15              THE WITNESS:  They said they cancelled the name
16         "fair game" because it was bad for public relations,
17         but that the -- the activity described in fair game
18         was still ongoing.

19              MR. WEINBERG:  Could we just identify who is
20         "they" said this?

21              THE COURT:  Yes, who?

22              THE WITNESS:  The two people I would normally
23         speak to, one man was named Bennett Parish.  He was
24         my direct senior.  He was executive director.

25              The other guy who was my best friend there was
                                                              119
 1         named Chris Kline, my best friend there.  He was
 2         senior case supervisor.

 3              THE COURT:  So they said the cancellation
 4         policy cancelled the name but not the activity for
 5         suppressive persons?

 6              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  They would sometimes
 7         discuss people who had criticized Scientology and
 8         then the things that happened to those people as a
 9         result of that activity.

10              Mr. Wollersheim was the only one discussed by
11         name that I ever heard about, so -- oh, and one --
12         that is not right.  There was another guy locally.

13         We had a man whose last name was Anderson.  The
14         family owned a group of stores in Columbus called
15         Anderson's General Store.  And this man, Paul
16         Anderson, had belonged to Scientology for a period
17         of months, and given about $250,000 to different
18         Scientology organizations, then requested a refund.

19              And when he did so, there were a bunch of
20         different things done to him.  And they talked about
21         those things inside the organization because, you
22         know, the guys in my org were privy to that
23         information.

24              THE COURT:  Like what kind of things?

25              THE WITNESS:  He had psychiatric problems, and
                                                              120
 1         so they had threatened the family with exposing his
 2         psychiatric history publicly, you know.  The family
 3         was well known around town, and this one son had had
 4         difficulties.  And so it was that, you know, they
 5         better watch out because if they continue with this
 6         stuff, they're going to find out that this is all
 7         over the place.

 8              THE COURT:  This was your supervisor talking
 9         about this?

10              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  My supervisor was directly
11         responsible for about $80,000 of the $250,000.  And
12         we had this problem that we didn't have $80,000 in
13         the organization to give back to this guy.  So it
14         was a very serious matter that somehow we had to
15         come up with $80,000 to give this guy, because it
16         was a legal problem that was hanging over the head
17         of the organization.

18              And so one side was how to solve the problem.

19         The other side was, yes, but you know what we're
20         going to do to this guy kind of thing.  So --
21              THE COURT:  And that was part of -- the telling
22         the family that the mental illness would be
23         revealed?

24              THE WITNESS:  Somehow, my direct supervisor
25         knew this guy's personal psychiatric history.  And
                                                              121
 1         it included -- I'm trying to think -- sexual
 2         deviancy and other things that somebody would not
 3         want known publicly.  And so the threat was to
 4         expose these things if they didn't cooperate and let
 5         him out of paying this money back.

 6              THE COURT:  What happened?

 7              THE WITNESS:  I think that the -- my
 8         recollection is that eventually the $80,000 was paid
 9         back.  And the rest of the money was never paid
10         back.

11              THE COURT:  This would have been, in your mind,
12         fair game?

13              THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I mean, there is nothing
14         else in Scientology -- there were no other policies
15         that I was aware of where we would harass or --
16         somebody like that.  See, I had never seen a policy
17         that said to do that.  So then it was described to
18         me and shown to me, a policy called fair game, where
19         that is what we did.  It said to sue, lie, trick and
20         utterly destroy someone.  So that I understood, you
21         know, what it was about.

22              THE COURT:  Then you saw -- you saw the policy
23         that cancelled it?

24              THE WITNESS:  We didn't actually have that
25         policy in our org.  One of the guys that worked
                                                              122
 1         there had that group of old material and showed it
 2         to me.  We didn't have that in our organization
 3         where we could look it up or anything.  That wasn't
 4         something we were privy to.

 5              THE COURT:  Thank you.

(...)

13    BY MR. DANDAR:

14         Q    Is there any doubt in your mind, or do you have
15    any hesitation, on whether or not fair game was cancelled or
16    not cancelled?

17         A    I know it was not cancelled because we talked
18    about it at the org and I was subject to it once I left
19    Scientology.

Go Back