Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion to Reconsider

8/13/2019 Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion to Reconsider

1/137

1

CAUSE NO. C2013-1082B

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

207th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS

MONIQUE RATHBUN

Plaintiff,

VS.

DAVID MISCAVIGE, RELIGIOUS

TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH OF

SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, and MONTY

DRAKE,

Defendants.

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING

CONTINUANCE AND DISCOVERY ON JURISDICTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Subject to and without waiver of their special appearances, Defendants David Miscavige

(Mr. Miscavige) and Religious Technology Center (RTC) file this Motion for Clarification

and to Reconsider Order Granting Continuance and Discovery on Jurisdiction:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. On December 13, 2013, the Court considered Mrs. Rathbuns Motion to Compel

Discovery and for Continuance of Special Appearance Hearing and announced that it would

grant the Plaintiffs motion. The Court subsequently signed an Order Granting Continuance and

Discovery on Jurisdiction (Order Granting Continuance).1 The Court should reconsider its

order for the following reasons:

1 The Courts order is dated December 13, 2013, but the order was not distributed or available to the parties before

December 20, 2013. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A.


2/137

2

a. The specially appearing defendants have been denied their right to present

their special appearance motionsbeforethe Court orders further discovery.

An opportunity to conclusively negate the plaintiff's basis for jurisdiction

is essential because the purpose behind a special appearance is to ensure

that parties are not compelled to participate in a lawsuit when the trial

court lacks jurisdiction over them;

b. The Court elected not to consider evidence presented by the Defendants

that negates the Court's jurisdiction. But the discovery submitted by

Defendants, including the depositions of Mr. McShane and Mr.

Cartwright, demonstrate that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over

Defendants, which eliminates any basis for additional discovery; and

c. Defendants must be afforded the opportunity to contest evidence upon

which the Court based its order for additional discovery. Because the

Order does not describe the evidence it considered, Defendants have been

erroneously denied a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate why the

Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.

2. This Court should set a hearing to allow the specially appearing defendants the

opportunity to fully present their special appearance motions. The circumstances this case

presents are extraordinary. Although the Plaintiff has taken five depositions, no deponent had

any knowledge that Mr. Miscavige had even one relevant contact with Texas. Plaintiff noticed

depositions of other non-party witnesses, but then abandoned that effort presumably because the

result would be the samethat none of them could recount that Mr. Miscavige had any

meaningful Texas contact. The sixteen Affidavits and Declarations the Plaintiff relies on present


3/137

3

innuendo rather than facts. They assert that Mr. Miscavige was involved extensively in

executive-level decisions concerning the Religious Technology Center and the Church of

Scientology International. Most, like the declaration from Mark "Marty" Rathbun, involve

alleged corporate practices occurring more than a decade ago outside of Texas. But none of

these declarations, even if taken as true, present direct evidence of Mr. Miscaviges current role

or that he has unique or superior knowledge about the particular facts underlying this lawsuit

sufficient to establish minimum Texas contacts. In a similar context involving apex depositions,

the Supreme Court of Texas has declared emphatically that discovery of a high-level executive

cannot rest on the mere assertion that the executive has ultimate responsibility for corporate

decisions. See In re Alcatel USA, Inc., 11 S.W.3d 173, 176 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding)

(holding that allegations that apex official was "a long-time company leader who sets the

company vision with lofty goals" did not establish his unique or superior knowledge, because

"[v]irtually every company's CEO has similar characteristics).

3. Plaintiff has already taken two high-level corporate representative depositions of

the President of RTC and Legal Director and Corporate Officer of CSI. Like the declarations,

these depositions do not establish that Mr. Miscavige has the required unique or superior

knowledge about the facts and contacts at issue here. To the contrary, these depositions show

that Plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to discover any jurisdictional facts related to RTCs or

Mr. Miscaviges alleged contacts, if any, with Texas from corporate officers who are in a

position to know about these questions. Plaintiff simply chose not to ask the relevant

jurisdictional questions and thus did not make a reasonable effort to explore less-intrusive

discovery before seeking Mr. Miscaviges deposition. See In re Daisy Mfg. Co., Inc., 17 S.W.3d

654, 657 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding).


4/137

4

4. At issue is the proposed deposition of the ecclesiastical leader of a religious

organization. The First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the

analogous law pertaining to apex depositionseach of these critical jurisprudential doctrines

require a thorough hearing on Defendants' special appearance motions as a predicate to

breaching the protections the law affords not only to high executive officers, but perhaps more

importantly to the leader of an established religion. An encroachment on religious liberty must

survive exacting scrutiny, rather than the speculative grounds the Plaintiff has tendered. In this

case, the encroachment takes the form of a court-ordered deposition that would unnecessarily

distract an ecclesiastical leader from his core mission to promote his faith. It is intolerable that

the Court would subject Defendants to an order compelling that deposition without first

reviewing all of the evidence at stakenot only the Plaintiffs evidence but also the

Defendantsand identifying the evidence on which the Court based its ruling.

II.

BACKGROUND

5. Defendants, David Miscavige and RTC, filed special appearances in this case on

August 28, 2013. Those special appearances were originally set for hearing on September 12,

2013.

6. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff moved to continue the September 12 hearing,

asking that the court permit her to take jurisdictional discovery from [Mr.] Miscavige and RTC

and specifically seeking Mr. Miscaviges deposition.2 Mr. Miscavige and RTC opposed the

continuance motion. At the hearing on Plaintiffs motion, the court continued the special

2 Plaintiffs First Motion for Continuance of Special Appearance Hearing, at paras 7 and 14.


5/137

5

appearance hearing until October 18, 2013.3 The hearing on the special appearance was reset to

December 11 and/or 13, 2013.4

7. In the meantime, Mr. Miscavige and RTC objected to submitting Mr. Miscavige

for deposition. Consequently, the Court asked that the parties agree to less intrusive

jurisdictional discovery.5 As a result, the parties agreed that the following discovery would

occur: (1) the deposition of a corporate representative of defendant, RTC, subsequently taken on

November 20, 2013; (2) the deposition of a corporate representative of defendant, Church of

Scientology International (CSI), subsequently taken on November 20, 2013; (3) the deposition

of defendant private investigator, Monty Drake, subsequently taken on October 29, 2013; and,

(4) the deposition of defendant investigator, Steven Sloat, subsequently taken on October 29,

2013.6 Plaintiff also sought and obtained the deposition of non-party witness, Tommy Davis, on

December 4, 2013.7 The transcripts from these depositions make clear that Mr. Miscavige has

no relevant contacts with Texas, underscoring the purely harassing purpose of the proposed

deposition of Mr. Miscavige. These depositions also establish that, for whatever reason, Plaintiff

made little effort to ask the witnesses precise questions about the exact nature of Defendants

alleged contacts with Texas. Now, the Plaintiff complains about the absence of answers to

jurisdictional questions she did not ask to depose a Defendant that has already demonstrated his

lack of minimum Texas contacts.

3 Transcript from 9/13/2013 hearing, at 115.4 SeeTranscript from 10/8/2013 hearing, at 27.5 Transcript from 9/13/2013 hearing, at 108.6 Transcript from 10/8/2013 hearing, at 8.7 Additionally, Plaintiff noticed for deposition non-party witnesses -- actress Leah Remini as well as non-party

witness, the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. Plaintiff obtained substantial media coverage over the

supposed Remini deposition. Plaintiff has apparently since changed her mind and abandoned her efforts to obtain

that discovery.


6/137

6

8. Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents to Mr. Miscavige,

RTC and CSI. Defendants produced responsive documents, lodged appropriate objections, and

served the Plaintiff a log for documents withheld from production based on privilege. Responses

and objections were served on Plaintiff on October 14, 2013. Responsive documents were

delivered to Plaintiff on October 28, 2013.

9. On December 2, 2013, despite having had the opportunity to conduct ample

jurisdictional discovery, and even before Plaintiff had started the deposition of Mr. Tommy

Davis, plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel Discovery and for Continuance of Special

Appearance Hearing again asking that David Miscavige be ordered to appear for deposition.

In her continuance motion, Plaintiff generally complains about defendants responses to her

requests for production, but Plaintiff has not challenged the objections lodged by defendants, nor

has she requested that the Court review those documents identified on Defendants privilege

logs. Her motion for continuance was initially unaccompanied by any supporting evidence,

verifications, or affidavits. Subsequently, on December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Affidavit of

Ray B. Jeffrey in Support of Mrs. Rathbuns Motion to Compel and for Continuance of Special

Appearance Hearing. In any event, Plaintiff has not produced any evidence tying Mr. Miscavige

to a relevant act in Texas, nor has she undertaken reasonable efforts to explore discovery through

means less intrusive than the deposition of Mr. Miscavige, the ecclesiastical leader of the

Scientology religion. See In re Daisy Mfg. Co., Inc., 17 S.W.3d 654, 658 (Tex. 2000) (orig.

proceeding) (instructing courts to measure whether the discovering party made a reasonable

effort to obtain discovery through less-intrusive methods).

10. On December 3, 2013, plaintiff filed a Notice of Filing Affidavits and/or

Declarations, accompanied by sixteen signed witness statements. The statements are dated


7/137

7

between February 22, 2013 and December 3, 2013.8 The statements were submitted for the

specific purpose of supplementing plaintiffs response to the special appearances of RTC and

Mr. Miscavige, and not for the purpose of seeking a continuance of the special appearance

hearing or forcing the deposition of Mr. Miscavige. All defendants joined in filing evidentiary

objections to the plaintiffs sixteen affidavits and declarations.

11. A hearing on plaintiffs motion to continue the special appearance hearing took

place on December 13, 2013. Counsel for the specially appearing defendants requested that the

Court hear argument on the special appearance motions so it could identify all material

jurisdictional facts before the Court ruled on Plaintiffs motion for continuance. The Court

instead announced that it had reviewed roughly half of the witness statements tendered by

plaintiff (statements that had been tendered in opposition to the special appearances), that it had

read only one of the five depositions submitted by the parties, and that it had read a portion of the

trial briefs.9 The Court did not review the jurisdictional depositions of the corporate

representatives of RTC and CSI, nor the other two depositions taken pursuant to the Courts

order. These depositions and the other evidence presented to the Court are essential to

determining whether additional discovery is necessary.

12. The result is that the Court reviewed only the plaintiffs special appearance

evidence, without affording defendants the opportunity to present evidence and argument on

whether additional jurisdictional discovery would be necessary to rule on the special appearance

motions. Defendants are entitled to an equal opportunity to present evidence and argument to

8 The dates of the statements are as follows: Don Jason (2/22/2013), Jefferson Hawkins (9/16/2013), Marc Headley

(9/17/2013), Mark Pesch (9/22/2013), Mary Lucy James (9/23/2013), Amy Scobee (9/23/2013), John R. Brousseau

(9/28/2013), Chris Guider (9/30/2013), David Lingenfelter (9/30/2013), Mercy Lingenfelter (9/30/2013), Stephen w.

Hall (10/1/2013), Claire Headley (10/2/2013), Bernard Leahy (10/17/2013), Michael Fairman (11/15/2013) and

Michael Rinder (12/3/2013).9 Transcript from 12/13/2013 hearing at 11-12.


8/137

8

show the Court that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Mr. Miscavige. That showing would

conclusively eliminate the purported basis for deposing him.

13. A review of the complete jurisdictional recorda record that includes five

depositions (including two corporate representative depositions)shows that Plaintiff has not

established a prima facie case necessary to obtain further jurisdictional discovery in the form of a

deposition of Mr. Miscavige. See, e.g., Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer

Express World Corp., 230 F.3d 934, 946 (7th Cir.2000) (At a minimum, the plaintiff must

establish a colorable or prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction before discovery should be

permitted.);Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., 148 F.3d 181, 186 (2d Cir.1998) (Since the [plaintiff]

did not establish a prima facie case that the district court had jurisdiction over [the defendant],

the district court did not err in denying discovery on that issue.).

14. On the basis of its limited review, the court ordered that Mr. Miscavige submit to

an oral deposition. Mr. Miscavige and RTC asked that the order be stayed while he seeks

appellate review the court granted that request for a period of one week. The court signed a

written order memorializing its ruling on December 13, 2013. A copy of that order was not

available to the parties until December 20, 2013.

III.

REQUEST FOR HEARING

15. Specially appearing defendants, RTC and Mr. Miscavige, request that the court

hear their special appearances at the earliest opportunity, and even during the pendency of any

appeal or reconsideration of the order requiring the deposition of Mr. Miscavige. Holding such

hearing would accomplish the following:


9/137

9

a. Provide the opportunity for the specially appearing defendants to finally

make use of their dance shoes and argue their motion on the merits;10

b. Allow the Court to make a fully informed decision, based on a full record,

on whether additional discovery is necessary to adjudicate the special

appearance motions;

c. Establish that no additional jurisdictional discovery is warranted.

16. Allowing defendants to proceed with the hearing on their special appearance is

especially warranted under the circumstances of this case. Plaintiffs sought and obtained an ex

parte temporary restraining order against the specially appearing defendants which was widely

reported in the media.11 The Court began, but then adjourned, a temporary injunction hearing on

September 12, 2013. At that time, the Court has expressed its view that the commencement of

the hearing had the effect of extending the TRO for a reasonable period of time.12 It is now

three and a half months later and defendants have yet to have the opportunity to demonstrate that

this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them and that they were not involved in the matters of

which the plaintiff complains. The continuation of the ex parte TRO is further reason why the

specially appearing defendants should be allowed a prompt and full hearing on their special

appearances.

17. The notion of holding the special appearance hearing and then determining

whether additional evidence was warranted was initially expressed by the Court itself.13 That

procedure would prejudice no one, would allow defendants their day in court on their special

10 SeeTranscript from 12/11/2013 hearing at 25.11 The front page of the Tampa Bay Times featured the story on its front page under the headline, Judge blocks

Scientology boss.12 Transcript from 9/12/2013 hearing, at 213.13 Transcript from 12/11/2013 hearing, at 25-26.


10/137

10

appearances, and would provide the Court with ample evidence and argument to determine

whether additional discovery was warranted and, if so, the nature of that discovery.

18. Regardless of whether the Court agrees to a hearing on the pending special

appearances, the Courts Order Granting Continuance and Discovery on Jurisdiction should be

clarified to specify the evidence relied upon by the Court in rendering the order. The Order

currently provides that further discovery should be allowed based on the Courts review of

portions of the depositions, declarations, and other evidence considered. The Court should

specify any other evidence that is not on file, but that the Court considered in rendering its

order.

19. To assist the Court in its review of the evidence, attached to this motion are true

and correct copies of the following documents, which, at a minimum, establish that no further

jurisdictional discovery is warranted:

a. Exhibit B Deposition of Corporate Representative of CSI, Allan

Cartwright;

b. Exhibit C Deposition of Corporate Representative of RTC, WarrenMcShane;

c. Exhibit D Deposition of Monty Drake Davis (submitted in summaryform because of confidentiality agreement);

d. Exhibit E Deposition of Steven Sloat; and,

e. Exhibit F Deposition of Mr. Tommy Davis.

Wherefore, RTC and Mr. Miscavige pray that this motion be granted and for general

relief.


11/137

11

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lamont A. JeffersonLamont A. Jefferson

State Bar No. 10607800

HAYNES ANDBOONE, LLP112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1200

San Antonio TX 78205-1540

Telephone: 210.978.7413Facsimile: 210.554.0413

J. Iris Gibson

State Bar No. 24037471HAYNES ANDBOONE, LLP

600 Congress Ave., Suite 1300

Austin TX 78701

Telephone: 512.867.8403Facsimile: 512.867.8650

Wallace B. Jefferson

State Bar No. 00000019

Rachel Ekery

State Bar No. 00787424ALEXANDERDUBOSE JEFFERSON & TOWNSENDLLP

515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350

Austin, Texas 78701-3562Telephone: 512.482.9300

Facsimile: 512.482.9303

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

DAVID MISCAVIGE AND

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER


12/137

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been

forwarded to the following counsel of record in this cause in accordance with the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure on this the 31st day of December, 2013.

Ray Jeffrey

A. Dannette MitchellJEFFREY & MITCHELL, P. C.

2631 Bulverde Road, Suite 105

Bulverde, TX 78163

Marc F. Wiegand

THE WIEGANDLAW FIRM, P.C.434 N. Loop 1604 West, Suite 2201

San Antonio, Texas 78232

Elliott S. CappuccioPULMANCAPPUCCIO PULLEN & BENSON, LLP

2161 N.W. Military Hwy., #400


Ricardo G. Cedillo

Les J. Strieber IIIDAVIS, CEDILLO& MENDOZA, INC.

McCombs Plaza, Suite 500

755 E. Mulberry AvenueSan Antonio, Texas 78212

George H. Spencer, Jr.

CLEMENS& SPENCER

112 E. Pecan, Suite 1300


Bert H. Deixler (admitted pro hac vice)

KENDALL BRILL&KLIEGERLLP10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725

Los Angeles, California 90067

Jonathan H. Hull

REAGAN BURRUSPLLC

401 Main Plaza, Suite 200New Braunfels, Texas 78130

O. Paul Dunagan

SARLES&OIMET

370 Founders Square

900 Jackson Street

Dallas, Texas 76202-4436

Stephanie S. Bascon

LAW OFFICE OF STEPHANIE S. BASCON PLLC297 W San Antonio St.

New Braunfels, TX 78130

/s/ Lamont A. Jefferson

Lamont A. Jefferson


13/137

Exhibit A


14/137

onically signed by debbie longoria (101-086-015-3924) dadc7b0f-9577-4a1b-b8a8-4e1

Allan Cartwright

www.DepoTexas.comDepoTexas

Page 1

1 NO. C-2013-1082B

2 MONIQUE RATHBUN, ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT

)

3 Plaintiff, )

)

4 VS. ) COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS

)

5 DAVID MISCAVIGE, RELIGIOUS )

TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH )

6 OF SCIENTOLOGY )

INTERNATIONAL, STEVEN )

7 GREGORY SLOAT, AND MONTY )

DRAKE, )

8 )

Defendants. ) 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

9

10

11 -----------------------------------

12 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

13 ALLAN CARTWRIGHT

14 NOVEMBER 20, 2013

15 -----------------------------------

16 ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT,

17 produced as a witness at the instance of the PLAINTIFF,

18 and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and

19 numbered cause on November 20, 2013 from

20 9:31 o'clock a.m. to 1:30 o'clock p.m., before

21 DEBBIE S. LONGORIA, CSR in and for the State of Texas,

22 reported by machine shorthand, at the law offices of

23 HAYNES & BOONE, L.L.P., 112 E. Pecan, Suite 1200,

24 pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the

25 provisions stated on the record or attached hereto.

Exhibit B


15/137


Allan Cartwright


2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Page 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S23 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:4 RAY JEFFREY

JEFFREY & MITCHELL, P.C.5 2631 BULVERDE ROAD, SUITE 105

BULVERDE, TEXAS 781636 (830) 438-8935

[email protected]

MARC F. WIEGAND8 THE WIEGANDLAW FIRM, P.C.

434 N. LOOP 1604 WEST, SUITE 22019 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78232

(210) 998-328910 [email protected] FOR THE DEFENDANTS RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND DAVIS

MISCAVIGE:12

LAMONT JEFFERSON13 LISABARKLEY

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP14 112 EAST PECAN, SUITE 1200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7820515 (210) 978-7000

[email protected] [email protected] FOR THE DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL:18 LES J. STRIEBER III

CELINAWARREN19 DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.

755 E. MULBERRY, SUITE 50020 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78212

(210) 822-666621 [email protected]@dcmlaw.com

22GEORGE H. SPENCER, JR.

23 CLEMENS & SPENCER112 E. PECAN, SUITE 1300

24 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205(210) 227-7121

25 [email protected]

Page 3

1 FOR THE DEFENDANT MONTY DRAKE:2 O. PAUL DUNAGAN

SARLES & OUIMET3 370 FOUNDERS SQUARE

900 JACKSON STREET4 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 573-6309

5 [email protected] FOR THE DEFENDANTS STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, ET AL:7 JONATHAN H. HULL

ASHLEY BOWEN8 REAGAN BURRUS

401 MAIN PLAZA, SUITE 2009 NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS 78130

(830) 625-802610 [email protected]

[email protected]

FOR DAVID LUBOW:12

STEPHANIE S. BASCON13 LAW OFFICE OF STEPHANIE S. BASCON

297 W. SAN ANTONIO STREET14 NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS 78130

(830) 625-294015 [email protected] ALSO PRESENT:17 PAT CAREY, Videographer

NEIL LAVIN18 STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT

MARK RATHBUN19 MONTY DRAKE

WARREN McSHANE202122232425

Page 4

1 INDEX2 PAGE3 Appearances........................................ 24 ALLAN CARTWRIGHT

Examination by Mr. Jeffrey..................... 95

Signature and Changes...............................154

6 Reporter's Certificate..............................15678 EXHIBITS9 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

10 Ex. 1 Affidavit of Allan Cartwright............. 78Ex. 2 Affidavit of David Miscavige.............. 91

11 Ex. 3 Contract for Investigative Services and...Non-Disclosure Agreement..................103

12 Ex. 4 Notice....................................1121314 REQUESTED DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION15 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE16 (NONE)17

CERTIFIED QUESTIONS18 NO. PAGE/LINE

19 (NONE)2021222324 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the record on25 November 20th, 2013 at 9:31 a.m.

Page 5

1 ALLAN CARTWRIGHT,2 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:3 MR. JEFFERSON: Before we begin, again,4 as I said in advance of the last round of depositions,

5 the -- this is Lamont Jefferson representing the6 specially appearing defendants, Religious Technology7 Center and David Miscavige. This deposition is being8 taken pursuant to a court order on jurisdictional9 matters only -- the jurisdictional matters only.

10 It's our position that the jurisdictional11 matters in issue are the extent to which Mr. Miscavige12 or RTC has either a general presence in the State of13 Texas, or has a specific relationship to the allegations14 in the lawsuit, that is, were actually involved in the15 matters alleged by the plaintiffs in the case. To the16 extent questions go beyond that scope, we will likely17 object.

18 MR. JEFFREY: Well, let's be clear on19 that. Will you be objecting or will you be instructing20 the witness not to answer?21 MR. JEFFERSON: If it's our witness,22 we'll do both.23 MR. JEFFREY: Well, I'm talking24 collectively to the crew over here. Because, if so,25 we'll just shut it down and we'll go see the judge and


16/137


Allan Cartwright


3 (Pages 6 to 9)

Page 6

1 we'll get it ruled on because you have our pleadings,2 our preliminary pleadings on the special appearance, you3 know what the issues are as we have framed them. You4 don't get to frame what are the jurisdictional issues,5 so I just want to know that.6 If -- I -- I regard that as an objection

7 substantively, so the way we do the depositions in Texas8 is we object to form, we instruct as to privilege or9 something like that. But, if we get into this, and what

10 we're going to do is, he's not going to answer any11 questions about the things that we've put in issue12 concerning jurisdiction, I'm just going to shut down the13 deposition, we'll go get some rulings from the judge and14 then we'll come back, okay?15 MR. JEFFERSON: Totally your prerogative.16 If you want to shut it down, I'm not saying we'll17 reproduce a witness --18 MR. JEFFREY: Sure.19 MR. JEFFERSON: -- voluntarily.

20 MR. JEFFREY: Sure.21 MR. JEFFERSON: I think your obligation22 is to proceed with the deposition.23 MR. JEFFREY: But I reviewed --24 MR. JEFFERSON: We will lodge -- we will25 lodge the objections that we think are necessary and we

Page 7

1 will instruct the witnesses as we believe necessary, and2 then we will proceed from there.3 MR. JEFFREY: I'm going to start with the4 assumption that we'll all be professionals and we'll do

5 our best jobs for our clients. If we run into a6 problem, then we'll deal with it then, okay? Okay.7 Let's just state --8 MR. STRIEBER: Quickly --9 MR. JEFFREY: -- our appearances.

10 MR. STRIEBER: Yeah, and I can do two11 things at once.12 MR. JEFFREY: Sure.13 MR. STRIEBER: Les Strieber here on14 behalf of the defendant CSI. Also, just for the record,15 because we've been having e-mail problems at our office,16 I hand-delivered to plaintiff's counsel Defendant CSI's17 Responses and Objection to Plaintiff's Second Amended

18 Notice of Deposition right before we were starting. I19 just wanted to put that on the record because I intended20 to e-mail it and I turned it into a hand-delivery.21 MR. JEFFREY: Okay.22 MR. DUNAGAN: Ray, before you get going,23 I'm Paul Dunagan, I'm here representing Monty Drake.24 We're participating in the discovery in the deposition25 in this case subject to our Motion of Transfer venue

Page 8

1 without waiving our rights under that motion.2 MR. JEFFREY: Okay.3 MR. SPENCER: George Spencer, one of the4 lawyers for defendant CSI.5 MR. JEFFREY: You want to state your6 appearance?

7 MR. JEFFERSON: I think we did.8 MR. JEFFREY: Okay. Anybody else?9 MR. HULL: Jonathan Hull --

10 MR. JEFFREY: Who are you?11 MR. McSHANE: I'm Warren McShane.12 MR. JEFFREY: Oh, you -- oh, that's13 right, I've met you before.14 MR. LAVIN: Neil Lavin with Church of15 Scientology International.16 MR. JEFFREY: Okay.17 MR. HULL: Jonathan Hull, I represent18 Steve Sloat and Ed Brian.19 MS. BASCON: Stephanie Bascon, I

20 represent David Lubow.21 MR. RATHBUN: Mark Rathbun.22 MR. JEFFREY: Mark Rathbun and -- the23 husband of the plaintiff, and I'm Ray Jeffrey and I24 represent the plaintiff, Monique Rathbun. I'll agree at25 the beginning that an objection for one defendant is an

Page 9

1 objection for all so that everyone doesn't need to2 piggyback on, so that's fine with me.3 MR. JEFFERSON: Thank you.4 MR. SPENCER: May we have that

5 stipulation for all depositions --6 MR. JEFFREY: Yes.7 MR. SPENCER: -- in this case?8 MR. JEFFREY: Yes.9 MR. SPENCER: Thank you.

10 (Mr. Wiegand present.)11 EXAMINATION12 BY MR. JEFFREY:13 Q. Mr. Cartwright, I'm --14 A. Yes.15 Q. -- Ray Jeffrey and I'm here today to take your16 deposition. You understand that, don't you?17 A. I do.

18 Q. And you're the Director of Legal Affairs for19 the Office of Special Affairs for the Church of20 Scientology International?21 A. Correct.22 Q. So, generally speaking, you understand what a23 deposition is and what it means to give sworn testimony?24 A. Yes.25 Q. If you have any questions, please feel free to


17/137


Allan Cartwright


4 (Pages 10 to 13)

Page 10

1 ask me. If I ask you a question that you don't2 understand, please feel free, it's usually my fault, and3 just tell me you don't understand the question, and I'll4 try to ask it better. If you need a break at any time,5 you just ask and that will be fine. And if you need any6 clarifications or anything like that, just speak up,

7 okay?8 A. Will do.9 Q. We've met several times before, but I really

10 don't know much about you, so I'm going to ask a little11 bit about you, who you are, so that we can evaluate you12 as a witness and -- and your context in this case.13 You -- as we covered a moment ago, you're the Director14 of Legal Affairs. Are you an attorney?15 A. No.16 Q. And how old a man are you?17 A. Fifty six.18 Q. And where is it that you work?19 A. In Los Angeles.

20 Q. And where is your office?21 A. On Hollywood Boulevard.22 Q. And is it in a particular building?23 A. Yes, it is.24 Q. What building is that?25 A. It's the -- the CSI management offices.

Page 11

1 Q. And what -- is the entire building occupied by2 different entities and personnel related to the Church3 of Scientology in some way?4 A. It was mainly to do with CSI, that's correct.

5 Q. Okay. And what other church entities have6 their offices in that building?7 A. Okay. There's -- Religious Technology Center8 has an office in that building.9 Q. And what floor is your office on?

10 A. Ten.11 Q. And what floor is Religious Technology Center12 offices on?13 A. Eleven.14 Q. Now, you work within an office called the15 Office of Special Affairs, correct?16 A. Correct.17 Q. How many floors of that building does the

18 Office of Special Affairs have?19 A. Two.20 Q. And approximately, how many staff members are21 there working for the Office of Special Affairs?22 A. About 80, but I haven't counted them recently.23 Q. I understand you're just making a rough24 estimate.25 A. Right.

Page 12

1 Q. And so, you said you're on ten?2 A. Correct.3 Q. RTC is on 11?4 A. It has an office there.5 Q. RTC doesn't take the whole floor, does it?6 A. I think it's basically the whole floor.

7 Q. Okay. And about how many RTC personnel are up8 there on 11?9 A. It's not an office that's used that often.

10 Q. So, in other words, there's an office, but11 it's not fully staffed all the time?12 A. No.13 Q. That's correct?14 A. Correct.15 Q. Does David Miscavige have an office on 11?16 A. He has used an office there, but he's rarely,17 rarely there.18 Q. Where is David Miscavige's office?19 A. He has offices in many different places.

20 Q. Where is his primary office?21 A. I can't answer that question as to where it is22 primarily.23 Q. Have you ever been to his office?24 A. When you say -- I mean, I've been to the 11th25 floor office.

Page 13

1 Q. And have you ever been to whatever might be2 regarded as his primary office?3 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.4 THE WITNESS: I can't -- as I said

5 already, I can't really tell you what is his primary6 office.7 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) When you go home at night,8 where is that? Do you live in scientology quarters of9 some type, or do you live in a home, or where?

10 A. We have an apartment complex.11 Q. And it's an apartment complex that is occupied12 by staff members of the Church of Scientology?13 A. Church of Scientology International, yes.14 Q. You don't live or work out on the15 international base out in Hemet East of Los Angeles, do16 you?17 A. I have gone -- I've gone there, I've stayed

18 overnight there, as well.19 Q. Okay. How often?20 A. I'd say sometimes it's more often than others,21 so it's hard to say how often.22 Q. Sure. But, would you say in a given year you23 might stay out there five nights during the year or --24 A. I can't say.25 Q. -- 100 nights or what?


18/137


Allan Cartwright


5 (Pages 14 to 17)

Page 14

1 A. I can't say.2 Q. Well, obviously, I can't say because I'm not3 with you and I don't know what you do on a daily basis.4 You're the only one that can tell us roughly how often5 you might actually stay out on the base.6 A. Uh-huh.

7 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, asked and8 answered.9 MR. JEFFREY: This is Cross Examination.

10 I'm just trying to explore his unresponsive answer.11 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) What -- why is it that you12 can't tell me whether you spend the night out at the13 international base six months a year or six days a year?14 You can't give me any clue on that?15 A. Well, the point is that I go there, I may not16 stay the night there.17 Q. Okay.18 A. So, that's -- that's why you say spend the19 night there, I'm not -- it's difficult to start saying

20 how many nights I've spent there.21 Q. Well, it's not that difficult. 2013, how many22 nights did you spend the night out on the international23 base?24 A. I was -- I don't think I spent any nights25 there, but I went there --

Page 15

1 Q. Okay.2 A. -- a number of times.3 Q. And so, in 2013, we're now in the latter part4 of November, how many days did you go out to the

5 international base?6 A. In when?7 Q. 2013.8 A. Three or four times.9 Q. Okay. Are you a member of the Sea

10 Organization?11 A. I am.12 Q. And if we refer to that as the Sea Org, you'll13 understand what I'm talking about?14 A. I will.15 Q. And how many years have you been a member of16 the Sea Org?17 A. Let me see. Thirty -- let's see. Thirty --

18 32 years.19 Q. More than 30 years anyway?20 A. Correct.21 Q. A long time?22 A. Correct.23 Q. And on the subject of Sea Org and what it is,24 I have a sworn declaration from Warren McShane. You25 know Warren McShane, don't you?

Page 16

1 A. I do.2 Q. And from the Headley case in California. And3 in that declaration on paragraph ten, he described that4 Mr. Miscavige must rely on fully dedicated, thoroughly5 trained and unflinchingly loyal scientologists to carry6 out the ecclesiastical functions of the religion. And

7 he said those were the religious volunteers of the Sea8 Organization. Do you think that's a fair9 characterization?

10 MR. JEFFERSON: I'm going to object.11 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.12 MR. JEFFERSON: Object to form. And if13 you're going to confront him with a statement, I'd ask14 that you allow the witness to see the statement.15 THE WITNESS: Can I see the --16 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay. I'm not confronting17 you with any writing. I'm asking you, do you think this18 is a fair characterization of the Sea Organization, that19 it is a group of fully dedicated, thoroughly trained and

20 unflinchingly loyal scientologists? Is that a fair21 description?22 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.23 THE WITNESS: I would say that members of24 the Sea Org are dedicated members of a religious order,25 and that's what I would say.

Page 17

1 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) I'm just trying to find out2 what you might agree with or not agree with in my3 statement. Do you feel that they're unflinchingly loyal4 scientologists?

5 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.6 THE WITNESS: I mean, that's, you know,7 Mr. McShane's viewpoint.8 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) I'm asking you. I'm sorry I9 mentioned Mr. McShane. So, let's just start this over.

10 Would you agree that the members of the Sea Org are11 unflinchingly loyal scientologists?12 A. I think they're dedicated.13 Q. If I ask you if it's daytime or nighttime out,14 and you tell me that it's November, do you understand15 you haven't answered my question?16 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, argumentative.17 THE WITNESS: I understand what you're

18 saying.19 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay. I'm just trying to get20 some ground rules here.21 A. Okay.22 Q. I asked you, do you think it's fair to23 describe the members of the Sea Org as unflinchingly24 loyal scientologists, or do you disagree with that?25 A. I'm not disagreeing. I'm just giving you my


19/137


Allan Cartwright


6 (Pages 18 to 21)

Page 18

1 interpretation of what he means by that, and what my2 understanding is of that.3 Q. Well, if someone were to say that the Sea Org4 members were fully dedicated, and then went on to say5 unflinchingly loyal, are you saying those two things are6 identical?

7 A. I'm just saying that it's someone's viewpoint8 as to what they view as to Sea Org. I'm telling you9 what I view, so that's all -- that's all I'm saying.

10 I'm not trying to be argumentative to you, I'm just --11 I'm just thinking you're trying to put words in my12 mouth, which aren't my words.13 Q. Well, I'm asking you, which I have a right to14 do, I'm asking you, do you agree or disagree? You15 understand that dedication is different from loyalty?16 A. I don't -- I don't think so.17 Q. Okay. Do you have a rank in the Sea Org?18 A. I do.19 Q. What is your rank?

20 A. Ensign.21 Q. And that sounds like a naval rank. Is the Sea22 Org patterned in some way, shape or form after a naval23 structure?24 A. The Sea Org originated -- it originates from25 the '60s because it was originally on ships, and

Page 19

1 that's -- we do -- it does have a naval source of it,2 yes.3 Q. And have you ever had any ranks other than4 ensign?

5 A. Yes.6 Q. What have your other ranks been?7 A. I've been a midshipman, warrant officer, petty8 officer, petty officer, chief petty officer, PO1, PO2,9 PO3, swamper.

10 Q. Are you regressing?11 A. I'm going all over the place.12 Q. Okay. Swamper is the bottom of the -- of the13 heap, isn't it?14 A. Well, I wouldn't call it the bottom of the15 heap, but it's the lowest level.16 Q. Sure. Have -- have you ever been demoted in17 rank?

18 A. Yes.19 Q. From what rank to what rank?20 A. I was midshipman to a chief petty officer.21 Q. Today you're ensign. Is that the highest rank22 you've ever held?23 A. Correct.24 Q. You have been in the Sea Org for more than25 30 years, as I understand it. Were you ever assigned to

Page 20

1 an organization within the Church of Scientology called2 the guardian's office?3 A. Was I ever assigned?4 Q. I don't know the proper word. Were you ever5 in the guardian's office, assigned to the guardian's6 office, worked in the guardian's office, however you

7 want to characterize it?8 A. In the '70s?9 Q. Yes.

10 A. That was before I was in the Sea Org.11 Q. Okay.12 A. I was on staff in Australia.13 Q. In the guardian's office?14 A. At one point, I had -- there was -- that was15 sort of the -- a department within the church I worked16 in back in the late '70s.17 Q. Okay. Well, I'm just asking you a simple18 question. Did you ever work in or with or on staff of19 the guardian's office?

20 A. That's what I just answered you, it was a21 department within the Church of Scientology I worked in22 in Australia.23 Q. In the guardian's office?24 A. That's what I said, it was a department, yes.25 Q. Okay. It's never past your lips here in my

Page 21

1 questions.2 A. Oh, I'm sorry.3 Q. I'm going to ask you a simple question.4 A. Okay.

5 Q. Have you ever worked in the guardian's office?6 A. Yes.7 Q. Okay. Warren McShane, who's going to testify8 on behalf of RTC, was he in the guardian's office?9 A. You know, I'm not 100 percent sure. I -- I'm

10 not sure. You have to ask him.11 Q. I definitely will.12 A. Okay.13 Q. You know who Linda Hamel is, don't you?14 A. I do.15 Q. Who is she?16 A. She is the commanding officer of Office of17 Special Affairs International.

18 Q. How is her job different from yours?19 A. She is overall, I guess, she's in charge of20 instilling matters. I'm -- I mainly deal with the legal21 affairs and anything dealing with legal matters,22 whatever that aspect is. So, I mean, you would say that23 that's basically what it is.24 Q. Are you subordinate to Linda Hamel?25 A. Yes.


20/137


Allan Cartwright


7 (Pages 22 to 25)

Page 22

1 Q. And did Linda Hamel ever work in legal affairs2 as opposed to other external matters?3 A. No.4 Q. And what are the other external matters?5 A. Well, she -- I don't know all her history6 because we do go back, I mean, I've been -- I haven't

7 been in LA all the time, but she worked in -- she was at8 one point the -- what would be called the DCO external,9 which is a deputy over external matters.

10 Q. I'm asking you, what are external matters11 other than legal affairs?12 A. Oh. Examples would be like there's public13 relations, there's also investigation type matters.14 Q. And in fairness, Linda Hamel is not really a15 PR person, is she?16 A. I don't know what you mean by PR person.17 Q. Public relations.18 A. I don't what -- a public relations person?19 You mean, does she speak, does she --

20 Q. Yeah. Well, has -- has her job emphasis ever21 been public relations in terms -- well, just as you22 understand public relations?23 A. I think so.24 Q. Okay.25 A. Yes.

Page 23

1 Q. Has she had an area of emphasis, in the years2 you've known her, within OSA?3 A. I've known her -- most of the time I've known4 her, she's been in the -- over -- over the various

5 external affairs type matters.6 Q. But not legal affairs?7 A. Yes, definitely. I mean, she's been -- she8 was a commanding officer when I knew her back in the9 '90s at certain times, and also in the 2000 -- between

10 2000, 2006, I wasn't -- I wasn't in LA, I was in11 Florida, and so during that time, I'm not quite sure12 what position she had.13 Q. Linda Hamel was in the guardian's office at14 one time, wasn't she?15 A. I'm not -- I mean, she may have mentioned that16 to me in the past, but I'm not -- I'm not sure where she17 was. I mean, when I arrived in Los Angeles, there was

18 no guardian's office.19 Q. It had been disbanded, hadn't it?20 A. It had been, yeah, disbanded, that would be a21 good -- a way of saying it.22 Q. In fact, according to Mr. Miscavige, it was23 disbanded by him working with others in the Church of24 Scientology?25 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.

Page 24

1 THE WITNESS: Okay.2 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) That's well-known, isn't it?3 A. I think that's -- that's -- I mean, it wasn't4 him, only him, but there were other people involved.5 Q. Right. But, he's filed 40-plus page6 declarations in court in which he's discussed at great

7 length --8 A. Right.9 Q. -- that he was a moving force in dealing with

10 and disbanding the guardian's office, correct?11 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.12 THE WITNESS: Understood.13 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Is that correct?14 A. Yes, that's correct.15 Q. And the reason why the guardian's office was16 disbanded was because it was committing illegal acts in17 the United States of America?18 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.19 THE WITNESS: I don't think that was the

20 reason. I mean, I can -- I can give you my opinion.21 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay.22 A. What I think it was.23 Q. Give me your opinion.24 MR. STRIEBER: I would ask -- I would25 object to the form of any question calling for this

Page 25

1 layperson's opinion.2 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay.3 A. Okay.4 Q. You still have to answer.

5 A. What was the question?6 Q. Well, you had offered to give your opinion7 concerning what the guardian's office was doing, and I8 said go ahead, so that's where we are.9 A. Okay. Well --

10 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.11 THE WITNESS: Well, the only thing was12 that the guardian's office was separate from, was sort13 of independent from the church, and so it was -- we14 needed something that was part of the church.15 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Somewhere we got off-track.16 The guardian's office was disbanded, correct?17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Eleven members of the guardian's office went19 to federal prison, didn't they?20 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form. And tie21 me into how this has anything to do with jurisdiction.22 MR. JEFFREY: Why don't you get a copy of23 our response to the special appearance and you can see.24 MR. STRIEBER: I just asked you a25 question.


21/137


Allan Cartwright


8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Page 26

1 MR. JEFFREY: I don't have to educate2 you.3 MR. STRIEBER: You started off --4 MR. JEFFREY: Fair enough. Make your5 objection and the judge can sort it out later.6 MR. STRIEBER: I'm asking you, for the

7 record, what does this have to do with the scope of8 jurisdiction?9 MR. JEFFREY: I'm referring you in -- to

10 our initial response to the special appearance, which11 goes into this in great detail, and now I'm doing12 factual discovery concerning our allegations, okay.13 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.14 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay. Eleven members of the15 guardian's office of the Church of Scientology went to16 federal prison, correct?17 A. Yes.18 Q. Including the wife of the founder of the19 Church of Scientology, Mary Hubbard?

20 A. Yes. I have to clarify one thing, this is21 a -- I wasn't in the U.S. when all this was happening.22 Q. Sure.23 A. I was in Australia, so you're asking me to --24 what I've read. It's not -- there's no personal25 experience on this kind of stuff, that's what I'm

Page 27

1 telling you.2 Q. Okay. But, this is well-known within3 scientology, isn't it?4 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.

5 THE WITNESS: I don't think so.6 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) It's well-known within the7 Office of Special Affairs of the Church of Scientology,8 the history of the guardian's office, isn't it?9 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.

10 THE WITNESS: I don't know. To some11 extent. I mean, it depends who was around. There's a12 lot of new people, it's a long history, it's a long time13 ago that this happened. A lot of things have changed.14 So, you know, saying it's -- I mean, you're making15 something out of something that happened a long, long,16 long time ago.17 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Well, you as the Director of

18 Legal Affairs, I'm sure, have very carefully read and19 studied the declarations that have been filed by David20 Miscavige in litigation involving the Church of21 Scientology, haven't you?22 A. I've read them.23 Q. Yes. That would be important to you, wouldn't24 it?25 A. I don't know about important to me. A lot of

Page 28

1 things are important to me in legal. I mean, having the2 right counsel, making sure that we make the correct3 arguments, making sure we deal with the issues that come4 up. I mean, there's a lot, a lot of issues that I have5 to be responsible for in making sure that we deal with6 our cases correctly.

7 Q. Is it fair to say that the supreme authority8 within the Church of Scientology today is David9 Miscavige?

10 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.11 THE WITNESS: I can't answer a question12 like that.13 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) How would you describe his14 position within the Church of Scientology?15 A. He's the ecclesiastical leader of the16 religion.17 Q. That's a pretty important position, isn't it?18 A. Sure.19 Q. And how many declarations has he signed under

20 oath in legal matters relating to the Church of21 Scientology?22 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.23 THE WITNESS: You really want me to24 answer that question?25 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Yes.

Page 29

1 A. I can't answer it. I don't know how many, I2 just don't know.3 Q. Okay. Let's get back on track then. The4 guardian's office was an office within the Church of

5 Scientology that got involved in illegal activities, and6 11 of its members went to federal prison, correct?7 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.8 THE WITNESS: I have to say there was9 certain individuals at a certain time many, many years

10 ago back in the mid '70s or whenever it was, I don't11 even know, but it was definitely before the '80s, that12 this -- that this happened, and you make it sound like13 it was everybody, which is wrong.14 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) I said 11 members.15 A. Right. I thought you said -- you added16 something else to the -- maybe I misunderstood what you17 said.

18 Q. You know, you're not here today to argue the19 case, you're just here to answer --20 A. I understand.21 Q. -- factual questions. So, if I ask a question22 that says -- that asks you --23 MR. STRIEBER: Ray, Ray, skip the24 lectures, just ask your questions.25 MR. JEFFREY: Well, the witness is


22/137


Allan Cartwright


9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Page 30

1 being --2 MR. STRIEBER: Skip the lectures.3 MR. JEFFREY: -- persistently4 unresponsive.5 MR. STRIEBER: Object to nonresponsive,6 don't lecture. You have to --

7 MR. JEFFREY: Yeah, but I'm not going to8 let --9 MR. STRIEBER: -- follow the rules.

10 MR. JEFFREY: -- the witness run11 roughshod over the deposition.12 MR. STRIEBER: Ask your next question.13 MR. JEFFREY: Let me ask the question.14 MR. STRIEBER: He's not running15 roughshod. Ask your question.16 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) The guardian's office was an17 office within the Church of Scientology that committed18 illegal activities in the United States, and 11 of its19 members went to federal prison; isn't that fair?

20 A. And I said to you --21 MR. JEFFERSON: Objection, form.22 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.23 THE WITNESS: And I said to you that24 there were certain individuals back in the '70s that had25 done something wrong, and you make it sound like the

Page 31

1 guardian's office did it. It was certain individuals.2 MR. JEFFREY: Objection, nonresponsive.3 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) The guardian's office was an4 office within the Church of Scientology that committed

5 illegal acts in the United States of America, and 11 of6 its members went to federal prison; is that true?7 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.8 THE WITNESS: I don't quite understand9 what you mean by Church of Scientology when you say it

10 that way.11 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Tell me how you would12 characterize the organization in which the guardian's13 office was involved.14 A. Okay. Well, there was a guardian's office15 department that -- that was located in California.16 There was a guardian's office in the UK. And so, as I17 said, there was sort of departments within areas.

18 That's why when I told you earlier, I was a part of the19 guardian's office department in Australia. That's what20 I was trying to explain to you.21 Q. Well, I understand that. I'm looking at the22 declaration of David Miscavige from the Wallershine case23 in 1999, and in paragraph 55, he said: What the GO did24 was illegal. No real scientologist would ever condone25 or even consider such conduct.

Page 32

1 And then he goes on to say: The2 authorities indicted 11 people. We conducted internal3 ecclesiastical justice proceedings that led to the4 discharge of 800 people.5 Are the facts that I've just recited, are6 those correct?

7 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form. And if8 you're going to confront a witness with a document,9 allow the witness to see the document. And if you do

10 not, I will instruct him not to answer it. You're11 referring to a multipage document, reading short quotes12 out of it and asking him if that is correct, and -- and13 you're not allowing him to review the document in the14 entirety, you're not providing opposing counsel with a15 copy of the document.16 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Regardless of which office or17 department of the guardian's office was involved, 1118 individuals in some aspect of the guardian's office were19 indicted and went to federal prison, didn't they?

20 A. I believe so.21 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.22 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay. But, although you were23 involved in the guardian's office, you didn't go to24 prison, did you?25 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.

Page 33

1 THE WITNESS: No.2 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) And you weren't discharged3 from church staff?4 A. No.

5 Q. Linda Hamel, who is in charge of the Office of6 Special Affairs today, was she indicted in connection7 with her work with the guardian's office?8 A. No.9 Q. Did she go to prison?

10 A. No.11 Q. Was she discharged from the church for her12 involvement in the guardian's office?13 A. No.14 Q. Who's Neil O'Reilly?15 A. He is staff at the Office of Special Affairs.16 Q. Was he in the guardian's office?17 A. I have no idea.

18 Q. Ben Shaw, who is he?19 A. He is a staff member of the Church of20 Scientology Flag Service Organization.21 Q. In Clearwater, Florida?22 A. Correct.23 Q. Was he a member of the guardian's office?24 A. I don't know.25 Q. Who would know this?


23/137


Allan Cartwright


10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Page 34

1 A. Who would know whether Ben Shaw --2 Q. Yeah. Who would know whether Neil O'Reilly,3 Ben Shaw, Laurisse Stuckenbrock, whether they were in4 the guardian's office?5 A. Wow. I mean, I guess people in personnel6 would know. I mean, I don't know. I mean, you can ask

7 them, I guess. I mean, we're talking about something --8 I mean, the GO was ended in the late '70s, early '80s,9 so we're talking about a long time ago.

10 Q. Well, obviously, we could take the deposition11 of Hamel and O'Reilly and Shaw and Stuckenbrock, but it12 would be much easier if there was just a human being13 that could say whether or not they served in the14 guardian's office. You're saying you don't know of any15 human being that could answer that question?16 MR. STRIEBER: Ray, objection, beyond17 scope of your notice of deposition, and beyond the scope18 of any topics that you asked to be presented today. You19 did not present a topic on the guardian issue. And had

20 you done that and put CSI on notice that that was going21 to be a topic, perhaps we could have found those answers22 for you. So, this is far beyond the scope of your23 noticed deposition.24 MR. JEFFREY: I'm just asking him who25 would be a person that could answer those questions so

Page 35

1 that we can --2 MR. STRIEBER: That is off the topic.3 That's beyond the scope of discovery. If you wanted to4 ask questions about that and get that type of drilled

5 down specific knowledge, you should have put that in the6 topic of your deposition notice. If you want to later7 send out an interrogatory asking that question, you're8 welcome to.9 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Let's take a little diversion

10 here. This is the Plaintiff's Second Amended Notice of11 Intent to Take Deposition for the Church of Scientology12 International. Would you take a look at that?13 MR. STRIEBER: Do you have an extra copy?14 Thank you.15 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Do you see Exhibit A,16 Mr. Cartwright?17 A. I do.

18 Q. Do you understand how these organizational19 deposition notices work, which is we notice the20 deposition of the organization and tell the organization21 what we want to talk about, or what we need information22 on, and the organization identifies the person or23 persons with the best -- or the best ability to answer24 that -- those questions. Do you understand that?25 A. I do.

Page 36

1 Q. Okay. Let's go through that and see --2 A. Okay.3 Q. -- whether you're the appropriate person here.4 No. 1: Religious Technology Center's contacts with the5 State of Texas and the allegations in its special6 appearance.

7 Do you believe that you're the person at8 CSI with the most knowledge on that topic?9 MR. STRIEBER: Objection. That's an

10 inappropriate question on whether he's the person with11 the most knowledge.12 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Do you have knowledge --13 MR. STRIEBER: The objective of the14 deposition notice is to put the corporation on notice15 and then provide a person to testify to those topics to16 the best of their ability. It's not --17 MR. JEFFREY: Not to the best of their18 ability. The corporation and its attorneys have an19 obligation to educate the witness on the topics listed

20 therein, and in fact, have him review documents, if21 necessary, et cetera, et cetera.22 MR. STRIEBER: That's not the question23 you asked him.24 MR. JEFFREY: Okay. Well, we'll -- we'll25 continue on then.

Page 37

1 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Do you have knowledge, either2 gathered from elsewhere or your own personal knowledge,3 concerning item No. 1, which is RTC's contacts with the4 State of Texas and the allegations in its special

5 appearance?6 A. Yes.7 Q. And how do you have that knowledge?8 A. I have knowledge from my personal experience,9 and also from --

10 MR. STRIEBER: And do understand that11 this is subject to the objections that we provided today12 with respect to reference to, among other things, the13 RTC and our CSI deposition notice?14 THE WITNESS: I have personal knowledge15 and also from talking to people.16 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Item No. 2 is related in --17 it's the same sort of category, but it relates to

18 Captain David Miscavige instead of just RTC. Do you see19 that?20 A. I see that. I object to the fact that you're21 calling him Captain David Miscavige. I don't know him22 as such.23 Q. Is he a captain?24 A. I'm an ensign. I'm not called Ensign Allan25 Cartwright when I walk -- when I'm -- when I'm in my


24/137


Allan Cartwright


11 (Pages 38 to 41)

Page 38

1 office, and so it's -- it's not correct to say Captain2 David Miscavige. He's Mr. David Miscavige, Chairman of3 the Board RTC.4 Q. I realize you have a reason for wanting that5 to be, but he does carry the rank captain, and6 therefore, may be referred to as captain.

7 A. The only person that refers to him as captain8 is yourself, Mr. Jeffrey. No one else in the church9 refers to him as captain.

10 Q. Is that because the Office of Special Affairs,11 in its dealing with external matters, like lawsuits and12 investigations, wants to de-emphasize the role of the13 Sea Org within the church organization?14 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.15 THE WITNESS: I don't -- can't even -- I16 don't know how to even answer that question. It's not17 true, whatever you're saying.18 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Whatever it is I'm saying,19 it's not true?

20 A. What -- what you're saying is incorrect21 because there's no de-emphasizing. The Sea Org is what22 the Sea Org is.23 Q. Okay. Do you have knowledge of Captain24 Miscavige's contacts with the State of Texas and the25 allegations in his special appearance?

Page 39

1 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.2 THE WITNESS: I have knowledge of3 Mr. Miscavige's whatever contacts -- the contacts --4 contacts there are in the State of Texas.

5 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay. How often do you meet6 with Captain Miscavige?7 A. I haven't met with Mr. Miscavige for -- not8 that often. It's not that often. He deals with matters9 concerning orthodox and religion, I deal with external

10 affairs. There's not really an activity that creates11 meetings.12 Q. And you're working in Los Angeles, and he's13 often not even in the same city as you; is that fair?14 A. I don't keep track of where he is.15 Q. Okay. So, how would you know what his16 contacts are with the State of Texas if you're not in17 his presence by his side on a daily basis?

18 A. I know with regards to -- I've gathered19 knowledge with regards to CSI's knowledge as to his20 contacts in the State of Texas.21 Q. And what -- what have you gathered?22 A. Well, I know he attended a -- the church23 opening in Dallas, that's what I've gathered.24 Q. Okay. But, if he's on the phone every day for25 two hours a day dealing with matters related to the

Page 40

1 State of Texas, you have no knowledge one way or the2 other, do you?3 A. No, nor would any other person from CSI.4 Q. What sort of reporting flows from OSA to5 Captain Miscavige?6 MR. JEFFERSON: Is it too much to ask

7 that you not refer to him in that manner?8 MR. JEFFREY: Yes.9 MR. JEFFERSON: Well, it's my client and

10 I'm going to ask that you not, as a matter of courtesy.11 The witness has told you no one referred to him like12 that but you. It's harassment, it's argumentative, so13 I'm going to ask that you not do it. Are you going14 to --15 MR. JEFFREY: I will continue to refer to16 him as Captain Miscavige.17 MR. JEFFERSON: Why is it -- what is it18 that you're going to do that, Mr. Jeffrey?19 MR. JEFFREY: Because -- because we have

20 laid this out in our pleadings and in declarations. His21 authority within the Church of Scientology to control22 every last aspect of the church comes from his rank as23 captain.24 MR. JEFFERSON: You can refer to him in a25 manner that is respectful and civil and not one that

Page 41

1 serves your own ends.2 MR. JEFFREY: Well --3 MR. JEFFERSON: And if you continue to do4 it, I will continue to object and I will speak up.

5 MR. JEFFREY: Okay. You may have a6 running objection, if you like.7 MR. JEFFERSON: No, I will speak up.8 MR. JEFFREY: Okay. That's fine. I've9 lost my -- what was my last question?

10 MR. DUNAGAN: That you were through.11 MR. JEFFREY: I think I -- I think I said12 that -- that concludes the deposition.13 MR. DUNAGAN: Yes.14 MR. JEFFREY: Okay. I have it.15 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) What sort of reporting flows16 from OSA to Captain Miscavige himself?17 A. Again, I'm just going to tell you, his name is

18 not Captain Miscavige, it's Mr. Miscavige, or you can19 call him COB RTC, which is what I know him as.20 Q. You know him as COB, don't you?21 A. That's correct.22 Q. And what's a COB order?23 A. What's a COB order?24 Q. Yes.25 A. I don't know what a COB order is. Sorry, I


25/137


Allan Cartwright


12 (Pages 42 to 45)

Page 42

1 don't know.2 Q. Have you ever received a COB order?3 A. No.4 Q. Have you ever filed or responded with a5 compliance report?6 A. No.

7 Q. You've never heard, in your 30-year career8 with the Church of Scientology, of a COB order?9 A. No.

10 Q. Does Captain Miscavige regularly issue orders11 to personnel that are delivered in writing, and then the12 personnel must respond to the order with what's called a13 compliance report?14 A. I'm, again, going to say that his name is not15 Captain Miscavige.16 MR. JEFFERSON: I'm going to -- I'm going17 to join in that objection. He is not referred to as18 Captain Miscavige by anybody but you. You're using it19 in a derisive manner to serve your own needs, to serve

20 your own purposes in this deposition, and I'm going to21 speak up every time you do, okay?22 MR. JEFFREY: Okay.23 MR. JEFFERSON: If you can point to one24 other place in the public where Mr. Miscavige is25 referred to as Captain, I'll --

Page 43

1 MR. JEFFREY: In the public?2 MR. JEFFERSON: Any -- any other public3 forum where Mr. Miscavige is referred to as captain,4 bring it, let's take a look at it. Otherwise, it is you

5 being insulting and for no other purpose, and it is6 improper in this deposition.7 MR. JEFFREY: It is insulting to refer to8 someone by his rank, which is the highest rank within9 the organization?

10 MR. JEFFERSON: It is improper to refer11 to somebody in a manner in which they do not wish to be12 referred. It's not your call. You can't just call him13 devil Miscavige, or any other name that is insulting or14 is -- or is derogatory.15 MR. JEFFREY: It is derogatory --16 MR. JEFFERSON: In your -- in your --17 MR. JEFFREY: -- to call him Captain?

18 MR. JEFFERSON: Or that is not in your19 interest.20 MR. JEFFREY: I don't understand how it's21 insulting or derogatory to call someone by the highest22 rank within a multinational organization from which he23 derives his authority.24 MR. JEFFERSON: Totally depends upon your25 intent in using the term, doesn't it?

Page 44

1 MR. JEFFREY: That is my intent, to2 communicate the real authority.3 MR. JEFFERSON: Your intent is to argue,4 your intent to is to use the term to argue your5 position. That is not how he's referred to by anybody6 but you. And I'm not going to allow it without speaking

7 up. I'm going to speak up every time.8 MR. JEFFREY: Well, we will demonstrate9 very clearly in the case from numerous witnesses that he

10 is referred to as Captain Miscavige, so I have no qualms11 whatsoever about referring to him as Captain12 Miscavige and --13 MR. JEFFERSON: I'm asking that you14 not --15 MR. JEFFREY: -- it 's nothing out of16 order.17 MR. JEFFERSON: -- refer to my client in18 that manner and every time that you do, I will19 interrupt.

20 MR. JEFFREY: Okay. Well, we'll -- if21 you're going to persist in interrupting, then we'll just22 have to shut down the deposition and go get a ruling23 from the court.24 MR. JEFFERSON: That's your choice.25 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) So, I did ask a question, and

Page 45

1 you haven't answered the question other than to argue2 with me over the use of captain. So, would you answer3 the question?4 A. I don't remember the question.

5 Q. Reports flowing from OSA to Miscavige.6 MR. STRIEBER: Is that a question? That7 sounds like a statement, an incomplete statement. What8 is your question?9 MR. JEFFREY: I've asked the question

10 twice. He just wanted a reminder. I gave him a11 reminder.12 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Do you remember the question13 now?14 A. No. Could you repeat --15 Q. Okay.16 A. -- repeat the question, please?17 Q. What reports flow from OSA to Captain

18 Miscavige?19 MR. JEFFERSON: I'm sorry, I'm going to20 interrupt. You've used the term "captain" again for21 your own purposes, not for any others. There is not22 a -- you've not presented a single document, either23 within the organization or from outside of the24 organization, any organization related to scientology,25 that refers to Mr. Miscavige as captain. You use the


26/137


Allan Cartwright


13 (Pages 46 to 49)

Page 46

1 term for your own purposes and in a manner solely to2 advance your argument about his position, and I object3 to your use -- your continued use of the term. You can4 ask this witness question after question without using5 that term and you can get through the deposition. That6 is all I'm asking of you, Mr. Jeffrey.

7 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay. Is David Miscavige8 captain of the Sea Organization?9 A. No.

10 Q. What -- does he have a rank within the Sea11 Organization?12 A. He has a rank, just like I have a rank.13 Q. And what is his rank?14 A. From what I understand, he has a rank of15 captain.16 Q. Okay. Is that an insulting term?17 A. I don't know about being insulting, it's just18 an incorrect term.19 Q. According to you?

20 A. Insulting?21 Q. Yeah, that it's -- no, you said it's22 incorrect. It's incorrect according to you.23 A. What I said to you was I don't know him as24 Captain David Miscavige. I've never heard that being25 used.

Page 47

1 Q. Have you ever seen him in his captain's2 uniform?3 A. I've seen him in his Sea Org uniform.4 Q. And is it a captain's uniform with captain's

5 rank?6 A. You know, I'm not sure.7 Q. Do you have a uniform?8 A. Yes.9 Q. And so, what you're saying is that everyone

10 within this group called the Sea Organization has a11 rank, but the ranks are meaningless?12 A. Ranks -- these -- you have to understand what13 the Sea Org is. It's a religious order, and these14 are -- these are honorary positions that are given to15 someone because of longevity and what they've done for16 the religion. That's all it is.17 Q. Is there any chain of authority from rank to

18 rank? Does a captain have authority in connection with19 an ensign?20 A. No.21 Q. There's no authority that derives from that?22 A. None whatsoever. Just to give you an example,23 I'm an ensign, Linda Hamel is a midshipman, I have a24 senior rank to her.25 Q. And both of those ranks are beneath captain?

Page 48

1 A. In the levels of ranks, yes.2 Q. But, you are saying that the ranks are3 meaningless in terms of authority?4 A. Totally.5 Q. What is command intention?6 A. It's what is wanted to be done, the -- the --

7 it's the prime intention, the important intention to get8 done.9 Q. And command intention, that's a term from the

10 Sea Organization, isn't it?11 A. It is a term that's used, yes.12 Q. And it has the word "command," and is someone13 within the Sea Organization required to respond14 appropriately to command intention?15 A. Well, it's -- I guess so, yes.16 Q. We've been going for almost an hour, let's17 take a little break.18 A. Okay.19 VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. We're off the

20 record at 10:22 a.m.21 (Recess from 10:22 to 10:35.)22 VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record23 at 10:35 a.m.24 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Mr. Cartwright, I'm going to25 hand you my trusty iPad and show you something and ask

Page 49

1 you to scroll through that for me, please. Tell us what2 it is.3 A. It's -- well, it says: Inspector general4 network bulletin No. 44. All scientologists, Chairman

5 of the Board, Religious Technology Center.6 Q. Okay.7 A. Dated 11 September 2001.8 Q. So 9/11 of -- of 2001?9 A. Right.

10 Q. Momentous day.11 A. Yes.12 Q. What is -- what is an inspector general13 bulletin?14 A. It's a bulletin that's been put out by the15 inspector general network.16 Q. By the inspector general network?17 A. That's what it says.

18 Q. And it's addressed to all scientologists. Is19 that all scientologists in the world?20 A. Well, it says "all scientologists," so it21 would include the world.22 Q. Do you know how to scan down on the page with23 your finger on the screen?24 A. I'm not sure. Sorry. Okay.25 Q. Just go to the end, please.


27/137


Allan Cartwright


14 (Pages 50 to 53)

Page 50

1 MR. STRIEBER: Do you want to go to the2 very last page of the document?3 MR. JEFFREY: Yes. Where it's signed4 off, the message ends.5 THE WITNESS: I don't know. Now I'm into6 something else.

7 MR. STRIEBER: You're good.8 THE WITNESS: It says -- oops. Okay.9 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) How does Mr. Miscavige, as

10 you say he's to be called, how does he sign off that11 report to all scientologists in the world?12 A. On that particular issue?13 Q. Yes.14 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.15 THE WITNESS: Okay. On that particular16 issue, it says Captain David Miscavige, Chairman of the17 Board, Religious Technology Center.18 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Okay. There's nothing19 insulting or derogatory about him calling himself

20 Captain David Miscavige, is there?21 A. I never said.22 Q. Okay. Well, the attorney for RTC said that.23 A. Okay.24 MR. JEFFERSON: I said --25 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Is there anything insulting

Page 51

1 or derogatory about that?2 MR. JEFFERSON: If you'll allow me3 because I am the one that said it and you brought that4 up for me, your use of the term is what is insulting and

5 wrong, your use of the term --6 MR. JEFFREY: And you asked me if --7 MR. JEFFERSON: -- in this context.8 MR. JEFFREY: -- if I could show you one9 public forum in which --

10 MR. JEFFERSON: Someone else referred to11 him as Captain Miscavige.12 MR. JEFFREY: Oh, he can refer to himself13 as Captain Miscavige --14 MR. JEFFERSON: As we've discussed --15 MR. JEFFREY: -- but no one else may16 refer to him in that way?17 MR. JEFFERSON: As we've discussed, he

18 holds the rank within the religion.19 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) Is it your testimony,20 Mr. Cartwright, that no one in the Church of21 Scientology, in any of its many organizations, has ever22 referred to David Miscavige as Captain Miscavige?23 A. Based on my knowledge, yes.24 Q. Well, you would have no personal knowledge,25 would you, as to whether or not any of the thousands of

Page 52

1 other scientologists have ever responded to him as2 Captain Miscavige?3 A. All I can say is every communication I've4 seen, every discussion I've had with -- with public or5 other staff members, Sea Org members, I've never heard6 that being used, ever.

7 Q. Except as we've seen here, on his very own8 reports, to all scientologists in the world, he calls9 himself Captain David Miscavige, correct?

10 A. You asked me a different question. You asked11 me a question about what -- how other people refer him12 to -- refer him as, and I answered you. I said nobody13 refers to him as Captain David Miscavige.14 Q. To your knowledge?15 A. As I said, to my knowledge.16 Q. Yes?17 A. Right.18 Q. But, he does refer to himself as Captain David19 Miscavige?

20 A. He put out an issue.21 Q. An issue?22 A. Yes.23 Q. There aren't many, many issues with him24 signing off as Captain David Miscavige?25 A. I really don't know.

Page 53

1 Q. You would have received this, wouldn't you?2 A. I received that, yes.3 Q. Would you think there was anything peculiar4 about his signing off as Captain David Miscavige?

5 A. I didn't even notice it.6 Q. When was the last time you were in the7 personal presence of Captain Miscavige?8 MR. JEFFERSON: I'm going to, again, ask9 that you not refer to him in that manner. We can argue,

10 and I understand we're going to disagree. He's my11 client and I'm -- it doesn't impede your examination of12 this witness at all to avoid referring to him in that13 manner. I'm going to ask that you not do it.14 MR. JEFFREY: And I'm going to refuse.15 MR. JEFFERSON: Well, and the only reason16 that you will refuse is so that we can have this back17 and forth every time you do it because we will.

18 MR. JEFFREY: You're the one choosing to19 have the back and forth.20 MR. JEFFERSON: You're the one choosing21 by using the term. I'm not impeding you from examining22 this witness in any manner that you wish other than23 referring to Mr. Miscavige as Captain Miscavige, which24 you're insisting to do to win -- to win the argument at25 the moment, and we're not -- you're not going to win the


28/137


Allan Cartwright


15 (Pages 54 to 57)

Page 54

1 argument. We're going -- we're going to have this2 same -- this same conversation every time, or you can3 proceed with your examination of this witness, save the4 argument for later, tell the judge -- tell the judge5 that I'm being obstreperous because I don't like you6 referring to my client in that manner in this

7 deposition. There's no reason why you have to use that8 term to competently examine this witness about9 everything you need to examine him on in this

10 deposition.11 MR. JEFFREY: Calling an individual by12 his rank, which is the highest rank in the organization13 in question, is not in any way derogatory or insulting,14 and what you're trying to do is to argue your case,15 which is that his rank as captain in the Sea16 Organization is meaningless, and that we must refer to17 him as Mr. Miscavige, when he himself, as I have just18 demonstrated, communicates to all scientologists in the19 world as Captain David Miscavige.

20 So, it is completely inappropriate for21 you to tell me what -- it would be like in a -- in a22 case, if a fellow has a Ph.D. or a doctorate of some23 sort and I'm calling him doctor, and everyone else24 refers to him as mister, and I'm not allowed to call him25 doctor. It's ridiculous.

Page 55

1 MR. JEFFERSON: There is no question --2 MR. JEFFREY: It's ridiculous.3 MR. JEFFERSON: Mr. Jeffrey, there is no4 question that Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical

5 leader, the leader, the religious authority, the highest6 authority in the -- in the Church of Scientology, the7 highest person that holds that position. Isn't that8 enough? You don't --9 MR. JEFFREY: What you're trying to hide

10 is that he is the highest authority in the one11 organization that runs through all of the church12 corporations, and that's the reality of this case and --13 MR. JEFFERSON: I'm not hiding anything.14 MR. JEFFREY: Yes, you are.15 MR. JEFFERSON: You're the one using --16 MR. JEFFREY: Yes, you are.17 MR. JEFFERSON: -- the term in a manner

18 that I've objected to.19 MR. JEFFREY: Okay.20 MR. JEFFERSON: I'm asking that you --21 you proceed with the deposition, avoid using the term,22 indulge me. You can get everything that you want from23 this witness without using that term.24 MR. JEFFREY: If I was using a term that25 was in any way derogatory, I would more than indulge

Page 56

1 you, I wouldn't use the term. I'm using a term which is2 in no way derogatory and is, in fact, reflective of3 reality, and just if you want to refer to him as4 Mr. Miscavige, you're entitled to. If I want to refer5 to him as Captain Miscavige -- and by the way, there6 will be many other witnesses in this case who will refer

7 to him as --8 MR. JEFFERSON: You've said so.9 MR. JEFFREY: -- Captain Miscavige.

10 MR. JEFFERSON: You've said so. Avoid it11 for now and we don't have to have this conversation12 every time.13 MR. JEFFREY: Will note.14 MR. STRIEBER: I would like to add an15 objection on behalf of CSI in that your use of the term16 "captain" is misconstruing the facts, and so you're17 assuming certain facts not in evidence. And it's you18 that actually, by the use of the term "captain," are19 ignoring this witness's prior testimony that that

20 particular name captain confers upon Mr. Miscavige no21 authority whatsoever.22 And your purpose in using the term23 "captain" is an attempt by you to put into evidence, in24 every question that you ask, an argument on your behalf25 that that term "captain" confers authority over my

Page 57

1 client CSI, which it does not.2 MR. JEFFREY: We have evidence in this3 case --4 MR. STRIEBER: I don't want to hear what

5 evidence you have.6 MR. JEFFREY: -- that COB --7 MR. STRIEBER: I don't need to know what8 evidence you have. Go get your evidence and put it in9 the record. Quit saying you have witnesses that say

10 that. You're -- you're making a record that's probably,11 over our objection, going to find its way to the media,12 and you're putting things in this record that's going to13 find its way to the media by saying I have witnesses14 that do this, I have documents that say that.15 Take a proper deposition, confront this16 witness with the evidence you have, and ask him17 questions about it assuming, of course, it's within this

18 course and scope. But, I object to form to the use of19 the term "captain," and if you'll give me a running20 objection for the purposes --21 MR. JEFFREY: I'll be glad to give that22 to you.23 MR. STRIEBER: -- of which --24 MR. JEFFREY: I'd be glad to give that to25 any --


29/137


Allan Cartwright


16 (Pages 58 to 61)

Page 58

1 MR. STRIEBER: -- on behalf of CSI.2 MR. JEFFREY: -- everybody in the room,3 if you want it, you can have it. You know, we could go4 on a neutral basis, but I hesitate to do it because to5 me it sounds insulting. We could refer to him as6 Miscavige. I would not normally do that because that

7 does not sound polite.8 MR. JEFFERSON: You can't say9 Mr. Miscavige?

10 MR. JEFFREY: No, I can -- I can say11 Captain Miscavige.12 MR. JEFFERSON: Why -- why doesn't mister13 work?14 MR. JEFFREY: Why doesn't captain work?15 MR. JEFFERSON: Because that is --16 because you're imbuing the term with meaning that17 doesn't apply here. Call him Mr. Miscavige. Let's say18 call him David Miscavige if you don't think he rises to19 the term of mister.

20 MR. WIEGAND: Lamont, he refers to21 himself in written communications --22 MR. JEFFERSON: We've discussed that,23 Marc, you were out of the room.24 MR. WIEGAND: -- as Captain Miscavige.25 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) What reporting flows from the

Page 59

1 Office of Special Affairs to David Miscavige in wherever2 he may be located at any given time?3 A. I don't know what you mean by what reporting.4 Q. Yes.

5 A. I don't know what you mean by that.6 Q. You understand the word "what"?7 A. What, sorry?8 Q. You understand what the word "what" means,9 don't you?

10 A. What reporting, I said.11 Q. Yes.12 A. What is -- what do you mean by reporting?13 Q. I don't know. What would you mean by14 reporting?15 A. That's what I'm asking you.16 MR. STRIEBER: Objection, form.17 Q. (By Mr. Jeffrey) I'm asking you in the

18 broadest sense and then we can narrow it down. If there19 are 100 different kinds of reports that go to David20 Miscavige from OSA, I would want to know those, and I'd21 expect you to list them. But, there's nothing confusing22 about asking you what reports go from the Office of23 Special Affairs to David Miscavige.24 A. No reports go.25 Q. Okay. Have there ever been reports that have

Page 60

1 gone from the Office of Special Affairs to David2 Miscavige?3 A. Well, information has gone to him.4 Q. I'm talking about reports.5 A. I know, that's what I told you. I already6 answered, no reports go to him.

7 Q. And then I followed up with the question:8 Have there ever been reports made to David Miscavige9 from the Office of Special Affairs?

10 A. Since, I mean, from the beginning of time?11 Q. Sure. If you were aware of them.12 A. Well, I thought the terms of this search was,13 I was looking for anything from 2009 on, so aren't we14 going from 2009 on?15 Q. Well, one of the topics of your deposition16 notice is David Miscavige's authority over and17 interaction with the Office of Special Affairs. I'm18 just trying to understand. Was there a time when a19 daily report went from the Office of Special Affairs to

20 David Miscavige and then that was terminated? If so,21 tell me about that. If your testimony is there's never22 been reporting that's gone from the Office of Special23 Affairs to David Miscavige, then I need to know that.24 A. No daily report was sent to Mr. Miscavige.25 Q. And how would you know that?

Page 61

1 A. Because I've been around for many years.2 Q. Have

Documents

Monique Rathbun v Scientology: Motion to Reconsider