Fair Game: roger gonnet and Haney: Fair Game discussed in court, 31 Aug 2002

roger gonnet <gonnet@antisectes.net>
Haney: "fair game" applied
31 Aug 2002

Another evidence that Fair Game has never been cancelled at all is that it is redefined in Modern Management Dictionary, 1st edition, publication 1976, and most probably in the next ones.

Now what was the definition there?

Page 196:

FAIR GAME, by Fair Game is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scn or the Rights of a Scientologist. (HCO PL 23 Dec 65)

===

If a scientologist was to wordclear entirely this def, he could anyway arrive to the final conclusion that someone faire gamed has no rights at all, but be considered a sub-human or DB or whatever.

roger

It says A-004-061902-Haney-V1.txt

 Starting on Page 118

 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
  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
  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
  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
  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.