Tape 1, August 16, 1998

Lawrence Wollersheim and Jesse Prince

L:	Testing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Today is the 16th of August, 1998. This is Lawrence Wollersheim, about 5:00 in the afternoon, sitting with Jesse Prince . We're just going to talk about his time in Scientology and ask him different things. And this is my voice, the other voice will be Jesse's.
J:	The voice he's referring to is this one right here.
L:	OK. Tell me, the other day we were talking about Scientology tampering with judges. You mentioned that you had been interviewed by the FBI once before and that they had asked you about it but you didn't tell them what was going on. Were you in Scientology?
J:	Yes I was. I told them the truth as I understood it at that time.
L:	You told them what you knew at that time, the truth as you understood it at that time. It was concerning a tampering with a judge. What was that judge's name?
J:	Judge Mary Anna Fouser.
L:	This was in a case?
J:	A RICO suit brought against David Mayo, the AAC. CSC and RTC brought the action.
L:	What specifically did Scientology do to tamper with this judge, and if you can just try to describe what your knowledge is, and who was involved in doing it and if you know what they specifically did, or you don't know what they did. Kind of, a person, an action, as much detail as you can have.
J:	What I would like to do is just start at the beginning. Any time a judge appears in a case in Scientology, good, bad, or indifferent, a common practice is to do an ODC, particularly if he's a hostile judge, or is perceived to be a hostile judge. ODC means overt data collection. What would happen is, you'd get some guys normally from OSA Invest, and they would go and get as much public record as they could about that particular judge.
L:	Could you state what OSA Invest is?
J:	Office of Special Affairs Investigation Unit. It's kind of like a low scale FBI investigotory group that investigates enemies and critics of Scientology.
L:	Great, go on.
J:	They do an ODC. If it goes further and the judge is really hostile, what they will do is go and start interviewing the associates of the judge, like trying to find out information in an innocuous way, or in a harsh way, to create intimidation. That's a common practice, they do it with every judge. With Mary Anna Fouser, when we got on this case, an ODC was done on her. They kind of looked up her records as a judge, looked up her cases, found out where she lives, everything that they possibly could. Through lawyers and investigators, found as much personal information as they could about the judge, what she likes, what she doesn't like, this kind of thing. Before any case is started, you have the profile of the judge, you have a profile of a prosecutor, if it is a prosecutor, or a profile of the opposing litigating attorneys. In my particular case, I was involved as a witness in the AAC case, I came on as a witness, as a director of the Religious Technology Center, and a person that had high credentials in their technological business. We were in the case and what I was doing in the case was comparing the "NED for OTs" [stands for "New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans"] materials to the "NED for OTs" materials that David Mayo himself had issues. Now, I'm just going to speak as I as thinking at the time. Of course, I have other ideas about that now. I took and compared the "NED for OTs" issue #1 and David Mayo's the "NED for OTs" issue #1, which were so amazingly similar to what the church had and he produced. Of course, subsequently, that wouldn't be a surprise because Mayo wrote it anyway. At the time I was being a little church person, Mayo wrote 98% of it based on random crazy notes. At that point, when I was on the stand, and I brought up, I had it in my jacket pocket, and I pulled out these papers, and there was an immediate objection from the other attorneys, I forget their names. The judge had us meet back in chambers. The opposition attorneys and our attorneys went back in the chambers, and we just looked at the papers because the objection was that they hadn't had a chance to review that evidence. What actually happened in evidence in chambers is they had a chance to see the notes that I had written, which were relatively cryptic. We had also procured the copy of David Mayo's material to even do the comparison with. He was holding his material in confidence and we sent investigators in there. Bob Mithoff was a deep cover plant for us, and he just got copies of their material so that we could do this. Their organization was infiltrated in more ways than one, as far as the amount of pressure and stress that we brought against AAC. Back to Mary Anna Fouser chambers. In effect, we were looking at these differences and comparing the material, that was pretty much done in back chambers. I don't think the opposition attorneys were very happy about it. Subsequently, when we came back in and I finished my testimony and Ray Mithoff came up as a witness and he spoke for a while. We were granted an injunction a TRO against David Mayo using those materials, which, in effect, closed down the AAC. Like I say in retrospect, as he wrote 98% of that stuff anyway, he had all the right in the world to use it. From the tactics and the things that I just described to you, same thing has subsequently happened to CAN. You put in deep cover plants that no one ever suspects, and you just wear them out. What happened is -
L:	Can I ask you a specific question, and you will be able to keep your train of thought?
J:	What I'm getting to is the judge tampering part.
L:	My question is this, did RTC and Scientology knowingly claim that these were their copyrights, knowing that they were not their copyrights, that David Miscavige was the true author of these documents?
J:	..not David Miscavige, David Mayo.
L:	David Mayo was the true author of these documents, and that he was the true copyright holder according to the copyright laws?
J:	This is what I know about that. Every one of those issues had DM at the bottom of it, they were 1978-79 issues. He wrote them all. They you have LRH/DM, and whoever the typist was. In effect, Mayo sat down and authored those things. Whether he authored them from LR Hubbard notes or personal meanings is not anything that I could speak on because I wasn't there.
L:	You don't if he did or not.
J:	I do know for a fact. I do know, subsequently in the church, in seeing how they issue materials, a lot of it, it could just be something with three lines on it, like this from L. Ron Hubbard, they turn it into a two page bulletin. It's a process of getting a little piece here, and a little piece there, and then someone actually composing it and making it make sense. In its original state.
L:	The current practice is that in a bulletin that says it was written by L. Ron Hubbard may have as little as 2 or 3 lines out of 2 pages.
J:	And he's never seen it or laid eyes on it.