Civil Action No. 95-11071A
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,V.
ARNALDO PAGLIARINI LERMA,
et al.,
Defendants.
COUNTY OF BOULDER
STATE OF COLORADO
2. I had two conversations with Kim Baker of Cape Town, South Africa, on October 31 and November 1, 1995. In these respects, the Second Baker Declaration is accurate and truthful.
3. The Second Baker Declaration, however, is erroneous and misleading in a number of respects in assertions made in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
a) As stated in Paragraph 7, there were two conversations with me. The first was October 31, 1995 and was very brief. I told her that I was calling to make sure she was all right, but due to my illness I was not lucid enough to have a fuller conversation at that time. I asked if I could call again at a time when I was more alert and in a condition to have a conversation. She understood and agreed.
The second conversation was November 1. Contrary to the implications in the Second Baker Declaration, I did not call Kim Baker to harass her. She had agreed that I could call her a second time. My friend, (name withheld), assisted me with the second call. The conversation was low-key and voluntary by both sides. My purpose was to find out if she was all right. We told her that I had also been subjected to Scientology's inquisition-type interrogation and had thought I could withstand their tactics but had been unable to do so. We told her that we understood any action she felt she had to take to relieve herself of the Scientologists. She acknowledged that she had thought she could withstand their questioning, but was unable to do so.
She said that the declaration was presented to her to sign at 3:30 in the morning after 13 hours of interrogation in which the Scientologists asked questions and took notes. It was written by the Scientologists. The declaration seemed "reasonable" at the time, but it needed to be understood that she was tired after being questioned for so long, and was signed under those circumstances of her own free will. She had not been given a copy of her declaration by the Scientologists when she signed it. She added that subsequently, after receiving and reading a copy, she found it "distorted."
b) Paragraph 8 quotes the paragraph in Ms. Baker's prior declaration about my condition due to MS. Wollersheim's statement that I can have difficulty putting sentences together is true. I reserve my more lucid times for important communications, such as those with Kim Baker. I can communicate by e-mail, but only in the brief periods that I am lucid and dexterous, which is not necessarily every day. Any such activity takes a significant period of time due to my slowness, constant mental confusion, and deteriorated typing ability.
Wollersheim's statement that I cannot reset the FACTNet computers and hard drive due to my condition is true. I can set up software that has a straightforward install program, that requires no adjustments to the system files and no conflicts with other software/:system files. Under no circumstances can I manipulate setting up a computer as complex the FACTNet computer. For that setup, some time ago, I spent a year and a half, working through trial and error, making minute and ongoing adjustments to system files and overcoming system conflicts. My condition due to MS has deteriorated significantly since then.
c) Paragraph 9 insufficiently discusses our second conversation. We told her that there had been efforts by the Scientologists to argue that I am not totally disabled, and the statement in her declaration about my condition appeared consistent with a move by the Scientologists to present to my disability insurance carrier further arguments that I am not disabled. She said that she had wondered why the Scientologists had included those paragraphs in her statement.
d) Contrary to the assertions in Paragraph 10 of the Second Baker Declaration, we did not tell Kim that Mr. Wollersheim had said things that were not true or had told "falsehoods." Although I am not sure it was in the two telephone conversations that are discussed in her second declaration, I did tell her at some time that Lawrence had erroneously asked me to post to /ars/ a draft notice of deposition of David Miscavage and that the error was corrected the next day by canceling the prior posting.
e) As cited in Paragraph 11, we asked Kim to meet with a lawyer to discuss the portions of the Baker Declaration concerning my disability. We also told her it was possible that she would be asked other questions. We told her to answer those questions only if she was comfortable doing so, and above all to just tell the truth. Kim confirmed her work telephone number and address and agreed that we could provide it to the attorney, in Cape Town so she could be contacted.
4. Given the limited time I have had to read and analyze the Second Baker Declaration, my failure to comment on other points made in the Second Baker Declaration should not be interpreted as agreement with them.
5. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct,
Executed on November __ 1995
Robert Penny