Exhibit C

US District Court, Central District of California
Fishman Case # 91-6426 HLH (Tx) Continued

                (no number just title page  exhibit C)

     26 January 1982


   Preparation of an individual witness to give evidence for us at trial
  can be broken into three steps:

  1. The basic witness hat, which is unvarying from one witness to the

  2. Full debriefing and resulting understanding of prospective testimony;,

  3. Finalization of the testimony with the lawyer.

   Steps 1 and 2 would be handled by the GO terminal assisting the
  lawyer for that portion of the case, and step 3 would be done by the GO
  terminal and the lawyer.

   There is basic data about being a witness which should be given to
  every witness, to give them reality on what It will be like, answer their
  questions. etc. Following are the areas which we would cover (for the
  IRS case) as basic witness hatting.

  1. It is helpful to describe to the person the physical space 'of the
  courtroom (and, If possible, to have the person visit the actual
  courtroom where he will be giving his evidence).  Tell (or show) the
  witness where he will sit; where the judge, the clerk, and the reporter
  each sit; and what roles they play. , Tell (or show) him where counsel and
  where the audience will be seated. The witness may want to do a little
  reach and withdraw on the space of the courtroom, and this can usually be
  accomplished during a recess. The witness should be encouraged to 'take
  control of the courtroom.

      -1-        (0031)

 2. The statistic for a witness Is something like 'length of time on the
 Stand' (keeping In mind the purpose of each witness to deliver certain
 evidence comfortably, persuasively and honestly so the judge can
 duplicate and agree with it).  A witness will always experience
 discomfort. anxiety, etc., and will have (at first) a strong desire to
 get It over with."  The danger here Is that his/her testimony will
 become condensed or abbreviated to as to get off the stand as quickly as
 possible. The witness should be warned against this phenomenon. We want
 a witness to understand that (under ordinary circumstances) they will
 have done better to stay on a long time, and they should get their TRO In
 and be there comfortably for as long as It takes.  After a time, they
 Invariably loosen up and actually begin to enjoy the experience such that
 they become willing to stay on and on.

  A witness who makes only a brief appearance leaves little or no
 Impression on the judge. A trial judge or a juror must, as part of his
 hat, determine what degree of credibility each witness possesses, and
 accordingly what relative weight to give to that witness' evidence.   A
 judge or juror does this by observation of the witness' demeanor as much
 as by the testimony given.  A witness who is willing to be there, and
 answer in as much detail as necessary (not chopping his evidence short
 out of desire to "blow" from the stand), gives the judge or juror more
 time to observe, and get to know that witness;. it is a matter of
 increasing ARC between witness and Judqe or juror which results In the
 judge retaining the data better and also according It more weight as he
 will have sussed out that witness for believability.
 3. The witness should know that he may be questioned by the judge
 directly on some point of Interest or at a lull In the examination being
 done by counsel. If that occurs, the witness should give his answer
 directly to the judge, respectfully and with high ARC and attention to
 fully and actually answering the question asked.

           -2-            (0032)

  Also there are times, though they Should be rare and sparsely used,
 When the Witness may want to address himself to the judge, seeking his
 advice or aid.  For example, If witness feels he simply cannot answer a
 Cross-exam question both a yes or no, but must make an accompanying
 explanation, he may ask the judge for leave to explain or qualify his
 answer. 'This comm line can be used to good advantage In a situation
 where the line of questioning Is probing an area of the witness'
 religious belief (or where, perhaps, the questions are designed to
 address or elicit upper level material): The witness can originate that
 this question is improper as it seeks Information about his personal
 religious belief Or data that he considers confidential as part of his
 beliefs, and that he has taken a perpetual vow never to disclose.

  Address to the judge Is not to be over-used or relied on by the
 witness to any advantage, but the witness should know that he can have a
 comm line to the judge, to appeal for protection.

 4. Related to point 2 above, a witness should also be told that his
 testimony should be calm and reasonable.  Although it Is part of his
 purpose to persuade the judge, this is done by creating credibility, not
 by acting as an advocate. Advocacy is the lawyers job, and the
 representations of a lawyer are not evidence; the statements of a witness
 under oath are. Emotional reactions by the witness, argument with a
 cross-examining attorney, or attempts to "handle" an  antagonistic
 cross-exam by tone scale handling are not OK.  A PR-trained witness may
 get Into handing his Interrogator, Instinctively, and this is to be
 warned against. One of the judge's chief tools for according weight or
 credibility to a witness and his testimony is the presence or absence of
 bias: an argumentative witness, or one-who tries to persuade, is seen as
 biased, and his testimony is given less weight. . The judge's thinking Is
 along the line that this witness has something at stake (money, status,
 his job, having to be right, etc.), and would thus be willing to say
 almost anything in defense of his position.  Credibility comes about by
 being honest, willing to answer/explain, and natural.  (The  useful

                -3-        (0033)

 exception to this is "righteous Indignation' of a witness questioned

 about his personal beliefs, as discussed above).

 5. The prospective witness rust be instructed on the actual comm cycle
 of giving testimony. If the person is our witness, then direct exam will
 be conducted by our lawyer, followed by cross-exam done by the opposition
 lawyer. Then comes a redirect exam, done again by our lawyer (followed
 possibly by a short recross-exam).

  During direct exam our witness will be asked the questions which have
 more or less been prepared In advance by ourselves (the witness, the GO
 terminal responsible, and the lawyer).  None of these questions should
 come as a surprise, though they may be taken up in relatively random
 order. In response to these questions, we are usually looking for
 relatively detailed answers, with specific points to be made.   These
 answers may be fairly lengthy, depending on what the court will allow.
 Some judges may allow 'narrative' type answers, where others may demand
 that the questioning attorney stick to a strict question-and-answer

 6.. During cross-examination (conducted by the opposition lawyer, for the
 purpose of unmocking the credibility and consistency of the witness), the
 witness should NEVER VOLUNTEER ANTHING. The exact question asked should
 be answered, no more, no less.  Q: "When did you read that policy
 letter? A: "On the 16th May as best I can recall." NOT A: "I recall
 It was the 16th May as I had just returned that morning from a mission."
 (The latter would give the lawyer a string to pull--what mission?
 Where? Why? Etc.)

  Part of answering only the exact question asked Is bearing and
 responding to only the words used; the tone level of the question is to
 be Ignored. Most cross-exam Is conducted at the tone of covert
 hostility, and this Is to be taken into consideration.  A clever
 cross-examiner can make any statement sound suspicious and any question

         -4-      (0034)

  sound accusatory; but our witness, expecting this and listening only to
  the words and not the tone, will not take the bait.

   A cross-examination proceeds by the opposing attorney  asking
  questions designed to (1) expose known or recognized out-points In the
  direct testimony of our witness, and (2) lead our witness to volunteer
  other data which will become a  'string'  to be pulled.  A good
  cross-examiner will pull each and every string In the hope that he will
  find the Sherman tank which destroys that witness' credibility.   A good
  witness who can answer the questions exactly without volunteering data
  or being drawn into argument or acting evasive, will emerge unscathed.
  The cross-examining attorney may simply give up after a few failed lines
  of questioning.  But the witness must be willing to sit it out
  comfortably: we have seen witnesses who gave one day of direct testimony
  and then had to sit through four or five days of cross-exam (and they
  came out of it quite keyed out and ready to go on for as long as it
  took:) but this is the exception and not the rule.

  7. By sticking to short, directly responsive answers (basically:   yes,
  no, I don't know, I don't remember), the witness will Invariably find
  that some of these answers felt incomplete, or sounded unfavorable: they
  would like to have explained the answer a bit,, remedying the sense of
  " omitted" data with "all related facts known." But cross-exam is not the
  time to correct our own outpoints: this is handled on redirect exam. Our
  lawyer will have listened carefully to all the cross-exam testimony, and
  noted down the points which sounded Incomplete or unfavorable.    These
  will each be cleaned up or rehabbed on redirect, so that any negative
  effect Is minimized.  Also there Is often a short recess between
  cross-exam and redirect exam, so the witness can tell the lawyer any
  points which he feels should be cleaned up. Knowing this in advance, the
  witness can be willing to have his needle "dirtied" on cross-exam and
  "cleaned" on re-direct.
                   -5-     (0035)

 8. When a question is asked of the witness, he should see if there is an
 objection forthcoming from the opposite attorney.  This Is especially
 true during cross-examination where our attorney will be trying to
 protect our witness from Improper lines of questioning.  This does not
 mean that the witness pauses and looks at our attorney.. An obvious comm
 lag can look like the witness has to "think up an answer" and this hurts
 his credibility.
  If there Is an objection made, It occurs by the attorney standing up
 and stating: "Objection--that question Is Improper because of blah blah
 blah." There may be argument back and forth on this by the attorneys for
 both sides, then the judge will rule.  The objection will either be
 sustained by the court (i.e., the judge agrees that the question is
 improper, and the witness Is to ignore the question) or overruled (i.e.,
 the objection does not stand, and the witness must now answer.)
  If the witness is not paying attention, and simply hurriedly answers
 the question, he has cut off our lawyer from making any meaningful
 objection. If the witness answers the question while an objection is
 being interposed, the court reporter may ignore the objection and record
 the answer given by the witness or the judge may say, "Well, the answer's
 in. Neither of these situations is optimum, so the witness should see
 If there are objections. If the witness sees the attorney start to rise,
 he should shut up; otherwise, he should continue measured comm.
 9. A small point, perhaps, but the witness should be told that he cannot
 expect to be acknowledged while giving testimony.  The comm cycle is
 question-answer, next question-next answer, etc. There Is no ack in this
 comm cycle, and in fact this is sometimes used as a tool by the
 cross-examiner. He may ask a question, then turn and walk away from the
 witness, seemingly ignoring him even after completion of his answer. An
 uninformed witness might feel uncomfortable, unacknowledged, and feel
 compelled to answer further, to fill the silence, to ltsa.  That Is what
 the cross-examiner wants. for the witness to run on and on, volunteering
                 -6-     (0036)

 data, giving up strings to pull, and. looking uneasy to the judge.   So
 watch out for this phenomenon too.

 20. The witness is sworn to tell the truth, And he must, of course, do
 no. The scope of his testimony and the patter for certain areas will be
 worked out with counsel, so that there can be minimum risk to our case
 and to the witness In sensitive areas.  If a witness Is privy to "too
 much" sensitive or possibly unfavorable data, he may well have been
 eliminated from our witness list early on.
 Perjury, i.e., lying under oath, is a crime (and, as we know, Is usually
 self destructive for the individual); we want our witnesses to tell the
 Impeachment is a term which just means that this witness is, in the
 judge's eyes, unworthy of belief (due to his demeanor, numerous or major
 Inconsistencies in the testimony, or bias).  Both these terms (perjury
 and impeachment) should be gone over with our witnesses so it is no
 mystery or MU if they come up in court. We had one witness who, hearing
 the opposition announce that they would try to impeach her, clammed up on
 the stand, thinking she would be taken off to jail.  (During a recess we
 cleaned up the MU and she then did fine.)
 11. Our witness should be Informed that it Is OK that they have talked
 with the lawyer (and hit assistants--the GO staff) prior to testifyi ng.
 No lawyer would ever put on a witness he had not worked with, and for a
 witness to deny this destroys his credibility immediately.   It Is a
 Common tactic for the cross-examining lawyer to ask the witness if he had
 discussed his testimony with the Church's lawyer; If our witness doesn't
 know about this, he will either manifest a "missed withhold of nothing"
 (and be enturbulated in his testimony), or worse yet, lie about it (thus
 losing all credibility before the judge).
        -7-      (0037)

 12. The witness should not look at the lawyer for our side or the GO
 terminal or the audience when being cross-examined.  He should look at
 the cross-examiner, unless our attorney takes an objection.   If the
 witness looks continuously at our lawyer, the judge or juror will think
 that the witness is seeking guidance from the lawyer and this affects
 credibility.  This Is not OK.  Rather, the witness should be natural,
 looking at the person originating the comm.

  If the above points 1-12 are gone over with each of your witnesses at
 the outset, they will be much more comfortable, cooperative and
 successful. They need to know what to expect if they are to help.
 Answer all their questions, as best you can; some questions the lawyer
 may have to answer (e.g., If the particular witness needs independent
 advice about claiming a 5th Amendment,, attorney/client, priest/penitent
 or other privilege). These points have been taken from notes of witness
 hatting sessions done with the trial lawyers for the IRS case; they
 should be useful In the circumstances of most US trial work.

  That's it.