1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 2 3 4 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal 5 Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, 6 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. VOLUME 1 of 2 9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS 10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., 11 Defendants. 12 _______________________________________/ 13 14 15 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. 16 CONTENTS: Testimony of Hana Whitfield. 17 DATE: July 16, 2002. Morning Session. 18 PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building 19 St. Petersburg, Florida. 20 BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. 21 REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR. 22 Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. 23 24 25 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR DANDAR & DANDAR 3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33602 4 Attorney for Plaintiff. 5 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA 6 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B Tampa, FL 33602-4108 7 Attorney for Plaintiff. 8 MR. KENDRICK MOXON MOXON & KOBRIN 9 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 10 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 11 12 MR. LEE FUGATE MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. 13 ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 14 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service 15 Organization. 16 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN 17 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place 18 New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 19 Organization. 20 MR. ANTHONY BATTAGLIA 21 MR. STEPHEN J. WEIN Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A. 22 980 Tyrone Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 23 Counsel for Robert Minton. 24 25 3 1 THE COURT: Okay. Here is the order. Sue was 2 not in yesterday. There are a couple copies for 3 you. 4 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 5 THE COURT: And here are three or four copies 6 for you-all. And I know you will distribute them to 7 the other counsel. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Thanks. 9 THE COURT: In there I indicated since these 10 things were not originally made for either the 11 Church of Scientology or the Lisa McPherson Trust, 12 that these should be used for this matter, and any 13 other use of those you should get my permission 14 first. 15 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 16 MR. FUGATE: Very good. 17 THE COURT: And that includes everything you 18 have gotten from them. In other words, it really is 19 a direction on all of the stuff. 20 MR. DANDAR: That is good. 21 THE COURT: Mr. Keane probably doesn't have 22 that yet because I told Sue to fax it to him when 23 she got in. But as soon as he gets it, I'm sure 24 he'll release it. 25 One tape I released in its entirety so you can 4 1 get that right away. One tape I did not release 2 because you have part of it already, and I didn't 3 release the second part. Then the other one you 4 will have to cut and paste a little bit, but it 5 should not be too hard, just a matter of removing a 6 couple of the speakers. 7 MR. MOXON: Thanks, Judge. I'll try to call 8 Mr. Keane at the first opportunity. 9 THE COURT: Obviously either side may want to 10 use some of this material. I'm not sure if you do 11 but you might. Probably can't be used today. So 12 we'll go ahead and reschedule and come back 13 tomorrow, I guess, even if we finish today, to 14 include any -- anything that you may have gotten. 15 And that is how we'll handle that. 16 I did try to think last night of things that I 17 might be interested in hearing from you. And I 18 started formulating them in my mind but I didn't put 19 them down on paper. So maybe by tomorrow I can do 20 that. 21 I do have some questions and some -- some legal 22 things that I probably will ask you to be sure you 23 include. So I'll try to tell you that tomorrow. 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. If there are any 25 factual matters that you thought we needed to 5 1 address, as well. 2 THE COURT: There have been so many facts in 3 here -- 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. 5 THE COURT: -- it is hard for me to sort out 6 what is going to bear on what issues. So we may 7 have a lot more facts than we need. 8 MR. LIEBERMAN: I suspect we do, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Right. So it really is more legal 10 things. 11 One, for example, is I think that the Church, 12 in their argument, should assume for the sake of 13 this argument that I have already -- I know you are 14 going to have another argument that says Mr. Prince 15 should not qualify as an expert witness. I think 16 you should go past that and say that if he does -- 17 MR. LIEBERMAN: I assumed that, your Honor. I 18 will do it in the alternative. 19 THE COURT: Right. And also some of the things 20 that I think, in particular, that bear on the issue 21 of the -- of the actual allegation in the complaint 22 is there is no question that Mr. Prince opined what 23 he opined. And it really is the basis of an opinion 24 and not based upon much in the way of facts. 25 But experts do get opinions. So somebody 6 1 better concentrate on opinion testimony and whether 2 it has to be supported by something -- something in 3 the way of some facts that they can point to. 4 And maybe it may be -- Mr. Dandar, you know, 5 you'll certainly want to research that, too, just 6 maybe somebody's experience and what have you -- I 7 mean, I'm of the mind that Mr. Prince couldn't 8 really point to any experience he had where he knew 9 of this or -- so those are the kinds of things I 10 would normally be looking for. They didn't exist in 11 this case. So that, I think, is quite important. 12 I would address, if I were you-all -- these are 13 just ramblings right now, you'll remember -- I have 14 a crook in my neck, it just came on my last night, I 15 don't know why, maybe it is from turning to look at 16 you, Mr. Dandar, maybe that is it, but I can't turn 17 my head this way, so if you think I'm not paying 18 attention to you, that is not the case, I just can't 19 turn that way. 20 MR. DANDAR: Your chair swivels. 21 THE COURT: That is true. If I remember to do 22 that. That got me off my train of thought. 23 Oh, I talked to you-all a little bit about a 24 manslaughter criminal charge and what, under the 25 State of Florida, that entailed which included both 7 1 intentional -- it includes reckless disregard for 2 things to the point that are almost intentional. 3 So I think I would deal with -- I think that 4 is -- if I had to guess what he's really saying, so 5 I think I would deal with that a little bit, both 6 sides. 7 I think that -- I think that I would be 8 interested in knowing whether there is a distinction 9 in the First Amendment protection that a church -- 10 any church -- would have regarding an intentional 11 tort versus a tort that is negligent versus a tort 12 that is grounded in what I would call, I guess, 13 gross negligence. You know, in other words, a 14 higher negligence than simple negligence. And, in 15 particular, that standard of negligence that would 16 give rise to a claim of manslaughter. Because as I 17 said, I think, as I read his allegation, you know, 18 there is this allegation of intentional. 19 But I -- I would be interested in knowing the 20 difference in the First Amendment defense on simple 21 negligence -- really gross and flagrant negligence 22 and intentional. So that would be helpful to me. 23 I'll try to make a little list of the things 24 that, you know, I think would be helpful. 25 I don't even know what the burden of proof is, 8 1 to tell you the truth. I presume it is 2 preponderance of the evidence. I don't know. Maybe 3 it is clear and convincing. I don't know what it 4 is. But it is always helpful to know right sort of 5 at the outset, when I start doing an analysis, what 6 it is. Obviously it would be, I assume, plaintiff's 7 burden originally -- I'm sorry, the defendant's 8 burden in this case, it is your motion. 9 So I don't know what the burden is. Maybe that 10 would be helpful. It is not done every day so it is 11 not something very clear with -- to me that I have 12 dealt with a hundred times in the past. So you 13 might try to look up whether it is preponderance of 14 the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, just 15 what the standard is. 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: We also may have an argument, 17 once we make a certain showing, the burden may 18 shift. 19 THE COURT: That is fine. Whatever it is. But 20 that is always helpful to put right sort of at the 21 outset of your argument or somewhere close to the 22 beginning so I know, as I'm looking, what burden I'm 23 operating with. Okay? That would be helpful. 24 Obviously, I'm looking that way. I'm not 25 meaning to avoid you -- 9 1 MR. DANDAR: That is why I'm over here, so you 2 don't have to turn the other way. 3 THE COURT: Thank you. 4 Both sides need to address these things. 5 On the summary judgment, since I'm not sure 6 exactly when we're going to conclude this hearing, 7 how about if you get your -- whatever it is -- 8 motion in opposition to the summary judgment, in by 9 Friday. Can you do that? 10 MR. DANDAR: That is perfect. 11 THE COURT: Then we need to set a schedule, a 12 briefing schedule, closing argument schedule, for 13 you-all. Obviously, the sooner I can have this, the 14 better. I'll probably start reading transcripts but 15 not with the fervor I will until I have your closing 16 arguments. So I'm sitting on kind of a delay 17 pattern. And the sooner I can put my mind to this, 18 the sooner you-all will have the answer. 19 MR. LIEBERMAN: We understand that. It will 20 take a while, your Honor. There is so much -- 21 THE COURT: There is a lot. But I assume that 22 hopefully you-all were digesting this as you went 23 along, to some extent. So what are you thinking? 24 Ten days? 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: Oh, your Honor, I -- I would -- 10 1 I was going to urge that we have thirty days. There 2 is really so much to go through. We've been working 3 fifteen hours a day here. We haven't -- we have 4 been digesting it the same way you have, but it has 5 really been impossible to digest it any other way. 6 There is a lot here, a lot of facts to go through, a 7 lot of law, and just separating the wheat from the 8 chaff is a very difficult -- 9 THE COURT: That is true -- 10 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- process. Ten days would be 11 virtually impossible to do an adequate job. 12 THE COURT: How about two weeks? I mean, it's 13 a closing argument. You know, a lot of times at the 14 end of a very complicated case you save it up and 15 make your closing argument. So this is not like -- 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: I understand. But you also 17 want a lot of legal discussion, in addition to 18 facts. 19 THE COURT: But you have given me a lot of 20 legal stuff as you went along. I mean, you 21 presented me some legal that I have read. But I 22 read them, again, not -- you know, just read them as 23 they came up. 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I mean, I really 25 appreciate the schedule you are trying to deal with. 11 1 I honestly say to you that in order to do the kind 2 of professional, adequate job that you want and that 3 I would feel comfortable with, three weeks would be 4 the minimum. 5 THE COURT: All right. Three weeks. 6 How many weeks do you need? 7 MR. DANDAR: One. 8 THE COURT: One week? 9 MR. DANDAR: After they file whatever they are 10 filing. But I would hope you would make them do it 11 in two weeks. 12 THE COURT: Well, he said he needed three. I'm 13 not necessarily interested in rushing this, if he 14 says that is what he needs to do a credible job, 15 that is what I want. One week for you. Then all 16 you have is one week to respond. 17 MR. LIEBERMAN: I understand that. 18 THE COURT: Matter of fact, I would like it 19 sooner than that. If he only needs a week to 20 respond, why, certainly a week is plenty. Okay? 21 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. 22 THE COURT: Okay? Let's go. Call your next -- 23 you want to talk about the introduction of these 24 documents? 25 MR. DANDAR: Yes. I have marked with the 12 1 clerk, given to counsel, and I have on your bench 2 Plaintiff's Exhibits 182 through 187. Let me 3 announce on the record what they are. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. DANDAR: 182 is the Joseph Yanny 6 declaration, which he is the former attorney for 7 RTC. 8 183 -- 9 THE COURT: Let's deal with these one at a 10 time. 11 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 12 THE COURT: Let me have it. Any objection to 13 this? 14 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 MR. WEINBERG: You want me to explain? 17 THE COURT: Go ahead. 18 MR. WEINBERG: This apparently was a 19 declaration done by Mr. Yanny for a lawsuit between 20 him and the Church of Scientology that was executed 21 back in July of 1988. 22 I mean, it is -- it is -- it is -- it would be 23 a hearsay document. It has all kinds of 24 accusations. I mean, to give you a flavor of it, he 25 refers to the plaintiff, which is the Church of 13 1 Scientology, in Paragraph 2, as "the cult." And, 2 therefore, throughout the entire affidavit he talks 3 about "the cult," which gives you a sense. 4 Most of the affidavit is just his rantings 5 about -- about his -- about his -- about various 6 things that we would have no ability to 7 cross-examine on. I mean, to give you a sense, on 8 Page 24, Paragraph 11, Mr. Yanny says, "I have 9 personal knowledge of the fact that while the cult 10 claims in the verified complaint to be religious, 11 this cult claims to be religious only in those 12 jurisdictions where it is expedient to be so, the 13 U.S. where there is a tax-exempt status for such 14 activities." Then he goes on. That is what the 15 nature of this affidavit is. 16 It is just, to be honest, garbage and doesn't 17 belong -- 18 THE COURT: Who is Mr. Yanny? His name has 19 come up in this hearing. 20 MR. WEINBERG: It came up because I 21 cross-examined Mr. Prince on a deposition that 22 Mr. Yanny took of Mr. Prince in this lawsuit when 23 Mr. Prince said that he had not destroyed the PC 24 folders. 25 THE COURT: Okay. 14 1 MR. WEINBERG: And that is all. That is the 2 only time Mr. Yanny's name came up. I mean, this is 3 just -- 4 THE COURT: Well, we have declarations of all 5 kinds of people in all kinds of lawsuits. The 6 declaration of Stacy Brooks -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: But she appeared. 8 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Miscavige didn't. And I 9 have a declaration from him. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Remember, Mr. Prince put a 11 declaration in which responded to Mr. Miscavige's 12 declaration and that is why it went in. And Mr. -- 13 and Mr. Dandar put in a December -- I forget what 14 year now -- 19-whatever it was, 1999 -- it may be 15 the wrong year but -- 16 THE COURT: Look, Counselor, the deal is that 17 any affidavit that comes into a hearing where a 18 person didn't appear as a witness, that includes 19 Mr. Miscavige, is really -- you are right, number 20 one, it is a hearsay document. Number two, it was 21 not challenged, it was not cross-examined, it 22 therefore carries little, if any weight. I have a 23 lot of these declarations. I'm going to let it in. 24 MR. WEINBERG: All right. This isn't one of 25 those things where if we don't counter it, you 15 1 are -- 2 THE COURT: Right. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 4 MR. DANDAR: But Mr. Yanny in that declaration 5 does talk about fair game and -- occurring in the 6 '80s, even though they keep claiming it was 7 cancelled. 8 THE COURT: I understand. But as I said, he's 9 not here. He wasn't cross-examined. And, 10 therefore, it carries -- you know -- 11 MR. DANDAR: Plaintiff's Exhibit 183 is the 12 declaration of Stacy Brooks, December 14, 1994. 13 THE COURT: Now, Ms. Brooks did indicate she 14 had given a lot of affidavits, that she -- if they 15 were signed by her, would stand by them and she does 16 not recall having lied in any affidavits is 17 basically what I would remember she would tell us 18 about those. 19 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 20 THE COURT: So I'll allow that in. 21 MR. DANDAR: Okay. I think I just marked them 22 twice. Was that number -- 23 THE COURT: It is 183. 24 MR. DANDAR: So I marked 184, it was also Stacy 25 Brooks's declaration. 16 1 THE COURT: The same one? 2 MR. DANDAR: Of December 14, 1994. I'll 3 withdraw 184. 4 THE COURT: That is in this case. It's a 5 declaration in this case? 6 MR. DANDAR: No. It is -- I -- that is just 7 notice of filing but the declaration is right here. 8 MR. WEINBERG: So what is in now? 9 MR. DANDAR: I'm withdrawing 184 because it is 10 redundant. 11 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 12 MR. DANDAR: Then 185 is a Stacy Young -- same 13 person -- declaration, which is from the Wollersheim 14 case as a joint appendix. And that one is dated 15 May 2, 1997. That is exhibit -- Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 185. 17 THE COURT: Any objection? 18 MR. WEINBERG: Mmm, only on the same grounds I 19 objected before. 20 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to receive it. 21 MR. DANDAR: Then Plaintiff's Exhibit 186 is 22 the Robert Cipriano declaration dated August 9, 23 1999. 24 THE COURT: Who is he? 25 MR. DANDAR: He is a person that Mr. Moxon 17 1 knows quite well. Mr. Moxon represented him against 2 Mr. Berry. Sutter, who is Mr. Minton's attorney now 3 in California, also represented Mr. Cipriano. And 4 it talks -- this goes to our allegation of the 5 pattern, practice, of behavior concerning the Church 6 of Scientology in attacking lawyers. 7 MR. MOXON: I -- 8 THE COURT: Why don't you call him as a 9 witness? 10 MR. DANDAR: He's in California. 11 THE COURT: And? 12 MR. DANDAR: I don't have any control over him. 13 THE COURT: He wouldn't come? 14 MR. DANDAR: Quite honestly, Judge, I didn't 15 call him to find out if he would. But this is not a 16 person I have any contact with. 17 THE COURT: All right. 18 MR. MOXON: I would strenuously object to this. 19 This whole scenario has a long history. He's -- 20 this is a person that I represented. He gave an 21 affidavit several years ago and was sued by a man 22 named Graham Berry who has been kind of associated 23 with this whole movement, these anti-Scientologists. 24 And Mr. Cipriano was sued for libel by Mr. Berry and 25 I defended him in California. 18 1 And it was a contentious suit which I won, it 2 was dismissed, and it was one of the actions that 3 gave rise to a vexatious litigation claim against 4 Mr. Berry. 5 Mr. Berry subsequently has been -- he's not 6 been disbarred, but he's serving an 18-month 7 suspension for various frivolous litigation and 8 acts, one of which includes a Rule 11 sanction in a 9 suit he filed against me where I was one of the 10 defendants along with -- you may have heard this, 11 President Clinton and Madeleine Albright and John 12 Travolta and the prime minister of Russia. 13 And it is just an insane thing. The complaint 14 is thicker than what you have in front of you; it is 15 over 250 pages long. 16 But after I successfully represented 17 Mr. Cipriano, he signed this affidavit which was 18 written by Mr. Berry. And if you read any of it 19 you'll see it is the most spurious kind of stuff 20 attacking every attorney the Church ever represented 21 and making all kinds of weird, weird allegations. 22 Mr. Cipriano, by the way, was never a 23 Scientologist. He was -- frankly, it's in the 24 public record. He was a drug addict, some man from 25 New York that Mr. Berry used to work with some years 19 1 ago. 2 In any event, after Mr. Cipriano filed this 3 declaration -- 4 THE COURT: This one, we're talking about. 5 MR. MOXON: The one we're talking about now, he 6 retracted it. 7 THE COURT: Let -- I don't understand, let me 8 ask you a question. I'm all confused. You 9 represented him in a claim against another lawyer? 10 MR. MOXON: No, I defended him. 11 THE COURT: You defended him in a claim brought 12 against another lawyer and he prevailed, now he's 13 writing a declaration for whom, and what? 14 MR. MOXON: Then he wrote a declaration for 15 Mr. Berry, the man who sued him. 16 THE COURT: In another lawsuit? In what 17 lawsuit is this declaration? 18 MR. MOXON: No lawsuit. 19 THE COURT: No lawsuit? 20 MR. MOXON: Mr. Berry filed this and used this 21 declaration in many actions where he's actually 22 tried to, you know -- I guess he got this reversed, 23 he filed it in court of appeals and filed it for 24 motion for new trial or to vacate the judgment in an 25 action he lost and several other lawsuits he filed 20 1 where he lost. 2 In any event, there was this flip-flop but he 3 retracted the affidavit. 4 THE COURT: Mr. Cipriano did. 5 MR. MOXON: Right. Then he filed another 6 affidavit saying no, the first affidavit was 7 accurate, then he filed another one saying -- he 8 retracted it and saying, "Mr. Berry threatened me, 9 held me against the will." It is just the most 10 bizarre story you ever heard. He has written 11 E-Mails and apologized and lied and said, "I'm 12 sorry, so sorry." It is just a complete mess. 13 THE COURT: I'm going to let you -- 14 MR. MOXON: Nothing to do with this case. 15 THE COURT: -- let you file it because you have 16 notice of filing here. I'm not sure why I would 17 want to receive it in evidence, however. 18 MR. DANDAR: It talks about Mr. Moxon suborning 19 perjury, of which I allege is the same thing they 20 have done in this case with Mr. Minton and 21 Ms. Brooks. 22 THE COURT: I don't see how you can just come 23 in and introduce an affidavit of somebody and ask me 24 to consider that without presenting the person for 25 some sort of cross-examination, particularly in 21 1 light of the fact that he reneged on the affidavit 2 and filed it again and reneged against. If it is 3 not true, why should I consider it? 4 MR. DANDAR: I'm not aware of these other 5 subsequent declarations that Mr. Moxon just told you 6 about. Had I known about that, I would have 7 considered that, maybe filed them all or maybe -- 8 you know, if there is a way I can get 9 Mr. Cipriano -- of course we're running out of time. 10 I don't know how long their rebuttal is because they 11 haven't told us what they plan on doing today, but, 12 you know, if I can get Mr. Cipriano willing to come 13 to Florida to testify before you -- because he's -- 14 these are serious matters that he raises in his 15 declaration. 16 THE COURT: You -- 17 MR. DANDAR: I'll try to do that. 18 THE COURT: All right. It is my inclination at 19 this moment not to receive this in evidence in this 20 case. I can't remember what I have received in 21 evidence, to tell you the truth. I know I received 22 a lot of declarations. I thought most everybody had 23 either testified or had been referred to in some 24 fashion, something came out. So, you know, there 25 may be some relevance. 22 1 This obviously would be relevant. But I just 2 don't -- I'm not sure how I can take an affidavit 3 filed in some other case, the guy doesn't show up 4 here, he has never been mentioned before, now all of 5 a sudden I'm supposed to take this and say, "Oh, 6 yeah." I mean, I don't even know what he would look 7 like. I don't know whether the guy is able to look 8 up from his hands or what. I mean, this is very 9 difficult. 10 So you can file it because you can file -- this 11 is a declaration you can file. At the moment, I am 12 inclined not to receive it. I will read it and -- 13 MR. MOXON: Well, I didn't ask you not to read 14 it. You can see how big this is. My kind of 15 position is if you read this stuff, then what shall 16 I do? Shall I try to refute it? Because it is just 17 kind of Mr. Dandar -- 18 THE COURT: No, there is just a lot of stuff I 19 read -- judges really are able to do that. I mean, 20 you always have to read stuff to determine whether 21 something is admissible or not. 22 MR. MOXON: I know. 23 THE COURT: You know, my inclination is at this 24 time it is not unless he can bring this man here to 25 testify. But I'll glance through it. You know, I 23 1 suppose if you have -- if you want me to read 2 something that says he refuted it, I'll read it too. 3 MR. MOXON: The funny thing with this 4 affidavit -- not funny, but he never actually says 5 what Mr. Dandar claimed. He kind of makes 6 inferences, but he never says he ever perjured 7 himself and he never says whatever it was that he 8 claims was a misrepresentation in his -- in his 9 testimony. 10 And, in fact, it's -- you know, I could get 11 into a whole big thing on this. I have a lengthy 12 taped interview, for example, where he affirms 13 everything in the original lawsuit that Mr. Dandar 14 says, now he says is not true and he signs every 15 page and -- 16 THE COURT: Okay. You know, you say don't read 17 it, but I had to read something filed by Gerry 18 Armstrong -- was that his name? 19 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 20 THE COURT: -- to see what it was. And so I -- 21 I couldn't even tell you now what he said. 22 MR. MOXON: Okay. 23 THE COURT: But I'm sure it was stuff that 24 wasn't flattering. But I don't remember, so, you 25 know, I have got enough to put my mind on, on stuff 24 1 that I determine is relevant or admissible. 2 So my inclination, Counsel, is not to let this 3 in. I'll try to briefly look at it, see if I change 4 my mind. If you think this man -- since I won't 5 accept his declaration -- is critical to your case, 6 call him, see if he's willing to come. If he is, 7 let me know that and if he can come by Friday, maybe 8 I'll let you bring him. 9 MR. DANDAR: All right. Last is the 10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 187, which is an affidavit of 11 Sandra Anderson, the hospice worker for Fannie 12 McPherson, Lisa's mother; the deposition of Joan 13 Wood, February 10, 1997, taken by Mr. Weinberg who 14 also took Sandra Anderson's testimony; and 15 deposition of Joan Wood, June 1, 2000, which is 16 actually the interview by the prosecutor of Joan 17 Wood under oath, which we used in our memorandum of 18 law that is going to be filed in opposition to the 19 motion for summary judgment. And Sandra Anderson is 20 filed in opposition to that, as well as determining 21 sanctions. 22 They claim I'm lying about Lisa McPherson 23 wanting to quit. 24 THE COURT: You are filing this in opposition 25 to the summary judgment and as evidence in this 25 1 case? 2 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 3 THE COURT: All right. Any objection? 4 MR. WEINBERG: It's -- 5 THE COURT: I think that there is a difference 6 here. These are people that are -- that are 7 certainly involved in this case. 8 MR. WEINBERG: I have some objection with 9 regard to Mr. Crow's interview of Ms. Wood. Because 10 we never had a chance to cross-examine Dr. Wood. 11 But, you know, Sandra Anderson, what he's filing is 12 the deposition in this case, I think. 13 THE COURT: It's an affidavit. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, it's an affidavit? 15 THE COURT: Dated November of '99. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Did you give us a copy of that 17 last night? Ken? 18 MR. MOXON: Mr. Dandar? 19 MR. WEINBERG: I don't have that one, Sandra 20 Anderson. 21 MR. DANDAR: The deposition? 22 MR. WEINBERG: No, Judge Schaeffer said -- 23 THE COURT: Didn't you say it was an affidavit? 24 MR. DANDAR: I thought I said deposition. 25 MS. WEST: This is the affidavit. 26 1 MR. DANDAR: Well, there is a deposition, as 2 well, we'll file the deposition. 3 MR. WEINBERG: I object to the affidavit. If 4 it is the deposition, I had an opportunity to be 5 there and ask her questions if that is the one I'm 6 thinking of. 7 MR. DANDAR: Right, we'll substitute the 8 affidavit for the deposition. 9 MR. WEINBERG: You mean the opposite. 10 MR. DANDAR: Deposition for the affidavit. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. DANDAR: It is one of those mornings. 13 THE COURT: Then I'll receive all that. 14 You also gave me a book, I haven't read it yet, 15 but you gave me a book, notice of filing of a lot of 16 depositions. 17 MR. DANDAR: They are depositions of staff 18 taken either by me or under-oath interviews by the 19 police or the prosecutor. 20 THE COURT: Are those -- are you trying to file 21 those as evidence in this case? 22 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 23 THE COURT: In this hearing? 24 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 25 THE COURT: Well, you haven't designated them 27 1 as numbers, have you? 2 MR. DANDAR: I think there is an exhibit number 3 for that. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. DANDAR: I did hand it to the clerk. 6 Do you recall that? 7 THE COURT: Can you imagine -- I mean, let's 8 just project this for a moment that I make a ruling, 9 one side or the other, both sides decide to take an 10 appeal of this. 11 MR. WEINBERG: Right? 12 THE COURT: Can you just see all this being 13 toted up to the Second District and seeing those 14 judges up there -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: They'll all be applying for the 16 Supreme Court. 17 THE COURT: Yes. I mean, it would just be 18 remarkable to see even their clerks, who are used to 19 taking the record -- at least when I sat over there 20 I would get some nice little thing done by some 21 clerk and had the record available to me -- 22 MR. FUGATE: If they had a semi truck, maybe. 23 THE COURT: But can you imagine the clerk just 24 saying, "I'm done"? 25 MR. WEINBERG: I think that is what they would 28 1 do, probably. 2 THE COURT: So you may assume, Mr. Dandar, that 3 Mr. Cipriano's deposition -- affidavit is not in 4 evidence, but as I said, I have got to go back and 5 look and see what all -- I took a lot of 6 declarations at the beginning of this. I don't know 7 what they were. If I just take any declaration 8 anybody wanted to file and I have a lot of unrelated 9 affidavits, declarations, I may take it, as well. 10 As I say, it doesn't stand for much unless 11 somebody comes to court to testify, but for now it 12 is not in evidence. 13 I think he -- you did have a number. 14 MR. DANDAR: This is what it looks like and 15 we're trying to find it. It was in a binder, wasn't 16 it? 17 THE COURT: Mine was in a binder. It is at 18 home in my "to be read" file. 19 MR. WEINBERG: For what it is worth, I really 20 don't -- I don't think you put a number on it. I -- 21 MR. DANDAR: Well, we'll go ahead and -- just 22 I'll tell you on the record what it is and then I'll 23 make a copy of it and we'll copy it again. But 24 don't you have in -- in a binder? 25 THE COURT: I have it but it was my copy. 29 1 MR. DANDAR: Exactly. 2 THE COURT: And I'm sure you filed the 3 original. But see what it was was a notice of 4 filing, so I asked you, I think, at the time did you 5 just file this. 6 MR. DANDAR: Right. And I did -- 7 THE COURT: There is a difference in filing 8 something and introducing it in evidence, so Madam 9 Clerk, you may have seen notice of filing on it but 10 they didn't file it. 11 MR. DANDAR: We're going to mark this then as 12 our next exhibit, in fact the exhibit that we 13 withdrew -- 14 MR. WEINBERG: Ken, there is -- look at 130. 15 Look at Plaintiff's 130, see if that is it. 16 MR. DANDAR: Yes, that is it. It is Exhibit 17 130. 18 MR. WEINBERG: You were going to give us a copy 19 of it. Remember? 20 THE COURT: Let me see that. There is one 21 thing I said I would not receive. 22 MR. DANDAR: It was J, which is the Detective 23 Carrasquillo's interview of Scientologists staying 24 in the cabanas, one of whom saw David Miscavige 25 there -- 30 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 MR. DANDAR: -- at that time. 3 THE COURT: That was not a sworn declaration, 4 that was a hearsay declaration, that was triple -- 5 quadruple hearsay by the time it gets here so I said 6 I would not receive that. Sworn statements, these 7 are all witnesses in the case? 8 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 9 THE COURT: Depositions -- it says here I, 10 statement of Judy Fontana. 11 MR. DANDAR: That is a police interview. 12 THE COURT: Sworn statement? 13 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 14 There is Exhibit 130 of the plaintiff marked on 15 July 8. 16 MR. FUGATE: Well, I don't recall that being 17 sworn. If it was, I'll be -- 18 MR. DANDAR: Here. 19 THE COURT: Is she a witness? 20 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 21 THE COURT: Who is she? 22 MR. DANDAR: She's OSA. She was deposed by me, 23 and she is the one who I believe, if I'm not 24 mistaken, either her or the other OSA person, Andy 25 Mora, picked up Lisa's PC folders and shipped them 31 1 to Los Angeles. And also she or her husband, 2 Mr. Fontana -- for sure Mr. Fontana was at the 3 emergency room when Lisa McPherson was there after 4 her car accident. 5 THE COURT: This is a statement to the police? 6 MR. DANDAR: Yes. It's an under-oath 7 interview. 8 MR. FUGATE: No, you know what it is, it is a 9 State Attorney's investigation. 10 THE COURT: That is under oath. If she's a 11 witness in this case, I'll receive it. If you want 12 to put her deposition in you can. 13 MR. FUGATE: I don't know -- have you taken her 14 deposition? 15 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 16 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 17 MR. DANDAR: Do you really need all these 18 copies? It is my only one. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Well, if you are putting it in 20 evidence -- 21 MR. DANDAR: All right, it is Exhibit 130. 22 I'll hand it to Mr. Weinberg -- 23 MR. WEINBERG: We need to refer to it. 24 THE COURT: Do you have the front page of it so 25 you know what you filed? 32 1 MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry. 2 THE COURT: Do you have the front page of it so 3 you know what you just filed? 4 MR. DANDAR: Yes. Yes. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Then presumably you have 6 copies of it. 7 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 8 THE COURT: You all have copies of it. But -- 9 MR. WEINBERG: I mean, when it's -- 10 THE COURT: Okay, I have got it. 11 MR. DANDAR: It is now in evidence in this 12 hearing? 13 THE COURT: It is in evidence. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Except for -- 15 THE COURT: Except for J. 16 MR. WEINBERG: What do we do for the court 17 record on that one? 18 THE COURT: Just reflects it is not in 19 evidence. I just write at the bottom of mine, "Not 20 in evidence." Madam clerk will probably put on the 21 evidence list Number 130, list what it is, then say 22 J and she'll list what it is and say excluded or 23 something like that. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 25 THE COURT: Or something like that. 33 1 MR. WEINBERG: I didn't know how that worked. 2 THE COURT: I think as long as we-all know here 3 what happened to that, it is okay. This is what I'm 4 saying. Can you imagine -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: No. 6 THE COURT: -- at district court level they are 7 going to root through and read somehow J? I don't 8 think so. I think, as we all know what is in and 9 what is out, we're in pretty good shape. We'll have 10 to read your briefs or whatever -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: We may not be in as good shape. 12 THE COURT: Somebody may want to go read 13 something, but chances are they won't want to read 14 what is not in evidence. 15 Okay, Mr. Dandar, are you ready to testify? 16 Are you going to take the stand again? 17 MR. DANDAR: Judge, after Mr. Weinberg's 18 cross-examination questions last night, I convinced 19 and persuaded my former expert Hana Whitfield to 20 drive up here and testify concerning the things that 21 Mr. Oliver talked about that Mr. Weinberg 22 questioned. And she's here, she's driven up this 23 morning from Fort Myers. 24 THE COURT: All right. 25 MR. DANDAR: So we call Hana Whitfield. 34 1 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I would like to object 2 to that if I may. 3 THE COURT: What is your objection? She's a 4 witness. She's a witness for this hearing. There 5 is no requirement on a motion that I know of that 6 requires reciprocal discovery. He can call anybody 7 he wants to that he thinks has relevant information. 8 It is not a trial. It is -- you know, this is a 9 motion. And he can call, you know, somebody you 10 have never even heard of, as far as I'm concerned. 11 So go ahead and list your objection. 12 MR. MOXON: Okay. Well, I'll spare all of the 13 history, but of course you may recall that 14 Ms. Whitfield was identified as a witness some time 15 ago, in fact in the year 2000. And we noticed her 16 deposition at that time. Mr. Dandar refused to 17 produce her and withdrew her as a witness after we 18 noticed her deposition. 19 We went through just a whole big thing with 20 this. We tried to -- in fact, he said, "Well, she's 21 not going to be a witness because she's my trial 22 consultant now." It is kind of that familiar theme. 23 At any rate, so she was withdrawn after we 24 noticed her deposition. And then at some point 25 later on he -- he filed an affidavit from her. And 35 1 we sought to take her deposition again. He didn't 2 allow it. And she withdrew again. Then after 3 Mr. Prince left -- after Mr. Prince said he was 4 withdrawing as a witness, then he brings out Hana 5 Whitfield all over again. I noticed her deposition. 6 Three days later he said, "I have withdrawn her 7 again," and gives various reasons for having 8 withdrawn her. 9 But back in the year 2000 when we had a lot of 10 litigation, there were several motions before Judge 11 Moody. There is actually an order in this case 12 saying that she may not testify in this case absent 13 a new motion and leave of the court because of all 14 we've been through, trying to get her deposition and 15 trying to work this out and Mr. Dandar's just 16 refusal and flip-flop, flip-flop, for the past two 17 years. 18 So -- 19 THE COURT: Maybe if I could see that -- that 20 order. But -- but I suspect Judge Moody was talking 21 about the trial. But maybe not. I would have to 22 see what he said in his order. 23 MR. MOXON: I have it here. Let me pull it 24 out. 25 MR. DANDAR: He's talking about trial. 36 1 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon, you looked organized. 2 Mr. Dandar, did you tell them you might be 3 calling her today? 4 MR. DANDAR: Mr. Lirot telephoned Mr. Fugate 5 last night on his cell phone, left a message and 6 actually didn't get a reply. 7 MR. MOXON: I actually heard about this from 8 Mr. Fugate last night at eleven. 9 MR. FUGATE: No, he heard about it from me 10 about 1:30 last night, because I got in my car, 11 turned from -- leaving from preparing for rebuttal 12 when we left for the day, and I got a voice mail 13 message from Mr. Lirot at 6:35 saying, "We're 14 thinking about calling Hana Whitfield. Based on the 15 fact we said we weren't calling anybody else, I 16 wanted to let you know." 17 So I called back and said, "Do we have anything 18 on Hana Whitfield?" 19 Judge, I'm upset about this because this is a 20 pattern and practice. This is a person who has been 21 repeatedly told to you by Mr. Dandar is afraid to 22 come in and testify because of harassment so there 23 is never any discovery taken, then all of a sudden 24 she's popped on the stand with no real ability for 25 any of us to be prepared to cross-examine her. 37 1 And yesterday, as I understood, the end of the 2 day, "Do you have any other witnesses?" "No" was the 3 answer. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, the other thing, I'm 5 listed in the phone book. 6 THE COURT: You know what, here we have three 7 lawyers arguing. I'm not going to have that. 8 MR. FUGATE: I was responding to when I got the 9 notice. 10 THE COURT: All right. 11 Okay, this would seem to say that it said, 12 "Ordered and adjudged the plaintiff may not call 13 either Hana Whitfield or Jim Singleman as a 14 witness -- as witnesses for any purpose in this case 15 without first obtaining a further order of this 16 court permitting Ms. Whitfield or Mr. Singleman to 17 testify." 18 So that would seem like any purpose. However, 19 as I said, this is a motion -- this is a motion to 20 terminate the case. I think anybody who has got 21 relevant information should be able to testify. I 22 suspect you-all can do just fine cross-examining 23 Ms. Whitfield, but I don't want to hear a bunch of 24 repeat stuff, stuff I already heard. 25 MR. DANDAR: All right. 38 1 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, could we request then 2 Mr. Dandar not be permitted to put on any evidence 3 through Ms. Whitfield which were all of the things 4 he said she would testify about but refused to 5 produce her earlier when we wanted to cross-examine 6 her as to her affidavits, and Lisa McPherson, and 7 alleged harassment? 8 All of these issues -- remember I subpoenaed 9 her twice. We actually subpoenaed her and said we 10 want to find out what this lady wanted to say, 11 Mr. Dandar kept representing she was going to be a 12 witness. So, you know, per the standard civil 13 authorities on this, you know, you don't have this 14 ambush situation. And he just absolutely refused, 15 every single time, he wouldn't let her come in. 16 So if she wants to come in and testify about 17 Mr. Minton and her -- you know -- conversations with 18 Mr. Minton or something like that, that would be one 19 thing because that wouldn't have been an issue 20 necessarily, but if she's going to testify about any 21 issue -- 22 THE COURT: You know what? It is your motion. 23 There is no requirement under the Rules of Civil 24 Procedure that I am aware of in a motion that the 25 other side has to give you notice, allow you to take 39 1 their depositions or anything of this sort. I am 2 not aware of any such thing. 3 I'm going to let her testify to anything she 4 knows that might be relevant to this proceeding. If 5 you want to take her deposition -- I mean, there are 6 different rules for a trial. And in Florida they 7 have this wonderful discovery process so everybody 8 knows everything that is going to happen in a trial. 9 I mean, this is -- this is a motion with -- 10 with 200-something exhibits on one side, we're up to 11 180-something on the other, and I want to hear 12 really from anybody that has anything relevant. 13 So I suspect you could cross-examine. If you 14 can't, after she testifies, you let me know and 15 we'll -- I'll see. Okay? 16 MR. MOXON: All right. 17 MR. DANDAR: Hana Whitfield, please step up and 18 be sworn. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, it really is 20 aggravating to have somebody that -- you know -- 21 isn't going to testify, isn't going to testify, 22 isn't, is, isn't, then all of a sudden in they come, 23 and with a call at 1:30. I mean, it isn't good 24 form. 25 MR. DANDAR: The call was at 6:30. 40 1 THE COURT: Well, 6:30, 1:30, 9:30. 2 MR. DANDAR: It is aggravating. I'll have 3 Miss Whitfield explain that. 4 THE COURT: Well, step up here. 5 Mr. Battaglia, are you here just to observe 6 today? 7 MR. BATTAGLIA: I have no standing, your Honor. 8 I'm here to observe. Yes. 9 THE COURT: Okay. We're happy to have you. 10 MR. BATTAGLIA: I would love to participate, 11 but I am told -- 12 MR. FUGATE: He left me voice mails, as well, 13 Judge, and I didn't get those until 1:30. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Just let the record reflect I 15 have a home phone number listed in the phone book, 16 has been since 1985. They could have called me at 17 home. 18 THE COURT: As I told you, I quite don't know 19 what to say except to say this again. I think you 20 can spring any witness, any unknown witness. If he 21 finds somebody before this hearing is over you-all 22 have never heard of, I would let him call him to 23 testify. 24 MR. WEINBERG: We understand that. 25 THE COURT: This is not a trial. 41 1 MR. WEINBERG: But when you leave at 4:30 and 2 you are told you have to do a rebuttal case and 3 people stay up all night preparing for rebuttal 4 instead of preparing for a witness, that is 5 aggravating. 6 THE COURT: That is aggravating to me. I 7 thought I had a doctor's appointment this afternoon, 8 but I'm happy to get out of it, so -- 9 Raise your right hand, please. 10 (Witness sworn.) 11 THE WITNESS: I do. 12 THE COURT: You may lower your hand. 13 You may proceed. 14 ______________________________________ 15 HANA WHITFIELD, 16 the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined 17 and testified as follows: 18 DIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Please state your full name and spell your last 21 name. 22 A Hana Whitfield. W-H-I-T-F-I-E-L-D. 23 Q Where do you live? 24 A In Cape Coral, Florida. 25 Q And how long have you been a resident of Florida? 42 1 A About six and a half years. 2 Q What is the extent of your formal education? 3 A I graduated high school, so to speak, except it 4 was the English Cambridge equivalent of high school in 5 Southern Rhodesia in 1956. 6 Q And did you go to any post-high school education? 7 A Yes. I did a four-year nursing course in South 8 Africa in Johannesburg, South Africa. 9 Q Did you obtain your four-year nursing license? 10 A Yes, I did. 11 Q Degree? 12 A Yes, registered nurse. 13 Q All right. And sometime after that you joined the 14 Church of Scientology? 15 A I did. Excuse me. I joined the Church in 16 March 1965 in Johannesburg. 17 Q And after joining the Church of Scientology you 18 became a Sea Org member? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And did you work with Mr. Hubbard? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Where? 23 A On board his ship the Avon River, later called the 24 Athena, and his Flag ship the Royal Scotman, later renamed 25 the Apollo. 43 1 Q And did you work with Mr. Hubbard day in and day 2 out? 3 A Pretty much so. Yes. I was one of his -- at 4 first, I went up in the ranks, and about six, seven months 5 after I joined the Sea Org, I became the captain of the Avon 6 River. 7 THE COURT: Of the what? 8 THE WITNESS: The captain. 9 THE COURT: Of the? 10 THE WITNESS: Avon River. It was a one -- it 11 was about a 150-foot old English fishing trawler. 12 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 13 THE WITNESS: And it sailed in English waters 14 and the Mediterranean. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Were you captain of any other ship of 18 Mr. Hubbard's or the Church of Scientology? 19 A Yes. The Apollo for a short time, for about six 20 to seven months. 21 Q Okay. And from -- 22 A Excuse me. I was the deputy captain. Mr. Hubbard 23 was the captain. 24 Q Okay. 25 THE COURT: Is this the captain that sails the 44 1 ship? Or is this -- 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 3 THE COURT: You are actually a real captain? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 BY MR. DANDAR: 9 Q What was your highest rank in the Sea Org? 10 A Commander right arm. 11 Q And when did you cease membership in the Sea Org? 12 A In March 1982. That was when I left the Sea Org 13 of my own accord in Clearwater, Florida from the Ft. 14 Harrison Hotel. 15 Q And did you remain a staff or public member of 16 Scientology then? 17 A Not a staff. I remained a public member. I 18 went -- when I left, because I left without permission, I 19 was assigned a suppressive person status. And about six 20 months after that I went to Los Angeles, back to 21 Scientology, the headquarters there, and I did a policy 22 called steps A to E to reenter back as a Scientologist in 23 good standing. 24 And I finished all those steps and I was 25 reinstated as a Scientologist in good standing in, I think, 45 1 1983. I don't have those records with me. 2 Q Okay. 3 A But I do have them. 4 Q And how long did you remain a Scientologist in 5 good standing? 6 A From that time in 1983, only up to about the 7 middle of 1984. About a year more. 8 Q And then what happened? 9 A And then I had what I consider an unfortunate 10 experience in a dental clinic in San Bernadino. I worked 11 for Sterling Management Systems. 12 Q Is that a Scientology -- 13 A That is a Scientology group. And they -- they 14 still exist. They consult with doctors and dentists and 15 chiropractors to help them run their business better. And I 16 worked for a subsidiary of Sterling Management Systems in 17 this particular dental clinic. And I witnessed some very 18 heavy handling of the doctors by Sterling Management 19 consultants who flew down from San Francisco, where Sterling 20 was then based, to San Bernadino to deal with the doctors 21 because they were getting a bit riled up about Scientology. 22 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I object on relevance, 23 whatever happened with doctors and -- 24 THE COURT: What is the relevance? 25 MR. MOXON: -- private company. 46 1 MR. DANDAR: You know, if I tell you the 2 relevance, then you will say I'm coaching the 3 witness, so I'm hesitant -- 4 THE COURT: You are going to link it up is what 5 you are telling me? 6 MR. DANDAR: I'm going to link it up. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q Is Sterling Management what is called a WISE 9 company? 10 A It is a member of WISE, the World Institute of 11 Scientology Enterprises. 12 Q And does it sell or administer Hubbard technology 13 to private businesses so they run their businesses according 14 to Mr. Hubbard's technology? 15 A Yes, they do. 16 Q Okay. So after you had this experience in the 17 dental office, did you continue to be a Scientologist? 18 A No. At that point I realized I had to rethink my 19 association with Scientology because the activities I saw in 20 the office did not match the policies of Mr. Hubbard that I 21 was familiar with. And I left and decided to leave 22 Scientology at that time. 23 Q And what year did you leave? 24 A I left in -- I think it was 1984. 25 Q Who was the head of the Sea Org when you left 47 1 Scientology? 2 A It was -- it was still Mr. Hubbard, as far as I 3 was aware. 4 Q Because he was still alive? 5 A Yes, he was still alive then. 6 Q And when Mr. Hubbard died, who was the head of the 7 Sea Org? 8 MR. MOXON: Objection. 9 THE COURT: We don't need this. This is 10 duplicative. 11 MR. DANDAR: Well -- 12 THE COURT: She left. She wasn't even there. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q When you left Scientology, did you keep up with 15 Scientology's -- 16 THE COURT: There really isn't any dispute over 17 the fact of who was the head of the Sea Org unless 18 it is somebody that she's going to testify different 19 from what has been testified to by every other 20 witness. 21 MR. DANDAR: Except Mr. Shaw. If you recall, 22 Mr. Shaw and Ms. Brooks have a different testimony 23 than every other witness. 24 THE COURT: I don't remember that. Ms. Brooks 25 said that David Miscavige was head of the Sea Org, 48 1 didn't she? 2 MR. DANDAR: No -- well, I think -- I think she 3 kind of hemmed and hawed about it. Went around in 4 circles. 5 THE COURT: Counsel, move on to some other 6 questions. 7 MR. DANDAR: I will. 8 THE COURT: You are lucky to get this witness 9 on the stand. 10 MR. DANDAR: All right. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q After you left Scientology, did it ever come to 13 your attention that the Church of Scientology had private 14 investigators following you or your husband? 15 A Yes. 16 Q When was that? 17 A 1986 was the first time we became aware of it. 18 I'm not sure of the date or the month, but it was at the 19 time that a group of former Scientologists held a meeting at 20 the Leo Baeck Temple in west Los Angeles. I can't give you 21 a time more than that. 22 Q Okay. And how is it that you associated the 23 private investigators with the Church of Scientology? 24 A When we were at the meeting inside, one of the 25 security guards came to -- I think it was Frank and Mary 49 1 Freedman and told them the security guards at the table -- 2 MR. MOXON: Objection, hearsay. 3 MR. DANDAR: It is not asserted for the truth 4 of the matter but her state of mind. 5 THE COURT: Overruled -- I mean sustained. 6 This is asserted for the truth of the matter that 7 these investigators were with the Church of 8 Scientology. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Did you independently go and find out who these 11 private investigators were associated with? Or are you 12 relying on what someone at this meeting told you? 13 A Mmm, we relied on what the person at the meeting 14 told us. 15 THE COURT: Do you know of any other person -- 16 any other organization, any other entity that would 17 want to have investigators following you? 18 THE WITNESS: Not at that -- no, your Honor. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Was this meeting -- did this meeting have anything 21 to do with the Church of Scientology? 22 A It had to do with gathering together former 23 members and promoting a lawsuit against Scientology. 24 Q Okay. And did you and your husband participate in 25 any lawsuit against Scientology? 50 1 A Yes, we did. 2 Q When was that? 3 A That was in 1986. I think it was filed December 4 '86. 5 Q All right. Was that lawsuit ultimately dismissed? 6 A Yes, it was. 7 Q Do you know when it was dismissed? 8 A Mmm, no. A few years later, three or four years 9 later. 10 Q Okay. During the three or four years that the 11 lawsuit was pending, did you have any private investigators 12 following you, harassing you or any other strange things 13 happen to you or your husband? 14 A Mmm, I think we did. We didn't -- at that time we 15 didn't take that much notice. And I don't have any clear 16 recollection. 17 Q When is the first -- next time -- 18 THE COURT: Can I interrupt just a moment? I 19 heard about so many lawsuits. 20 Is this lawsuit that was filed -- did it have a 21 name? 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes, your Honor, called 23 Stansfield versus Starkey reported in the California 24 Reporters. It was dismissed with sanctions. The 25 dismissal was affirmed by the California Court of 51 1 Appeals as frivolous -- 2 THE COURT: Stan -- 3 MR. LIEBERMAN: S-T-A-N-S-F-I-E-L-D versus 4 Starkey, Norman Starkey, S-T-A-R-K-E-Y. Among the 5 defendants was David Miscavige. And the lawsuit was 6 dismissed six or seven times with leave to replead, 7 finally dismissed with sanctions, affirmed by the 8 California Court of Appeals. I can get the citation 9 for you by this afternoon. 10 THE COURT: I honestly just wanted to know 11 whether this was a suit that I had heard about and 12 it is not. This is one I haven't heard about. 13 Go ahead. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q When is the next time you or your husband realized 16 you were being in contact or being followed by private 17 investigators for the Church of Scientology? 18 A Mmm, I think it started seriously in 1991. July. 19 We were traveling around quite a bit. We worked with 20 families who had a child or a spouse in Scientology. And we 21 worked with the families to try to educate the family to get 22 over their hostility toward Scientology so that they could 23 talk to their youngster or their spouse and engage in a 24 dialogue which would bring them back together again. 25 THE COURT: When you say they, ma'am, this is 52 1 you and your husband or is this another group of 2 people? 3 THE WITNESS: This is the family -- this is the 4 family. 5 THE COURT: No, you said in 1991 -- I wrote 6 down "they" were traveling around so I don't know 7 who "they" are. Is that you and your husband? 8 THE WITNESS: We, myself and my husband. 9 THE COURT: Was he also a former member of the 10 Church of Scientology? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q When you say working with families, are you 14 familiar with the term called "deprogramming" or 15 "deprogrammer"? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Is that what you and your husband were? 18 A No. Mmm, Scientology defines deprogramming and 19 deprogrammer as a manipulative and coercive method of 20 ripping a person's believes out of his or her mind and 21 replacing them with other beliefs, and we do not do that. 22 We have never done that. 23 Q You said just a little while ago you and your 24 husband would educate the families about Scientology. 25 A Yes. To some extent. And the culture of 53 1 Scientology and that it was a culture as important as their 2 own family culture. And if they could not see it in that 3 light, they could never bridge the gap to talk to their son 4 or daughter or their spouse. They had to respect what their 5 son or daughter or spouse was into and only on that footing 6 could they engage in some sort of dialogue to bring them 7 back together again. 8 Q Did you ever participate in talking to someone who 9 was a current member of Scientology, trying to get them to 10 quit? 11 A Well, we never tried to get anyone to quit. So 12 let me make that clear. 13 Q Okay. 14 A But, yes, I have spoken to Scientologists. 15 Q In an attempt to do what? 16 THE COURT: Active -- you mean Scientologists 17 who were presently Scientologists? 18 THE WITNESS: Right. 19 A In an effort to establish a dialogue with their 20 parents or a spouse. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Who were not Scientologists? 23 A Who were not Scientologists, right. 24 Q Did you use any type of coercion to attempt to do 25 this? 54 1 A No. 2 Q I mean, did you hold them against their will? 3 A No. 4 Q Kidnap them? 5 A No. 6 Q Okay. How would you meet a current Scientologist 7 in order to talk to them? 8 A Mmm, we would arrange to meet the family and 9 the -- the Scientologists when they -- they were meeting, 10 when the family and the Scientologists were meeting, either 11 in their home or a restaurant or some other place. 12 Q And if in -- if in your experience, if a current 13 Scientologist just said, "I don't want to talk to you, let 14 me alone," did you and your husband engage in any other 15 activity to prevent that person from either leaving or 16 not -- or not talking? 17 A Absolutely not. At that point, we withdrew. And 18 we told each family we worked with that that is what we 19 would do. 20 Q Okay. Now, what was going on in '91 that caused 21 you in July of '91 to see or suspect private investigators 22 were once again following you or your husband? 23 A Mmm, we had -- as I said, we were traveling a good 24 bit so we were away from home at times. 25 On the 13th of July we were in England working 55 1 with a family. And when we came home we found a message on 2 our answering machine from American Express saying that 3 someone had called in and a security breach had occurred and 4 could we get a hold of American Express. 5 Now, that happened on the 13th. And we got back a 6 week -- week and a half later. I can't remember exactly. 7 So then we called in to American Express and we 8 found out somebody called in impersonating my husband. 9 MR. MOXON: Objection, hearsay. 10 THE WITNESS: No, I was on the phone. I heard 11 this. 12 MR. MOXON: Hearsay. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q Go ahead. 15 A That somebody called in impersonating Jerry and 16 had asked for our May, June and July American Express 17 statements and had received them. We got very concerned and 18 asked what had triggered the alert and the American Express 19 security lady would not tell us. And we also asked to what 20 address had the statements been sent. 21 And she said she couldn't divulge that 22 information. 23 So at that point we realized that we had to be 24 more cautious about how we traveled and how we recorded our 25 travels. And we cancelled that American Express account. 56 1 Q Jerry Whitfield, that is your husband? 2 A That is my husband. 3 And a little earlier, July 2nd -- 4 MR. MOXON: Objection, your Honor, there is no 5 question. This is just a narrative. 6 MR. DANDAR: She's continuing to answer my 7 question. 8 THE COURT: Yes, she was asked whether or 9 not -- what caused her to think in July that she was 10 being followed or something by the Church 11 investigator. If that is continuation of that 12 answer -- 13 MR. DANDAR: Yes, it is still in July. 14 A Yes, this is in July. We called up our phone 15 company -- we found out that phone companies keep records 16 for anywhere from three to six months of people who call in 17 to inquire about their account, you know, "Please send me a 18 statement, I have lost my last month's statement, please do 19 this or that for me." 20 So we thought just on the spur of the moment we 21 would call in and see if there had been any inquiries on our 22 phone accounts that had not come from us. 23 And we found on our Pacific Bell account that 24 there had been some inquiries. A Paul -- this was in -- up 25 to July 2nd when we placed the phone call with Pacific Bell, 57 1 a Paul Henry or Harry had called saying he was from General. 2 Telephone. When he found out he could not get any copies of 3 the statements sent to him, he hung up. He left no number. 4 Somebody called Sam from AT&T wanted -- 5 represented himself as Jerry -- I'm sorry, Sam from -- 6 representing himself as Sam said he was from AT&T and wanted 7 copies of our bills. They were refused. He left an 800 8 number. 9 He also wanted to know what calls we were 10 making -- 11 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I object, hearsay. 12 THE COURT: This isn't hearsay because this is 13 not introduced for the truth of the matter because 14 obviously this is all lies. By that I mean whoever 15 was calling in and doing whatever they were doing 16 was not these people -- 17 THE WITNESS: Right. Right, your Honor. 18 A And then a Darrell from Continental Telephone had 19 also called in and wanted to know if we were making any 20 619 -- that is the area code for San Diego -- if we were 21 making any 619 calls to that area. 22 And we could not find out if he had been given 23 that information or not. I think, as it was at the time, we 24 hadn't been. 25 So at this point we became concerned and decided 58 1 to start being more watchful about our bank accounts, our 2 telephone accounts and possibly if we were being followed. 3 Because having been Scientologists, we had been privy to 4 some of Mr. Hubbard's policies back in the late '50s, '60s, 5 that indicated how Scientology could attack critics. And 6 these types of tactics were ones that would fit into those 7 policies. 8 BY MR. DANDAR: 9 Q When you were a Scientologist from '65 to '84, did 10 you -- were you familiar with the fair game policy? 11 A Oh, yes. Very much so. 12 Q And was -- when you left Scientology in '84 was 13 the fair game policy on how to treat suppressive people, was 14 that in effect, or cancelled? 15 A That was in effect. 16 MR. MOXON: Objection, your Honor. Apparently 17 she's giving now opinion testimony. 18 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. Overruled. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q How do you know it was in effect? 21 A Because it was -- it was practiced when I got in 22 in 1965. Mr. Hubbard himself wrote a number of suppressive 23 person orders, people in Australia who had filed lawsuits or 24 testified in lawsuits against Scientology, and a number of 25 people in England and American who had purportedly stolen 59 1 confidential Scientology upper-level materials. He 2 personally had written suppressive person orders declaring 3 these particular people fair game. 4 Q What about in the last, say, four or five years of 5 your membership in the '80s, was the fair game policy still 6 in effect as far as you know or was it cancelled? 7 A Publicly, it had been cancelled. But internally, 8 there was -- often I heard talk about the Guardian's Office 9 security checking people who had been -- 10 MR. MOXON: Objection, hearsay. She started 11 talking about somebody else -- 12 THE COURT: You know what now, I'm just going 13 to get through this and we're just going to allow 14 this. This all has to do with this First Amendment 15 and whether or not -- this will be briefed. I just 16 don't want to hear the objections. I'm going to 17 allow it on the same basis I have allowed it 18 throughout the proceedings. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Outside of your -- 21 A I would like to add something to that if I could, 22 your Honor. 23 Q Yes? 24 A In the Hubbard guidance center in 1979, '80 and 25 '81 and '82 I personally ordered a number of preclears, I 60 1 think all of them public preclears, who had had dealings 2 with the Guardian's Office and who had been extremely upset 3 over those dealings. 4 MR. MOXON: I do object now. I'm sorry to 5 interrupt during the middle, but now if I understand 6 what she's saying, she, as a church minister, as an 7 auditor, was auditing people and now she's telling 8 about what they told her during these confidential 9 auditing sessions? 10 THE COURT: I'm not going to allow any of the 11 confidential matters. 12 THE WITNESS: I haven't mentioned anything 13 confidential or names and I will not. 14 MR. MOXON: Well, not mentioning names is one 15 thing, but saying this is what a person X told me, 16 without identifying them, an anonymous person told 17 me something, and -- 18 THE COURT: You know what, even the judge has a 19 right to ask a priest did somebody else confess to 20 the crime and they will answer that. They will not 21 tell you who and they will not tell you what they 22 said or what have you. I think what she's trying to 23 tell us is something about fair game here with 24 somebody that she talked to. I'm going to allow it. 25 61 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Where were you auditing? 3 THE COURT: We don't need to be any more 4 specific than that, Counsel. 5 MR. DANDAR: All right. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q How high did you go on the bridge, both sides of 8 the bridge? 9 THE COURT: I didn't hear the rest of her 10 answer -- 11 MR. DANDAR: That is right. 12 THE COURT: -- with all this hoopla. Now you 13 don't want her answer. If you don't care about it, 14 just move on. What were you about to tell me, 15 ma'am? 16 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I have lost my train of 17 thought. 18 THE COURT: Well, it had something to do with 19 some folks that you talked to in the Church 20 regarding fair game perhaps. 21 THE WITNESS: Right. These -- these people 22 were public Scientologists, meaning they weren't 23 employed by the sea organization. 24 THE COURT: You can assume, Ms. Whitfield, 25 that, I know all about. I have been here 30-some 62 1 days. I know more than I ever dreamt I would know. 2 Was there something you learned about some 3 public members about fair game I think you were 4 about to say. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I did. From 6 these people. They were upset at the treatment they 7 had received by members of the Guardian's Office 8 because they had either been critical of Scientology 9 or not adhered to Scientology policies or had -- 10 Mmm -- displayed an independence of Scientology; in 11 other words, they were not following Scientology in 12 their business or their private life but doing 13 something else. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Okay. And how high of an auditor were you? 16 A Mmm, I received -- I trained through Class 7. And 17 received my certification and classification in England. 18 And beyond that, I did no other formal auditor training. 19 But when I was auditing at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in 20 Clearwater in the late '70s, early '80s, Jeff Walker, the 21 then senior case supervisor, said I was auditing at Class 8 22 level and I should be awarded that level. 23 Q All right. Now -- 24 MR. MOXON: I move to strike that hearsay 25 comment about what somebody else thought she should 63 1 be awarded. That doesn't go to obviously the truth 2 of the matter. As I understand what she said 3 someone else told her he thought she should be at a 4 certain level. 5 THE COURT: Do you really think I care whether 6 she was auditing Class 7 or Class 8? Give me a 7 break. 8 MR. MOXON: All right. 9 THE COURT: Give me a break. Please don't 10 interrupt with things that don't make one whit of 11 difference to me. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q Without identifying anyone, as you said you 14 wouldn't do any way, can you give us some examples of the 15 complaints that you heard concerning fair game on these 16 public members of Scientology? 17 A One I remember particularly, a young man, had been 18 security checked, put through a security check by the 19 Guardian's Office. And he said that it was very stressful. 20 It had gone on for hours and hours and hours for a few days. 21 Mmm, and he had been shouted at. The desk had been -- the 22 auditing desk had been thumped and he was very distressed 23 about it. 24 Q Anything else? 25 A No, that is all I'll say. 64 1 Q Okay. Are you saying there is more but you don't 2 want to talk about it? 3 A I would have to -- I would have to recollect. I 4 would have to take some time and -- 5 Q Okay. 6 A Yeah. 7 Q Okay. Now, after this incident in July of '91 8 where the phone records and your American Express records 9 were accessed or attempted to be accessed, can you tell us 10 about any other occurrences where you and your husband 11 believed had something to do with the Church of Scientology? 12 A Yes. This again is in July. Before we went to 13 England. We weren't sleeping that well at that -- after we 14 found out about the phone calls, we weren't sleeping that 15 well. We got up early one morning and found a car parked 16 across the street with two men in it. This is about 5, 5:30 17 in the morning. And by 6:30 they were still in the car. 18 And we checked again at about 7 and somehow the 19 car had rolled back down the hill and its bumper had 20 interlocked with another car's bumper and the two men in the 21 car were out trying to disengage the bumpers. And my 22 husband went out -- we went out into the street and my 23 husband said, "Why are you sitting here?" 24 And the two gentlemen were very evasive. They 25 continued trying to untangle their bumpers. And at that 65 1 point the -- one of them said, "I have to phone the 2 complex." And he got out of the car and started walking 3 down the hill from our home to a store on the corner where 4 he could call. And when he mentioned the word "complex," 5 the only place we know as the complex is the Scientology 6 headquarters in Los Angeles which is commonly referred to as 7 the complex. 8 And that was the association we made at that time. 9 They took a few hours disentangling their car, and then they 10 left. 11 Q Okay. 12 A Shortly -- shortly after that, we were due to 13 leave for England. And our plane left fairly early in the 14 morning. We left our home I think at about 6 or 6:30 and 15 there was a white car following us. And it seemed to very 16 clearly be following us. It just stayed on us. 17 My husband did, I think, four right-hand turns and 18 the car kept on after us. 19 At that point, my husband speeded up and we did 20 some zigzags and it appears we lost the car. But we weren't 21 certain. We went to LAX, parked our car and got on the 22 plane and went to England. 23 Q Anything happen in England? 24 A The first evening, I think, that we were in 25 England, we traveled from Heathrow to East Grinstead and 66 1 then down to Exmouth, E-X-M-O-U-T-H, on the south coast. 2 And we were put up by the family we were working with in a 3 B&B, bed and breakfast. And by -- by a very quiet part of 4 Exmouth, very few cars on the street. 5 And by about 6:30, 7 o'clock that evening, the -- 6 the -- I'm sorry, the first evening I think there was nobody 7 around. 8 The first evening I received a phone call from 9 Noella Atak, a friend of ours in England. And she said she 10 had a phone call from Jerry's father in the United States, 11 that he was in physical trouble, badly in physical trouble 12 and needed to speak to his son. 13 And I got pretty concerned. I said to Noella, 14 "How do you know it was Jerry's father?" She said, "Well, 15 he spoke in a very high, quavering voice and to me that 16 sounded like it could have been Jerry's father." Jerry and 17 John Atak, a friend of ours, and the family had gone out for 18 a meal and I was at the B&B. 19 I immediately placed a call to Jerry's father in 20 New Mexico, in Clovis, New Mexico, and could not get 21 through, it just rang and rang. There was no answer. 22 At that point I put a call through to his son Jack 23 Whitfield, also living in Clovis. No answer. At that point 24 I put a call through to our nephew, Mark Whitfield, and I 25 got him. And I asked Mark please to call around and find 67 1 Jerry's father, see how he was doing. And if it was urgent, 2 we would fly back to the states. 3 Half an hour later Mark called and said he didn't 4 know what information we were acting on but Jerry's father 5 was fine, there was no problem, he had not placed a call to 6 us. 7 So at that point I called Noella back. I said, 8 "Noella, if you get any more phone calls, please let us know 9 but don't panic." At that point Noella said, "Okay, I 10 better let you know, seeing the call was false, that the 11 caller asked for where you were in the U.K. and I told him 12 that you were in Exmouth." And I said, "Oh, boy. Well, 13 maybe at this point we can expect visitors." That was just 14 a surmise of mine. 15 I think it was later that evening, by about maybe 16 9, 10 o'clock, maybe even a bit later, we noticed there were 17 five, six cars driving around the bed and breakfast and some 18 were parked on the street. And one of them parked right 19 opposite the entrance to the bed and breakfast, had a 20 huge -- a big camera with a long lens on it. And the window 21 was open. He had that pointing outward. 22 So at that point we thought we're being followed. 23 We weren't certain of it. We couldn't prove it. But again, 24 we thought that that was the case. 25 Q Did you approach the men? 68 1 A No. We did not. We thought of filing a police 2 report, but we didn't. We had no proof of anything except 3 the man with the camera and the cars. 4 And the following morning a tall, elegant-looking, 5 silver-haired, slender man came in looking for a place -- a 6 room to rent. And he looked around, looked in on Jerry and 7 myself having breakfast and then he left. 8 I think another couple came in looking for a 9 place. A place to stay. 10 Mid-morning, the Exmouth police showed up. There 11 was Detective Inspector Lemon and a sergeant with him. And 12 they came into the dining room where Jerry and I were eating 13 and were quite abrupt and hostile with us and said they had 14 had a report that we had kidnapped someone. 15 And they separated -- at that point they separated 16 us. The detective inspector stayed with my husband and I 17 had to go with the sergeant to another room. And I guess my 18 husband gave his story and I gave mine to the sergeant. And 19 that was pretty much what I have told you up until now. I 20 told the sergeant that we were working with the family and 21 we were there in the bed and breakfast waiting to meet with 22 the family and their daughter Madelena and her fiance, Andy, 23 and that their son Shawn would be coming down from London 24 the next day or two days later. 25 THE COURT: Counsel, you're going to have to 69 1 speed this up a little bit. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Did you kidnap anyone? 4 A No. 5 Q Was there any other -- I want to just move through 6 this -- any other occurrences in England, then we'll get 7 back into the States? 8 A Well, the family had two ex-Marine -- Royal Marine 9 Special Forces friends. And those two men helped us each 10 morning, they took us into the car and they drove us through 11 the highways and byways of Exmouth and across one-way 12 bridges and so on, and they would stop and Scientologists, 13 we presumed who were following us, stopped. We got out of 14 the one car and got into a car ahead so we could get to the 15 family without then them following us. And that happened 16 every morning for a few days until that was over. 17 Q Okay. All right. Now, back in the United States 18 have you had any occurrences that -- with your credit 19 report? 20 A Well, there was further surveillance after we got 21 back. But credit reports, yes. 22 Q When did the credit report circumstances happen? 23 Tell us what happened. 24 A In April of 1993, that was the next year, Jerry 25 and I had been in Boston. And when we got back home we 70 1 received a notice in the mail from a major credit card 2 company referring to Jerry's request for our credit reports 3 and saying that -- and the credit card company had in their 4 letter they said that the enclosed copy of our April 1993 5 statement would resolve the matter. Well, it didn't. I 6 have some samples here. All -- all it says is that we 7 recently -- Hana and Jerry Whitfield recently requested some 8 records pertaining to our account and -- and we hadn't 9 requested. The point is we had not requested our account 10 information. 11 Q Did you find out who did? 12 A Well, we called up the security of that credit 13 card company and they would not divulge any information 14 about who had. They simply said the person who called 15 represented himself as Jerry Whitfield. 16 We asked for the address to which the records had 17 been sent. And that also was not given to us. So we didn't 18 take that any further at that time. We just left it. 19 Q Okay. What is the next thing? 20 A Mmm, I would like to backtrack a bit. 21 Q All right. 22 A And say that in July after we got back from 23 England, we were again followed by a white car for a number 24 of days. I was for a week while my husband was away and 25 after he returned for a few days. And we then pulled up to 71 1 a black and white, which is a police car, to ask them if we 2 had any rights in the matter because this car was following 3 us consistently, it didn't have any license plates on it. 4 And we didn't know who it was. 5 Mmm, subsequent to that, and the police taking our 6 report, I have some pictures of the police interrogating the 7 driver of the car and having him in handcuffs. If -- if you 8 need those photographs, I have them. 9 Q Okay. 10 A Mmm, we also have some videotape of the earlier 11 surveillance of our home. 12 Subsequent to that, we were -- a lawsuit was filed 13 against us by the driver of that white motor vehicle for 14 false arrest. Well, he was never really arrested. He was 15 detained in handcuffs, or so the policeman told us, because 16 he had resisted showing the police any ID when they stopped 17 him when they flagged him down. And they put him into cuffs 18 just until they could check him out. And as he had no 19 record, they then let him go with a warning that he should 20 quit following us and just let us get away first. 21 Q So that man sued you? 22 A He sued us. Anjel Casillas, A-N-J-E-L, 23 C-A-S-I-L-L-A-S. Casillas. 24 Q As a result of that lawsuit, did you find out if 25 he had any relationship to the Church of Scientology? 72 1 A Yes. He was a member in good standing. He was a 2 Scientologist. 3 Q And did you find out why he was following you? 4 A No, I did not find that out, but the police told 5 us he had in his car high-powered binoculars, a tape 6 recorder, a fax machine, and of course a radio. 7 Q Did that lawsuit result in a judgment against you 8 and your husband? 9 A No. Scientologists -- Anjel Casillas dismissed 10 that lawsuit three or four years later. There was no 11 evidence to prove his claim. 12 Q Okay. What is the next circumstance you recall? 13 A Mmm, in about July 1998 we saw in our Wells Fargo 14 Bank account statement that there had been a telephone 15 inquiry on our account. We knew we hadn't made it. It 16 showed up on -- 17 THE COURT: What is Wells Fargo, ma'am? Is 18 that a credit card or a bank -- 19 A It's -- 20 THE WITNESS: It's a bank. I think it's in 21 California and other states. It's a large -- 22 THE COURT: So this is your bank account at 23 that bank, Wells Fargo? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, in Los Angeles. 25 73 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q How did you discover a telephone inquiry at your 3 bank? 4 A It showed up on the bank statement, on the monthly 5 statement, Wells Fargo prints -- you are allowed three free 6 inquiries on your account per month. So this inquiry showed 7 up in the period June 9, 1998 through July 9, '98. And we 8 knew he had not placed that call. So somebody else placed 9 that call to inquire about our bank account, make some 10 inquiry in our bank account. 11 Q Did you find out what the inquiry was? 12 A No. We phoned and we just heard that it was made 13 from -- by one of us. And that was all. 14 Q Do you know what information the person would have 15 to have in order to inquire about your bank account, 16 personal information? 17 A I don't remember with this one. Mmm, I don't 18 remember what the specifics were. 19 Q Were you involved in any litigation in '98? 20 A In '98? 21 Q When this happened? 22 A I don't believe so. 23 Q Were you still -- you and your husband still 24 counseling with people, with families? 25 A In '98? Yes, somewhat. Not as much as we had 74 1 been but somewhat. 2 Q Okay. 3 A The next instance is in July '98. We had a number 4 of occurrences occur in connection with our AmSouth Bank. 5 AmSouth is a bank in southern Florida, your Honor. 6 And the lady we spoke to, Brenda at -- we went in. 7 Our favorite teller, Kitty, told us about this, and we went 8 in and spoke to Brenda Amal at the bank. And she said she 9 was concerned with the sophisticated tactics used in 10 requesting information. 11 The first caller identified himself as my husband. 12 The second one -- but he was denied the 13 information he wanted because he didn't have -- I forget 14 what it was. 15 MR. MOXON: Objection, hearsay. 16 A Specific -- 17 MR. MOXON: I haven't made objections for a 18 while but most of this is hearsay, irrelevant, 19 certainly cumulative but all hearsay. 20 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Just before you get back onto AmSouth, were there 23 two inquiries in July of '98 at two different banks, one at 24 Wells Fargo, one at AmSouth? 25 A No, the Wells Fargo one was at -- yes, that was in 75 1 July of '98. And this was, in AmSouth, '98. Yes, in the 2 same month. 3 Q Okay. 4 A One at Wells Fargo and three at AmSouth in Cape -- 5 in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida. 6 Q Why was it so sophisticated? You said it was a 7 sophisticated -- 8 A Well, the first person -- 9 THE COURT: I really don't want to go through 10 all of the deals and details. 11 MR. DANDAR: All right. 12 THE COURT: You don't have any -- you didn't 13 buy -- you didn't make any purchase where somebody 14 would be calling your account? 15 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 16 THE COURT: You didn't buy a home. 17 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, nothing. 18 THE COURT: You didn't put anything on a credit 19 application indicating what your bank was. 20 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: You had no reason to know why 22 anybody would be calling your bank -- 23 THE WITNESS: Not -- 24 THE COURT: -- to make inquiry. 25 THE WITNESS: Not at all. 76 1 THE COURT: You-all did not make the inquiry. 2 THE WITNESS: No, we didn't. 3 THE COURT: You were told it was you-all who 4 made the inquiry. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: As far as you know the only way to 7 get information from your bank would be for you or 8 your husband to get information. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 THE COURT: Or to allow somebody else some sort 11 of written permission to get it? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE COURT: Credit companies, I think, whatever 14 you call it, credit bureaus, I think -- I don't know 15 if they can get the amount of money in your bank or 16 not, I don't know, probably. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q These calls to your bank in '98, someone was 19 impersonating your husband? 20 A Yes, three times. 21 Q What about credit report -- 22 A Calling to different branches in '98, the same 23 information. 24 Q What about credit reports? 25 A We had somebody obtained our credit reports in 77 1 January of this year. This was about the time that you were 2 having a hearing I think in front of yourself, your Honor, 3 in this -- 4 THE COURT: You say this year meaning 2002? 5 THE WITNESS: In 2002, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 A Again, we don't know who this is. The credit card 8 company sent us this notice on January 9 saying that the 9 report had been asked for by REL Reporting Services, 12395 10 First American Way, Poway, California, 92064. And there is 11 an EXP number and whatever. 12 Both my husband and myself got letters like this. 13 Mmm, as a result of this, I -- 14 THE COURT: Are you talking about a credit 15 bureau now? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 THE COURT: A credit bureau notified you -- 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: -- that somebody had made a 20 request? 21 THE WITNESS: It was Credentials Credit Bureau 22 notified us from Trumbull, Connecticut. 23 THE COURT: Prudential? 24 THE WITNESS: Credentials. 25 THE COURT: Credentials? 78 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q That is a letter in front of you that you received 5 from that -- 6 A Yes, both my husband and I received the same -- 7 the identical letter. 8 THE COURT: I'm kind of curious because if I go 9 to apply for credit -- I mean, I can go apply at a 10 store and they call -- I mean, I know they call, 11 they call straight to the credit place and they say 12 we need credit verification on -- because, you know, 13 they'll come back and I get to sign my little ticket 14 and I go home. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Exactly. 16 THE COURT: There is inquiry, but I have never 17 gotten -- I mean, I have never gotten a letter from 18 a credit bureau or whatever saying somebody makes an 19 inquiry. People can make inquiry all of the time. 20 MR. DANDAR: To make inquiry you have to have a 21 person's written approval to make an inquiry. 22 THE COURT: How do they know that? I had this 23 last weekend had to buy a new receiver because in my 24 new home the speakers were too big for my 25 little-bitty receiver so that is why I couldn't get 79 1 volume up where I could even hear it. So I went off 2 to get a receiver, with all of the knowledge that I 3 have about such things. 4 And it was one of these deals where you have a 5 year before you have to pay for it, no credit, no 6 interest, no nothing. Well, that is just too good 7 to pass up. So I said, "Well, sure I'll take that." 8 And I thought they wanted me to fill out something. 9 I didn't fill out hardly anything. They took my 10 name and address but they came back in just a 11 minute. 12 I know what they did. I know they called a 13 credit bureau who gave them a number, we are all 14 assigned a number, whatever it was must have been 15 good enough because I signed off and went home with 16 my fancy receiver. 17 So -- but I mean -- and this happens all of the 18 time. You go buy something -- 19 MR. MOXON: All of the time. 20 THE COURT: But they never write to me to tell 21 me somebody made an inquiry. 22 MR. MOXON: Well, her experience is she is 23 saying -- I get things like this all of the time. 24 Maybe her credit is better than mine. But I get 25 inquiries from whenever I apply for credit for a 80 1 card or for a car or whatever. 2 THE COURT: I'm talking about the credit 3 bureau. 4 MR. MOXON: Me, too. 5 THE COURT: They never call me to say somebody 6 made an inquiry. 7 MR. MOXON: Well, they have with me. 8 MR. DANDAR: Well, let's find out -- 9 THE WITNESS: Not as a routine, they don't. 10 THE COURT: How is it they were notifying you? 11 THE WITNESS: And this made me curious. When 12 these arrived in the mail, I -- I couldn't 13 understand why it was coming to us, why somebody in 14 San Diego County would be requesting our credit 15 history because we weren't making any major 16 purchase, we weren't buying a home, we weren't 17 buying anything else major, we weren't buying a new 18 car. 19 THE COURT: Wasn't applying for a credit card? 20 THE WITNESS: Or applying for a credit card or 21 remortgaging our house or anything like that, 22 nothing. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q So this is someone making a request for your 25 credit history, rather than your credit rating when you go 81 1 to buy an appliance or something in the store? 2 A Right. And this person received a copy of our 3 credit history from Credentials' credit history. 4 Q They did get a copy? 5 A They did get a copy. 6 Q And this is -- 7 A Now, I -- I got concerned at this point and I 8 called around. I called Credentials. 9 THE COURT: That required your permission, does 10 it not? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, it does. 12 THE COURT: Because I think here again, always 13 drawing on personal experience, having just bought a 14 house, I think I got a copy -- they got a copy, the 15 mortgage company. But I think I had to give them 16 authorization. 17 MR. DANDAR: Certainly. 18 THE COURT: They got it all right, they had it 19 and they just sent me a copy. 20 MR. FUGATE: Do you know what you'll get now 21 for the next six or seven months, unsolicited, all 22 kinds of things from mortgage companies saying we 23 can beat your mortgage, you ought to sign up with 24 us. Some look like it came from your bank. I 25 get -- I got one yesterday in the mail saying you 82 1 can refinance your mortgage and it has all of the 2 particulars of all of the information about my 3 house. And I'm going, I thought it came from the 4 bank. It comes from like Consumer Credit Bureau or 5 something, which is -- I don't know what, but I get 6 a letter. I mean, this happens all of the time. 7 MR. DANDAR: But this does not access and get a 8 copy of your credit history. 9 THE COURT: Right. 10 MR. DANDAR: That way. 11 THE WITNESS: It says here the companies listed 12 on the reverse side have requested and received 13 copies of your Experian credit report. This is in 14 my -- if you would like to see it, your Honor, that 15 is in the letter to me. And the letter to my 16 husband is the same. And on the reverse side -- oh, 17 your Honor -- well, on the reverse side is the 18 company that the report was made to that requested 19 copies of our credit -- 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 THE WITNESS: You want to see my husband's, 22 too, your Honor? 23 THE COURT: Well, this must be something 24 different because this says Credentials' credit 25 report monitoring service has been notified by 83 1 Experian -- Experian is the credit report -- that 2 the following activity has occurred on your personal 3 credit report. 4 You-all must have asked -- you know, there is 5 this deal where you can get it, because I get this, 6 too -- you can sign up for it, which says that -- 7 that if somebody makes an inquiry, you will be 8 notified. You know what I'm talking about? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 10 THE COURT: So maybe you-all had requested -- 11 THE WITNESS: I think that is the reason that 12 was sent to us, yes. 13 THE COURT: Yes, so this -- so they are then 14 responding pursuant to probably your direction, 15 because as I said, I could sign up for that, too. 16 And the only problem is it costs money and I didn't 17 feel like paying the money. But the REL Reporting 18 Service, you do not know who they are, is that what 19 you're telling me? 20 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. I made inquiries 21 and I got a bit more information. 22 THE COURT: But as far as you know, you didn't 23 make any credit card purchases or apply for credit 24 or any of the things that would normally bring forth 25 a request to a credit bureau? 84 1 THE WITNESS: No, nothing. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 THE WITNESS: Nothing, your Honor. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q So what did -- what did you do when you got this 6 from the Credentials' reporting service? 7 A Well, I called -- I called the -- 8 THE COURT: It is time for a break. I'm sorry, 9 but let's go ahead and break. It is twenty till. I 10 want to give this reporter a break. We'll be in 11 recess until 10 o'clock -- 11 o'clock. 12 MR. FUGATE: 11 o'clock. 13 THE COURT: Ma'am, I should tell you while you 14 are on the witness stand you are not allowed to talk 15 to even the lawyers about your testimony. Okay? 16 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 17 THE COURT: You can leave, go do whatever, talk 18 to them about lunch, but you can't talk about your 19 testimony with the lawyers while you are on the 20 witness stand, or anybody else. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. 22 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.) 23 ________________________________________ 24 THE COURT: Madam Clerk, did I hand you the 25 original of that order I did this morning? I gave 85 1 one of you-all the original. It would be signed in 2 blue. 3 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry, I didn't hear -- oh, 4 you gave -- 5 THE COURT: I gave somebody the original order. 6 MR. LIROT: Judge, I believe this is it. 7 MR. WEINBERG: No. 8 THE COURT: It was signed in blue. 9 MR. MOXON: When Joyce comes back in I'll check 10 with her. 11 MR. WEINBERG: You gave me four or five of 12 them. I didn't look. 13 THE COURT: I did. One of the ones I handed 14 out was signed in blue ink. 15 MR. LIROT: I'll check. 16 THE COURT: If you-all could look and if you 17 could find it that would be good, I wouldn't have to 18 do another one. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Is that the practice, you need 20 to do it in blue? 21 THE COURT: I started doing it in blue only 22 because the copies are so good -- 23 MR. WEINBERG: Look the same. 24 THE COURT: When lawyers hand me things, for 25 example, so many times I think they sent me the 86 1 original, then I have to call them on the phone and 2 say -- because you should not send me -- and 3 sometimes they have sent me the original. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Here is Joyce, let's just see. 5 MR. LIEBERMAN: They must be on the table 6 somewhere. 7 MR. FUGATE: That is the worst news. 8 MR. LIEBERMAN: That is really terrible news. 9 THE COURT: Yes. 10 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I'll just try and look -- 11 THE COURT: Okay. We can continue on, if 12 you-all would just look. 13 MR. WEINBERG: We're typically organized but 14 obviously we've become disorganized. You will find 15 my fingerprints on them now. 16 THE COURT: I gave you-all two copies. Your 17 both copies look black? 18 MR. DANDAR: We can only find one, though. 19 MR. LIROT: The one does and I think 20 Mr. Dandar's secretary might have taken the other 21 with her. 22 THE COURT: Would you ask her when she comes 23 back -- she's not coming back today? 24 MR. DANDAR: But I'll ask her when she gets to 25 the office. 87 1 MR. WEINBERG: We'll find it. I mean, I 2 know -- 3 THE COURT: Thank you. 4 MR. WEINBERG: -- I handled it. 5 THE COURT: But I don't want to forget because 6 it is important it needs to be filed and I haven't 7 filed it. In other words, my secretary has taken 8 down a copy to be filed. I said, "No, no, I must 9 have taken it into court." 10 Okay, continue on. 11 MR. DANDAR: All right. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q So when you got this inquiry notice in January of 14 this year, 2002, what did you do? 15 A Mmm, I decided to try to check out if I could find 16 what this business was and if I could speak to somebody at 17 the business to find out why they had requested copies of 18 our credit reports. 19 So first of all I called Credentials. That is the 20 reporting company that sent us this notice. And she said I 21 could make out a dispute form and send one to the credit 22 bureau and -- but nothing much would come of it, they 23 wouldn't really deal with what I wanted dealt with. 24 I contacted the Better Business Bureau in San 25 Diego County. I contacted the Attorney General's Office in 88 1 Sacramento. And I got a long phone menu but that didn't 2 direct me to anything that really applied to what I wanted. 3 THE COURT: Stop just a minute. Madam Clerk, 4 here is the original. Would you see this is filed? 5 Thank you-all. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Sure. 7 THE CLERK: Into the Court file? 8 THE COURT: Into the Court file. Right. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q After you contacted the Attorney General in 11 Sacramento, California, then what did you do? 12 A Then I got on the Internet and I accessed -- I got 13 a street map of where this business was. And then I 14 accessed the Better Business Bureau and tried to find out 15 who this company -- what this company was and what it did. 16 And I found out that it was licensed under three 17 names, one was First American Appraisal Service. Another 18 one was -- Mmm -- First American Registry. 19 And there was a third name and I can't find it 20 right now. As I come across it I'll give it to you. 21 Mmm, the person listed as the principal customer 22 contact was a Mr. David Raskin, the manager, and it gave a 23 phone number for him. And I phoned repeatedly that day. I 24 kept phoning every half hour almost through the morning and 25 into the afternoon. And I couldn't -- there was no answer. 89 1 There was no answering machine on the phone. And it just 2 rang and rang and rang. 3 Then I checked the yellow pages to see if David 4 Raskin was listed any way in San Diego or -- 5 THE COURT: David who? 6 THE WITNESS: David Raskin, your Honor, 7 R-A-S-K-I-N. 8 A There was no home listing for him, no street 9 address and no phone number to contact him apart from that 10 business. And he wasn't a member of the Better Business 11 Bureau, he wasn't a member of the Chamber of Commerce. The 12 name didn't come up anywhere. I punched in the name looking 13 for that name. And it didn't come up. 14 So at that point Jerry and I discussed it being a 15 felony that this had been done and we looked at filing a 16 police report. And I contacted the -- phoned the police 17 department in San Diego County to see if I could file a 18 police report. And they told me to do it through the local 19 police. 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q Where you live? 22 A Beg pardon? 23 Q Where you live? 24 A Where we live in Cape Coral. 25 Q Okay. 90 1 A And I never got around to do it. One thing and 2 another and I just didn't do it. I should have done it. 3 Q All right. 4 A It is probably too late to do it now. 5 Q Has anything else other than what you already 6 talked about -- do you recall any other instances where you 7 believe your credit, bank, phone records were accessed, 8 people were following you, that you haven't talked about? 9 A There were a number of others but I would have to 10 get back to my notes. I don't -- I don't have everything 11 with me. 12 Q All right. 13 A And it's -- a lot of the things that have 14 happened, including the instances of surveillance, it's -- 15 it's sometimes difficult to keep track of it all. 16 Q Now, where did you live in 1991? 17 A We lived in Los Angeles, California at 661 North 18 Occidental Boulevard. 19 Q Is that a subdivision? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What was it called? 22 A Silver Lake. 23 Q And in California, did you participate or were you 24 associated with the organization back then known as the Cult 25 Awareness Network? 91 1 A Yes. To -- to a little extent. 2 Q How? 3 A We had met the head of the Cult Awareness Network 4 affiliate in Los Angeles, Priscilla Coates. And she had 5 helped us -- Mmm -- sort out our Scientology experiences to 6 some extent. She gave us a few books to read, things like 7 that. And she was the one who mentioned that with our 8 extensive Scientology experience, we may be able to talk to 9 and help families in distress who had a loved one in 10 Scientology. 11 Q Okay. Do you know Frank Oliver? 12 A Yes. 13 Q When did you first meet Frank Oliver? 14 A Mmm, a few years ago when we were living in Cape 15 Coral, if I'm not mistaken, at the time that some TV company 16 was making a documentary about Scientology. 17 Q And did Frank Oliver introduce himself to you? 18 A Yes, he came to our home and introduced himself. 19 And blurted out that he had been the one responsible for 20 organizing -- or running -- which is a Scientology word, the 21 surveillance -- 22 MR. MOXON: Objection, hearsay, your Honor. 23 MR. DANDAR: He's testified as a witness. 24 THE COURT: I'll allow it. 25 92 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Go ahead. 3 A Mmm, that Frank had been the one who had organized 4 or run the surveillance on us in I believe it was round 5 about June, July, August, in that period of time in Los 6 Angeles. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Which year are we talking about 8 now? 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Which year? 11 A 1991. 12 Q Okay. 13 A And I was shocked and perturbed but very glad to 14 be able to smack him -- no. No, I didn't smack him -- to 15 talk to him about it and -- and -- 16 THE COURT: He indicated he had run the 17 surveillance on you in 1991? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, June, July, August, in that 19 period of time, your Honor, in 1991. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q All right. 23 A And at the time that we were speaking, I said, 24 "Oh, so you -- you were the one who -- who had Scott 25 Musselman follow me on the motorbike? You were the one who 93 1 had --" because I knew Scott Musselman from when I was 2 working in the Ft. Harrison Hotel in Clearwater, I knew 3 Scotty quite well. We bumped heads all of the time. And I 4 had recognized him as being the motorbike rider who followed 5 me ten days continuously from the time I got up in the 6 morning until the time I went to bed at night, that 7 motorbike was always behind my car. 8 THE COURT: When was this? 9 THE WITNESS: This was in -- I think it was in 10 July -- June, July, August, sometime in that period 11 of time. 12 THE COURT: Of '91? 13 THE WITNESS: '91, your Honor, when my husband 14 was out of town for a week working with family, I 15 stayed -- 16 THE COURT: Who was this person, Scott who? 17 THE WITNESS: Musselman, M-U-S-S-E-L-M-A-N, I 18 think. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q And do you know Ben Shaw? 22 A Yes, I do. 23 Q How do you know Ben Shaw? 24 A Mmm, he was one of the gentlemen who appeared 25 outside the bed and breakfast in England when we were 94 1 working with a family in Exmouth. And he also was one of 2 the people who did surveillance on us when we were in St. 3 Joseph working with a family, and in Indianola working with 4 a family. I-N-D-I-A-N-A-O-L-A, I think. 5 Q What year was that? 6 THE COURT: What is Indianola? Is that a 7 state? 8 THE WITNESS: A city. 9 THE COURT: Where is that? 10 THE WITNESS: It's in -- it's a city. It's 11 in -- I don't know where it is. 12 THE COURT: United States? 13 THE WITNESS: In the United States, yes, it is 14 near Des Moines. Near Des Moines, Iowa. 15 THE COURT: What was the other place? 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q St. Joseph? 18 A The other place was St. Joseph, and that is, I 19 think, in -- I don't know where St. Joseph is. 20 Q Is that Missouri? 21 A I -- I can get you that information, if you -- 22 THE COURT: That is all right. 23 THE WITNESS: -- need. 24 THE COURT: Is this a city? 25 THE WITNESS: It's a city. 95 1 MR. MOXON: What is the date? 2 THE COURT: In this country? 3 THE WITNESS: In this country. 4 MR. MOXON: Could we get the date for this St. 5 Joseph. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q St. Joseph, what date was that, do you recall? 8 A Somewhere in that same period of time. I don't 9 remember exactly. That was June, July, August, September, 10 somewhere in that period of time. 11 Q 1991? 12 A 1991. 13 Q Was anything going on in the summer of '91? 14 A Just that -- that I know of, no. Just that my 15 husband and I were working with families who had a loved one 16 in Scientology. And -- and we were doing it effectively. 17 And I think my surmise was at the time that that is what 18 prompted this. 19 Q Okay. Do you know David Houghton, a defendant in 20 this case? 21 A Yes, I do. 22 Q How do you know him? 23 A I know him because his wife's family asked us to 24 intervene on their daughter's behalf, Lori, Lori Houghton. 25 And they were the people we saw in St. Joseph, Lori's 96 1 family, her sister, and Lori herself. 2 Q Lori is who? 3 A Lori Houghton, David Houghton's wife. 4 Q She asked you? 5 A No. Lori's family asked us to come and speak with 6 them and Lori. And Lori was willing to speak with us and 7 did. 8 Q Okay. 9 A So we spoke with her and with the family. 10 Q Did you speak with David Houghton? 11 A Not at that time. Mmm, a few days later -- Mmm -- 12 and this is where Mr. Shaw was present as one of the people 13 who surveilled us -- we met David -- David asked us to meet 14 him and his wife in a restaurant in Indianola. And the 15 police who came to the restaurant identified Mr. Shaw as one 16 of the people in one of the cars that was surveilling the 17 restaurant while we were there. 18 Mmm, David was outraged that we had dared to talk 19 to his wife, and called us deprogrammers, called me -- 20 called us deprogrammers, suppressive people -- Mmm -- all of 21 the derogatory terms that he could. 22 THE COURT: Was his wife in the Church of 23 Scientology? 24 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I believe she was, your 25 Honor. She was at the beginning stages of 97 1 Scientology, and he had moved a little ahead of her 2 in his training and his -- 3 THE COURT: And the daughter? Was she in 4 Scientology? In the Church? 5 THE WITNESS: They -- no, their daughter was 6 very young. No, she was not old enough to be -- 7 knowingly be a Scientologist. I think they had one 8 or two children but they were babies. 9 THE COURT: What did the wife want you to do? 10 THE WITNESS: The wife was willing to talk to 11 us and her sister and parents about her association 12 with Scientology and the differences her family saw 13 in her since she had joined Scientology, and we were 14 there to try to level the playing field, to try to 15 give them an opportunity to have an honest dialogue. 16 THE COURT: So Mr. Houghton met you at a -- a 17 restaurant, and he was unhappy with what you were 18 doing? 19 THE WITNESS: Days later. He had -- was very 20 unhappy. He had been shown the videotape 21 purportedly taken by video -- by private 22 investigators, showing the family meeting us at our 23 hotel room, showing us arriving at the family house 24 in St. Joseph. 25 And he was outraged. And -- Mmm -- he -- he 98 1 had on a heavy coat which -- it was wintertime, it 2 was snowing outside, it was cold. But in the 3 restaurant he began perspiring and he said -- we 4 said, "Take your coat off, you'll be more 5 comfortable." And he didn't. And I wondered if he 6 had a mike. That was my wonderment at the time. 7 Later on the police who came of their own 8 accord to the restaurant -- because the restaurant 9 owner called because of the cars that were 10 surrounding the restaurant -- told us that one of 11 the drivers -- the driver of one of the cars was 12 John Gaw, a private investigator hired by 13 Scientology, and he had a tape recorder running in 14 the seat -- front seat -- the passenger seat next to 15 him when they went to look at his car. And they 16 told that to us -- to my husband and myself after 17 David and Lori Houghton left the restaurant. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q Did you try to stop Mr. or Mrs. Houghton from 20 leaving the restaurant? 21 A No. There was no reason to. 22 Q Okay. 23 A They wanted to leave. It was time for them to go 24 and they went. 25 Q How long did David Houghton talk to you? 99 1 A About an hour. 2 Q Okay. Was he ever at any point in time not angry? 3 A No. 4 Q Okay. Do you know Jesse Prince? 5 A Yes, I do. 6 Q How is it that you know him? 7 A I know him from when I was in Scientology in the 8 Sea Org and he was, as well. 9 Q What was Jesse Prince -- 10 THE COURT: Can I ask a couple more questions 11 about this episode? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE COURT: This was the episode you indicated 14 occurred in St. Joseph, wherever St. Joseph is? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 16 THE COURT: In this time frame, June through 17 August of 1991? Is that right? 18 THE WITNESS: Approximately, yes. 19 THE COURT: And this Mr. Houghton indicated he 20 had been shown a video tape taken -- 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: -- taken by someone surveilling you 23 and your husband, I take it? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: And this was following you-all to 100 1 his home? 2 THE WITNESS: No. To his wife's family's home. 3 THE COURT: His wife's family's home? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, in St. Joseph. 5 THE COURT: And that is where you had met with 6 his wife -- 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: -- and the family? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. And the surveillance tape 10 also showed us meeting the family in our hotel room. 11 My husband and I were at the hotel room, and Lori's 12 family came over to see us. And the videotape had 13 that on it, as well. 14 THE COURT: Had you any idea that you were 15 being videotaped on these two occasions? 16 THE WITNESS: No, not at all, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: So the videotape that Mr. Houghton 18 told you about also showed the family coming to 19 visit you and your husband at a hotel room -- 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 THE COURT: -- during the same time period? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Was the videotape in the lobby or in your room? 25 A We were staying at the Residence Inn, which is 101 1 like a little condo, two-story place. When the family came 2 to the front door and we opened the door to let them in, 3 that apparently was when the video was taken, or part of the 4 video was taken, apparently by someone in the little condo 5 right opposite our door. So they had a clear view of our 6 comings and goings. 7 Q Now, did you work with Jesse Prince? 8 A I don't believe so. We passed each other in the 9 day and the night. 10 Q Where was this at? 11 A This was in Clearwater, Florida. I think that was 12 the only -- that was the only place. 13 Q What was Mr. Prince doing there? What was his 14 post? 15 A Mmm, I'm sorry but I don't remember. 16 Q Okay. All right. Now, in this case, Lisa 17 McPherson case, I retained you a while back as an expert 18 witness. Correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And you reviewed Lisa McPherson's PC folders? 21 A That is correct. 22 Q All right. Then there came a time when your 23 deposition was requested by the defense. Do you recall the 24 first time? 25 A I do. 102 1 Q In fact, there has been more than one time. 2 Correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q All right. And why is it that you did not go 5 forward with your deposition? 6 A Mmm, I was concerned and scared. 7 Q About what? 8 A About reawakening the type of harassment that we 9 have gone through from 1986, escalating into the 1990s. And 10 if another lawsuit was filed against us for whatever reason, 11 we didn't have the means to defend ourselves. It -- it was 12 troubling. 13 Q And then there -- there came a time when you came 14 back in as the expert. 15 A The other reason also, which entered my mind and 16 then left and entered my mind and then left, was that it was 17 more than likely that my husband's and my work with families 18 who had a loved one in Scientology would be heavily 19 addressed in any deposition. And I was unwilling to give up 20 the names of any of our clients, because while we worked 21 with them, we assured them that we would not do so. 22 And I didn't know if that would get me into 23 trouble or not. 24 Q All right. But then you came back in as an expert 25 witness for the estate, and then you withdrew as the expert 103 1 witness for the estate. What caused you to come back in and 2 then change your mind and pull back out? 3 A Well, it's just how life goes, you know. You get 4 away from something and you feel better about it and think 5 you can tackle it and you get back into it again and, you 6 know, it's the same old story all over again and I just got 7 scared again. And my husband was equally scared. 8 Q Okay. Now, are you familiar with the 9 introspection rundown? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And in your review of the Lisa McPherson PC 12 folders, did you find a program for the introspection 13 rundown? 14 A Yes, I did. 15 Q Where was that? 16 A Where? 17 Q Yes, what month? 18 A It was in -- oh, if my memory serves me, it was in 19 around about June, July, of 1995, I think. 20 Q Okay. 21 A Somewhere May, June, July, somewhere in there. 22 Q What about November and December of '95? 23 A No. In her -- in her last PC folder there was 24 no -- no auditing records at all of any kind from the time 25 she completed her clear attestation. There was nothing 104 1 beyond that of any kind, not an introspection rundown 2 checklist, not any session reports saying, oh, this was an 3 attempt to audit Lisa but she couldn't be audited because 4 she wasn't of sound mine, nothing. There was nothing. 5 No -- nothing. 6 Q Is that against policy, if in fact an attempt had 7 been made at the introspection rundown or auditing? 8 A Definitely. That was against policy. However, to 9 make it quite clear, when a person achieves the state of 10 clear, his auditing folders at that point -- while I was in 11 Scientology -- were retired and a new set of auditing 12 folders was started because the person was now on advanced 13 levels. 14 So any auditing records of Lisa's may have gone 15 into one of those folders but, if so, that folder was not 16 given to you as you had requested. 17 Q Did you come to any conclusions in reviewing her 18 PC folders as to whether Lisa McPherson wanted to leave 19 Scientology? 20 MR. MOXON: Objection, your Honor. Asking for 21 an opinion now. He brought her here as a fact 22 witness. 23 THE COURT: What does this have to do with this 24 hearing? 25 MR. DANDAR: This is one of the accusations 105 1 against me for lying in my pleadings and in argument 2 to Court. They allege that I had lied to this court 3 in saying that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave 4 Scientology. 5 THE COURT: I'll allow it. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q Go ahead. 8 A Yes, there were a number. I don't recall when -- 9 I would have to go back to the folders but they are 10 locatable, I mean, they are there. There were a number of 11 those. 12 Q Okay. 13 A She didn't say it in so many words, "I want to 14 leave Scientology," but she said it in words that were 15 sufficient to get the intent across. She wasn't happy. 16 She -- she thought that might be the right thing to do, but 17 I have to go back to the folders to see exactly what it was 18 she said. 19 THE COURT: If you haven't asked her to review 20 all of this, I'm sure this is not in the front of 21 her mind, and to try to ask her to recall something 22 she may have done months and months ago is really 23 unfair to the witness. 24 MR. DANDAR: That is the last question. 25 THE WITNESS: Some of the questions I'll be 106 1 able to answer but some I won't, I would have to 2 review the files. 3 MR. DANDAR: All right. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q Did you find other documents of the PC folders 6 missing? 7 A Yes. There were a number of them missing. And I 8 think I made a sheet for you on missing contents. 9 All of her L10, L11 and L12 auditing sessions were 10 missing. I corroborated that by looking at the folder 11 summary entries and the folder error summary entries and the 12 program sheets to make sure she had had all those sessions. 13 And she had. And they were missing. 14 There were a number of sessions missing from -- 15 THE COURT: I'm sorry, that doesn't mean 16 anything to me, L10 through L12? 17 THE WITNESS: Oh, your Honor, those are 18 upper-level auditing processes that are -- 19 Scientology calls major case boosters. They can be 20 done almost at any point in the auditing bridge. 21 THE COURT: The file reflected she had had 22 those sessions? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, the summaries -- her 24 auditing summaries reflected she had had those 25 sessions but they weren't in her folders. 107 1 THE COURT: The -- 2 THE WITNESS: The preclear. 3 THE COURT: Well, I understand what preclears 4 are. But there was indication she had had those, 5 but the actual paperwork that would go along with 6 those auditing sessions were missing? 7 THE WITNESS: Right. That is correct. 8 THE COURT: What would the L10 through L12 be? 9 What would those auditing programs be? 10 THE WITNESS: They are confidential auditing 11 levels. I do not know the content of them. 12 THE COURT: No, no, I mean, is it like -- is it 13 on any particular thing? Or is it just upper-level 14 auditing? 15 THE WITNESS: It is upper-level auditing which 16 is designed to find areas the individual still has 17 negative emotions or upsets on and address those and 18 get them resolved. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q Now -- 22 A Oh, you asked me if introspection rundown -- there 23 was some sessions missing out of her introspection rundown 24 rundown, that period. And there were other sessions missing 25 in and around the times that Lisa was doing the worst. And 108 1 that is scattered throughout the year. Again, I would have 2 to go back to find exactly in which month and week that 3 occurred. 4 But repeatedly throughout the folders there were 5 sessions missing in and around those times. And there were 6 often in and around those times there were case supervisor 7 orders missing, order to report to the case supervisor 8 missing, as well as the actual auditing session reports. 9 Q Do you recall reviewing any documents of Lisa 10 McPherson that showed that Int Management was involved in 11 1995? 12 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, before she answers this 13 I just want to reaffirm, not for this question, I 14 want it understood before Mr. Dandar asks his next 15 question, this sort of demonstrates she did file an 16 affidavit at one point. And we wanted to 17 cross-examine her as to these allegations of missing 18 documents. In fact, there are no documents. 19 But a lot of the things she said are just 20 absolutely not true. And it would be very easy to 21 show through a detailed cross-examination with all 22 of the records here. We had no idea what she would 23 be testifying about today. But this is why the 24 ambush sort of -- 25 THE COURT: It is not an ambush, Counsel. This 109 1 is a motion hearing. If you need time to get the 2 records here, ask for them, you can go get them 3 here, take as long as you want. 4 MR. MOXON: All right. 5 THE WITNESS: If I may explain a little about 6 that, your Honor, it might help. 7 I did make one error in an affidavit I wrote 8 for Mr. Dandar in which I stated that a large number 9 of records between these pages and these pages were 10 missing. In my subsequent affidavit I mentioned 11 that was a mistake, and I made that mistake because 12 the auditing folders were -- they were numbered 13 correctly by Bates number, they were in Bates number 14 order, but they were not in date order. And when I 15 put them into date order so I could follow what 16 happened to Lisa, I got confused by the Bates 17 numbers because they were all out of order. 18 So in my subsequent affidavit I explained that 19 and corrected the session reports that really were 20 missing and were definitely missing. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Is it -- how does Scientology view -- with your 23 understanding as an auditor -- missing records from a PC 24 folder? 25 A Well, I think -- 110 1 MR. MOXON: Objection to her -- excuse me, 2 object to her asserting what, quote, Scientology 3 views something. 4 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the 5 question. What was the question again? 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q Within your experience as a Scientologist and as 8 an auditor, what is the -- how does Scientology -- how does 9 the Church of Scientology view missing records from a PC 10 folder? 11 MR. MOXON: I would object to that, the way it 12 is framed. 13 THE COURT: Well, from your experience, what do 14 you -- she was an auditor, she was there. I think 15 by saying Scientology that is awfully broad. 16 MR. DANDAR: It is. 17 THE COURT: What do you -- what does it mean to 18 you that something was missing from an auditing 19 folder? 20 THE WITNESS: It's a very serious omission. 21 And I think it is currently categorized as a high 22 crime in Scientology. I'm not totally sure of that 23 but I think it is. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q Of course you don't know why these documents are 111 1 missing, do you? 2 A No. 3 Q Now, in the process of getting auditing -- 4 THE COURT: If you were an auditor in the 5 Church of Scientology and in the process of auditing 6 a person, I take it when you were done you would do 7 whatever you needed to do and put it with the folder 8 and send it on to the person who is going to be -- 9 THE WITNESS: The case supervisor. 10 THE COURT: -- the case supervisor? All right. 11 If when it got to the case supervisor, the report, 12 whatever it is you had done, was not there and you 13 couldn't find it, what would happen to you? 14 THE WITNESS: Oh, there would be serious -- 15 serious trouble. There would be an investigation to 16 find out whether I had done something with those 17 reports or someone who had carried that folder to 18 the case supervisor had done something with them, or 19 if the case supervisor -- someone would have been 20 responsible and that someone would be hunted down. 21 It was very serious. 22 THE COURT: And what would happen to that 23 someone? 24 THE WITNESS: That someone would be penalized, 25 would be assigned ethics conditions. 112 1 THE COURT: In other words, this is not 2 acceptable -- 3 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not -- 4 THE COURT: -- for an auditing session to 5 simply be missing. 6 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not, your Honor. 7 Mr. Hubbard wrote extensive bulletins on the need 8 for preclear folders to be complete down to the last 9 crossed T and dotted I. He said that a case 10 supervisor had no hope of resolving case 11 difficulties if he had incomplete information, and 12 an auditor had no hope of helping his or her 13 preclear if he didn't have a complete auditing 14 record going back in time. He had extensive 15 bulletins written on this. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Is there -- 18 THE COURT: You indicated that information from 19 Lisa's file was missing when she was doing the work. 20 Are you talking now about when she was on the last 21 introspection rundown and died? Or are you talking 22 about before that? 23 THE WITNESS: Before that, your Honor. I'm 24 talking about from February 1995 all of the way 25 through to November 1995. Because those -- 113 1 THE COURT: Before the last -- 2 THE WITNESS: Before that, yes. 3 THE COURT: Before the last where she was taken 4 from the hospital and put in the Ft. Harrison 5 Hotel -- 6 THE WITNESS: Right. 7 THE COURT: -- for the final watch? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 THE COURT: From what periods of time? 10 THE WITNESS: From February of 1995 through 11 October/November 1995. I think some of the latest 12 watch reports I saw were actually December. So it 13 would have been from February through December 1995. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q And then November, December of 1995, I think I 16 already asked you this, but just to clarify, did you find 17 missing documents? 18 A Yes, I did. 19 Q I mean, did you see that some documents were 20 missing? 21 A Auditing, any auditing records, attempts to audit 22 Lisa. You asked me about an introspection rundown at that 23 point. There was no introspection rundown checklist in her 24 preclear folder. 25 Q And -- 114 1 A And -- 2 Q When is that checklist prepared? 3 A Additionally, there were no -- excuse me -- there 4 were no entries on Lisa's folder summary that an 5 introspection rundown had been done in November or December, 6 or attempted. 7 And there was also no entries on her folder error 8 summary that such had been done or attempted. 9 Q And that is required? 10 A Absolutely. If they're done or attempted, yes, 11 that is required. So that is why I presumed they were in 12 another folder which you hadn't been given. 13 THE COURT: Are you talking about the error 14 summary? 15 THE WITNESS: Folder error summary. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 THE WITNESS: That is a summary that is done in 18 the preclear folder to detect all auditing. And the 19 supervisor -- and it is kept with the current 20 preclear folder. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Are you familiar with routing forms? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Was a routing form required for a rundown? 25 A When a preclear stops a rundown, yes. 115 1 Q What does that routing form do -- what is the 2 function of the routing form for a rundown? 3 A The routing form routes the person through a 4 number of people to ensure that the service is paid for, 5 that the person has ethics clearance, that everything is in 6 order. So -- and then to the guidance center to get 7 auditing. So there are points on the routing form to check 8 off by each of these people. 9 Q And do you recall seeing a routing form for the 10 introspection rundown or anything happening at the hotel in 11 November, December of '95? 12 A No, there wasn't anything. 13 THE COURT: Should there have been? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, there should have been, your 15 Honor. If such had been attempted. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Okay. Was there any evidence at all that there 18 was an attempt at an introspection rundown in November and 19 December of '95? 20 A Not that I could find in her preclear folders or 21 in any other notes that I saw. 22 THE COURT: Did you see the workers -- I'll 23 call them workers, I don't know what the technical 24 term is -- but the folks who were taking care of 25 Lisa during the last seventeen days? 116 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 THE COURT: There were some summaries written 3 by them that were apparently in the PC folders. Did 4 you see those? 5 THE WITNESS: I did see -- I don't think I saw 6 all of them, your Honor, but I saw a large number. 7 THE COURT: There are apparently some that are 8 missing. But there are some that are there. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 THE COURT: And in these -- it's been a while 11 since I looked at them myself -- but my recollection 12 is at least in some of them, they talk about the 13 fact that they understood they were not to speak, 14 and they didn't speak, some of the things that would 15 be part of an introspection rundown? 16 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 17 THE COURT: They spoke about -- I don't know if 18 you read any of their depositions or their sworn 19 statements or what have you -- but they clearly 20 testified that they were called in and said, "You're 21 going to go help on an introspection rundown," they 22 were told what that was and told about the muzzled 23 speech. Did you read that? 24 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor. That is 25 very clear. 117 1 THE COURT: So when you say there is nothing in 2 the PC folder indicating there is an introspection 3 rundown, the summaries would indicate that at least, 4 as far as workers, they felt they were participating 5 in an introspection rundown. 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, but there were no routing -- 7 there was no routing form routing Lisa onto the 8 introspection rundown. There were no session 9 reports. There was no case supervisor order to 10 start the introspection rundown. 11 THE COURT: Do you know whether or not, in a 12 situation where the person has not yet reached the 13 stage where they can receive auditing -- in other 14 words, I sound like I know something, I really 15 don't, but I know enough to ask these questions -- 16 THE WITNESS: You know a lot. 17 THE COURT: If somebody is in that stage, what 18 they call introspection rundown stage 0 to 00, where 19 they are receiving rest, vitamins, all of the things 20 to hopefully prepare them for the rundown session, 21 the auditing session accompanying the introspection 22 rundown -- 23 THE WITNESS: Right? 24 THE COURT: -- well, if they don't ever get out 25 of that stage, which apparently according to the 118 1 testimony Lisa did not -- 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 THE COURT: -- there really wouldn't be 4 anything much to route because there wouldn't be 5 any -- she was still there and not receiving any 6 auditing or any of this. 7 THE WITNESS: However, I believe the watchers 8 were instructed not to speak to her because she was 9 going to be on the introspection rundown. 10 THE COURT: Right. 11 THE WITNESS: If they were told that, there 12 should have been evidence in her folder that that 13 rundown had been started because that is one of the 14 first steps. 15 THE COURT: So it is your testimony that this 16 checklist for the introspection rundown would go in 17 the PC folder when the person was in the 0, 00 18 stage? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. That is 20 correct. 21 THE COURT: And -- 22 THE WITNESS: Because that -- 23 THE COURT: And there is some notation from the 24 case supervisor that this is what was happening? 25 THE WITNESS: And a program from the case 119 1 supervisor saying, "Go to do the introspection 2 rundown, and make sure Lisa is on step 0, 00, et 3 cetera, and make sure the watchers are muzzled, they 4 don't talk to her," all of those points technically, 5 according to Mr. Hubbard's bulletins, should have 6 been in a case supervisor program in Lisa's auditing 7 folder. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: When that happened. 10 THE COURT: Now, let me ask you this. Let's 11 say that someone went and attempted to see whether 12 or not Lisa was ready for auditing, the rundown -- 13 THE WITNESS: Yes? 14 THE COURT: -- and they went and -- she was 15 not -- in other words, that I heard testimony, that 16 I have read somewhere, that she threw the cans and 17 was still in a very psychotic state, was not capable 18 of being audited. 19 THE WITNESS: Right. 20 THE COURT: Was that in the folder? 21 THE WITNESS: No, it wasn't. 22 THE COURT: That attempt at auditing, would 23 that be something you as an auditor would put in the 24 folder? 25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor. The 120 1 auditor that went to do that -- I forgot her name 2 right now, it is on the tip of my tongue -- she 3 would have made a report of the proceedings during 4 her interchange with Lisa, she would have written 5 down what happened in the room with Lisa, and when 6 she determined that she could not audit Lisa she 7 would have ended the session or left it, made up her 8 cover sheet report to the case supervisor and sent 9 the folder to the case supervisor saying, "Lisa is 10 not auditable at this time." 11 THE COURT: And the case supervisor would have 12 checked that to see whether or not he believed that 13 person was correct or not? 14 THE WITNESS: He might have checked it. He 15 might have accepted the auditors, because auditors 16 are normally considered very trustworthy, and all of 17 the auditors I know are ED, honest, ethical 18 trustworthy people. 19 THE COURT: But -- I read so much that I don't 20 know whether this is even accurate so you tell me if 21 it is not. Isn't there something that says that an 22 auditor is checked to see if they performed the 23 procedure correctly, if there is any error in their 24 handling of the situation and -- 25 THE WITNESS: Oh, that happens if a preclear 121 1 has actually had a session successfully. If he has 2 been audited and the session has ended, he then goes 3 to the preclear examiner for a quality control 4 check. 5 THE COURT: But if the person has not been 6 audited, which obviously in this case Lisa was 7 not -- 8 THE WITNESS: There was not -- 9 THE COURT: -- then there would not necessarily 10 be a follow-up sheet from Mr. Kartuzinski saying he 11 had checked and as far as he was concerned that this 12 was correct that she was still to be in step 0, 00, 13 because she couldn't receive auditing? 14 THE WITNESS: Right, your Honor. But he may 15 have written a further order at that point to the 16 watchers or to the auditor -- I'm surmising at this 17 point -- to make sure that the -- at this point to 18 make sure her treatment was going well at 0, 00 on 19 assists. 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q What -- 22 THE COURT: Excuse me. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q What are assists? 25 A Assists are auditing techniques. They can be done 122 1 out of an auditing session or in an auditing session to 2 assist with minor pains, injuries, sometimes severe ones, 3 too. 4 Q Was there any evidence of any assists being given 5 to Lisa McPherson in November, December of 1995? 6 A No. 7 MR. MOXON: I object. I don't know whether 8 this had anything to do with the hearing, whether 9 she had assists. I can't see it goes to the sham 10 issues, what Mr. Dandar has done -- 11 MR. DANDAR: They filed motion for summary 12 judgment and combined it with this hearing. 13 THE COURT: Overruled. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q So let me ask, can you have what is called a baby 16 watch without having an introspection rundown? 17 A I'm taking some time to think of it because I'm 18 just looking at instances I know of personally where that 19 has happened. And -- Mmm -- before the introspection 20 rundown -- before Mr. Hubbard wrote the introspection 21 rundown, there were instances I knew of where baby watches 22 occurred but the rundown didn't exist. That was earlier. 23 Q Okay. 24 A From the point he wrote the rundown, I don't know 25 of any that were done. I don't know definitely any that 123 1 were done without the introspection rundown. 2 Q And were you on the ship with Mr. Hubbard when he 3 wrote the rundown? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. 6 A Mmm, no, when was the rundown written? 7 Q '72, '73. 8 A Yes, that was on the ship. 9 THE COURT: Tell me what your assumption is 10 here. We have a bunch of folks, a lot of nice 11 folks, who went in and did heavy-duty work, who 12 apparently calmed this person down and tried to help 13 her and tried to get her ready to be audited, which 14 would be very important to all these people and to 15 Ms. McPherson, as well. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 THE COURT: So they certainly thought they were 18 on the introspection rundown, they were told they 19 were. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 THE COURT: Their notes reflect they were. 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 THE COURT: And yet there is not this sheet 24 that is -- checklist sheet, or Mr. Kartuzinski 25 didn't do what apparently a case supervisor -- you 124 1 would have expected to do. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 THE COURT: So what do we conclude from that? 4 We conclude from that one of two things. Either all 5 these workers didn't have a clue as to what was 6 going on and they were just there thinking that -- 7 thinking that they were not talking, not doing the 8 things they would have done in an introspection 9 rundown -- 10 THE WITNESS: Right. 11 THE COURT: -- or Mr. Kartuzinski didn't do 12 what he was supposed to do as a case supervisor. 13 Isn't that -- or he put something in -- there are 14 three suggestions: Mr. Kartuzinski didn't do what 15 he was supposed to do, and apparently he has been 16 the janitor or something now, or it was there and it 17 was removed. There are really only three things. 18 Right? 19 THE WITNESS: Right. 20 THE COURT: Either she was there as a guest and 21 all these people -- that is just not a likely 22 thought -- 23 THE WITNESS: Right. 24 THE COURT: All these people went in there, 25 they stayed with her, they tried to help her, they 125 1 didn't talk to her because they were told not to, 2 muzzled speech, which would be part of step 0, 00. 3 THE WITNESS: Right. 4 THE COURT: So these folks just weren't doing 5 this for the fun of it. 6 THE WITNESS: Right, yes. 7 THE COURT: So, either -- two things. It seems 8 we're narrowed down to a couple things. One, 9 Mr. Kartuzinski apparently was supposed to be pretty 10 high up the line and should have known what he was 11 doing, didn't do it. 12 THE WITNESS: He was. I knew him, your Honor. 13 He was -- 14 THE COURT: So that is one. He didn't do it. 15 Or two, he did it and for some reason it was 16 removed. She didn't get very far, so you really 17 have to wonder why they would remove it. 18 What would you have expected to be on there 19 that would somehow be detrimental to somebody where 20 they would remove it? She didn't get into auditing, 21 she was strictly in 0, 00, give her rest, vitamins, 22 get her ready to be audited. 23 THE WITNESS: Right. 24 THE COURT: And this lady went in, that didn't 25 work. He may or may not have written something. So 126 1 really all we would expect in there is here is what 2 we want to have happen. 3 THE WITNESS: Right. 4 THE COURT: If we want to do this, this and 5 this. We want her to be ready to be audited and 6 here is the program. When we get to the 7 introspection rundown, I want you to follow it, do 8 it exactly as it says to do it. 9 THE WITNESS: Right. 10 THE COURT: Whatever. And nothing happened. 11 They didn't get to that stage. So what would you 12 have expected to be in that whatever it is that 13 Mr. Kartuzinski that -- was supposed do that would 14 be harmful? In other words, we are left with just 15 assuming that if it wasn't there, Mr. Kartuzinski 16 was negligent? Or -- or they couldn't find it? 17 THE WITNESS: No, I personally don't think 18 Mr. Kartuzinski was negligent. I knew him for many 19 years. And he was a very conscientious auditor when 20 we were both auditing in the case cracking unit in 21 the Ft. Harrison Hotel in Clearwater. Subsequent to 22 that, I haven't known him so I don't know what 23 happened to him. 24 But I think that my surmise is that those 25 reports were removed for some reason. And -- 127 1 THE COURT: Reports? I'm only hearing about -- 2 I know there are some case worker reports missing. 3 THE WITNESS: The auditor report and 4 Mr. Kartuzinski's orders. 5 THE COURT: His orders? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 THE WITNESS: And I think they were removed and 9 possibly either orders from other parts of the 10 organization, such as the Department of Special 11 Affairs or the Office of Special Affairs 12 International, on how Lisa was to be handled, those 13 were removed because they were too inflammatory, 14 because they -- they would -- 15 MR. MOXON: I object. Speculation. 16 THE WITNESS: -- show in some way -- 17 THE COURT: You have to kind of speculate, if 18 they were supposed to be there and they are not 19 there, then we have to figure out why they are not 20 there. What would be on there that is too 21 inflammatory? 22 THE WITNESS: Mmm, the conversations or 23 dialogue such as, "We can't audit her because she is 24 not of sound mind, we can't get her to a 25 psychologist or psychiatrist to help her because 128 1 that is totally against Scientology's belief." 2 THE COURT: Right, we wouldn't expect that to 3 be in there because that was not an option. 4 THE WITNESS: But this kind of backwards and 5 forwards trying to get her into a convalescent home 6 somewhere, or the lack of those orders, would either 7 show negligence on the part of the people in charge, 8 or it would show that they were caught in a corner 9 because they couldn't get mental health aid for Lisa 10 and they didn't have the tools themselves to help 11 her. So they were like caught between a rock and a 12 hard spot. 13 THE COURT: But, you see, under the law, 14 Ms. Whitfield, something -- if the plaintiff can 15 establish that something is supposed to be there, if 16 they established this -- 17 THE WITNESS: Yes? 18 THE COURT: -- and it's not there, a jury can 19 be instructed that they may draw an adverse 20 inference from that. So -- 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 22 THE COURT: -- now, you know, there is lots of 23 lawyers in the Church of Scientology. They would 24 know that. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. 129 1 THE COURT: So if it just simply says we can't 2 get her where we would like for her to be, it just 3 seems silly that they would remove those things that 4 might tend to show negligence. I mean -- I mean, 5 that -- I mean, I don't really get it. You are 6 saying there might be something harmful and, yet, 7 you know, it just doesn't make much sense to me. 8 THE WITNESS: I know, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: I mean, short something Mr. Prince 10 said, which some orders came down from Mr. Miscavige 11 that said murder her, let her die. Frankly, there 12 is no evidence of that. 13 THE WITNESS: There is no evidence of that. 14 THE COURT: There just is not. 15 THE WITNESS: No, and I won't expect there to 16 be that kind of evidence in a preclear folder. And 17 that is the kind of -- Mmm, I wouldn't -- I won't 18 necessarily go that far. I don't personally know 19 Mr. Miscavige. But I do know Mr. Hubbard's -- some 20 of the policies he wrote that went a little 21 overboard. 22 And -- and I know of one instance -- and this 23 goes back a bit into the '70s, I think -- when a 24 Scientologist was dying of cervical cancer in Los 25 Angeles. Her name was Sally Chaleff, C-H-A-L-E-F-F. 130 1 And she had had no medical care so the cervical 2 cancer wasn't caught in time. And -- Mmm -- she was 3 doing very badly. And when visited, she said, 4 "Well, I'm -- I'm just here to die now. That is 5 what I have been told. I'm just here to die." 6 Now, that is the only time I know or have heard 7 that statement. 8 THE COURT: In Scientology? 9 THE WITNESS: In Scientology. I have never 10 seen anything like that in print or in a policy 11 letter. 12 THE COURT: Well, we learned a lot in this 13 hearing. One of the things we have learned is 14 that -- that -- well, you would know this, having 15 been a Scientologist, that leaving one body -- 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 THE COURT: -- one body to perhaps enter 18 another body is not a bad thing. 19 THE WITNESS: Right. That is right. 20 THE COURT: A Scientology belief. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: Consequently, ending this cycle, 23 moving on to another one, isn't all bad. So 24 somebody in a terminal state, we heard about end 25 cycles, several of them, in a terminal state, 131 1 somebody is dying, to me, not knowing -- have not 2 known much about Scientology, but I know about 3 hospice and a hospice worker goes to a critically 4 ill -- someone who is dying, to in essence help them 5 to die peacefully, at peace with themselves, knowing 6 that is what is going to occur, making it a peaceful 7 experience. 8 So this end cycle to me is not necessarily a 9 derogatory term; it means something is dying, it's a 10 good thing the spirit is going to move from one body 11 to another body and begin again, peaceful. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE COURT: In my head, I can think of it this 14 way. Okay? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 THE COURT: But all we know about is in some -- 17 in situations where -- where the member of the 18 Church -- and there are not many of them -- but 19 really in a terminal state, are dying, that was not 20 the situation as I perceive it of Lisa McPherson. 21 There was a belief -- there was a belief that the 22 introspection rundown work. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is right. 24 THE COURT: And the belief was if they could 25 get her to a state where they could audit her and 132 1 follow the introspection rundown, she would -- 2 THE WITNESS: She would recover. 3 THE COURT: -- she would recover as others had 4 recovered. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 THE COURT: So there really wasn't any reason 7 for somebody to say end cycle. I mean, the thought 8 was she was going to recover. 9 THE WITNESS: Right. 10 THE COURT: That was the belief, everybody 11 would have believed it, the workers would have 12 believed it, Mr. Kartuzinski would have believed it 13 and so would David Miscavige believe it. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 THE COURT: So there would be no reason for 16 somebody to say end this woman's cycle. 17 THE WITNESS: If I may elaborate a bit, there 18 is some information that might add to the picture 19 that we have here. 20 And that is in Scientology, a basic belief is 21 that anything one experiences in life is one's own 22 fault. If somebody -- 23 THE COURT: Thought or fault? 24 THE WITNESS: Fault. In other words, I cause 25 what happens to me, good or bad. And that is a 133 1 basic bottom-line belief that runs through 2 Scientology. 3 In a case such as Lisa's -- in the case of 4 auditing, Mr. Hubbard's belief as reflected in his 5 bulletins, his technical bulletins, was that if I'm 6 suffering with arthritis or whatever and I go and 7 get auditing, I'll get better because the auditing 8 addresses, in my mind, my own impurities, 9 negativities and so forth. But I have created -- it 10 allows me to look at those, remove those and 11 therefore I get better. 12 So everything that happens to one is one's own 13 fault. 14 In the case of Lisa, if she got into the 15 condition that she was of such unsound mind that she 16 couldn't even get an auditing session, it was her 17 own fault. That would be the predominating belief. 18 That was her own fault that she was in that 19 condition. 20 When I got into trouble with Scientology when I 21 was leaving and I left on my own, I was declared a 22 suppressive person; it was my own fault, it was my 23 overts, my misdeeds. It is always the person's 24 fault. 25 So in the case of Lisa, again my surmise, when 134 1 she didn't rapidly get through 00 and 000, she was 2 doing herself in, which is a common expression in 3 Scientology, auditors use it, case supervisors use 4 it; "Oh, this person is just doing himself in, it's 5 his own fault that he's going through all these 6 problems." 7 So even though the lower-level workers -- the 8 watchers who weren't necessarily that trained and 9 aware that heavily of it's always your fault, they 10 were there, they were honestly trying to look after 11 Lisa. That is my belief. They were in there 12 pitching. But higher up the ranks, middle, top 13 management, the opinion may have come about that 14 there is nothing more we can do, there is nothing we 15 can do for this girl. 16 THE COURT: But the opinion may just as easily 17 have been we've got to keep -- keep -- I mean, there 18 are other people that have been on the introspection 19 rundown a lot longer than Lisa McPherson was who 20 eventually got better. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: 17 days is not necessarily a long 23 term. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 THE COURT: She was dead in 17 days. 135 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 THE COURT: So it wasn't as if everybody 3 recovers after three days and somehow she was 4 dragging this on. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. No. 6 THE COURT: This was -- you know, this would 7 not have been an abnormal period. 8 THE WITNESS: Right. As far as her physical 9 condition and deterioration, my surmise on that was 10 as an RN, even though my experience comes back from 11 the '60s, when I did my training, my experience is 12 there was neglect at that point. 13 THE COURT: And that is -- is an issue that 14 will have to be determined, whether or not there 15 should have been faster seeking her medical 16 treatment. 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: But you cannot provide me any 19 assistance or you have no evidence to suggest that 20 somehow an order was given that her -- she should 21 just be allowed to die, can you? 22 THE WITNESS: No, I can't. Not in my -- not in 23 my experience, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Or from the PC folders, you know, 25 the things that are missing, but -- 136 1 THE WITNESS: Definitely not from the PC 2 folders. If it existed, it's missing. 3 THE COURT: And if these people are believers, 4 as I have no reason to believe they are not, that 5 includes Mr. Kartuzinski, that includes 6 Mr. Miscavige, that includes Mr. Rathbun and all 7 these people -- 8 THE WITNESS: Yes? 9 THE COURT: -- they would have believed this 10 process would have worked. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, unless it got to a point, 12 your Honor, where Lisa just wasn't getting better, 13 she was deteriorating day by day slowly. And in 14 that case, they would have seen the decline and they 15 may have changed their mind on the fact the 16 introspection rundown is going to work, keep at it. 17 THE COURT: Well, of course, they have -- they 18 have no qualms about taking somebody who is ill to a 19 medical doctor for treatment. 20 THE WITNESS: Right. 21 THE COURT: So if she was declining 22 medically -- 23 THE WITNESS: They should have taken her much 24 earlier. 25 THE COURT: So does it not kind of stand to 137 1 reason if they didn't, perhaps there was -- you 2 know, they may have been negligent, they may not. 3 That's for somebody else, not this hearing. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 THE COURT: However, that would depend, to be 6 honest, which theory and which bunch of doctors they 7 believe. One supports the theory of negligence. 8 One does not. One may support gross negligence. 9 One may support intentional conduct. One does not. 10 One said, a doctor, this would have happened, it 11 probably would have happened quickly, nothing 12 anybody else could have done. Another would say she 13 was in extreme grave condition, somebody should have 14 known, grossly negligence, intentional act. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 THE COURT: But I guess my biggest -- my 17 biggest problem that I'm having in this hearing is, 18 again, why this -- why this sheet -- again, what -- 19 tell me one more time, what would you have expected 20 on this sheet, forget the notes because a jury can 21 infer from those missing notes around about the time 22 Lisa died there may have been things on there that 23 were -- 24 THE WITNESS: Right. 25 THE COURT: -- harmful to the physician of the 138 1 person who lost them, we can infer that. What can 2 you expect to see on this sheet that said there is 3 this introspection rundown in process? 4 THE WITNESS: I would have expected to see an 5 introspection rundown checklist. 6 THE COURT: Checklist, okay. 7 THE WITNESS: In the folder, marked as per the 8 step Lisa was on with the date on it. 9 THE COURT: Which we know what step it was, 10 right? 0, 00. 11 THE WITNESS: Right, but the step would have 12 been marked or in some way the date maybe she 13 started on that step. 14 Mmm, I would have expected to see in her folder 15 an order from the case supervisor, an order to start 16 the program, the introspection rundown, to make sure 17 that all of Lisa's watchers were muzzled, in other 18 words, they were not talking in her presence. 19 THE COURT: What would you have expected to 20 see, something from Mr. Kartuzinski, saying, "I 21 advise so-and-so to advise all of the workers that 22 they were to --" 23 THE WITNESS: Something to that effect, your 24 Honor, covering all of the points, Lisa is to be 25 kept confined, her watchers are to be muzzled, she 139 1 must be given food and vitamins and watched and 2 things like that that a case supervisor would 3 normally do in a situation like that. And I -- it 4 just wasn't there. 5 THE COURT: What -- in your wildest dreams what 6 could you imagine could have been on there that 7 would have been harmful? I'm just wondering whether 8 or not it is not there, Mr. Kartuzinski lost it, it 9 got lost in the shuffle, what could we have expected 10 to see on this sheet that would be so bad that 11 somebody in the alternative said, "Oh, this is too 12 bad, we're just going to take it out and shred it"? 13 Can you think of anything? 14 THE WITNESS: The only thing I can think of is 15 Mr. Kartuzinski may have ordered she be allowed to 16 die. 17 THE COURT: But you have no evidence of that? 18 THE WITNESS: No, absolutely nothing. And that 19 is just stuff I have heard. But I have no evidence 20 of it at all. 21 THE COURT: You never -- in your time in 22 Scientology, you don't know of any case supervisor 23 ever ordering that. 24 THE WITNESS: Oh, no. 25 THE COURT: As a matter of fact, I would expect 140 1 he would be more -- less than a janitor, if he had, 2 that should not be something he would order, should 3 he? 4 THE WITNESS: No. 5 THE COURT: He had to check that with somebody, 6 I would hope. 7 THE WITNESS: He would be in police custody, 8 I'm sure. I don't know, your Honor. I don't know 9 why those reports are not there. My only surmise on 10 it was that Lisa was worsening day by day, and the 11 watch reports that were allowed to remain in her 12 preclear folder were those that, even though they 13 were damaging about how Lisa was doing and not 14 responding and so on, at least some had to be there 15 to show what happened to her, so those were left. 16 But other reports were removed because they showed 17 that -- that the senior superiors were aware of her 18 decline and weren't doing anything adequate to get 19 her to medical health or medical care or what have 20 you. 21 THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you a question. 22 If Ms. McPherson died and the police were called and 23 the police were coming -- 24 THE WITNESS: Yes? 25 THE COURT: -- and Mr. Kartuzinski was the 141 1 highest-up person in the hotel and -- 2 THE WITNESS: Yes? 3 THE COURT: -- and somebody thought, "Oh, my 4 God, we didn't get her to a hospital fast enough." 5 You know, "Here it is. I got this report for 6 Ms. So-and-So that said, 'We better change 7 something,' she looks bad to me, she's not working 8 today or whatever." 9 Some of those reports may have said -- how high 10 up did you get? Were you ever a case supervisor? 11 THE WITNESS: No, I was never posted to the 12 position of a case supervisor. Mmm, I was only an 13 auditor. But I did write my own case supervision 14 orders to the case supervisor that were often 15 approved. 16 THE COURT: What if -- what if he thought, "Oh, 17 the police are coming, we should have done 18 something, we didn't do it fast enough, we're in 19 trouble, I'm going to protect Scientology and took 20 them out," now, what would happen to that person if 21 they removed something that should have been in that 22 folder and they removed it without getting 23 permission and it was gone? Would that person be 24 demoted? 25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. That person 142 1 would be congratulated for being fast enough on his 2 feet to remove information which would be damaging 3 to Scientology. 4 THE COURT: Why? Well, imagine this. Imagine 5 that the person thought it was damaging, the person 6 thought they were doing something good, but as it 7 turns out, it turns out to be pretty bad. This 8 turns out to be pretty bad because now the jury will 9 be able to conjure up in their mind what was on 10 there because the jury will be told that this is 11 something that they can infer -- 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE COURT: -- was harmful to the party that 14 may -- if they can establish they were destroyed. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, but your Honor, in a moment 16 of panic or in a moment when things are tense and 17 one isn't thinking rationally and completely 18 logically, it's possible to make mistakes like that. 19 THE COURT: Yes, it is. Then you inform 20 Scientology and say you have done something wrong by 21 destroying -- then what would happen? You would be 22 punished, wouldn't you, in an internal fashion? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. 24 THE COURT: Sorry to take up so much time. 25 143 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Have you heard of an acceptable truth? 3 A Yes. 4 Q What is that? 5 A Mmm, that is a statement that appears to be a fact 6 said in order to appease somebody. 7 In other words, if I was to tell you that you 8 looked ugly today, to you, that would not be an acceptable 9 truth. To you, you would probably be upset that I have said 10 something like that. So even though I thought your clothing 11 wasn't right, I would say, "Oh, you look good." That would 12 be an acceptable truth. 13 Q Is that a lie? 14 A Yes, it can be called a lie. 15 THE COURT: It is an acceptable truth if he 16 doesn't look good and you say he looks good? 17 THE WITNESS: That's right. 18 THE COURT: What if he does look good and you 19 say he looks good, is that an acceptable truth? 20 THE WITNESS: Not in the sense it is used in 21 Scientology. That is just a truth. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q All right. All right. 24 THE COURT: I apologize. I took up a whole lot 25 of time, but I want to stop for lunch at 12:15 so 144 1 you have five minutes. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Now, did you work with -- in RTC at all? 4 A No. Never. RTC was just being formed when I left 5 the Ft. Harrison in March '82. 6 Q All right. Are you familiar with the post at RTC 7 of deputy inspector general? 8 A Yes, from literature. 9 Q Okay. Is that someone who has that post -- would 10 that someone be working closely -- would that someone be 11 considered a top executive at RTC? 12 MR. MOXON: Objection, your Honor. 13 A Definitely. 14 MR. MOXON: Objection. She said she doesn't 15 know. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q She said she read it in literature? 18 A Scientology literature. 19 Q All right. Are you familiar with Scientology use 20 of chloral hydrate? 21 A No. No drugs of any kind are used in Scientology. 22 Not even aspirin, Motrin, Tylenol, Advil. 23 Q What about injectable Valium? 24 A Absolutely not. 25 Q And you read the depositions and the notes of the 145 1 attendants of Lisa McPherson. 2 A Unless -- excuse me, unless prescribed by a 3 doctor, by a medical person for a medical condition. But 4 just willy-nilly, no. 5 Q This program of the introspection rundown that is 6 missing, would that have on there exactly when and how much 7 to give a person such as Lisa, you know, the Cal-Mag, 8 valerian root, chloral hydrate, prescribed by Dr. Minkoff, 9 and things like that? 10 A That -- those things that were given to Lisa 11 should have been in her preclear folder, either written up 12 by the medical officer or one of the medical officer's 13 staff, or written up by Dr. Houghton when he gave Lisa what 14 he gave her. It might have been included in a case 15 supervisor order to continue giving Lisa this and this and 16 this and this if she shows signs of this and this again. 17 So Mr. Kartuzinski may have condoned and ordered 18 that chloral hydrate or injectable Valium or whatever be 19 repeated if need be. But if he did, those reports, those 20 orders, are not in Lisa's preclear folders. 21 THE COURT: So the preclear folder does not 22 have the medical doses and that kind of thing in 23 there? 24 THE WITNESS: No. 25 THE COURT: You would have expected that in a 146 1 preclear folder? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would have expected either 3 an order citing that to be in the preclear folder or 4 a report from Dr. Houghton and/or the medical 5 liaison officer. 6 THE COURT: Are you talking about Dr. Minkoff 7 now? 8 THE WITNESS: Dr. Houghton. 9 THE COURT: He's the dentist. 10 THE WITNESS: He's the dentist who gave Lisa 11 the injectable Valium, maybe -- and again I would 12 have to go back to the folder, maybe the chloral 13 hydrate. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Well, he's one of the people who picked up 16 injectable Valium and Nurse Weber also picked up injectable 17 Valium in a different drug store. And are these workers -- 18 these attendants who were in the room with Lisa, do they 19 have the authority to do anything beyond the orders that 20 they are given? 21 A Mmm, by the attendants? Who do you mean? Do you 22 mean the watchers? Or -- 23 Q The watchers. 24 A The watchers? 25 THE COURT: What do you mean, do they have the 147 1 authority to pick up the telephone and call the 2 ambulance? 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q Yes, could they pick up the telephone and call an 5 ambulance without an order from the case supervisor? 6 A With my experience on the ship, with one person 7 being baby watched, the watcher had no such authority. 8 Everything had to be reported to the next person in line and 9 on up to LRH, then reviewed and LRH would order something or 10 somebody down the line from LRH would order something. 11 Q In the case of Lisa McPherson, based on your 12 experience in Scientology, who was in charge of her stay at 13 the Ft. Harrison Hotel? 14 A Well -- 15 MR. MOXON: Objection. Calls for speculation, 16 your Honor. 17 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was the question? 18 I was making a note. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q In your experience, based on your experience, who 21 was in charge of Lisa McPherson's stay at the Ft. Harrison 22 Hotel? 23 MR. MOXON: She doesn't have any experience 24 with Lisa McPherson's stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel 25 so she testified she doesn't know anything about it. 148 1 THE COURT: I think she is, I guess, testifying 2 here today as some sort of combination expert, 3 somebody that reviewed the file, something or 4 another, so I'll allow her to answer it if you can. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 THE COURT: It is acceptable, I told a lot of 7 witnesses this, if you don't know the answer to 8 something, don't try to force an answer. If you 9 don't know, just say, "I don't know." It is a 10 perfectly acceptable and very good answer in court. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you, your Honor. 12 A Technically, the senior CS FSO, Alain Kartuzinski, 13 would have been in charge of her. But he would have been 14 reporting up line. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q To who? 17 A To senior CS International, Ray Mithoff, probably 18 to the executive director of the FSO, Debbie Naughton, and 19 could be to the Department of Special Affairs. 20 THE COURT: Debbie Naughton, ED FSO, Debbie -- 21 Debbie, let's just call her Debbie. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q Debbie Cook? 24 MR. MOXON: I object to Mr. Prince giving 25 her -- she's looking for the word and Mr. Prince 149 1 said "Cook. Cook." 2 THE WITNESS: I did not hear him. 3 MR. DANDAR: She looked at me and I told her 4 Debbie Cook. 5 THE WITNESS: I did not hear him. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q All right, as you sit here today with your 8 experience, do you have any idea why Mr. Kartuzinski in his 9 deposition I took of him would not admit that he reported to 10 OSA Int or the senior CS? 11 MR. MOXON: Object to the form, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: I'll allow it. 13 A Mmm, I can surmise, which I did at the time I was 14 going through the folders. And I thought that Alain was -- 15 Mr. Kartuzinski was picked to take the brunt of what had 16 happened to Lisa and that would let other people off the 17 hook. And when -- when an emergency happens or something 18 catastrophic happens in Scientology, the -- Mr. Hubbard's 19 policy is to find someone and put a head on a pike. And 20 that is written in policy. And I think that was the fate of 21 Mr. Kartuzinski. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q Can you -- in your review of Lisa McPherson's 24 folders and the depositions and the watchers' logs, can you 25 imagine any scenario where Mr. Kartuzinski, the senior case 150 1 supervisor at Flag, would not report to the senior case 2 supervisor International on Lisa McPherson? 3 A No. 4 MR. MOXON: Object to the form. Also asking 5 for speculation. 6 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. She can say 7 yes or no. 8 Who is the senior CS Int, whatever you are 9 saying? 10 THE WITNESS: Mr. Ray Mithoff. 11 THE COURT: This is not -- what is Ms. Cook? 12 MR. DANDAR: She's captain of Flag. 13 THE COURT: She's the head of Flag? 14 MR. LIEBERMAN: Captain FSO. 15 THE COURT: Captain FSO? She would be superior 16 to Mr. Kartuzinski? 17 MR. DANDAR: On one side. 18 THE WITNESS: Only on the administrative side, 19 not over his technical expertise. 20 THE COURT: Who is it that is going to 21 report -- this is confusing. In your opinion who is 22 it that is going to report to Mr. Mithoff, 23 Mr. Kartuzinski? Or Ms. Cook? 24 THE WITNESS: Mr. Kartuzinski. 25 THE COURT: So he doesn't have to report to 151 1 Ms. Cook, the administrative person, maybe he does, 2 but the person he's going to get permission to do 3 whatever it is he does is going to be Mr. Mithoff? 4 THE WITNESS: But he might report to the 5 commanding officer of the corporation because she 6 would be concerned having a person -- preclear in 7 that condition under her care. 8 THE COURT: What is Mr. Mithoff's title? 9 THE WITNESS: Mmm, senior case supervisor 10 International. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q And what you know about Lisa McPherson -- 14 THE COURT: I said I needed to be at lunch at 15 quarter after. I am past that. We will be in 16 recess until 1:30. 17 MR. WEINBERG: It is the same instruction? 18 THE COURT: Same instruction. You can have 19 lunch with the lawyers, but don't talk about the 20 case. 21 (WHEREUPON, a recess is taken from 12:20 to 22 1:30 p.m.) 23 ______________________________________ 24 25 152 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 5 I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically 6 report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 7 I further certify that I am not a relative, 8 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 9 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 10 11 DATED this 16th day of July, 2002. 12 13 14 ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25