153 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 2 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. Afternoon 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 25 154 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 25 155 1 THE COURT: You may continue. 2 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q Let's see. Are you familiar with the term 5 "bypass"? 6 A I didn't get that. 7 Q Are you familiar with the term "bypass" in 8 Scientology? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What is that? 11 A That is the action of a superior taking over, so 12 to speak, the job of someone working below him because that 13 individual has made an error -- a drastic error or some big 14 mistake and is not adequately correcting it. And the 15 superior has to step in and correct the mistake or the goof. 16 Q And are you familiar with the term "PR flap" in 17 Scientology? 18 A Yes. Public relations flap. 19 Q Would Lisa McPherson, in November of 1995, be 20 considered a PR flap? 21 A I would think so. 22 MR. MOXON: Objection to the form. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. 24 A I would think so, definitely. 25 156 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q And why is that? 3 A If information about her condition -- her 4 deteriorating condition -- become known outside Scientology 5 and the fact that she was administered prescription 6 medications without a licensed Florida health official 7 prescribing same, and -- it would -- would definitely make 8 news in the newspapers and the general public. 9 Q Well, Dr. Minkoff was an OTA public Scientologist. 10 He's the one that wrote the prescription for the Valium 11 twice and the chloral hydrate. So he's a licensed Florida 12 physician. 13 That wouldn't be a PR flap, would it? 14 A Mmm, it might be, to some extent, because I 15 don't -- if I remember correctly, I don't believe he saw 16 Lisa when he made -- wrote out those prescriptions. 17 Q Correct. So that would be something -- 18 A It could have turned into a PR flap. 19 Q Okay. Are you familiar with the book Science of 20 Survival? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And how is it that you are familiar with that 23 book? 24 A I read it fairly early on in my Scientology 25 career. And I think as part of my training on the St. 157 1 Hill -- two words -- special briefing course, or in my 2 training on the organizational executive course, I had to 3 read that book. I had to read it some way on some check 4 sheet that I did. 5 Q Okay. 6 THE COURT: By the way, you can tell Mr. Fugate 7 he can have until tomorrow. It is pretty obvious. 8 MR. WEINBERG: I was waiting. 9 THE COURT: If we get to that, it would 10 obviously be late in the day, so he doesn't have to 11 worry until tomorrow, if we even get to it tomorrow. 12 MR. WEINBERG: I'm hoping. 13 THE COURT: I am, too. 14 MR. LIEBERMAN: I was hoping this morning, your 15 Honor. 16 THE COURT: I was, too. 17 MR. WEINBERG: That was the reason we stayed up 18 all night. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's 188. I'll show you 21 the clerk's copy. This is an excerpt from Mr. Hubbard's 22 book Science of Survival. And what I want you to do is turn 23 to Page 30, which is the last page. 24 A Okay. 25 Q It talks about a person who is insane. Do you see 158 1 that? 2 A Mmm, yes. Yes, I do -- yes, I remember this. 3 Q Okay. It says, "Don't -- 4 THE COURT: How do you know it is talking about 5 somebody that is insane? 6 MR. DANDAR: Pardon me? 7 THE COURT: How do you know it's talking about 8 somebody who is insane? 9 MR. DANDAR: In the middle of the first 10 paragraph it said, "You can't beat a man into 11 sanity." 12 THE WITNESS: And on Page 29, the preceding 13 page, your Honor, if you flip back one page -- 14 THE COURT: You didn't give me Page 29. 15 THE WITNESS: Oh, you need it. 16 MR. WEINBERG: I don't have it, either. 17 MR. MOXON: Could we have it, too, please, 18 Mr. Dandar? 19 MR. DANDAR: I must have messed up in my 20 copying process. 21 THE WITNESS: Here is a Page 29. 22 THE COURT: I'm not disputing with you if that 23 is what you say it is about, but I couldn't tell 24 from reading this brief clip. 25 MR. DANDAR: I'll tell you -- 159 1 MR. MOXON: That is the part of -- taking any 2 part of it out of context, a page of a book. 3 THE COURT: I understand it. You-all do it all 4 of the time, take little clips, little clips, and I 5 hear these objections all of the time. 6 If you want the whole thing introduced -- that 7 is a problem, you take little clips, because they 8 are out of context. 9 MR. WEINBERG: If he wants to introduce a page, 10 we'll just put the whole book in. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. DANDAR: Right now, we're going to skip 13 over this question. And I'll get copies and I'll 14 come back to it. I'll try to speed this up, if I 15 can. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Are you familiar with a CSW? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What is a CSW? 20 A Completed staff work. 21 Q What is that? 22 A It is the submission -- I -- for example, if you 23 were my superior and I wanted something or needed to request 24 you for something, I would write up a report saying what the 25 situation was, that I needed this particular item. I would 160 1 give as much information under "data" as I could, why I 2 needed it, what it was for and so forth. 3 And then, at the bottom, would be the solution. 4 And this is the reason why I need it. "Sincerely." Okay. 5 Not okay. 6 Then I would submit that to you with any 7 additional proof that I needed. And you would either 8 approve it or disapprove it. 9 Q This is to purchase something off the base of 10 Scientology? 11 A It could be. It could also be used for 12 situations. For example, I find suddenly a situation in 13 my -- in my -- in my area, the area below me or the people 14 who are working for me, and I know that it's caught your 15 attention. And I immediately send you up a report that 16 gives the situation, what I'm doing with it and -- and 17 what -- and the resolution that I hope to achieve. That 18 kind of thing. 19 So it both states what the situation is, it gives 20 accompanying information around the situation, and then it 21 proposes a solution for a superior's approval, disapproval. 22 Q Do you know whether a CSW would be used to 23 purchase prescription drugs like Valium or chloral hydrate 24 for Lisa McPherson? 25 A Probably. A purchase order certainly would be 161 1 required. A CSW might accompany a purchase order. 2 Q All right. I'm going to hand you back Page 28 and 3 29. 4 MR. DANDAR: Judge, here is that page. 5 THE COURT: Oh. 6 MR. DANDAR: You want me to staple it together 7 for you? 8 THE COURT: No. It is all right. 9 THE WITNESS: Judge, you also need Pages 26 and 10 27 if -- 11 MR. DANDAR: Do you need those, too? 12 THE WITNESS: No. But the judge would need 13 those, too, if she doesn't have it. 14 THE COURT: Here it is. It is all right. 15 "Handle a psychotic gently." Now I know we're 16 talking about psychotic people in this paragraph. 17 I -- you need to read the whole paragraph. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q Okay. What is the back page? 20 A That is the same one you have got. 21 Q Okay. I see. All right. 22 So that is talking about a psychotic person. 23 Right? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And on Page 30, could you read where it says -- 162 1 starts with "Don't fill." 2 A "Don't fill him full of sedatives or put him in 3 restraints. By being as gracious and serene as you possibly 4 can be, you will greatly increase your success in treating 5 your fellow man and you have to be first cousin to a saint 6 to get the best results with psychotics. Any effort made 7 to --" 8 THE COURT: Counsel, we don't really need her 9 to read everything. 10 MR. DANDAR: That is fine. That is fine. 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 MR. DANDAR: All right. 13 THE COURT: Are you introducing this? 14 MR. DANDAR: Yes. I move that into evidence. 15 THE COURT: Any objection? 16 MR. WEINBERG: No. 17 THE COURT: All right. It will be received. 18 Did you give the clerk the -- did you give her 19 whatever it is you gave me, the clerk? 20 MR. DANDAR: The witness has the clerk's copy. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, what is the number? 22 THE COURT: 188. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Have you ever met Mr. Minton? 25 A Mr. --? 163 1 Q Minton, Robert Minton? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And under what circumstances? 4 A The first time I met him was five, six years ago. 5 He was in Tampa, meeting with a ex-Scientologist, and 6 somebody else was there. I don't remember where it was. My 7 husband went up to meet him. He wanted to meet us. 8 Q Have you ever been part of the Lisa McPherson 9 Trust? 10 A No. 11 Q Have you ever received money from Mr. Minton? 12 A No. 13 Q What did -- why did Mr. Minton want to meet you 14 that time, that first time? 15 A He was -- he was curious. He was getting to 16 know -- he was looking into Scientology and meeting former 17 Scientologists. And he had heard about us and he was 18 curious to get to know us. There was no other particular 19 reason. 20 Q Why was it up in Tampa? 21 A That is where he was staying, at some hotel close 22 to the airport. 23 Q Okay. Did you ever visit the Lisa McPherson 24 Trust? 25 A No. 164 1 Q Did you ever hear about what the Lisa McPherson 2 Trust was about? 3 A Oh, yes. Mmm, I heard a little from Stacy Young, 4 Stacy Brooks. That is the only person, I think, I heard 5 anything from. 6 Q What did she say about the Lisa McPherson Trust? 7 THE COURT: That could be awfully long, 8 couldn't it? 9 THE WITNESS: Actually, it's pretty brief, your 10 Honor. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 A Just that, Mmm, she and Bob had constructed this 13 trust. Bob had put it together. And that they were going 14 to try to take care of all the inquiries in the United 15 States about Scientology, and help the families in need, and 16 also help Scientologists who wanted to leave. That was sort 17 of the gist of it. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q Okay. I just want to show you -- I'm almost 20 finished here -- our next exhibit, 189, a copy -- excerpt 21 from the tech dictionary. 22 THE COURT: Is this the same one we keep 23 getting from time to time with a definition from one 24 side or another? Is this all one book? 25 MR. DANDAR: It is all in this book here. 165 1 THE COURT: Two books? Mr. Shaw says two 2 books. 3 MR. MOXON: There is one for administrative 4 matters and one for technical matters. 5 MR. DANDAR: This is from the technical. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q If you would, just -- in this book that actually 9 is, I think, Mr. Oliver's book, right, it has a definition 10 of fair game. Do you see that? 11 A Yes. I do. 12 Q Okay. We don't need to read it. It is right 13 there. But, also, there is -- turn to the next page. It 14 has definition of no report. 15 A Uh-huh. Yes. 16 Q And what does that -- I mean, without having to 17 read the whole thing, but in your words what does that mean, 18 no report? 19 MR. MOXON: Well, I object. It speaks for 20 itself. Whatever the definition here is the 21 definition. 22 THE COURT: Yes. The definition is adequate. 23 You want to read that definition and tell me if you 24 think that is fair? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is correct. 166 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. What it says here about no 3 report -- the definition, yes. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q Then the no report report, did you -- are you 6 familiar with that term? 7 A I am. 8 Q What does that mean? 9 A Mmm, if somebody doesn't make a report that he is 10 required to make, he can be cited for not reporting it, the 11 report. There, hence, no report report. 12 Q Okay. Then on Page 429, the definition for 13 putting a head on a pike, I bring that to your attention 14 because you mentioned that before the lunch break. 15 A Yes. 16 Q Is that definition the same definition you are 17 operating under? 18 A Yes. That is the one. 19 MR. DANDAR: I move that 189 into evidence. 20 THE COURT: All right. We'll receive it. We 21 have had a lot of this book -- 22 THE WITNESS: Can I make -- can I say 23 something, your Honor? 24 THE COURT: Sure. 25 THE WITNESS: The definition of fair game, if I 167 1 could go back to it, is one definition. There is 2 another definition which is not cited in the 3 administrative dictionary. 4 MR. MOXON: I object then, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Yes. We have heard a lot about 6 fair game. So I think probably we have quite a bit 7 of evidence already in -- 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. 9 THE COURT: -- so unless you are asked a 10 question, I think that would be probably all we need 11 to hear on that. 12 MR. DANDAR: And our last exhibit -- 13 THE COURT: I have a question for you on this 14 putting the head on the pike. I'm not sure I really 15 understood it, but I thought what I understood is 16 that it could be a situation where a head was put on 17 a pike where it was -- maybe this says this -- where 18 it was a show of a need for somebody to be -- I hate 19 to use the word "fall guy" but that is the term I am 20 familiar with. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: So you kind of put the head on the 23 pike to show that somebody paid for this, and it may 24 be real or it may not be real. 25 THE WITNESS: Right. And any others, whether 168 1 they were implicated or not, had better watch their 2 P's and Q's and tow the line and start operating 3 according to policy. 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, if we're going to 5 have a definition other than the dictionary 6 definition as to a term in Scientology, if this is a 7 term your Honor wants defined, I can get an 8 interpretation that -- 9 THE COURT: I think that is kind of what it 10 says. And I remember Mr. Prince indicated that 11 Mr. Miscavige had said he had to have his head put 12 on a pike. And I just wanted to see if she 13 concluded the same as he did, that that could be a 14 real situation or a situation to call others -- not 15 really the definition as much as it is it could be a 16 situation where it was to show others what would 17 happen if they didn't follow the rules but might not 18 be -- could be real, could be not real. 19 Mr. Prince indicated his was not real, although 20 it did seem as if perhaps it was real. But -- 21 MR. LIEBERMAN: All right. 22 THE COURT: -- I wasn't challenging the 23 definition. 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. 25 THE COURT: I was just wanting to know more or 169 1 less if there was a situation where a head was on a 2 pike where it wasn't necessarily a real situation. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q All right, look at Exhibit 190 called "Verbal tech 5 penalties." Are you familiar with that? 6 A I am. 7 Q What does that mean? 8 MR. MOXON: Again, objection. It speaks for 9 itself. 10 THE COURT: I don't even have it. Where is it? 11 MR. DANDAR: I believe I handed it to you. 12 THE COURT: Did you? 13 MR. MOXON: It says what it says. I don't know 14 why Mr. Dandar is asking her what it means, and I 15 object to it for the reasons that Mr. Lieberman has 16 been discussing in the past month. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q Let me rephrase the question. When it says, "Any 19 person found to be using verbal tech shall be subject to a 20 court of ethics," what is "verbal tech"? 21 A That is what I have been doing in this courtroom 22 today, talking about technical aspects of Scientology 23 without having the bulletin in front of me and reading 24 verbatim from the bulletin. 25 Another example is the gentleman over there just 170 1 stood up and said -- somebody stood up and said it is what 2 it is, you don't discuss it or talk about it. That is 3 verbal tech. 4 So in Scientology it is forbidden to discuss 5 aspects of the technology -- 6 THE COURT: Didn't I read something that said 7 if it isn't written -- 8 THE WITNESS: It isn't true. 9 THE COURT: -- it isn't true? If it isn't 10 written, it isn't true. Are those the words of L. 11 Ron Hubbard? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE COURT: Is that in a policy letter 14 somewhere? 15 THE WITNESS: It is in a policy letter, yes. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Does that saying by Mr. Hubbard have anything to 18 do with anyone but Mr. Hubbard being able to change the 19 tech? 20 A It -- 21 MR. MOXON: Objection. Again, interpretation. 22 She's already defined it. 23 THE COURT: You know, Mr. Moxon, this has been 24 subject to a lot of -- a lot of objection. And I am 25 going to make the same consistent ruling, which is 171 1 basically you-all can argue that as a legal matter 2 but for now we're going to go ahead and hear her 3 explanation. And if I buy your legal argument, then 4 none of this will matter. You do not have to 5 preserve it. It has been preserved over and over 6 and over. 7 MR. MOXON: I know. I'm sorry. 8 THE COURT: I don't want to hear it again. 9 MR. LIEBERMAN: I think that was directed more 10 to me than you. 11 THE COURT: Pardon me? 12 MR. LIEBERMAN: That was probably directed more 13 at me than at Mr. Moxon. 14 THE COURT: Well, it was directed at you 15 before. I told you that before. 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. 17 THE COURT: This time I told Mr. Moxon. 18 MR. WEINBERG: And I suspect I fall in that 19 category. 20 THE COURT: You probably have been told once or 21 twice. But that is probably good for a 35-day 22 hearing. 23 MR. WEINBERG: I don't think that is bad at 24 all. 25 THE WITNESS: Could I have the question again? 172 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 (Last question read back by the reporter.) 3 A And the saying again was -- 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q If it isn't written, it isn't true. 6 A No, I wouldn't say directly. There are other 7 policies written by Mr. Hubbard which expressly state that 8 the policy letters he has written and the bulletins he wrote 9 could only be changed by himself, they could not be changed 10 by anyone else. 11 Q Is one of those policies "The integrity of 12 source"? 13 A I think so. Yes. 14 Q Is another one "Keep Scientology working"? 15 A Yes. 16 Q How high was your highest position as a Sea Org 17 member? 18 MR. MOXON: Objection. Asked and answered. 19 THE COURT: If it was, I have forgotten it. 20 MR. WEINBERG: She said commodore something. 21 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't give that as an 22 answer. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q What was your highest Sea Org rank? 25 A Oh. Rank? Commander right arm. I did give that 173 1 before. 2 Q All right. On the scale of ranks from the bottom, 3 to the very top being Mr. Hubbard, where did you fit in? 4 THE COURT: Are you talking now about the Sea 5 Org? 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q Yes, on the Sea Org? 8 A Well, above my rank came the rank of captain. And 9 above that came the rank of commodore. 10 Q So you were two ranks down from Mr. Hubbard? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Okay. Were you ever declared? 13 MR. MOXON: Objection. Asked and answered. 14 MR. DANDAR: I don't think so. 15 THE COURT: I don't think so. Overruled. 16 A Declared? 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q By the Church of Scientology, declared? 19 A Yes, as a suppressive person? 20 Q Yes. 21 A Yes. I was. 22 THE COURT: She said she was a suppressive 23 person. I thought being declared was a piece of 24 paper like Mr. Oliver had. 25 MR. DANDAR: That is what I thought, too. 174 1 THE COURT: Did you get a piece of paper? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. Twice. Your Honor, 3 I was declared twice. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q Okay. Now, I'm just going to tell you this. In 6 evidence -- 7 THE COURT: Could I ask you a question? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 THE COURT: When you said you were at some 10 level, is that an OT level you were talking about? 11 THE WITNESS: Mmm, was that the level of 12 commander right arm? 13 THE COURT: No. You were talking about you 14 worked at the level of a 7 or 8 or -- 15 THE WITNESS: Class 7 or Class 8. 16 THE COURT: I don't think I ever had anybody 17 tell me they were a class anything. They would 18 always have been talking about -- I heard about 19 OT -- 20 THE WITNESS: OT, yes. 21 THE COURT: -- and clear. 22 THE WITNESS: The word "class" in Scientology 23 is used for a training level. When somebody does 24 training on specific procedures, such as either the 25 administrative procedures in Scientology or the 175 1 technical auditing procedures, they are given a 2 classification. And they go from 0, all of the way 3 up to 10, 11, 12. And I got up to 7. 4 THE COURT: That has nothing to do with an OT? 5 THE WITNESS: No. 6 THE COURT: That is something else? 7 THE WITNESS: Right. An OT is a spiritual 8 level one reaches in Scientology. 9 THE COURT: That is on the bridge? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is on the bridge. That 11 is on one side of the bridge. The training is on 12 the other side of the bridge. 13 THE COURT: All right. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Early on in -- this morning, the judge told you 16 that there are two different viewpoints by experts as to how 17 Lisa McPherson died, one being she died suddenly, 18 unexpectedly, and the other being she died slowly from 19 severe dehydration. 20 I want you to assume that according to the 21 plaintiff's experts she died slowly from severe dehydration, 22 that Heather Hof Petzod, who was in training for deputy 23 inspection and reports, I believe, 17 years old, was 24 hand-delivering reports to Mr. Kartuzinski saying that Lisa 25 was not eating or drinking enough to survive, she was 176 1 declining physically, her condition was getting worse and 2 Heather was frantic and she delivered those reports daily, 3 commencing, according to her sworn testimony to the 4 prosecutor, on December 2, December 3, December 4 and 5 perhaps December 5. 6 And if the medical experts state that she died 7 from severe dehydration, she was in a coma during those days 8 is true, can you explain -- 9 THE COURT: Not a coma. You have several 10 things wrong with your question. Just from my 11 knowledge, number one, I don't know that anybody 12 ever said it was slow or fast. What they said was 13 it would have been obvious, and she was in a coma 14 not as we would know it, not as you and I might know 15 a coma where you are gone and there is no coming 16 back -- 17 THE WITNESS: Unconscious, yes. 18 THE COURT: A coma, as a nurse, you might know 19 this was a -- 20 MR. DANDAR: Uremic. 21 THE COURT: -- uremic coma where somebody could 22 be alerted but if they weren't alerted, they would 23 be basically asleep or out. 24 THE WITNESS: That's right. 25 THE COURT: Also, I have not read all of 177 1 Ms. Hof's data, but I started to and I read the part 2 about the State Attorney and I thought she indicated 3 that those were perhaps three days, 5th, 4th and 4 3rd. But you would know that better than I. So 5 I'll let you talk about -- 6 MR. DANDAR: When I combined the other 7 deposition I took and used those statements -- and 8 I'll get corrected, I'm sure -- but I believe it 9 starts on the 2nd of December. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q So, anyway, groggy, somnolent state, this uremic 13 coma state, do you have -- based on your experience and 14 understanding as to Scientology as to why it was obvious, as 15 the medical doctors say, why nothing was done sooner to save 16 Lisa McPherson? 17 MR. MOXON: Objection, your Honor. Improper 18 hypothetical. 19 THE COURT: It may be an improper hypothetical. 20 Then the answer will be as worthless as the 21 hypothetical. I honestly have not read enough to 22 know. I can't tell. 23 MR. MOXON: She's obviously not qualified to 24 give an opinion like this. Mr. Dandar is asking her 25 for some sort of expert opinion on everything to do 178 1 with medical testimony. 2 THE COURT: Actually, I think his question had 3 to do with Scientology. 4 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 5 THE COURT: And I'm not sure if she qualifies 6 as an expert there or not. For purposes of this 7 hearing, I'm going to allow it, depending on what 8 she's going to say. Let me see what she has to say. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Go ahead. 11 A Could I have the question again? 12 Q Yes. Based on that medical testimony and the 13 testimony of the attendant, Ms. Hof, do you have an opinion, 14 based upon your experience in Scientology, as to why nothing 15 would have been done sooner for Lisa McPherson? 16 A Mmm, I do. Again, it's surmise. And that is that 17 Heather Hof's report was one report amongst many that were 18 getting to Alain Kartuzinski. 19 In my experience in Scientology, when there is a 20 situation ongoing like Lisa's was -- which could be termed 21 critical, severe -- there was a flood of dispatches, memos, 22 internal memos, forwarding backwards, forward, from the 23 watchers to Alain Kartuzinski, from Alain Kartuzinski to 24 Senior CS International Raymond Hupp (phonetic), and 25 possibly to the captain, FSO Debbie Cook, and possibly to 179 1 Department of Special Affairs FSO. And he was getting a 2 flood of communications back. He might have been getting 3 communications from the MLO, from the watchers, from his 4 superiors. 5 One report by Heather Hof in such a flurry of 6 communications can get lost. It can get overlooked. And I 7 think the situation in those last three or four days was 8 severe enough with whatever else was going on, including 9 maybe auditors checking up on Lisa, that that possibly could 10 have -- 11 Q Possibly could have what? 12 A It could have occurred that Heather Hof's reports 13 were overlooked or just rapidly scanned and not comprehended 14 because of all of the flurry of paperwork. 15 Q Okay. And what does it mean to you that none of 16 her reports, not one of her reports, have been produced? 17 A Mmm -- 18 MR. MOXON: Same objection, your Honor. Object 19 to the form. 20 A Very serious, because no case supervisor or 21 auditor -- 22 THE COURT: Overruled. 23 A -- or anyone responsible for the care of the 24 preclear can adequately -- adequately do their job as 25 written by Hubbard, Mr. Hubbard, if they don't have all of 180 1 the information, all of the data relevant to a preclear. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q And what does it mean to you that none of these 4 reports that you believe should have been -- existed from 5 OSA and from the senior case supervisor international, 6 Mr. Mithoff, back and forth with Mr. Kartuzinski, not one of 7 those have been produced. What does it mean to you to have 8 all those records missing? 9 MR. MOXON: Objection. Assumes facts not in 10 evidence. 11 A Me? Again, it's my surmise, but it is that there 12 was something in those records that would have -- Mmm -- 13 placed Scientology into a PR flap or the FSO in Clearwater, 14 Florida, which would be a PR flap, and they could not be 15 produced -- 16 THE COURT: FSO is what? 17 THE WITNESS: Flag Service Organization. 18 THE COURT: Oh. Oh. I'm sorry, that is the -- 19 MR. WEINBERG: It has been 35 days, Judge. 20 THE COURT: Yes. Okay. I'm sorry, did you 21 finish your answer? 22 THE WITNESS: I did. Thank you, ma'am. 23 THE COURT: Would the mere fact that there was 24 perhaps some negligence involved in this watch, that 25 they overlooked this and maybe they should have 181 1 taken her to the hospital sooner, would that be such 2 that -- is that just it, that that would cause -- 3 THE WITNESS: That is my thought on it, your 4 Honor. She should have gone to the hospital 5 earlier. And for some reason, maybe it was the -- 6 the watchers who were watching her were just not 7 familiar with the deterioration of a physical body 8 and did not see it clearly enough to include that in 9 their reports which, then, along with Heather Hof's 10 reports, would have given Mr. Kartuzinski a very 11 clear picture that something was going on. 12 On the other hand, I also think -- and I was 13 going to mention it earlier and it slipped my 14 mind -- there is another thought that I had. And 15 that is that if Lisa was trying to get away and was 16 trying to get home, it puts a different aspect on 17 her being kept in isolation. She could have been 18 kept until she -- her situation -- her mental 19 situation was resolved and she no longer wanted to 20 leave Scientology, she agreed to stay. 21 I'm saying that because I have experienced in 22 the past, when I was in the Sea Org, that happening. 23 Sea Org members who wanted to leave the ship were 24 held on the ship until they received auditing or 25 security checks or ethics conditions and, in an 182 1 attempt to resolve their intention to leave, to 2 depart. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q Has the Flag in Clearwater -- is that the 5 successor of the ship Flag? 6 THE COURT: That is the Flag Land Base, as 7 opposed to the ship. 8 A It is the Flag Land Base. But it is also 9 international management in Los Angeles or in California, 10 because both of those existed on the ship so it is -- it 11 split in two soon after it came ashore. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q Your understanding of the Lisa McPherson Trust and 14 your understanding of the Cult Awareness Network, CAN, is 15 there any similarity between the two organizations? 16 A Knowing -- 17 THE COURT: How could she tell? She has never 18 been a part of LMT. 19 A Yes, knowing so little about the LMT -- I do 20 believe that CAN promoted deprogrammings. Also I heard 21 lateral kidnappings and deprogrammings. I do not believe 22 the Lisa McPherson Trust did. 23 MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right. That is all I 24 have. 25 THE COURT: Cross-examine. 183 1 I don't think I ever got an answer -- I don't 2 think I ever finished my question. 3 My question was is if you assume that there 4 were -- there was all this flurry of reports and 5 somehow they are not in there, therefore, somebody 6 either negligently or deliberately destroyed these 7 reports or withheld these reports or put them in the 8 wastebasket or shredded them -- 9 THE WITNESS: Circular file or something. 10 THE COURT: -- would that have been something 11 done even if the Heather Hof report said we have to 12 do something, we have to change the course of 13 action, something needs to be done? 14 I guess what I'm trying to tell you -- what I'm 15 trying to suggest, I tried to suggest it to counsel 16 here, as well, that that is far less than what the 17 one side is trying to make of those missing reports. 18 THE WITNESS: Right. Right. 19 THE COURT: I mean, hospitals get sued for 20 negligence every day. Doctors get sued for 21 negligence every day. Nursing homes get sued. 22 There isn't anybody that takes care of somebody that 23 doesn't get sued for negligence. It happens whether 24 they are responsible or they are not responsible. 25 But it's a lot worse if the reports are missing 184 1 because it looks like there is something worse going 2 on than just a simple lack of care. 3 THE WITNESS: There is also another possible 4 thought which came to my mind when I was going 5 through the folders, and that is that Heather Hof's 6 reports -- that was one report amongst many that 7 differed from the majority. She was urging action 8 be taken on Lisa, and the others were simply 9 reporting as it was happening, she was taking food 10 and water and messing up a bit, but -- so forth. 11 So it is possible that Heather Hof's reports 12 were marked as flappy. She was making too much out 13 of it. Her reports was she was too excitable and, 14 therefore, no one should take too much notice of her 15 reports. 16 But that is just my thought. 17 THE COURT: Well, there would have been no 18 authority, though, to just take those reports 19 because of that and throw them in the wastebasket, 20 would there? 21 THE WITNESS: No. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon. 23 MR. MOXON: Yes, Judge. 24 CROSS-EXAMINATION 25 BY MR. MOXON: 185 1 Q In 1991 you were heavily involved in violent 2 deprogramming activities. Isn't that right? 3 A No, it's not. 4 Q Well, you haven't used -- you haven't actually 5 used the term to describe the business that you and your 6 husband have where you said -- you kind of generally 7 described it, you said you were working with families. 8 A I said -- 9 Q Isn't that right? 10 A -- earlier today that Scientology has defined the 11 word "programming" as kidnapping and coercively pulling 12 beliefs from one's mind and changing those beliefs. 13 And I said we do not do that. 14 Q Well, you just said, though, a moment ago that the 15 Cult Awareness Network actually did violent deprogrammings 16 and kidnappings? 17 A I did. 18 Q So the term "deprogramming" then means to try to 19 change someone's viewpoint of their religion? 20 A No. Deprogramming consists of kidnapping and 21 holding a person against their will. 22 Q So you -- 23 A That is the general -- general understanding of 24 the term. 25 Q And it is -- 186 1 A And when I mentioned it came to deprogrammings, 2 that is the definition, in addition, I was referring to. 3 Q So you were doing deprogrammings in a non-violent 4 way? 5 A We weren't doing deprogrammings. 6 Q What did you call it? What is the term you used? 7 A Interventions. 8 Q Intervention? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And -- 11 A And basic two-way communication as I learned in 12 Scientology. 13 Q You are intervening in someone's life to change 14 their viewpoint. Is that it? 15 A We were helping a family to intervene. We were 16 helping the family to intervene with their loved one, their 17 child or spouse or parent. 18 Q In fact -- 19 A The family was the one that wanted to intervene. 20 Q They paid you to do this. Correct? 21 A Oh, yes. Yes. We were paid for our work. 22 Q You solicited families to -- 23 A No, we never solicited -- 24 THE COURT: Now, wait. 25 A -- a single family. 187 1 THE COURT: You'll have to let him ask his 2 whole question. He said "to" and you started 3 talking. 4 And you are going to have to wait for her to 5 answer fully. 6 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 7 THE COURT: Wait until he's done with his 8 question, then you'll pause and then you answer. 9 Okay? 10 THE WITNESS: Good. 11 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Moxon. 12 BY MR. MOXON: 13 Q Didn't, in fact, you solicit families to retain 14 you and your husband for this purpose, intervention? 15 A No, we did not. I already mentioned that we did 16 not. 17 Q Many of your referrals came through the Cult 18 Awareness Network, didn't they? 19 A No. A percentage did. But not the majority. 20 Q In fact, you used to give speeches at Cult 21 Awareness Network conferences, isn't that right? 22 A Yes, we did. We gave speeches elsewhere, too. 23 Q And at some of these speeches you gave at the Cult 24 Awareness Network, you were introduced to people that 25 subsequently hired you as an interventionist or 188 1 deprogrammer? 2 A That is correct. That usually happens at most 3 meetings that people get together at. 4 Q Now, these CAN conferences, there were a lot of, 5 oh, violent deprogrammers that would attend the conference 6 also, isn't that right? 7 A Excuse me. Can you tell me that again -- ask me 8 that again? 9 Q Weren't there violent deprogrammers that would 10 also attend CAN conferences to get referrals for clients? 11 A I can't say that for sure because I never saw 12 anyone do a violent deprogramming. 13 Q You are aware, though, that a number of CAN 14 deprogrammers were arrested for violent acts? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Those were people that you were associated with in 17 CAN, correct? 18 A The ones who were arrested, no, we did not 19 associate with those. 20 Q Well, how about -- 21 A There was one -- one Joseph Zimhart, we chatted to 22 him sometimes at conferences, but -- and I think we met him 23 once in his home in northern New Mexico. And that was it. 24 Q He was arrested several times for acts of violence 25 during deprogrammings. Right? 189 1 A I don't know how many times. 2 THE COURT: Can I ask you a question, 3 Mr. Moxon? Is the violence considered the 4 kidnapping? Or is there violence beyond the 5 kidnapping? 6 MR. MOXON: Well, there is violence beyond the 7 kidnappings. For example, Mr. Zimhart was one of 8 their CAN deprogrammers that, after the kidnapping, 9 the persons were held against their will and they 10 wouldn't be permitted to leave until they either 11 escaped or the deprogramming was over. 12 THE COURT: Kidnapping is considered a violent 13 act, crime of violence. So is that the violence you 14 are speaking of? 15 MR. MOXON: I'm actually speaking of that, but 16 more. 17 BY MR. MOXON: 18 Q You knew Galen Kelly? 19 A Only by sight. And I think I was introduced to 20 him once. 21 Q He was convicted of a violent deprogramming? 22 A Yes. I did not know him -- I mean, I don't know 23 him as well as I know other people in this courtroom. I 24 knew of him more than I knew him personally. 25 Q How about Karen Reinhart (phonetic)? Did you know 190 1 her? 2 A Didn't know her. 3 Q You knew of her? 4 A No. I didn't -- I have never even seen her as far 5 as I believe. 6 Q How about Randall Berkey (phonetic)? 7 A I think I met him once at a CAN conference. 8 Q He was arrested for deprogramming, also? 9 A I don't know. 10 Q Did you know Mark Bloksom (phonetic)? 11 A I don't think so. 12 Q Did you know of him? 13 A I think I read of him, saw his name, in a CAN -- 14 no, in a Freedom Magazine -- Scientology magazine article 15 talking about his deprogramming activities. That is a 16 Scientology magazine. 17 Q It was your understanding that the Church 18 generally, or Church members, believed that you were 19 involved in deprogrammings as you have defined it, right, 20 that is, violent acts? 21 A I believe that most Church members were told that 22 is what we do, even though we don't. 23 Q And I believe you said, if I wrote it down 24 correctly, that you were working with families to "get over 25 their hostility toward Scientology" so they could 191 1 dialogue -- 2 A That is correct, yes. The rift with most families 3 and their Scientology member is one of hostility. The 4 parents are hostile to the fact that their loved one has 5 gone into Scientology. And the Scientologist is hostile 6 because his parents are trying to rattle his -- Mmm -- his 7 parade, so to speak. And the first step -- 8 Q You -- 9 A I'm sorry, go ahead. 10 Q That is fine. And in these interventions that you 11 did where you are intervening in these families, in fact a 12 number of them resulted in the families breaking up or being 13 asunder in some fashion, isn't that right? 14 A A very small percentage, unfortunately, did. The 15 great majority didn't. They were successful. 16 Q David Houghton is the one you mentioned? 17 A Yes, I did. 18 Q In David Houghton's situation, his family was 19 basically destroyed by what you did, wasn't it? 20 A Not that I'm aware of. 21 Q Did you ever read the declaration that 22 Mr. Houghton filed after your attempted deprogramming of him 23 and his wife? 24 A I think I did. But not everything in that 25 declaration was correct, from what I had experienced with 192 1 Lori and Mr. Houghton, with him and his wife. 2 MR. MOXON: May I approach, your Honor? 3 THE COURT: You may. 4 MR. MOXON: I don't know what the next exhibit 5 is. What is next? 6 MR. DANDAR: For the record, we object to 7 Mr. Moxon continuing to accuse the witness of 8 deprogramming when she said many times she has never 9 deprogrammed anyone. 10 THE WITNESS: Could I -- 11 THE COURT: No, you really can't, not during 12 cross-examination. The difference is that if he's 13 using deprogramming perhaps in one form, she's using 14 it in another, he maybe doesn't agree with what she 15 says and it's his cross-examination. So, overruled. 16 MR. MOXON: It may be, too, a matter of 17 semantics. Some of the deprogrammers say there is a 18 term violent deprogramming, involuntary and 19 voluntary deprogramming. 20 In the Scott decision I referenced yesterday of 21 the Pentecostal client that I had in Washington 22 state who got the big judgment against CAN and 23 deprogrammers there, there was a discussion in the 24 decision that I have given to the Court where the 25 Court said calling it "Involuntary deprogramming is 193 1 just kind of whitewashing a really violent act," 2 but -- 3 BY MR. MOXON: 4 Q So this was the incident in Indianola, you are 5 referring to -- 6 A Indianola, both in St. Joseph and Indianola. 7 Q They are near each other? 8 A Yes, probably within a 50-mile distance. 9 Q The St. Joseph incident and Indianola -- 10 A Were the same with the Houghton family. Yes. 11 Q You know David Houghton is a defendant in this 12 case. Correct? 13 A Yes, I do know that. 14 Q Now, in Mr. Houghton's declaration he said you 15 referred to yourself also as exit counselors. Is that 16 another term of art for your profession? 17 A We've never called ourselves exit counselors. 18 After the first year or so we started doing work, because to 19 be a counselor in California you have to be licensed, so 20 after we learned that, we started calling ourselves exit 21 consultants. So for a period of time, a number of years, we 22 called ourselves exit consultants, not exit counselors. 23 Q Obviously, as the term would apply, you are trying 24 to exit someone from something, right? 25 A We adopted the term because that was the term 194 1 being used by others doing this kind of work. 2 Q Yes. You were trying to exit a member from his 3 chosen religion. Right? 4 A Well, one could -- one could put that definition 5 onto it. But that is not the work we did. We didn't try to 6 coerce people or change their minds about Scientology. 7 Q But you put in your business card that you were a 8 cult exit consultant, didn't you? 9 A Well, that is what we called ourselves, exit 10 consultant. 11 Q Now, in your -- your exit counseling or exit 12 consulting or intervention -- let's just call it exit 13 counseling, can we do that, for the rest of the questions? 14 A Okay. Actually, intervention would be better 15 because shortly after we -- 16 THE COURT: It's a nice compromise. 17 MR. MOXON: Okay. 18 A Intervention. Good. 19 BY MR. MOXON: 20 Q In your intervention with the Whitfields -- I'm 21 sorry -- with the Houghtons, you came up with a plan for his 22 family where David Houghton's wife would lie to him, 23 correct, about what you were doing there? 24 A I don't believe we did. No. 25 Q Well, take a look at Paragraph 3. 195 1 A I know, but not everything in this declaration 2 is -- 3 MR. DANDAR: Object. Trying to impeach someone 4 with Mr. Houghton's -- a defendant in this case -- 5 affidavit. 6 THE COURT: He can have her refer to it. Of 7 course, if she said it is not true, then that is 8 what she said. 9 BY MR. MOXON: 10 Q Were you always totally above-board and made sure, 11 when you went to the family, you told them not to withhold 12 anything from the targets of your intervention? 13 A I don't understand the question. 14 Q Well, didn't you tell the family members in a 15 typical intervention that they would have to basically 16 misrepresent the purpose of your visit? 17 A I'm sorry, the question is too broad. It happened 18 so differently, family to family, with little instances of 19 this and that. I can't take it as a generality. 20 Q Well, let's take the Houghton family, first of 21 all. With the Houghton family, you first met with the -- I 22 guess with the brother -- some of the brothers and the 23 parents of the Houghtons? 24 A And other relatives, yes. 25 Q And you met them in a CAN conference, didn't you, 196 1 initially? 2 A I don't remember. 3 Q You -- 4 A You know more about it than I do. 5 Q Didn't you try to convince the family that they 6 should lie to David about the purpose of your visit to see 7 them? 8 A Not as far as I remember, no. 9 Q Didn't you work out a plan with them to explain 10 the purpose for being there? 11 A Lori worked out a plan with her family as to how 12 to explain the period of time she was staying with them so 13 that her husband was not suspicious as to why she was so 14 long with her family when we were there. 15 Q Now, both David Houghton and his wife Lori were 16 happily married Scientologists, weren't they, at the time 17 that you intervened in their lives? 18 A Yes. So I believe. 19 Q And you came into their lives and told their 20 family that they were in some danger with Scientology, there 21 was a problem with Scientology? 22 A No, we didn't, Mr. Moxon. The family already had 23 their own opinions and ideas about Scientology. 24 Almost every family we have worked with asked us 25 to help because they already had their -- they had already 197 1 done homework on it and found what they were scared of about 2 Scientology or concerned about. 3 Q You came to the family and gave them more 4 information, making them more scared, making them more 5 concerned about Scientology? 6 A No. No. We didn't. 7 Q Well, at the end of this -- at the end of this 8 attempted deprogramming of the Houghtons, did you know that 9 they separated? 10 A No -- yes, I think I read it in his -- if it is in 11 here, then that is where I read it. 12 Q Weren't they -- weren't the parents so upset about 13 what had happened that they demanded a refund of the money 14 they paid you for intervention? 15 A No. No. Lori's family were very grateful for the 16 help we had given. Mr. Houghton -- David Houghton's parents 17 asked for a refund. 18 Q They obviously weren't pleased with the 19 intervention? 20 A They weren't pleased. Right. And we promptly 21 gave them the refund. 22 Q Did you feel you helped the family in that sense 23 when you intervened in the family, helped the relationship 24 between David and his family? 25 A I think we helped Lori's parents and siblings to 198 1 understand that Scientology was a completely different 2 culture and they had to respect that culture in order to 3 gain Lori and David's respect for them in order to 4 reestablish that respect. 5 And they were very grateful to us all for 6 educating them in that and bringing them to see that so they 7 could better approach Lori and eventually David. 8 Q And they were so pleased with that that they 9 demanded a refund of the money? 10 A I already said -- 11 THE COURT: She covered that now. 12 A -- Lori's parents -- 13 THE COURT: You are talking about one side of 14 the family. She's talking about another side of the 15 family. Move on. 16 MR. MOXON: Okay. 17 THE COURT: What is the number on this exhibit, 18 by the way? 19 MR. MOXON: 260. I'll move that into evidence, 20 your Honor. 21 THE COURT: All right. It will be received. 22 BY MR. MOXON: 23 Q You demanded a retainer from the families that 24 you -- that hired you to intervene for their children, 25 right? 199 1 A On some occasions, yes. 2 Q And that was between $2,000 and $3,000 was your 3 standard retainer? 4 A That sounds about correct. 5 Q And you charge $1,000 a day, also, for your work? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Plus expenses? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Is it your position that you never tried to get 10 anyone away from Scientology with exit counseling, 11 intervention? 12 A No, we didn't. 13 Q That was not part of the purpose? 14 A No. If the family -- it was the family who wanted 15 their child or their -- the spouse or a parent to leave 16 Scientology. Usually that is the situation we ran into. 17 Q Now, of course the people that you -- the targets 18 of your counseling, your intervention, would typically be 19 very upset with being lied to by the family, having 20 misrepresentation as to what was going on with this 21 intervention, isn't that right? 22 A No. 23 MR. MOXON: May I approach? 24 THE COURT: You may. 25 MR. MOXON: I'm marking as Exhibit 261 a letter 200 1 from -- 2 BY MR. MOXON: 3 Q Well, can you identify this document? 4 A It is not addressed to anyone. No, I don't. 5 Q Is this your address, 661 North Occidental 6 Boulevard? 7 A Yes, but it is not addressed to anyone. There is 8 no addressee. 9 THE COURT: Well, what he wants to know, it is 10 a form letter that you used? 11 THE WITNESS: No, we never used a form letter, 12 your Honor, never. 13 THE COURT: I can see some sort of a signature, 14 although, granted, it certainly isn't complete, that 15 is for sure. So are you saying this is not your 16 literature? 17 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I would have to go through 18 it, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Well, go ahead and do that. 20 Well, obviously this was addressed to somebody, 21 right? I mean, this doesn't look -- I thought maybe 22 this was just something you pass out to everybody. 23 But this was a specific person, this looks like, it 24 is going to. 25 THE WITNESS: No, I don't recognize this letter 201 1 because I typically never wrote anything like this 2 to a family that we were working with, certainly not 3 in this detail. And never from the first person. I 4 mean, if we ever wrote a family, it was usually 5 written from Jerry and myself. So I don't recognize 6 this. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 BY MR. MOXON: 9 Q Okay. So this is not a letter you wrote 10 concerning -- it says, about David, you're going to build a 11 profile of David. You are saying this is not about David 12 Houghton? 13 A I don't recognize this. 14 Q Well, let me ask you this -- 15 THE COURT: You can't ask her anything more 16 about this if she doesn't authenticate it. 17 MR. MOXON: Okay. 18 BY MR. MOXON: 19 Q Let me see if I can refresh your recollection with 20 part of it, though, if I may. 21 If you look at Section F, which is on unnumbered 22 Page 3 -- 23 A Okay? 24 Q -- making reference to how long an intervention 25 lasts, and you can see Point 3 under the Letter F where it 202 1 says that you basically "want to brief the person on who 2 will take up and resolve his upset or anger when he finds 3 out the meeting was preplanned." 4 Do you see that? 5 A I do. 6 Q Is that a typical part of your briefing to the 7 family, to make sure that there was a means to handle the 8 anger or upset of the target of your intervention? 9 A Sometimes, but not that often. But I don't 10 remember ever writing a letter like this. I'm having -- I'm 11 having a problem that, if I may, your Honor -- 12 THE COURT: You haven't identified it. That 13 should be the end of it. 14 Move on, Counselor. 15 A And the reason I'm having a problem with it -- 16 THE COURT: We're done with it. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 BY MR. MOXON: 19 Q Well, when was the incident in England you 20 referenced? 21 A I didn't hear the question. 22 Q There was an incident in England where you talked 23 about that you said somebody was following you in England? 24 When was that? 25 A June, July, August, 1991. 203 1 Q Were you there for three months? 2 A Oh, no. No. No. It was sometime in that period 3 of time. I don't remember the exact date. 4 Q You don't know who it was that was allegedly 5 following you in England, do you? 6 A I'm sorry, I didn't hear. 7 Q You don't know who it was that allegedly following 8 you in England? 9 A We eventually found out one of them was Mr. Ben 10 Shaw, over there. 11 Mmm, Barbara Bradley, who was the head of the 12 department -- or the Office of Special Affairs in England. 13 We don't know that she was actively following us, but she 14 did appear at the bed and breakfast twice. 15 And there was another gentleman, and I have 16 forgotten his name. Mmm, a little bit taller than you are, 17 white hair, slender, good-looking. He came to the bed and 18 breakfast two or three times. And he was identified as a 19 Scientologist. 20 Q And it was your understanding that they thought 21 you were about to perform a kidnapping on a Scientologist? 22 A That is what the Exmouth Police told us, that they 23 had been approached by Scientologists and given smear packs 24 on my husband and myself and had been told that we were 25 planning to kidnap somebody in Exmouth and do a violent 204 1 deprogramming on that person. 2 Q Do you remember one of the targets of your 3 intervention named Mark Hess? 4 A Who? 5 Q Mark Hess? 6 A Yes, I do remember. 7 Q He was another Scientologist that you were hired 8 to attempt to exit counsel, correct? 9 A Not exit counsel. To help the family intervene. 10 Q And this one ended badly, too, the family being at 11 odds? 12 A Well, it didn't even start, actually. We were 13 scheduled to arrive at his parents' house, I think -- 14 THE COURT: Why would I care, in this hearing, 15 whether or not, in her line of work, she -- she does 16 a job people like or don't like? I mean, for this 17 hearing, if you are trying to establish that she is 18 what she is, she's admitted it. 19 MR. MOXON: Well, let me give you a number of 20 declarations and I'll show you, the point, your 21 Honor -- 22 THE COURT: You're not going to get 23 declarations in of some strangers that say they 24 didn't like what she did. She admitted what she 25 did. Whether or not she did a good job or not so 205 1 good a job isn't relevant for this hearing. Not for 2 this hearing. 3 What I take it is relevant for this hearing is 4 what she had to say about Lisa McPherson and the 5 fact that she -- she has brought some truth -- at 6 least she testified as true -- that Scientologists 7 were, in fact, some of the people following and 8 harassing suppressive persons. That is all that is 9 relevant. 10 MR. MOXON: Okay. Good enough. 11 THE COURT: Let me look through this and see if 12 there is anything else, so I don't forget. 13 BY MR. MOXON: 14 Q This may be my last question on this area then. 15 Ms. Whitfield, you would concede that a lot of 16 upset was caused in the lives of Scientologists in whose 17 families you intervened -- 18 A No, I don't. 19 Q Well, let me just mention a couple more then. 20 MR. DANDAR: Cumulative, Judge, and irrelevant. 21 THE COURT: Sustained. 22 MR. MOXON: All right, well, I'll file the rest 23 of these. I have affidavits. At some point when we 24 take her deposition later, we'll do it that way. 25 206 1 BY MR. MOXON: 2 Q Well, there was a woman named Julie Ann Easterling 3 who was a very recent attempt to deprogram. Do you remember 4 that? 5 A No. I had nothing to do with her. 6 Q You were in communication with her husband, a 7 fellow named Douglas Carter, after you signed on to work for 8 Mr. Dandar? 9 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon -- 10 A No. 11 THE COURT: I'll not tell you again. Here is 12 the deal. This is the hearing -- they didn't get 13 into a great deal as far as what it was she did. 14 You have gone into Mr. Houghton quite a great deal. 15 I don't care whether she did a good job or 16 didn't do a good job. I really don't care whether 17 she upset families or didn't. 18 I hear about two things I think are relevant to 19 this: Whether or not she was followed. Whether or 20 not her bank records were obtained. Whether or not 21 she was followed by members from the Church of 22 Scientology. Whether or not the Church of 23 Scientology went and got -- tried to get her credit 24 report. Whether or not the members of the Church of 25 Scientology were, in fact, doing what she says they 207 1 do to suppressive persons, and other persons have 2 also testified to that. That is one area. 3 The other area is all of the things she 4 purported to testify about what she knew about this 5 case. 6 Other than that -- I think that is all that is 7 relevant. 8 MR. MOXON: Okay. Good enough. 9 THE COURT: In this case, only as it pertains 10 to this hearing -- 11 MR. MOXON: All right. 12 THE COURT: -- which is whether or not Mr. -- 13 Mr. Dandar falsely, knowing it was false, filed a 14 complaint, that type of thing. 15 MR. MOXON: All right. 16 BY MR. MOXON: 17 Q Ms. Whitfield, have you requested credit of any 18 kind in the past ten years, any commercial credit at all? 19 A I don't understand your question. For myself? Or 20 somebody else? 21 Q You and/or your husband? 22 A I have requested my credit report a number of 23 times, yes. 24 Q I'm talking about requesting credit, that is, 25 using a credit card or -- 208 1 A I see. 2 Q -- acquiring a credit card? 3 A No, I have not requested a credit card in the last 4 probably 15 -- or 12 years. 5 Q So you don't own a credit card? 6 A Yes, I own a few. But they were -- I was sent a 7 form saying that I have been preapproved and I just have to 8 sign on the line. And I sent it in and got the card. I 9 didn't request it initially myself. I didn't make the first 10 request. 11 Q All right. But you have filled out forms to get 12 new credit cards in the past -- 13 A Yes. 14 Q -- 15 years? 15 A Yes. 16 Q How many credit cards do you have? 17 A Mmm, I am not -- 18 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm not willing to go 19 into that without -- with our credit records being 20 obtained. 21 THE COURT: I'll not let him ask too many 22 questions. I don't know why he would care. The 23 truth of the matter is whether you know it or not, 24 when you sign on these little forms, they will get 25 your credit record, they will call the credit 209 1 company. Even though it says you are preapproved -- 2 you don't know -- they are going to call, after you 3 submit your report, to make sure that your credit is 4 okay before they issue you a card. 5 THE WITNESS: Right. 6 THE COURT: I mean, Lord, they'll send things 7 out to people whose credit is awful. You may -- you 8 know, you and I both say, we may or may not apply, 9 so -- so I'm not going to let either side get into 10 what sort of debts do you have. That is not 11 relevant. 12 He wants to know how many cards, for example, 13 have you applied for in the last 10 years? 14 THE WITNESS: That is different to the question 15 he asked me. He asked me how many cards I have. 16 BY MR. MOXON: 17 Q Well, the Judge's question is fine. 18 A Okay. Probably over the last -- how long? 19 THE COURT: Ten years. 20 A Ten years? Probably maybe three, maybe four. 21 BY MR. MOXON: 22 Q Have you -- 23 A Maybe even two. 24 Q Have you bought a car in the past ten years? 25 A Yes. 210 1 Q On credit? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Have you moved in the past ten years? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Have you bought a new house or -- 6 THE COURT: Did you finance your house? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 BY MR. MOXON: 9 Q You live in a house then? 10 A Yes. 11 Q More than once over the past ten years? 12 A No. 13 Q Have you made any purchases of large appliances 14 over the past ten years on credit? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Have you made any purchases of anything else, 17 something expensive, in the past ten years? 18 A Not apart from what we covered. 19 Q Now, you have indicated one of the documents that 20 Judge Schaeffer was asking you about earlier was a credit 21 alert company where, when someone asks for credit, they -- 22 you purchased that so you would have this system -- 23 A Right. That was in January this year. 24 Q The purpose of that is to keep your credit clean 25 so you will know when people are asking for credit for you? 211 1 A Yes. 2 Q Now, you don't actually know if these requests to 3 the credit companies had to do with your own request for 4 credit that we've just discussed, do you? 5 A I'm fairly certain they don't because I haven't -- 6 Mmm -- I haven't purchased a car around about that time, or 7 a home, or applied or got a credit card -- a new credit 8 card. Nothing of that kind at all. 9 THE COURT: When was the inquiry made? 10 THE WITNESS: The inquiry was made in -- it 11 doesn't say when the inquiry was -- it does, the 7th 12 of January, 2002. 13 THE COURT: Okay. So the relevant question 14 regarding that would be whether she had bought a 15 house, car, applied for credit or anything of that 16 sort around that time. Not in the last ten years. 17 THE WITNESS: And the answer is I didn't. 18 BY MR. MOXON: 19 Q Did you use your credit card around that time? 20 A Mmm, we use our credit card -- some credit cards 21 for small things. But for no major, major purchases, no. 22 Q So it is just speculation on your part as to what 23 happened here, you have got no evidence that anyone 24 connected with the Church made some unauthorized demand for 25 your credit, do you? 212 1 A No. As I mentioned, I have no idea who it was 2 except it was the company in San Diego, in Poway, mentioned 3 by the reporting -- 4 THE COURT: She already testified to that. 5 MR. MOXON: That is fine. 6 THE COURT: And I, frankly, think it is some 7 evidence, the fact it is a company that doesn't 8 exist. I'm not saying evidence of what. But she 9 followed it up. And there is somebody making a 10 report -- a request that is an unknown person. That 11 is very unusual. 12 BY MR. MOXON: 13 Q Well, did you find out this David Raskin didn't 14 exist? I thought you found he actually had three companies. 15 A No. No. You misunderstood what I said. 16 Q May I see the document you -- 17 A This -- let me get you -- 18 MR. MOXON: May I approach, your Honor? 19 THE COURT: You may. You know, this is kind of 20 a waste of time. The deal is she doesn't know if 21 the Church of Scientology did it. And nobody is 22 going to get up here and say they did it. In fact, 23 they would testify they didn't. The fact of the 24 matter is nobody will ever know. 25 MR. MOXON: Well, I agree there is just the 213 1 inference, your Honor, that it was. And -- well, 2 I'll deal with that. 3 THE COURT: The inference is it is strange, a 4 strange occurrence. 5 But there is a further inference she was 6 followed by members of the Church of Scientology who 7 she has identified. Until such time as they testify 8 it is not true, it is true. 9 During the same period of time she has 10 identified members of the Church of Scientology 11 connected with some other things. Those things all 12 have to do with inferences of other situations. So 13 you're going to have to live with that. 14 MR. MOXON: Okay. 15 THE COURT: We also had a man testify one of 16 the things he did, when he was in OSA, was to try to 17 get peoples' credit reports. This is what he was 18 given by assignment. You'll have to live with that. 19 So there are things here that have come into this 20 case. But exploring this -- I mean, she doesn't 21 know any more than what she said. 22 MR. MOXON: Okay. Good enough. Just to 23 correct, unless I misheard Mr. Oliver, I think he 24 said someone allegedly gave him a credit report but 25 he didn't ask for one, didn't get one and doesn't 214 1 know how to do it. 2 THE COURT: Whatever he said, it will be there 3 in a couple days for us to look at. 4 MR. MOXON: Okay. 5 BY MR. MOXON: 6 Q Did you ever work in the MLO office? 7 A No, I don't think it was the MLO office. It was 8 the MO office when I was in Scientology. 9 Q Okay. Do you know what a medical flow is for the 10 MO's office? 11 A I don't know of it personally. I have heard of 12 it. I know it existed when I was in Scientology. 13 Q That was a flow of money for purchases of 14 medication or whatever is needed by people? 15 A Mmm -- 16 Q Correct? 17 A For emergencies, I think. 18 Q All right. 19 A Yes. 20 Q How much have you been paid by Mr. Dandar? 21 A Mmm, not a thing for this hearing. 22 Q How much have you been paid in total by 23 Mr. Dandar? 24 A Oh, I would have to look. 25 THE COURT: Give us your best guess. If you 215 1 don't know, that is -- it's a question he's allowed 2 to ask. And if you -- 3 A Maybe -- 4 THE COURT: Excuse me. When I talk, nobody 5 else talks. 6 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 7 THE COURT: All right. If you don't know, you 8 give it your best estimate. But let him know you 9 are giving it your best estimate. 10 A Between $15,000 and $20,000. 11 BY MR. MOXON: 12 Q Do you have a contract with Mr. Dandar? 13 A No. 14 Q Do you charge by the hour? 15 A Mmm, I think -- yes, I think so. I think that is 16 how I charged him. 17 Q How much do you charge by the hour? 18 A Mr. Moxon, it's been a while. And I don't 19 remember the details. I would have to go back and look at 20 them. 21 Q Does your husband also work for Mr. Dandar? 22 A No. 23 Q Have you sent him bills, Mr. Dandar? 24 A Yes. 25 Q So you have got records of -- 216 1 A Yes. Oh, yes. 2 Q Are you going to bill him for your work today? 3 A No. 4 Q By the way, did I see you come in with Mr. Oliver, 5 into the courtroom this morning? Did you come into the 6 courtroom with Mr. Oliver this morning? 7 A I think so, yes. 8 Q Is Mr. Oliver part of Mr. Dandar's trial team now? 9 A I have no idea. 10 Q When did Mr. Dandar hire you as a consultant? 11 A Approximately almost two years ago. Around about 12 August of 2000, I think. 13 Q Did he, at that time, ask you for your opinions 14 with respect to what happened to Lisa McPherson? 15 A No. Not at the time. I had no idea what happened 16 to Lisa. All I heard was the news reports and things like 17 that. 18 Q Did Mr. Dandar ever ask you, during the year 2000, 19 what you thought happened to Lisa McPherson? 20 A I don't believe so, no. When he asked me to look 21 at the preclear folders, I did that. And then we spoke 22 about the contents. But I don't think we spoke initially 23 about what happened to Lisa. 24 Q Did he give you a copy of the complaint as it 25 existed when he hired you? 217 1 A I think so. Yes. 2 Q Did he ask you that it looked correct to you what 3 he alleged in the complaint? 4 A I didn't know the specifics of what happened to 5 Lisa so I had no idea if the complaint was correct. 6 Q Now, you have been involved in litigation, you 7 mentioned earlier in your testimony, with the Church. 8 Right? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And in 1986 you were the named plaintiff in an 11 attempted class-action suit. Correct? 12 A I was one of six named plaintiffs. 13 Q And at that time, you were also involved in, for 14 want of better term, a splinter group of the Church called 15 AAC in Santa Barbara? 16 A No. I was never a member of that group. 17 Q You used to go there, didn't you? 18 A I went there once or twice. And that was all. 19 Q In fact, you were married there, weren't you? 20 A Yes. But that was a few years later after my 21 first visit. I knew David Mayo very well in Scientology and 22 asked him to marry myself and my husband. That had nothing 23 to do with the AAC in Santa Barbara. 24 Q They were your friends? 25 A David Mayo is a friend of mine. David and Judy 218 1 both. 2 Q People in the splinter group are friends of yours, 3 too? 4 A I'm not sure which people you are referring to. 5 Q Well, I don't know. I don't know. The people 6 that were up there, were they your friends or not? 7 A Some I knew and some I was friendly with, and some 8 I didn't know. 9 Q Now, the purpose of this class action was to try, 10 in part, to get a receiver to take over the assets of the 11 Church? 12 A Yes. That is correct. 13 Q And also, expressly, it was intended to change the 14 Church management? 15 A That is correct. 16 THE COURT: What was the year of this lawsuit, 17 please? 18 MR. MOXON: It was filed in December of 1986. 19 THE COURT: Thank you. 20 BY MR. MOXON: 21 Q Part of the purpose of this lawsuit, also, was to 22 assist David Mayo's litigation against the Church, wasn't 23 it? 24 A I would have to review the -- the records. I 25 don't recall that it did -- if you have something to show 219 1 me, that would be fine, because I don't -- really don't 2 recall. 3 Q I marked as -- 4 A Oh, I see, okay. 5 Q -- Defendant's 262 a document dated February 4, 6 1986 called "F.A.I.R." at the top. Are you familiar with 7 this document? 8 A Yes. Yes. I'm familiar with this. 9 Q In fact, at the end it is signed by the F.A.I.R. 10 Steering Committee, which includes you and your husband? 11 A Yes. And four other people. 12 Q Look at Paragraph 2. It states, "This is the 13 action that can torpedo the Church's suit again David Mayo. 14 It can result in David Mayo winning his suit. One of the 15 factors that will bring this about is to position the tech 16 materials, including confidential materials, as our 17 property." Right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q So part of the intention of your suit was to 20 somehow take over the possession or the legal right to 21 Church technical materials, in particular, the Hubbard -- 22 A For all Scientologists, not for myself personally. 23 Q Well, it was for the members of this class? 24 A Right. 25 Q It also indicates in Paragraph 4 -- well, we 220 1 mentioned earlier, that you could potentially get a receiver 2 appointed if, as you hope, the IRS would issue indictments 3 against Church management? 4 A That is correct. Yes, this is -- this is -- this 5 is a newsletter that was written at that time. 6 Q Paragraph 12 of Exhibit 262 says, "In answer to 7 the question 'Who will take over the Church of Scientology 8 when top management is removed,' there are many 9 possibilities." 10 So this was also a goal was to deplace Church 11 management that existed at that time? 12 THE COURT: She -- 13 A Yes. 14 THE COURT: -- already admitted that. 15 BY MR. MOXON: 16 Q And that includes David Miscavige and other 17 ecclesiastical leaders. Yes? 18 A I think I already answered that. 19 THE COURT: Okay. What you have to worry about 20 is when I decide you don't have to answer because a 21 lot of times I have heard all I want to hear. But, 22 really, until they object, the truth of the matter 23 is he can ask it a thousand times. And it is only 24 if I happen to intervene because I can't stand it 25 another time because they don't object that you have 221 1 to answer. If he asks the same question 500 2 times -- 3 THE WITNESS: I'll answer. 4 THE COURT: -- you have to answer, until these 5 lawyers over here object, or until I say you don't. 6 All right? Mr. Moxon has the right to keep asking 7 until those things happen. 8 This is Number 262. Is that right? 9 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor. 10 BY MR. MOXON: 11 Q The amount of damages that you sought in your 12 complaint was $1 billion, right? 13 A That is correct. 14 Q Now, you and I obviously have a little history on 15 this. I litigated this case, right, or I defended the case? 16 A Yes, I remember you from that time. 17 Q And your complaint was thrown out five times, 18 wasn't it? 19 A Yes. We were given leave to amend. 20 Q And eventually you were no longer given leave to 21 amend because the complaint was found to be frivolous? 22 A Right. That is correct. 23 Q And you had to pay sanctions, also, for discovery 24 abuse in that case. Do you remember that? 25 A That is correct. 222 1 Q You also lost on appeal to the California Court of 2 Appeals, didn't you? 3 A That is correct. 4 THE COURT: Are you moving to introduce this? 5 MR. MOXON: Yes, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Any objection? 7 MR. DANDAR: Relevance. But otherwise, no. 8 THE COURT: I'll let it in. 9 BY MR. MOXON: 10 Q You also sent a pledge to potential class members, 11 that is, a pledge to try to solicit money and solicit class 12 members. Is that right? 13 A Yes. We sent them a notification that the class 14 was to be formed, and if they were interested in coming 15 forward with their complaints, they could do so, and could 16 they help us finance the legal action. 17 Q In your pledge, it also indicated that the assets 18 that you were looking for were the assets "Illegally held by 19 Miscavige and Scientology corporations, and that they were 20 not limited to bank accounts but also included all Church 21 funds." 22 A I don't remember. I would have to see a copy of 23 that. 24 THE COURT: I can see you have a whole file 25 full. How much are we going to get into this? 223 1 MR. MOXON: This is my last question. 2 THE COURT: Are you trying to say she was 3 biased against the Church? 4 MR. MOXON: Yes. 5 THE COURT: I mean, that was established as a 6 fact. 7 MR. MOXON: Well, can I just enter this as an 8 exhibit and then I'll move on? 9 THE COURT: Okay. I mean, it was established 10 as a fact as far as legal bias is concerned. I 11 mean, when somebody leaves, they sue, they are 12 involved in what they are involved in. I really 13 don't think we need to beat this around. 14 Did you give me a copy of whatever you 15 introduced? 16 MR. MOXON: No, I didn't actually introduce it. 17 But let me do that. 18 THE COURT: I thought you said let you 19 introduce this one thing. 20 MR. MOXON: I did. I lost my mind. 21 THE COURT: You may have introduced that. 22 MR. MOXON: The pledge is attached to the back 23 of this. 24 THE COURT: This is 263? 25 224 1 BY MR. MOXON: 2 Q I marked as a copy of Defendant's 263 a copy of 3 the F.A.I.R bulletin with a pledge attached. Do you 4 recognize this attached pledge? 5 A Yes. I do. I think this is a correct copy. 6 Q Do you agree then that part of the purpose and 7 solicitation for actual members of the Church at that time 8 was to seek assets, including but not limited to, bank 9 accounts, including bank accounts into which Church funds 10 have been transferred, and any real estate, publications, 11 copyrights, trademarks, specifically including but not 12 limited to all OT level materials? 13 A Yes. The reason we were doing this, because we 14 were tired of the fair game practices that had been 15 practiced on other people and we felt would be practiced on 16 us, and we didn't feel the Church should be engaging in 17 those activities. 18 MR. MOXON: I move 263 in evidence. 19 THE COURT: It will be received. 20 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, Mr. Lieberman told you 21 we would give you a copy of the Stanfield versus 22 Starkey opinion if you like. I don't think we need 23 to make it an exhibit. 24 THE COURT: Sure. 25 MR. MOXON: Thank you. 225 1 BY MR. MOXON: 2 Q Now, you indicated to Mr. Dandar that you were 3 declared a suppressive person in 1982? 4 A Yes. Around about that time. 5 Q The reason for that declare was, in part, that you 6 had started an affair with a parishioner while you were an 7 auditor for the Church? 8 A That is actually incorrect. I never started an 9 affair. It -- it -- we had -- we were friends. And he 10 offered me -- 11 MR. DANDAR: Objection. This is -- what 12 relevance could this possibly have? 13 THE COURT: Well, she's kind of testified that 14 she was declared a suppressive person for leaving 15 the Church. And now I think they are trying to show 16 there may have been some other reason. So I think 17 it is relevant. 18 A No. There was no affair. We were friends. And 19 he offered me a place to stay when I left. 20 BY MR. MOXON: 21 Q You had -- you had, at any rate, a relationship 22 with a parishioner that was considered to be improper by the 23 Church mores, as an auditor of the Church? 24 A Yes, somehow they considered it to be improper. 25 But it was a friendship. There was nothing improper about 226 1 it. He was a Church parishioner and so was I. 2 Q You were also -- in the suppressive person declare 3 that you mentioned it also indicated you falsified work 4 sheets? 5 A Yes, it did. 6 Q I think you told Judge Schaeffer that would be 7 considered a very, very serious matter for an auditor to 8 falsify -- 9 A Yes. 10 Q -- counseling work sheets? 11 A Yes. But -- I did do that a few times and I did 12 admit to it and I did do penalties for that. 13 Q And you also violated Church policy by accepting 14 what was known as an unusual favor from a parishioner by 15 accepting a loan of several thousand dollars? 16 A Mmm, who was the parishioner? 17 Q I have no idea. I can give you a copy of this. 18 Maybe it would refresh your recollection. 19 A That would be great. I think I remember who it 20 was. Oh, it doesn't say in here. 21 Q Do you recall part of your -- part of the reason 22 why you were declared, as indicated in your suppressive 23 person declare, is that you had violated Church policy by 24 accepting a large loan from a parishioner while you were a 25 staff member? 227 1 A Yes. But I'm -- I know that I -- I have a copy of 2 this at home. Mmm, I know this was stated in here. But I 3 don't know who the parishioner was and it's not mentioned, 4 it just said several thousand dollars. So I'm not sure -- 5 Mmm -- who this was. 6 Q Now, all your certificates were cancelled at that 7 time in March of 1982? 8 A Yes. But that is -- that is standard Church 9 policy when somebody is declared a suppressive person. 10 But about a year and a half after that I was 11 restored to good standing. So the stigma of this would have 12 been removed at that time. 13 Q When you were restored to good standing, that is 14 because you completed the steps set forth in your 15 suppressive person declare, which is Steps A to E of HCO PL 16 16 May, '80 issued to FX suppressive acts, suppression of 17 Scientology and Scientologists? 18 A That is correct. 19 THE COURT: This is because she left? Was 20 this -- 21 MR. MOXON: No. All of the steps that -- no, 22 not just because she left, your Honor, because of 23 all of the other reasons. 24 THE COURT: She left the Church and she became 25 a suppressive person. She had to go through all 228 1 these steps to come back? 2 MR. MOXON: That is right. Exactly right. 3 BY MR. MOXON: 4 Q When you -- when you did that, when you went 5 through all these steps, you considered that you'd benefited 6 from the -- from this ethics handling or this -- this 7 suppressive person declare, isn't that right? 8 A Yes, I did. At the time, I did. 9 Q And you indicated in your success story that you 10 wrote that you believed that the purpose of this ethics was 11 to help you. Right? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And you came back totally on your own. Right? 14 A Yes. I did. Yes, I believed at that time in the 15 principles of Scientology and its code, its creed and the 16 technology and the policies, and I wanted to continue, not 17 as a Sea Org member but as a Scientologist. 18 MR. MOXON: I have no other questions, your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Thank you. Redirect. 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q What is a success story? 24 A A success story is something one writes up after 25 completing a training action or an auditing action and the 229 1 person -- it details either the enlightenment, the benefit, 2 the progress, spiritually or otherwise, he made in the 3 training action or auditing action. 4 Q Is he required to write a success story? 5 A It is required by policy. If -- 6 Q What if -- go ahead. 7 A If a success story is not considered good enough, 8 the person -- the person's completion is suspect and he is 9 ordered either to redo or retrain or word clearing or some 10 corrective action. 11 Q And so if they don't like your last course or 12 whatever it is you are writing a story on, you have to 13 keep -- you have to keep writing that story until they like 14 it? 15 A Basically, yes. 16 Q Now, the reason why you got -- you got in trouble 17 was for having a parishioner loan you money? 18 A Yes. Well, that was cited in the suppressive 19 person order. But at the time I was leaving, I don't 20 believe that anyone -- I don't remember anyone asking me 21 about it, questioning me about it, or -- like making a big 22 thing about it. So -- 23 Q Did you get a loan -- did you get a loan when you 24 were a Sea Org member? Is that the first time you left? 25 A Yes, I did. I got a loan from a Sea Org -- a 230 1 Scientologist, not a Sea Org member, a Scientologist who was 2 visiting the Ft. Harrison Hotel in Clearwater. And she 3 offered it to me. I didn't ask her for it. She -- 4 THE COURT: Really, do I have to hear all this? 5 MR. DANDAR: I don't know. I mean, they 6 brought it up. I'm not sure -- 7 THE COURT: I know. But didn't I cut them 8 short, too? 9 MR. DANDAR: All right. That is all I have. 10 Wait, do I have something else? Oh, yes, 11 Mr. Moxon's Exhibit 262. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q The F.A.I.R. newsletter, on the back page above -- 14 THE COURT: 262 or 263? The one with the 15 pledge, or the one without the pledge? 16 MR. DANDAR: Actually, they are both the same. 17 One has 1, and one has 1 and 2. I'm looking at 18 Bulletin Number 2. It says Number 2 at the top. 19 THE COURT: Yes? 20 MR. DANDAR: At the back page, the third page 21 of that -- 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q If you would turn to that. The last paragraph 25 says, "Mr. Flynn --" the attorney, Michael Flynn. Do you 231 1 see that? 2 A I'm not sure where you are at with -- yes, over 3 there. Okay. 4 Q It says, "Mr. Flynn currently has 22 cases in 5 progress against the Church of Scientology. He has never 6 lost a case against the Church so far. He is also number 7 one on the Church's hit list." 8 What is your understanding about that? What does 9 that mean, the attorney suing Scientology is number one on 10 the Church's hit list? 11 A I didn't know about a hit list while I was in 12 Scientology in the Sea Organization. 13 But from the time I left and began to review the 14 Gerald Armstrong court testimony and other cases filed by 15 Scientology against critics and by critics against 16 Scientology, I became aware of this term, the "hit list." 17 It's an expression of -- that Scientologists' greatest 18 enemies and the ones they have to battle against the most, 19 their bitterest critics or their most vocal critics, that 20 they have to try to silence according to the fair game, lie, 21 cheat and even destroy. 22 Q And based upon your knowledge of Scientology, 23 would Robert Minton be one of those people on the top of the 24 hit list? 25 MR. MOXON: Objection, your Honor. Outside of 232 1 the scope. 2 THE COURT: Sustained. 3 A I -- 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q Have you ever seen the hit list? 6 A I have. In the Gerald Armstrong court exhibits, I 7 think there were one or two examples, if I recollect 8 correctly, of people the Church had targeted for action 9 against. There were Guardian Office reports assigned to 10 specific -- like the southeast U.S., northeast U.S., and the 11 person who was responsible for the action. And there were 12 actions to be taken against Paulette Cooper and -- 13 THE COURT: Honestly -- 14 A -- and against -- 15 THE COURT: Ma'am, remember what I told you, 16 when I talk, nobody talks. 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 MR. DANDAR: I'm done. 19 THE COURT: I have heard about all I want. 20 MR. DANDAR: I'm done. Thank you. That is all 21 of the questions. 22 THE COURT: Anything further? 23 MR. MOXON: One last question. 24 THE COURT: All right. 25 233 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. MOXON: 3 Q Michael Flynn wasn't the attorney in this case, 4 was he? 5 A Initially, he was. 6 Q It was filed by Larry Levy, correct? 7 A Yes, but initially he dropped it after the draft 8 complaint which he handed to Mr. Levy and the other 9 attorney. 10 MR. MOXON: Thank you. 11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ma'am. You 12 may step down. Thank you for coming. 13 All right, it is time for our afternoon break. 14 It is five after three. We'll be in recess fifteen 15 minutes. 16 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 3:05 to 3:20 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 234 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